format: text

text:
# Dynamical algebra and Dirac quantum modes in Taub-NUT background

## 1 Introduction

In the relativistic quantum mechanics in the context of general relativity an important problem is how could be found the conserved operators which should be involved in the sets of commuting observables defining quantum modes. From this point of view examples of geometries giving rise to large sets of conserved quantities are useful for understanding the connection among symmetries and conservation laws in general relativity.

One of the most interesting geometries is that of the Euclidean Taub-NUT space since it has not only the usual isometries but also admits a hidden symmetry of the Kepler type if a cyclic variable is gotten rid of . Moreover in the Taub-NUT geometry there are four Killing-Yano tensors among them the first three are covariantly constant and realize the quaternionic algebra related to the hyper-Kähler structure of the Taub-NUT manifold. The last one, that exists by virtue of the metric being of type $`D`$, has a non-vanishing field strength. These Killing-Yano tensors represent a certain square root of three Stäckel-Killing tensors connected with the components of an analogue to the Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler type problem since they give rise to constants of the geodesic motion (i.e. prime integrals) quadratic in 4-velocities .

In other respects, the Taub-NUT metric is involved in many modern studies in physics. For example the Kaluza-Klein monopole was obtained by embedding the Taub-NUT gravitational instanton into five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory. On the other hand, in the long-distance limit, neglecting radiation, the relative motion of two monopoles is described by the geodesics of this space . The Dirac equation in the Kaluza-Klein monopole field was studied in the mid eighties . An attempt to take into account the Runge-Lenz vector of this problem was done in . We have continued this study showing that the Dirac equation is analytically solvable  and determining the energy eigenspinors of the central modes. Moreover we derived all the conserved observables of this theory, including those associated with the hidden symmetries of the Taub-NUT geometry. Thus we obtained the Runge-Lenz vector-operator of the Dirac theory, pointing out its specific properties .

In the present paper we investigate the consequences of the existence of the Runge-Lenz operator in the theory of the Dirac field in Taub-NUT background. We show that the dynamical algebras corresponding to different spectral domains are the same as in the scalar case but the representations of these algebras are different. Thus for each discrete energy level we obtain two irreducible representations of the $`o(4)`$ algebra determining different quantum modes. This is a new phenomenon due to the spin terms of the Runge-Lenz operator since in the scalar case for each energy level we have only one irreducible representation of the $`o(4)`$ algebra . This conjecture offers us the opportunity to define new Dirac modes, called natural central or axial modes, the energy eigenspinors of which can be easily written using only algebraic properties.

In Sec.2 we briefly present the Killing vectors of the isometries of the Taub-NUT background and the Killing tensors corresponding to the hidden symmetries of this geometry, pointing out that these are related to the four specific Killing-Yano tensors. The general form of the conserved operators of the Dirac theory is discussed in the next section while in Sec.4 we write down the conserved operators arising from isometries or hidden symmetries, presenting their algebraic properties. Sec.5 is devoted to the study of the representations of the dynamical algebra of the discrete energy levels. These can be completely investigated since the action of the Dirac operators can be calculated at the level of two-component Pauli spinors where the structure of the corresponding operators is simpler. This method helps us to define the natural discrete Dirac modes in the next section where, in addition, we completely determine the form of the energy eigenspinors of these modes in terms of the spinors of the simple modes defined in Appendix. We work in natural units with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

## 2 The Taub-NUT geometry

The background of the gauge-invariant five-dimensional theory of the Dirac fermions in the external field of the Kaluza-Klein monopole  is the space of the Taub-NUT gravitational instanton with the time coordinate trivially added. Herein it is convenient to consider the static chart of Cartesian coordinates $`x^\mu `$, ($`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,5`$), with the line element

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =dt^2\frac{1}{V}dl^2V(dx^5+A_idx^i)^2,$$
(1)
where $`dl^2=(d\stackrel{}{x})^2=(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2`$ is the usual Euclidean three-dimensional line element. This involves the Cartesian physical space coordinates $`x^i`$ ($`i,j,\mathrm{}=1,2,3`$) which cover the domain $`D`$. The other coordinates are the time, $`x^0=t`$, and the Cartesian Kaluza-Klein extra-coordinate, $`x^5D_5`$. Another chart suitable for applications is that of spherical coordinates, $`x^{}=(t,r,\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )`$, among them the first four are the time and the common spherical coordinates associated with $`x^i`$, ($`i=1,2,3`$), while $`\chi +\varphi =\mu x^5`$. The real number $`\mu `$ is the main parameter of the theory which enters in the expression of the function $`1/V(r)=1+\mu /r`$. The unique non-vanishing component of the vector potential in spherical coordinates is $`A_\varphi =\mu (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. In Cartesian coordinates we have

$$\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{A}=0,\stackrel{}{B}=\mathrm{rot}\stackrel{}{A}=\mu \frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{r^3}.$$
(2)
We note that the space domain $`D`$ is defined such that $`1/V>0`$.

The spacetime defined by (1) has the symmetry given by the isometry group $`G_s=SO(3)U_5(1)T_t(1)`$ of rotations of the Cartesian space coordinates and $`x^5`$ and $`t`$ translations. The $`U_5(1)`$ symmetry is important since this eliminates the so called NUT singularity if $`x^5`$ has the period $`4\pi \mu `$. On the other hand, the $`SO(3)`$ isometry transformations involve all of the space coordinates, $`x^i`$ and $`x^5`$, since these are given by a non-linear representation of the $`SO(3)`$ group. For this reason the corresponding Killing vectors, $`k_{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), have the components $`k_{(i)}^j=\epsilon _{ijk}x^k`$ and $`k_{(i)}^5=\epsilon _{ijk}x^jA_k\mu x^i/r`$ while the other two Killing vectors of the translation groups have usual constant components, $`k_{(0)}^\mu =\delta _0^\mu `$ and $`k_{(5)}^\mu =\delta _5^\mu `$.

The Taub-NUT geometry possesses four Killing-Yano tensors, $`f^{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) and $`f^Y`$, of valence 2 (which satisfy $`f_{\mu \nu }=f_{\nu \mu }`$, and $`f_{\mu \nu ;\sigma }+f_{\mu \sigma ;\nu }=0`$). The first three,

$$f^{(i)}=f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^{(i)}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{\beta }}=2\widehat{e}^5\widehat{e}^i+\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{e}^j\widehat{e}^k,$$
(3)
are rather special since they are covariantly constant (with vanishing field strength). The fourth Killing-Yano tensor of the Taub-NUT space,

$$f^Y=\frac{x^i}{r}f^{(i)}+\frac{2x^i}{\mu V}\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{e}^j\widehat{e}^k,$$
(4)
is not covariantly constant having the non-vanishing components of its field strength

$$f_{r\theta ;\varphi }^Y=\frac{2r^2}{\mu V}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(5)
which are completely antisymmetric in $`r,\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$.

The hidden symmetries of the Taub-NUT geometry are encapsulated in the non-trivial Stäckel-Killing tensors $`k_{(i)\mu \nu },(i=1,2,3)`$. They can be expressed as symmetrized products of Killing-Yano tensors (3) and (4) :

$$k_{(i)\mu \nu }=\frac{\mu }{4}(f_{\mu \lambda }^Yf_\nu ^{(i)\lambda }+f_{\nu \lambda }^Yf_\mu ^{(i)\lambda })+\frac{1}{2\mu }(k_{(5)\mu }k_{(i)\nu }+k_{(5)\nu }k_{(i)\mu }).$$
(6)
In fact only the product of Killing-Yano tensors $`f^{(i)}`$ and $`f^Y`$ leads to non-trivial Stäckel-Killing tensors, the last term in the r.h.s. of (6) being a simple product of Killing vectors. This term is usually added to write the Runge-Lenz vector in the standard form of the scalar (classical, Schrödinger or Klein-Gordon) theory .

## 3 The operators of the Dirac theory

The theory of the Dirac field in Cartesian charts of the Taub-NUT geometry takes the simplest form if one considers the local frames given by pentad fields, $`e(x)`$ and $`\widehat{e}(x)`$, as defined in . Their components, have the usual orthonormalization properties and give the components of the metric tensor, $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}\widehat{e}_\mu ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{e}_\nu ^{\widehat{\beta }}`$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}e_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\mu e_{\widehat{\beta }}^\nu `$. In our notation , $`\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,1)`$ is the flat metric which raises or lowers the hated indices (ranging from 0 to 5). Its gauge group, $`G(\eta )=SO(4,1)`$, has as universal covering group, $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta )`$, a subgroup of the group $`SU(2,2)`$ carried by the space of four-dimensional Dirac spinors. Therefore, the five matrices $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, that must satisfy $`\{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\beta }}\}=2\eta ^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}`$, can be defined in terms of the standard Dirac matrices  as $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^0=\gamma ^0,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^i=\gamma ^i`$, ($`i=1,2,3`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^5=i\gamma ^5`$. These are self-adjoint with respect to the usual Dirac conjugation, i.e. $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}}=\gamma ^0(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }})^{}\gamma ^0=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, and give the covariant basis generators of the group $`\stackrel{~}{G}(\eta )`$, denoted by $`S^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}=i[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\beta }}]/4`$.

The Dirac field $`\psi `$ of mass $`M`$, defined on the space domain $`D\times D_5`$, has the gauge-invariant action ,

$$𝒮[\psi ]=d^5x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{i}{2}\left[\overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\mu }}\stackrel{~}{}_{\widehat{\mu }}\psi (\overline{\stackrel{~}{}_{\widehat{\mu }}\psi })\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\mu }}\psi \right]M\overline{\psi }\psi \right\}$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ are the components of the spin covariant derivatives with local indices ,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_i=i\sqrt{V}P_i+\frac{i}{2}V\sqrt{V}\epsilon _{ijk}\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{}B_k,\stackrel{~}{}_5=\frac{i}{\sqrt{V}}P_5\frac{i}{2}V\sqrt{V}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\stackrel{}{B}.$$
(8)
These depend on the momentum operators $`P_i=i(_iA_i_5)`$ and $`P_5=i_5`$ , which in Taub-NUT geometry obey the commutation rules $`[P_i,P_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}B_kP_5`$ and $`[P_i,P_5]=0`$. The spin matrices which give the spin connection are defined by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{}=S_i+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^5\gamma ^i,S_i=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ijk}S^{jk}.$$
(9)
The action (7) leads to the Dirac equation, $`𝒟\psi =M\psi `$, given by the Dirac operator

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=i\gamma ^0_t𝒟_s`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`i\gamma ^0_t\sqrt{V}\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{P}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{V}}}\gamma ^5P_5{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}V\sqrt{V}\gamma ^5\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\stackrel{}{B},`$
having the usual time-dependent term  and a static part, $`𝒟_s`$.

In the standard representation of the Dirac matrices (with diagonal $`\gamma ^0`$ ) the Hamiltonian operator is  $`\stackrel{~}{H}=H+\gamma ^0M`$. The massless Hamiltonian,

$$H=\gamma ^0𝒟_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& V\pi ^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}\\ \sqrt{V}\pi & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
is expressed in terms of the operators $`\pi =\sigma _PiV^1P_5`$ and $`\pi ^{}=\sigma _P+iV^1P_5`$ where $`\sigma _P=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{P}`$ involves the Pauli matrices, $`\sigma _i`$. These Pauli operators give the space part of the massless Klein-Gordon operator as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=V\pi ^{}\pi =V\stackrel{}{P}^2+\frac{1}{V}P_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(12)
In what follows, we are interested especially by the form and the action of the conserved operators of the Dirac theory which, by definition, are the operators that commute with the Hamiltonian operator $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Since the mass term is simple and does not rise difficulties to keep the study of the operators as simple as possible we leave it aside. We shall consider the massless case ($`M=0`$) and the Hamiltonian operator reduces to (11) without affecting the symmetries and conserved observables of the Dirac theory. The conserved operators depend on Pauli operators obeying several conditions requested by the above definition. Two types of Dirac operators are important for our further developments. The first one are the $`𝒬`$-operators introduced in  as

$$𝒬(X)=\{H,\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\}=i[Q_0,\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)],$$
(13)
where $`Q_0=i𝒟_s=i\gamma ^0H`$. The linear mapping $`𝒬`$ associates Dirac operators to the Pauli operators, $`\pi ,\pi ^{}`$, $`\sigma _P`$, $`\sigma _L=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{L}`$, $`\sigma _r=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{x}/r`$, etc. . The remarkable property of the $`𝒬`$-operators is that if $`[X,\mathrm{\Delta }]=0`$ then we can write

$$𝒬(X)𝒬(Y)=H𝒬(XY),𝒬(Y)𝒬(X)=𝒬(YX)H,$$
(14)
for any other Pauli operator $`Y`$. Hereby it results that $`𝒬(X)`$ commutes with $`H`$ since $`H=𝒬(1)`$. Moreover, one can verify that if both the operators, $`X`$ and $`Y`$, commute with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and commute or anticommute between themselves then $`𝒬(X)`$ and $`𝒬(Y)`$ commute or anticommute each other. An important property is that all of the $`𝒬`$-operators anticommute with $`\gamma ^0`$. Another type of conserved operators are of the diagonal form $`T=\mathrm{diag}(T^{(1)},T^{(2)})`$. Then the condition $`[T,H]=0`$ requires the Pauli operators $`T^{(1)}`$ and $`T^{(2)}`$ to satisfy

$$T^{(2)}\sqrt{V}\pi =\sqrt{V}\pi T^{(1)},V\pi ^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}T^{(2)}=T^{(1)}V\pi ^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}.$$
(15)
Hereby it results $`[T^{(1)},\mathrm{\Delta }]=0`$ and the useful relations

$$T𝒬(X)=𝒬(T^{(1)}X),𝒬(X)T=𝒬(XT^{(1)}),$$
(16)
that can be used for deriving new algebraic properties.

## 4 Symmetries and conserved observables

A class of conserved operators are the generators of the operator-valued representations of the isometry group carried by the spaces of physical fields. In the scalar case, these are orbital operators defined up to the factor $`i`$ as the Killing vectors fields associated to the isometries . For the fields with spin the conserved generators get, in addition, specific spin terms determined by the form of the Killing vectors and the gauge fixing. Thus, in the case of the Dirac field (in four or five dimensions), for each Killing vector $`k`$ one can write the operator

$$X_k=ik^\mu \widehat{e}_\mu ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+\frac{1}{2}k_{\mu ;\nu }e_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\mu e_{\widehat{\beta }}^\nu S^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}$$
(17)
which commutes with the Dirac operator $`𝒟`$.

In Cartesian coordinates and our gauge fixing, the $`U_t(1)`$ generator is $`i_t`$, while the $`U_5(1)`$ one is $`P_5`$. In spherical coordinates it is convenient to replace $`P_5`$ with $`Q=\mu P_5=i_\chi `$. The other three Killing vectors give the $`SO(3)`$ generators which are the components of the whole angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{𝒥}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}`$ as in the flat spacetimes. The difference is that here the orbital angular momentum,

$$\stackrel{}{L}=\stackrel{}{x}\times \stackrel{}{P}\mu \frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{r}P_5,$$
(18)
depends on $`P_5`$ since the $`SO(3)`$ isometries are non-linear transformations. The consequence is that the irreducible representations of the $`o(3)`$ algebra generated by $`L_i`$ are similar with the linear ones but with a supplementary restriction upon the angular quantum numbers . On the other hand, the operators $`𝒥_i=\mathrm{diag}(J_i,J_i)`$ have diagonal form where $`J_i=L_i+\sigma _i/2`$ are just the angular momentum operators of the Pauli theory. For this reason $`𝒥_i`$ commute with $`𝒟`$ and $`\gamma ^0`$ and, therefore, they are conserved, commuting with $`H`$. Moreover, they satisfy the canonical commutation rules among themselves and with the components of all the other vector operators (e.g. coordinates, momenta, spin, etc.).

However, there are other types of conserved operators directly related to the specific geometric objects of the Taub-NUT geometry, as Stäckel-Killing and Killing-Yano tensors. The Killing-Yano tensors give rise to conserved observables defined as Dirac-type operators of the form

$$Q_f=f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}^{\widehat{\beta }}\frac{1}{6}\gamma ^\mu (x)\gamma ^\nu (x)\gamma ^\lambda (x)f_{\mu \nu ;\lambda }(x)$$
(19)
where $`f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}=f_{\mu \nu }e_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\mu e_{\widehat{\beta }}^\nu `$ and $`\gamma ^\mu (x)=e_{\widehat{\alpha }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$. According to an important result of Ref., these operators anticommute with the Dirac operator $`𝒟`$.

Starting with the first three Killing-Yano tensors, from Eq.(19), after some algebra, we obtain the Dirac-type operators

$$Q_i=f_{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }}^i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}^{\widehat{\beta }}=𝒬(\sigma _i),$$
(20)
which anticommute with $`Q_0`$ and $`\gamma ^0`$, commute with $`H`$ and obey

$$Q_iQ_j=\delta _{ij}H^2+i\epsilon _{ijk}Q_kH,[𝒥_i,Q_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}Q_k.$$
(21)
Hereby we find the $`N=4`$ superalgebra

$$\{Q_A,Q_B\}=2\delta _{AB}H^2,A,B,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3.$$
(22)
The corresponding Dirac-type operator of the fourth Killing-Yano tensor, $`f^Y`$, calculated with the general rule (19), is

$$Q^Y=𝒬(\sigma _r)+\frac{2i}{\mu \sqrt{V}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \lambda \\ \lambda & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(23)
where $`\lambda =\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{x}\times \stackrel{}{P})+1=\sigma _L+1+\mu \sigma _rP_5`$ is the operator studied in . Other equivalent forms are given in . Again one can verify that $`Q^Y`$ commutes with $`H`$ and anticommutes with $`Q_0`$ and $`\gamma ^0`$.

Of a special interest is the Runge-Lenz operator of the Dirac theory associated to the Killing tensor $`\stackrel{}{k}^{\mu \nu }`$. This can be constructed with the help of the conserved Dirac-type operators generated by the Killing-Yano tensors. One defines first the vector operator $`\stackrel{}{N}`$ of components

$$N_i=\frac{\mu }{4}\{Q^Y,Q_i\}𝒥_iP_5$$
(24)
which commutes with $`H`$ since the operators $`Q^Y`$ and $`Q_i`$ are commuting with $`H`$. Consequently, $`\stackrel{}{N}`$ has diagonal form, its diagonal blocks, $`\stackrel{}{N}^{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{N}^{(2)}`$, obeying the general conditions (15). One finds that the first block which commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\stackrel{}{N}^{(1)}=\stackrel{}{K}+\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}P_5,$$
(25)
contains not only the orbital Runge-Lenz operator,

$$\stackrel{}{K}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{P}\times \stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{L}\times \stackrel{}{P})\frac{\mu }{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{r}\mathrm{\Delta }+\mu \frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{r}P_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(26)
but a spin term too. Furthermore, by taking into account that the components of $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ commute with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and satisfy

$`[L_i,K_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _{ijk}K_k,`$ (27)
$`[K_i,K_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _{ijk}L_kF^2,F^2=P_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (28)
one can calculate the algebraic properties given in  among them the commutation relations

$$[N_i,N_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}𝒥_k^2+\frac{i}{2}\epsilon _{ijk}Q_kH,^2=P_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}H^2,$$
(29)
suggested us to define the components of the Runge-Lenz operator of the Dirac theory, $`\stackrel{}{𝒦}`$, as follows

$$𝒦_i=N_i+\frac{1}{2}H^1(P_5)Q_i.$$
(30)
Then one obtains the commutation relations

$`[𝒦_i,H]=0,`$ $`[𝒦_i,𝒥_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}𝒦_k,`$ (31)
$`[𝒦_i,P_5]=0,`$ $`[𝒦_i,Q_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}Q_k,`$ (32)
and

$$[𝒦_i,𝒦_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}𝒥_k^2.$$
(33)
Since there are no zero modes  the operator $`H`$ is invertible such that our definition of the Runge-Lenz operator is correct.. It is worthy to note that $`𝒦_i`$ are diagonal commuting with $`\gamma ^0`$ which means that they are also conserved in the massive case ($`[𝒦_i,\stackrel{~}{H}]=0`$).

## 5 Dynamical algebra

The large collection of conserved observables we have obtained will help us to select many different complete sets of commuting observable which should define static quantum modes, with a given energy $`E>0`$. In other respects, since $`P_5`$ commutes with all conserved observables, its eigenvalue, $`\widehat{q}`$, will play the role of a general parameter. When one uses the operator $`Q`$ instead of $`P_5`$ then we have to consider as parameter its eigenvalue $`q=\mu \widehat{q}`$.

In these conditions we can re-scale the Runge-Lenz operator in order to recover the dynamical algebras $`o(4)`$, $`o(3,1)`$ or $`e(3)`$, corresponding to different spectral domains of the Kepler-type problems . If we define

$$_i=\{\begin{array}{ccccc}^1𝒦_i\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \mu <0\hfill & \mathrm{and}\hfill & E<|\widehat{q}|\hfill \\ 𝒦_i\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \mathrm{any}\mu \hfill & \mathrm{and}\hfill & E=|\widehat{q}|\hfill \\ i^1𝒦_i\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & \mathrm{any}\mu \hfill & \mathrm{and}\hfill & E>|\widehat{q}|\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
then the operators $`𝒥_i`$ and $`_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) will generate either a representation of the $`o(4)`$ algebra for the discrete energy spectrum in the domain $`E<|\widehat{q}|`$ or a representation of the $`o(3,1)`$ algebra for continuous spectrum in the domain $`E>|\widehat{q}|`$. The dynamical algebra $`e(3)`$ corresponds only to the ground energy of the continuous spectrum, $`E=|\widehat{q}|`$.

The manipulation of the dynamical algebras seems to be difficult in view of the complicate structure of their generators but in fact the calculations can be done at the level of Pauli operators because of the special properties of the common eigenspinors of $`H`$ and $`P_5`$. These have the form $`U_{E,\widehat{q}}=(u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)},u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(2)})^T`$ depending on two-component Pauli spinors which satisfy the equations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`E^2u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)},`$ (35)
$`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`E^1\sqrt{V}\pi u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)},`$ (36)
equivalent with the eigenvalue problem $`(HE)U_{E,\widehat{q}}=0`$. This means that $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}`$ may be any solution of the scalar equation (35) which is just the static Klein-Gordon equation in Taub-NUT geometry. Moreover, it is clear that $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(2)}`$ is completely determined by Eq.(36) if the form of $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}`$ is known. Since the Klein-Gordon equation is scalar, the form of the spinor $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}`$ and, therefore, that of $`U_{E,\widehat{q}}`$ is strongly dependent on the choice of the other observables included in the complete set of commuting operators which defines the quantum modes. Technically speaking, we have to start with the first Pauli spinor of the form $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}_\sigma f_\sigma \widehat{\xi }_\sigma `$ where $`\widehat{\xi }_\sigma `$ are the usual Pauli eigenspinors of polarizations $`\sigma =\pm 1/2`$ while $`f_\sigma `$ are scalar solutions of Eq.(35). The next step is to precise this linear combination with the help of the other conserved operators of the complete set of commuting operators and to write $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(2)}`$ according to (36). The action of these operators can be easily calculated using the mentioned general properties (15) of the diagonal operators or the structure of the off-diagonal ones . For example, it is not difficult to show that the action of the Runge-Lenz operator upon the energy eigenspinors is

$$\stackrel{}{𝒦}U_{E,\widehat{q}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill \stackrel{}{K}^{}u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}\\ \hfill E^1\sqrt{V}\pi \stackrel{}{K}^{}u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{K}^{}=\stackrel{}{K}+F\frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2},$$
(37)
which means that this reduces to the action of the new operator $`\stackrel{}{K}^{}`$ upon the first Pauli spinor. We say that $`\stackrel{}{K}^{}`$ is the Pauli operator associated with $`\stackrel{}{𝒦}`$. In fact, because of the central role played here by $`u_{E,\widehat{q}}^{(1)}`$, this property is general, each conserved observables having its own associated Pauli operator. Thus any problem of the Dirac theory in Taub-NUT background can be rewritten in terms of Pauli operators acting upon the first two-component spinors of the spinors $`U_{E,\widehat{q}}`$.

In order to illustrate how works this mechanism, let us study the representations of the $`o(4)`$ dynamical algebra of the discrete quantum modes of the Dirac field. As mentioned, these arise in the domain $`E<|\widehat{q}|`$, only when $`\mu <0`$, and have the same energy levels as the scalar Klein-Gordon (or Schrödinger)  equation,

$$E_n^2=\frac{2}{\mu ^2}\left[n\sqrt{n^2q^2}(n^2q^2)\right].$$
(38)
These are labeled only by the principal quantum number $`n`$ which takes all the integer values larger than $`|q|`$ . The quantization rule of the scalar modes is related to the irreducible unitary finite-dimensional representations of the $`o(4)`$ dynamical algebra generated by $`L_i`$ and the components of the re-scaled Runge-Lenz vector, $`R_i=F^1K_i`$. Since the second Casimir operator of this algebra is $`C_2=\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{R}=0`$, the first one, $`C_1=\stackrel{}{L}^2+\stackrel{}{R}^2`$, can take only the eigenvalues $`c_1=n^21`$ (with $`n>|q|`$) which give the energy levels (38). In terms of $`su(2)`$ weights these representations of $`o(4)su(2)\times su(2)`$ are denoted by $`(\frac{n1}{2},\frac{n1}{2})`$.

In the Dirac case the dynamical algebra is the same but its representations are generated by $`𝒥_i`$ and $`_i=^1𝒦_i`$. According to Eq.(37), these representations are equivalent with those generated by the associated Pauli operators $`J_i`$ and $`R_i^{}=F^1K_i^{}`$ acting upon the first Pauli spinor. However, since $`J_i=L_i+\sigma _i/2`$ and $`R_i^{}=R_i+\sigma _i/2`$, we draw the conclusion that the Dirac discrete modes are governed by the reducible representation

$$(\frac{n1}{2},\frac{n1}{2})(\frac{1}{2},0)=(\frac{n}{2},\frac{n1}{2})(\frac{n}{2}1,\frac{n1}{2}).$$
(39)
The Casimir operators, $`C_1^{}=\stackrel{}{J}^2+\stackrel{}{R^{}}^2`$ and $`C_2^{}=\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{R}^{}`$ take now the eigenvalues, $`c_1^{}`$ and $`c_2^{}`$, such that $`c_1^{}2c_2^{}=n^21`$ for both irreducible representations while $`c_2^{}=(2n+1)/4`$ for the representation $`(\frac{n}{2},\frac{n1}{2})`$ and $`c_2^{}=(2n1)/4`$ for the representation $`(\frac{n}{2}1,\frac{n1}{2})`$. This suggests us to use the new Pauli operator

$$C=2C_2^{}1/2=\sigma _R+\sigma _L+1,\sigma _R=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{R}$$
(40)
in order to distinguish between the irreducible representations resulted from the decomposition (39). The advantage is that this has the simplest eigenvalues, $`c=\pm n`$.

## 6 Discrete quantum modes

Since the energy levels $`E_n`$ are degenerated, we need to use complete sets of commuting operators for determining quantum modes. Fortunately the set of conserved observables is large enough to offer us many possibilities of choice. An appropriate option is to consider the natural modes involving only one irreducible representation of (39). The complete sets of commuting observables of these modes must include the operators $`H`$, $`P_5`$ and the new operator $`𝒞=2\stackrel{}{𝒥}\stackrel{}{}1/2`$ associated with the Pauli operator $`C`$ defined above. Then only two more operators we need for defining these Dirac quantum modes.

We say that the set $`\{H,P_5,𝒞,\stackrel{}{𝒥}^2,𝒥_3\}`$ defines the natural central modes. Its common eigenspinors, $`U_{n,\widehat{q},c,j,m_j}`$, correspond to the eigenvalues $`E_n`$, $`\widehat{q}`$, $`c`$, $`j(j+1)`$ and $`m_j`$. Another possibility is to take the set $`\{H,P_5,𝒞,_3,𝒥_3\}`$ of the natural axial modes the common eigenspinors of which, $`U_{n,\widehat{q},c,m_r,m_j}`$, correspond to the eigenvalues $`E_n`$, $`\widehat{q}`$, $`c`$, $`m_r`$ and $`m_j`$. On the other hand, our previous results  lead to the conclusion that there are simple modes having eigenspinors with separated variables. These are central and axial simple modes defined by the sets $`\{H,P_5,\stackrel{}{𝒥}^2,𝒥_3,𝒬(\sigma _L+1)\}`$ and $`\{H,P_5,_3,𝒥_3,Q_3\}`$ respectively, as it is shown in Appendix. Since neither $`𝒬(\sigma _L+1)`$ nor $`Q_3`$ do not commute with $`𝒞`$, it results that the natural modes do not have eigenspinors with separated variables. Therefore these must be linear combinations of the spinors of simple modes. Then it is interesting to try to write down these linear combinations using only the algebraic method based on the relation between Dirac and Pauli operators.

According to this method, we observe the first Pauli spinors, $`u_{n,\widehat{q},c,j,m_j}^{(1)}`$, of the eigenspinors $`U_{n,\widehat{q},c,j,m_j}`$ of the natural central modes must be the eigenspinors of the set $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },P_5,C,\stackrel{}{J}^2,J_3\}`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`E_n^2`$, $`\widehat{q}`$, $`c`$, $`j(j+1)`$ and $`m_j`$. On the other hand, the superalgebra

$$\{\sigma _R,\sigma _L+1\}=0,(\sigma _R)^2=C_1\stackrel{}{L}^2\sigma _L,$$
(41)
allows us to demonstrate that the first Pauli spinors of the eigenspinors of the simple central modes (A.1) have the remarkable property

$$\sigma _Ru_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^{(1)\pm }=\left[n^2\left(j+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}u_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^{(1)}.$$
(42)
Hereby it results that the Dirac eigenspinors of the natural central modes can be expressed as

$`U_{n,\widehat{q},c=\pm n,j,m_j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}}[\pm \sqrt{n\pm \left(j+\frac{1}{2}\right)}U_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^\pm `$ (43)
$`+\sqrt{n\left(j+\frac{1}{2}\right)}U_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^{}].`$
In the same way the eigenspinors of the natural axial modes can be expressed as linear combinations of the spinors of the simple axial modes presented in Appendix. As in previous case the calculations reduce to the eigenspinors of the set of Pauli operators $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },P_5,C,R_3^{},J_3\}`$ associated to that of the Dirac operators of the natural axial modes. Using the identity $`\{C,\sigma _3\}=2(R_3^{}+J_3)`$ it is not difficult to show that the eigenspinors of the natural axial modes are

$`U_{n,\widehat{q},c=\pm n,m_r,m_j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}}[\pm \sqrt{n\pm |m_r+m_j|}U_{n,\widehat{q},m_r,m_j}^\pm `$ (44)
$`+\sqrt{n|m_r+m_j|}U_{n,\widehat{q},m_r,m_j}^{}].`$
Thus we see that in the Dirac theory the algebraic method offers us the mechanisms of constructing new quantum modes having no separated variables. We can say that this method and that of separation of variables complete each other, helping us to find many types of different quantum modes related among themselves.

## 7 Concluding remarks

The aim of this paper was to complete the previous studies of the Dirac equation in Taub-NUT space . In the case of the Dirac equation the existence of the Killing-Yano tensors in the Taub-NUT geometry allowed us to construct some Dirac-type operators the anticommutators of which generate operators that commute with the standard Dirac one. We are attempting to find non-trivial operators of the Dirac theory connected with the hidden symmetry of the Taub-NUT space. These operators are constructed in Sec.4 and they represent the quantum analogue of the classical Runge-Lenz vector from the Kepler problem. Thus we get an example of gauge-invariant theory of Dirac fermions in a geometry with high manifest or hidden symmetries for which we can write all the corresponding conserved operators. The main consequence is that we can explicitly use the dynamical algebra for defining new quantum modes.

In the literature there is a detailed description of the classical geodesic motion for scalar particles and a quantum treatment through the Schrödinger equation in Taub-NUT space . On the other hand, the pseudo-classical limit of the Dirac theory of a spin$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermion in curved spacetime is described by supersymmetric extension of the ordinary relativistic point particle . In the pseudo-classical models the spin degrees of freedom are characterized in terms of anticommuting Grassmann variables. The constants of motion related to the symmetries of the manifold generally contain spin-dependent parts . It is interesting that these specific spin contributions are similar to the spin terms of the conserved operators of the quantum theory. A notable example is the spin contribution to the Runge-Lenz vector which re-confirms the result from pseudo-classical approach . Moreover, since both the pseudo-classical and the quantum theory are completely solvable, we have the opportunity to compare their physical meaning in all details.

## Appendix A: The simple discrete modes

The energy eigenspinors of the simple central modes have the form

$$U_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^\pm =\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^{(1)\pm }\hfill \\ u_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^{(2)\pm }\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill f_{n,q,j}^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{q,j,m_j}^\pm \\ \hfill h_{n,q,j}^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{q,j,m_j}^\pm +g_{n,q,j}^\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{q,j,m_j}^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(A.1)
where the radial functions $`f^\pm ,g^\pm `$ and $`h^\pm `$ depend only on $`r`$ while $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ are the two-component spherical spinors that solve the common eigenvalue problems of the Pauli operators $`Q=\mu P_5,\stackrel{}{J}^2`$, $`J_3`$ and $`\sigma _L+1`$ for the eigenvalues $`q=\mu \widehat{q},j(j+1)`$, $`m_j`$, and $`\pm (j+\frac{1}{2})`$, respectively . We observe that only the first Pauli spinor has separated variables. Its radial function, $`f`$, is a solution of the radial Klein-Gordon equation while the other two radial function arise from (36). The quantum numbers of these modes must satisfy the selection rule $`|q|<j+\frac{1}{2}<n`$. Thus we find that $`u_{n,\widehat{q},j,m_j}^{(1)\pm }`$ is the common eigenspinor of the set $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },P_5,\stackrel{}{J}^2,J_3,\sigma _L+1\}`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`E_n^2,\widehat{q},j(j+1),m_j`$ and $`\pm (j+\frac{1}{2})`$ respectively. This means that (A.1) is the common eigenspinor of the operators $`\{H,P_5,\stackrel{}{𝒥}^2,𝒥_3,𝒬(\sigma _L+1)\}`$ whose eigenvalues are $`E_n,\widehat{q},j(j+1),m_j`$ and $`\pm E_n(j+\frac{1}{2})`$.

The simple axial modes can be constructed in a similar way. We start with scalar common eigenfunctions $`f_{n,\widehat{q},\stackrel{~}{m},m}`$ of the commuting operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`P_5`$, $`R_3`$ and $`L_3`$, corresponding to the eigenvalues $`E_n^2`$, $`\widehat{q}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`m`$. These eigenfunction can be easily calculated in parabolic coordinates as the axial solutions of the Schrödinger equation , with the unique difference that the quantity $`2E`$ from the Schrödinger case must be replaced here by $`E^2`$. Furthermore, we construct the eigenspinors of the simple axial modes, $`U_{n,\widehat{q},m_r,m_j}^\pm `$, by choosing their first Pauli spinors as

$$u_{n,\widehat{q},m_r,m_j}^{(1)\pm }f_{n,\widehat{q},\stackrel{~}{m},m}^\pm \widehat{\xi }_{\sigma =\pm 1/2}$$
(A.2)
and calculating from (36) the second Pauli spinors that have no more separated variables. It is clear that (A.2) is the common eigenspinor of the set of Pauli operators $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },P_5,R_3^{},J_3,\sigma _3\}`$ associated with the Dirac ones from the set defining the simple axial modes. The eigenvalues of these operators are $`E_n^2`$, $`\widehat{q}`$, $`m_r=\stackrel{~}{m}+\sigma `$, $`m_j=m+\sigma `$ and $`\sigma `$. Consequently, $`U_{n,\widehat{q},m_r,m_j}^\pm `$ are the common eigenspinors of the set $`\{H,P_5,_3,𝒥_3,Q_3\}`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`E_n`$, $`\widehat{q}`$, $`m_r`$, $`m_j`$ and $`E_n\sigma `$.


text:
# Binned Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Power Spectra: Peak Location

## 1 Introduction

Current observational data favors low-density cosmogonies. The simplest low-density models have either flat spatial hypersurfaces and a constant or time-variable cosmological “constant” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see, e.g., Peebles 1984; Peebles & Ratra 1988; Sahni & Starobinsky 2000; Steinhardt 1999; Carroll 2000; Binétruy 2000), or open spatial hypersurfaces and no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see, e.g., Gott 1982, 1997; Ratra & Peebles 1994, 1995; Kamionkowski et al. 1994; Górski et al. 1998). Typically the CMB anisotropy power spectrum is predicted to peak at larger multipole moment $`\mathrm{}`$ (smaller angular scale) in the open case than in the flat model. This difference in the flat and open model power spectra makes it possible for CMB anisotropy measurements to distinguish between these models. See, e.g., Barreiro (2000), Rocha (1999), Page (1999), and Gawiser & Silk (2000) for recent reviews of the field.

Until very recently no single CMB anisotropy experiment achieved detections over a wide enough range of $`\mathrm{}`$ space to allow this cosmological test to be performed with data from a single experiment111 The recent BOOMERanG 1998 (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and MAXIMA-1 (Hanany et al. 2000) detections of CMB anisotropy do cover a wide enough range of $`\mathrm{}`$ space for the test. By including 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits on CMB anisotropy (see discussion below), the MAT 1998 (Miller et al. 1999), Viper (Peterson et al. 2000), and BOOMERanG 1997 (Mauskopf et al. 2000) observations also cover a wide enough range of $`\mathrm{}`$ space.. As a result the test has usually been performed as a goodness-of-fit ($`\chi ^2`$) comparison of CMB anisotropy model predictions and observations (Ganga, Ratra, & Sugiyama 1996)222 See Knox & Page (2000) for an alternate approach to this test.. In this implementation the test favors a flat model over an open one (see, e.g., Dodelson & Knox 2000; Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2000; Le Dour et al. 2000; Lange et al. 2001; Balbi et al. 2000, 2001; Amendola 2001). However, this $`\chi ^2`$ technique has a number of significant limitations, so these results must be viewed as tentative (see discussion in Ratra et al. 1999b).

Specifically, a $`\chi ^2`$ comparison does not use the complete data from an experiment. Rather, it uses one (or a few) number(s) (the amplitude of a chosen model CMB power spectrum, typically the flat bandpower spectrum) with error bars, as a summary of the complete data of the experiment. However, this amplitude (and error bars) is model dependent. This effect is typically $`10\%`$ for a data set with a good detection (see, e.g., Ganga et al. 1997a, 1998; Ratra et al. 1999a), but is not accounted for in the $`\chi ^2`$ comparison. More significantly, the observational error bars are derived from non-Gaussian posterior probability density distribution functions and are thus fairly asymmetric. Since the $`\chi ^2`$ technique assumes symmetric (Gaussian) error bars, the observational error bars must be symmetrized (“Gaussianized”) when this technique is used. This is an arbitrary procedure, and Gaussianizing in different ways leads to different reduced $`\chi ^2`$ values (Ganga et al. 1996). This means that the $`\chi ^2`$ technique can only provide qualitative results. Nevertheless, it is useful, having provided, from a combined analysis of all available early observational results (Ratra et al. 1997), qualitative evidence for more CMB anisotropy power on smaller scales than on larger scales (Ganga et al. 1996), consistent with later observations by single experiments (see, e.g., Netterfield et al. 1997; de Oliveira-Costa et al. 1998; Coble et al. 1999; Miller et al. 1999; Peterson et al. 2000; de Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanany et al. 2000).

Given that current observational error bars are asymmetric (i.e., non-Gaussian), robust results can only be derived from a complete maximum likelihood analysis of a large collection of observational data, using realistic model CMB anisotropy power spectra. This is a very time-consuming approach and so has been applied to only a few data sets (see, e.g., Bunn & Sugiyama 1995; Górski et al. 1995; Ganga et al. 1997a, 1997b; Stompor 1997; Ratra et al. 1998; Rocha et al. 1999). Ganga et al. (1997a) generalized the maximum likelihood technique to account for systematic errors (e.g., beamwidth uncertainty, calibration uncertainty). Analyzes using this generalized technique have led to significantly revised observational results.

The weighted mean and median statistics techniques are summarized in the next section. In $`\mathrm{\S }`$3 we use these techniques to determine binned CMB anisotropy power spectra using all CMB anisotropy measurements and in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4 we consider a culled collection of good measurements. We conclude in $`\mathrm{\S }`$5.

## 2 Binned CMB Anisotropy Power Spectra: Techniques

While tight constraints on cosmological parameters will be very valuable, it is also of interest to determine the shape of the observed CMB anisotropy spectrum in a model independent fashion. Since the error bars for experiments to date are large, a tight determination of the CMB anisotropy spectrum is possible only if all available data are used. This approach has been pioneered by Page (1997, 1999).

The data we use in this paper are listed in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1. We consider all detections at $`\mathrm{}<1000`$ available as of early November 2000. While we only use detections, defined as those results where the peak of the likelihood function is at least 2 $`\sigma `$ away from 0 $`\mu `$K, in our analyses here (and these are listed in Table 1), Figure 1 also shows 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits. Typically, the bandtemperature ($`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$) values listed in Table 1 have been derived assuming a flat bandpower spectrum and account for known systematic uncertainties (although in most cases only in an approximate manner). Since the flat bandpower spectrum is a more accurate representation of the true spectrum for narrower (in $`\mathrm{}`$) window functions, we use observational results for the narrowest windows available. Table 1 lists 142 detections.

To determine the observed CMB anisotropy spectrum, Page (1997, 1999) binned the detections into equally spaced logarithmic bins in $`\mathrm{}`$-space, based on the value of $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}`$, the effective multipole of the experiment’s window function $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$. Here $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}=I(\mathrm{}W_{\mathrm{}})/I(W_{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`I(W_{\mathrm{}})=_{\mathrm{}=2}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}+0.5)W_{\mathrm{}}/\{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\}`$. As discussed below, we instead choose to adjust the $`\mathrm{}`$-space widths of the bins so as to have approximately the same number of measurements in each bin. Page then Gaussianized the measurements333 Bond, Jaffe, & Knox (2000) discuss a more accurate approximation that retains some of the non-Gaussianity. by defining the error of a measurement, $`\sigma `$, to be half the difference between the upper and lower 1 $`\sigma `$ values of $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the measurement. The standard expression for the weighted mean in bin $`B`$ is

$$\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_B}{}}(\delta T_{\mathrm{}})_i/\sigma _i^2}{_{i=1}^{N_B}1/\sigma _i^2},$$
(1)
where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}N_B`$ indexes the $`N_B`$ measurements in the bin with bandtemperature central values $`(\delta T_{\mathrm{}})_i`$ (where the likelihood is at a maximum) and Gaussianized errors $`\sigma _i`$. The (internal) error estimate for each bin is

$$\sigma ^B=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_B}{}}1/\sigma _i{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}.$$
(2)
To plot the observed CMB anisotropy power spectrum, Page places $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ at the arithmetic mean of the $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}`$ values of the measurements that lie in the bin. We choose instead to use the weighted mean of the $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}`$ values,

$$\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}^B=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_B}{}}(\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e})_i/\sigma _i^2}{_{i=1}^{N_B}1/\sigma _i^2}.$$
(3)
Since the weighted mean technique assumes Gaussian errors, one may compute a goodness-of-fit parameter, $`\chi _B^2`$, for each bin,

$$\chi _B^2=\frac{1}{N_B1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_B}{}}\frac{\left((\delta T_{\mathrm{}})_i\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B\right)^2}{\sigma _i^2}.$$
(4)
$`\chi _B`$ has expected value unity with error $`1/\sqrt{2(N_B1)}`$, so

$$N_\sigma ^B=|\chi _B1|\sqrt{2(N_B1)}$$
(5)
is the number of standard deviations that $`\chi _B`$ deviates from unity. A large value of $`N_\sigma ^B`$ could indicate the presence of unaccounted-for systematic uncertainties, the invalidity of the Gaussian assumption, or the presence of significant correlations between the measurements.

An alternate method for deriving the observed CMB anisotropy spectrum is the median statistics approach developed by Gott et al. (2001). Here one does not assume that the measurement errors are Gaussian, or even that the magnitudes of the errors are known. One assumes only that the measurements are independent and free of systematic errors. The technique is discussed in detail in Gott et al. (2001). In brief, for each bin in $`\mathrm{}`$-space we construct a likelihood function for the true median of the binned measurements444 As described in Gott et al. (2001), this is a histogram that gives the relative probability of obtaining $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$. In principle, the highest $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$-space bin in this histogram extends to $`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mu `$K; in practice we have picked the width of this bin to be the same as the width of the lowest $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$-space bin in the histogram. This prescription controls the large $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$ divergence when we integrate over the likelihood function with a logarithmic prior (see below). We have ensured that each $`\mathrm{}`$-space bin contains a sufficient number of measurements so that the upper 2 $`\sigma `$ limit on $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ always lies below the highest $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$-space bin. Therefore the upper 2 $`\sigma `$ limit on $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ is insensitive to the procedure used to control the large-$`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$ divergence. and then integrate over this with a logarithmic prior to determine the error bars for the bin. We use a logarithmic prior since $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$ is positive definite (see discussion in Gott et al. 2001). We have checked that a linear prior leads to qualitatively similar conclusions, with generally only small quantitative differences. In this case $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ is the median measurement, which is defined to be the mean of the two central measurements if the bin contains an even number of measurements. Since we determine limits on $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ in each $`\mathrm{}`$-space bin by integrating the likelihood function for the bin, for accurate 2 $`\sigma `$ limits we need to ensure that enough measurements lie in each bin. Consequentially, in contrast to Page (1997, 1999), we adjust the widths of the bins so that each of them contain about the same number of measurements, with precise bin membership determined by where breaks occur in the $`\mathrm{}`$-space distribution of the measurements of Table 1. And, instead of plotting $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ at the weighted mean of the $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}`$ values of the measurements in the bin, in the median-statistics case we use the median of the $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}`$ values in the bin. Since the median statistics technique ignores the individual measurement errors there is no obvious way of checking the internal goodness of fit of the derived median-statistics CMB anisotropy power spectrum.

## 3 Binned CMB Anisotropy Power Spectra Using All Measurements

We first consider four different binnings, with about 9, 11, 13, and 16 measurements in each $`\mathrm{}`$-space bin. Tables 2 and 3 list results from the weighted-mean and median-statistics analyses. In the median-statistics case, the logarithmic prior makes the integral of the likelihood function diverge at large and at small $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$. We discuss our prescription for controlling the large-$`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$ divergence in footnote 7. To control the small-$`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$ divergence we cut off the integral at small $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$, with the cutoff chosen so that the lower 2 $`\sigma `$ limit is insensitive to it (see footnote b of Table 3 for the numerical value of the cutoff used). Figures 2 and 3 show the weighted-mean and median-statistics observed CMB anisotropy power spectra.

The weighted mean analysis (Figure 2 and Table 2) results in tight constraints on the observed CMB anisotropy power spectrum, and clearly establishes that it has a peak. For three of the four binnings used this is a rather broad peak555 We define the interval in which the peak lies by the $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{e}^B`$ values of those bins whose amplitudes are within $`90\%`$ of the maximum $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ value, for the weighted-mean central value and the $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ and $`\pm `$2 $`\sigma `$ limits., and lies in the interval $`\mathrm{}170240`$ (for 9 measurements per bin, Figure 2$`a`$), $`\mathrm{}180210`$ (for 11 measurements per bin, Figure 2$`b`$), and $`\mathrm{}190240`$ (for 13 measurements per bin, Figure 2$`c`$). For the case of 16 measurements per bin the peak consists of a single bin at $`\mathrm{}210`$. As expected, the CMB anisotropy power spectrum has less scatter as a function of $`\mathrm{}`$ when the number of bins is decreased.

We have not considered upper limits in our analyses. From Figure 2 we see that at least four of these are quite constraining and if correct they could significantly affect the shape of the observed power spectrum when accounted for. These are the $`\mathrm{}=15`$, 16, and 20 DMR upper limits and the $`\mathrm{}=138.7`$ MAX5 $`\mu `$ Pegasi upper limit. The DMR results are derived from the galactic frame maps and ignore the Galactic emission correction (Górski 1997; Górski et al. 1998). Therefore they do not account for the full uncertainty in the DMR data. Our analyses also ignore the correlations between the different DMR $`\mathrm{}`$-space results. To derive the MAX5 $`\mu `$ Pegasi upper limit Ganga et al. (1998) marginalized over a possible dust contaminant signal. Ganga et al. (1998) concluded that the MAX5 $`\mu `$ Pegasi upper limit was not inconsistent with the other MAX4 and MAX5 results they studied666 Note from Figure 1 that in the MAX5 $`\mu `$ Pegasi upper limit region of $`\mathrm{}`$-space there are a number of detections with low $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}`$. These are responsible for the prominent drop in this bin in Figure 2, especially in panels $`b`$ and $`c`$.. It is quite possible that knowledge of the dust contaminant signal is less than adequate for the purpose of extracting a robust constraint on the CMB data in this case. It is troubling that three published 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits lie at or below the central weighted mean values derived from published detection results.

More worrisome are the large values of $`N_\sigma ^B`$ (the dashed line in each panel of Figure 2 and the last column of Table 2) for some of the bins. For a Gaussian CMB anisotropy, $`N_\sigma ^B`$ is a measure of how well the weighted mean and derived bin error bar represents the measurements that lie in the bin. This is larger than 2 (i.e., $`\chi _B`$ is more than 2 $`\sigma `$ away from what is expected for a Gaussian distribution) for 5 of 16 bins for the 9 measurements per bin case (bin numbers 1, 5, 8, 9, and 15), for 4 of 13 bins for the 11 measurements per bin case (bin numbers 1, 4, 8, and 12, and for bin number 11 $`N_\sigma ^B=1.9`$), for 3 of 11 bins for the 13 measurements per bin case (bin numbers 1, 7, and 10), and for 3 of 9 bins for the 16 measurements per bin case (bin numbers 1, 5, and 8). Note that $`N_\sigma ^B<1.6`$ for $`\mathrm{}`$-space bins in the peak intervals discussed above (see Table 2).

Since at least two-thirds of the bins have small $`N_\sigma ^B`$ it is unlikely that the CMB anisotropy is non-Gaussian. The large values of $`N_\sigma ^B`$ are more likely caused by unaccounted-for foreground contamination, or other effects that lead to underestimated error bars on some of the measurements, and our neglect of correlations between some of the measurements. Since the second effect is thought to be small, the first effect is probably the dominant one. It is important to note that this inconsistency implies that constraints on cosmological parameters derived from $`\chi ^2`$ comparisons of multiple CMB anisotropy observations and model predictions must be interpreted with care.

The median statistics technique does not make use of the error bars on the measurements. Therefore it is ideally suited for an analysis of this combination of CMB anisotropy data. The median statistics analyses result in somewhat weaker constraints on the observed CMB anisotropy detections power spectrum (Figure 3 and Table 3), but still clearly establish that it has a peak. The median-statistics peak interval is slightly broader and extends to slightly smaller angular scales than the weighted-mean peak interval. The median-statistics peak lies in the interval $`\mathrm{}160250`$ (for 9 measurements per bin, Figure 3$`a`$), $`\mathrm{}150260`$ (for 11 measurements per bin, Figure 3$`b`$), $`\mathrm{}180240`$ (for 13 measurements per bin, Figure 3$`c`$), and $`\mathrm{}200290`$ (for 16 measurements per bin, Figure 3$`d`$). It is significant that the median-statistics constraints on $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ are significantly weaker than the weighted-mean constraints on $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}^B`$ for those bins with large $`N_\sigma ^B`$ values from the weighted mean analysis. We note that, although the median-statistics constraints are weaker, the median-statistics power spectra of detections are also inconsistent with the three 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits that are a problem for the weighted-mean power spectra.

## 4 Binned CMB Anisotropy Power Spectra Using “Good” Measurements Only

In the weighted mean analyses of the previous section we found that a number of $`\mathrm{}`$-space bins had large values of $`N_\sigma ^B`$. We argued that these large $`N_\sigma ^B`$ values were likely the consequence of underestimated error bars on some of the measurements.

To examine this issue we proceed as follows. For each binning in the weighted mean analysis above (i.e., with 9, 11, 13, and 16 measurements per bin) we compute the (“reduced $`\chi ^2`$”) contribution to $`\chi _B^2`$ (eq. ) from each measurement in the bin, $`\chi _{B,i}^2`$, where $`\chi _B^2=_{i=1}^{N_B}\chi _{B,i}^2`$. We then list the measurements in decreasing order of $`\chi _{B,i}^2`$ and discard the first seven that appear in at least 3 of the 4 binnings used. These “discrepant” measurements are listed in Table 4. While this procedure need not necessarily result in reducing all large $`N_\sigma ^B`$ values, it has the advantage of being less binning dependent than a procedure designed solely to reduce large $`N_\sigma ^B`$ values to values that are consistent with the Gaussianity assumption.

We first discuss the discrepant measurements of Table 4. As mentioned above, the DMR results do not account for the full uncertainty in the DMR data (Górski 1997; Gorski et al. 1998), and our analyses also ignore correlations between the different DMR $`\mathrm{}`$-space measurements. These effects might explain why the DMR measurements in Table 4 are discrepant. The value of the cosmological DMR quadrupole ($`\mathrm{}=2`$) moment is dependent on the model used to remove foreground Galactic emission (Kogut et al. 1996), and this effect might also contribute to explaining why the DMR $`\mathrm{}=2`$ moment is discrepant. The low MAX3 $`\mu `$ Pegasi result (Meinhold et al. 1993, as recomputed by J. Gundersen, private communication 1995, see Ratra et al. 1997) is from a region that is contaminated with dust, and this effect could explain why this measurement is discrepant. While the MAT97 Ka2 8-point and Q3 8-point results (Torbet et al. 1999) are higher than neighboring measurements in $`\mathrm{}`$-space (see Table 1), we do not know of an effect that might be responsible for making them discrepant. The MSAM 2-beam combined result is from a combined analysis of data from three different flights (Wilson et al. 2000). We note that the three individual MSAM 2-beam results have significant scatter (which seems to be larger than what one might expect from their error bars, see Table 1 of Wilson et al. 2000, unlike the MSAM 3-beam results). It is unclear what causes this scatter, but it is likely that this effect is responsible for placing the MSAM 2-beam measurement among those that are discrepant. We again emphasize that the measurements in Table 4 are discrepant only if the CMB anisotropy is Gaussian. In particular, the posterior probability distribution function of the DMR quadrupole is somewhat non-Gaussian (Hinshaw et al. 1996), and this effect also contributes to explaining this discrepancy.

After removing the seven most discrepant measurements we rebin the remaining 135 measurements, using four different binnings, with about 9, 11, 13, and 15 measurements per $`\mathrm{}`$-space bin. We then analyze this culled data set using both the weighted-mean and median-statistics techniques. Tables 5 and 6 and Figures 4 and 5 show the results from these analyses.

The weighted mean analyses (Figure 4 and Table 5) again result in tight constraints on the observed CMB anisotropy power spectrum and again clearly establish the presence of a peak. This is again a rather broad peak that lies in the interval $`\mathrm{}170240`$ (for 9 measurements per bin, Figure 4$`a`$), $`\mathrm{}170260`$ (for 11 measurements per bin, Figure 4$`b`$), $`\mathrm{}200250`$ (for 13 measurements per bin, Figure 4$`c`$), and $`\mathrm{}170220`$ (for 15 measurements per bin, Figure 4$`d`$). After removal of the discrepant measurements of Table 4, the weighted-mean observed CMB anisotropy power spectra have less scatter (compare Figures 4 and 2). There remains the problem of 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits that lie below the observed spectrum of the detections, and in particular the $`\mathrm{}=138.7`$ MAX5 $`\mu `$ Pegasi upper limit is now more inconsistent with the observed spectrum of detections (see Figure 4).

While the culled data results in many fewer large $`N_\sigma ^B`$ values (the dashed line in each panel of Figure 4 and the last column in Table 5), some bins still contain data that appear to be discrepant (i.e., the weighted mean is more than 2 $`\sigma `$ away from what is expected for a Gaussian distribution). $`N_\sigma ^B`$ is larger than 2 for the penultimate of 15 bins for the 9 measurements per bin case, for bin 6 and 11 (of 12) for the 11 measurements per bin case, for the penultimate of 10 bins for the 13 measurements per bin case, and for the penultimate of 9 bins for the 15 measurements per bin case. In the penultimate bins, the most discrepant measurements are SK95 C15 and MAT98 G9 (for 9 measurements per bin), SK95 C15 and MAXIMA-1 4 (for 11 measurements per bin), BOOMERanG98 8 and SK95 C13 (for 13 measurements per bin), and BOOMERanG98 7, SK95 C12 and C13, the last two being equally discrepant (for 15 measurements per bin). The two most discrepant measurements in bin 6 for the 11 measurements per bin case are MAX5 HR5127 6 cm-1 and MAT97 Ka2 7-point. It would be useful to understand why these measurements appear discrepant.

While it is possible to remove apparently discrepant measurements from the already culled data set to reduce $`N_\sigma ^B`$ below 2 for all bins, it is not clear what is gained from this. Clearly, some published CMB anisotropy measurements are mutually inconsistent, if the CMB anisotropy is Gaussian and correlations between measurements are not large. It would thus appear to be dangerous to draw conclusions about the exact position of the peak in the CMB anisotropy spectrum on the basis of the weighted mean analyses alone. Furthermore, $`\chi ^2`$ comparisons between CMB anisotropy measurements and model predictions (to constrain cosmological parameter values) are based on both the above assumptions. Such $`\chi ^2`$ analyses of collections of CMB anisotropy measurements most likely include mutually inconsistent measurements, and so, without more careful investigation, results based on such analyses must be viewed as tentative, at best.

The median statistics results for the culled data set are shown in Figure 5 (also see Table 6). Once again, the median statistics analyses result in somewhat weaker constraints on the observed CMB anisotropy detections power spectrum than do the weighted mean analyses, but still clearly establish the presence of a peak. The median-statistics peak interval is broader and typically extends more to somewhat smaller angular scales than the weighted-mean peak interval. The median-statistics peak lies in the interval $`\mathrm{}150280`$ (for 9 measurements per bin, Figure 5$`a`$), $`\mathrm{}170260`$ (for 11 measurements per bin, Figure 5$`b`$), $`\mathrm{}150240`$ (for 13 measurements per bin, Figure 5$`c`$), and $`\mathrm{}170300`$ (for 15 measurements per bin, Figure 5$`d`$). The median-statistics power spectra of CMB anisotropy detections are still inconsistent with some of the 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits (see Figure 5).

Comparing the median-statistics observed CMB anisotropy detections power spectra to model predictions (Figure 5), we see that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$ flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ fiducial CDM inflation models are not inconsistent with the 2 $`\sigma `$ range of the observations. While the fiducial CDM model might have slightly lower power than is favored by the observations at $`\mathrm{}200`$ and at $`\mathrm{}400`$, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$ open CDM inflation model has significantly lower power than is indicated by the observations at $`\mathrm{}100`$ and at $`\mathrm{}150250`$. We emphasize however that the observations at $`\mathrm{}300500`$ are quite consistent with the (first peak of the) open model, and the error bars here are large enough for the observations to be consistent with the presence of a second peak in the flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and fiducial CDM cases. Note that results derived using the weighted mean technique (Figure 4) are inconsistent with these predictions, i.e., at $`\mathrm{}300500`$ the weighted mean analyses rule out a first peak in the open case and a second peak in the flat models.

## 5 Conclusions

We extend Page’s (1997, 1999) weighted mean technique and use it to determine the binned observed CMB anisotropy detection power spectrum. Given the observational error bars, the binned power spectra in a number of bins are not a good representation of the measurements. Moreover, there are a number of 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits that are inconsistent with the binned power spectra of detections. A number of effects could explain these results, but we suspect that a major one is improperly accounted for or inadequately modelled systematic effects, especially foreground emission contamination, with correlations between some measurements playing a smaller role.

These results have two important ramifications. First, constraints on cosmological parameters derived from $`\chi ^2`$ comparisons between CMB anisotropy model predictions and measurements must be interpreted with great care. And certainly a full maximum likelihood comparison (e.g., Ratra et al. 1999b) is to be preferred. Second, it is important to reanalyze observational data and account for systematic and other effects that may have been ignored in the initial analyses (see Ganga et al. 1997a for the general technique and Ratra et al. 1998, 1999a for cases where a more careful accounting of such effects have led to significant revisions of the observational results).

We have focussed on two methods for dealing with the inconsistencies identified by the weighted mean analyses. We have used the median statistics technique developed by Gott et al. (2001) to determine an observed CMB anisotropy detections power spectrum. This method makes fewer assumptions than the weighted mean technique (see discussion in Gott et al. 2001). In particular, it completely ignores the error bars on the individual measurements. The median statistics method results in somewhat weaker constraints on the observed CMB anisotropy power spectrum than does the weighted mean technique (compare Figures 3 and 2). If the CMB anisotropy is Gaussian, and if correlations between measurements are small (as is expected for the data we have used), then the weaker median-statistics constraints on the observed CMB anisotropy power spectrum is another indication that the error bars on some measurements might be too small (given the scatter in their central values).

To test the impact of outliers, we remove the seven most discrepant measurements (with largest reduced $`\chi ^2`$ values, as discussed above) and determine a weighted-mean observed CMB anisotropy power spectrum (for the culled data set with 135 measurements). The resultant power spectrum of detections is a much better fit for most (but not all) bins but it is still inconsistent with some of the 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits. A median statistics analysis of the culled data set again results in significantly weaker constraints on the observed power spectrum.

In summary, our analyses show that if the CMB anisotropy is Gaussian, and if correlations between measurements are not significant, some observational results are mutually inconsistent. Until this issue is resolved it is not possible to determine a robust observational CMB anisotropy power spectrum, much less constrain cosmological parameters from $`\chi ^2`$ comparisons of theoretical predictions and observational results. While the open CDM model is not inconsistent with observational data at $`\mathrm{}300500`$, it predicts significantly less power than is seen at $`\mathrm{}150250`$. If foregrounds do not contribute significantly to the data at $`\mathrm{}150250`$, the spatially-flat model must be favored significantly over the open one. This result is consistent with other observational data that are compatible with a flat model with a time-variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see, e.g., Ratra & Peebles 1988; Haiman, Mohr, & Holder 2000; Podariu & Ratra 2000; González-Díaz 2000; Chimento, Jakubi, & Pavoń 2000; Tye & Wasserman 2001; Hebecker & Wetterich 2001; Podariu, Nugent, & Ratra 2001; Barger & Marfatia 2001). Unlike the weighted-mean results, the median-statistics results do not rule out a second peak in the CMB anisotropy at $`\mathrm{}400500`$.

We acknowledge very valuable discussions with L. Page. We have benefited from the advice and assistance of K. Coble, D. Cottingham, P. de Bernardis, M. Devlin, S. Dicker, K. Ganga, K. Górski, G. Griffin, J. Gundersen, S. Hanany, S. Hancock, E. Leitch, M. Lim, P. Mukherjee, B. Netterfield, L. Piccirillo, S. Platt, D. Pogosyan, G. Rocha, J. Ruhl, R. Stompor, N. Sugiyama, S. Tanaka, E. Torbet, and G. Tucker. SP, BR, and TS acknowledge support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031. JRG acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-9900772. MSV acknowledges support from the AAS Small Research Grant program, from John Templeton Foundation grant 938-COS302, and from NSF grant AST-0071201.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

* CMB anisotropy bandtemperature predictions and observational results, as a function of multipole $`\mathrm{}`$. Colored hatched regions are adiabatic CDM model predictions for what would be seen by a series of ideal, Kronecker-delta window-function, experiments. (That is, the model predictions do not account for the experiment window functions.) These are for baryonic density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.0125h^2`$ (where the Hubble constant $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1) and are normalized to the $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ range allowed by the DMR measurements (Górski et al. 1998; Stompor 1997). Green is a flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model with nonrelativistic matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$ and $`h=0.6`$, red is an open model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$ and $`h=0.65`$, and blue is fiducial CDM with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ and $`h=0.5`$. “Points” with different symbols represent observational results. Since most of the smaller-scale data points are derived assuming a flat bandpower CMB anisotropy angular spectrum, which is more accurate for narrower (in $`\mathrm{}`$) window functions, we have shown the observational results from the narrowest windows available. Open symbols with inserted solid inverted triangles are 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits. There are 37 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits but 17 of these lie above $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}=120`$ $`\mu `$K and so are not shown on the plot. (In those cases for which a proper 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limit has not been quoted by the observational group we have simply doubled the quoted 1 $`\sigma `$ upper error bar. Such approximate 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits likely underestimate the true 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits. Note that the two upper limits with $`\delta T_{\mathrm{}}<58\mu `$K at $`\mathrm{}400`$ fall in to this category.) Detections have $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ vertical error bars. There are 142 detections but 2 of them (SK94Q9 and SK95C15) lie off the top of the plot. Horizontal “error bars” represent the width of the corresponding window functions. These data will eventually be available at www.phys.ksu.edu/$``$tarun/CMBwindows/wincomb/wincomb\_tf.html. The data shown are from the DMR galactic frame maps ignoring the Galactic emission correction (Górski 1997, open octagons with $`\mathrm{}20`$); FIRS (Bond 1995, solid pentagon); Tenerife (Gutiérrez et al. 2000, open five-point star); Python I–III and V (Rocha et al. 1999 and T. Souradeep, private communication 2000, open six-point stars); BOOMERanG 1997 and 1998 (Mauskopf et al. 2000; de Bernardis et al. 2000, open four-point stars); IAC–Bartol (Femenía et al. 1998, open four-point diamond); Saskatoon 1993–95 (Netterfield et al. 1997, open squares); UCSB South Pole 1994 (Ganga et al. 1997a, solid circles); BAM (Tucker et al. 1997, open circle); MAT 1997 and 1998 (Torbet et al. 1999; Miller et al. 1999, open pentagons); MAXIMA-1 (Hanany et al. 2000, skeletal stars); QMAP 1 and 2 (Devlin et al. 1998; Herbig et al. 1998, solid pentagons); ARGO Hercules (Ratra et al. 1999a, solid square); Jodrell Bank–IAC (Dicker et al. 1999; Harrison et al. 2000, solid hexagons); Viper (Peterson et al. 2000, open seven-point stars); MAX3–5, (J. Gundersen, private communication, 1995; S. Tanaka private communication 1995; Ganga et al. 1998, open hexagons); MSAM combined (Wilson et al. 2000, solid four-sided diamonds); CAT 1 and 2 (G. Rocha, private communication, 1997; Baker et al. 1999, open four-sided diamonds); OVRO (Leitch et al. 2000, open five-point star); and White Dish (Ratra et al. 1998, open pentagon).
* CMB anisotropy bandtemperature predictions (colored hatched regions — models are described in the caption of Figure 1), binned weighted-mean observational detection data for all 142 measurements (solid black points connected by a solid black line are the central values and the other four solid black lines are the $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ and $`\pm `$2 $`\sigma `$ limits), 10 times the number of standard deviations the weighted-mean result deviates from what is expected on the basis of Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy (dashed line), and observational 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits, all as a function of multipole $`\mathrm{}`$. Note that the model predictions here (and in subsequent figures) have not been processed in the same manner as the observational data. This is because the window functions of some experiments are not available.
* CMB anisotropy bandtemperature predictions (colored hatched regions — models are described in the caption of Figure 1), binned median-statistics observational detection data for all 142 measurements (solid black points connected by a solid black line are the central values and the other four solid black lines are the $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ and $`\pm `$2 $`\sigma `$ limits), and observational 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits, all as a function of multipole $`\mathrm{}`$.
* CMB anisotropy bandtemperature predictions (colored hatched regions — models are described in the caption of Figure 1), binned weighted-mean observational detection data for the culled data with 135 measurements (solid black points connected by a solid black line are the central values and the other four solid black lines are the $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ and $`\pm `$2 $`\sigma `$ limits), 10 times the number of standard deviations the weighted-mean result deviates from what is expected on the basis of Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy (dashed line), and observational 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits, all as a function of multipole $`\mathrm{}`$.
* CMB anisotropy bandtemperature predictions (colored hatched regions — models are described in the caption of Figure 1), binned median-statistics observational detection data for the culled data with 135 measurements (solid black points connected by a solid black line are the central values and the other four solid black lines are the $`\pm `$1 $`\sigma `$ and $`\pm `$2 $`\sigma `$ limits), and observational 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limits, all as a function of multipole $`\mathrm{}`$.


text:
# Quantum phase gate with a selective interaction

\[

## Abstract

We present a proposal for implementing quantum phase gates using selective interactions. We analize selectivity and the possibility to implement these gates in two particular systems, namely, trapped ions and Cavity QED.

\]

Quantum computers would perform certain tasks, such as factoring a number and searching a data in a array, faster than a classical computer . The core of quantum computing are the quantum logic gates. In fact, it is known that any quantum computation can be reduced to a sequence of universal two qubit logic gates and one qubit local operations . Since the original formulation of quantum computation, a number of experimental systems have been proposed as candidates for the practical implementation of these quantum gates. We may mention trapped ions , cavity QED , liquid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) , quantum dots , optical lattices , among others. These systems have shown to be good enough not only for testing quantum logic gates but also for some basic quantum operations with a few qubits. For example, the realization of quantum logic gates in trapped ions , cavity QED  and NMR  have already been possible. The aim of the mentioned experiments was essentially the practical realization in a bipartite system of two equivalent kinds of universal two qubit logic gates: a quantum controlled not gate (CNOT) and a quantum phase gate (QPG) . The CNOT gate and the QPG differ from each other only by local operations (single qubit rotations). In a given bipartite system, consisting of the so called control and target qubits, a CNOT operation changes the target qubit state only if the control qubit state is in a specific state. Explicitly, a CNOT operation acting on the initial arbitrary state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |,+\beta |,+\gamma |,+\delta |,`$ (1)
produces

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\alpha |,+\beta |,+\gamma |,+\delta |,,`$ (2)
where the first label in the kets refers to the control qubit and the second one refers to the target qubit. On the other hand, a QPG acting on the same initial state produces

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }=\alpha |,+\beta |,+\gamma |,+\delta |,.`$ (3)
It can be easily seen that a QPG can act as a CNOT gate if we rotate the target bit before and after operating the gate, according to the following steps

i) A single qubit rotation in the target qubit

$`||=[||]/\sqrt{2}`$ (4)
$`||+=[|+|]/\sqrt{2},`$ (5)
also known as Hadamard gate.

ii) A QPG.

iii) Another Hadamard rotation in the target qubit.

Because of their fundamental interest, in quantum logic tests as well as in the search of scalable quantum computing, it is always useful to find ways of implementing CNOT and QPG gates in the laboratory. This fact motivated a number of proposals for realizing such gates in different quantum systems. The main problem these systems face, when scalability is the goal, is decoherence. For the quantum computing schemes to work it is essential to keep coherence of the qubits themselves and among them. However, when the dimension of the system and the number of operations increase decoherence effects can become more and more important. Therefore, simplifying the operations on the qubits  as well as making faster logic gates  are the main purpose of many of these works.

In this paper, we will be concerned with turning the computational process simpler: we propose the use of a selective interaction that would realize a quantum phase gate with a single pulse, i.e., without changing experimental parameters during the process. We will discuss our method in a trapped ions system and in the domain of CQED.

First, we will consider an array of N ions of mass $`m`$ in a Paul trap. The ions will be treated as two level systems that interact with each other through a coulombian force, so that collective vibrational modes can be conveniently introduced . The manipulation of both electronic states and vibrational collective modes can be done by means of laser beams tuned to appropriate frequencies.

Our task is then to produce an interaction that performs the transformation described in Eq. (3). This interaction must act effectively on two chosen ions ($`j`$ and $`k`$) in the array, ion $`j`$ being the control qubit and ion $`k`$ the target qubit. To achieve this, we address ion $`j`$ with a Raman laser pair described by the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}_I=\stackrel{}{E}_{oI}e^{i(qz\omega _It)}`$ and ion $`k`$ with another Raman laser pair described by the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}_{II}=\stackrel{}{E}_{oII}e^{i(qz\omega _{II}t)}`$ (see Fig. 1). The Raman systems have different effective frequencies, $`\omega _I`$ and $`\omega _{II}`$, that are quasiresonant to an electronic transition associated with the angular frequency $`\omega _o`$. The Hamiltonian corresponding to this situation is

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_o+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}},`$ (6)
with

$`\widehat{H}_o=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _o\left(\widehat{S}_{+j}\widehat{S}_j+\widehat{S}_{+k}\widehat{S}_k\right)`$ (8)
$`+\mathrm{}\nu \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{}\nu _n\widehat{b}_n^{}\widehat{b}_n`$
and

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\{(\widehat{S}_{+j}+\widehat{S}_j)(e^{i(q\widehat{z}_j\omega _It)}+e^{i(q\widehat{z}_j\omega _It)})`$ (10)
$`+(\widehat{S}_{+k}+\widehat{S}_k)(e^{i(q\widehat{z}_k\omega _{II}t)}+e^{i(q\widehat{z}_k\omega _{II}t)})\}`$
Here, $`\widehat{S}_{+i}=|_i_i|`$, $`\widehat{S}_i=|_i_i|`$ and the state $`|_i`$ ($`|_i`$) corresponds to the $`i`$-th ion in the excited (fundamental) state. $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ ($`\widehat{a}`$) is the creation (annihilation) operator associated with the harmonic oscillation, with frequency $`\nu `$, of the CM mode. $`\widehat{b}_n^{}`$ ($`\widehat{b}_n`$) is the creation (annihilation) operator associated with the harmonic oscillation, with frequency $`\nu _n`$, of the other collective modes. All frequencies $`\nu _n`$ are bigger than $`\nu `$ . $`\widehat{z}_j`$ and $`\widehat{z}_k`$ are the operators corresponding to the positions of the ions $`j`$ and $`k`$, respectively, and can be rewritten as linear combinations of the operators corresponding to the collective coordinates. $`\widehat{H}_o`$ is the free Hamiltonian that corresponds to the internal energy of the two ions plus the energy of the CM mode and of the other collective modes. $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian describing the position dependent dipolar interaction of ions $`j`$ and $`k`$ with the two Raman beams.

We choose the frequencies $`\omega _I`$ and $`\omega _{II}`$ to be quasiresonant to the first upper CM sideband and to the carrier, respectively. Specifically, $`\omega _I=\omega _o+\nu \delta `$ and $`\omega _I=\omega _o+\delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is the detuning of each Raman beam with respect to the mentioned resonant vibronic transitions, such that $`\omega _I+\omega _{II}=2\omega _o+\nu `$. Similarly to what was done in , the Hamiltonian in Eq. (10) can be expanded in terms of creation and anihilation operators of the normal modes and rewritten in the interaction picture. Then, following the standard procedure described in , we can make the rotating wave approximation (RWA) and discard the terms that oscillate with higher frequencies in the dispersive limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\delta \nu `$. In this way, the following effective time independent Hamiltonian

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_o\widehat{G}_o^2\{i\eta \widehat{S}_{+j}\widehat{S}_{+k}\mathrm{e}^{2i\varphi }[\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{F}_o\widehat{F}_o\widehat{a}^{}]\widehat{F}_1`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{S}_{+j}\widehat{S}_j[\eta ^2\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{F}_1^2\widehat{a}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{S}_j\widehat{S}_{+j}[\eta ^2\widehat{F}_1\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{F}_1]`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{S}_{+k}\widehat{S}_k[\widehat{F}_o^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{S}_k\widehat{S}_{+k}[\widehat{F}_o^2]+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.\}`$ (13)
can be derived, as was done in . Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\delta }`$ and $`\eta =q\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2Nm\nu }`$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter associated to the CM motion. The functions

$`\widehat{F}_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}f(n)|nn|,`$ (14)
with

$`f(n)=e^{\eta ^2/2}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(n+k)!}}L_n^k(\eta ^2),`$ (15)
where $`L_n^k(\eta ^2)`$ are the generalized Laguerre polynomials, can always be written in terms of the CM mode number operator $`\widehat{n}`$. $`\widehat{G}_o`$ is a similar non-linear function involving the number operators related to all other normal modes. The exact form of function $`\widehat{G}_o`$ is irrelevant in our case, since we will suppose in this paper that all collective modes are cooled down to the ground state and that only the CM mode will be excited. In this case $`\widehat{G}_o`$ contributes to the effective Rabi frequency with only a constant numerical factor of the order of $`1`$. The first term of $`H_{eff}`$ and its Hermitian conjugate describe the common excitation of both electronic states and the CM mode, similar to a non linear anti-Jaynes-Cummings interaction. The other terms are motional dependent self energy terms. The main difference of the Hamiltonian of Eq. (11), when compared to the one described in Ref. , is that now the subspace $`\{|,|\}`$ remains untouched, a natural consequence of the ionic individual addressing demanded in the present scheme.

Selectivity arises from the $`\widehat{n}`$ dependence of the self energy corrections in Eq. (11). The stark shift of the electronic states of the ions depends explicitly on the number of phonons of the CM mode through $`\widehat{F}_0^2`$. We can adjust the laser beams frequencies to compensate this shift for one particular subspace transition tuning it to resonance. The new frequencies depend strongly on the selected vibronic subspace we want to excite. This will yield another selective interaction, different from the one discussed in , that only performs resonant transitions inside the closed subspace $`\{||n,||n+1\}`$ without producing transitions inside the subspace $`\{|,|\}`$. For the sake of simplicity, we only label the CM mode excitacions, since the other vibronic states are cooled down to the vacuum state and, in this way, are not affected by the interaction Hamiltonian.

We are now ready to show how a QPG can be implemented using the interaction described in the Hamiltonian of Eq. (11). We study the effect of the associated evolution operator $`\widehat{U}`$ over some relevant states of the Hilbert space

$`\widehat{U}|,0=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{eff}t)|,0+\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{eff}t)|,1`$ (16)
$`U|,0=`$ $`|,0`$ (17)
$`U|,0=`$ $`|,0`$ (18)
$`\widehat{U}|,0=`$ $`|,0,`$ (19)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{eff}=i\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_og_o^2(0)f_1(0)[f_o(0)f_o(1)]`$. The QPG is implemented by letting this evolution operator act, during a time interval equivalent to a $`2\pi `$ pulse, over the initial state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=[\alpha |+\beta |+\gamma |+\delta |]|0,$$
(20)
obtaining

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=[\alpha |+\beta |+\gamma |+\delta |]|0,$$
(21)
as desired. The CNOT gate could also be implemented, by means of additional local operations, following the recipe given at the beginning of this work.

The main feature of this method is that we were able to implement a universal quantum logic gate with a single collective Rabi flip. The interaction needs to be turned on just once with fixed parameters. In fact, although two ions must be adressed individually at the same time, one needs just one laser beam split in two separated pairs. These facts may be considered as advantages when comparing our proposal to other ones requiring several consecutive and differently adjusted interactions . Although we are dealing with a dispersive interaction, instead of a resonant one, which results in a slower process, we are less exposed to errors arising from the sequential switching of lasers. It is also worth noticing that the experimental tools to implement many of these schemes, including the one proposed here, are avaiable. An experiment from the NIST group produced 4 ions in a linear array, cooled down to their collective ground state , and individual ionic addressing has been achieved by the Innsbruck group .

In the domain of CQED, we can find another possibility of making use of a selective interaction for implementing a QPG. CQED has already been recognized as a system where quantum logical operations can be implemented . There are a number of proposals where logical gates are performed either in the electronic states of the atoms crossing the cavity or in a combined system atom-field . We will be dealing here with a system where logical operations are performed in quantized modes of the cavity field. The two qubits are encoded in two non degenerated modes of the electromagnetic field inside a high $`Q`$ cavity that can have either one or zero photons. In this case, atoms will serve only as catalizers of the logical operation. Modes of the electromagnetic field in a cavity have been proposed as a possible environment where quantum logical operations can be done . Nevertheless, the setup we will discuss here is different in some fundamental aspects. While in  each qubit corresponds to one mode inside a different cavity, in our scheme there are two non degenerated modes inside a single cavity. Our scheme presents an additional advantage, it is not necessary to make the atom cross the cavity more than once. We will show that, again, a QPG can be implemented with only a single interaction pulse of a three level atom crossing the cavity.

The experimental setup considered is easily identified as the one corresponding to a non degenerated two-photon micromaser . The cavity is crossed by a three level atom that interacts with the cavity field during a time interval much smaller than the atomic and field decay time. Here, an effective Hamiltonian corresponding to a two photon transition can be derived in the limit where transitions from the lower level $`|g`$ and upper level $`|e`$ to an intermediate level $`|i`$ are not resonant, the detuning being such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _I(E_eE_i)/\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ei}^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ig}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ (see Fig. 2). In this formula, $`E_e`$ and $`E_i`$ are the energies of the levels $`|e`$ and $`|i`$, respectively and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ei}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ig}`$) is the Rabi frequency corresponding to the transition $`|e|i`$ ($`|i|g`$). All these calculations are found in .

Explicitly, the effective two-photon interaction Hamiltonian reads, not writting the self energy terms,

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(|eg|\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ei}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ig}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the effective Rabi frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ei},\mathrm{\Omega }_{ig}`$ taken as real. Supposing that each cavity mode has either one or zero photons and that the decoupled atom is in the ground state, the most general initial pure state for the combined atom-field system is

$$|\psi =\left[\alpha |0,0+\beta |1,0+\gamma |0,1+\delta |1,1\right]|g.$$
(23)
It is clear that states in the subspace $`\{|0,1,|1,0\}|g`$ and the ground state $`|0,0|g`$ will not evolve under the interaction described in Eq. (22). Only $`|1,1|g`$ will suffer Rabi oscillations with the effective frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$|1,1|g\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)|1,1|g+\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)|0,0|e.$$
(24)
By selecting the atom velocity, in such a way that the interaction time corresponds to a $`\pi `$ pulse, the final state

$$|\psi ^{\prime \prime }=\left[\alpha |0,0+\beta |1,0+\gamma |0,1\delta |1,1\right]|g$$
(25)
is produced after the atom leaves the cavity. This corresponds to the action of a QPG on the state of Eq. (23). This result shows an alternative way of implementing universal quantum gates in the modes of the electromagnetic field in a high-$`Q`$ cavity with a rather known scheme.

Both schemes presented here show an interesting feature about quantum gates. Although they are proposed as logic gates for the electronic leves of the trapped ions and the electomagnetic modes of a cavity, they can be thought, as well, as three-qubit quantum gates where the auxiliary CM vibronic mode and the atomic electronic states, respectively, are now the target qubits. In this sense, these schemes perform a Deutsch gate (controlled-controlled-rotation)  where the two qubits of the ionic electronic levels and of the electromagnetic modes of the cavity plays the rol of the control qubits. This is a characteristic of logic gates implemented by quantum systems where, since the operations are unitary, the process can be regarded as two-way logic gates.

To summarize, we have shown that a selective interaction can be useful for implementing quantum logic schemes in trapped ions and in the domain of CQED. Specifically, we made a proposal for implementing a QPG with a single pulse of a selective interaction in these two systems. In both cases, we find that our scheme reduces significantly the number of steps required for the gate operation, which may be attractive when thinking in scalable quantum logical processes.

E. Solano would like to thank N. Zagury and R. L. de Matos Filho for useful comments about the ionic quantum gates. The authors also acknowledge the support of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), Fundação Universitária José Bonifácio (FUJB), and Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX).

Present address: Max-Planck Institute for Quantum Optics, Hans-Kopfermann Strasse 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany (Enrique.Solano@ mpq.mpg.de).

<sup>∗∗</sup> Present address: Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, Département de Physique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, 24 rue Lhomond, F-75231 Paris Cedex 05, France.