format: text

text:
# Spin Wave Specific Heat in Quasiperiodic Fibonacci Structures

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of the icosahedral phase in Al-Mn alloys by means of X-ray spectroscopy , the quasicrystaline systems have been extensively studied (for a revision see ). In particular, the physical properties of the so-called quasiperiodic structures have attracted a lot of attention from both theoretical and experimental point of view. Although the term quasicrystal is more appropriate for natural compounds or artificial alloys, in one dimension there is no difference between this case and the quasiperiodic structure formed by the incommensurate arrangement of periodic unit cells. Due to this motivation, Merlin and collaborators, using the molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) technique, grew in 1985 the first quasiperiodic superlattice following the Fibonacci sequence . After that pioneer work, other quasiperiodic structures were experimentally realized .

¿From a theoretical point of view, a number of physical properties has been studied in quasiperiodic structures. Among them we can cite the energy spectra of polaritons , phonons , electrons  and spin waves , as well as the magnetoresistance and magnetization curves of quasiperiodic thin films . A quite interesting feature, common to all of these systems, is a self-similar pattern of their spectra. In fact, the energy spectra of the above referred particles and systems are highly fragmented and tend to Cantor sets in the thermodynamic limit. The origin of this fractality can be attributed to the long range order induced by the non-usual hierarchical structure of the quasiperiodic sequences used in the construction of the system.

A very interesting question aroused in the last few years: what are the consequences of a fractal energy spectra on the behavior of the thermodynamic properties of quasiperiodic systems? In a recent work, Tsallis and collaborators  studied the specific heat properties of a fractal energy spectra generated by the geometrical triadic Cantor set. They have found, as the main result of the paper, that the specific heat presents oscillations around the fractal dimension of the spectra. In addition, a non-uniform convergence between the so-called banded and discrete models was observed. Their results were extended by Vallejos et al  for the two-scale Cantor set case. For this more general situation, the specific heat also exhibits log-periodic oscillations around the fractal dimension. Later Carpena et al , using the properties of a multifractal spectra showed under what conditions the oscillatory regime disappears. Finally, Curado and Rego-Monteiro  examined the thermodynamic properties of a solid exhibiting the energy spectrum given by a logistic map.

The aim of this work is to push a little bit more the understanding of the thermodynamic properties of quasicrystals, analyzing the specific heat of a real fractal spectra of spin waves in quasiperiodic Fibonacci magnetic superlattices. We consider that the building blocks used here to set up the quasiperiodic structures are ferromagnetic materials, whose dynamics are described by the Heisenberg Hamiltonian. Our main concern is to emphasize the differences between the specific heat profile obtained by using a real spin wave’s multifractal energy spectra for a given in-plane wavevector, (with, by instance, their proper scaling laws), as discussed in Ref. 8, and an idealized Cantor set, considered in previous works. Throughout the paper we use the classical Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.

This paper is organized as follows: In section II we discuss the theoretical method used to obtain the spin waves dispersion relation (their energy spectra), and the rules used to build up the Fibonacci superlattice. Section III is devoted to the specific heat theory of a general scaled energy band spectra. The application of this theory to the Fibonacci quasiperiodic structure is then made, and the main features of the spectra obtained are discussed. Finally, section IV presents the conclusions of this work.

## 2 Physical model

In this section we briefly describe the physical model for the quasiperiodic magnetic superlattices. A detailed description can be found in Ref. . We consider superlattices in which $`n_A`$ layers of material $`A`$ (building block $`A`$) alternate with $`n_B`$ layers of material $`B`$ (building block $`B`$). Both materials are taken to be simple cubic spin-$`S`$ Heisenberg ferromagnets having exchange constants $`J_A`$ and $`J_B`$, respectively, and lattice constant $`a`$. At the interface $`A/B`$, the exchange constant is suppose to be equal to $`I`$. The Heisenberg Hamiltonian for each component is:

$$=(1/2)\underset{i,j}{}J_{ij}\underset{i}{\overset{}{S}}\underset{j}{\overset{}{S}}g\mu _BH_0\underset{i}{}S_i^z.$$
(1)
Here the sum in the first term is over sites $`i`$ and nearest neighbors ($`n.n.`$) $`j`$, and $`H_0`$ is a static external magnetic field pointing in the $`z`$-direction .

The spin wave dispersion relation in a superlattice can be found by solving the equations of motion for the operator $`S_i^+=S_i^x+iS_i^y`$, i.e:

$$\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}S_i^+=g\mu _BH_0S_i^++<S^z>\underset{n.n.}{}J_A(S_i^+S_j^+),$$
(2)
where $`<S^z>`$ is the random phase approximation for the $`z`$\- component of the spin operator. The solution of (2), for material $`A`$, is:

$$S_i^+=[A_l\mathrm{exp}(i\underset{A}{\overset{}{k}}\underset{A}{\overset{}{r}})+B_l\mathrm{exp}(i\underset{A}{\overset{}{k}}\underset{A}{\overset{}{r}})](\mathrm{exp}i\omega t)$$
(3)
with similar expression for material $`B`$. These solutions are linked together using the equation of motion (2) at the boundaries of the $`n`$-th unit cell, which can be written in a matricial form. Using the translational invariance property of the excitations, through Bloch’s theorem, the spin wave dispersion relation follows as:

$$\mathrm{cos}(QD)=(1/2)Tr\left[𝐓\right].$$
(4)
Here $`Q`$ is the Bloch’wavevector of the collective mode, $`D`$ is the size of the superlattice’s unit cell, and $`𝐓`$ is a transfer matrix which relates the coefficients of the $`(l+1)th`$ cell to the coefficients of the preceding one.

A Fibonacci superlattice can be grown experimentally by juxtaposing the two building blocks $`A`$ and $`B`$ in such way that the $`nth`$-generation of the superlattice $`S_n`$ is given iteratively by the rule $`S_n=S_{n1}S_{n2}`$, for $`n2`$, with $`S_0=B`$ and $`S_1=A`$. It is also invariant under the transformations $`AAB`$ and $`BA`$. The Fibonacci generations are,

$$S_0=[B],S_1=[A],S_2=[AB],S_3=[ABA],etc.$$
(5)
The number of building blocks increases according to the Fibonacci number, $`F_n=F_{n1}+F_{n2}`$ (with $`F_0=F_1=1`$), and the ratio between the number of the building blocks $`A`$ and the number of building blocks $`B`$, when $`n>>1`$, in the sequence tends to $`\tau =(1/2)(1+\sqrt{5})`$, an irrational number known as the golden mean.

It can be shown that the transfer matrix for the $`nth`$ generation of a Fibonacci superlattice can be obtained by a simple recurrence relation given by ,

$$T_{s_n}=T_{s_{n2}}T_{s_{n1}},n2.$$
(6)
Therefore, from the knowledge of the transfer matrices $`T_{S_0}`$ and $`T_{S_1}`$, we can determine the transfer matrix for any generation and consequently the dispersion relation. Note that the matrix $`T_{S_2}`$ recovers the periodic case.

## 3 Specific heat Spectra

The spin wave fractal spectra for the Fibonacci superlattices is depicted in Fig. 1, for a fixed value of the in-plane dimensionless wavevector $`k_xa`$. From there we can see the forbidden and allowed energies of the spin wave spectra against the Fibonacci’s generation number $`n`$, up to their $`8th`$ generation, which corresponds an unit cell with $`21`$ $`A`$’s and $`13`$ $`B`$’s building blocks. The number of allowed bands is equal to three times the Fibonacci number $`F_n`$, of the correspondent generation. Notice that, as expected, for large $`n`$ the allowed band regions get narrower and narrower and they have a typical Cantor set structure.

We address now to the specific heat of the spectra indicated in Fig. 1. The description below is general and can be applied to any banded spectrum. In Fig. 1 each spectrum, for a fixed generation number $`n`$, has $`m`$ allowed continuous bands. We consider, without loss of generality, the level density within each band constant. The partition function for the $`nth`$ generation is then given by:

$$Z_n=_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (ϵ)e^{\beta ϵ}𝑑ϵ,$$
(7)
Here $`\beta =1/T`$ (by choosing the Boltzmann’s constant $`k_B=1`$), and we take the density of states $`\rho (ϵ)=1`$. After a straightforward calculation we can write $`Z_n`$ as,

$$Z_n=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{i=1,3,\mathrm{}}{\overset{2m1}{}}e^{\beta ϵ_i}[1e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_i}].$$
(8)
Here the subscript $`n`$ is the generation number, $`m`$ is the number of allowed bands and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=ϵ_{i+1}ϵ_i`$ is the difference between the top and bottom energy levels of each band.

The specific heat is then given by,

$$C_n(T)=\frac{}{T}[T^2\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_n}{T}],$$
(9)
which can be written as,

$$C_n(T)=1+\frac{\beta f_n}{Z_n}\frac{g_n^2}{Z_n^2},$$
(10)
with,

$$f_n=\underset{i=1,3,\mathrm{}}{\overset{2m1}{}}[ϵ_i^2e^{\beta ϵ_i}ϵ_{i+1}^2e^{\beta ϵ_{i+1}}].$$
(11)
and,

$$g_n=\underset{i=1,3,\mathrm{}}{\overset{2m1}{}}[ϵ_ie^{\beta ϵ_i}ϵ_{i+1}e^{\beta ϵ_{i+1}}].$$
(12)
Therefore, once we know the energy spectra of the spin wave which propagates in a given sequence’s generation of a quasiperiodic structure, we can determine the associated specific heat’s spectra by using (10).

Fig. 2 shows the spin wave specific heat spectra of the Fibonacci superlattices, for the in-plane wavevector $`k_xa=2.0`$, as a function of the temperature. For the high temperature limit ($`T\mathrm{}`$), the specific heat for all generation numbers converges and decays as $`T^2`$, for arbitrary $`n`$, in agreement with the triadic case. This is a consequence of the existence of a maximum energy value in the spectrum (once the spectrum is bounded). As the temperature decreases, the specific heat increases up to a maximum value. The corresponding temperature for this maximum value depends on the Fibonacci generation number $`n`$, although one can see a clear tendency for a common temperature value as $`n`$ increases. After the maximum value, the specific heat falls into the low temperature region. In this region it starts to present non-harmonic small oscillation behavior, as shown in the inset of Fig. 2. These oscillations, are not around a specific fractal dimension of the quasiperiodic structure, as in the idealized triadic Cantor set! Besides, it cannot be considered also an approximation of the idealized oscillations found in the triadic Cantor set. Their profiles define clearly two classes of oscillations, one for the even and the other for the odd generation numbers of the sequence, the amplitude of the odd oscillations being bigger than the amplitude of the even one. These behaviors are better illustrated in Fig. 3, where are depicted log-log plots of the specific heat against the temperature for several generation numbers. Of course the number of oscillations observed in the specific heat spectra is related to the hierarchical generation number $`n`$ (more oscillations appear as $`n`$ increases). Another behavior of these oscillations can be seen in Fig. 4, where we have plotted the specific heat against $`\mathrm{log}T`$. We can note a well defined period in the oscillations, which means that the specific heat is a log-periodic function of the temperature. The curves resemble the triadic case, with a mean value $`d`$, around it $`C(T)`$ oscillates log-periodically, although, as in the log-log plot, this value is not related with the fractal dimension of the Fibonacci quasiperiodic structure. Besides, the mean value is different for the even and odd Fibonacci’s generation numbers.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have studied the spin wave specific heat, for fixed values of the in-plane dimensionless wave vector $`k_xa`$, for the Fibonacci magnetic superlattices. We have shown, as a common aspect of the model employed here, that the specific heat tends to zero in the high temperature limit ($`T\mathrm{}`$), as $`T^2`$, no matter its generation number. This asymptotic behavior is mainly due to the fact that we have considered our system bounded. It also presents a maximum whose corresponding temperature tends to a fixed value as the generation number increases. Finally, in the low temperature region, a small oscillations arises as an indication that the specific heat is a log-periodic function of the temperature. These oscillations can be defined as the signature of the quasiperiodic system, and has no counterpart in the idealized case.

It would be of interest to have experimental data to test our predicted theoretical results presented here. However, most of the experimental studies of magnetic multilayers to date, have been done for transition metals . Further experimental studies carried out for multilayers structures of magnetic insulator or magnetic semiconductor materials, that would be better described by the Heisenberg model employed in this paper, are welcome. Suitable experimental technique to probe the spin wave spectra in the quasi-periodic structure discussed here is the inelastic light scattering spectroscopy of Raman and Brillouin type. However, the spectra can be obtained only for a given in-plane wavevector $`k_x`$, which defines the incident angle $`\theta `$ of the light through the relation $`\mathrm{sin}^1\theta =k_x\lambda /4\pi `$, $`\lambda `$ being the the laser wavelength . This fact adds an extra complication to the experimental specific heat measurements, but we hope that the experimentalists can be encouraged to overcome it. Techniques involving magnetic resonance (for example, ferromagnetic resonance, standing spin-wave resonant etc.) can also be used, and indeed they were previously been successfully applied to surface and bulk spin waves in various magnetic microstructures (for a good account of these techniques see ).

Acknowledgments: One of us (ELA) thanks the hospitality of the Center for Polymer Studies, Boston University-USA, where part of this work was done. We thank also fruitful discussions with Profs. H.E. Stanley and S.V. Buldyrev, as well as financial support from CNPq (Brazilian Agency) and PRONEX.

Figure Captions

1. The spin wave spectra for the Fibonacci structure. Here the in-plane wavevector is taken to be equal to 0.2.
2. Specific heat versus temperature for the Fibonacci structure. We have plotted the specific heat profiles up to the $`9th`$ generation number. The inset shows the low temperature behavior of the specific heat.
3. Log-log plot of the specific heat versus temperature for the generation numbers of the Fibonacci quasiperiodic sequence. Observe a different behavior for the even ($`n`$=4, 6, 8, and 10) and odd ($`n`$=5, 7, and 9) generation numbers.
4. $`C(T)`$ vs $`\mathrm{log}(T)`$ plot to show the log-periodicity effects in the Fibonacci structure.


text:
# References

OCHA-PP-171

NDA-FP-90

February 2001

Quantum stabilization of thermal brane-worlds in M-theory

Shin’ichi NOJIRI111nojiri@cc.nda.ac.jp, Sergei D. ODINTSOV222 odintsov@ifug5.ugto.mx,

and Sachiko OGUSHI333 JSPS Research Fellow, g9970503@edu.cc.ocha.ac.jp

Department of Applied Physics
National Defence Academy, Hashirimizu Yokosuka 239-8686, JAPAN

$`\mathrm{}`$ Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 634041 Tomsk, RUSSIA and Instituto de Fisica de la Universidad de Guanajuato, Lomas del Bosque 103, Apdo. Postal E-143, 37150 Leon,Gto., MEXICO

$`\mathrm{}`$ Department of Physics, Ochanomizu University
Otsuka, Bunkyou-ku Tokyo 112-0012, JAPAN

ABSTRACT

Low-energy effective M-theory (11d supergravity or 11d SUSY theory) is considered in 11d flat or AdS background. After orbifold compactification of eleventh dimension one gets flat 10d brane at non-zero temperature. Quantum effective potential (free energy at low-temperature approximation) is calculated on such brane with account of only lowest mass from Kaluza-Klein modes. Such effective potential may stabilize the radius of 11th dimension (radion stabilization) as it is demonstrated explicitly.

Thermodynamics of extended objects is known to be quite remarkable. It is marked by the presence of Hagedorn (critical) temperature for (super)strings and (super)membranes. It is expected that M-theory thermodynamics should also contain the Hagedorn temperature (for recent discussion, see ). From another side, brane-worlds  with trapping of gravity are expected to be useful in M-theory in different aspects . It could be that (classical and quantum) thermal effects in M-theory may provide the interesting consequences to brane-worlds which in their own turn may help in better understanding of thermodynamics. In the recent model  it was demonstrated that thermal flat brane in AdS5 bulk may be stabilized by quantum effects. In other words, radion stabilization occurs due to thermal quantum effects.

In the present Letter we consider low-energy effective M-theory (11d supergravity or 11d SUSY theory) in flat or AdS 11d bulk. Thermal flat brane is obtained after orbifold $`S_1/Z_2`$ compactification of eleventh coordinate (the temperature is introduced in the standard way by compactification of time). The systematic method to calculate free energy (effective potential) at low-temperature approximation is developed with account of only lowest mass from KK tower444 The similar approach to calculation of graviton amplitudes in 11d SG via the corresponding evaluation of amplitudes in 10d SG with account of Kaluza-Klein modes has been developed in refs.. The explicit calculation shows that such quantum free energy may stabilize the radius of orbifolded dimension. In other words, spontaneous compactification of 11d brane-worlds occurs due to account of thermal quantum effects.

We start with a simple review of black body radiation. Since the energy of a single particle with momentum $`𝐩`$ and mass $`m`$ is given by $`E_p=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$, one obtains the following expression for its contribution to the partition function $`Z_p^b`$ for boson and $`Z_p^f`$ for fermion:

$$Z_p^b=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta E_p\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)},Z_p^f=\underset{n=0}{\overset{1}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta E_p\left(n\frac{1}{2}\right)}=2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right),$$
(1)
Here $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature , $`\beta =1/T`$, and we sum over all possible states with $`n`$ particles (quanta). In Eqs.(1) one expresses the zero-point energy by $`\pm \frac{1}{2}E_p`$. The total partition function of the particle with mass $`m`$ in a $`d1`$-dimensional volume $`V_{d1}`$ is given by summing over $`Z_k`$ with respect to the momentum $`𝐩`$:

$$\beta F^{b,f}=\mathrm{ln}Z^b=\pm V_{d1}\frac{d^{d1}𝐩}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)\right)\\ \mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)\right)\end{array}.$$
(2)
Here $`F^{b,f}`$ is free energy. Sign $`+`$ and $`\mathrm{sinh}`$ ($``$ and $`\mathrm{cosh}`$) correspond to bosonic (fermionic) case in (2). The expr. (2) diverge and require regularization in general. For supersymmetric case, we obtain a finite result:

$$\beta F^s=\beta \left(F^b+F^f\right)=V_{d1}\frac{d^{d1}𝐩}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)\right).$$
(3)
The average energy $`E`$ is given by the derivative of the free energy, $`E=\frac{}{\beta }\left(\beta F\right)`$. Then for above cases (2) and (3), one gets

$`E_d^b(\beta ;m)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{d1}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{d1}𝐩}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{E_p}{2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)},`$ (4)
$`E_d^f(\beta ;m)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{d1}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{d1}𝐩}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{E_p}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)},`$ (5)
$`E_d^s(\beta ;m)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{d1}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{d1}𝐩}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{E_p}{\mathrm{sinh}\beta E_p}}.`$ (6)
This completes our elementary review of quantum statistics at nonzero temperature.

As we will be mainly interested in the supersymmetric case, we subtract the zero temperature contributions from $`E_d^b(\beta ;m)`$ in Eq. (4) and $`E_d^f(\beta ;m)`$ in Eq. (5) : $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d^{b,f}(\beta ;m)=E_d^{b,f}(\beta ;m)E_d^{b,f}(\mathrm{};m)`$. (The zero temperature contributions in $`E_d^b(\beta ;m)`$ cancel with each other in the supersymmetric case.) Note that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d^b(\beta ;m)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d^f(\beta ;m)`$ are finite. By changing the variable from $`q`$ to $`s`$ : $`q=\sqrt{s^2+2\beta ms}`$, the energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d^b(\beta ;m)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d^f(\beta ;m)`$ have the following forms:

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_d^{b,f}(\beta ;m)={\displaystyle \frac{V_{d1}}{2^{d1}\pi ^{\frac{d1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)\beta ^d}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\left(s+\beta m\right)^2\left(s^2+2\beta ms\right)^{\frac{d3}{2}}}{\mathrm{e}^{s+\beta m}1}}.`$ (7)
When $`m=0`$, one finds

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_d^b(\beta ;0)=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{d+1}{2}}V_{d1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)\beta ^d}\frac{B_{\frac{d}{2}}}{d},\stackrel{~}{E}_d^f(\beta ;0)=\frac{\pi ^{\frac{d+1}{2}}V_{d1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)\beta ^d}\left(1\frac{1}{2^{\frac{d}{2}1}}\right)\frac{B_{\frac{d}{2}}}{d}.$$
(8)
Here we assume $`d`$ is even and $`B_n`$ are the Bernoulli numbers. For example, $`B_2=\frac{1}{30}`$, $`B_5=\frac{5}{66}`$ and we used the following formulae

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{2x^{2n1}}{\mathrm{e}^{2\pi x}+1}=\frac{1}{2n}\left(1\frac{1}{2^{n1}}\right)B_n,_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{2x^{2n1}}{\mathrm{e}^{2\pi x}1}=\frac{B_n}{2n}.$$
(9)
Usually the temperature can be regarded to be much lower than the Planck scale. For example, even the characteristic temperature in hot inflationary universe is much lower. Then it will be enough if we work in the low temperature limit, where $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. Then one gets

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_d^{b,f}(\beta ;m)\frac{V_{d1}m^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta m}}{2^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\pi ^{\frac{d1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d1}{2}\right)\beta ^{\frac{d1}{2}}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ss^{\frac{d3}{2}}\mathrm{e}^s=\frac{V_{d1}m^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta m}}{2\left(2\pi \beta \right)^{\frac{d1}{2}}}.$$
(10)
The last expression has a maximum with respect to $`m`$ when $`m=\frac{d+1}{2\beta }`$. The expression (10) vanishes in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$. The expression (10) also vanishes when $`m=0`$ but this is not exact since we take $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit first. The exact values when $`m=0`$ are given in Eqs.(8) and they are positive.

We should sum up the energy with respect to the masses of the Kaluza-Klein modes, but due to the factor of $`\mathrm{e}^{\beta m}`$ in (10), when $`\beta `$ is large it is enough to include only the lowest mass.

Let us consider M-theory, whose low energy effective theory is 11d supergravity, in the spacetime $`R_{10}\times S_1`$ or $`R_{10}\times \left(S_1/Z_2\right)`$ (see corresponding discussion in ). The mass spectrum in the effective 10d theory is given by

$$m^2=\frac{k^2}{R^2}+l^2R^2\lambda ^4.$$
(11)
Here $`k`$ and $`l`$ are integers, R is the radius of the sphere $`S_1`$, and $`\lambda ^2`$ is the tension. The second term corresponds to the mode where the membrane with the shape of a tube winds in $`S_1`$ if 11d theory is membrane. Since the situation does not depend much on the spacetime dimension, one can consider string with one compactified dimension: $`S_1`$. The spectrum enjoys $`T`$-duality given by $`R\frac{1}{\lambda ^2R}`$. Therefore the lowest mass is

$$m=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{R}\hfill & R\frac{1}{\lambda }\hfill \\ \lambda ^2R\hfill & R<\frac{1}{\lambda }\hfill \end{array}.$$
(12)
Note that the lowest mass has maximum $`m_{\mathrm{max}}=\lambda `$ when $`R=\frac{1}{\lambda }`$ when the energies (10) are:

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_4^{b,f}(\beta ;m)\frac{V_{d1}\lambda ^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \lambda }}{2\left(2\pi \beta \right)^{\frac{d1}{2}}}.$$
(13)
One can identify the energy in the supersymmetric case as in (6) and effective potential with respect to the compactification radius $`R`$;

$$V(R;\beta )=N\underset{i=b,f}{}E_{10}^i(\beta ;m(R))=N\underset{i=b,f}{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{10}^i(\beta ;m(R)).$$
(14)
Here $`N`$ is number of bosonic degrees of freedom in supermultiplet. The potential has the local minima when $`R=0`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ ($`m=0`$) given by (8), or $`R=\frac{1}{\lambda }`$ ($`m=\lambda `$) given by (13). Due to the factor $`\mathrm{e}^{\beta \lambda }`$, the minimum at $`R=\frac{1}{\lambda }`$ is much lower than other two minima in the low energy temperature and becomes the global minimum. Therefore the thermal effects stabilize the radius of the compactification. Furtheremore by comparing (8) with (13), we find the possibility of the phase transition when $`\beta =\frac{1}{\lambda }`$. In the high temperature phase the radius vanishes or becomes infinite, which is equivalent due to $`T`$-duality. Since we need to sum up all the Kaluza-Klein modes, which become massless in the limit of $`R0`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ and the quantum effects would be important when $`\beta =\lambda `$, we could not say any reliable things about the phase transition.

Recently the free energy of the M-theory in the spacetime $`R_{10}\times S_1`$ or $`R_9\times S_1\times S_1`$ was calculated in . For $`R_{10}\times S_1`$, the obtained free energy is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(T)}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{945\zeta (11)}{32\pi ^5R_{11}^{10}}}{\displaystyle \frac{24\zeta (10)}{\pi ^5R_0^{10}}}+𝒪\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \frac{R_0}{R_{11}}}\right),R_{11}R_0`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(T)}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{945\zeta (11)R_{11}}{32\pi ^5R_0^{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{24\zeta (10)}{\pi ^5R_0R_{11}^9}}+𝒪\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \frac{R_{11}}{R_{10}}}\right),R_{11}R_0.`$ (16)
Here $`R_{11}`$ is the radius of $`S_1`$, $`R_0=(2\pi T)^1`$ and $`\zeta (x)`$ is zeta function, especially $`\zeta (10)=\frac{\pi ^{10}}{93555}`$. In , all the KK modes were summed up but the wrapping or winding mode has not been included. The eqs.(15) and (16) were estimated for single boson. Therefore the first leading term in (15) should be cancelled in the supersymmetric theory.

In our formulation, the low temperature approximation is applied. Only lowest massive modes are included in most of the regions, except the limit that all modes become massless, when $`R0`$ or $`R\mathrm{}`$. In the limit $`R0`$, the temperature dependent leading term of the supersymmetric free energy $`F_\mathrm{R}`$ in (15 has the following form:

$$F_\mathrm{R}=\frac{242^{10}\pi ^5\zeta (10)V_9}{\beta ^{10}}+\begin{array}{c}\text{sub-leading}\hfill \\ \text{or }\beta \text{-independent terms}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(17)
Then the energy is given by

$$E_\mathrm{R}=\frac{}{\beta }\left(\beta F_\mathrm{R}\right)=\frac{9242^{10}\pi ^5\zeta (10)V_9}{\beta ^{10}}+\begin{array}{c}\text{sub-leading}\hfill \\ \text{or }\beta \text{-independent terms}\hfill \end{array},$$
(18)
which corresponds to the bosonic case in Eq.(8) with $`d=10`$. In Eq.(8), the contribution from only lowest massive mode was included but in (18), those from all massive modes were done. In spite of such a difference, the expression (18) is not so different from that in (8), that is, both of them are proportional to $`\beta ^{10}`$ and the coefficients are positive. Therefore the analysis given in this paper is valid even for $`m0`$.

As an extension, we now consider the orbifold compactification of 11d AdS space, as in the Randall-Sundrum model . The 11th dimension, here called $`y`$, is compactified on an orbifold $`S_1/Z_2`$ of radius $`R`$, with $`\pi Ry\pi R`$. The orbifold fixed points, $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R`$, are the locations of two branes, and form the boundary of the 11-dimensional space-time. The 11-dimensional metric is $`g_{MN}`$, with the 11d coordinates labelled by capital letters, $`M=(\mu ,11)`$. The 10-dimensional Minkowski metric is $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$, with $`\mu =0`$, $`1`$, $`2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`9`$. The line element is

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,$$
(19)
where $`\sigma =k|y|`$. Here $`k`$ is a parameter of the Planck scale order, related to the AdS radius of curvature. The latter is equal to $`1/k`$. The points $`(x^\mu ,y)`$ and $`(x^\mu ,y)`$ are identified. Let us assume that there is a real scalar field $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$ in the bulk, with a mass $`m_\varphi `$ given by

$$m_\varphi ^2(y)=ak^2+b\sigma ^{\prime \prime }(y),$$
(20)
with $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }(y)=2k\left[\delta (y)\delta \sigma ^{\prime \prime }(y)\right]`$, $`\sigma ^{}(y)=kϵ(y)=k\frac{y}{|y|}`$. Here $`a`$ is an arbitrary non-dimensional parameter, defined as in . The equation of motion for $`\varphi `$ is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_M\left(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_N\varphi \right)ak^2\varphi =0,$$
(21)
where $`g=det\left(g_{MN}\right)`$. Using the metric (19) one can write Eq.(21) as

$$\left[\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +\mathrm{e}^{10\sigma }_y\left(\mathrm{e}^{10\sigma }_y\right)ak^2\right]\varphi (x^\mu ,y)=0.$$
(22)
Expanding $`\varphi `$ as

$$\varphi (x^\mu ,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi R}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi ^{(n)}(x^\mu )f_n(y),$$
(23)
we get field equations

$$\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \varphi ^{(n)}=m_n^2\varphi ^{(n)},\frac{d}{dy}\left(\mathrm{e}^{4\sigma }\frac{df_n}{dy}\right)+ak^2\mathrm{e}^{4\sigma }f_n=m_n^2\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }f_n,$$
(24)
in agreement with . Here $`f_n(y)`$ are the Kaluza-Klein modes, and $`m_n`$ is the mass of the Kaluz-Klein excitation $`\varphi ^{(n)}`$. The solution of Eq.(24) is

$$f_n(y)=\mathrm{e}^{5\sigma }\left[J_\alpha \left(z_n\mathrm{e}^\sigma \right)+b_\alpha \left(m_n\right)Y_\alpha \left(z_n\mathrm{e}^\sigma \right)\right],$$
(25)
with $`z_n=\frac{m_n}{k}`$. Here $`J_\alpha `$, $`Y_\alpha `$ are the Bessel and Neumann functions, of order $`\alpha =\sqrt{25+a}`$. Assume that $`\alpha 0`$. If the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is even under $`Z_2`$ transformation: $`yy`$, we have $`f_n(y)=f_n(|y|)`$. Then by using (20), one finds $`0=\left(\frac{df_n}{dy}b\sigma ^{}f_n\right)|_{y=0,\pi R}`$ and we get the following two equations for determining $`b_\alpha `$ and $`m_\alpha `$:

$$b_\alpha =\frac{(5b)J_\alpha (z_n)+z_nJ_\alpha ^{}(z_n)}{(5b)Y_\alpha (z_n)+z_nY_\alpha ^{}(z_n)},b_\alpha (z_n)=b_\alpha \left(z_n\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right).$$
(26)
The above equations determine masses of the Kaluza-Klein modes. We only considered the masses of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ but if the supersymmetry is preserved, the masses of the KK mode of spinor, which is the superpartner of $`\varphi `$, should be identical with those of $`\varphi `$.

In order to investigate the qualitative structure of the roots in Eqs.(26), one defines a new variable $`x`$ by $`xz_n\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}`$ and rewrite Eqs. (26) in the following form:

$$\frac{(5b)J_\alpha (x)+xJ_\alpha ^{}(x)}{(5b)Y_\alpha (x)+xY_\alpha ^{}(x)}=\frac{(5b)J_\alpha \left(x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right)+x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}J_\alpha ^{}\left(x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right)}{(5b)Y_\alpha \left(x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right)+x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}Y_\alpha ^{}\left(x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right)}.$$
(27)
Note that there is a trivial solution $`x=0`$ in (27) but since the solution corresponds to the massless mode, we do not consider it here. If we fix $`x`$ and take the limit of $`R\mathrm{}`$, the r.h.s. vanishes and in the limit

$$0=(5b)J_\alpha (x)+xJ_\alpha ^{}(x).$$
(28)
The lowest root $`x`$ of (28) is given by $`x=0`$, which corresponds to the massless mode when $`R`$ is finite and is neglected here. Other nontrivial roots ($`x0`$) are finite and do not depend on $`R`$. Since the corresponding mass is given by

$$m_n=kz_n=kx\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR},$$
(29)
the non-trivial lowest mass vanishes in the limit, which corresponds to the local minimum in the potential (8).

In order to investigate the behavior of Eq.(27) in the limit of $`R0`$, one rewrites (27) in the following form:

$$0=\frac{\frac{j_\alpha \left(x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right)j_\alpha (x)}{\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}1}y_\alpha (x)j_\alpha (x)\frac{y_\alpha \left(x\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}\right)y_\alpha (x)}{\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}1}}{y_\alpha (x)^2}.$$
(30)
Here

$$j_\alpha (x)(5b)J_\alpha (x)+xJ_\alpha ^{}(x),y_\alpha (x)(5b)Y_\alpha (x)+xY_\alpha ^{}(x).$$
(31)
Then in the limit of $`R0`$, Eq.(30) becomes

$$0=\frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{j_\alpha (x)}{y_\alpha (x)}\right).$$
(32)
Again the non-trivial lowest roots are finite and independent of $`R`$. Eq.(29) tells the mass is the order of the Planck mass since $`x`$ is of order unity. Then the mass corresponds to the global minimum of the effective potential at low temperature.

The analysis in the limits $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`R0`$ suggests that the thermal effects would make the compactification radius to be small. If we include, however, the winding modes as in (11), the corresponding masses vanish in the limit of $`R0`$, which corresponds to the local minimum of the effective potential. This might suggest that there is a non-trivial maximum in the lowest mass as in flat spacetime in (12). If $`kR`$ is equal or less than unity and $`k`$ has the order of the Planck mass, the maximum value of the lowest mass has the order of the Planck mass. Therefore the thermal effects might stabilize the compactification radius $`R`$. In other words, the same thermal mechanism of radion stabilization which has been suggested in ref. works (for other mechanisms, see ). It is quite natural as it is fulfilled by quantum effects of fields from supermultiplet. There is no need to add extra fields.

Let us consider non-supersymmetric case. If supersymmetry is broken, zero-temperature contributions from bosons and fermions are not cancelled with each other. Such zero temperature contributionse in $`d=4`$ thermal brane (AdS5) have been evaluated in  (for related discussion of bulk Casimir effect in brane-worlds see refs.). We now evaluate vacuum energy for $`d=10`$ (AdS11) case in a similar way. For zero temperature, (4) and (5) have the following forms:

$$E_d^b(\mathrm{};m)=E_d^f(\mathrm{};m)=\frac{V_{d1}}{2}\frac{d^{d1}p}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\sqrt{p^2+m^2}=\frac{V_{d1}}{2(4\pi )^{\frac{d}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)m^d.$$
(33)
Suming up the contributions with respect to $`m=kx\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}`$ in (29) which satisfy (27) and using formula $`A_s(\stackrel{~}{a})_nx_n^s`$ from 555It is convenient to use zeta-regularization in such calculation, see  for an introduction. one gets:

$$A_s(\stackrel{~}{a})=\frac{s}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi s}{2}\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s1}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{2\mathrm{e}^{t(1\stackrel{~}{a})}}{t\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{a}}}\left\{k_\nu (t)i_\nu (\stackrel{~}{a}t)k_\nu (\stackrel{~}{a}t)i_\nu (t)\right\}\right]$$
(34)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{a}=\mathrm{e}^{\pi kR}`$ and the Bessel functions of imaginary argument are

$$i_\nu (z)=(5b)I_\alpha (z)+zI_\alpha ^{}(z),k_\nu (z)=(5b)K_\alpha (z)+zK_\alpha ^{}(z),$$
(35)
which correspond to (31). If we choose $`s=d=10+ϵ`$ when $`ϵ0`$, $`A_s(a)`$ has the following form:

$`A_s(\stackrel{~}{a})=5ϵ\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtt^{9ϵ}\mathrm{ln}[1{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha (t)i_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{a}t)}{k_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{a}t)i_\alpha (t)}}]`$ (36)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtt^{9ϵ}\mathrm{ln}\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{t}}}\mathrm{e}^ti_\alpha (t)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{a}^{10ϵ}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtt^{9ϵ}\mathrm{ln}[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi t}}}\mathrm{e}^tk_\alpha (t)]\}.`$
As in , the second term is cancelled by a local counterterm and the third term is absorbed into the renormalization of the Planck brane tension. Only the first term, which is finite, gives a non-trivial contribution to the effective potential. When $`a`$ is small

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^9\mathrm{ln}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha (t)i_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{a}t)}{k_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{a}t)i_\alpha (t)}}\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5b+\alpha }{5b\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{2}}\right)^{2\alpha }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{9+2\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha (t)}{i_\alpha (t)}}`$ for $`5b\pm \alpha `$ (37)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha (\alpha +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7b+\alpha }{5b\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{2}}\right)^{2\alpha +2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{11+2\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha (t)}{i_\alpha (t)}}`$ for $`5b=\alpha `$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\alpha +1)}{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5b+\alpha }{7b\alpha }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}}{2}}\right)^{2\alpha +2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{11+2\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha (t)}{i_\alpha (t)}}`$ $`\text{for }5b=\alpha .`$ (39)
As an example, we consider the case that $`b=5`$ and $`\alpha >0`$. Then combining (33), (36) and (S0.Ex2), one gets bosonic (fermionic) potential $`V_0^b(\stackrel{~}{a})`$ and $`V_0^f(\stackrel{~}{a})`$

$`V_0^b(\stackrel{~}{a})=V_0^b(\stackrel{~}{a})=V_9k^{10}B_\alpha ^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{a}^{10+2\alpha }`$
$`B_\alpha ^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{4!(2\pi )^52^{2\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle t^{9+2\alpha }\frac{K_\alpha ^{}(t)}{I_\alpha ^{}(t)}}>0.`$ (40)
Including the leading low-temperature term which corresponds to (10) one arrives to

$$V^{b,f}(\stackrel{~}{a})=V_9\left[k^{10}B_\alpha ^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{a}^{10+2\alpha }+\frac{(kxa)^5\mathrm{e}^{\beta kxa}}{2\left(2\pi \beta \right)^{\frac{9}{2}}}\right].$$
(41)
Here sign $``$ ($`+`$) corresponds to boson (fermion). As we know that the $`R`$ or $`x`$ dependence is small from the analysis in (2732), we can regard $`x`$ as a constant of order unity. Then the second term in (41) has a maximum of order $`\beta ^{10}`$ when $`kax`$ has order of $`\beta ^1`$. For $`kax`$ of order of $`\beta ^1`$, the first term in (41) is about of $`\beta ^{10}(\beta k)^{2\alpha }`$. Then for the fermionic case, the potential $`V^f(\stackrel{~}{a})`$ (41) has a nontrivial ($`\stackrel{~}{a}>0`$) minimum. If the value of the potential at the minimum is smaller than the value at $`\stackrel{~}{a}=0`$, which is given in the femionic case (8), the non-trivial minimum becomes a true minimum. Therefore the thermal effects can stabilize the compactification radius $`R`$. The value $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of $`a`$ at the minimum would be same order as the value of $`a`$ at the maximum of the second term in (41), then the order should be $`\frac{1}{k\beta }`$. Taking the temperature as the order of the weak scale $``$ 102 GeV and assuming $`k`$ is about of the Planck scale $``$ 1019 GeV, one finds $`a_{\mathrm{min}}10^{17}`$. This example proves that quantum bulk effects in a brane-world AdS11 at nonzero temperature may not only stabilize 10d brane-world (quantum spontaneous compactification occurs) but also provide the dynamical mechanism  for the resolution of the hierarchy problem (with no fine-tuning) as in the Randall-Sundrum model . It is expected that similar effect occurs for complete effective field theory (11d SG) following from M-theory. It would be extremely interesting to extend this consideration for M(Membrane)-theory, taking account of non-linear effects in order to get the corresponding Hagedorn temperature on curved 11d background.

Acknoweledgements. The work of S.D.O. was supported in part by CONACyT (CP, ref.9903056 and grant 28454E), by RFFI Grant N.99-02-16617 and by GCFS Grant E00-3.3-461. The work of S.O. was supported in part by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Necessary And Sufficient Condition of Separability of Any System

## Abstract

The necessary and sufficient condition of separability of a mixed state of any systems is presented, which is practical in judging the separability of a mixed state. This paper also presents a method of finding the disentangled decomposition of a separable mixed state.

Entanglenment is an important element both in quantum theory and in quantum information. A mixed state $`\rho `$, which acts on Hilbert space $`H_1H_2`$, has no entanglement or is separable iff $`\rho `$ can be written as the following form

$$\rho =\underset{i}{}p_i\rho _i^1\rho _i^2$$
(1)
where $`\rho _i^1`$ and $`\rho _i^2`$ are states of Hilbert space $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, respectively, and $`p_i0`$, $`p_i=1`$. A separable system satisfies the Bell inequality, but the converse is not necessarily true. Peres has shown in Ref. that a necessary condition (NC) for separability of a state $`\rho `$ is the positivity of its partial transformation $`\rho ^T`$. Here $`\rho ^T`$ is defined as

$$\rho _{m\mu ,n\nu }^{T_1}\rho _{n\mu ,m\upsilon },\rho _{m\mu ,n\nu }^{T_2}\rho _{m\nu ,n\mu }.$$
(2)
It has been shown that for $`2\times 2`$ systems (the dimensions of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are 2 and 2, respectively) and $`2\times 3`$ systems, the condition (2) is also a sufficient one. A necessary and sufficient condition(NSC) for $`m\times n`$ systems with the aid of the concept of a map has been presented by Horodecki et.al in Ref., but it is difficult to judge whether a state is separable or not in practice with this method. W.D$`\stackrel{..}{u}`$r et.al  show a NSC of a certain family of mixed states. In this paper, we shall present a NSC of separability of $`\rho `$ for any system. Our main idea is based on the idea proposed by Wootters in Ref.. Compared with Horodecki et.al’s work, the NSC presented in this paper is more explicitly algorithmic, so it is practical in operation. The organization of this paper is as follows. First, we collect some facts related to our result. Second, the NSC of any mixed state is presented. Meanwhile, how to get the disentangled decomposition of a separable state is also presented. Finally, we present an example of a bound entangled state as an illustration. From this example, one can know how to judge whether a mixed state is separable or not.

In order to get the results, we collect the facts as follows:

1.Any mixed state $`\rho `$ of $`m\times n`$ systems which has $`l`$ nonzero eigenvalues can be decomposed into $`k`$ pure states. And the number of possible decompositions of $`\rho `$ is infinite. These decompositions can be obtained by some transformation $`u_{k\times l}`$ whose columns are orthonormal vectors ($`k`$ is greater than or equal to $`l`$) . For example,

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}|x_ix_i|=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|z_iz_i|,$$
(3)
where $`|x_i,`$ unnormalized, is a complete set of orthogonal eigenvectors corresponding to the nonzero eigenvalues of $`\rho `$, and $`x_i|x_i`$ is equal to the ith nonzero eigenvalue. Then the decomposition $`|z_i`$ of $`\rho `$ can be given by

$$|z_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}u_{ij}|x_j,i=1,2,\mathrm{},k$$
(4)
where the vectors $`|z_i`$ are not necessarily orthogonal.

2. A pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of an $`m\times n`$ systems is denoted as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=A_{11}|11+A_{12}|12+\mathrm{}+A_{1n}|1n+\mathrm{}+A_{m1}|m1+\mathrm{}+A_{mn}|mn,$$
(5)
where $`|11,\mathrm{}|1n,\mathrm{}|m1,\mathrm{}|mn`$ are the standard basis vectors of the $`m\times n`$ system. We introduce the “vector” $`\stackrel{}{A_i}`$

$$\stackrel{}{A_i}=(A_{i1},A_{i2},\mathrm{}A_{in}).i=1,2,\mathrm{},m$$
(6)
It is not difficult to find that the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is separable if and only if all the “vectors” $`\stackrel{}{A_i}`$ are parallel with another ,which is denoted as

$$\stackrel{}{A_1}\stackrel{}{A_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{A_m}.$$
(7)
Note that the relation(7) is true if and only if the following is true

$$\{\begin{array}{c}(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22})\mathrm{}(A_{m1},A_{m2})\\ (A_{11},A_{13})(A_{21},A_{23})\mathrm{}(A_{m1},A_{m3})\\ \mathrm{}\\ (A_{11},A_{1n})(A_{21},A_{2n})\mathrm{}(A_{m1},A_{mn})\end{array}.$$
(8)
That is to say there exist $`(m1)(n1)`$ parallel pairs. For example, having parallel pairs $`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22}),(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{31},A_{32})`$ means that $`A_{11}/A_{21}=A_{12}/A_{22},`$ $`A_{11}/A_{31}=A_{12}/A_{32}`$, respectively.

3. We define $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^r`$ and $`c_r`$ with respect to each parallel pair as follows:

$$|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^r=B^r|\mathrm{\Psi }^{},c_r=\mathrm{\Psi }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^r,r=1,2,\mathrm{},(m1)(n1)$$
(9)
where $`B^r`$ is a $`mn\times mn`$ symmetric transformation matrix in the standard basis and there are only 4 nonzero elements of $`B^r`$. For example, for $`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22})`$, $`\left[B^1\right]_{1,n+2}=\left[B^1\right]_{n+2,1}=1,\left[B^1\right]_{2,n+1}=\left[B^1\right]_{n+1,2}=1`$, the other elements of $`\left[B^1\right]`$ are all zero. It is obvious that $`\left|c_1\right|=0`$ if and only if $`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22}).`$ Similarly, each parallel pair in the relation(8) can be expressed by its $`\left|c_r\right|`$ being equal to zero and this is also the reason we choose the elements of the matrix $`B^r`$. For $`4\times 4`$ systems, there exists nine transformation matrices as follows:

$`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22})\left[B^1\right]_{1,6}=1,\left[B^1\right]_{2,5}=1,\left[B^1\right]_{5,2}=1,\left[B^1\right]_{6,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{31},A_{32})\left[B^2\right]_{1,10}=1,\left[B^2\right]_{2,9}=1,\left[B^2\right]_{9,2}=1,\left[B^2\right]_{10,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{41},A_{42})\left[B^3\right]_{1,14}=1,\left[B^3\right]_{2,13}=1,\left[B^3\right]_{13,2}=1,\left[B^3\right]_{14,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{13})(A_{21},A_{23})\left[B^4\right]_{1,7}=1,\left[B^4\right]_{3,5}=1,\left[B^4\right]_{5,3}=1,\left[B^4\right]_{7,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{13})(A_{31},A_{33})\left[B^5\right]_{1,11}=1,\left[B^5\right]_{3,9}=1,\left[B^5\right]_{9,3}=1,\left[B^5\right]_{11,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{13})(A_{41},A_{43})\left[B^6\right]_{1,15}=1,\left[B^6\right]_{3,13}=1,\left[B^6\right]_{13,3}=1,\left[B^6\right]_{15,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{14})(A_{21},A_{24})\left[B^7\right]_{1,8}=1,\left[B^7\right]_{4,5}=1,\left[B^7\right]_{5,4}=1,\left[B^7\right]_{8,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{14})(A_{31},A_{34})\left[B^8\right]_{1,12}=1,\left[B^8\right]_{4,9}=1,\left[B^8\right]_{9,4}=1,\left[B^8\right]_{12,1}=1,`$

$`(A_{11},A_{14})(A_{41},A_{44})\left[B^9\right]_{1,16}=1,\left[B^9\right]_{4,13}=1,\left[B^9\right]_{13,4}=1,\left[B^9\right]_{16,1}=1,`$

the other elements of $`\left[B^r\right]`$ ($`r=1,\mathrm{},9`$) are all zero. Similarly, for higher dimension systems, we choose $`B^r`$ of each parallel pairs so that each $`c_r`$ is zero.

4. From the above facts, one can get that any state $`\rho `$ is separable iff there is a pure state decomposition of $`\rho ,`$ $`\rho =_i|z_iz_i|`$ with each $`|z_i`$ being separable, i.e., each pair in Eq.(8) is parallel for all $`|z_i.`$

In the following, we will discuss the NSC of separability of $`m\times n`$ systems. Firstly, we will prove the following lemma.

Lemma. For any density matrix $`\rho `$ of $`m\times n`$ systems in Eq.(3), the statement $`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22})`$ is true for each pure state $`|z_i`$ in Eq.(4) if and only if

$$a^1=\lambda _1\underset{i=2}{\overset{l^{}}{}}\lambda _i0,$$
(10)
where $`l^{}l`$ ($`l,`$ $`l^{}`$ is the number of eigenvalues of $`\rho ,`$ $`\tau ^1(\tau ^1)^{}`$ respectively.) and $`\lambda _i`$s, in decreasing order, are the square roots of eigenvalues of the matrix $`\tau ^1(\tau ^1)^{}`$, where $`\tau _{ij}^1=x_i|\stackrel{~}{x}_j^1`$ and $`|x_i`$ is defined in Eq.(3) and $`|\stackrel{~}{x}_j^1`$ in Eq.(9).

Proof: Obviously $`\tau ^1`$ is a symmetric matrix. For the symmetric matrix $`\left[\tau _{ij}^1\right],`$ one can find a $`l\times l`$ unitary matrix $`\left[\nu _{ij}\right]`$ which can diagonalize the $`\left[\tau _{ij}^1\right]`$ in the following way

$$y_i|\stackrel{~}{y}_j^1=\left[v\tau ^1v^T\right]_{ij}=\lambda _i\delta _{ij},$$
(11)
where $`|y_i=_j\nu _{ij}^{}|x_j,`$ $`\nu _{ij}^{}`$ is the complex conjugation of $`\nu _{ij}`$, and $`\lambda _i`$s are the square roots of eigenvalues of matrix $`\tau ^1(\tau ^1)^{}`$. Though $`\tau ^1`$ is dependent on the choice of eigenvectors $`|x_i`$ of $`\rho ,`$ $`\lambda _i`$ is not. Every decomposition of $`\rho `$, $`\rho =_i|z_iz_i|,`$ can be obtained by $`|z_i=_j\mu _{ij}^{}|y_j`$. Here

$$\mu ^{}=\left[\begin{array}{c}a_{1,1}e^{i\theta _{1,1}}a_{1,2}e^{i\theta _{1,2}}\mathrm{}a_{1,l}e^{i\theta _{1,l}}\\ a_{2,1}e^{i\theta _{2,1}}a_{2,2}e^{i\theta _{2,2}}\mathrm{}a_{2,l}e^{i\theta _{2,l}}\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_{k,1}e^{i\theta _{k,1}}a_{k,2}e^{i\theta _{k,2}}\mathrm{}a_{k,l}e^{i\theta _{k,l}}\end{array}\right]$$
(12)
whose columns are orthonormal vectors and there is no loss of generality in taking each $`a_{ij}`$ to be real and nonnegative. If $`l^{}<l`$, one can add ($`ll^{}`$) dummy states $`|y_{l^{}+1},|y_{l^{}+2},\mathrm{},|y_l`$ being equal to zero vectors. Thus it can be obtained that $`|z_i=_ju_{ij}^1|x_j`$, where $`u^1=\mu ^{}\nu ^{}`$(there may exist many transformation matrices which can realize this kind of decomposition. The set which contains all these transformation matrices is denoted by $`U_{k\times l}^1`$). If $`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22})`$ for each $`|z_i,`$ from fact 3, one has

$$z_i|\stackrel{~}{z}_i^1=0,$$
(13)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{z}_i^1=B^1|z_i^{}`$; then one has

$`a_{i1}^4\lambda _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{l^{}}{}}}a_{ij}^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{ij}\lambda _j)^2+({\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{l^{}}{}}}a_{ij}^2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{ij}\lambda _j)^2`$ (14)
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{l^{}}{}}}a_{ij}^2\lambda _j)^2.`$ (15)
Because of the positivity of $`\lambda _i`$ and $`a_{ij}`$, one can get

$$a_{i1}^2\lambda _1\underset{j=2}{\overset{l^{}}{}}a_{ij}^2\lambda _j,$$
(16)
and then, $`\lambda _1=_{i=1}^ka_{i1}^2\lambda _1_{i=1}^k_{j=2}^l^{}a_{ij}^2\lambda _j=_{j=2}^l^{}\lambda _j,`$ i.e.

$$a^1=\lambda _1\underset{i=2}{\overset{l^{}}{}}\lambda _i0.$$
(17)
Here we have used Eq.(16) and $`_{i=1}^ka_{i1}^2=1.`$

Conversely, if $`\lambda _1_{i=2}^l^{}\lambda _i`$, one can find a kind of decomposition of $`\rho ,`$ $`\rho =_i|z_iz_i|`$ \[see Appendix\], where $`z_i|\stackrel{~}{z}_i^1=0,`$ so that $`(A_{11},A_{12})(A_{21},A_{22})`$. Therefore the lemma is proved.

Similarly, from the proof of the Lemma one knows that for an $`m\times n`$ system the NSC for each of the $`(m1)(n1)`$ pairs being parallel is $`a^r0(r=1,2,\mathrm{},(m1)(n1))`$. If each $`a^r0`$, there exist $`(m1)(n1)`$ sets of transformation matrices, $`U_{k\times l}^1,U_{k\times l}^2,\mathrm{},U_{k\times l}^{(m1)(n1)}`$, each of which yields decompositions of $`\rho `$ with the existence of the corresponding parallel pair. Thus we get the main result in this paper:

Theorem. A NSC of separability of states of an $`m\times n`$ system is that the corresponding $`a^r0(r=1,\mathrm{},(m1)(n1))`$ and the intersection $`U_{k\times l}`$ of the $`(m1)(n1)`$ sets of transformations is not empty.

Proof: The sufficient condition is obvious. The task left is to prove the necessary condition. If $`\rho `$ is separable , there must exist a transformation matrix $`u`$ which can transform the decomposition of $`\rho `$, $`\rho =_{i=1}^l|x_ix_i|`$ into $`\rho =_i|z_iz_i|`$ with the existence of $`(n1)(m1)`$ parallel pairs in each pure state $`|z_i`$. From the Lemma, one can get each $`a^r`$ $`0`$ in each $`|z_i`$, and the matrix $`u`$ belongs to the intersection $`U_{k\times l}`$; i.e. $`U_{k\times l}`$ is not empty. Thus the theorem is proved.

According to the above theorem, one may take the following steps (i)-(iv) to judge whether a state $`\rho `$ of an $`m\times n`$ quantum system is separable or not.

i). Calculate the nonzero eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`\rho `$ (see Eq.(3)).

ii). Calculate $`(m1)(n1)`$ matrices $`\tau ^r(\tau ^r)^{}`$ according to $`B^r(r=1,2,\mathrm{},(m1)(n1))`$ and obtain the square roots of the eigenvalues of $`\tau ^r(\tau ^r)^{}`$ (see Eq.(11)).

iii). Judge whether $`a^r(r=1,2,\mathrm{},(m1)(n1))`$ is greater than zero or not (see Eq.(10)). If all $`a^r0,`$ then go to step (iv), otherwise $`\rho `$ is inseparable.

iv). Judge whether the intersection of $`(m1)(n1)`$ sets of transformation $`U_{k\times l}`$ is empty or not. If the intersection is empty, $`\rho `$ is inseparable, otherwise $`\rho `$ is separable.

The steps from (i) to (iii) are easy to follow, but step (iv) is very difficult to operate at first sight. It is natural to ask whether step (iv) can be done or not and whether the method is practical . To answer this question and illustrate the method, we give an example of a bound entangled state.

A state $`\rho `$ of a $`2\times 4`$ system is

$$\rho =\frac{1}{8}\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(18)
$`\rho `$ has five nonzero eigenvalues $`t_i(i=1,2,\mathrm{},5),`$

$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`t_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},`$ (19)
$`t_3`$ $`=`$ $`t_4=t_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (20)
The corresponding unnormalized eigenvectors $`|x_i`$ can be

$`|x_1`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0,0,0,0),|x_2=(0,0,0,0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0,0,0),`$ (21)
$`|x_3`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0,0,0,0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0,0),|x_4=(0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0,0,0,0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0),`$ (22)
$`|x_5`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}},0,0,0,0,\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}}).`$ (23)
The three matrices $`B^r(r=1,2,3)`$ corresponding to the three parallel pairs are

$`(A_{11},A_{12})`$ $``$ $`(A_{21},A_{22})B_{1,6}^1=B_{6,1}^1=1,B_{2,5}^1=B_{5,2}^1=1,`$ (24)
$`(A_{11},A_{13})`$ $``$ $`(A_{21},A_{23})B_{1,7}^2=B_{7,1}^2=1,B_{3,5}^2=B_{5,3}^2=1,`$ (25)
$`(A_{11},A_{14})`$ $``$ $`(A_{21},A_{24})B_{1,8}^3=B_{8,1}^3=1,B_{4,5}^3=B_{5,4}^3=1.`$ (26)
Then the symmetric matrices $`\tau _{ij}^r=x_i|\stackrel{~}{x}_j^r=x_i\left|B^r\right|x_j^{}(i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},5,r=1,2,3)`$ are

$$\tau ^1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right],\tau ^2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right],\tau ^3=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{8}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(27)
It is easy to get that $`a^1=0,a^2<0,a^3<0,`$ so we must turn to step (iv). According to the theorem, there are surely three sets of transformation matrices $`u_{k\times 5}`$ each of which can result in the decomposition $`|z_i`$ of $`\rho `$, $`\rho =_{i=1}^k|z_iz_i|`$ with the corresponding pair being parallel . The $`u_{k\times 5}`$ can be written as

$$u_{k\times 5}=\left[\begin{array}{c}a_{11}a_{12}\mathrm{}a_{15}\\ a_{21}a_{22}\mathrm{}a_{25}\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_{k1}a_{k2}\mathrm{}a_{k5}\end{array}\right].$$
(28)
Each column in $`u_{k\times 5}`$ is an orthonormal vector. If three sets of $`u_{k\times 5}`$ have intersection, the state $`\rho `$ is separable. This condition is equivalent to the existence of a set $`a_{11},\mathrm{},a_{15},\mathrm{},a_{k1,\mathrm{},}a_{k5}`$ satisfying the following equations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}|z_i=a_{i1}|x_1+a_{i2}|x_2+\mathrm{}+a_{i5}|x_5,\hfill \\ z_i\left|B^1\right|z_i^{}=0,\hfill \\ z_i\left|B^2\right|z_i^{}=0,\hfill \\ z_i\left|B^3\right|z_i^{}=0.\hfill \end{array}(i=1,2,\mathrm{},k)$$
(29)
From Eqs.(27) and (29), one can get that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}a_{i2}^{}a_{i4}^{}=a_{i3}^2,\\ a_{i2}^{}a_{i5}^{}=a_{i3}^{}a_{i4}^{},\\ a_{i1}^{}a_{i2}^{}=a_{i3}^{}a_{i5}^{}.\end{array}$$
(30)
The complex number $`a_{ij}^{}`$ can be expressed as $`a_{ij}^{}=b_{ij}e^{i\theta _{ij}}`$ where $`b_{ij}`$ is a real and positive number. From the first equation of Eq.(30), one can get that $`_{i=1}^kb_{i2}b_{i4}=_{i=1}^kb_{i3}^2=1.`$ Because $`_{i=1}^kb_{ij}^2=1,`$ the equality $`b_{i2}=b_{i3}=b_{i4}`$ can be obtained. Then Eq.(30) results in

$$\{\begin{array}{c}b_{i1}=b_{i2}=b_{i3}=b_{i4}=b_{i5}=b_i,\\ \theta _{i3}=\frac{\theta _{i1}+3\theta _{i2}}{4},\theta _{i4}=\frac{\theta _{i1}+\theta _{i2}}{2},\theta _{i5}=\frac{3\theta _{i1}+\theta _{i2}}{4}.\end{array}$$
(31)
Because each column in Eq.(28) is orthonormal, one can obtain that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i(\theta _{i1}\theta _{i2})}=0,\\ _{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i(\theta _{i1}\theta _{i3})}=_{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i\frac{3(\theta _{i1}\theta _{i2})}{4}}=0,\\ _{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i(\theta _{i1}\theta _{i4})}=_{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i\frac{\theta _{i1}\theta _{i2}}{2}}=0.\end{array}$$
(32)
It is easy to find that Eq.(32) has no solution since $`_{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i(\theta _{i1}\theta _{i2})}=0,_{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i\frac{3(\theta _{i1}\theta _{i2})}{4}}=0,`$ and $`_{i=1}^kb_i^2e^{i\frac{\theta _{i1}\theta _{i2}}{2}}=0`$ do not hold true simultaneously.. Therefore the intersection $`u_{k\times 5}`$ of three sets of transformation matrix is empty and $`\rho `$ in Eq.(18) is inseparable.

From the above example, one can see that for any mixed state the problem of finding the intersection of our sets of transformation matrices comes down to the problem of finding the solution of a set of quadratic equations with the condition of the solution being orthonormal vectors. The condition of orthonormality that makes the quadratic equations more easily solved. Especially, if there are not many nonzero elements of the symmetry matrix $`\tau ^r`$, it is very easy to solve the set of quadratic equations. In addition, the form of these equations is dependent on the choice of eigenvectors of $`\rho `$, which implies that one may simplify the form of these equations with appropriate eigenvectors of $`\rho .`$

In summary, we have presented a new necessary and sufficient condition for separability of state of any system. According to the above theorem, $`(m1)\times (n1)`$ conditions should be tested in order to judge whether a state is separable or not. Though in mathematical form this method is more complex than the one provided in , it is practical in judging the separability of a state. Meanwhile, our theorem provides a method to find the disentangled decomposition of a separable state. It is also worth mentioning that for $`2\times 2`$ systems, the condition that the partial transposition(PT) is positive and the condition that each $`a^10`$ in our method are equivalent. This suggests that there may be an essential connection between the PT of $`\rho `$ and $`a^1.`$

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank William K. Wootters and Guangcan Guo for their encouragement. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.  APPENDIX  Considering an $`m\times n`$ system, a state $`\rho `$ of this system, which has $`l`$ nonzero eigenvalues, has a decomposition, $`\rho =_i|y_iy_i|,`$ which satisfies $`y_i|\stackrel{~}{y}_j^r=\lambda _i\delta _{ij},`$ where $`|\stackrel{~}{y}_i^r=B^r|y_i^{}`$ and $`B^r`$ is a transformation matrix corresponding to a parallel pair ($`r=1,2,\mathrm{},(m1)(n1)`$). If $`\lambda _1_{i=2}^l^{}\lambda _i`$ ($`l^{}`$ is the number of nonzero eigenvalues of $`\tau ^r(\tau ^r)^{}`$), one can find a decomposition of $`\rho ,`$
$$|z_i=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{k}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}a_{ij}e^{i\theta _j}|y_j,i=1,2,\mathrm{},4k,k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}$$
(33)
where $`4k`$ is greater than or equal to $`l,`$ $`\left|a_{ij}\right|=1`$ and their signs are decided by Fig. 1, $`|y_{l^{}+1},|y_{l^{}+2},\mathrm{},|y_l`$ being zero vectors. Phase factors can be found to make $`_je^{2i\theta _j}\lambda _j=0`$, which guarantees $`z_i|\stackrel{~}{z}_i^r=0.`$ Obviously, the matrices $`\left[a_{ij}\right]`$ is a $`4k\times l`$ matrix.

From Fig. 1, one can find that

$`a_{4\times 4}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}+1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \end{array}\right].`$

$$a_{8\times 8}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}+1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(34)
According to the symmetry, one can find the higher-dimension matrix $`a_{4k\times 4k}`$ easily. If the number $`l`$ of nonzero eigenvalues of $`\rho `$ is less than $`4k`$, one may take the first $`l`$ columns of $`a_{4k\times 4k}.`$ For example,

$`a_{8\times 5}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}+1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right].`$

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. The diagram showing the sign of the oefficient $`a_{kj}`$ in Eq. (16).