text:
# A robust verification of the quantum nature of light

## Abstract

We present a conditional experiment involving a parametric amplifier and an avalanche photodetector to generate highly nonclassical states of the radiation field. The nonclassicality is robust against amplifier gain, detector efficiency and dark counts. At the output all the generalized Wigner functions have negative values, and this is exploited in order to reveal the nonclassicality through quantum homodyne tomography.

Nonclassical states of light are relevant in many fields, which ranges from fundamental tests of quantum mechanics to applications in quantum communication and measurements . In the last two decades several schemes to generate different kinds of nonclassical light have been suggested, and some of them have been implemented . However, with the exception of squeezing, the generation and the detection of nonclassical light is experimentally challenging. The aim of this letter is to suggest a simple experimental scheme to verify the quantum nature of light in a state as nonclassical as a Fock number state. The main feature of our experimental scheme is its robustness against the possible imperfections of the setup, such as finite amplifier gain, nonunit detector efficiency and the occurrence of dark counts.

Let us consider an active $`\chi ^{(2)}`$ crystal operating as a nondegenerate parametric amplifier (NOPA, for details of the experimental setup see the end of the paper). The NOPA, pumped at frequency $`\omega _P=\omega _a+\omega _b`$, couples two modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ (idler and signal modes) via the medium nonlinearity. In the rotating-wave approximation, the evolution operator of the NOPA under phase-matching conditions can be written as $`U_\lambda =\mathrm{exp}\left[\lambda \left(a^{}b^{}ab\right)\right]`$ where the ”gain” $`\lambda `$ is proportional to the interaction-time, the nonlinear susceptibility, and the pump intensity. For vacuum input, we have spontaneous parametric down-conversion and the output state is given by the twin-beam

$`|\psi =\sqrt{1\xi ^2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\xi ^n|n_a|n_b\xi =\mathrm{tanh}\lambda .`$ (1)
We now consider the situation in which one of the two beams (say, mode $`b`$) is revealed by an ideal avalanche on/off photodetector, i.e. a detector which has no output when no photon is detected and a fixed output when one or more photons are detected. The action of an on/off detector is described by the two-value POVM

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1\eta _\mathrm{a})^k|kk|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1\widehat{𝐈}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$ (2)
$`\eta _\mathrm{a}`$ being the quantum efficiency. The outcome ”1” (i.e registering a ”click” corresponding to one or more incoming photons) occur with probability

$`P_1=\psi |\widehat{𝐈}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{a}\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}}`$ (3)
and correspondingly, the conditional output states for the mode $`a`$ is given by

$`\widehat{\varrho }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_1}}\text{Tr}_b\left[|\psi \psi |\widehat{𝐈}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1\right].`$ (4)
In the Fock basis we have

$`\widehat{\varrho }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2}{P_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\xi ^{2k}\left[1(1\eta )^k\right]|kk|.`$ (5)
The density matrix in Eq. (5) describes a pseudo-thermal state, where the vacuum component has been removed by the conditional measurement. Such a state is highly nonclassical, as also discussed in Ref. . In the limit of low gain $`\lambda 1`$ the conditional state $`\widehat{\varrho }_1`$ approaches the number state $`|11|`$ with one photon. The Wigner function $`W(\alpha )`$ of the state (4) exhibits negative values for any gain $`\lambda `$ and quantum efficiency $`\eta _\mathrm{a}`$. In particular, in the origin of the phase space we have

$`W(0)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2}{1+\xi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}{1+\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}}.`$ (6)
One can see that also the generalized Wigner function for $`s`$-ordering $`W_s(\alpha )=2/(\pi s)d^2\gamma W_0(\gamma )\mathrm{exp}[2/s|\alpha \gamma |^2]`$ shows negative values for $`s(1,0)`$. In particular one has

$`W_s(0)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+s)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\xi ^2)}{(1s)+\xi ^2(1+s)}}`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}{(1s)+\xi ^2(1+s)(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}}.`$ (8)
If we take as a measure of nonclassicality the lowest index $`s^{}`$ for which $`W_s`$ is a well-behaved probability (regular, positive definite)  Eq. (8) says that for $`\widehat{\varrho }_1`$ we have $`s^{}=1`$, i. e. $`\widehat{\varrho }_1`$ describes a state as nonclassical as a number state.

The fact that all the generalized Wigner functions have negative values may be exploited in order to reveal the nonclassicality of $`\widehat{\varrho }_1`$ through quantum homodyne tomography. In fact, one has

$`W_s(0)=\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{\varrho }_1\widehat{W}_s\right]\widehat{W}_s={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s+1}{s1}}\right)^{a^{}a},`$ (9)
and therefore

$`W_s(0)={\displaystyle 𝑑xp_{\eta _\mathrm{h}}(x)R_{\eta _\mathrm{h}}[\widehat{W}_s](x)},`$ (10)
where $`p_{\eta _\mathrm{h}}(x)`$ is the probability distribution of a random phase homodyne detection (with quantum efficiency $`\eta _\mathrm{h}`$) and $`R_{\eta _\mathrm{h}}[\widehat{W}_s](x)`$ is the tomographic kernel for the operator $`\widehat{W}_s`$, which is given by

$`R_{\eta _\mathrm{h}}[\widehat{W}_s](x)={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta _\mathrm{h}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(1;1/2;\frac{2\eta _\mathrm{h}x^2}{(1s)\eta _\mathrm{h}1})}{(1s)\eta _\mathrm{h}1}},`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a,b;z)`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function. $`R_{\eta _\mathrm{h}}[\widehat{W}_s](x)`$ is a bounded function for $`s<1\eta _\mathrm{h}^1`$ which represents the maximum index of the Wigner function $`W_s(0)`$ that can be reconstructed by homodyne tomography with efficiency $`\eta _\mathrm{h}`$. In Fig. 1 we show a typical reconstruction of $`W_s(0)`$ for different values of $`s`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{a}`$.

Besides quantum efficiency, i.e. lost photons, the performance of a realistic photodetector are also degraded by the presence of dark-count, i.e. by ”clicks” that do not correspond to any incoming photon. In order to take into account both these effects we use the simple scheme depicted in Figure 2. A real photodetector is modeled as an ideal photodetector (unit quantum efficiency, no dark-count) preceded by a beam splitter (of transmissivity equal to the quantum efficiency $`\eta `$) whose second port is in an auxiliary excited state $`\widehat{\nu }`$, which can be a thermal state, or a phase-averaged coherent state, depending on the kind of background noise (a thermal or Poissonian). If the second port of the beam splitter is the vacuum $`\widehat{\nu }=|00|`$ we have no dark-count and the POVM of the photodetector reduces to that of Eq. (2).

For the second port of the BS excited in a generic mixture $`\widehat{\nu }=_s\nu _{ss}|ss|`$ the POVM for the on/off photodetection is given by ($`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1\widehat{𝐈}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0`$)

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1\eta )^n{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu _{ss}\eta ^s\left(\begin{array}{c}n+s\\ s\end{array}\right)|nn|.`$ (14)
The density matrices of a thermal state and a phase-averaged coherent state (with $`M`$ mean photons) are given by

$`\widehat{\nu }_\mathrm{t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M+1}}\right)^s|ss|`$ (15)
$`\widehat{\nu }_\mathrm{p}`$ $`=`$ $`e^M{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^s}{s!}}|ss|.`$ (16)
In order to reproduce a background noise with mean photon number $`N`$ we consider the state $`\widehat{\nu }`$ with average photon number $`M=N/(1\eta _\mathrm{a})`$. In these case we have

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^\mathrm{t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{a}}{1+N}}\right)^n|nn|`$ (17)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^\mathrm{p}`$ $`=`$ $`e^N{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[(1\eta _\mathrm{a})^nL_n(N{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{a}}{1\eta _\mathrm{a}}})\right]|nn|,`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\mathrm{p}`$ denotes thermal and Poissonian respectively, and $`L_n(x)`$ is the Laguerre polynomial of order $`n`$. The corresponding detection probabilities are given by

$`P_1^\mathrm{t}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2}{[1+N](1\xi ^2)+\eta _\mathrm{a}\xi ^2}}`$ (19)
$`P_1^\mathrm{p}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}}\mathrm{exp}\left[N{\displaystyle \frac{1\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}}\right].`$ (20)
For small $`N`$ the two models lead to the same detection probability at the first order in $`N`$ $`P_1^\mathrm{t}P_1^\mathrm{p}=P_1+O[N^2]`$ with

$`P_1={\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\mathrm{a}\xi ^2}{1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\xi ^2)^2}{[1\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})]^2}}N.`$ (21)
In the following we will use the Poissonian background, and omit the index $`\mathrm{p}`$. The conditional output state, after the observation of a click, is now given by

$`\widehat{\varrho }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{P_1}}(1\xi ^2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}`$ $`\xi ^{2n}[1{\displaystyle \frac{(1\eta _\mathrm{a})^n}{e^N}}`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`L_n({\displaystyle \frac{N\eta _\mathrm{a}}{1\eta _\mathrm{a}}})]|nn|`$ (23)
and the generalized Wigner function $`W_s(0)`$ in the origin of the phase space is

$`W_s(0)={\displaystyle \frac{2(1\xi ^2)}{\pi P_1}}`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1s)+\xi ^2(1+s)}}`$ (24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[N\frac{(1+s)+2\xi ^2(1+s)(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}{(1+s)+\xi ^2(1+s)(1\eta _\mathrm{a})}\right]}{(1s)+\xi ^2(1\eta _\mathrm{a})(1+s)}}\}.`$ (25)
The Wigner function $`W(0)`$ for $`s=0`$ (as well as for $`s<0`$) is no longer negative for all values of parameters. On the other hand, there is a large range of values of the quantum efficiency $`\eta _\mathrm{a}`$ and the gain $`\lambda `$ giving negative $`W_s(0)`$ with $`s`$ accessible by homodyne tomography with realistic values of the homodyne efficiency $`\eta _\mathrm{h}`$. In other words, the generation and the detection of nonclassicality are robust also against the occurrence of dark counts in the avalanche conditioning photodetector. In Fig. 3 we show a typical reconstruction of $`W_s(0)`$ for different values of parameters

In a practical implementation the NOPA consists of a type-II phase-matched KTP crystal that is pumped by the second harmonic of a Q-switched and mode-locked Nd:YAG laser. Previously, such a NOPA has been employed with parametric gains $`>10`$ ($`|\xi |^2>0.9`$), to generate highly quantum-correlated twin beams of light at 1064 nm . By appropriately choosing the input quantum state, a similar setup was then used to demonstrate the production of squeezed-vacuum state with a high degree ($`5.8\pm 0.2`$ dB) of squeezing . In the present context, the twin beams, which are easily separable because of their orthogonal polarizations resulting from type-II phase matching, can be separately detected; beam $`a`$ with a homodyne detector to verify nonclassicality, and beam $`b`$ with an avalanche photodetector. The main challenge in the present experiment is the achievement of high degrees of overlap (mode-matching efficiency) between the down-converted and the LO modes. Such overlap is non-trivial in pulsed, traveling-wave experiments owing to the distortion of the down-converted modes that is caused by the spatio-temporally Gaussian profile of the pump beam. With suitable choice of LOs, however, $`\eta _h>70\%`$ has been achieved , an adequate value for the present experiment (cf. Figs. 1 and 3). In the measurements on beam $`b`$, the main challenge will be the selection of the appropriate mode, which can be performed by exploiting quantum-frequency conversion, a process that has been previously demonstrated .

In conclusion, we presented a robust experiment to verify the quantum nature of light. This goal is achieved by a conditional scheme, where one of the entangled twin-beam exiting a NOPA is revealed by an avalanche photodetector, leaving the other one in a pseudo-thermal state with no vacuum component. The nonclassicality, as well as its verification by homodyne tomography, are robust against amplifier gain, detector efficiency and dark counts.

This work has been cosponsored by MURST (Project ”Amplificazione e rivelazione di radiazione quantistica”) and INFM (PAISS TWIN). The author would thank Mauro D’Ariano for many useful discussions and Prem Kumar for remarks on the experimental implementation.


format: text

text:
# Critical Behavior of a Heavy Particle in a Granular Fluid

## Abstract

Behavior analogous to a second order phase transition is observed for the homogeneous cooling state of a heavy impurity particle in a granular fluid. The order parameter $`\varphi `$ is the ratio of impurity mean square velocity to that of the fluid, with a conjugate field $`h`$ proportional to the mass ratio. A parameter $`\beta `$, measuring the fluid cooling rate relative to the impurity–fluid collision rate, is the analogue of the inverse temperature. For $`\beta <1`$ the fluid is “normal” with $`\varphi =0`$ at $`h=0`$, as in the case of a system with elastic collisions. For $`\beta >1`$ an “ordered” state with $`\varphi 0`$ occurs at $`h=0`$, representing an extreme breakdown of equipartition. Critical slowing and qualitative changes in the velocity distribution function for the impurity particle near the transition are noted.

The simplest statistical mechanical model for an activated granular fluid is a system of smooth, inelastic hard spheres. The inelasticity is specified in terms of a restitution coefficient $`\alpha 1`$. Qualitative differences between the cases $`\alpha =1`$ (elastic spheres) and $`\alpha 1`$ have been demonstrated in many ways using both theoretical and simulation methods . Among these is the replacement of the Gibbs state for an isolated uniform system by a homogeneous cooling state (HCS). The HCS is inherently time dependent due to the loss of energy in each binary collision. It is postulated that the time dependence of this ensemble occurs entirely through a scaling of the velocity by its root mean square (“thermal”) velocity $`v_T(t)`$ and the associated normalization . In this case, the dynamics (Liouville equation or kinetic equation) can be transformed to a stationary state form using suitable dimensionless variables. The time dependence of $`v_T(t)`$ also follows from this scaling, so that only a time independent dimensionless cooling rate must be determined self-consistently. Similar results apply for a multi-component system, although the analysis is complicated by the existence of many scaling velocities . The HCS results when the cooling rates for all mean square velocities are the same. This condition then determines all scaling velocities in terms of that for one species. It is the analogue of energy equipartition for a system with $`\alpha =1`$, but deviations from equipartition occur for all $`\alpha 1`$. These deviations can be weak or strong depending on the mechanical differences between the species and the degree of dissipation.

Many of the new effects to be expected in multi-component systems can be illustrated by the simplest case of a single impurity particle in a one component system . The fluid (impurity) particle diameter, mass, and restitution coefficient are denoted by $`\sigma `$ ($`\sigma _0`$) , $`m`$ ($`m_0`$), and $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha _0`$). There are two mean square velocities and associated cooling rates for the fluid and impurity particles,

$$\begin{array}{c}v_T^2(t)=\frac{2}{3}v^2(t),v_{T0}^2(t)=\frac{2}{3}v_0^2(t),\hfill \\ \xi =_t\mathrm{ln}v_T^2(t),\xi _0=_t\mathrm{ln}v_{T0}^2(t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The brackets denote an average over the HCS, and the subscript $`0`$ denotes properties of the impurity particle. The cooling rates for a moderately dense fluid can be calculated to good accuracy from the Boltzmann-Enskog and Lorentz-Enskog kinetic equations for the fluid and impurity reduced distribution functions . These rates then depend on the velocity distributions for the fluid and impurity particle in the HCS and can be estimated to good approximation using Maxwellians (see justification below) with the results

$$\xi ^{}=\frac{\xi }{n\sigma ^2gv_T}=\frac{2\sqrt{2\pi }}{3}\left(1\alpha ^2\right),$$
(2)
$$\xi _0^{}=\frac{\xi _0}{n\sigma ^2gv_T}=\nu ^{}\left(1+\varphi \right)^{1/2}\left(1h\frac{1+\varphi }{\varphi }\right),$$
(3)
where $`n`$ is the fluid density, $`g`$ is the pair correlation function for two fluid particles, and $`n\sigma ^2gv_T`$ is a characteristic collision rate for the fluid particles. Similarly, $`\nu ^{}=\nu /n\sigma ^2gv_T=(16\sqrt{\pi }/3)h\left(g_0/g\right)\left(\overline{\sigma }/\sigma \right)^2`$ is a corresponding dimensionless average impurity–fluid particle collision rate, where $`\overline{\sigma }=\left(\sigma +\sigma _0\right)/2`$ and $`g_0`$ is the corresponding fluid–impurity particle pair correlation function. The dependence on the mass ratio occurs entirely through $`h=m(1+\alpha _0)/2(m+m_0)`$. The time independent ratio of mean square velocities,

$$\varphi =v_{T0}^2/v_T^2,$$
(4)
is determined by the condition that the cooling rates be equal,

$$h=\frac{\varphi }{\left(1+\varphi \right)^{3/2}}\left[\left(1+\varphi \right)^{1/2}\beta \right].$$
(5)
The constant $`\beta `$ is a measure of the fluid cooling rate relative to the fluid–impurity collision rate,

$$\beta =\frac{\xi ^{}}{\nu ^{}}=\frac{\left(1\alpha ^2\right)}{4\sqrt{2}h}\frac{g}{g_0}\left(\frac{\sigma }{\overline{\sigma }}\right)^2.$$
(6)
The elastic collisions limit is given by $`\beta =0`$, for which the solution is $`\varphi =h/\left(1h\right)=m/m_0`$. This is the required result from the equipartition theorem. If only the fluid particle collisions are elastic ($`\beta =0`$, $`\alpha _01`$), a recent exact result of Martin and Piasecki, $`\varphi =m(1+\alpha _0)/\left[2m_0+m\left(1\alpha _0\right)\right]`$ is recovered . More generally, Eq. (5) determines $`\varphi (\beta ,h)`$ for the entire physical domain of $`h`$ and $`\beta `$. The solution is found to have qualitatively different behavior at small $`h`$ for different values of $`\beta `$. The asymptotic behavior for $`h0`$ is found to be

$$\varphi (\beta ,h)\{\begin{array}{cc}(1\beta )^1h,\hfill & \beta <1\hfill \\ \sqrt{2h},\hfill & \beta =1\hfill \\ \beta ^21+2\beta ^4(\beta ^21)^1h,\hfill & \beta >1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Thus $`\varphi `$ vanishes at $`h=0`$ for $`\beta <1`$ but is finite at $`\beta >1`$. The condition $`\beta <1`$ is “normal” in the sense that $`\varphi `$ scales as the mass ratio just as for systems with elastic collisions and the consequent equipartition of kinetic energy. This normal state has been studied recently for $`h1`$, where the kinetic theory implies a corresponding Fokker-Planck description . The condition $`\beta >1`$ corresponds to an extreme violation of equipartition such that the mean square velocities of the fluid and impurity particles remain comparable even though their mass ratio is zero. Figure 1 shows the more complete dependence of $`\varphi (\beta ,h)`$ on $`h`$ for $`\beta =0.9`$, 1, and $`1.1`$, confirming the above asymptotic analysis.

This behavior at small $`h`$ is analogous to a thermodynamic transition at $`\beta =1`$ between two different states of the system characterized by the order parameter $`\varphi `$, conjugate field $`h`$, and inverse “temperature” $`\beta `$. To develop this analogy a Helmholtz free energy $`F(\beta ,\varphi )`$ is obtained from the “equation of state” (5) by integrating the definition $`h=F(\beta ,\varphi )/\varphi `$ \[with the boundary condition $`F(\beta ,0)=0`$, for simplicity\]. Next, the Gibbs free energy is constructed from $`F`$ by the Legendre transformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)=Fh\varphi `$. The first and second derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)`$ provide the order parameter $`\varphi `$, “entropy” $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, “susceptibility” $`\chi _\beta `$, “expansion coefficient” $`\alpha _h`$, and “heat capacity” $`C_h`$. The results are

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)=\left(1h\right)\varphi \mathrm{ln}\left(1+\varphi \right)2\beta \left[\frac{2+\varphi }{\left(1+\varphi \right)^{1/2}}2\right],$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,h)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)}{\beta }=2\left[\frac{2+\varphi }{\left(1+\varphi \right)^{1/2}}2\right],$$
(9)
$$\chi _\beta =\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)}{h^2}=\frac{\left(1+\varphi \right)^{5/2}}{\left(1+\varphi \right)^{1/2}\beta \left(1\frac{1}{2}\varphi \right)},$$
(10)
$$\alpha _h=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)}{\beta h}=\chi _\beta \frac{\varphi }{\left(1+\varphi \right)^{3/2}},$$
(11)
$$C_h=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)}{\beta ^2}=\chi _\beta ^1\alpha _h^2.$$
(12)
The behavior of these functions near $`h=0`$ follows directly from (7). For example, the response functions $`\chi _\beta `$, $`\alpha _h`$, and $`C_h`$ at $`h=0`$, $`10^2`$, and $`10^3`$ are shown in Fig. 2. In the limit $`h0`$, the entropy and order parameter are continuous at $`\beta =1`$, so the divergence of $`\chi _\beta `$ and the discontinuity of $`\alpha _h`$ at $`\beta =1`$ identifies this as a second order phase transition. Near the critical region ($`h1`$, $`|\beta 1|1`$), the free energy adopts the Landau-like form $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h)\frac{1}{2}(1\beta )\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{6}\varphi ^3h\varphi `$, which yields $`h(1\beta )\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2`$. As a consequence, the free energy and the equation of state in the critical region satisfy the scaling relations $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda (\beta 1),\lambda ^ah)=\lambda ^b\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta 1,h)`$ and $`\varphi (\lambda (\beta 1),\lambda ^ah)=\lambda ^{ba}\varphi (\beta 1,h)`$, with $`a=2`$ and $`b=3`$. These scaling relations suffice to determine the critical exponents  $`\widehat{\delta }=a/(ba)=2`$, $`\widehat{\beta }=ba=1`$, and $`\widehat{\gamma }=2ab=1`$, while the critical exponent $`\widehat{\alpha }=2b=1`$ is negative, indicating that $`C_h`$ is continuous at the critical point.

If the ratio between the initial mean square velocities of the fluid and impurity particles is not that given by the solution to (5), there is an evolution to the HCS described by (1) which can be written in the Ginzburg-Landau form

$$_s\varphi =\left[\xi _0^{}(t)\xi ^{}(t)\right]\varphi =\mu (\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h;\varphi )}{\varphi },$$
(13)
where a new time scale $`ds=n\sigma ^2gv_T(t)dt`$ has been introduced. Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h;\varphi )`$ is a variational free energy given by Eq. (8) with the order parameter $`\varphi `$ considered as an independent variable, and the kinetic coefficient $`\mu (\varphi )`$ is

$$\mu (\varphi )=\nu ^{}\left(1+\varphi \right)^{3/2}.$$
(14)
The stationary solution occurs for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ,h;\varphi )/\varphi =0`$, which is just Eq. (5). For states near the HCS the equation can be linearized and a characteristic response time $`\tau `$ identified according to

$$_s\mathrm{ln}(\varphi \varphi _{\text{HCS}})=\tau ^1=\left(\mu \chi _\beta ^1\right)_{\varphi _{\text{HCS}}},$$
(15)
where $`\varphi _{\text{HCS}}`$ denotes the solution to (5). In the elastic limit $`\tau `$ is just the equilibration time for the impurity particle to attain a mean kinetic energy equal to that of the fluid particles. Similarly, for inelastic collisions it is the time (in units of the fluid mean free time) for the impurity particle to reach a cooling rate equal to that of the fluid. This characteristic time is a smooth function of $`h`$ and $`\beta `$ except in the limit $`h0`$ where $`\tau `$ diverges at $`\beta =1`$. This critical slowing follows directly from the fact that $`\tau \chi _\beta `$. Otherwise, the relaxation times away from $`\beta =1`$ are finite and comparable for the normal and ordered states. Figure 3 shows the dependence of the inverse time $`\tau _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\nu ^{}\tau )^1`$ on $`h`$ for $`\beta =0.9`$, 1, and 1.1. The quantity $`\tau ^{}`$ measures the relaxation time for the impurity particle in terms of the number of impurity–fluid particle collisions.

The above analysis is based on an approximate evaluation of the cooling rates using Maxwellians for the impurity and fluid particle velocity distributions. This is known to be accurate for the fluid particles but the new features in the critical domain and in the ordered phase $`\beta >1`$ require closer inspection of the impurity particle distribution. Based on the Lorentz-Enskog kinetic equation, it is possible to determine the impurity particle velocity distribution for the HCS asymptotically close to $`\beta 1`$ and $`h0`$ with the result

$$F(𝐯^{})C\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\varphi }{h}\left[\left(1\beta \right)v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{10}\varphi v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right]\right\},$$
(16)
where $`𝐯^{}=𝐯_0/v_{T0}`$ and $`C`$ is a normalization constant. The asymptotic equation of state is determined from $`𝑑𝐯^{}\left(v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{3}{2}\right)F(𝐯^{})=0`$. The equation of state is similar to that of Eq. (7) with only minor quantitative changes in some coefficients. This justifies the preceding analysis based on the Maxwellian approximation to $`\xi _0^{}`$. Nevertheless, the distribution function itself shows new qualitative differences. As expected, for $`\beta <1,`$ $`\varphi h/\left(1\beta \right)`$ and the Maxwellian is recovered. For $`\beta >1`$, $`\varphi 10\left(\beta 1\right)/3`$ and the velocity distribution becomes sharp at $`v^{}=\sqrt{3/2}`$, $`F(𝐯^{})(6\pi )^1\delta \left(v^{}\sqrt{3/2}\right)`$. Furthermore, at the critical point ($`\beta =1`$), $`\varphi \sqrt{10\lambda h}`$ and $`F(𝐯^{}))C\mathrm{exp}(\lambda v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})`$, where $`\lambda 0.24`$. This crossover from Gaussian to exponential quartic to delta distributions is illustrated in Fig. 4 for $`h=10^2`$ and $`\beta =0.9`$, 1.0, and 1.1.

The origin of this transition can be traced to the fact that the cooling of the fluid is due to collisions that depend on the restitution coefficient $`\alpha `$ but not the mass ratio (or $`h`$), while cooling of the impurity depends on the mass ratio but not $`\alpha `$. The equality of cooling rates is enforced by adjusting the ratio of the mean square velocities, $`\varphi `$. In general, for fixed mechanical properties, this is possible for small mass ratio only if $`\varphi `$ is non zero (the ordered state); the cooling rate for the impurity has an explicit proportionality to $`h`$ which must be countered by $`\varphi `$. This implies that the mean kinetic energy of the impurity particle diverges relative to that of the fluid particles. However, if this explicit decrease of the impurity cooling rate with $`h`$ is tempered by a large size ratio and/or weak fluid particle dissipation then the normal behavior with $`\varphi =0`$ is restored. The parameter $`\beta `$ quantifies the meaning of “tempered”. To give an explicit example, consider the case $`\alpha =\alpha _0=0.95`$ and $`m/m_0=10^2`$. Also, for simplicity consider low density so that $`g=g_01`$. Then $`\beta =1.79\left(\sigma /\overline{\sigma }\right)^2`$ and the system is close to the ordered state for $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ but close to the normal state for $`\sigma _0=2\sigma `$. It is possible to study the crossover through the critical domain using Direct Monte Carlo simulation of the Boltzmann-Enskog and Lorentz-Enskog kinetic equations, and by molecular dynamics simulation. In fact both Monte Carlo molecular dynamics simulations for the domain $`\beta <1`$ and $`m/m_010^2`$ have been performed to confirm Brownian motion in the normal state . Extension of these studies to the critical and ordered states should be straightforward.

For experimental purposes it is perhaps more relevant to study these critical properties as reflected in the diffusion coefficient $`D`$ (or mean square displacement) for the impurity particle. The dependence of $`D`$ on $`\beta `$ and $`h`$ can be calculated from the Lorentz-Enskog kinetic equation in the same approximation as the cooling rates above. The studies of the Fokker-Planck limit $`\left(h0\right)`$ in  suggest a divergence of $`D`$ as $`\beta 1`$ although that analysis is strictly limited to $`\beta <1`$. A more complete description of $`D`$ for all $`\beta `$, $`h`$ will be given elsewhere .

This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY 9722133. A.S. acknowledges partial support from the DGES (Spain) through grant No. PB97-1501 and through a sabbatical grant No. PR2000-0117.


text:
# Measurement of time in nonrelativistic quantum and classical mechanics

## 1 Introduction

The problem of time in the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics consists in the following dichotomy: a measurement of time can be described as a statistical distribution of measurement outcomes given by a suitable time operator (or by the corresponding spectral measure) canonically conjugate to the energy operator, or the time flow can be visualized by the change in the position (or in the momentum) observable of a physical clock particle which interacts with other parts of the system under consideration and the total wave function must be determined by a quantum evolution equation (e.g. by a Schrödinger equation). It is not clear if these two possibilities can formally be identified. The problem was discussed in the classical paper by Aharonov and Bohm , but has recently gained considerable new development . Our aim here is to clarify some aspects of the quantum theory by analyzing more in detail the corresponding classical theory of measurement of time.

In fact, the above-mentioned dichotomy exists already in the classical theory: time can be understood as a parameter along a classical trajectory or as a record of change in the spatial position of a special clock particle. Although these two possibilities are classically equivalent, their precise mathematical description in the framework of the Hamiltonian formalism is not identical and upon canonical quantization they can give rise to quantum theories of time which need not be equivalent. The key to the understanding of the problem of time in quantum mechanics may lie in the classical theory; so we can conclude together with Lévy-Leblond : nobody has ever constructed a complete ”classical theory of measurement” and ”To the initial question ”where is the problem (…)?”, I would therefore venture the paradoxical answer: ”in classical theory”…

## 2 The quantum theory

### 2.1 Operators of position and time

Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is a theory of (quantized) matter in the background of a nonrelativistic spacetime with Newtonian space coordinates ($`x^i`$) and Newtonian time coordinate $`t`$ . The symmetry group of the background coordinates is the Galilei group

$$(x^i)^{}=x^i\xi ^iV^it,t^{}=t\tau .$$

Here $`\xi ^i`$, $`V^i`$, $`\tau `$ are the group parameters and we haven’t included the group of spatial rotations.

The Galilei group has a (projective irreducible) representation acting on density matrices $`\rho `$ (states of quantized matter). For simplicity, let us consider one-dimensional space, then the two-dimensional subgroup of the Galilei group with parameters ($`\xi ,V`$) can be represented by unitary operators $`\mathrm{exp}(imVQ)`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\xi P)`$, $`m`$ =const. Self-adjoint operators $`Q`$ and $`P`$ satisfy the canonical commutation relations

$$[Q,P]=iI,$$

where $`I`$ is the unit operator. These operators can be given in terms of the corresponding spectral measures $`E^Q(x)`$, $`E^P(p)`$:

$$Q=_RxE^Q(dx),P=m_RpE^P(dp).$$

They can be interpreted as the position and the momentum operators if they satisfy covariance conditions under the action of the Galilei group, e.g.

$$e^{i\xi P}E^Q(x)e^{i\xi P}=E^Q(x\xi ),\xi (\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}).$$
(1)
This means that if the device for registration of the position (spectral measure $`E^Q`$) undergoes a spatial shift in the amount of $`\xi `$ then measured values (spectrum) change by $`(\xi )`$.

If the same scheme is applied in the case of canonically conjugate operators of time $`T`$ and energy $`H`$, $`[T,H]=iI`$, then operator $`T`$, for its interpretation as an operator which establishes a relation between a quantum state and the Newtonian time, must satisfy the covariance property

$$e^{i\tau H}E^T(t)e^{i\tau H}=E^T(t\tau ),\tau (\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}).$$
(2)
It can be proved that if the time operator is self-adjoint, then this condition implies an unbounded continous energy spectrum (Pauli’s theorem) . It follows that in the cases of bounded, semi-bounded or discrete energy spectra the covariant time operator cannot be self-adjoint, i.e its spectral measure $`E^T(t)`$ cannot be given by projection operators. However, it can be given as a positive operator valued measure (POVM) . There can also be non-covariant self-adjoint operators canonically conjugate to the energy operator . But if covariance condition (2) is not satisfied, their interpretation as time operators is problematic.

If the notion of time in the quantum mechanics is understood as a record of a quantum measurement, then it can depend on the measurement scheme and need not be unique. Indeed, several types of times corresponding to several types of measurements have been proposed, e.g. the time of arrival, the tunneling time and the time of a quantum clock given by a phase variable . In what follows, we shall consider only the simplest case, the time of arrival of a free particle.

### 2.2 Observables and measurements

In general, the physical meaning of a POVM is given by the probability postulate: if an observable $`A`$ is represented by its spectral measure $`E^A(a)`$, then the probability $`p_\rho ^A(a)`$ of getting a result $`a`$ at measuring a quantum state $`\rho `$ is

$$p_\rho ^A(a)=Tr[\rho E^A(a)].$$
(3)
In the quantum theory of measurement , the probability postulate (3) is explained in terms of a measurement interaction between the measured system and an apparatus (a pointer), which introduces suitable correlations between them. It can be given in the form of a unitary transformation

$$U=e^{i\lambda AB},\lambda =const$$
(4)
which transforms an initial (e.g. factorized pure) state of the system and the pointer $`\varphi \psi `$ into a final state

$$U|\varphi \psi >=_RE^A(da)\varphi e^{i\lambda aB}\psi .$$

The pointer operator $`B`$ must be chosen so that transformation (4) can be interpreted as describing a measurement, i.e. the final state must contain a record of the measurement (eigenvalues $`a`$ of the operator $`A`$). In the simplest case, the record is supposed to be a shift in the position $`z`$ of the pointer particle. Then the corresponding operator $`B`$ in the measurement interaction can be chosen to be its canonically conjugate momentum $`\pi _z`$ and the measurement reads  ($`z_0`$ denotes the initial position of the pointer)

$$U|\varphi \psi >=_RE^A(da)\varphi \psi (z_0\lambda a).$$
(5)
For getting a distinct (classical) record the pointer states must consist of mutually disjoint sets and after a measurement a possible superposition of states must be reduced to a single reading. These problems include clarifying the boundary between quantum and classical world and they are far from being clear; we don’t go into details here and refer to e.g. .

Measurements which are mathematically described by a POVM and the probability postulate only, without reference to details of measuring apparatus, are called indirect or ideal measurements.

### 2.3 The Aharonov-Bohm time operator

An operator corresponding to the time of arrival of a free particle moving in one-dimensional space has been proposed already long ago by Aharonov and Bohm

$$T=\frac{m}{2}(qp^1+p^1q)m\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}q\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}.$$
(6)
Its eigenvalue problem can be solved in the momentum representation :

$$\frac{im}{\sqrt{p}}\frac{d}{dp}\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\mathrm{\Phi }_T(p)=T\mathrm{\Phi }_T(p),$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{T\alpha }(p)=\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha p)\sqrt{\frac{|p|}{m}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{iTp^2}{2m}\right),$$
(8)
where $`\alpha =\pm 1`$, $`T(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$.

The Aharonov-Bohm operator (6) is not self-adjoint and its eigenfunctions (8) are not orthonormal:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{T\alpha }^{}(p)\mathrm{\Phi }_{T^{}\alpha ^{}}(p)𝑑p=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta (TT^{})+iP\frac{1}{\pi (TT^{})}\right).$$

The corresponding measurement statistics is given in terms of the POVM

$$E^T(\mathrm{\Delta }T)=\underset{\alpha }{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\mathrm{\Phi }_{T\alpha }^{}(p^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_{T\alpha }(p)𝑑T\underset{\alpha }{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }T}|T\alpha ><T\alpha |𝑑T.$$
(9)
Let us consider a quantum system in a pure state characterized by a density matrix $`\rho (t)=|\varphi (t)><\varphi (t)|`$. Here $`t`$ must be understood as a Newtonian time parameter which enumerates successive states. According to the probability postulate (3), the probability of arrival during an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ reads

$$p_\rho ^T(\mathrm{\Delta }T;t)=Tr[\rho (t)E^T(\mathrm{\Delta }T)]=\underset{\alpha }{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }T}|<\varphi (t)|T\alpha >|^2𝑑T.$$
(10)
As in the case of a measurement of other continuous variables, e.g the position, the measured quantity here is not an eigenvalue but an interval of eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. However, as distinct from the measurement of the position, eigenfunctions $`|T\alpha >`$ are not only non-normalizable, but also non-orthogonal and a general state $`|\varphi >`$ cannot be uniquely given as their linear combination (integral).

Muga et al  have computed probability distributions for normalized and approximately orthogonal Gaussian wavepackets (centered at $`T`$ and with width $`\delta T`$) of Newtonian-time-dependent eigenfunctions $`|T^{},\alpha ;t>=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)|T^{},\alpha >`$. They found that the probability distribution of a wave packet $`\psi (t,x;T,\delta T)`$ is peaked around the point $`x=0`$, $`t=T`$ and the peaking is inversely proportional to the width $`\delta T`$. Hence in this case the time of arrival at $`x=0`$, $`t=T`$, can be determined with arbitrarily sharp accuracy depending of the width of the wave packet.

### 2.4 Measurement dynamics

We may ask if the final state (5) of a system and an apparatus can also be obtained from a suitably constructed Schrödinger equation, i.e. if the measurement can be considered as a dynamical process given by a suitably constructed Hamiltonian . Formally, we can write a two-body Schrödinger equation for a physical system $`(Q,P)`$ and a free particle $`(z,\pi _z`$) acting as a pointer (apparatus) together with an interaction Hamiltonian which depends explicitly on the Newtonian time parameter $`t`$, e.g. in the form of an instantaneous measurement interaction for recording the value of an observable $`A(Q,P)`$:

$$i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }=H(Q,P,z,\pi _z,t)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(11)
$$H(Q,P,z,\pi _z,t)=H_{sys}(Q,P)+\frac{\pi _z^2}{2M}\delta (t)\lambda A(Q,P)\pi _z.$$
(12)
A direct calculation confirms that if the pointer is massive (in comparison with the measured quantum system), i.e. $`M\mathrm{}`$ and the pointer dynamics can be neglected, the solution of the Schrödinger equation (11) is consistent with the final state (5).

Measurement dynamics (11), (12) can be considered also for the Aharonov-Bohm time operator, $`A(P,Q)=T(P,Q)`$, $`H_{sys}(P,Q)=P^2/2m`$. Detailed calculations have been presented for an operational model consisting in simultaneous measurements of position and momentum in the phase space . The connection between the operational model and the Aharonov-Bohm POVM (9) has been established .

However, as indicated by Busch et al , time dependent Hamiltonian (12) is not allowed in a mathematically rigorous theory.

### 2.5 Direct measurement of time

For investigating a complete quantum dynamics of a measurement process, Aharonov and Bohm  proposed to consider a quantum system consisting of three parts: a physical system, an apparatus (a pointer) and an additional physical particle acting as a clock. The time of interaction is determined by a physical observable of the clock particle. The corresponding three-body Schrödinger equation contains a general Hamiltonian which includes free Hamiltonians of a physical system $`H_{sys}(Q,P)`$, a pointer $`H_a(z,\pi _z)`$ and a clock $`H_{cl}(x,p)`$ together with an interaction Hamiltonian $`H_i(Q,P,x,p,z,\pi _z)`$:

$$i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }=H(Q,P,x,p,z,\pi _z)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(13)
$$H(Q,P,x,p,z,\pi _z)=H_{sys}(Q,P)+H_a(z,\pi _z)+H_{cl}(x,p)+H_i(Q,P,x,p,z,\pi _z).$$
(14)
The above-mentioned interpretation of three parts of the Hamiltonian, $`H_{sys}`$, $`H_a`$ and $`H_{cl}`$ must follow from the form of the interaction Hamiltonian. So the specification of $`H_i`$ is crucial in analyzing the measurement dynamics.

Aharonov and Bohm  considered a free massive particle as a clock, $`H_{cl}=p^2/2m`$. They demonstrated that if the wave function of the total system is factorized, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi (x,t)\varphi (Q,z,t)`$ and the clock state $`\psi (x,t)`$ is determined from an approximate Schrödinger equation as a free wave packet, then the general Hamiltonian (14) can approximately be reduced to a two-body Hamiltonian (12) with an interaction Hamiltonian which depends explicitly on the Newtonian time parameter $`t`$. They also concluded that since the time observable belongs to the clock and necessarily commutes with any observable of the physical system, there are no constraints to the accuracy of a record of the time of interaction by a clock at measuring of energy of a physical system.

Aharonov and Bohm  investigated the time of arrival from the point of view of determining the exact time of measurement of some other physical observable, e.g. the energy of a quantum system. But there can be different measurement arrangements which can be interpreted as direct measurements of the time of arrival itself. The first model proposed by Allcock  consisted of a free (arriving) particle $`(x,p)`$ and an interaction Hamiltonian in the form of a complex potential $`H_i=iV\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$, $`V=const`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ denotes the step function). The question under investigation was: what is the probability that the particle in an initial state with support in $`x<0`$, enters the region $`x>0`$ during a finite time interval $`[0,t]`$? The solution $`\varphi (x,t)`$ of the corresponding Schrödinger equation revealed a restriction to the accuracy of the record of time $`t`$, $`V\delta t1`$ which is not in the form of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation.

From the point of view of the general three-body Hamiltonian (14), a direct measurement of time of arrival can be described by a two-body system which consists of a pointer and an arriving free particle acting also as a clock. A model whose classical analogue (which is more in detail considered in Sec. 3.2) gives a distinct record of time of arrival was presented by Aharonov et al :

$$H(x,p,z,\pi _z)=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\pi _z.$$
(15)
Here $`(x,p)`$ is a free particle and $`(z,\pi _z)`$ is an infinitely massive pointer which records the time of arrival of the particle at $`x=0`$. They demonstrated that the solution of the corresponding Schrödinger equation implies an uncertainty relation between the kinetic energy of the particle $`E(p)`$ and the accuracy of the pointer which records the time of arrival, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{\Delta }t`$,

$$E(p)\mathrm{\Delta }t>1.$$
(16)
This is not a standard quantum mechanical uncertainty because the corresponding operators belong to different particles and hence commute. Analogous restrictions were found also for several improved model Hamiltonians .

According to conclusions of Muga et al , such restrictions are not present in the indirect measurement of the time of arrival as given by the Aharonov-Bohm POVM (9). Baute et al  argued that a restriction to the accuracy of an indirect measurement of the time of arrival of a free particle and its mean energy $`<E>`$ can be obtained, if we consider a nonstandard uncertainty relation introduced by Wigner. More in detail: the second moment $`\tau `$ (in respect of an arbitrary reference time $`t_0`$) of the probability distribution of the time of arrival and its mean energy $`<E>`$ satisfy

$$\tau >\frac{\mathrm{}}{<E>}.$$
(17)
Since $`\tau `$ depends on an arbitrary reference time $`t_0`$, it cannot be identified with a usual spread of measurement results around the mean value and the Wigner uncertainty relation (17) in general doesn’t coincide with the Heisenberg one, although both quantities, $`\tau `$ and $`<E>`$ characterize the same quantum particle. This makes the relation between conditions (16) and (17) obscure, since the first one concernes two quantum particles and the second one only one particle.

### 2.6 Measurements in a closed system

Hamiltonian (14) doesn’t depend explicitly on the time parameter $`t`$ and a general three-part measurement scheme (13), (14) can be considered as describing a measurement in a closed system (cf. ).

In , the clock particle was approximately described by a wave packet $`\psi (x,t)`$ and the general Hamiltonian (14) was reduced to a two-body Hamiltonian with an interaction Hamiltonian depending (via $`\psi (x,t)`$) explicitly on the time parameter $`t`$, e.g. in a form of the von Neumann measurement dynamics (12). Casher and Reznik  introduced another approximation for determining the time variable $`\tau `$ by the state of the clock particle $`\tau =mx/<p_x>`$. They argued that if the measurement interaction is determined by quantized clock time $`\tau `$, then there arises a constraint on the accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ of a measurement of an observable $`J`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }J}{J}\frac{\mathrm{}}{(E_{cl}E_0)\delta T}.$$
(18)
Here $`E_{cl}`$ is the clock energy which is bounded below by $`E_0`$ (i.e. its Hamiltonian is quadratic in the momentum, such a device is called a real clock) and $`\delta T`$ is the duration of the measurement. In the von Neumann measurement theory, the only fundamental restriction to the measurement is the Heisenberg uncertainty relation for noncommuting observables and there are no restrictions on the accuracy of the measurement of a single observable. Hence the general three-body quantum measurement scheme (13), (14) contains the von Neumann theory in some approximation , but leads to results which contradict to it in some other approximations .

Aharonov and Reznik  considered more in detail a measurement of the total energy of a system consisting of a box, an ideal clock (i.e. a device with the Hamiltonian which is linear in the momentum) and a pointer:

$$H=H_{box}+H_{cl}+\frac{1}{2}[g(\tau )H_{cl}+H_{cl}g(\tau )+2g(\tau )H_{box}]z.$$
(19)
Here $`H_{cl}=i\mathrm{}/\tau `$ is the Hamiltonian of the clock, the Hamiltonian of the pointer $`\pi _z^2/2M`$ vanishes ($`M\mathrm{}`$) and $`g(\tau )`$ is an interaction function normalized as $`g(\tau )𝑑\tau =1`$. They demonstrated that the solution of the corresponding Schrödinger equation describes a measurement only if $`g(\tau )`$ and the pointer coordinate $`z`$ satisfy a constraint

$$g(\tau )z1.$$
(20)
Introducing an approximation $`g(\tau )1/\tau _0`$ ($`\tau _0`$ is the duration of the measurement) and taking into account, that the accuracy of the measured value of the total energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0`$ is given by the record of the pointer $`\pi _z`$, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation for the pointer implies a constraint

$$\tau _0\mathrm{\Delta }E_0\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
This uncertainty relation between the duration of the measurement $`\tau _0`$ and accuracy of the measurement record $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0`$ is analogous to relation (16) obtained for a model of a direct measurement of time of arrival and it cannot be considered as the Heisenberg uncertainty relation.

We see that at present, the quantum theory of the time of arrival leaves without an answer at least the following questions:

1. Is its indirect measurement by the Aharonov-Bohm time operator mathematically and conceptually adequate?

2. If described as a direct measurement, which is the corresponding Schrödinger equation?

3. Which is the status of non-Heisenberg uncertainty relations between time and energy in direct and indirect measurements?

We argue that some of these questions arise already in the classical theory of measurement of time.

## 3 The classical theory

### 3.1 External time and internal time

Classical canonical (Hamiltonian) mechanics is formulated in a phase space $`(p,q)`$ and the dynamics is determined by a Hamiltonian $`H(p,q,t)`$. Numerically, the Hamiltonian is equal to the total energy $`E`$ of the physical system under consideration. Equations of motion can be derived from the canonical integral

$$S=(p\dot{q}H(p,q,t))𝑑t,\dot{q}\frac{dq(t)}{dt}$$
(22)
as the Euler–Lagrange equations. Time $`t`$ is a parameter along trajectories, $`p=p(t),q=q(t)`$.

Observable properties are represented by canonical coordinates and their functions. For introducing an observable of time, $`t`$ must be on an equal footing with space coordinates $`q`$. There are two possible ways for achieving this.

1. In the parametrized form of Hamiltonian dynamics , the parameter $`t`$ is considered as an additional canonical time coordinate. The corresponding canonically conjugate momentum can be shown to be the total energy, $`p_t=H`$, and the canonical integral takes a symmetric form

$$S=(p\dot{q}+p_t\dot{t})𝑑\tau .$$
(23)
The Euler–Lagrange equations are parametrized with an arbitrary parameter $`\tau `$ and hold on a constraint surface $`p_t+H(p,q,t)=0`$. Alternatively, we can take the totally parametrized canonical integral (23) as a starting point, then the physics is determined by the constraint equation which must be added. If we add the conventional constraint equation which is linear in $`p_t`$, we get the conventional mechanics (energy mechanics). But in general we are free to choose the constraint equation as we please. In this way we can get unconventional mechanics, interpretation of which must be deduced from the equations. An example of an unconventional mechanics is so-called time mechanics , which follows from a constraint equation which is linear in $`t`$.

2. In the internal time approach by Rovelli , the parameter $`t`$ is eliminated from the equations of motion and trajectories are parametrized by one of the canonical coordinates, e.g by $`q_1`$, which describes the position of a physical clock particle. The procedure is in general possible if the Hamiltonian doesn’t depend on time $`t`$ explicitly. Then it is equivalent to the standard procedure of lowering of the dimension of the phase space using the Hamiltonian as the first integral, $`H(p_i,q_i)=h=const`$ . Let us solve the latter relation in respect of e.g. $`p_1`$:

$$p_1=K(p_j,q_j,q_1,h),j1.$$

According to the Arnol’d theorem , on a surface of constant energy, $`H(p_i,q_i)=h`$, the trajectories can be parametrized by the corresponding coordinate $`q_1`$ and their equations are

$$\frac{dp_j}{dq_1}=\frac{K}{q_j},\frac{dq_j}{dq_1}=\frac{K}{p_j}.$$
(24)
As an example, let us consider 4-dimensional phase space $`(P_x,x,p_t,t)`$. If we introduce the usual energy constraint $`p_t+H_1(P_x,x,t)=0`$, we get the conventional canonical equations for a particle in one-dimensional $`x`$-space, whose trajectories are parametrized by time $`t`$

$$\frac{dP_x}{dt}=\frac{H_1}{x},\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{H_1}{P_x}.$$
(25)
Alternatively, we can consider the constraint as a general Hamiltonian $`H_2(P_x,x,p_t,t)`$ which doesn’t depend explicitly on the external time parameter $`\tau `$ and use the Arnol’d theorem for lowering the dimension of the phase space. If $`H_2`$ is linear in the momentum $`p_t`$, i.e. $`H_2=p_t+H_1`$, then equations of motion in $`x`$-space (24) and (25) coincide (the latter statement is evidently true also in a general $`2n`$-dimensional case).

But there is a difference in the interpretation. In the first case, we are considering the dynamics of a particle with the Hamiltonian $`H_1(P_x,x,t)`$. In the latter case, both canonical coordinates $`x,t`$ are at first considered as possible trajectories of physical particles, positions of which are measurable. The particle which can move in the $`t`$-space only is a physical clock and the particle which can move in the $`x`$-space only is a physical system under investigation. Let us interprete the total Hamiltonian $`H_2(P_x,x,p_t,t)`$ as a sum of corresponding free Hamiltonians plus an interaction term. Then the usual energy constraint $`p_t+H_1(P_x,x,t)=H_2`$ describes a clock particle with a linear free Hamiltonian $`H_{cl}=p_t`$. It determines the trajectory of a free clock particle as $`p_t=const`$, $`t=\tau +\tau _0`$, where $`\tau `$ is a parameter along the trajectory. Such a device is known as an ideal clock. It is different from a real clock described by a free Hamiltonian which is quadratic in its momentum, $`H_{cl}=p_t^2/2M`$ and the trajectory of which reads $`p_t=p_t^0=const`$, $`t=p_t^0\tau +\tau _0`$.

Finally, let us note that since a trajectory $`(p(t),q(t))`$ is a map $`RR^{2n}`$, i.e. canonical coordinates and the time parameter are both real numbers, equations of type $`x=t`$ are mathematically meaningful.

### 3.2 Classical measurement of time

The measurement of Newtonian time $`t`$ can be realized as a measurement of the position of a pointer particle with mass $`M`$ which is moving freely with a constant momentum $`P_y^0`$:

$$y(t)=\frac{P_y^0}{M}t+y(0).$$
(26)
We can achieve also $`y=t`$ by choosing suitable values of constants.

Let us consider a physical system given by a Hamiltonian $`H_0(p,q)`$ and let $`A(p,q)`$ be a variable we want to measure at a time $`t_0`$. Let us describe the measurement dynamics by the same Hamiltonian (12) as in the quantum theory

$$H=H_0(p,q)+\frac{P_y^2}{2M}+\delta (tt_0)A(p,q)P_y.$$
(27)
The trajectory of the pointer is

$$y(t)=\frac{P_y^0}{M}t+y(0)+A(t_0).$$
(28)
We see that now the pointer is recording two distinct physical quantities: the Newtonian time $`t`$ (as in the previous example) and the value $`A(t_0)`$. The latter can be read out as a constant shift in the position of the pointer at $`t>t_0`$ in comparison with the unperturbed trajectory at $`t<t_0`$. We see that the measurement of a quantity $`A`$ at a time $`t_0`$ is a nonlocal procedure in time $`t`$ in the sense that at first we must determine the undisturbed trajectory of the pointer and only then we can read out the shift proportional to the measured quantity. Usually the nonlocality in time is eliminated by an assumption that the mass of the pointer is very big and in the limit of an infinite mass ($`M\mathrm{}`$) the position of the pointer at $`t>t_0`$ records only a constant shift $`y(t)y(t_0)=A(t_0)`$.

Let the physical system under consideration be a freely moving particle with Hamiltonian $`H_0(P_x,x)=(P_x)^2/2m`$. The property we want to measure is its time of arrival from initial position $`x_0=x(0)`$ to point $`x`$, i.e. $`A(P_x,x)=(xx_0)m/P_x`$. The trajectory of the pointer reads

$$y(t)=\frac{P_y^0}{M}t+y(0)+(x(t_0)x_0)\frac{m}{P_x}=\frac{P_y^0}{M}t+y(0)+t_0.$$
(29)
But in such a measurement arrangement, the time $`t_0`$ has a double meaning: it is the time of the measurement as prescribed by the Hamiltonian (27) and the quantity we want to measure. The time of switching on the measurement interaction $`t_0`$ equals to the measured quantity and cannot be prescribed arbitrarily.

An interaction Hamiltonian which doesn’t fix the time of the measurement $`t_0`$ in advance was proposed by Aharonov et al

$$H(P_x,x;P_y,y)=\frac{P_x^2}{2m}+\frac{P_y^2}{2M}+\mathrm{\Theta }(x)P_y.$$
(30)
The equations of motion of the pointer are

$$\dot{P}_y=0,\dot{y}=\frac{P_y}{M}+\mathrm{\Theta }(x)$$
(31)
and its trajectory is

$$y(t)=\frac{P_y^0}{M}t+y(0)+_0^t\mathrm{\Theta }(x(\tau ))𝑑\tau ,P_y=P_y^0=const.$$
(32)
The pointer is moving from its initial position $`y(0)`$ with a constant velocity $`\dot{y}=P_y^0/M+1`$ till the arrival of the particle at $`x=0`$ and after that begins to move undisturbed. If the pointer is infinitely massive, it moves with a unit velocity $`\dot{y}=1`$ and stops at the moment $`t_0`$ when the particle arrives at point $`x=0`$ from its initial position $`x(0)=x_0<0`$. The situation is different in comparison with that considered in the previous example (29): the interaction between the pointer and the particle takes place before the measurement, not just at the time of measurement $`t_0`$. This means that here we don’t measure the time of arrival of a freely moving particle but of a particle in an interaction with the pointer. The backreaction of the interaction to the particle can be seen from the conservation of energy

$$\frac{(P_x(x))^2}{2m}+\frac{(P_y^0)^2}{2M}+\mathrm{\Theta }(x)P_y^0=E=const.$$
(33)
Aharonov et al  argue that we can take $`P_y^0=0`$, then the particle moves freely and the motion of the pointer consists only of a constant shift $`t_0`$. But such a pointer has neither kinetic nor potential energy and clearly is not a generic case.

### 3.3 A general model for a real clock and a pointer

Let us now consider the Hamiltonian (30) with a general interaction function $`g(x)`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$:

$$H(P_x,x;P_y,y)=\frac{P_x^2}{2m}+\frac{P_y^2}{2M}+g(x)P_y.$$
(34)
The equations of motion generated by (34) read

$$\dot{P}_y=0,\dot{y}=\frac{P_y}{M}+g(x),$$
(35)
$$\dot{P}_x=\frac{dg}{dx}P_y,\dot{x}=\frac{P_x}{m}.$$
(36)
For $`x(t)`$ we get the following equation

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{P_y^0}{m}\frac{dg}{dx},P_y^0=const=P_y.$$
(37)
Its general solution establishes a relation between internal clock time $`x`$ and external time $`t`$

$$C_2\pm t=\frac{dx}{\sqrt{C_12P_y^0g(x)/m}}.$$
(38)
Here $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants of integration.

The equation of motion of the pointer in respect to the internal time $`x`$ now reads:

$$\frac{\dot{y}}{\dot{x}}\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{P_y^0/M+g(x)}{\pm \sqrt{C_12P_y^0g(x)/m}}.$$
(39)
In the case of an infinitely massive pointer ($`M\mathrm{}`$) the first term in the numerator vanishes, but a dependence on the pointer momentum $`P_y^0`$ remains in the denominator. A pointer with an exactly vanishing momentum is an additional and unrealistic condition. The influence of a small but nonvanishing $`P_y^0`$ is a multiplicative error in the shift of the pointer position

$$\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{g(x)}{\pm \sqrt{C_1}}(1+\frac{P_y^0g(x)}{mC_1}+\mathrm{}).$$
(40)
If $`P_y^0=0`$ then $`P_x=P_x^0=const`$. Now the constant of integration $`C_1`$ can be given in terms of $`P_x^0`$ as $`\pm \sqrt{C_1}=P_x^0/m`$ and the position of the pointer is

$$y|_{P_y^0=0}=\frac{m}{P_x^0}g(x)𝑑x+C.$$

In the case of the interaction considered by Aharonov et al , $`g(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$, the equation of the pointer can be integrated as

$$y=_{x_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{m}{P_x^0}\mathrm{\Theta }(x)𝑑x=\frac{m}{P_x^0}(x_0)=t_0.$$
(41)
The pointer stops and indicates the external time $`t_0`$ necessary for the free particle with constant momentum $`P_x^0`$ to move from initial position $`x_0<0,t=0`$ to the detector at point $`x=0`$.

However, this ”good measurement” takes place only if $`P_y^0=0`$. If $`P_y^0\mathrm{\Delta }P_y^00`$ then the condition for an ”approximately good measurement” reads

$$\frac{g(x)\mathrm{\Delta }P_y^0}{mC_1}1.$$
(42)
The measurement arrangement (27), (28) of an observable $`A(p,q)`$ can also be reformulated in terms of the internal time $`x`$:

$$H=H_0(p,q)+\frac{P_y^2}{2M}+\frac{P_x^2}{2m}+g(x)A(p,q)P_y.$$
(43)
The equation of motion of an infinitely massive pointer ($`M\mathrm{}`$) reads

$$\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{g(x)A}{\pm \sqrt{C2AP_y^0g(x)/m}}$$
(44)
where $`C`$ is a constant of integration. The condition for a ”good measurement” reads

$$\frac{AP_y^0g(x)}{mC}1.$$
(45)
If we approximate $`g(x)=\delta (x)1/x_0`$, where $`x_0`$ is the duration of the measurement interaction in the internal time and take into account that in the best case $`P_y^0=0+\mathrm{\Delta }P_y^0`$ and an error $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ in the pointer position is proportional to the measurement error $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=\mathrm{\Delta }A/\sqrt{C}`$, then from the condition for a ”good measurement” (45) it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }y\mathrm{\Delta }P_y^0\sqrt{C}mx_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A}{A}.$$
(46)
We know that in the quantum theory the left hand side has a lower limit $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }y\mathrm{\Delta }P_y^0`$. In the classical theory, it has no absolute lower limit, but still its vanishing is unrealistic. Note that the first factor on the right hand side depends on the clock particle and the second one on the measured system.

### 3.4 Measurement of total energy in internal time

In Sec. 2.6, we considered a quantum measurement of total energy of a closed system with an ideal clock as investigated by Aharonov and Reznik . Let us now consider the corresponding classical model given by the same Hamiltonian (19)

$$H=H_{box}+P_x+\frac{P_z^2}{2M}+g(x)(H_{box}+P_x+\frac{P_z^2}{2M})z.$$
(47)
We can take the pointer to be infinitely massive, $`M\mathrm{}`$, and ignore its kinetic energy terms. The measurement outcome is recorded by a change in the momentum of the pointer, its position remains constant, $`z=z_0`$. Let the energy of the box be a constant of motion, $`H_{box}=H^0`$. Now the following equation of motion for the pointer momentum $`P_z`$ in respect of the internal time $`x`$ can be derived

$$\frac{dP_z}{dx}=\frac{g(x)(H^0+C)}{(1+g(x)z_0)^2},C=HH^0,$$
(48)
where $`C`$ is a constant of integration. The condition for a ”good measurement” is

$$g(x)z_01.$$
(49)
If we take the interaction function to be inversely proportional to the duration of the measurement, $`g1/x_0`$, and the pointer position is $`z_0=0+\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, then condition (49) reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }zx_0.$$
(50)
But since $`P_z`$ records the measured energy $`H`$, the measurement error is $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_z=\mathrm{\Delta }H`$. As a result we get a relation between the duration of the measurement in respect of the internal clock time and measured total energy:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{\Delta }P_zx_0H.$$
(51)
This can be considered as a classical analogue of the quantum relation (21). If there is a lower limit for the l.h.s., then there is a lower limit for the product of measurement duration in internal clock time and measured total energy of the system.

The problem can mathematically be solved also in the case of a real clock with a quadratic Hamiltonian $`H_{cl}=P_x^2/2m`$. The equation of motion of the pointer in respect of the internal time showed by the real clock is

$$\frac{dP_z}{dx}=\frac{g(x)}{(1+gz_0)^{3/2}}\frac{C+2mH^0}{2\sqrt{C2mH^0z_0g}},C=2m(HH^0),$$
(52)
where $`C`$ is a constant of integration. The condition of a ”good measurement” (49) must now be supplemented with a second condition $`\sqrt{C2mH^0z_0g}m`$, from which a condition for the clock $`P_xm`$ follows. It amounts to an assumption that the clock particle must move with a unit velocity, $`dx/dt=1`$. We see that in this case the model with a real clock doesn’t add anything essentially new in comparison with the model with an ideal clock.

## 4 Conclusions and discussion

It seems that the problem of time has its beginning in the classical mechanics. If we use the Hamiltonian formalism and agree that the only measurable quantities are canonical coordinates (and canonical momenta), then there are two distinct possibilities for introducing the measurement of time: either we allow direct measurements of time coordinate $`t`$ in an extended phase space, or we visualize the time flow by a change in the position $`x`$ of a clock particle given in an unextended phase space.

As a result, there are two distinct ways for introducing the notion of a nontrivial quantum mechanical time.

1. In the parametrized Hamiltonian dynamics the energy and time are canonically conjugate coordinates and in a canonical quantization procedure they are replaced by a pair of canonically conjugate operators. Their dependence on the other canonical operators follows from the constraint equation, e.g. $`p_t+H(p,q,t)=0`$ determines the energy operator $`E(p,q,t)p_t=H(p,q,t)`$ and the corresponding time operator $`T(p,q)`$ must be found from the canonical commutation relation $`[T,H]=iI`$. (Or alternatively, a constraint equation linear in $`t`$, $`t+T(p,q,p_t)=0`$, determines the time operator and the energy operator must be found from the canonical commutation relation, see .)

2. In lowering of dimension of the phase space using the Hamiltonian as the first integral, the resulting trajectories are parametrized by a canonical coordinate $`q_1`$ which corresponds to the internal time recorded by the position of a clock particle. In the canonical quantization procedure we identify the canonical position operator $`q_1`$ with the internal time operator. Now we can perform general investigations in the Heisenberg representation , but this has given us only very general insights. If we use the Schrödinger representation, we can identify eigenvalues of the position operator $`q_1`$ with the time parameter which occurs in the Schrödinger equation, $`q_1=t`$, and determine probabilities from the total wave function . Here the results depend crucially on our choice of the Hamiltonian in the corresponding Schrödinger equation.

These two possibilities for introducing a quantum mechanical time differ in several aspects. In the first case, the time is an operator canonically conjugate to the energy, in the second case, it is a position operator canonically conjugate to a momentum operator. In the first case, the classical counterpart of the operator algebra is an extended phase space where canonical variables $`(t,p_t)`$ are assumed to describe an ideal clock, in the second case, it is an unextended phase space where a pair of canonical variables $`(q,p)`$ are assigned to a real clock particle. The distinction in the interpretation of clock variables results in the choice of clock Hamiltonians: in the first case the usual constraint equation entails a Hamiltonian which is linear in the momentum $`p_t`$ (an ideal clock), in the second case it is natural to choose a Hamiltonian which is quadratic in the clock momentum $`p`$ (a real clock).

Is it possible to find a correct Hamiltonian and a well-defined measurement interaction for describing a quantum measurement of time of arrival? The corresponding classical theory gives us the following hints.

1. It is not reasonable to apply the conventional measurement theory with an instantaneous measurement interaction in the case of a measurement of the time of arrival. However, it is less problematic in the quantum theory, where the measured observable is given by the Aharonov-Bohm time operator and the measurement interaction depends on the time parameter; in the classical theory both types of time coincide and this leads to the above-given statement.

2. It is not clear how to build an ideal clock with a Hamiltonian which is linear in the momentum.

3. If we use a real clock particle with a quadratic Hamiltonian, its interaction with a pointer particle gives rise to measurement records which are reasonable only if certain ”good measurement ” conditions hold (e.g. (46) or (49)).

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Kaupo Palo and Paavo Helde for discussions and to J.G. Muga for sending us the comprehensive review . This work has been supported by the Estonian Science Foundation via Grant No 3870.


text:
# A class of symmetric controlled quantum operations

## I Introduction

Quantum gates are the building blocks for quantum information hardware . In particular, non-local quantum gates involving remote processors are the essential ingredients for performing distributed quantum computation  and implementing quantum communication protocols . A given gate operation can be characterised in terms of how much entanglement it can create and how much classical information it can convey. This parameterisation establishes lower bounds in both the amount of entanglement and the classical communication resources that are required for the optimal implementation of a given quantum gate .

In this paper, we consider a particular class of controlled gates whose action is to transform a reference state of the target into one of a set of $`N`$ orthogonal states. For clarity we shall call these gates orthogonal gates. They are generalisations of the controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate. Our aim is to provide an operational criteria which ensures symmetric operation of an orthogonal gate in the sense that the control can be swapped with the target for suitable preparation of the input states. Symmetric orthogonal gates allow the control system to communicate $`\mathrm{log}_2N`$ bits of classical information to the target system and, because of their symmetry, allow for the same amount of reverse classical communication from target to control. By a suitable change of basis, they can also generate mutual entanglement between the states of the control and target systems. The orthogonality property ensures that an entanglement of $`\mathrm{log}_2N`$ ebits can be generated in this way. Since there is a simple connection between the classical communication and the entanglement generated for symmetric orthogonal gates, we focus only on the classical information capability between two parties in this paper.

The main ideas underlying symmetric gates can be illustrated by considering a couple of specific gates. The CNOT gate is the simplest quantum gate. It is also a prime example of a symmetric gate: if Alice has the control qubit and Bob the target qubit, Alice can transmit one classical bit of information to Bob using the computational basis, and conversely Bob can transmit one classical bit of information to Alice using a Hadamard transformation of the computational basis .

The gate at the next level of sophistication is the controlled-Pauli (CP) gate . This gate applies either the identity or one of the three Pauli-operators $`\{\sigma _i:i=x,y,z\}`$ on a target qubit depending on the state of two control qubits, and can be written as

$`U_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`|0000|𝟙+|\mathrm{𝟘𝟙}\mathrm{𝟘𝟙}|\sigma _𝕩`$
$`+`$ $`|1010|\sigma _y+|1111|\sigma _z.`$
Let Alice hold the control qubits and Bob the target qubit. Alice can transmit 2 classical bits of information per application of the CP gate using a variation of super-dense coding . To see this consider the following protocol. Alice encodes a 2-bit message in binary notation using the basis states $`|00,|01,|10,|11`$ of her two qubits. Assume that Bob’s qubit is in the (entangled) Bell state $`|\varphi ^+=|00+|11`$ with another qubit at his site. The CP gate is applied between Alice’s particle and the first of Bob’s particles. Depending on the state in which Alice has prepared her two control qubits, Bob will subsequently hold one of the four Bell states, which are mutually orthogonal. Therefore, he is able to infer Alice’s message and thus receive 2 classical bits of information from Alice. We would like to know whether the gate is symmetrical from the point of view of its classical information capacity. In other words, is it possible for Bob to choose certain initial states so that the gate operation results in two classical bits being conveyed to Alice? If so, we would say that the gate is symmetric.

We can easily show that the CP gate can transmit one classical bit from Bob to Alice as follows. Consider the case when the first of Alice’s qubits is kept in a fixed state, for instance in state $`|0`$. The action of a CP gate is now equivalent to a controlled-NOT gate between Alice’s second qubit and Bob’s first qubit. Given that a controlled-NOT gate can transmit one classical bit in each direction , we know immediately that Bob can convey at least one classical bit to Alice. However we cannot be sure that certain initial preparation may allow Bob to actually transmit two classical bits using the CP gate. The aim of the paper is to remove this ambiguity for general orthogonal gates by providing an operational criteria for establishing the symmetry of this class of controlled gates.

The organisation of the remainder of the paper is as follows. We define orthogonal gates and present the conditions for symmetric orthogonal gates in Section II, we then apply the conditions to a number of different gates in Section III, we give proofs of the conditions in Section IV and we end with a discussion in Section V.

## II Symmetric orthogonal gates

A controlled quantum gate $`𝒢`$ allows Alice, using different orthogonal quantum states $`|\psi _n_A`$, to control the application of a set of unitary operations $`\{U_n\}`$ on Bob’s particle’s state $`|\varphi _B`$. We call the gate’s operation a symmetric controlled operation if it allows Bob to conversely control the state of Alice’s particle to the same degree. As mentioned above, the CNOT is an example of a symmetric controlled gate with the controlled operations $`\{U_n\}`$ being the identity and the $`\sigma _x`$ Pauli operator.

We restrict our attention here to the class of quantum gates for which the $`N`$ controlled unitary operations $`\{U_n\}`$ operating on Bob’s state space produce a set of $`N`$ orthogonal states

$$𝒩=\{|n_B:{}_{B}{}^{}n|m_{B}^{}=\delta _{n,m};n,m=1,\mathrm{},N\}$$
(1)
from a fixed reference state $`|R_B`$:

$$U_n|R_B=|n_B\text{ for }n=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(2)
and so $`{}_{B}{}^{}R|U_m^{}U_n|R_{B}^{}=\delta _{m,n}`$. We shall call such gates orthogonal gates of cardinality $`N`$. For clarity, we use subscripts $`A`$ and $`B`$ here, and subsequently, to distinguish the states of Alice’s and Bob’s particles, respectively. Note that we do not assume that $`|R_B𝒩`$ nor that $`𝟙\{U_n\}`$. Clearly the dimension of the state spaces of Alice’s and Bob’s particles must be at least $`N`$. For this paper we assume that the dimension of Bob’s state space is exactly $`N`$. The (unitary) action of the gate $`𝒢`$ is hence assumed to be of the form

$`𝒢\left(|\psi _A|\varphi _B\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_n|n_AU_n|\varphi _B`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_n|n_Ab_mU_n|m_B`$ (4)
where the input states are given by $`|\psi _A=_na_n|n_A`$ and $`|\varphi _B=_nb_n|n_B`$ with $`_n|a_n|^2=_n|b_n|^2=1`$. Using Eqs. (2) and (4) it is easy to show that Alice can send one of $`N`$ distinct messages to Bob in each application of the gate when the following input states are employed:

$`|\psi _n_A=|n_A,n=1,\mathrm{},N\text{ and }|\varphi _B=|R_B.`$
To be a symmetric gate, $`𝒢`$ must allow Bob to send one of $`N`$ distinct messages to Alice per application of the gate for some suitable choice of input states. We prove the following equivalent Theorems in Section IV.

Theorem 1. A necessary and sufficient condition for symmetric operation of an orthogonal gate of cardinality $`N`$ is that the set of pairwise products $`\{U_n^{}U_m:n,m=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ of the controlled operations $`U_n`$ have the commuting property

$$(U_n^{}U_m)(U_p^{}U_q)=(U_p^{}U_q)(U_n^{}U_m),$$
(5)
for $`n,m,p,q=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

Theorem 1. A necessary and sufficient condition for symmetric operation of an orthogonal gate of cardinality $`N`$ is that the set of controlled operators $`\{U_n\}`$ is related to a set of $`N`$ commuting operators $`\{C_n\}`$ by

$$U_n=TC_n\text{ where }C_nC_m=C_mC_n\text{ for }n,m=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(6)
and where $`T`$ is unitary.

The latter version of the theorem is perhaps more transparent but, if $`T`$ is not known, it is generally more straightforward to check the commuting property using Eq. (5). We note that if the set $`\{U_n\}`$ includes the identity then Eq. (5) implies the operators $`U_n`$ must be mutually commuting. We shall also prove the following Theorem and Corollary regarding the structure of the states involved.

Theorem 2. Bob is able to send one of $`N`$ distinct messages to Alice using a symmetric orthogonal gate of cardinality $`N`$ iff the input state of Bob’s particle is an eigenstate of the pairwise product $`U_n^{}U_m`$ \[or, equivalently, an eigenstate of the operators $`C_n`$ in Eq. (6)\], and Alice’s input state is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}_ne^{i\eta _n}|n_A`$ for arbitrary, real $`\eta _n`$.

Corollary 3. The reference state $`|R_B`$ and basis set $`𝒩`$ in Eq. (2) for a symmetric orthogonal gate of cardinality $`N`$ are given by

$`|R_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\gamma _r}|\lambda _r_B,`$ (7)
$`|n_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _n(r)\gamma _r]}U_1|\lambda _r_B\text{ for }n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (8)
where $`e^{i\phi _n(r)}`$ and $`|\lambda _r_B`$ are the $`r`$th eigenvalue and eigenstate of the product $`U_1^{}U_n`$, and $`\gamma _r`$ is an arbitrary, real parameter. Conversely, the eigenstates are given in terms of the $`𝒩`$-basis as

$$|\lambda _r_B=U_1^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}e^{i\gamma _r}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\phi _n(r)}|n_B\text{ for }r=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(9)
Whereas Theorems 1 and $`1^{}`$ are useful for deciding whether a particular orthogonal is symmetric or not, Theorem 2 and Corollary 3 are useful for constructing a symmetric orthogonal gate from a set of operators satisfying Eqs. (5) and (6).

## III Applications

We illustrate the application of the Theorems and Corollary with a few examples. The simplest example is given for cardinality $`N=2`$, where $`N`$ is the size of the set of controlled operators $`\{U_n\}`$. This occurs for the controlled-U gate where $`\{U_n\}`$ contains the identity $`U_1=𝟙`$ and another operator $`U_2`$. It is straightforward to show that this gate satisfies the orthogonal property Eq. (2) when $`𝒩`$ is the computational basis iff $`U_2`$ anticommutes with the operator $`\sigma _z`$. That is, $`U_2`$ is of the form

$`U_2=e^{i\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b\\ b^{}& 0\end{array}\right)`$
where $`\alpha `$ is real and $`|b|^2=1`$. The controlled-NOT, with $`\alpha =0`$ and $`b=1`$, is an example of this class. Since the set $`\{U_n\}`$ contains only two operators, one of which is the identity, the condition Eq. (5) is clearly satisfied. Hence all orthogonal controlled-U gates of cardinality $`2`$ are symmetric.

Next consider the controlled-Pauli gate. In this case the set $`\{U_n\}`$ of controlled operators is given by $`\{𝟙_\mathrm{𝟙}𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma _𝕩𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma _𝕪𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma _𝕫𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}\}`$ and so the cardinality is $`N=4`$. Here $`𝟙_𝕚`$ is the identity operator associated with Bob’s $`i`$th qubit. This set fulfills the orthogonal property Eq. (2) when acting on the Bell state $`|\varphi ^+_B`$, as discussed in the Introduction, and so it is an orthogonal gate. But it fails to fulfill the condition Eq. (5) for all values of the indexes $`m,n,p,q`$ and so the controlled Pauli gate is not a symmetric gate. This means that if Alice has the control, Bob cannot send 2 classical bits to Alice in one application of the gate. In the final Section, we determine the maximum amount of information Bob can actually send using this gate.

There are, however, symmetric orthogonal gates with cardinality $`N=4`$. One is given by the following set of commuting operators:

$`C_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _1_{BB}\lambda _1|+|\lambda _2_{BB}\lambda _2|+|\lambda _3_{BB}\lambda _3|+|\lambda _4_{BB}\lambda _4|`$
$`C_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _1_{BB}\lambda _1||\lambda _2_{BB}\lambda _2|+|\lambda _3_{BB}\lambda _3||\lambda _4_{BB}\lambda _4|`$
$`C_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _1_{BB}\lambda _1|+|\lambda _2_{BB}\lambda _2||\lambda _3_{BB}\lambda _3||\lambda _4_{BB}\lambda _4|`$
$`C_4^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|\lambda _1_{BB}\lambda _1||\lambda _2_{BB}\lambda _2||\lambda _3_{BB}\lambda _3|+|\lambda _4_{BB}\lambda _4|`$
for an arbitrary basis $`\{|\lambda _n\}`$. Eqs. (1) and (2) are satisfied for a suitable reference state, such as $`|R_B=\frac{1}{2}_n|\lambda _n_B`$, constructed using Eq. (7). Also, one can easily show using Eq. (3) that for the input state $`|\psi _A|\varphi _r_B=\frac{1}{2}_n|n_A|\lambda _r_B`$ this gate produces one of four possible output states as follows

$`𝒢\left(|\psi _A|\varphi _B\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}(|1_A+|2_A+|3_A+|4_A)|1_B\hfill & \text{for }r=1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(|1_A|2_A+|3_A|4_A)|2_B\hfill & \text{for }r=2\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(|1_A+|2_A|3_A|4_A)|3_B\hfill & \text{for }r=3\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(|1_A|2_A|3_A+|4_A)|4_B\hfill & \text{for }r=4\hfill \end{array}`$
Alice can distinguish between the four possible final states of her particle because they are orthogonal, and so Bob can send 2 classical bits of information, per application of the gate, to Alice by his choice of input state $`|\lambda _r_B`$. The gate is therefore symmetric.

The simplest example of a symmetric orthogonal gate for arbitrary cardinality $`N`$ is given by what we call the controlled-shift gate where the operation on the target is one of the family of $`N`$ shift operators $`C_n^{\prime \prime }`$. The shift operators are defined as $`C_n^{\prime \prime }_{m=1}^N|(n2+m)\text{mod}N+1_{BB}m|`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$. These operators produce a cyclic shift amongst the basis states $`𝒩`$ and clearly satisfy the orthogonal property Eq. (2) for arbitrary reference state $`|R_B𝒩`$. It is easy to show that the set of shift operators $`\{C_n^{\prime \prime }\}`$ satisfies the commuting condition Eq. (6) with $`T=𝟙`$ and so the controlled-shift gates are clearly symmetric orthogonal gates. Similarly, the related controlled-U gate which applies the unitary operation $`TC_n^{\prime \prime }`$, for some nontrivial unitary $`T`$, to the target particle is also a symmetric orthogonal gate.

## IV Proofs

In this Section, we first prove the equivalence of the two Theorems $`1`$ and $`1^{}`$. We then give the proof of these Theorems by showing the sufficiency and necessity of the criteria Eq. (5) for symmetric operation. We end with proofs of Theorem 2 and Corollary 3.

Proof of equivalence. The commuting property Eq. (5) implies that the (unitary) products $`U_n^{}U_m`$ share the same set of $`N`$ eigenvectors $`\{|\lambda _n_B\}`$. Consider the eigenvalue equation for the products $`U_1^{}U_m`$ for $`m=1,\mathrm{},N`$ on the $`r`$th eigenvector :

$$U_1^{}U_m|\lambda _r_B=e^{i\phi _m(r)}|\lambda _r_B,$$
(12)
where the $`\phi _m(r)`$ are real parameters with $`\phi _1(r)=0`$; rearranging gives

$$U_m|\lambda _r_B=e^{i\phi _m(r)}U_1|\lambda _r_B$$
(13)
and hence

$$U_m=U_1\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\phi _m(r)}|\lambda _r_{BB}\lambda _r|.$$
(14)
since the states $`\{|\lambda _r_B\}`$ form a complete orthonormal basis. We write $`T=U_1_ne^{iw_r}|\lambda _r_{BB}\lambda _r|`$ for arbitrary real $`w_r`$. Then

$`U_1=T{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{iw_r}|\lambda _r_{BB}\lambda _r|`$

and so from Eq. (14) we now have $`U_m=TC_m`$ where the $`C_m`$,

$`C_m={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _m(r)+w_r]}|\lambda _r_{BB}\lambda _r|,`$

form a set of $`N`$ mutually-commuting operators. This shows that Eq. (6) follows from Eq. (5). The converse, that Eq. (5) follows from Eq. (6), is trivially true. This completes the proof of the equivalence of the two Theorems 1 and $`1^{}`$.

Proof of Theorems 1 and 1. The sufficiency of the commuting condition Eq. (5) is proved by showing that it allows Bob to generate one of $`N`$ orthogonal output states of Alice’s particle depending on the input state of his particle. Consider the trace of the product $`U_n^{}U_m`$ in the $`𝒩`$-basis Eq. (1):

$`\mathrm{tr}(U_n^{}U_m)=\mathrm{tr}(U_mU_n^{})={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{}_{B}{}^{}r\left|U_mU_n^{}\right|r_{B}^{}.`$

Using $`{}_{B}{}^{}r\left|U_mU_n^{}\right|r_{B}^{}={}_{B}{}^{}R\left|U_r^{}U_mU_n^{}U_r\right|R_{B}^{}`$ from Eq. (2), $`U_r^{}U_mU_n^{}U_r=U_n^{}U_rU_r^{}U_m`$ from Eq. (5) and the unitarity property $`U_rU_r^{}=𝟙`$ gives

$`\mathrm{tr}(U_n^{}U_m)={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{}_{B}{}^{}R|U_n^{}U_m|R_{B}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{}_{B}{}^{}n|m_{B}^{}=N\delta _{n,m}.`$ (15)
However, calculating the trace in the eigenbasis $`\{|\lambda _r_B\}`$ given by Eq. (12) is found to give

$`\mathrm{tr}(U_n^{}U_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{}_{B}{}^{}\lambda _r\left|U_n^{}U_m\right|\lambda _r_{B}^{}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _m(r)\phi _n(r)]}`$ (17)
on use of Eq. (13). Equating Eq. (15) and Eq. (17) then yields

$`\delta _{n,m}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _m(r)\phi _n(r)]}.`$ (18)
Consider the $`N`$-dimensional vector $`𝐯(n)`$ whose elements are given by $`v_r(n)=e^{i\varphi _n(r)}/\sqrt{N}`$ for $`r=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Eq. (18) shows that the set of vectors $`𝐯(n)`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ form an orthonormal set, and so the matrix $`𝐌`$ whose columns are given by $`𝐯(n)`$ is unitary: $`𝐌^{}𝐌=\mathrm{𝐌𝐌}^{}=𝟙`$. The expression $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐌}^{}=𝟙`$ implies that

$`\delta _{r,r^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _n(r^{})\phi _n(r)]}.`$ (19)
We now choose the input states for Alice’s and Bob’s particles to be

$$|\psi _A|\varphi _r_B=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\eta _n}|n_A|\lambda _r_B$$
(20)
for arbitrary, real parameters $`\eta _n`$. Using Eq. (13) we find that the output state of the gate will then be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\eta _n}|n_AU_n|\lambda _r_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\eta _n}|n_Ae^{i\phi _n(r)}U_1|\lambda _r_B`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_A|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B`$ (22)
where

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _n(r)+\eta _n]}|n_A`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B`$ $``$ $`U_1|\lambda _r_B.`$
The output states of Alice’s particle $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_A`$ are orthogonal over $`r`$ according to Eq. (19),

$${}_{A}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_r|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}_{A}^{}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i[\phi _n(r^{})\phi _n(r)]}=\delta _{r,r^{}}.$$
(23)
Hence, provided Eq. (5) is satisfied, Bob can generate $`N`$ different orthogonal states of Alice’s particle. This completes the proof of sufficiency.

The necessity of the commuting condition is proved by beginning with the most general input state for Alice’s particle, allowing Bob’s particle to be in one of $`N`$ orthogonal input states and then showing that for Alice’s particle to end up in one of $`N`$ orthogonal output states necessarily requires the commuting property Eq. (5). Let the input state be given by

$$|\psi _A|\varphi _r_B=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_n|n_A\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_m(r)|m_B$$
(24)
where $`_n|a_n|^2=_n|b_n(r)|^2=1`$, and where the parameter $`r`$ indicates that Bob chooses from some set of orthogonal states $`\{|\varphi _r_B\}`$. In order that Alice be able to resolve the final state of her particle into different states indexed by $`r`$, without error, the output state of the gate must factorise into a product state. The combined output state $`𝒢(|\psi _A|\varphi _r_B)`$ from Eq. (3) is therefore of the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_n|n_AU_n|\varphi _r_B=|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_A|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B`$ (25)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_A`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B`$ are normalised states. The left-hand side factorises only if

$$U_n|\varphi _r_B=\beta _n(r)e^{i\xi _n(r)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B$$
(26)
for all $`r`$, where $`\beta _n(r)>0`$ and $`\xi _n(r)`$ are real parameters. Because of the unitarity of $`U_n`$ this implies

$`{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_r|\mathrm{\Phi }_r^{}_{B}^{}\beta _n(r)\beta _n(r^{})e^{i[\xi _n(r^{})\xi _n(r)]}={}_{B}{}^{}\varphi _r|\varphi _r^{}_{B}^{}=\delta _{r,r^{}}`$
and since $`{}_{B}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_r|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_{B}^{}=1`$ then $`\beta _n(r)=1`$. Both sets of input and output states $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B\}`$ and $`\{|\varphi _r_B\}`$ therefore form complete orthonormal sets in Bob’s state space and consequently there exists a fixed unitary mapping $`T^{}`$ such that for all $`r=1,\mathrm{},N`$

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_B=T^{}|\varphi _r_B.`$

Together with $`\beta _n(r)=1`$ and Eq. (26) this leads to

$`U_n={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\xi _n(r)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_r_{BB}\varphi _r|=T^{}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\xi _n(r)}|\varphi _r_{BB}\varphi _r|,`$ (27)
from which the commuting properties Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) follow. These commuting properties are therefore both sufficient and necessary for the symmetric operation. This completes the proof of Theorems $`1`$ and $`1^{}`$.

Proof of Theorem 2. Eq. (27) shows that Bob’s input state $`|\varphi _r_B`$ is necessarily an eigenstate of the pairwise products $`U_n^{}U_m`$ and so necessarily:

$$|\varphi _r_B=|\lambda _r_B$$
(28)
where $`|\lambda _r_B`$ are defined in Eq. (12). Substituting this into Eq. (25) and using Eq. (13) shows that the output state of Alice’s particle is necessarily

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_A={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_ne^{i\phi _n(r)}|n_A`$

up to an arbitrary phase factor. Alice must be able to distinguish $`N`$ different output states indexed by $`r`$ and so a necessary condition is

$`{}_{A}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_r_{A}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|a_n|^2e^{i[\phi _n(r)\phi _n(r^{})]}=\delta _{r,r^{}}.`$

Multiplying by $`e^{i\phi _m(r)}`$, summing over $`r`$ and using Eq. (18) yields

$`|a_m|^2Ne^{i\phi _m(r^{})}=e^{i\phi _m(r^{})}`$

i.e. $`a_m=e^{i\eta _n^{}}/\sqrt{N}`$ where the $`\eta _n^{}`$ are arbitrary, real parameters, and so a necessary condition for Alice’s input state is that

$$|\psi _A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\eta _n^{}}|n_A.$$
(29)
Eqs. (20,22,23) show that Eq. (28) and Eq. (29) are also sufficient for Bob to send one of $`N`$ distinct messages to Alice. Hence Theorem 2 is proved.

Proof of Corollary 3. Substituting Eq. (14) into Eq. (2) gives

$$U_n|R_B=U_1\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\phi _n(r)}{}_{B}{}^{}\lambda _r|R_{B}^{}|\lambda _r_B=|n_B$$
(30)
and hence, from the orthogonality of the sets $`\{|n_B\}`$ and $`\{|\lambda _r_B\}`$,

$`\delta _{n,m}={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i[\phi _n(r)\phi _m(r)]}|{}_{B}{}^{}\lambda _r|R_{B}^{}|^2.`$

Multiplying by $`e^{i\phi _n(r^{})}`$, summing over $`n`$ and using Eq. (19) then gives

$`e^{i\phi _m(r^{})}=Ne^{i\phi _m(r^{})}|{}_{B}{}^{}\lambda _r^{}|R_{B}^{}|^2`$

and so

$${}_{B}{}^{}\lambda _r|R_{B}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}e^{i\gamma _r}$$
(31)
for arbitrary, real $`\gamma _r`$, which proves Eq. (7). Eq. (8) then follows from Eq. (30) and Eq. (31). Substituting Eq. (8) into the right-hand side of Eq. (9) and then performing the sum over $`n`$ using Eq. (19) verifies the equality in Eq. (9).

## V Discussion and Conclusion

Up to now we have concentrated on symmetric orthogonal gates. We now discuss a result that applies to all orthogonal gates including those that are asymmetric. As before let Alice have the control of an orthogonal gate of cardinality $`N`$. Imagine a scenario where $`N_B`$ is the number of classical messages (not necessarily the maximum) that Bob can choose to send to Alice and let the set of the $`N_B`$ orthogonal input states that Bob uses for this be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\{|\varphi _r_B:r=1,\mathrm{},N_B\}`$. Further, let Bob choose to send the $`r`$th message and let Alice’s input state be given, as before, by the general state $`_na_n|n_A`$. For Alice to be able to distinguish this message from all others, the output of the gate must factorise into the form given by Eq. (25). Eq. (26) then follows necessarily for $`n`$ where $`\{n:a_n0\}`$. This implies that

$$U_m^{}U_n|\varphi _r_B=e^{i[\xi _n(r)\xi _m(r)]}|\varphi _r_B$$
(32)
for $`n,m`$ and $`r=1,\mathrm{},N_B`$. The cardinality of the set $``$ gives an upper bound on the dimension of the subspace in which the final state $`_na_ne^{i\xi _n(r)}|n_A`$ of Alice’s particle lies, and hence must be at least $`N_B`$ for Alice to be able to distinguish this many messages. We note that the operator products on the left-hand side of Eq. (32) could share more eigenstates than the $`N_B`$ states in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus a necessary condition for Bob to send $`N_B`$ messages to Alice is that the set $``$ must contain at least $`N_B`$ elements and all the elements in $`\{U_m^{}U_n:n,m\}`$ must share at least $`N_B`$ eigenstates.

We have already shown that a controlled-Pauli gate is asymmetric and that Bob cannot send 2 bits of classical information to Alice per application of the gate if Alice has the control qubits. Armed with this necessary condition we can now determine just how much classical information Bob can transmit to Alice. For Bob to be able to send 1 of 3 distinct messages, the set $``$ must contain at least 3 elements and all the elements in $`\{U_m^{}U_n:n,m\}`$ must share at least 3 eigenstates. It is easy to show that this necessary condition is not fulfilled for the operators $`U_n\{𝟙_\mathrm{𝟙}𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma _𝕩𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma _𝕪𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},\sigma _𝕫𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}\}`$ of the controlled-Pauli gate. Hence Bob cannot send 1 choice from 3 distinct messages. In the Introduction we gave a protocol that allows Bob to send 1 choice from 2 distinct messages to Alice. This is therefore the maximum he can send. Thus Bob is limited to sending only one bit of classical information back to Alice as opposed to the two bits she could send.

In conclusion, we have defined a class of controlled quantum gates, which we call orthogonal gates, obeying the property Eq. (2). We investigated the algebraic structure that makes these gates symmetric with respect to the interchange of the control and target systems. We have shown that all such gates obey the commuting properties Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) and that these properties are sufficient. We also discussed a necessary condition that is useful for determining the maximum number of classical messages able to be sent using asymmetric orthogonal gates. We hope that this initial research may shed light onto the more general problem of establishing the classical communication capacity of general, not necessarily controlled, multiparty quantum gates.

Acknowledgements. The authors thank A. Chefles, P. Papadopoulos and M.B. Plenio for discussions. This work has been supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and DGICYT Project No. PB-98-0191 (Spain).