format: text

text:
# Verifying Atom Entanglement Schemes by Testing Bell’s Inequality

## I Introduction

Entanglement is a defining feature of quantum mechanical systems and leads to correlations between sub-systems of a very non-classical nature. These in turn lead to fundamentally new interactions and applications in the field of quantum information ben95 . One of the main requirements for quantum computation, for instance, is the ability to manipulate the state of a quantum mechanical system in a controlled way Vinc . If each logical qubit is obtained from the states of a single atom one has to be able to prepare arbitrary entangled states of $`N`$ two-level atoms. Entangled atoms can also be used to improve frequency standards Huelga .

The strange nature of entanglement was first pointed out by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) ein35 . The deeper mysteries of entanglement were quantified by Bell Bell65  in his famous Bell’s inequalities. These raise testable differences between quantum mechanics and all local realistic theories. There are a number of Bell inequalities for two subsystems where each subsystem contains one qubit of information including the original spin Bell65 , Clauser-Horne (CH) Clauser and Horne 74 , Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) CHSH69  and information theoretic Braunstein and Caves 1988  Bell inequalities, to name but a few. The concept of qubits is thus a useful construct for Bell inequality tests, as it is a useful construct for quantum information.

Numerous experimental tests of Bell-type inequalities have been made using photons starting with Aspect asp82 . Violations, showing agreement with quantum mechanics, of over 200 standard deviations kwi95  and over large distances tit98  have now been performed. A lot of progress has been made in closing different loopholes. Very recently, the first experiment testing Bell’s inequality with atoms has been performed by Rowe et al. Wineland . The main advantage of this experiment is that it is possible to read out the state of the atoms with a very high efficiency following a measurement proposal by Cook Cook ; behe  based on “electron shelving”. This allows to investigate, characterize and test Bell’s inequality with a very high precision and to close the detection loophole Wineland .

In this proceedings we want to point out that tests of Bell’s inequalities do not only play an important role in testing basic quantum mechanical principles. They are also crucial in quantum computing to verify atom entanglement schemes. The main obstacle in the state manipulation of atoms arises from the fact that a quantum mechanical system is always also coupled to its environment. This leads to decoherence. The atoms may emit photons, and the state manipulation failed. New entanglement schemes have therefore been based on the existence of decoherence-free states DFS1 ; DFS2 ; DFS3 ; Guo98 ; ent  and ideas of how to restrict the time evolution of a system onto the corresponding decoherence-free subspace ent ; Tregenna ; kempe . But during the state preparation no photons are emitted and observing a violation of Bell’s inequality is the only way to test whether the scheme works with a high precision or not.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we discuss a scheme based on recent results by Beige et al. ent ; Tregenna  which allow to prepare $`N`$ two-level atoms, each with a state $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, in an arbitrary entangled state by using a leaky optical cavity. Section III discusses a recent proposal to entangle atoms in a photonic band gap. Section IV illustrates different methods to verify highly entangled states for a few atoms. We conclude in Section V.

## II The Preparation of arbitrary entangled states

In this Section we want to give a short overview about a scheme to prepare $`N`$ two-level atoms in an arbitrary entangled state by using a leaky optical cavity as shown in Fig. 1. The atoms can be stored in a linear trap, an optical lattice or on a chip for quantum computing haensch ; schmiedmeyer  and it is possible to move two of them simultaneously into the cavity. The coupling constant of each atom inside the cavity to the single field mode is in the following denoted by $`g`$. The spontaneous decay rate of each atoms equals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, while $`\kappa `$ is the decay rate of a single photon inside the cavity.

### II.1 The preparation of an entangled state of two atoms

To explain the main idea of the entanglement scheme we consider first only two two-level atoms with the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ which are in resonance with the cavity mode, $`\omega _{\mathrm{cav}}=\omega _0`$, and describe the preparation of the entangled state

$`|\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |a+\sqrt{1|\alpha |^2}|00,`$ (1)
where

$`|a`$ $``$ $`\left(|10|01\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (2)
is a maximally entangled state of the two atoms and $`\alpha `$ an arbitrary parameter. To do so the two atoms, initially in the ground state, $`|\psi _0=|00`$, have to be moved into the cavity which should be empty. In addition, a single laser pulse of length $`T`$, which is in resonance with the atoms, $`\omega _{\mathrm{laser}}=\omega _0`$, has to be applied. This laser couples with a Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(i)}`$ to atom and we define

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}`$ $``$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}\right)/\sqrt{2}.`$ (3)
There are two sources of decoherence in the system: spontaneous emission by each atom with rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and leakage of photons through the cavity mirrors with rate $`\kappa `$. We assume here that the later one is the main source for dissipation and a strong coupling between the atoms and the cavity mode, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|g^2/\kappa \mathrm{and}\kappa .$$
(4)
For this parameter regime, one can show that the state of the atoms at the end of the pulse is given by Eq. (1) with

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}}{|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|T}{2}}\right).`$ (5)
To do so we now have a closer look at the time evolution of the system.

To describe the time evolution of the system we make use of the quantum jump approach HeWi1 ; HeWi2 ; HeWi3 . It predicts that the (unnormalized) state of a quantum mechanical system under the condition of no photon emission equals at time $`t`$

$`|\psi ^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}}H_{\mathrm{cond}}t\right)|\psi _0`$ (6)
where the conditional Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{cond}}`$ is a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. For the total system consisting of the two atoms and the cavity mode it is given by

$`H_{\mathrm{cond}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(b|2_{ii}0|\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{(i)}|2_{ii}0|+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}|2_{ii}2|\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\kappa b^{}b,`$
where $`b`$ is the annihilation operator for a single photon in the cavity mode. As a consequence of the non-Hermitian terms in Eq. (7), the norm of the state vector $`|\psi ^0(t)`$ decreases with time and its squared norm at time $`t`$ gives the probability for no photon emission in $`(0,t)`$, i.e.

$`P_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi ^0(t)^2.`$ (8)
For the parameter choice (4) we can show that this probability is very close to unity, which is why we have to consider only the no-photon time evolution of the system.

Because of Eq. (4), there are two very different time scales in the system. One can therefore solve the conditional time evolution of the system with the help of an adiabatic elimination of the fast varying states. This has been done in Ref. ent . Alternatively one can solve Eq. (6) numerically. Here we only present numerical results. Fig. 2 shows the probability for no photon emission obtained from a numerical integration of Eq. (6). As an example we choose the preparation of the maximally entangled state $`|a`$ with $`T=\pi /|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|`$. If a photon is emitted in $`(0,T)`$ the preparation failed and has to be repeated. Nevertheless, as Fig. 2 shows, the success rate of the scheme is very close to unity. The fidelity of the state $`|\psi ^0(T)`$ in case of a successful preparation is found to be always higher than $`95\%`$ for the parameters chosen in Fig. 2.

The main limiting factor of the scheme is spontaneous emission by the atoms with rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To suppress this one can make use of an additional atomic level 2. As described in detail in Ref. Bell , this level should form together with the levels 0 and 1 a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ configuration. Choosing the parameters as in Ref. Bell , level 2 can be eliminated adiabatically, which leads to atomic two-level systems as described above. But now the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ are stable ground states and do not decay.

We now want to give a more intuitive explanation why the scheme works. It takes advantage of the fact that two-level atoms inside the cavity possess decoherence-free states ent ; DFS1 ; DFS2 ; DFS3 . Decoherence-free states arise if no interaction between the system and its environment of free radiation fields takes place. If we neglect spontaneous emissions this is exactly the case if the cavity mode is empty ent . In addition, the systems own time evolution due to the interaction between the atoms and the cavity mode should not lead to the population of non decoherence-free states. From this condition we find that the decoherence-free states are the superpositions of the two atomic states $`|00`$ and $`|a`$ while the cavity mode is empty. Eq. (1) corresponds therefore to the decoherence-free states of the system.

How the preparation scheme works can now easily be understood in terms of an environment induced quantum Zeno effect misra ; Itano ; zeno . Let us define $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ as the time in which a photon leaks out through the cavity mirrors with a probability very close to unity if the system is initially prepared in a state with no overlap with a decoherence-free state. On the other hand, a system in a decoherence-free state will definitely not emit a photon in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. Therefore the observation of the free radiation field over a time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ can be interpreted as a measurement of whether the system is decoherence-free or not messung . The outcome of the measurement is indicated by an emission or no emission of a photon. As it has been shown in Ref. messung , $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is of the order $`1/\kappa `$ and $`\kappa /g^2`$ and much smaller than the typical time scale for the laser interaction.

Here the system continuously interacts with its environment and the system behaves like a system under continuous observation. Therefore, the quantum Zeno effect predicts that all transitions to non decoherence-free states are strongly inhibited. Nevertheless, there is no inhibition of transitions between decoherence-free states and the effect of the laser field on the atomic states can be described by the effective Hamiltonian ent

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`IP_{\mathrm{DFS}}H_{\mathrm{cond}}IP_{\mathrm{DFS}},`$ (9)
where $`IP_{\mathrm{DFS}}`$ is the projector on the decoherence-free subspace. If we neglect spontaneous emission Eq. (7) leads to

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\mathrm{atoms})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}}{2}}|a00|+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (10)
for the atoms, while the cavity remains empty. By solving the corresponding time evolution, one finds that a laser pulse of length $`T`$ prepares the atoms indeed in state (1) with $`\alpha `$ given by Eq. (5). Varying the length of the laser pulse allows to change arbitrarily the amount of entanglement of the prepared state.

### II.2 Generalization to $`N`$ atoms and arbitrary entangled states

The entanglement scheme described in the previous subsection allows only for the preparation of certain entangled states of two atoms Bell . For many applications, however, one has to be able to prepare arbitrary entangled states of $`N`$ two-level atoms with $`N2`$. In this subsection we show how this can be done by generalizing the scheme described above.

One possibility to increase the number of decoherence-free states in the system is to move $`N`$ two-level atoms simultaneously into the cavity. This has been discussed in Ref. ent  where the decoherence-free states of this system have been constructed explicitly. However, for applications like quantum computing it is crucial to have simple qubits. Ideally, the logical qubits should be the same as the physical qubits. This can be achieved by using three-level atoms with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ configuration as shown in Fig. 3. In the following, each qubit is obtained from the ground states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ of one atom which are the ground states in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ configuration.

The setup we use is the same as shown above in Fig. 1. We assume again that the atoms are trapped in a way that two of them can be moved simultaneously into the cavity. As shown in Fig. 3, the 1-2 transition is in resonance with the cavity field, while the 0-2 transition is highly detuned and we denote the coupling constant of each atom to the cavity mode again by $`g`$. The spontaneous decay rate of level 2 is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Note, that the system is, in principle, scalable. Arbitrary many atoms can be used.

To prove that it is possible to prepare arbitrary states of the atoms we only have to show that it is possible to perform universal quantum gates between all qubits Vinc . The pair of operations we choose here and discuss in some detail in the next two subsections are the same as discussed in Ref. Tregenna : the single qubit rotation and the CNOT operation. Both gates can be realized with the help of a single laser pulse.

The single qubit rotation. The single qubit rotation is defined by the single atom operator

$`U_{\mathrm{SQR}}(\xi ,\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\xi (\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }|01|+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.).`$ (11)
To perform this operation one can make use of an adiabatic population transfer Vit  — a technique which has been realized in many experiments pop . In order to do this, the atom has to be moved out of the cavity. Then two lasers, both with the same detuning, are applied simultaneously. One couples to the 1-2 transition and the other two the 0-1 transition, both with the same Rabi frequencies. A detailed description of this process can be found in Refs. Bell ; Tregenna .

The CNOT gate. A CNOT operation changes the state of the target atom, which we call in the following atom 2, conditional on the state of the control atom, atom 1, being in $`|1`$. It can be described by the operator

$`U_{\mathrm{CNOT}}`$ $``$ $`|1011|+|1110|.`$ (12)
To perform this gate operation both atoms have to be moved into the cavity and two laser fields are applied simultaneously. One of the lasers couples with the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{(1)}`$ to the 1-2 transition in atom 1, while the other excites the 0-2 transition of atom 2 with the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(2)}`$. In the following we assume

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(0)}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (13)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }|\mathrm{\Omega }|g^2/\kappa `$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`\kappa .`$ (14)
Then, as above, spontaneous emission by the atoms during the gate operation can be neglected. In addition, it can be shown that in this parameter regime non decoherence-free states lead to photon emissions on a time scale much smaller than the typical time scale for the laser interaction. As shown in Refs. Tregenna ; Tregenna2 , the effect of the laser fields over a time

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\pi /|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ (15)
assembles the CNOT operation to a very good approximation.

To understand why this is the case let us first discuss what the decoherence-free states of the system are. If we consider only the two atoms inside the cavity and apply the same criteria as above we find that the decoherence-free states of the system are the superpositions of the states $`|00`$, $`|01`$, $`|10`$, $`|11`$, which form the qubits, and

$`|a`$ $``$ $`\left(|12|21\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ (16)
if one sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$. At the same time the cavity has to be empty.

The additional decoherence-free state (16) is a maximally entangled state of the two atoms inside the cavity. Populating this state can therefore be used to create entanglement. To make sure that the laser pulse does not populate other states than the decoherence-free ones the scheme utilizes as above the environment induced quantum Zeno effect Tregenna .

The conditional Hamiltonian of the two atoms inside the cavity equals here Tregenna2

$`H_{\mathrm{cond}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(b|2_{ii}1|\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(|0_{22}2|+|1_{11}2|+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\kappa b^{}b\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|2_{ii}2|.`$
Using Eq. (9) this leads to the effective Hamiltonian

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(\mathrm{atoms})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}(|10a||a11|+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (18)
for the atoms, while the cavity remains again empty during the gate operation. By solving the corresponding time evolution of this Hamiltonian one can show that a laser pulse of length $`T`$ as in Eq. (15) leads indeed to the realization of a CNOT gate.

Finally we conclude with some numerical results. Fig. 4 results from a numerical integration of the time evolution given by Eq. (17) and shows the success rate of a single gate operation for different parameters and the initial state $`|10`$.

Fig. 5 shows the fidelity of the prepared state. As in the previous subsection, the fidelity of the scheme in case of no photon emission is very high. Problems arise again from the presence of spontaneous emission, but again this can be suppressed as well by making use of additional levels Tregenna2 .

## III Entangling atoms inside a Photonic crystal

In this section we give a short overview over another recent scheme by Angelakis et al. Angelakis01  to prepare two atoms in an entangled state using a photonic crystal (or photonic band gap material-PG). The experimental setup of this scheme is shown in Fig. 6 and the entanglement between the atoms originates from the interaction of two atoms with a resonant defect mode.

The first atom is prepared in the upper of two optically separated states, denoted in the following by $`|e_1`$ and propagates into the transition in the PBG. This atom is unable to emit a photon Angelakis01  due to the exclusion of electromagnetic modes over a continuous range of frequencies Yablonovitch87  and hence a long lived photon-atom bound state of the form John91 ; Lin99

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`c_e(t_1)|e_1|0+c_g(t_1)|g_1|1,`$ (19)
is formed, where $`t_1`$ is the interaction time of atom 1 with the defect and $`|g_1`$ the ground state of the atom. The coefficients $`c_e(t_1)`$ and $`c_g(t_1)`$ can be derived using a Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. As soon as atom 1 leaves the defect region, a second atom, atom 2, prepared in its ground state $`|g_2`$ is send through. If $`t_2`$ is the interaction time of this atom with the defect, then the final state of the system is of the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`c_e(t_1)|e_1|g_2|0+c_g(t_1)c_e(t_2)|g_1|g_2|1`$ (20)
$`+c_g(t_1)c_g(t_2)|g_1|e_2|0`$
With an appropriate choice of $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ (for details see Ref. Angelakis01 ) one can achieve that the prepared states equals

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|e_1|g_2+|g_1|e_2\right)|0`$ (21)
which is a maximally entangled state of the two atoms.

## IV Entanglement Verification

One of the main problems with entanglement schemes using the no-photon time evolution of a system is, that someone who performs the experiment cannot know for sure whether the scheme worked or not. Measuring whether no photon has been emitted during the whole experiment would require perfect photon detectors which cover all solid angels. It is therefore crucial to have other tests whether a preparation schemes succeeds or not.

What one can do is to use the scheme to prepare a certain maximally entangled state of the atoms and to verify it by observing a violation of a Bell inequality. In this section we describe how to observe a violation of a Bell’s inequality for two atoms and Mermin’s GHZ inequality mermin  for multiple atoms. It is important to note that for each pure two qubit state, there exists always a Bell inequality which can be violated.

To do so one has to be able to measure whether an atom is in state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ with a very high precision. This can be done following a proposal by Cook Cook . A detailed analysis of this measurement scheme can be found in Ref. behe .

### IV.1 A test for two atoms

Given that the state (1) can be generated, the next interesting question is whether it violates one of Bell’s inequalities? For certain parameters it must but what physical measurements are necessary?

The spin (or correlation function) Bell inequality Bell65 ; CHSH69  may be written formally as

$`B_\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`|E(\theta _1,\theta _2)E(\theta _1,\theta _2^{})`$ (22)
$`+E(\theta _1^{},\theta _2)+E(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{})|2,`$
where the correlation function $`E(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ is given by

$`E(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\theta _1}^{(1)}\sigma _{\theta _2}^{(2)}.`$ (23)
Here $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are real parameters. In the following the operator $`\sigma _a^{(i)}`$ with $`a=x`$, $`y`$ or $`z`$ is the $`a`$ Pauli spin operators for the two-level system of atom $`i`$ and the operator $`\sigma _{\theta _i}^{(i)}`$ is defined as

$$\sigma _{\theta _i}^{(i)}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i\sigma _x^{(i)}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\sigma _y^{(i)}.$$
(24)
For the state considered here the correlation function depends only on the difference between the angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ and we have $`E(\theta _1,\theta _2)=E(\theta _1\theta _2,0)`$. Now if we choose $`\vartheta =\theta _1\theta _2=\theta _2\theta _1^{}=\theta _1^{}\theta _2^{}`$ and $`\theta _1\theta _2^{}=3\vartheta `$ the inequality (22) simplifies to

$`B_\mathrm{S}=|3E(\vartheta ,0)E(3\vartheta ,0)|2`$ (25)
and a violation of this inequality corresponds to $`|B_\mathrm{S}|>2`$.

It is straightforward to show that the correlation function for the entangled state (1) is given by

$`E(\vartheta ,0)=|\alpha |^2\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ (26)
and hence Eq. (25) can assume a maximum of $`|B_\mathrm{S}|=2\sqrt{2}|\alpha |^2`$ for $`\vartheta =\pi /4`$. Therefore, a violation of the spin Bell inequality is possible for $`|\alpha |^2>1/\sqrt{2}`$ given our analyzer choices. How $`|\alpha |^2`$ can be expressed in terms of the system parameter $`|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|T`$ is shown in Eq. (5). In Fig. (7) we plot $`|B_\mathrm{S}|`$ versus $`|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|T`$ and $`\vartheta `$.

A significant region of violation is observed with the maximum of $`|B_\mathrm{S}|=2\sqrt{2}`$ occurring at $`|\mathrm{\Omega }^{()}|T=\pi `$. The state of the atoms at such a time is a maximally entangled state $`|a`$. This test on Bell’s inequality can therefore be used to verify the preparation of this state with a high precision and should be feasible with current technology.

### IV.2 A Test for multiple atoms

So far, we have discussed how our preparation method can be tested for two atoms. A similar procedure can be used for multiple atoms depending on the state prepared. For instance in the case of three atoms we could prepare a state of the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|0|0|0+|1|1|1\right).`$ (27)
This state is known as the GHZ state GHZ . To characterize it we now use Mermin GHZ inequality mermin  instead of a Bell inequality. This inequality has the form

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`|\sigma _{x_1}\sigma _{x_2}\sigma _{x_3}\sigma _{y_1}S\sigma _{y_2}\sigma _{x_3}`$ (28)
$`\sigma _{y_1}\sigma _{x_2}\sigma _{y_3}\sigma _{x_1}\sigma _{y_2}\sigma _{y_3}|2.`$
For the state (27) we can calculate the moments $`\sigma _{x_1}\sigma _{x_2}\sigma _{x_3}`$, $`\sigma _{y_1}S\sigma _{y_2}\sigma _{x_3}`$, $`\sigma _{y_1}\sigma _{x_2}\sigma _{y_3}`$ and $`\sigma _{x_1}\sigma _{y_2}\sigma _{y_3}`$ using a similar procedure to that discussed in the Bell test. We find that $`F=4`$ for the state (27) while the maximum according to local realism is $`F=2`$. For entangled states of more atoms ($`N>3`$) a generalized form of Mermin’s inequality can be employed.

## V Discussion

In this proceeding we used the recent results of Refs. ent ; Tregenna  and described a scheme to prepare arbitrary entangled states of $`N`$ atoms in a controlled way with a very high success rate. The scheme is based on the existence of decoherence-free states and an environment induced quantum Zeno effect to avoid the population of non decoherence-free states during the preparation. In addition, we gave a short overview over a recently proposed scheme by Angelakis et al. Angelakis01  to entangle two atoms inside a photonic crystal.

During the state preparation no photons are emitted and observing a violation of Bell’s inequality is one of the ways to test whether the scheme has worked with a high precision or not. We describe the possible violation of Bell’s inequality for two atoms. An entangled state of $`N`$ two-level atoms can characterized and verified similarly with Mermin’s inequality.

Acknowledgments. We acknowledge the support of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the European Union and D. G. A. acknowledges the support by the Greek State Scholarship Foundation.


text:
# Unitary representations of the quantum “ax+b” group

## 1 Introduction

Locally compact quantum groups are nowadays studied extensively by many scientists .Although at the moment there is no commonly accepted definition of a locally compact quantum group, there are promising approaches and interesting examples have been worked out. Among the most interesting ones is the quantum “ax+b” group constructed by S.L. Woronowicz and S. Zakrzewski in . According to the recent computation by A. van Daele, this group is the first known example of an interesting phenomenon foreseen by Vaes and Kustermans in . In this paper we study the quantum ’ax+b’ group from the point of view of unitary representations and duality theory.

The aim of this paper is to derive a formula for all unitary representations of the quantum ’ax+b’ group . The $`C^{}`$-algebra of all continuouos functions vanishing at infinity on this quantum group is ’generated’ (in the sense we explain below) by three unbonded operators $`\mathrm{log}a`$, $`b`$ and $`i\beta b`$. We discuss the quantum ’ax+b’ group on the Hilbert space level in Section 3. For the reader’s convienience in Section 3 and 4 we recall the definition and relevant information about the quantum ’ax+b’ group and our previous results on unitary representations of some braided quantum groups related to the quantum ’ax+b’ group  . In Section 4 we discuss the $`C^{}`$\- and $`W^{}`$\- crossed products connected with quantum ’ax+b’ group and prove some propositions we will use later on. In Section 5 the formula for all unitary representations of quantum ’ax+b’ group is proven. In our proof we follow the method used by S.L. Woronowicz in the case of quantum $`E(2)`$ group (see ). In the next Section we will fix the notation.

## 2 Notation

Let $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ respectively denote the canonical coordinate and momentum operators acting on the Hilbert space $`L^2()`$. The domain of the operatora $`\widehat{q}`$ is the set

$$D(\widehat{q})=\{\psi L^2():_{}x^2|\psi (x)|^2𝑑x<\mathrm{}\}$$

and for any $`\psi D(\widehat{q})`$ the operator $`\widehat{q}`$ is given by

$$(\widehat{q}\psi )(t)=t\psi (t).$$

The domain of the operator $`\widehat{p}`$ is the set

$$D(\widehat{p})=\{\psi L^2():\psi ^{}L^2()\},$$

where distributional differentiation is understood.

The operator $`\widehat{p}`$ is given for any $`\psi `$ from $`D(\widehat{p})`$ by

$$(\widehat{p}f)(x)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\frac{df(x)}{dx},$$

where distributional differentiation is understood.

We consider only concrete $`C^{}`$-algebras, i.e. embedded into $`C^{}`$-algebra of all bounded operators acting on Hilbert space $``$, denoted by $`B()`$. The $`C^{}`$-algebra of all compact operators acting on $``$ will be denoted by $`CB()`$. All algebras we consider are seperable with the exception of multiplier algebras (see definition of multiplier algebra below).

Let $`A`$ be $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then $`M(A)`$ will denote the multiplier algebra of $`A`$, i.e.

$$M(A)=\{mB():ma,amA\text{for any }aA\}.$$

Observe that $`A`$ is an ideal in $`M(A)`$. If $`A`$ is a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra , then $`A=M(A)`$, in general case $`AM(A)`$. For example the multiplier algebra of $`CB()`$ is the algebra $`B()`$ and the multiplier algebra of $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_{\mathrm{}}()`$ of all continuous vanishing at infinity functions on $``$ is the algebra of all continuous bounded functions on $``$ denoted by $`C_{bounded}()`$. The natural topology on $`M(A)`$ is the strict topology, i.e. we say that a sequence $`(m_n)_n`$ of $`m_nM(A)`$ converges strictly to 0 if for every $`aA`$, we have $`m_na0`$ and $`am_n0`$, when $`n+\mathrm{}`$. Whenever we will consider continuous maps from or into $`M(A)`$, we will mean this topology.

For any $`C^{}`$-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$, we will say that $`\varphi `$ is a morphism and write $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(A,B)`$ if $`\varphi `$ is a * - algebra homomorphism acting from $`A`$ into $`M(B)`$ and such that $`\varphi (A)B`$ is dense in $`B`$. Any $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(A,B)`$ admits unique extension to a * - algebra homomorphism acting from $`M(A)`$ into $`M(B)`$. For any $`SM(A)`$, operator $`\varphi (S)`$ is given by

$$\varphi (S)(\varphi (a)b)=\varphi (Ta)b,$$

where $`aA`$ and $`bB`$.

For any closed operator $`T`$ cting on $``$ we define its $`z`$-transform by

$$z_T=T(I+T^{}T)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Observe that $`z_T\mathrm{B}()`$ and $`z_T1`$. Moreover, one can recover $`T`$ from $`z_T`$

$$T=z_T(Iz_T^{}z_T)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

A closed operator $`T`$ acting on $`A`$ is affiliated with a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ iff $`z_T\mathrm{M}(A)`$ and $`(Iz_T^{}z_T)A`$ is dense in $`A`$. A set of all elements affiliated with $`A`$ is denoted by $`A^\eta `$. If $`A`$ is a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra, then $`A^\eta =M(A)=A`$, in general case

$$AM(A)=\{T\eta A:T<\mathrm{}\}A^\eta .$$

The set of all elements affilated with $`C_{\mathrm{}}()`$ is the set of all continuos functions on real line $`C()`$, and a set of all elements affiliated with $`C^{}`$-algebra $`CB()`$ is a set of all closed operators $`𝒞(H)`$. This last example shows that a product and a sum of two elements affiliated with $`A`$ may not be affiliated with $`A`$, since it is well known that a sum and a product of two closed operators may not be closed. Affiliation relation in $`C^{}`$-algebra theory was introduced by Baaj and Julg in .

Observe, that if $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(A,B)`$, then one can extend $`\varphi `$ to elements affiliated with $`A`$. Let us start with the observation, that for any $`TM(A)`$ we have

$$\varphi (z_T)=z_{\varphi (T)}.$$

Hence for any $`T\eta A`$ we have $`z_TM(A)`$. Moreover, there exists a unique closed operator S such that $`\varphi (z_T)=z_S`$. This operator is given by

$$S=\varphi (z_T)\varphi (Iz_T^{}z_T)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

From now on we will write $`S=\varphi (T)`$.

We recall now a nonstandard notion of generation we use in this paper. This notion was introduced in , where a generalisation of the theory of unital $`C^{}`$-algebras generated by a finite number of generators was presented. It was proved in  that such $`C^{}`$-algebras are isomorphic to algebras of continuous operator functions on compact operator domains (see Section 1.3 of  and references therein). In this approach, the algebra of all continuous vanishing at infinity functions on a compact quantum group is generated by matrix elements of fundamental representation. To use this approach to noncompact quantum groups, one has to extend the notion of a generation of a $`C^{}`$-algebra to nonunital $`C^{}`$-algebras and unbounded generators . According to the definition we recall below, $`C^{}`$-algebra of continuous vanishing at infinity functions on a locally compact quantum group is generated by its fundamental representation . However in this case the fundamental representation is not unitary and the generators are unbounded operators, so they are not in the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$.

Assume for a while, that were are given a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ and operators $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$ affiliated with $`A`$. We say that $`A`$ is generated by $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$ if for any Hilbert space $``$, a nondegenerate $`C^{}`$-algebra $`BB()`$ and any $`\pi Mor(A,CB())`$ we have

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\pi (T_i)\text{ is affiliated with }A\\ \text{ for any }i=1,\mathrm{},N\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\pi \mathrm{Mor}(A,B)\end{array}\right).$$

We stress that described above ’generation’ is a relation between $`A`$ and some operators $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$ and both have to be known in advance. There is no procedure to obtain $`A`$ knowing only $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$ and it is even possible that there is no $`A`$ generated by such operators.

For unital $`C^{}`$-algebras generation in the sense introduced above is exactly the same as the classical notion of generation. More precisely, let $`A`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra and let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_NA`$. If $`A`$ is the norm closure of all linear combinations of $`I,T_1,\mathrm{},T_N`$, then $`A`$ is generated by $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$ in the sense of the above definition. On the other hand, let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N\eta A`$, such that $`T_i<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Then $`A`$ contains unity , $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_NA`$ and $`A`$ is the norm closure of the set of all linear combinations of $`I,T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_N`$.

An easy example of this relation is that $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_{\mathrm{}}()`$ of all continuous vanishing at infinity functions on $``$ is generated by function $`f(x)=x`$ for any $`x`$. The other example is $`C^{}`$-algebra $`CB(L^2())`$ which is generated by $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be $`C^{}`$-algebras and assume that we know generators of $`A`$. In order to describe $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(A,B)`$ uniquely it is enough to know how $`\varphi `$ acts on generators of $`A`$.

We will use exclusively the minimal tensor product of $`C^{}`$-algebras and it will be denoted by $``$. We will also use the leg numbering notation. For example, if $`\varphi \mathrm{Mor}(AA,AA)`$ then $`\varphi _{12}(ab)=abI_A`$ and $`\varphi _{13}(ab)=aI_Ab`$ for $`a,bA`$. Clearly, $`\varphi _{12},\varphi _{13}\mathrm{Mor}(AA,AAA)`$.

Let $`f`$ and $`\varphi `$ be strongly commuting selfadjoint operators. Then, by the spectral theorem

$$f=_\mathrm{\Lambda }r𝑑E(r,\rho )\mathrm{and}\varphi =_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho 𝑑E(r,\rho ),$$

where $`dE(r,\rho )`$ denotes the common spectral measure assiociated with $`f`$ and $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for a joint spectrum of $`f`$ and $`\varphi `$. Then

$$F(f,\varphi )=_\mathrm{\Lambda }F(r,\rho )𝑑E(r,\rho ).$$

Let $`b`$ be a selfadjoint operator and let the symbol $`\chi `$ denote the characteristic function defined on $``$. By $`\chi (b0)`$ we mean the projection operator on the subspace $`\mathrm{ker}b^{}`$, by $`\chi (b<0)`$ \- the projection onto the subspace on which $`b`$ is negative, and so on.

## 3  Quantum ’ax+b’ group on Hilbert space level

Now we will introduce the commutation relations describing the quantum ”ax+b” group. One may guess that only two selfadjoint operators $`a`$ and $`b`$ will appear in such relations. However, it was found in  and , that in order to ensure existence of a selfadjoint extension of a sum $`a+b`$ one has to add an additional generator, denoted here by $`ib\beta `$.

First we will focus on the operators $`b`$ and $`\beta `$. Operator $`\beta `$ is an analogue of a noncontinuous (but measurable) function on the quantum ”ax+b” group, so its not a good choice for generator, which should be an analogue of a continuous function. (For the notion of generator used here see Section 2.) Namely, the operator $`\beta `$ itself will not make a good generator, since it is not affiliated with the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all continuous functions vanishing at infinity on the quantum ”ax+b” group, which we denote by $`A`$ . Operator $`ib\beta `$ is affiliated with this algebra, but $`\beta `$ is only in the von Neumann algebra $`A^{\prime \prime }`$. That is the reason why we use $`ib\beta `$ instead of $`\beta `$. We will use the Zakrzewski relation indroduced by S.L. Woronowicz in . We say that two selfadjoint operators $`b`$ and $`d`$ satisfy the Zakrzewski commutation relation and we write

$$bd,$$

if $`b`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{sign}d`$ and

$$|b|^{it}d|b|^{it}=e^\mathrm{}td\mathrm{for}t,$$
(1)
where $`\pi <\mathrm{}<\pi `$. Here $`\mathrm{sign}b`$ denotes the selfadjoint, bounded operator appearing in the polar decomposition of $`b`$. Any pair of operators $`b`$ and $`d`$ such that $`bd`$ and $`\mathrm{ker}b=\mathrm{ker}d=\{0\}`$ is unitarily equivalent to a direct sum of a certain number of copies of $`\pm e^{\widehat{q}}`$ and $`\pm e^{\widehat{p}}`$.

Consider a pair of selfadjoint operators $`(b,\beta )`$ satisfying

$$b\beta =\beta b\beta ^2=\chi (b0),$$
(2)
where the second condition means that $`\beta ^2`$ is a projection operator onto the subspace $`\mathrm{ker}b^{}`$ (see Section 2). If a pair of selfadjoint operators $`(b,\beta )`$ acting on $``$ satisfies (2) we will write

$$(b,\beta )M_{}$$

and call $`(b,\beta )`$ an $`M`$-pair.

$`M`$-pairs were studied in detail in . If two pairs $`(b,\beta )M_{}`$ and $`(d,\delta )M_{}`$ satisfy an additional condition

$$bdb\delta =\delta bd\beta =\beta d\beta \delta =\delta \beta ,$$
(3)
we write

$$(b,\beta ,d,\delta )M_{}^2.$$

For $`(b,\beta ,d,\delta )M_{}^2`$ we will define the $``$ product of M-pairs

$$(b,\beta )(d,\delta )=(\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta }).$$
(4)
Before we write down formulas for $`(\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$, we will give some explanation why our choice is natural. First of all, we want $`(\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$ to be an M-pair acting on $``$. Secondly, having already in mind application to the quantum ’ax+b’ group , we define this product in such a way that the first element is as close to $`b+d`$ as possible. The reason why this is so desirable will be obvious in Section 5.

Here, however, we encounter a serious difficulty. It is well known that the sum of two selfadjoint operators need not to be selfadjoint, so in general the simplest proposal

$$\stackrel{~}{d}=b+d$$

will not do. The second guess is to take a selfadjoint extension of the sum above. However, in some cases, namely when defficiency indices of $`b+d`$ are not equal, there are no selfadjoint extensions. An easy example is to take $`b=e^{\widehat{q}}`$ and $`d=e^{\widehat{p}}`$. Then $`b+d`$ is a closed symmetric operator, but there is no selfadjoint extension since deficiency indices are 0 and 1.

The theory of selfadjoint extensions of sums of operators satisfying Zakrzewski relation was developed by S.L. Woronowicz in . It was proved there that every selfadjoint extension of $`b+d`$ defines uniquely a selfadjoint operator $`\varphi `$ such that $`\varphi `$ anticommutes with $`b`$ and $`\delta `$ and such that $`\varphi ^2=\chi (e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}bd<0)`$.

Let $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the quantum exponential function indroduced by S.L. Woronowicz in  as

$$F_{\mathrm{}}(r,\rho )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}V_\theta (\mathrm{log}r)& \text{dla }& r>0\text{}\rho =0\\ \{1+i\rho |r|^\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}\}V_\theta (\mathrm{log}|r|\pi i)& \text{dla}& r<0\text{}\rho =\pm 1\end{array},$$
(5)
where $`\theta =\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`V_\theta `$ is a meromorphic function on $``$ defined as

$$V_\theta (x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}(1+a^\theta )\frac{da}{a+e^x}\right\}.$$

From now on we assume that

$$\mathrm{}=\pm \frac{\pi }{2k+3},\text{where}k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(6)
The reason why we restrict ourselves only to such values of parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is that we are motivated by the quantum ’ax+b’ group and and it turns out that only for such $`\mathrm{}`$ the quantum ’ax+b’ group exists on $`C^{}`$-algebra and Hilbert space level (see ). Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\mathrm{ker}d=\{0\}`$, since in case $`d=0`$ obviously there are no problems with selfadjointness of $`b+d=b`$. If $`d`$ is invertible then the operator $`e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}d^1b`$ is selfadjoint . In such a case a selfadjoint extension of $`b+d`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{d}=[b+d]_\varphi =F_{\mathrm{}}(f,\varphi )^{}dF_{\mathrm{}}(f,\varphi ),$$
(7)
where

$$f=e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}d^1b\mathrm{and}\varphi =(1)^k\beta \delta \chi (e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}bd<0)$$

and the relation between $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$ is given by (6). Analogously

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }=F_{\mathrm{}}(f,\varphi )^{}\delta F_{\mathrm{}}(f,\varphi ).$$

Using Woronowicz’s results we proved in  that if $`(b,\beta ,d,\delta )M_{}^2`$ then a selfadjoint extension of $`b+d`$ always exists and may be given by (7). Moreover, then $`([b+d]_\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\delta })M_H`$. We also proved in that paper (Theoreme 3.3), that

###### Lemma 3.1

$`U`$ is a unitary representation of $`M`$ acting on a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, i.e. $`U`$ is an operator map (see Section 1.3 of  and references therein)

$$U:M_{}B(𝒦)$$

satisfying

$$U(b,\beta )U(d,\delta )=U\left((b,\beta )(d,\delta )\right),$$

iff there is $`(g,\gamma )M_𝒦`$ such that for any $`(b,\beta )M_{}`$

$$U(b,\beta )=F_{\mathrm{}}(gb,(\gamma \beta )\chi (gb<0)).$$
(8)
It means, that unitary representations of $`M`$ acting on $`𝒦`$ are ’numbered’ by pairs $`(g,\gamma )M_𝒦`$. This Lemma will be of great use in the proof of Theorem 16, which is the main result of this paper.

Now we are ready to introduce commutation relations related to the quantum ’ax+b’ group . We say that $`(a,b,\beta )G_{_{}}`$ and we call $`(a,b,\beta )`$ a $`G`$-triple if $`a`$$`b`$ and $`\beta `$ are selfadjoint operators acting on a Hilbert space $``$, $`a`$ is positive and invertible , $`ab`$$`a`$ commutes with $`\beta `$ and $`(b,\beta )M_{}`$. One can define operation $``$ on $`G`$-triples for any $`(a,b,\beta )G_{_{}}`$ and $`(c,d,\delta )G__𝒦`$

$$(a,b,\beta )(c,d,\delta )=(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{\beta })G_{}_{}{}^{}_{𝒦}^{}$$

by setting $`\stackrel{~}{a}=ad`$ and letting $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ be a selfadjoint extension of $`ad+bI`$ and with $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ given by certain rather complicated formula (see ). Observe, that $`(ad)(bI)`$ and that $`(ad,I\delta ,bI,\beta I)M_{}_{}{}^{}_{𝒦}^{}^2`$. It turns out that in order to make the operation $``$ associative one has to assume that $`\mathrm{}`$ is given by (6) and that $`k`$ describing selfadjoint extension of $`ad+bI`$ (see formula (7) and the explanation below) is related to $`\mathrm{}`$ via (6).

## 4  Quantum ’ax+b’ group as a $`C^{}`$-crossed product

We recall that $`A`$ denotes the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all continuous vanishing at infinity functions on quantum ’ax+b’ group . The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ is generated (see explanation in Section 2) by unbounded operators $`\mathrm{log}a`$, $`b`$ and $`i\beta b`$, such that $`(a,b,\beta )G_{_{}}`$.

Assume that $`\mathrm{ker}b=\{0\}`$. This assumption is not very restrictive since every $`b`$ is a direct sum of $`b_1`$ invertible and $`b_2=0`$, and the case $`b_2=0`$ is not interesting. It was proved in  that in that case the multiplicative unitary operator $`WB()`$ related to the quantum ’ax+b’ group is given by

$$W=F_{\mathrm{}}(e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1ab,(1)^k(\beta \beta )\chi (bb<0))^{}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}(|b|^1)\mathrm{log}a}.$$
(9)
In fact, to have a manageable multiplicative unitary, which is essential in S.L. Woronowicz theory of multiplicative unitary operators (see ), one needs a slightly more complicated formula for $`W`$. However, for our purpose, the formula above is good enough.

From the theory of multiplicative unitaries we know that the structure of the quantum group is encoded in its multiplicative unitary operator. More precisely, for any $`dA`$ comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Mor}(A,AA)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(d)=W(d\mathrm{id})W^{}.$$

Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ may be extended to unbouned operators affiliated with $`A`$ and is given on generators of $`A`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=W(a\mathrm{id})W^{}=aa,$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(b)=W(b\mathrm{id})W^{}=\left[ab+bI\right]_{(1)^k(\beta \beta )\chi (bb<0)},$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(ib\beta )=W(ib\beta \mathrm{id})W^{}=i\mathrm{\Delta }(b)W(\beta \mathrm{id})W^{}.$$

By abuse of notation we also write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )=W(\beta \mathrm{id})W^{}.$$
(12)
Thus defined $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is associative

We construct now a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system. Let $`\tau [0,+\mathrm{}[`$ and

$$b(\tau )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\tau & 0\\ 0& \tau \end{array}\right]\mathrm{and}\beta (\tau )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \chi (\tau 0)\\ \chi (\tau 0)& 0\end{array}\right].$$

Then $`(b,\beta )M_^2`$.

Let $`M_{2\times 2}()`$ denote the set of all $`2\times 2`$ matrices over $``$. Let $`B_o`$ be a an algebra of all continuous functions

$$f:[0,+\mathrm{}[M_{2\times 2}(),$$

such that $`lim_t\mathrm{}f(t)=0`$ and $`f(0)`$ is a multiple of unity, i.e.

$$B_o=\{fC_{\mathrm{}}([0,+\mathrm{}[)M_{2\times 2}()|f(0)=zI_{M_{2\times 2}}\text{where}z\}.$$

Any function $`gB_o`$ is given by

$$(g(b,\beta ))(\tau )=(g_1(b)+g_2(b)i\beta )(\tau )=\left[\begin{array}{cc}g_1(\tau )& ig_2(\tau )\\ ig_2(\tau )& g_1(\tau )\end{array}\right],$$

where $`g_1,g_2C_{\mathrm{}}()`$, and $`g_2(0)=0`$. Then $`B_o`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra. Observe that $`b`$ and $`i\beta b`$ are affiliated with $`B_o`$ and $`B_o`$ is generated by $`b`$ and $`i\beta b`$ in the sense explained in Section 2. One may identify $`B_o`$ with the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all continuous vanishing at infinity functions on $`M_^2`$ (see Section 1.3 of  and references therein). Moreover

$$\mathrm{M}(B_o)=\{fC_{\mathrm{bounded}}([0,+\mathrm{}[,M_{2\times 2}())|f(0)=zI_{M_{2\times 2}},\text{where}z\}.$$

Analogously, one may identify $`\mathrm{M}(B_o)`$ with the $`C^{}`$-algebra of all continuous bounded functions on $`M_^2`$.

Let us introduce an action $`\sigma \mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{M}(B_o))`$ of $``$ given for any function $`fB_o`$ by

$$(\sigma _tf)(\tau )=f(e^\mathrm{}t\tau )\text{where}\tau _+\mathrm{and}t.$$

Then $`(B_o,,\sigma )`$ is a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system (see e.g. ). Let us denote the $`C^{}`$-crossed product algebra coming with this system by $`A_{cp}`$

$$A_{cp}=B_o\times _\sigma .$$

From the definition of $`C^{}`$-crossed product follows that $`M(A_{cp})`$ contains a one parameter, strictly continouous group of unitary operators implementing the action $`\sigma `$ of the group $``$ on algebra $`B_o`$. Denote the infinitesimal generator of this group by $`\mathrm{log}a`$. Then $`a`$ is a strictly positive operator affilated with $`A`$. For any $`t`$, we have that $`a^{it}M(A)`$ is a unitary operator and map $`ta^{it}d`$ is continouous for any $`dA`$. The action $`\sigma `$ of $``$ is given for any $`fB_o`$ and $`t`$ by

$$\sigma _t(f)=a^{it}fa^{it}.$$

It follows that $`ab`$ and $`a\beta =\beta a`$. Therefore $`(a,b,\beta )G_{}`$.

It is well-known that a linear envelope of the set

$$\{fg(\mathrm{log}a):fB_o,gC_{\mathrm{}}()\}$$

is dense in $`A=B_o\times _\sigma `$. Hence $`B_oM(A)`$. It turns out (\[11, Proposition 3.1\]) that $`\mathrm{log}a,b,`$ and $`\beta `$ generate $`A_{cp}`$. Moreover, Proposition 3.2  says that for any triple $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{\beta })G_{}`$ there is a unique representation $`\pi \mathrm{Rep}(A_{cp},H)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{a}=\pi (a)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}=\pi (b)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\pi (\beta )`$. It was proven in  that $`A_{cp}=A`$, i.e. that the crossed product algebra $`A_{cp}`$ is the same as algebra $`A`$ of all continuous, tending to 0 in infinity functions on the quantum ’ax+b’ group (see ). From now on we will use letter $`A`$ for both these algebras.

Now we will construct a dual action of $``$ on the crossed product algebra related to the dynamical system $`(B_o,,\sigma )`$. To this end let us consider the map

$$\theta _t=(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(13)
where the map $`\phi \mathrm{Mor}(A,C_{\mathrm{}}())`$ is such that for any $`t`$

$$\phi _t(\mathrm{log}a)=\mathrm{}t\mathrm{and}\phi _t(b)=0.$$
(14)
From Proposition 3.2 of  it follows that there is only one such map. Observe that $`\theta _t`$ is an automorphism of $`A`$ and that

$$\theta _0=\mathrm{id}\mathrm{and}\theta _s\theta _t=\theta _{s+t}$$

The map $`t\theta _t(d)`$ is continuous for any $`dA`$. Morever, for any $`x,t`$

$$\theta _x(a^{it})=e^{i\mathrm{}tx}a^{it}.$$

Thus we showed that $`(A,,\theta )`$ is a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system and that it is the system dual to the $`C^{}`$-dynamical system $`(B_o,,\sigma )`$.

By (10) and (14) we get

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)(aa)=e^\mathrm{}ta.$$
(15)
Moreover, by (9) and (14)

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)F_{\mathrm{}}(e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1ab,(1)^k(\beta \beta )\chi (bb<0))^{}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}(|b|^1)\mathrm{log}a}=F_{\mathrm{}}(0,0)^{}e^{it\mathrm{log}(|b|^1)}.$$

Hence by (11)

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)\mathrm{\Delta }(b)=b.$$

Analogously

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)\mathrm{\Delta }(i\beta b)=i\beta b.$$

It follows that for any $`tR`$ and $`g\mathrm{M}(B_o)`$ we have

$$\theta _t(g)=g.$$

Since $`(B_o,,\sigma )`$ and $`(A,,\theta )`$ are dual $`C^{}`$-dynamical systems, it follows that $`(B_o^{\prime \prime },,\sigma )`$ and $`(A^{\prime \prime },,\theta )`$ are dual $`W^{}`$-dynamical systems, if we only extend $`\sigma `$ and $`\theta `$ appropiately.

Let $`𝒦`$ be a Hilbert space, finite- ore infinitedimensional. Observe that $`(B(𝒦)B_o^{\prime \prime },,I\sigma )`$ is also a $`W^{}`$-dynamical system and its crossed product von Neumann algebra $`W^{}`$ is $`B(𝒦)A^{\prime \prime }`$. Analogously, the $`W^{}`$-dynamical system dual to $`(B(𝒦)B_o^{\prime \prime },,I\sigma )`$ is $`(B(𝒦)A^{\prime \prime },,I\theta )`$.

In what follows we will need the Proposition 4.1 below, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 7.10.4 from :

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`mB(𝒦)A^{\prime \prime }`$ and let for any $`t`$

$$(\mathrm{id}\theta _t)(m)=m.$$

Then

$$mB(𝒦)B_o^{\prime \prime }.$$

We also need

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`B`$ be a $`C^{}`$–algebra and let $`w\mathrm{M}(BA)`$. Then the map $`t(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)w\mathrm{M}(B)`$ is strictly continuous.

Proof: We know that $`\phi \mathrm{Mor}(A,C_{\mathrm{}}())`$ and therefore $`(\mathrm{id}\phi )w\mathrm{M}(BC_{\mathrm{}}())`$. S.L. Woronowicz in  showed that elements of $`\mathrm{M}(BC_{\mathrm{}}())`$ are bounded, strictly continuous functions on $``$ with values in $`M(B)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Representation theorem

###### Definition 5.1 (Unitary representation)

A unitary operator $`V\mathrm{M}(CB(𝒦A)`$ is called a (strongly continuous) unitary representation of the quantum ’ax+b’ group if

$$W_{23}V_{12}=V_{12}V_{13}W_{23},$$

or equivalently

$$(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })V=V_{12}V_{13}.$$
(16)
Observe that in case of the classical group condition (16) is equivalent to the classical definition of a unitary representation, i.e. a representation $`U`$ is a map

$$U:GgU_gB(𝒦)$$

such that $`U_g`$ is unitary for any $`gG`$, and for any $`g,hG`$ we have $`U_gU_h=U_{gh}`$.

It was proven in  that

###### Proposition 5.2

Let $`(a,b,\beta )G_{_{}}`$ and $`(c,d,\delta )G__𝒦`$ and let $`\mathrm{ker}b=\{0\}`$. Then the operator $`V\mathrm{M}(CB(A)`$ given by

$$V(\mathrm{log}a,b,\beta )=F_{\mathrm{}}(db,(\delta \beta )\chi (db<0))^{}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}$$
(17)
satisfies

$$(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })V=V_{12}V_{13},$$

so $`V`$ is a unitary representation of the quantum ’ax+b’ group .

We will prove that all unitary reperesentations of the quantum ’ax+b’ group are of the form described above. This is the main result of this paper.

###### Theorem 5.3

A $`V\mathrm{M}(CB(A))`$ is a unitary representation of the quantum ’ax+b’ group on a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$ iff there exists $`(c,d,\delta )G__𝒦`$ such that

$$V(\mathrm{log}a,b,\beta )=F_{\mathrm{}}(db,(\delta \beta )\chi (db<0))^{}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a},$$

where $`(a,b,\beta )G_{_{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}a`$, $`b`$ and $`ib\beta `$ are the generators of $`A`$.

Proof: Let $`V`$ be a unitary representation of the quantum ’ax+b’ group on a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$. Then for any $`t`$ the operator $`(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)VB(𝒦)`$ is unitary.

Applying $`(\mathrm{id}\phi _s\phi _t)`$ to both sides of (16) we get

$$V(\mathrm{}(s+t),0,0)=V(\mathrm{}s,0,0)V(\mathrm{}t,0,0)$$

Hence

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _{s+t})V=(\mathrm{id}\phi _s)V(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)V$$

i.e. $`(\mathrm{id}\phi )V`$ is a representation of $``$.

The strict topology coincides on $`B(H)=M(CB(H))`$ with the \*-strong operator topology. Since \*-strong operator topology is stronger than strong operator topology, Proposition 4.2 shows that the map

$$t(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)VB(𝒦)$$

is strongly continuous. Therefore, by Stone’s Theorem, there is a selfadjoint, strictly positive operator $`c`$ acting on $`𝒦`$ and such that

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t)V=e^{it\mathrm{log}c}$$
(18)
for any $`t`$.

Observe that by (13), (16) and (18)

$$(\mathrm{id}\theta _t)V=V(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id}).$$

Moreover, by (15)

$$(\mathrm{id}\theta _t)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}=(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id})e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}$$

Hence

$$(\mathrm{id}\theta _t)Ve^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}=Ve^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}.$$

Observe that

$$Ve^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}B(𝒦)A^{\prime \prime }.$$

By Proposition 4.1

$$Ve^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}=f(b,\beta ),$$

where $`fB(𝒦)B_o^{\prime \prime }`$. It means that one can () identify $`f`$ with a measurable (operator) function $`f:MB(𝒦)`$ . Because $`V`$ is unitary and

$$V=f(b,\beta )e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a},$$

it follows that $`f`$ may be identified with a continuous and bounded (operator) function with values in unitary operators acting on $`𝒦`$. Let us compute

$$(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })V=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\left(f(b,\beta )e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}\right)=f(\mathrm{\Delta }(b),\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ))e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }(a)}=$$

$$=f([ab+bI]_\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ))e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}(aa)}.$$
(19)
Applying $`(\mathrm{id}\phi _t\mathrm{id})`$ to both sides of (16) we get

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t\mathrm{id})V_{12}V_{13}=(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id})V$$

and

$$(\mathrm{id}\phi _t\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })V=f(e^\mathrm{}tb,\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id}).$$

Comparing the resulting expressions we obtain

$$(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id})V=f(e^\mathrm{}tb,\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id}).$$
(20)
On the other hand, applying $`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\phi _t)`$ to both sides of (16) we get

$$(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\phi _t)V_{12}V_{13}=V(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id})$$

and

$$(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}\phi _t)(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })V=f(b,\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id}).$$

Comparing the resulting expressions we obtain

$$V(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id})=f(b,\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})(e^{it\mathrm{log}c}\mathrm{id}).$$
(21)
We insert now $`\mathrm{log}a`$ instead of $`\mathrm{}t`$ in formulas (20) and (21) we get

$$(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}\mathrm{id})V_{13}=f(ab,I\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{13}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{12}$$

$$V_{12}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{13}=f(bI,\beta I)(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{12}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{13}.$$

Then

$$V_{12}=f(bI,\beta I)(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}ca})_{12}$$
(22)
$$V_{13}=(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}ca})_{12}^{}f(ab,I\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}ca})_{13}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}ca})_{12}.$$
(23)
remembering that $`V`$ satisfies $`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })V=V_{12}V_{13}`$ and using (19), (22) and (23), we get

$$f([ab+bI]_\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ))e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}(aa)}=f(bI,\beta I)f(ab,I\beta )(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{13}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{12}.$$

Moreover

$$e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}(aa)}=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\{\mathrm{log}(Ia)+\mathrm{log}(aI)\}}=(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{13}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{12}.$$

Therefore

$$f([ab+bI]_\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ))=f(bI,\beta I)f(ab,I\beta )$$

or equivalently

$$f([ab+bI]_\tau ,\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ))^{}=f(ab,I\beta )^{}f(bI,\beta I)^{}.$$
(24)
Using (12) and (9) and remembering that $`\beta `$ commutes with $`s|b|^1`$, we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )=$$
(25)
$$=F_{\mathrm{}}(e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1ab,(1)^k(\beta \beta )\chi (bb<0))^{}(\beta I)F_{\mathrm{}}(e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1ab,(1)^k(\beta \beta )\chi (bb<0)).$$

Let us introduce the notation

$$R=ab,\rho =I\beta S=bI,\sigma =\beta I.$$
(26)
We see that $`(R,\rho ,S,\sigma )M_{}^2`$. Moreover, if we define

$$T=e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}S^1R=e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1ab\mathrm{and}\tau =(1)^k(\beta \beta ),$$
(27)
then also $`(T,\tau )M_{}`$. Since $`ab`$, then by Theorem 6.1 from

$$\mathrm{sign}(e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1a)=\mathrm{sign}(b)\mathrm{sign}(a).$$

Since $`a>0`$, we finally get

$$\chi (T<0)=\chi (e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}b^1ab<0)=\chi (bb<0).$$

Inserting (26) and (27) into formula (25) and using (5) we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )=F_{\mathrm{}}(T,\tau \chi (T<0))^{}\sigma F_{\mathrm{}}(T,\tau \chi (T<0)).$$

Moreover, we observe that the following selfadjoint extensions are the same

$$[ab+bI]_\tau =[R+S]_{\tau \chi (T<0)}.$$

Using two last formulas and substituting (26) into the right hand side of (24), one can write (24)

$$f((R,\rho )_M(S,\sigma ))^{}=f(R,\rho )^{}f(S,\sigma )^{}.$$

From Theorem 3.3  (recalled in Section 2) follows that if a function $`f`$ is a measurable (operator) function $`f:MB(𝒦)`$ and satisfies the above condition, then it is given by

$$f(b,\beta )=F_{\mathrm{}}(db,(\delta \beta )\chi (db<0))^{},$$

where $`(d,\delta )M_𝒦`$.

Therefore

$$V=F_{\mathrm{}}(db,(\delta \beta )\chi (db<0))^{}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}$$
(28)
What is left to prove is that

$$cd\mathrm{and}\delta c=c\delta .$$

To this end, let us observe that combining (28) and (23) we get

$$F_{\mathrm{}}(dIb,(\delta I\beta )\chi (dIb<0))^{}=$$

$$=(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{12}^{}F_{\mathrm{}}(dab,(\delta I\beta )\chi (dIb<0))^{}(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a})_{12}.$$

Hence

$$(d\mathrm{id})=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}(da)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}$$
(29)
and

$$(\delta \mathrm{id})=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}(\delta I)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log}a}.$$
(30)
Substituting $`a=e^\mathrm{}kI`$ in formula (29) we get $`cd`$. Moreover, after the same substitution in formula (30) we see that $`c`$ commutes with $`\delta `$. Hence $`(c,d,\delta )G_𝒦`$, which completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Acknowledgments

This is a part of the author’s Ph.D. thesis  written under the supervision of Professor Stanisław L. Woronowicz at the Department of mathematical Methods in Physics at the Warsaw University. The author is greatly indebted to Professor Stanisław L. Woronowicz for stimulating discussions and important hints and comments. The author also wishes to thank Professor Wiesław Pusz and Marek Bożejko for several helpful suggestions and Piotr Sołtan for reading carefully the manuscript.


text:
# The electron temperature in ionized nebulae

## 0.1 Introduction

Emission lines, and especially the forbidden lines used for abundance determinations in ionized nebulae are strongly sensitive to the electron temperature, Te. It is common thought that, when Te can be derived directly from observed spectra, for example using the \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363/5007 ratio, abundance determinations are fairly reliable. We will show that this is not necessarily the case (§3). We will also discuss the reliability of abundance determinations when Te is not measured directly, both in the case of planetary nebulae (PNe) and giant H ii regions (GHRs) (§4). Then, we will address the question of whether temperatures observed in ionized nebulae are compatible with the predictions from photoionization models and we will touch upon the problem of temperature inhomogeneities (§5).

## 0.2 Basics

As is known from general considerations on the thermal balance in ionized nebulae (Spitzer 1948, 1949, Spitzer & Savedoff 1950, Osterbrock 1989), the electron temperature results from a balance between energy gains and losses. It is easy to show that, schematically, the energy gains per unit volume per unit time in a photoionized nebula can be written as:

$$G=n_e^2\alpha _A(H^0,T_e)\frac{3}{2}\overline{E}$$

where $`n_e`$ is the electron density, $`\alpha _A(H^0,T)`$ is the recombination coefficient of hydrogen, and $`\overline{E}`$ is the mean energy of the absorbed photoelectrons, which is roughly rooportional to the effective temperature of the ionizing radiation field, T. Energy losses are due to a variety of processes, emission of collisionally excited lines being the most important. In a two-level approximation and neglecting collisional deexcitation, they can be schematically written as:

$$L=\underset{ijl}{}n_en(X^{ij})\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_l}{\omega _l}T_e^{0.5}e^{\chi _l/kT_e}h\nu _l$$

where $`n(X^{ij})`$ is the number density of ion $`X^{ij}`$, and the index $`l`$ refers to a specific line, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ being the collision strenght, and $`\chi _l`$ the excitation level.

Thus, the electron temperature in a nebula is not a strong function of the distance to the ionizing stars, since it does not depend on the flux of ionizing photons. It is larger for higher values of T and lower values of the metallicity, $`Z`$. Fig. 1 illustrates the heating and cooling rates in a photoionized nebula, at two different densities. At high density, the infrared fine-structure lines are partly quenched by collisional deexcitation, resulting in a larger Te. Note also that, because of the shape of the cooling curves, there is a large temperature difference between the high and the low excitation zones at high metallicities.

## 0.3 When Te-based abundance determinations are in error

### 0.3.1 One example at low metallicity: the effect of collisional excitation of H$`\alpha `$

At low metallicities, because of the high Te, collisional excitation of the H$`\alpha `$ line becomes non negligible and the H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio no longer has the recombination value. If the dereddening procedure of an observed spectrum involves H$`\alpha `$ (which is commonly the case), this translates into an overestimation of the extinction C(H$`\beta `$), and an error in the dereddened line ratios. It can easily be shown that this error in the line ratios is *independent of extinction*. It can be large when the lines in question have very different wavelenghts.

This is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows the results of photoionization models at metallicity $`Z`$= 0.1 Z for evolutionary sequences of planetary nebulae whose central stars follow the theoretical tracks of Blöcker (1995). These models were computed using the procedure outlined in Stasińska et al (1998) 111Unless otherwise stated, the photoionization calculations presented here used the code PHOTO as described by Stasińska & Leitherer (1996).. We see that, at such a metallicity, there is quite a range in epochs during the evolution of PNe (materialized in the figure by the surface brightness in H$`\beta `$), where H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ is significantly larger than the recombination value. The resulting error in the derived helium abundance may reach 5 – 10%. A similar effect is expected in very low metallicity H ii regions. This is important to keep in mind for the determination of the pregalactic helium abundance from low metallicity GHRs. Davidson & Kinman (1985) indeed warned about this effect, but it does not seem to have been properly taken into account in later studies (see e.g. Olive et al. 1997 or Izotov et al. 1999 and references therein). The error in C/O obtained using the C iii\] $`\lambda `$1909 and \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$5007 lines may reach almost a factor 2 in the PN models shown here. Again, a similar effect is expected in low metallicity GHRs. This could explain why the carbon abundance estimated in I Zw 18 is larger than expected for its metallicity (Garnett et al 1997a). However, in the case of UV data, a possibly even more important problem is the uncertainty in the reddening law (Garnett et al 1999).

### 0.3.2 One example at high metallicity: the absence of \[O iii\] optical lines from the O++ zone

At high $`Z`$, because of the intense cooling by the forbidden lines, Te is low (see Fig. 1) and the transauroral lines used for Te diagnostics become hard to detect. So far, there has been no Te-based measurement of metallicities higher than about 0.5 Z in any GHR. With 8 m-class telescopes, however, it becomes possible to detect weak \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363 fluxes, and the hope has been expressed that it will be possible to directly probe oxygen abundances at metallicities higher than solar. However, as already shown by Stasińska (1978) and Garnett (1992), high metallicities induce an important temperature drop in the O++ zone because cooling is dominated by the \[OIII\]52$`\mu `$ and \[OIII\]88$`\mu `$ lines which are almost independent of Te (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the value of Te derived from \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363/5007 would largely overestimate the temperature characteristic of the O++ zone. Consequently, classical Te-based methods would strongly underestimate the oxygen abundance. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The derived O/H ratio always stays below the solar value, and would be underestimated by orders of magnitudes for metallicities over twice solar if such methods were applied. Incidentally, note the rise in the \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363 flux at log O/H + 12 $`>`$ 9.1. This is due to the fact that recombination becomes the dominant process for the excitation of this line at the low temperatures involved.

Does this mean that it is impossible to reliably determine the oxygen abundance in the central parts of galaxies, where it is supposed to be oversolar? The most straightforward way, of course, would be to use the \[OIII\]52$`\mu `$ line (Simpson et al. 1995, Rudolph et al. 1997). Another possibility, suggested by Stasińska (1980), would be through high spatial resolution emission line imaging. Metal rich GHRs would show very characteristic and unusual spatial correlations between line intensities, since \[O iii\] and \[O ii\] and would be emitted almost cospatially in the high Te zones, while the hydrogen and helium recombination lines would preferentially arise in the low Te zones. Of course, detailed photoionization modelling reproducing the observed tendencies would still be necessary to provide a quantitative estimate of O/H.

Planetary nebulae provide an interesting substitute to GHRs for abundance determinations in the central parts of galaxies. As shown by Richer et al. (1998), the most luminous PNe are good tracers of the ISM oxygen abundance. Such PNe, being young (therefore dense) and excited by stars with T of the order of 100 000 K, have larger Te than GHRs of same metallicity (see Fig. 1). Therefore, they can be detected in \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363, even though their intrinsic luminosity is orders of magnitudes smaller than that of GHRs (compare Figs. 4 and 3). In addition, electron temperature gradients are not expected to be so severe as in GHRs (as can be seen from Fig. 1), so that the classical Te-based method to derive O/H should give reasonable results. Indeed, Fig. 4 shows that, at least theoretically, this is the case.

## 0.4 Estimating O/H without Te

### 0.4.1 Strong line methods for GHRs and PNe

It has been shown by Pagel et al. (1979) that, in GHRs, provided that the hardness of the ionizing radiation field is related to the metallicity, it should be possible to calibrate some well chosen strong line ratios as a function of O/H (see Stasińska 2001 for a summary of the basics and a short bibliography of strong line methods). The extremely tight correlation between (\[O iii\] $`\lambda `$5007 + \[O ii\] $`\lambda `$3727) / H$`\beta `$ and Te-based O/H determinations in high signal-to-noise observations of H ii galaxies (see Fig. 5) is an empirical confirmation that this method works at low metallicities, as was suggested by Skillman (1998). Incidentally, this implies that GHRs in blue compact galaxies constitute a very homogeneous class as regards their excitation and nebular properties (see discussion in Stasińska et al 2001).

Can such a strong line method be applied to PNe? Since PN central stars span a wide range in T (30 000 K – 200 000 K), one does not expect such methods to work in the same way as for GHRs. However, Fig. 6 shows that PNe outline a rather well defined upper envelope in the (\[O iii\] $`\lambda `$5007 + \[O ii\] $`\lambda `$3727) / H$`\beta `$ vs. O/H plane, as already noted by Richer (1993) for Magellanic Clouds PNe. This upper envelope probably corresponds to the hottest central stars, and can be used to infer a lower limit for O/H. Such a procedure has been used by Richer & Mc Call (1995) and Richer et al. (1998) for extragalactic PNe with \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363 undetected.

### 0.4.2 Photoionization modelling

Contrary to a widespread opinion, photoionization models (be it of PNe or of GHRs) are usually incapable of providing abundances if Te is not directly measured. It is easy to produce models differing only in abundance ratios that will reproduce all the observed emission lines. This is illustrated in Fig. 7, which shows the run of \[O iii\]/H$`\beta `$ and \[O ii\]/H$`\beta `$ as a function of O/H for a simple PN model. The reason of such a behavior is the same for PNe and GHRs and has been wideley commented in the literature. As O/H increases, Te decreases due to enhanced cooling, and the optical forbidden lines are gradually overtaken by the infrared lines, leading to these bell-shaped curves. The maximum of the curves occurs at a metallicity around solar for dense PNe ionized by stars with T $`>`$ 100 000 K, and around half solar for GHRs.

Table 1 shows the results of photoionization modelling of the Galactic Bulge PN PNG 351.2+05.2 (M 2-5) for which Ratag (1991, 1997) had claimed an abundance of one fourth solar. Using the Lviv photoionization code, Stasińska, Malkov & Golovaty (1995, unpublished) produced two classes of models for this object accounting satisfactorily for the observed data (line strenghts, total flux and radius). The first one indeed has an oxygen abundance similar to Ratag’s, but the second has O/H larger than solar!

This demonstrates that, in absence of a direct measure of Te, photoionization modelling by itself does not necessarily give a clear clue to the metallicity of nebulae when only optical data are available. In some cases, however, when solutions on either the low or high metallicity side can be rejected using arguments of astrophysical nature, photoionization modelling can provide estimates of O/H.

An example where photoionization modelling gives interesting limites on O/H is the recently discovered PN in the galactic halo, SBS 1150+599A (now PN G135.9+55.9, for full details see Tovmassian et al., 2001 and these proceedings). In that case, solutions at high metallicity can obviously be discarded. There is still a wide range of solutions compatible with the observed line ratios, but when additional considerations are taken into account, it is found that the object has O/H of the order 1/500 solar (making it possibly the most oxygen-poor object known in the Galaxy).

## 0.5 Do we understand the temperature in ionized nebulae?

So far, we have not questionned the electron temperature itself. As a matter of fact, there are indications that simple photoionization models are incapable of reproducing satisfactorily the observed Te in quite a variety of situations. There are cases of GHRs as well as of PNe, where photoionization models give too low a Te (Campbell 1990, García-Vargas et al. 1997, Stasińska & Schaerer 1999, Luridiana et al. 1999, Luridiana & Peimbert 2001, Peña et al 1998), calling for additional heating sources. In other cases, however, no Te problem is apparent (González Delgado & Pérez 2000) and in some cases, models seem to give too high a Te (Oey et al. 2000). So far, we are still lacking a synthetic view of these anomalies. One difficulty is that, even if a model reproduces the observed line ratios satisfactorily, this does not necessarily mean that the model is a fair representation of the object. For example, the first attempts to solve the Te problem in I Zw 18 were not supported by later observations (see discussion in Stasińska & Schaerer 1999).

It is of prime importance to understand what determines Te in real nebulae if one wishes to derive reliable abundances, since one way or another, the observed line ratios used to derive abundances from optical or ultraviolet data depend on Te.

In the following, we comment on two disputed topics.

### 0.5.1 Temperature gradients in photoionized nebulae

While the electron temperature, being determined by the hardness of the ionizing photons and not on their flux (c.f. §1), does not necessarily fall off with radius, some Te gradients are nevertheless expected. A consideration of the heating and cooling curves (Fig. 1) shows that Te should rise outwards if the outer zones contain ions that are less efficient for the cooling. As mentioned above, the effect can be quite strong at metallicity above solar. At low metallicity, on the other hand, Te decreases outwards. The hardening of the absorbed photons towards the ionization front, due to the frequency dependence of the photoabsorption cross-section is another factor that affects the radial Te distribution. The predicted effect is however rather mild (see e.g. the GHRs models of Stasińska & Leitherer 1996, or the grid of PN models from Stasińska et al. 1998).

Temperature gradients can be estimated from the comparison of Te derived from various line ratios, such as \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363/5007 and \[N ii\] $`\lambda `$5755/6584 (see eg. Garnett et al. 1997b for GHRs and Mc Kenna et al. 1996, Kinsburgh & Barlow 1994 for PNe). Recently, Peña et al. (2001) found that in PNe with Wolf-Rayet central stars, Te(\[O iii\])/Te(\[N ii\]) could be significantly different from 1 (by as much as 40%) and that it seemed to decrease with increasing O++/O+. Such a tendency cannot be reproduced by classical photoionization models. Dopita & Sutherland (2000) have shown that, by including the photoelectric effect on dust grains, one obtains larger Te gradients than in dust free models, because dust heating affects essentially the inner zones. The cases with Te(\[O iii\])/Te(\[N ii\]) $``$ 1 observed by Peña et al. (2001) however remain unexplained. One possibility is to advocate a contribution from shock heating in the outer zones, but quantitative models have still to be worked out.

### 0.5.2 Temperature inhomogeneities

In a seminal paper, temperature inhomogeneities have been advocated by Peimbert (1967) to explain the discrepancies between Te as determined by various methods. Peimbert introduced the temperature fluctuation scheme and observational work accumulated over the years by Silvia Torres-Peimbert, Manuel Peimbert and their coworkers and disciples seems to indicate a value of $`t^20.04`$. There are many questions about the reality, the ubiquity and the causes of these Te fluctuations (see e.g. papers by Esteban, Peimbert, Binette, Liu and Péquignot in this volume, and references therein).

In fact, the temperature fluctuation scheme may not be quite appropriate to describe temperature inhomogeneities in ionized nebulae. A different approach was presented by Mathis et al. (1998). Here, and in order to help visualising the problem, we use a toy model consisting of two homogeneous zones of volumes $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ with temperatures $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$, electron densities $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, and densities of the emitting ions (e.g. O++) $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$. If we call $`f`$ the ratio $`(N_2n_2V_2)/(N_1n_1V_1)`$ of the weights of the emitting regions, the mean electron temperature defined by Peimbert (1967) becomes

$$T_0=\frac{T_1+fT_2}{1+f}$$

and the fluctuation parameter becomes

$$t^2=\frac{(T_1T_0)^2+f(T_2T_0)^2}{(1+f)T_0^2}$$

In Figs. 8 (resp. 9) we explore the values of $`f`$ that lead to the canonical value $`t^2=0.04`$ at $`T_0`$=8 000 K (resp. $`T_0`$=15 000 K), and show the effect on the O++ abundances calculated by using the Te derived from \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363/5007. The case $`f=1`$, i.e. regions of equal weight, corresponds to $`T_1`$=12 000 K and $`T_2=`$8 000 K. This is quite a large temperature difference, which would correspond to heating- or cooling rates differing by about a factor 3 between the two zones (see Fig. 1). No wonder that photoionization models have difficulties in producing such values of $`t^2`$ around these temperatures! When $`f1`$, there is a high weight zone at $`T_2T_0`$ and a low weight zone at $`T_1T_0`$. Such a situation could correspond to a photoionized nebula with small regions being heted by shocks or conduction. When $`f1`$, there is a high weight zone at $`T_1T_0`$ and a low weight zone at $`T_2T_0`$ which could correspond to high metallicity clumps.

As expected, Figs. 8 and 9 show that the O++ derived from infrared fine structure lines is correct. The optical recombination line O ii $`\lambda `$4651 also give a correct O++. However, high temperature dielectronic recombinations are not included in the present day atomic calculations. They might well boost O ii $`\lambda `$4651 in zones of high Te (around 20 000–50 000 K, see Liu et al. 2000, Dinerstein et al. 2000). This is an attractive explanation to the fact that in PNe, O++ abundances derived from recombination lines are far greater than derived from optical or infrared lines (see Liu, these proceedings). Compared to the alternate explanation invoking oxygen-rich condensations (Liu et al 2000, Péquignot, these proceedings), this one has the advantage of being naturally fulfilled if additional heating mechanisms substantially raise the electron temperature in limited volumes of the emitting gas, such as shock or conduction fronts. Besides, they do not require to find a mechanism to produce oxygen-rich pockets in planetary nebulae.

Following expectations, O++ derived from \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$5007 is generally underestimated, but it is interesting to note that the magnitude of the effect depends both $`f`$ and on $`T_0`$. It is negligible when log $`f>`$ 3–4, because \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363 saturates above $``$ 50 000K. In the $`T_0`$ = 15 000 K case, the effect is never strong anyway. For the $`T_0`$ = 8 000K case, errors in O++ of up to a factor 2–3 can occur in the regime where \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363is significantly emitted in both zones. As for O iii\] $`\lambda `$1661, it may lead either to an underestimation or to an overestimation of O++/H, because the dynamical range of the line is larger than that of \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$4363.

Fig. 8 and 9 thus amply demonstrate that the classical temperature fluctuation scheme can be misleading. Even in a simple two zone model, the situation needs 3 parameteres to be described, not 2. In our representation, these parameters would be $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`f`$, but other definitions can be used. This means that care must be taken when drawing conclusions on temperature inhomogeneities by comparing abundances derived from various lines. We argue that such diagrams as shown here might be useful to pinpoint the physical cause of temperature inhomogeneities in ionized nebulae.

###### Acknowledgements.

This wandering - and wondering - about the electron temperature in ionized nebulae is dedicated to Silvia Torres-Peimbert and Manuel Peimbert, at the occasion of a meeting in their honor. I am grateful to the Organizing Committee of for having made possible my participation to this stirry conference.