format: text

text:
# Quantization and spacetime topology

## I Introduction

Cosmological data indicate that the Universe expands, so in the past it could be in a special state characterized by physical fields with extremally high densities. There are also theoretical indications that our universe emerged from a very special state: the well known class of solutions to the Einstein equations called the FLRW universes suggest that in the past our universe could be in a state with blowing up Riemann tensor components or scalar curvature and with blowing up energy density. There is a common believe that to analyse this state properly one should include quantum effects. The struggle for quantum gravity lasts about 70 years. There is a real progress, but we believe that one should first understand the nature of space-time singularities in a quantum context. This understanding may mean changing some of the principles underlying quantum mechanics or general relativity. The insight into the problem may be achieved by studying some suitable toy models which include both space-time singularities and quantum rules. In what follows we present results concerning one of such models which is quantization of dynamics of a test particle in singular and corresponding regular space-times.

Recently it was found GW1 ; GW2 ; GW3 ; GW4  that classical and quantum dynamics of a particle in a curved space-time seems to be sensitive to the topology of space-time. Our aim is examination of this dependence in details. It enables the understanding of the nature of removable type singularities of space-time.

We use the group theory oriented quantization (GTQ) scheme, which we have already applied to simple gravitational systems GW1 ; GW2 ; GW3 ; GW4 ; GW5 . Our method is similar to the GTQ method initiated by Isham CJI  and Kirillov AK1 .

In what follows we examine classical and quantum dynamics of a particle in two-dimensional space-times with different topologies. We carry out all calculations rigorously which enables complete discussion of considered problems. In the last section we make the argument that our results can be extended to higher dimensions.

In Sec. II we present the dynamics of a particle in regular space-time. Application of the standard GTQ method leads to well defined results.

Analyses of particle dynamics in singular space-time is carried out in Sec. III. The GTQ method needs some modification to be applicable in this case, since the relation between local and global properties of considered system cannot be directly modeled by mathematics connecting Lie group and its Lie algebra (consequently also at the level of representations). However, redefinition (for the purpose of quantization) of the notion of local symmetries of a gravitational system enables the quantization. The problem of quantization in this case is directly connected with the problem of space-time singularities. We present the solution in case space-time has singularities of removable type.

Secs. II and III deal with a particle with a non-zero mass.

In Sec. IV we present the dynamics of a massless particle. It is obtained in the zero-mass limit from the massive particle dynamics.

We conclude in Sec. V. The last section comprises the list of references.

## II Particle on hyperboloid

The considered space-times, $`V_p`$ and $`V_h`$, are of de Sitter’s type. They are defined to be GW5

$$V_p=(\times ,\widehat{g})\text{and}V_h=(\times 𝕊,\widehat{g}).$$
(1)
In both cases the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }:=(\widehat{g})_{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =0,1)`$ is defined by the line-element

$$ds^2=dt^2exp(2t/r)dx^2,$$
(2)
where $`r`$ is a positive real constant.

It is clear that (2.1) includes all possible topologies of de Sitter’s type space-times in two dimensions which makes our examination complete. $`V_p`$ is a plane with global $`(t,x)^2`$ coordinates. $`V_h`$ is defined to be a one-sheet hyperboloid embedded in 3d Minkowski space. There exists an isometric immersion map SHE  of $`V_p`$ into $`V_h`$

$$V_p(t,x)(y^0,y^1,y^2)V_h,$$
(3)
where

$$y^0:=r\mathrm{sinh}(t/r)+\frac{x^2}{2r}\mathrm{exp}(t/r),y^1:=r\mathrm{cosh}(t/r)+\frac{x^2}{2r}\mathrm{exp}(t/r),y^2:=x\mathrm{exp}(t/r),$$

and where

$$(y^2)^2+(y^1)^2(y^0)^2=r^2.$$
(4)
Eq. (2.3) defines a map of $`V_p`$ onto a simply connected non-compact half of $`V_h`$. Thus, $`V_p`$ is just a part of $`V_h`$. One can check that the induced metric on $`V_h`$ coincides with the metric defined by (2.2).

It is known SHE  that $`V_p`$ is geodesically incomplete. However, all incomplete geodesics in $`V_p`$ can be extended to complete ones in $`V_h`$, i.e. $`V_p`$ has removable type singularities. $`V_p`$ and $`V_h`$ are the simplest examples of space-times with constant curvatures and with noncompact and compact spaces, respectively.

An action integral, $`𝒜`$, describing a free relativistic particle of mass $`m`$ in gravitational field $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is proportional to the length of a particle world-line and is given by

$$𝒜=_{\tau _1}^{\tau _2}L(\tau )𝑑\tau ,L(\tau ):=m\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }(x^0(\tau ),x^1(\tau ))\dot{x}^\mu (\tau )\dot{x}^\nu (\tau )},$$
(5)
where $`\tau `$ is an evolution parameter, $`x^\mu `$ are space-time coordinates and $`\dot{x}^\mu :=dx^\mu /d\tau `$. It is assumed that $`\dot{x}^0>0`$, i.e., $`x^0`$ has interpretation of time monotonically increasing with $`\tau `$.

The Lagrangian (2.5) is invariant under the reparametrization $`\tau f(\tau )`$. This gauge symmetry leads to the constraint

$$G:=g^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu m^2=0,$$
(6)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the inverse of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`p_\mu :=L/\dot{x}^\mu `$ are canonical momenta.

Since we assume that a free particle does not modify the geometry of space-time, the local symmetry of the system is defined by the set of all Killing vector fields of space-time (which is also the local symmetry of the Lagrangian $`L`$). The corresponding dynamical integrals have the form HHS

$$D=p_\mu X^\mu ,\mu =0,1,$$
(7)
where $`X^\mu `$ is a Killing vector field.

The physical phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined to be the space of all particle trajectories JJS  consistent with the dynamics of a particle and with the constraint (2.6).

### II.1 Classical dynamics

Since we consider the dynamics of a material particle (i.e. moving along timelike geodesics) on the hyperboloid (2.4), the symmetry group of $`V_h`$ system is the proper orthochronous Lorentz group $`SO_0(1,2)`$.

If we parametrize (2.4) as follows

$$y^0=\frac{r\mathrm{cos}\rho /r}{\mathrm{sin}\rho /r},y^1=\frac{r\mathrm{cos}\theta /r}{\mathrm{sin}\rho /r},y^2=\frac{r\mathrm{sin}\theta /r}{\mathrm{sin}\rho /r},$$
(8)
where $`0<\rho <\pi r,0\theta <2\pi r`$, the line-element on the hyperboloid (2.4) reads

$$ds^2=(d\rho ^2d\theta ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\rho /r),$$
(9)
and the Lagrangian (2.5) is given by

$$L=m\sqrt{\frac{\dot{\rho }^2\dot{\theta }^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\rho /r)}}.$$
(10)
Since we consider only timelike trajectories ($`|\dot{\rho }|>|\dot{\theta }|`$), the Lagrangian (2.10) is well defined.

The infinitesimal transformations of $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group (rotation and two boosts) have the form

$`(\rho ,\theta )(\rho ,\theta +a_0r),`$
$`(\rho ,\theta )(\rho a_1r\mathrm{sin}\rho /r\mathrm{sin}\theta /r,\theta +a_1r\mathrm{cos}\rho /r\mathrm{cos}\theta /r),`$
$`(\rho ,\theta )(\rho +a_2r\mathrm{sin}\rho /r\mathrm{cos}\theta /r,\theta +a_2r\mathrm{cos}\rho /r\mathrm{sin}\theta /r),`$ (11)
where $`(a_0,a_1,a_2)^3`$ are small parameters.

The corresponding dynamical integrals (2.7) are

$`J_0=p_\theta r,J_1=p_\rho r\mathrm{sin}\rho /r\mathrm{sin}\theta /r+p_\theta r\mathrm{cos}\rho /r\mathrm{cos}\theta /r,`$
$`J_2=p_\rho r\mathrm{sin}\rho /r\mathrm{cos}\theta /r+p_\theta r\mathrm{cos}\rho /r\mathrm{sin}\theta /r,`$ (12)
where $`p_\theta :=L/\dot{\theta },p_\rho :=L/\dot{\rho }`$ are canonical momenta.

One can check that the dynamical integrals (2.12) satisfy the commutation relations of $`sl(2,)`$ algebra

$$\{J_0,J_1\}=J_2,\{J_0,J_2\}=J_1,\{J_1,J_2\}=J_0.$$
(13)
The constraint (2.6) reads

$$(p_\rho ^2p_\theta ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\rho /r)=m^2.$$
(14)
Making use of (2.12) we find that (2.14) relates the dynamical integrals

$$J_1^2+J_2^2J_0^2=\kappa ^2,\kappa :=mr.$$
(15)
Eqs. (2.8) and (2.12) lead to equations for a particle trajectory

$$J_ay^a=0,J_2y^1J_1y^2=r^2p_\rho ,$$
(16)
where $`p_\rho <0,`$ since we consider timelike trajectories.

Each point $`(J_0,J_1,J_2)`$ of (2.15) defines uniquely a particle trajectory (2.16) on (2.4) admissible by the dynamics and consistent with the constraint (2.14). Thus, the one-sheet hyperboloid (2.15) defines the physical phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. Since we intend to quantize the dynamics of a particle canonically, we should identify the symmetry group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. At the level of space-time the symmetry group is $`SO_0(1,2)`$. The phase-space (2.15) and space-time (2.4) have the same manifold structure, but it does not mean that $`SO_0(1,2)`$ is the only possible group action on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. Since the phase-space (2.15) is not simply connected, we can choose any group with $`sl(2,)`$ as its Lie algebra to be the symmetry group, i.e. any covering group of $`SO_0(1,2)`$. This ambiguity is one of the sources of nonunigueness of quantum dynamics considered in Sec. IIC.

### II.2 Observables

We define classical observables to be smooth functions on phase-space satisfying the following conditions: (i) algebra of observables corresponds to the local symmetry of phase-space, (ii) observables specify particle trajectories admissible by the dynamics ($`V_p`$ and $`V_h`$ are integrable systems), and (iii) observables are gauge invariant, i.e. have vanishing Poisson’s brackets with the constraint $`G`$, Eq. (2.6).

In what follows we do not carry out the Hamiltonian reduction explicitly. We make use of our Hamiltonian reduction scheme to gauge invariant variables presented in GW2 .

The canonical coordinates on phase-space are chosen in such a way that the classical observables are first order polynomials in one of the canonical coordinates. Such a choice enables, in the quantization procedure, solution of the operator-ordering problem by symmetrization. It also simplifies discussion of self-adjointness of quantum operators which in the linear case reduces to the solution of the first order linear differential equation (see, App. A).

### II.3 Quantum dynamics

In case the global symmetry of a classical system is defined by a Lie group with its Lie algebra being isomorphic to the Lie algebra of a local symmetry of the system, application of the GTQ method is straightforward. It consists in finding an irreducible unitary representation of the symmetry group on a Hilbert space. The representation space provides the quantum states space. The application of Stone’s theorem MHS ; MRS  to the representation of one-parameter subgroups of the symmetry group leads to self-adjoint operators representing quantum observables. Alternatively, by quantization we mean finding an essentially self-adjoint representation of the algebra of observables (corresponding to the local symmetry of the system) on a dense subspace of a Hilbert space, integrable to the irreducible unitary representation of the symmetry group of the gravitational system.

Since our $`V_h`$ system satisfies the above symmetry relationship, it can be quantized by making use of our GTQ method.

We choose $`J_0,J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ as the classical observables. One can easily verify that the criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sec. IIB are satisfied. We parametrize the hyperboloid (2.15) as follows

$$J_0=J,J_1=J\mathrm{cos}\beta \kappa \mathrm{sin}\beta ,J_2=J\mathrm{sin}\beta +\kappa \mathrm{cos}\beta ,$$
(17)
where $`J`$ and $`0\beta <2\pi `$.

In this new parametrization the observables are linear in the coordinate $`J`$.

One can check that the canonical commutation relation $`\{J,\beta \}=1`$ leads to Eq. (2.13).

Making use of the Schrödinger representation for the canonical coordinates $`J`$ and $`\beta `$ (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ through the paper)

$$\beta \widehat{\beta }\psi (\beta ):=\beta \psi (\beta ),J\widehat{J}\psi (\beta ):=i\frac{d}{d\beta }\psi (\beta ),$$

and applying the symmetrization prescription to the products in (2.17)

$$J\mathrm{cos}\beta \frac{1}{2}(\widehat{J}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\beta }+\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\beta }\widehat{J}),J\mathrm{sin}\beta \frac{1}{2}(\widehat{J}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\beta }+\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\beta }\widehat{J})$$

leads to

$$\widehat{J}_0\psi (\beta )=\left[i\frac{d}{d\beta }\right]\psi (\beta ),$$
(18)
$$\widehat{J}_1\psi (\beta )=\left[\mathrm{cos}\beta \widehat{J_0}(\kappa \frac{i}{2})\mathrm{sin}\beta \right]\psi (\beta ),$$
(19)
$$\widehat{J}_2\psi (\beta )=\left[\mathrm{sin}\beta \widehat{J_0}+(\kappa \frac{i}{2})\mathrm{cos}\beta \right]\psi (\beta ),$$
(20)
where $`\psi \mathrm{\Omega }_\theta L^2(𝕊)`$$`\theta ,`$ and where $`L^2(𝕊)`$ is the space of square-integrable complex functions on a unit circle $`𝕊`$ with the scalar product

$$<\psi _1|\psi _2>:=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\beta \overline{\psi _1(\beta )}\psi _2(\beta ).$$
(21)
The subspace $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$ is defined to be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta :=\{\psi L^2(𝕊)|\psi C^{\mathrm{}}[0,2\pi ],\psi ^{(n)}(0)=e^{i\theta }\psi ^{(n)}(2\pi ),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}.$$
(22)
The representation (2.18 - 2.22) is parametrized by $`\theta `$.

The unbounded operators $`\widehat{J}_a(a=0,1,2)`$ are well defined because $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$ is a dense subspace of the Hilbert space $`L^2(𝕊)`$.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$ is a common invariant domain for all $`\widehat{J}_a`$ and their products.

One can verify that

$$[\widehat{J}_a,\widehat{J}_b]\psi =i\widehat{\{J_a,J_b\}}\psi ,\psi \mathrm{\Omega }_\theta ,$$
(23)
and that the representation (2.18 - 2.22) is symmetric on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$. We prove in App. A that this representation is essentially self-adjoint.

It is known GW2 ; Loll ; Ply  that the parameter $`\theta `$ labels unitarily non-equivalent representations of $`sl(2,)`$ algebra corresponding to the unitary representations of various covering groups of $`SO_0(1,2)`$, so it is connected with the ambiguity in the choice of the symmetry group of phase-space considered at the end of Sec. IIA. For the purpose of clarity of discussion of the new ambiguity problem connected directly with singularities of space-time of $`V_p`$ system, we carry out further discussion for a fixed value of $`\theta `$. In what follows we put $`\theta =0`$ which corresponds to the choice of $`SO_0(1,2)`$. The ambiguities in quantization connected with the choice of $`\theta `$ and with the choice of a symmetry group of phase-space in general will be considered elsewhere WJP .

The problem of finding representations of the group $`SO_0(1,2)`$ was considered in 1947 by Bargmann VVB  in the context of representation of $`SU(1,1)`$ group. There exists two-to-one homomorphism of $`SU(1,1)`$ group onto $`SO_0(1,2)`$ with the kernel $`_2:=\{e,e\}`$, where $`e`$ is the identity element of $`SU(1,1)`$. Thus, the factor group $`SU(1,1)/_2`$ is isomorphic to $`SO_0(1,2)`$.

Bargmann has constructed and classified all irreducible unitary representations of $`SU(1,1)`$ group by making use of the multiplier representation method VVB ; NVK . These representations fall basically into three classes VVB ; PJS : principal series, complementary series and discrete series. Bargmann’s classification is based on: (i) his special decomposition of $`SU(1,1)`$ group (see, Eq. (4.12) of VVB ) into a product of one-parameter subgroups one of which is a compact Abelian group with unitary representation having complete system of vectors and integral (corresponding to $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group) or half-integral proper values, and (ii) his classification of irreducible representations of $`su(1,1)`$ algebra.

To compare our representation within Bargmann’s, we choose as a basis in $`L^2(𝕊)`$ his basis

$$\varphi _m(\beta )=(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(im\beta ),0\beta <2\pi ,m:=\{0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},\}.$$
(24)
Since the algebras $`so(1,2),su(1,1)`$ and $`sl(2,)`$ are isomorphic NVK , we make the comparison with Bargmann’s representation at the level of algebra. Correspondingly, we examine the action of the operators $`\widehat{J}_a`$ and $`\widehat{C}`$ on the subspace $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\theta =0}`$ spanned by the set of vectors (2.24). The operator $`\widehat{C}`$ corresponds to the Casimir operator $`C`$ of $`sl(2,)`$ algebra. $`C`$ is defined to be MKW

$$C=J_1^2+J_2^2J_0^2.$$
(25)
In our representation the operator $`\widehat{C}`$ reads

$$\widehat{C}\psi =[\widehat{J}_1^2+\widehat{J}_2^2\widehat{J}_0^2]\psi =(\kappa ^2+1/4)\psi ,\psi \mathrm{\Omega },$$
(26)
where the third term in (2.26) was obtained by making use of explicit formulas for $`\widehat{J}_a,`$ Egs. (2.18 - 2.20).

It is easy to verify that the action of the operators $`\widehat{J}_a`$ on $`\varphi _m`$ reads

$$\widehat{J}_0\varphi _m=m\varphi _m,m$$
(27)
$$\widehat{J}_1\varphi _m=\frac{1}{2}(m+1/2+i\kappa )\varphi _{m+1}+\frac{1}{2}(m1/2i\kappa )\varphi _{m1},$$
(28)
$$\widehat{J}_2\varphi _m=\frac{i}{2}(m+1/2+i\kappa )\varphi _{m+1}+\frac{i}{2}(m1/2i\kappa )\varphi _{m1}.$$
(29)
At this stage we are ready to discuss the connection of our representation with Bargmann’s. Direct comparison of Eqs. (2.26 - 2.29) with Bargmann’s (6.14), (6.21) and (6.22) of Ref. VVB  shows that the following identification is possible:

$$\widehat{C}Q,\kappa ^2q1/4,\widehat{J}_0H_0=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\widehat{J}_1H_1=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\widehat{J}_2H_2=i\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,$$
(30)
where $`Q,q,H_a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_a(a=0,1,2)`$ are Bargman’s quantities used to define his representation of $`su(1,1)`$ algebra.

The range of our parameter $`\kappa =mr`$ is $`0<\kappa <\mathrm{},`$ so it corresponds to Bargmann’s $`1/4<q<\mathrm{}.`$ Therefore, our representation is almost everywhere identical with Bargmann’s continuous class integral case (corresponding to $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group) called $`C_q^0`$ with $`1/4q<\mathrm{}`$, which is also called the principal series of irreducible unitary representation of $`SU(1,1)`$ group PJS . The only difference is that for massive particle $`m>0`$, thus $`\kappa =mr>0`$, so $`q>1/4.`$ The precise identity may occur, if taking the limit $`\kappa 0`$ can be given physical and mathematical sense in our formalism. We discuss this issue in Sec. IVA.

## III Particle on plane

### III.1 Restrictions for classical dynamics

The Lagrangian (2.5) with the metric tensor defined by (2.2) reads

$$L=m\sqrt{\dot{t}^2\dot{x}^2\mathrm{exp}(2t/r)},$$
(31)
where $`t:=x^0,x:=x^1,\dot{t}=dt/d\tau `$ and $`\dot{x}=dx/d\tau `$.

The local symmetries of $`L`$ (and the infinitesimal transformations of $`V_p`$ space-time) are defined by translations

$$(t,x)(t,x+b_0),$$
(32)
space dilatations with time translations

$$(t,x)(trb_1,x+xb_1),$$
(33)
and by the transformations

$$(t,x)(t2rxb_2,x+(x^2+r^2e^{2t/r})b_2),$$
(34)
where $`(b_0,b_1,b_2)^3`$ are small parameters.

The Killing vector fields corresponding to the transformations (3.2 - 3.4) define, respectively, the dynamical integrals (2.7)

$$P=p_x,K=rp_t+xp_x,M=2rxp_t+(x^2+r^2e^{2t/r})p_x,$$
(35)
where $`p_x=L/\dot{x},p_t=L/\dot{t}`$.

One can verify that the dynamical integrals (3.5) satisfy the commutation relations of $`sl(2,)`$ algebra in the form

$$\{P,K\}=P,\{K,M\}=M,\{P,M\}=2K.$$
(36)
The mass-shell condition (2.6) takes the form

$$p_t^2e^{2t/r}p_x^2=m^2,$$
(37)
which, due to (3.5), relates the dynamical integrals

$$K^2PM=\kappa ^2,\kappa =mr.$$
(38)
By analogy to $`V_h`$ case one may expect that each triple $`(P,K,M)`$ satisfying (3.8) determines a trajectory of a particle. However, not all such trajectories are consistent with particle dynamics:

For $`P=0`$ there are two lines $`K=\pm \kappa `$ on the hyperboloid (3.8). Since by assumption $`\dot{t}>0`$, we have $`p_t=L/\dot{t}=m\dot{t}(\dot{t}\dot{x}\mathrm{exp}(2t/r))^{1/2}<0`$. According to (3.5) $`KxP=rp_t,`$ thus $`KxP>0,`$ i.e. $`K>0`$ for $`P=0`$. Therefore, the line $`(P=0,K=\kappa )`$ is not available for the dynamics. The hyperboloid (3.8) without this line defines the physical phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$, which is topologically equivalent to $`^2`$.

Excluding the momenta $`p_t`$ and $`p_x`$ from (3.5) we find explicit formulae for particle trajectories

$$x(t)=M/2K,\text{for}P=0$$
(39)
and

$$x(t)=\left[K\sqrt{\kappa ^2+(rP)^2\mathrm{exp}(2t/r)}\right]/P,\text{for}P0,$$
(40)
where (3.10) takes into account that $`KxP>0.`$

The space of trajectories defined by (3.9) and (3.10) represents the phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$.

### III.2 Choice of observables

To satisfy all required criteria for observables, we parametrize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ by the coordinates $`(q,p)^2`$ as follows

$$P=p,K=pq\kappa ,M=pq^22\kappa q.$$
(41)
The integrals (3.11) satisfy the algebra (3.6), if $`\{p,q\}=1`$.

To compare quantum dynamics of $`V_p`$ and $`V_h`$ systems, let us bring their observables to the same functional form. It can be achieved in two steps:

First, we change parametrization of the phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ as follows

$$q=:\mathrm{cot}\frac{\sigma }{2},p=:(1\mathrm{cos}\sigma )(I+\kappa \mathrm{cot}\frac{\sigma }{2}),$$
(42)
where $`0<\sigma <2\pi `$ and $`I`$.

Second, we rewrite the observables (3.11) in terms of new canonical variables $`(I,\sigma )`$ and redefine them. The final result is

$$I_0:=\frac{1}{2}(M+P)=I,$$
(43)
$$I_1:=\frac{1}{2}(MP)=I\mathrm{cos}\sigma \kappa \mathrm{sin}\sigma ,$$
(44)
$$I_2:=K=I\mathrm{sin}\sigma +\kappa \mathrm{cos}\sigma .$$
(45)
Since $`\{\sigma ,I\}=1`$, the commutation relations for $`I_a`$ resulting from (3.6) are identical to the commutation relations (2.13) for $`J_a(a=0,1,2)`$.

Comparing (3.13 - 3.15) with (2.17) we can see that $`I_a`$ and $`J_a(a=0,1,2)`$ have the same functional forms, but they are different because the range of parameter $`\beta `$ is $`0\beta <2\pi `$, whereas the range of $`\sigma `$ reads $`0<\sigma <2\pi `$. This difference results from the difference between the topologies of phase-spaces of $`V_h`$ and $`V_p`$ systems: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ is the hyperboloid (2.15), whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is the hyperboloid (3.8) without one line. Therefore, the phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ cannot be invariant under the action of $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group. This may be already seen in the context of space-times, since $`V_p`$ is only a subspace of $`V_h`$ due to the isometric immersion map (2.3). In fact, the Killing vector field generated by the transformation (3.4) is not complete on $`V_p`$, whereas the vector fields generated by (3.2) and (3.3) are well defined globally (see, App. B). Therefore, the dynamical integral $`M`$ is not well defined globally. Let us make the assumption that each classical observable should be a globally well defined function on a physical phase-space. Then, the set of observables of $`V_p`$ system consists of only the integrals $`P`$ and $`K`$ satisfying the algebra (see, (3.6))

$$\{P,K\}=P.$$
(46)
Eq. (3.16) defines a solvable subalgebra of $`sl(2,)`$ algebra.

The algebra (3.16) is isomorphic to the algebra $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ of the affine group $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$. If we denote the span of the algebra (3.16) by $`<P,K>`$ and the span of $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ by $`<A,B>`$, the algebra isomorphism is defined by $`A:=K`$ and $`B:=P`$. The algebra $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ is defined by the commutation relation

$$\{A,B\}=B.$$
(47)
One can easily show that the center of $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ is an identity element of this group. Thus, $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ is the only Lie group with $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ as its Lie algebra. This circumstance makes unique the choice of the symmetry group of the phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$.

The algebra $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ is quite different from the local symmetry (3.6) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$. The relationship between local and global symmetries which occurs in $`V_h`$ case does not exist in the present case.

### III.3 Quantum dynamics on plane

In gravitational systems the global and local symmetries may easily happen to be incompatible. An example is our $`V_p`$ system of a free particle in space-time with removable type singularities. In such cases our GTQ method needs modification to be applicable. We propose to complete the set of conditions defining the algebra of observables, Sec. IIB, by the following one: (iv) algebra of observables is consistent with the global symmetry of phase-space.

To quantize the algebra (3.17) we use tha fact that all unitary irreducible representations of $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ group are known. They were discovered already in 1947 by Gel’fand and Najmark GFN . In what follows we adopt the Vilenkin version NVK . There exist only two (nontrivial) unitarily non-equivalent representations

$$U_s(g):_\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Lambda },s=,+$$
(48)
where $`g𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ and where $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Hilbert space defined as follows:

We introduce the space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:=C_0^{\mathrm{}}(_+),_+:=\{x|x>0\},$$
(49)
with the scalar product given by

$$<\phi _1|\phi _2>:=_0^{\mathrm{}}\overline{\phi _1(x)}\phi _2(x)\frac{dx}{x},\phi _1,\phi _2\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(50)
$`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Hilbert space obtained by completion of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with respect to the scalar product (3.20). The operators $`U_s(g)`$ are defined as follows NVK

$$U_s[g(a,b)]\psi (x):=\mathrm{exp}(isbx)\psi (ax),\psi _\mathrm{\Lambda },s=,+$$
(51)
where $`g(a,b)𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ and $`(a,b)_+\times ,`$ parametrize the group elements.

It is easy to check that (3.21) is a representation of $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ group.

Since the measure $`x^1dx`$ in (3.21) is invariant with respect to $`xax`$, we obtain

$$<U_s[g(a,b)]\psi _1|U_s[g(a,b)]\psi _2>=_0^{\mathrm{}}\overline{\psi _1(ax)}\psi _2(ax)\frac{dx}{x}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\overline{\psi _1(x)}\psi _2(x)\frac{dx}{x}=<\psi _1|\psi _2>$$
(52)
for all $`\psi _1,\psi _2_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which shows that (3.21) defines a unitary representation. Making use of the reasoning of Ref. NVK  one can prove that the unitary representation (3.21) is irreducible.

The application of Stone’s theorem (strong form) to (3.21) defines two sets of operators $`\widehat{A}_s`$ and $`\widehat{B}_s(s=,+).`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}_{_{t=0}}U_s[g(a(t),0)]\phi (x)=x\frac{da(0)}{dt}\frac{d\phi (x)}{dx}=x\frac{d}{dx}\phi (x)=i(ix\frac{d}{dx}\phi (x))=:i\widehat{A}_s\phi (x)$$
(53)
and

$$\frac{d}{dt}_{_{t=0}}U_s[g(1,b(t))]\phi (x)=isx\frac{db(0)}{dt}e^{isb(0)x}\phi (x)=i(sx)\phi (x)=:i\widehat{B}_s\phi (x),$$
(54)
where $`ta(t)`$ and $`tb(t)`$ with the boundary conditions $`a(0)=1,da(0)/dt=1`$ and $`b(0)=0,db(0)/dt=1,`$ respectively, are two integral curves on $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,).`$

Equations (3.23) and (3.24) define the domains for the operators $`\widehat{A}_s`$ and $`\widehat{B}_s`$. One can prove (see, App. C) that these operators are essentially self-adjoint on the space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defined by (3.19). One can also verify that

$$[\widehat{A}_s,\widehat{B}_s]\phi =i\widehat{B}_s\phi ,\phi \mathrm{\Lambda },s=,+$$
(55)
which demonstrates that (3.25) is the representation of the algebra $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ defined by (3.17).

Therefore, there are possible only two (up to unitary equivalence) quantum dynamics corresponding to a single classical dynamics of $`V_p`$ system. We can use either the representation $`U_+(g)`$ or $`U_{}(g)`$. (We ignore the trivial one-dimensional representation mentioned in NVK .)

The quantization of $`V_p`$ system is now complete.

To appreciate the quantization requirement that representation of the algebra of observables should be integrable to the unitary representation of the symmetry group of the system, let us consider again the representation of $`sl(2,)`$ algebra satisfied by $`I_a(a=0,1,2)`$ observables (3.13 - 3.15). Since $`I_a`$ and $`J_a(a=0,1,2)`$ have the same functional forms and have almost everywhere the same ranges, the representation of $`I_a`$ observables is defined by (2.18 - 2.22) with $`\widehat{J}_a`$ replaced by $`\widehat{I}_a`$ and $`\beta `$ replaced by $`\sigma `$. However, there exists no value of the parameter $`\theta `$ in (2.22) which can lead to the algebra representation integrable to the unitary representation of the symmetry group $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$. It is so because $`sl(2,)`$ is not the algebra of $`Aff(1,)`$.

## IV Dynamics of massless particle

### IV.1 Massless particle on hyperboloid

To obtain the description of dynamics of a massless particle on hyperboloid we examine taking the limit $`\kappa 0`$, i.e. $`m0`$, in Sec. II. The inspection of classical and quantum dynamics of $`V_h`$ system reveals that apart from Eq. (2.5) for the Lagrangian, all equations can be considered in the limit $`m0`$:

The phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ defined by (2.15) turns into two cones

$$J_1^2+J_2^2J_0^2=0.$$
(56)
with a common vertex $`V`$ defined by $`J_0=0=J_1=J_2`$.

It is clear that each cone is invariant under the action of $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group.

Each point of (4.1) different from $`V`$ labels uniquelly the trajectory of a particle on hyperboloid (2.4). The set of trajectories (stright lines) is the set of generatrices of the hyperboloid (2.4).

Parametrizing (4.1) by $`J_a`$ in the form (2.17) with $`\kappa =0`$ leads to (2.18 - 2.20) with $`\kappa =0`$ as well.

The quantum Casimir operator (2.26) now reads

$$\widehat{C}\psi =\frac{1}{4}\psi ,\psi \mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(57)
There is no problem with taking $`\kappa 0`$ in (2.27 - 2.29) too. The only problem is the form of the Lagrangian (2.5) because $`m`$ occurs as a factor. We can avoid this difficulty by choosing the Lagrangian which does not depend explicitly on the mass of a particle BDV ; GW4

$$𝒜=_{\tau _1}^{\tau _2}L(\tau )𝑑\tau ,L(\tau ):=\frac{1}{2\lambda (\tau )}g_{\mu \nu }(x^0(\tau ),x^1(\tau ))\dot{x}^\mu (\tau )\dot{x}^\nu (\tau ),$$
(58)
where $`\tau `$ is an evolution parameter, $`\dot{x}^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau `$ and $`\lambda `$ plays the role of Lagrangian multiplier. The action (4.3) is invariant under reparametrization $`\tau f(\tau ),\lambda (\tau )\lambda (\tau )/\dot{f}(\tau ).`$ This gauge symmetry leads to dynamics constrained by (2.14) with $`m=0`$ and consequently to (2.15) with $`\kappa =0,`$ i.e. to Eq. (4.1). Thus the dynamics of a massless particle defined by (2.5) and (4.3) are equivalent. It appears that the massless particle dynamics of quantum $`V_p`$ system may be described by the continuous (integral case) Bargmann’s $`C_q^0`$ class with $`q=1/4`$ (see, the last paragraph of Sec. IIC).

Thus, the principal series irreducible unitary representation of $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group appears to be able to describe quantum dynamics of both massive and massless particle on hyperboloid.

However, we have not analysed the vertex of (4.1) in the context of particle dynamics carefully enough. The subtlety is that in case of a massless particle the vertex cannot be used to specify the trajectory of a particle by making use of (2.16). For $`p_\rho 0`$ the Eq. (2.16) has no solutions and for $`p_\rho =0`$ it has infinitely many. The removal of the vertex from (4.1) turns the phase-space of $`V_p`$ system into two separate cones $`𝒞_+`$ and $`𝒞_{}`$ with $`J_0>0`$ and $`J_0<0`$, respectively. This procedure splits the system into two parts and each part can be quantized independently. The corresponding quantum systems have been already found GW4 : the quantum system connected with $`𝒞_+`$ may be described by the discrete series $`D_+`$ (having positive spectrum of $`\widehat{J}_0`$) of the irreducible unitary representation of $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group, whereas the discrete series $`D_{}`$ (with negative spectrum of $`\widehat{J}_0`$) may be used to represent the quantum system connected with $`𝒞_{}`$. Thus the whole quantum system may be described by $`D_{}D_+`$ representation (see, Sec. 2 of GW4  for more details).

The role of the vertex $`V`$ is of primary importance. If we take it to belong to the phase-space, the corresponding quantum system will be unique and may be described by an irreducible representation of $`SO_0(1,2)`$ group. The phase-space without the vertex leads to infinitely many reducible representations of $`SO_0(1,2)`$. Therefore, taking $`\kappa 0`$ at the classical level leads to the latter. Taking the limit not at the classical, but at the quantum level gives the former.

### IV.2 Massless particle on plane

In case of dynamics on plane (see, Sec. III) an action integral is defined by (4.3) and the one-sheet hyperboloid (3.8), in the limit $`m0,`$ turns into ‘one-sheet cone’

$$K^2PM=0.$$
(59)
Since the dynamics requires $`K>0`$ for $`P=0`$, we have to remove the line $`(P=0=K)`$ from (4.4) to get the physical phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$. As the result, the phase-space slits into two disconnected parts $`𝒫_+`$ and $`𝒫_{}`$ with $`P>0`$ and $`P<0`$, respectively. The observables $`P`$ and $`K`$ are well defined globally on $`𝒫_+`$ and $`𝒫_{}`$, and the corresponding $`A`$ and $`B`$ observables satisfy $`𝔞𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ algebra (3.17) with $`𝔄𝔣𝔣(1,)`$ as the symmetry group.

Since at the quantum level there is no explicit dependence on the parameter $`\kappa `$, taking $`m0`$ is trivial.

Therefore, the quantum dynamics on plane of the massless particle may be described by the representation $`T_{}T_+`$, where $`T_{}`$ and $`T_+`$ denote the representations corresponding to $`s=`$ and $`s=+`$, respectively.

In the present case there is no ambiguity connected with the vertex of (4.4) since the removed line (P=0=K) includes the vertex.

## V Conclusions

Test particle is a tool which may be used in the theory of classical gravity to examine causal geodesics of singular space-times. We have tried to quantize the particle dynamics to see what can one do to avoid problems connected with removable singularities of space-time in quantum theory. Our main result is that taking account of global properties of space-time makes possible the imposition of quantum rules into the dynamics of a particle. It is clear that we have not tried to quantize gravitational field, but only the dynamics of a particle.

Local properties of a given space-time described by metric tensor and Lie algebra of the Killing vector fields do not specify the system uniquely because space-times with different global properties may have isometric Lie algebras LML ; LPP . Presented results show that the topology of space-time carries the information not only on the symmetry group but also indicates which local properties of the system should be used in the quantization procedure. Our results are consistent with the fact that quantum theory is a global theory in its nature. We suggest that its consolidation with classical gravity should take into account both local and global properties of space-time. The Einstein equations being partial differential equations cannot specify the space-time topology, but only its local properties. Fortunately, the mathematics of low dimensional manifolds offers a full variety of topologies for space-time models consistent with local properties of a given space-time WPW ; WPT .

Generalization of our results to the four-dimensional de Sitter space-times seems to be straightforward. The space-time with topology $`^1\times ^3`$, the four dimensional analog of $`V_p`$, is geodesically incomplete and it can be embedded isometrically SHE  into the space-time with topology $`^1\times 𝕊^3`$, corresponding to $`V_h`$, by generalization of the mapping (2.3). The quantum dynamics of a particle on four dimensional hyperboloid in five dimensional Minkowski space is presented in WG9 . It seems that quantization of dynamics of a particle on de Sitter space-time with topology $`^1\times ^3`$ may be carried out by analogy to the quantization of $`V_p`$ system. First of all one should find the set of all Killing vector fields which are complete. They would help to identify the algebra of globally well defined dynamical integrals and the symmetry group of phase-space. Unitary representations of the symmetry group may be used to define quantum dynamics of a particle. It is clear that examination of dynamics of a particle in four dimensional space-time is much more complicated than in two dimensional case, but it should be feasible if the number of globally well defined dynamical integrals is high enough. We expect that application of our method to the four dimensional case should lead to the conclusion similar in its essence to the two dimansional case.

Our paper concerns removable type singularities of space-time. Great challenge is an extension of our analysis to space-times with essential type singularities, i.e. including not only incomplete geodesics, but also blowing up Riemann tensor components or curvature invariants JMS . The FLRW type universes appear to be good candidates to begin with, since their properties are well known GFR . Our method of analysing particle dynamics by making use of embeddings into the Minkowski space extends to higher dimensions. There exist theorems of differential geometry LPE ; JJP ; PSW ; AB1  that every curved four-dimensional space-time can be embedded isometrically into a flat pseudo-Euclidean space $`E_N`$ with $`5N10`$.

Recently, Heller and Sasin put forward the idea of modeling space-time by the Connes noncommutative geometry. With this new idea one can try to coup with space-time singularities and try to establish the relationship with quantum description MH1 ; MH2 .

Completely different approach has been developed by Ashtekar and his collaborators (see, AAA  and references therein). This non-perturbative and background-independent theory of quantum gravity seems to be free of problems connected with space-time singularities MB1 ; MB2 , and it seems to reproduce (in its classical limit) the Einstein theory of gravity.

Finally, let us make some general comments concerning the ambiguity problems of the canonical quantization procedure. It is known that quantization of a system with constraints is a highly nonunique procedure. One may quantize first and then impose the constraints, or vice versa. Having fixed the phase-space one may quantize geometrically, group theoretically, by making use of coherent states or by some mixture of all these methods. Only quantization of the simplest mechanical systems leads to similar or identical results. The ambiguity may be reduced by making use of global properties of classical system. In principle, the ambiguity should be removed by comparison of predictions with experimental data. In case of the systems with a few degrees of freedom and with non-trivial topology of phase-space the discussion of the ambiguity problem was recently done in Refs. MB3 ; MB4 . An extension of this discussion will be published elsewhere WJP .

## Appendix A Representation algebra on hyperboloid

Let $`L^2(𝕊)`$ denotes the Hilbert space of square integrable complex functions on a unit circle with the inner product

$$<\phi |\psi >=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\beta \overline{\phi (\beta )}\psi (\beta ),\phi ,\psi L^2(𝕊).$$
(60)
In what follows we outline the prove that representation of $`sl(2,R)`$ algebra defined by

$$\widehat{J}_0\psi (\beta ):=\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{d\beta }\psi (\beta ),\beta 𝕊,\psi \mathrm{\Omega }_\theta \theta ,$$
(61)
$$\widehat{J}_1\psi (\beta ):=\left[\mathrm{cos}\beta \widehat{J_0}(\kappa \frac{i}{2})\mathrm{sin}\beta \right]\psi (\beta ),$$
(62)
$$\widehat{J}_2\psi (\beta ):=\left[\mathrm{sin}\beta \widehat{J_0}+(\kappa \frac{i}{2})\mathrm{cos}\beta \right]\psi (\beta ),$$
(63)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta :=\{\psi L^2(𝕊)|\psi C^{\mathrm{}}[0,2\pi ],\psi ^{(n)}(0)=e^{i\theta }\psi ^{(n)}(2\pi ),n=0,1,2\mathrm{}\},$$
(64)
is essentially self-adjoint.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$ is a dense invariant common domain for $`\widehat{J}_a(a=0,1,2)`$. Since the functional form of $`\widehat{J}_a`$ does not depend on $`\theta `$ and since $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )=1`$, the operators are symmetric on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$:

An elementary proof includes integration by parts of one side of

$$<\varphi _1|\widehat{J}_a\varphi _2>=<\widehat{J}_a\varphi _1|\varphi _2>,\varphi _1,\varphi _2\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta $$
(65)
followed by making use of the property

$$\varphi (0)=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\varphi (2\pi ),\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\theta .$$
(66)
The domains $`D(\widehat{J}_a^{})`$ of the adjoint $`\widehat{J}_a^{}`$ of $`\widehat{J}_a`$ consists of functions $`\psi _a`$ which satisfy the condition

$$\psi _a(0)=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\psi _a(2\pi ),\psi _aD(\widehat{J}_a^{})L^2(𝕊)$$
(67)
for $`a=0,1,2`$.

The main idea of the proof MRS  is to show that the only solutions to the equations

$$\widehat{J_a^{}}f_{a\pm }=\pm if_{a\pm },f_{a\pm }D(J_a^{}),a=0,1,2$$
(68)
are $`f_{a\pm }(\beta )=0`$, i.e. the deficiency indices of $`\widehat{J_a}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\theta `$ satisfy $`n_{a+}=0=n_a`$ (for $`a=0,1,2`$).

The equation (A9) for $`a=0`$ reads

$$\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{d\beta }f_{0\pm }(\beta )=\pm if_{0\pm }(\beta )$$
(69)
and its general normalized solution is

$$f_{0\pm }(\beta )=C_{0\pm }\mathrm{exp}(\beta ),C_{0+}:=\sqrt{2/(1\mathrm{exp}(4\pi ))},C_0:=\sqrt{2/(\mathrm{exp}(4\pi )1)}.$$
(70)
The solutions (A11) does not satisfy (A8). Thus the only solution to (A10) is $`f_{0\pm }(\beta )=0`$.

For $`a=1`$ the equation (A9) can be written as

$$(\mathrm{cos}\beta \frac{d}{d\beta }r\mathrm{sin}\beta +\lambda _\pm )f_{1\pm }(\beta )=0,$$
(71)
where $`r=1/2+\kappa i,\kappa ,\lambda _\pm =1`$ or $`1`$ for $`f_{1+}`$ or $`f_1`$, respectively.

One can verify that the general solution of (A12) reads

$$f_{1\pm }(\beta )=C_{1\pm }|\mathrm{cos}\beta |^r|\mathrm{tan}(\frac{\beta }{2}+\frac{\pi }{4})|^{\lambda \pm },$$
(72)
where $`C_{1\pm }`$ are complex constants.

The immediate calculations show that for $`C_{1\pm }0`$

$$lim\mathrm{}f_{1+}(\beta )=\mathrm{}=lim\mathrm{}f_{1+}(\beta )\text{as}\beta \frac{3}{2}\pi \pm $$
(73)
and

$$lim\mathrm{}f_1(\beta )=\mathrm{}=lim\mathrm{}f_1(\beta )\text{as}\beta \frac{\pi }{2}\pm .$$
(74)
Therefore $`f_{1\pm }`$ are not square integrable and the only solutions of (A12) are $`f_{1\pm }=0`$.

The equation (A9) for $`a=2`$ has the form

$$(\mathrm{sin}\beta \frac{d}{d\beta }+r\mathrm{cos}\beta +\lambda _\pm )f_{2\pm }(\beta )=0,$$
(75)
where $`r=1/2+\kappa i`$ and $`\lambda \pm =1`$ or $`1`$, for $`f_{2+}`$ or $`f_2`$, respectively.

The general solution to (A16) is

$$f_{2\pm }(\beta )=C_{2\pm }|\mathrm{sin}\beta |^r|\mathrm{tan}\frac{\beta }{2}|^{\lambda \pm },$$
(76)
where $`C_{2\pm }`$ are complex constants.

The standard calculations yield

$$lim\mathrm{}f_{2+}(\beta )=\mathrm{}=lim\mathrm{}f_{2+}(\beta )\text{as}\beta 0+\text{or}\beta 2\pi $$
(77)
and

$$lim\mathrm{}f_2(\beta )=\mathrm{}=lim\mathrm{}f_2(\beta )\text{as}\beta \pi \pm .$$
(78)
Thus, $`f_{2\pm }`$ are not square integrable unless $`C_{2\pm }=0.`$

This finishes the proof, the detailed verification of consecutive steps being left to the reader.

## Appendix B Global transformations on plane

The transformations (3.2), (3.3) and (3.4) of Sec. IIIA lead, respectively, to the following infinitesimal generators

$$X_1=/x,$$
(79)
$$X_2=r/t+x/x,$$
(80)
$$X_3=2rx/t+(x^2+r^2\mathrm{exp}(2t/r))/x.$$
(81)
The one-parameter group generated by $`X_3`$ is defined by the solution of the Lie equations

$$\frac{dt}{db_3}=2rx,$$
(82)
$$\frac{dx}{db_3}=x^2+r^2\mathrm{exp}(2t/r),$$
(83)
$$t_{b_1=0=b_2=b_3}=t_0$$
(84)
$$x_{b_1=0=b_2=b_3}=x_0.$$
(85)
(In what follows we use $`ϵ:=b_3`$ to simplify notation.)

Acting of $`/ϵ`$ on (B5) and making use of (B4) gives

$$\frac{d^2x}{dϵ^2}6x\frac{dx}{dϵ}+4x^3=0.$$
(86)
To reduce the order of (B8) we introduce $`p:=dx/dϵ`$, which leads to the equation

$$p\frac{dp}{dx}6xp+4x^3=0.$$
(87)
Eq. (B9) becomes homogeneous for $`z^2:=p`$, since we get

$$\frac{dz}{dx}=\frac{3xz^22x^3}{z^3}.$$
(88)
Substitution $`z:=ux`$ into (B10) gives

$$\frac{u^3du}{u^4+3u^22}=\frac{dx}{x}.$$
(89)
One more substitution $`v:=u^2`$ turns (B11) into

$$\left(\frac{1}{v1}\frac{2}{v2}\right)dv=\frac{2}{x}dx.$$
(90)
Solution to (B12) reads

$$\frac{v1}{(v1)^2}=Cx^2,$$
(91)
where $`R^1C>0`$ is a constant.

Making use of of $`p=dx/dϵ,p=z^2,z=ux`$ and $`v=u^2`$ turns (B13) into an algebraic equation

$$\left(\frac{dx}{dϵ}\right)^2(4x^2+D)\frac{dx}{dϵ}+4x^4+Dx^2=0,$$
(92)
where $`D:=1/C.`$

Eq. (B14) splits into two first-order real equations. One of them has the form (Analysis of the other one can be done by analogy.)

$$2\frac{dx}{dϵ}=4x^2+D\sqrt{D(4x^2+D)}.$$
(93)
The solution to (B15) reads

$$ϵ(x)=2\frac{dx}{4x^2+D\sqrt{D(4x^2+D)}}=\frac{1}{Ax\sqrt{x^2+A^2}}+B,$$
(94)
where $`A=\sqrt{D}/2`$ and $`B`$ are real constants.

Eq. (B16) leads to

$$x(ϵ)=\frac{A(ϵB)\left[A(ϵB)1\right]+1}{2(ϵB)\left[A(ϵB)1\right]}.$$
(95)
Eq. (B17) represents one of the solutions of (B5). It is not defined for $`ϵ=B`$ because

$$\underset{ϵB}{lim}x(ϵ)=+\mathrm{},\underset{ϵB+}{lim}x(ϵ)=\mathrm{}.$$
(96)
Since (B17) is not defined for all $`ϵR`$ , we conclude that the vector field $`X_3`$ is not complete on the plane.

One can easily solve the Lie equations corresponding to (B1) and (B2). The solutions, respectively, read

$$(t,x)(t,x+b_0)$$
(97)
and

$$(t,x)(trb_1,x\mathrm{exp}b_1).$$
(98)
Both (B19) and (B20) describe one-parameter global transformations on $`V_p`$ well defined for any $`b_0,b_1`$. Therefore, the vector fields $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are complete on the plane.

## Appendix C Representation algebra on plane

In what follows we consider only the case $`\widehat{A}\widehat{A}_{}`$ and $`\widehat{B}\widehat{B}_{}`$ (another case can be done by analogy).

We give the proof that representation of the algebra

$$\{A,B\}=B$$
(99)
defined by

$$\widehat{B}\varphi (x):=x\varphi (x),\widehat{A}\varphi (x):=ix\frac{d}{dx}\varphi (x)x_+,\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }=C_0^{\mathrm{}}(_+)_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(100)
with

$$<\varphi _1|\varphi _2>=_0^{\mathrm{}}\overline{\varphi _1(x)}\varphi _2(x)\frac{dx}{x},\varphi _1,\varphi _2\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(101)
is essentially self-adjoint on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (the space $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes the completion of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with respect to the inner product (C3)):

It is easy to see that the representation (C2) and is symmetric on a common invariant dense domain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

To examine the self-adjointness of $`\widehat{A}`$ we solve the equation

$$\widehat{A}^{}f_\pm (x)=\pm if_\pm (x),f_\pm D(\widehat{A^{}})_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(102)
to find the deficiency indices $`n_+(\widehat{A})`$ and $`n_{}(\widehat{A})`$. The solution to (C4) reads

$$f_\pm (x)=a_\pm x^{\pm 1},$$
(103)
where $`a_\pm `$.

It is clear that $`f_\pm `$ are not in $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ unless $`a_\pm =0`$. Thus $`n_+(\widehat{A})=0=n_{}(\widehat{A})`$, which means MRS  that $`\widehat{A}`$ is essentially self-adjoint on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The case of $`\widehat{B}`$ operator is trivial since

$$\widehat{B}^{}g_\pm (x)=\pm ig_\pm (x),g_\pm D(\widehat{B}^{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(104)
reads $`(xi)g_\pm (x)=0.`$ Its only solutions are $`g_\pm (0)=0`$, which proves that $`n_+(\widehat{B})=0=n_{}(\widehat{B})`$. Therefore, Eqs. (C2) and (C3) define an essentially self-adjoint representation of (C1) algebra.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am very grateful to J-P. Gazeau, G. Jorjadze, S. Woronowicz and A. Trautman for valuable discussions, and to the anonymous referee for constructive criticism.


text:
# OKHEP-02-06The University of Oklahoma hep-ph/0210001September 2002 Higgs Decays into Leptons Presented at the ICHEP 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

## Abstract

We discuss the prospects for the discovery of neutral Higgs bosons ($`\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$) in multi-Higgs doublet models via their decays into leptons at hadron colliders. A major focus will be searching for Higgs bosons produced with bottom quarks via Higgs decays into muon pairs ($`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$) at the CERN Large Hadron Collider within the framework of the minimal supersymmetric model.

1. Introduction. In this article we discuss the prospects of discovering neutral Higgs bosons via their decays into lepton pairs of the same flavor as well as final states with lepton flavor violation. In particular, we present a summary of our results for the minimal supersymmetric Higgs bosons produced with bottom quarks via Higgs decays into muon pairs at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) .

In a two Higgs doublet model such as the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) with Yukawa interactions of Model II, there are two Higgs doublets $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ coupling to the $`t_3=1/2`$ and $`t_3=+1/2`$ fermions, respectively. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, there remain five Higgs bosons: two charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$, two neutral CP-even scalars $`H^0`$ (heavier) and $`h^0`$ (lighter), and a neutral CP-odd pseudoscalar $`A^0`$. The couplings of $`\varphi ^0b\overline{b}`$ and $`\varphi \mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$) are enhanced by factors of $`1/\mathrm{cos}\beta `$.

For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$, the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ decay mode  is a promising discovery channel for the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ at the CERN LHC. It has also been suggested that Higgs bosons might be observable via their $`b\overline{b}`$ decays  in a large region of the ($`m_A,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) plane. However, simulations for the ATLAS detector concluded that detection of the $`b\overline{b}`$ channel would be difficult .

The LHC discovery potential of the muon pair channel for MSSM Higgs bosons was demonstrated by Kao and Stepanov , and was later confirmed by the ATLAS collaboration . In the minimal supergravity model, the significance of $`pp\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ is greatly improved at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$  because $`m_A`$ and $`m_H`$ become small from the evolution of the renormalization group equations with large $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ couplings. However, it is very challenging to search for Higgs decays into muon pairs in the Standard Model (SM) .

Furthermore, Higgs decays might lead to final states with lepton flavor violation . In the MSSM, radiative corrections via gaugino-sfermion loops can lead to lepton flavor violating Higgs decays with a branching ratio approximately $`B(\varphi ^0\tau \mu )4\times 10^4`$ which would be a $`3\sigma `$ signal at the LHC. In an $`E_6`$inspired multi-Higgs model with an abelian flavor symmetry, lepton flavor violating effects also arise in Higgs decays ($`\varphi ^0\tau \mu `$) that might be observable at the Tevatron and the LHC .

In this article, we focus on the prospects of discovering the MSSM Higgs bosons ($`\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$) produced with bottom quarks111 Recently, it was suggested that the production of a Higgs boson associated with a bottom quark ($`gb>\varphi ^0b`$) might allow for the suppression of backgrounds . via Higgs decays into muon pairs ($`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$) at the LHC. The Higgs signal and the SM background are evaluated with realistic cuts.

2. Higgs Decays into Muons. We calculate the cross section at the LHC for $`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0+X`$ ($`\varphi ^0=H^0,h^0,A^0`$) from two subprocesses $`ggb\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$. It turns out that the contribution from quark-antiquark annihilation ($`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$) is negligible.

It is a good approximation to evaluate the next to the leading order (NLO) cross section of $`pp\varphi ^0b\overline{b}+X`$ with the leading order (LO) contribution multiplied by a K factor222 The K factor is defined as $`K=\sigma _{\mathrm{NLO}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{LO}}`$, where $`\sigma _{LO}`$ is evaluated with LO parton distribution functions and 1-loop evolution of the strong coupling ($`\alpha _s`$) and $`\sigma _{NLO}`$ is evaluated with NLO parton distribution functions and 2-loop evolution of $`\alpha _s`$. of 0.8  and using the pole mass $`M_b=4.7`$ GeV. The results of Ref.  are applied to compute the NLO rates for $`pp\varphi ^0`$. We take a K factor of 1.5 for the contribution from $`ggH^0,h^0`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <6`$ and a K factor of 1.3 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 6`$. The contribution from $`ggA^0`$ is calculated with the LO contribution multiplied by a K factor of 1.7 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <6`$ and a K factor of 1.3 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 6`$.

The cross section for $`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ is evaluated with the Higgs production cross section $`\sigma (ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0+X)`$ multiplied by the branching fraction of the Higgs decay into muon pairs $`B(\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu })`$. When the $`b\overline{b}`$ mode dominates Higgs decays, the branching fraction for $`A^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ is approximately $`3\times 10^4`$ for $`m_A=100`$ GeV.

3. The Discovery Potential at the LHC. The dominant physics backgrounds to the final state of $`b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ come from $`ggb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ as well as $`ggb\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ followed by the decays of $`W^\pm \mu ^\pm \nu _\mu `$. We have applied the same acceptance cuts and efficiencies of $`b`$-tagging and mistagging as those of the ATLAS collaboration .

We show the invariant mass distribution of muon pairs in Fig. 1 for $`ppb\overline{b}A^0+Xb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and 50, the SM processes of $`ppb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$, and contributions from $`ppb\overline{b}W^+W^{}+X`$. Also shown are the muon pair invariant mass distributions for the inclusive final state of $`ppA^0\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ and its dominant background from the Drell-Yan process $`ppZ,\gamma \mu \overline{\mu }+X`$. There are several interesting aspects to note from this figure: (a) including two $`b`$ quarks in the final state greatly improves the signal to background ratio with realistic efficiencies of b tagging and jet mistagging at the ATLAS and the CMS detectors, (b) the SM subprocess of $`ggb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ make the major contribution to the physics background for $`M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}\begin{array}{c}<\\ \\ \end{array}100`$ GeV, but $`ggb\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ become the dominant background for higher muon pair invariant mass.

To study the discovery potential of $`ppb\overline{b}\varphi ^0+Xb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ at the LHC, we calculate the background from the SM processes of $`ppb\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }+X`$ in the mass window of $`m_\varphi \pm \mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mu \overline{\mu }}1.64[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi /2.36)^2+\sigma _m^2]^{1/2}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is the total width of the Higgs boson, and $`\sigma _m`$ is the muon mass resolution. We take $`\sigma _m`$ to be $`2\%`$ of the Higgs boson mass . The CMS mass resolution will be better than $`2\%`$ of $`m_\varphi `$ for $`m_\varphi \begin{array}{c}<\\ \\ \end{array}`$ 500 GeV .

The 5$`\sigma `$ discovery contours for the MSSM Higgs bosons at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 14 TeV for an integrated luminosity of $`L=30\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ are shown in Fig. 2. We have chosen $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}=\mu =1`$ TeV.

We have presented results for $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1`$ TeV. If $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is smaller, the discovery region of $`A^0,H^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ will be slightly reduced for $`m_A\begin{array}{c}>\\ \\ \end{array}250`$ GeV, because the the Higgs bosons can decay into SUSY particles and the branching fraction of $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ is suppressed .

4. Conclusions. The muon pair decay mode is a promising channel to discover the MSSM Higgs bosons at the LHC. The associated final state of $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ could discover the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 30 fb-1 if $`m_A\begin{array}{c}<\\ \\ \end{array}300`$ GeV. At a higher luminosity of 300 fb-1, the discovery region in $`m_A`$ is not expanded much, because the harder $`p_T`$ cut on $`b`$ quarks reduces the Higgs production cross section.

The inclusive final state of $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ could allow the discovery of the $`A^0`$ and the $`H^0`$ at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 30 fb-1 if $`m_A\begin{array}{c}<\\ \\ \end{array}450`$ GeV. At a higher luminosity of 300 fb-1, the discovery region in $`m_A`$ is significantly extended to $`m_A\begin{array}{c}<\\ \\ \end{array}650`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$.

The discovery of both $`\varphi ^0\tau \overline{\tau }`$ and $`\varphi ^0\mu \overline{\mu }`$ will allow us to understand the Higgs Yukawa couplings with the leptons. The discovery of the associated final state of $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0b\overline{b}\mu \overline{\mu }`$ will provide information about the Yukawa couplings of $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ and an opportunity to measure $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Although the discovery region of the $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ mode is smaller than the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ channel, the $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ channel allows a precise reconstruction of the Higgs boson masses.

Acknowledgments. I am very grateful to Sally Dawson and Duane Dicus for an inspiring and enjoyable collaboration. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-98ER41066.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Our main goal in this paper is to study properties of compact stars composed of strongly interacting matter undergoing the deconfinement phase transition. We construct the equation of state (EoS) at finite baryon density $`\rho _B`$ by combining two popular models of the baryon-rich matter. For the hadronic phase we use the NLZ version of the relativistic mean-field model  which gives very good description of the saturation properties of cold nuclear matter. The deconfined phase is described within a simplified version of the MIT Bag model . The possibility of a phase transition between these two phases has been carefully studied by applying the Gibbs conditions for charge-neutral and $`\beta `$-equilibrated matter. Indeed, we have found a first order phase transition and determined characteristics of the mixed phase.

Properties of hybrid stars containing both the hadrons and quarks have been already studied by using a large number of models (see e.g. Refs. ). One may wonder, what is new in our work? First of all, we want to note that this paper presents only a small part of our more comprehensive study  where we systematically analyze many other models of hadronic and quark phases. It is interesting that in most cases we do not find any phase transition between the two phases. The combination of the NLZ and MIT Bag models represents one of a few exceptional cases, when the deconfinement phase transition is predicted in stellar interiors. Moreover, we find two families of compact stars, twin stars , which differ by the size of the quark core. This opens the possibility of a catastrophic rearrangement of the twin star from one to the other configuration with a release of energy of about 1052 erg. In this paper we present these results and discuss their observational consequences.

## 2 Properties of matter in compact stars

### 2.1 Hadronic phase

There is no doubt that hadrons, mesons and baryons, are correct degrees of freedom for modeling strongly-interacting matter at low densities. From nuclear phenomenology we know that atomic nuclei can be well described in terms of interacting nucleons. Therefore, we believe that the hadronic phase should be stable at least up to the saturation density of nuclear matter $`\rho _0=0.15\mathrm{fm}^3`$ . Field-theoretical models, where nucleons interact with mean meson fields, are proved to be very successful in describing saturation properties of nuclear matter as well as properties of finite nuclei. Here, to calculate the EoS of hadronic matter we use a non-linear version of the relativistic mean-field model known as the NLZ model . Compared wih the original version it is generalized by including hyperons (Y) and hyperon-hyperon (YY) interactions, as proposed in Ref. . We call this model NLZY.

The original Lagrangian density for the NLZ model (without the YY interaction) can be written as  (here and below we use the units $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$)

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}\overline{\psi }_B(i/m_B)\psi _B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \sigma _\mu \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{a}{3}}\sigma ^3{\displaystyle \frac{b}{4}}\sigma ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega ^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega ^\mu \omega _\mu `$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{\rho }^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{\rho }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}\overline{\psi }_B\left(g_{\sigma B}\sigma +g_{\omega B}\omega ^\mu \gamma _\mu +g_\rho \stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu \gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }_B\right)\psi _B,`$
where the sum runs over all the baryons $`B`$=$`p,n,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{0,\pm },\mathrm{\Xi }^{0,}`$. In the above Lagrangian $`\sigma ,\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ are the iso-scalar scalar $`\sigma `$, the iso-scalar vector $`\omega `$ and the isovector vector $`\rho `$ meson fields respectively. In Eq. (1) $`\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^{\mu \nu }`$ denote, respectively, the field strength tensors for the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ meson fields.

Originally this model was designed for the nucleonic sector and it failed to reproduce the observed strong $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ attractive interaction. This defect can be removed by adding two new meson fields with hidden strangeness, namely, the iso-scalar scalar $`\sigma ^{}`$ and the iso-vector vector $`\varphi `$, which couple to hyperons only . These fields can be identified with the $`f_0(975)`$ and $`\varphi (1020)`$ mesons. The corresponding Lagrangian is given by

$`^{YY}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(^\mu \sigma ^{}_\mu \sigma ^{}m_\sigma ^{}^2\sigma ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\varphi ^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^\mu \varphi _\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}\overline{\psi }_Y\left(g_{\sigma ^{}Y}\sigma ^{}+g_{\varphi Y}\varphi ^\mu \gamma _\mu \right)\psi _Y`$
where index $`Y`$ runs over hyperons only. The mean meson fields are found from the Euler-Lagrange equations.

The nucleon coupling constants are chosen from the fit of the finite nuclei properties. The vector coupling constants of the hyperons are chosen according to the SU(6) symmetry and the hyperonic scalar coupling constants are chosen to reproduce the measured values of the corresponding optical potentials. Below we use the set of model parameters suggested in Refs. .

Within the mean-field approximation, the pressure and energy density of static and homogeneous baryonic matter can be easily calculated from the above Lagrangian:

$`ϵ^H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{3}}\sigma ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{4}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^{}^2\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega _0^2+`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2\rho _{0,0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi ^2\varphi _0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _B}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{k_F^B}}𝑑kk^2\sqrt{k^2+m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},`$
$`P^H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{b}{3}}\sigma ^3{\displaystyle \frac{c}{4}}\sigma ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\sigma ^{}^2\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega _0^2+`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2\rho _{0,0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi ^2\varphi _0^2+{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _B}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{k_F^B}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{\sqrt{k^2+m_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}},`$
where $`m_B^{}=m_Bg_{\sigma B}\sigma g_{\sigma ^{}B}\sigma ^{}`$ is the effective mass, $`\nu _B`$ is the degeneracy factor and $`k_F^B=\sqrt{\mu _B^2m_{}^{}{}_{B}{}^{2}}`$ is the Fermi momentum of the baryon species $`B`$.

In order to have a complete description of the $`\beta `$-equilibrated matter one should also include the leptons. In both the hadronic and quark phases their contributions to energy density and pressure are given by the well known formulae of ideal Fermi gas.

### 2.2 Deconfined phase

As follows from a simple geometrical consideration, nucleons begin to overlap at densities $`\rho _B(4\pi r_N^3/3)^13\rho _0`$ for the nucleon radius $`r_N0.8`$ fm. Such densities are surely reached in the interiors of compact stars. Of course, this argument does not tell anything about the character of transition from hadronic to quark-gluon degrees of freedom. Below we follow the common practice of using two different models for these two phases. Namely, the deconfined phase is described within a simple version of the MIT Bag model , considering it as a mixture of free Fermi gases of $`u,d,s`$ quarks in a bag with an additional energy density $`B`$ (the bag constant). Within this model the energy density and pressure of cold deconfined matter are written as

$`ϵ^Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f=u,d,s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _f}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{k_F^f}}𝑑kk^2\sqrt{m_f^2+k^2}+B,`$ (7)
$`P^Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f=u,d,s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _f}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{k_F^f}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{\sqrt{m_f^2+k^2}}}B,`$ (8)
where $`k_F^f=\sqrt{\mu _f^2m_f^2}`$ is the Fermi momentum of quarks with flavor $`f`$. For each flavor we choose the degeneracy factor $`\nu _f=2(\mathrm{spin})\times 3(\mathrm{color})=6`$ and take the following values of quark masses: $`m_u=5`$ MeV, $`m_d=10`$ MeV and $`m_s=150`$ MeV.

### 2.3 Conditions of local equilibrium

In $`\beta `$-equilibrium, the chemical potential of any particle species $`i`$ can be expressed as

$$\mu _i=b_i\mu _b+q_i\mu _e,$$
(9)
where $`b_i`$ is the baryon number of the species $`i`$ , $`q_i`$ denotes its charge in units of the electron charge, $`\mu _b`$ and $`\mu _e`$ are the baryonic and electric chemical potentials, respectively. Here and below we assume that neutrinos can freely escape from the star. Eq. (9) means that only reactions conserving charge and baryon number are allowed. On the other hand, strangeness is not conserved because strangeness-changing reactions are generally much faster than a characteristic time of the star evolution. Two independent chemical potentials, $`\mu _b`$ and $`\mu _e`$, are found by fixing the baryon and electric charge densities:

$$\rho _B=\underset{i}{}b_i\rho _i,\rho _e=\underset{i}{}q_i\rho _i,$$
(10)
where $`\rho _i`$ is the number density of the particle species $`i`$ . It is obvious that stars must be electrically neutral on a macroscopic scale, i.e. $`\rho _e=0`$.

We assume that deconfinement is a first order phase transition which, in general, should produce a mixed phase (MP) between the pure hadronic phase (HP) and pure quark phase (QP). At zero temperature the MP should follow the Gibbs conditions

$`P^H(\mu _b,\mu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`P^Q(\mu _b,\mu _e),`$ (11)
$`\mu _b=\mu _b^H`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _b^Q,`$ (12)
$`\mu _e=\mu _e^H`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _e^Q.`$ (13)
According to Eq. (9), the baryon chemical potential $`\mu _b`$ equals the neutron chemical potential $`\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _e`$ is equal to the electron chemical potential. At given $`\mu _b`$ and $`\mu _e`$, the quark chemical potentials are found by using the formulae $`\mu _u=(\mu _b2\mu _e)/3`$ and $`\mu _d=\mu _s=(\mu _b+\mu _e)/3`$ .

The volume averaged energy density in the MP can be written as

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`(1\lambda )ϵ^H(\mu _b,\mu _e)+\lambda ϵ^Q(\mu _b,\mu _e),`$ (14)
where $`\lambda =V_Q/V`$ is the volume fraction of quark phase. In the case of two chemical potentials one can only construct the MP by adopting a generalized (global) charge neutrality condition , when the net positive charge of one phase is compensated by the negative charge of the other phase:

$$(1\lambda )\rho _e^H(\mu _b,\mu _e)+\lambda \rho _e^Q(\mu _b,\mu _e)=0.$$
(15)
This condition is assumed in our calculations of hybrid stars presented below.

### 2.4 EoS and composition of matter

Figure 1 shows the pressure surfaces for the pure HP and pure QP (for bag constant $`B^{1/4}=180`$ MeV) as functions of chemical potentials $`\mu _b`$ and $`\mu _e`$ . It is important that these two surfaces intersect, which is not the case for most of the other models . In this case one can construct a MP connecting the pure phases along the intersection line. The thick curve on the surfaces shows pressure of charge neutral matter in $`\beta `$-equilibrium. The lower part of this curve (from low pressure to point C) corresponds to the pure HP. The MP starts at point C corresponding to baryonic density $`\rho _B1.5\rho _0`$ , and ends at point D corresponding to $`\rho _B5.1\rho _0`$ . At higher densities the matter is composed purely of quarks. Our calculations show that at $`B^{1/4}>190`$ MeV the pressure surfaces of the HP and QP do not intersect at all and the MP can not be defined by the Gibbs rules.

The particle composition in these three regions is presented in Fig. 2. It is interesting to note that the only hyperon species which survive in the MP is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-particle which appears at densities $`2.8\rho _0<\rho _B<5.1\rho _0`$. All the negatively charged hyperons are suppressed as a result of the charge neutrality. The strangeness content of matter rapidly grows in the MP and reaches the asymptotic value of $`1/3`$ in the QP. On the other hand, leptons (mainly electrons) are practically extinguished at $`\rho _B\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\rho _0`$ .

## 3 Properties of compact stars

Below we study properties of static spherically symmetric stars. Under assumption that the matter may be treated as an ideal fluid, the star structure can be found by solving the TOV equations . For a given EoS, $`P=P(ϵ)`$ , and a fixed central baryon density $`\rho _c=\rho _B(r=0)`$ we integrate the TOV equations from the center of the star up to its surface $`r=R`$. The star radius $`R`$ is determined from the condition $`P(R)=0`$. The details of numerical calculation as well as the online program can be found on the internet home page  of one of the authors (M.H.).

In Fig. 3 we present the mass–radius relations calculated for several values of $`B`$ as well as for pure hadronic and quark stars. By open dots we show the critical configurations with highest possible masses. The pure hadronic curve are calculated assuming the NLZY EoS at all densities. The part of this curve corresponding to $`M>1.6M_{}`$ is omitted due to appearance of densities with negative effective masses of baryons . The beginning of the MP at the star center is marked by full squares whereas its end and, therefore, the beginning of the pure QP, is marked by full dots. As seen in Fig. 3, the model predictions depend strongly on the bag constant. Stable hybrid stars are possible only for low bag constants, $`B^{1/4}180`$ MeV. For higher $`B`$ stars become unstable even before they reach high enough density for the formation of a pure deconfined phase in their interiors. On the other hand, pure quark stars are possible at any $`B`$ .

A very interesting feature is found in a narrow interval of $`B`$ around $`B^{1/4}=180`$ MeV, where a second sequence of stable hybrid stars appears. Their properties can be summarized as follows:

* The first sequence of stars can only reach maximum central baryon densities of about $`0.77`$ fm-3 which is just at the end of the MP. As one can see from Fig. 3, stars of this sequence have masses below $`M_{\mathrm{max}}=1.36M_{}`$ and radii $`R>13`$ km. These stars are mainly composed of hadronic and MP matter with admixture of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperons. The calculation shows that stars near the maximum mass contain a tiny core of pure quark phase.
* Stars of the second sequence have considerably higher central densities, $`0.9\mathrm{fm}^3<\rho _c<1.53\mathrm{fm}^3`$ . Their masses lies in a narrow interval, $`1.35<M/M_{}<1.38`$ and their radii are noticeably smaller, $`10.2\mathrm{km}<R<12.3\mathrm{km}`$. These stars are mainly composed of quark and MP matter, surrounded by a rather thin layer of HP and the nuclear crust.
* The two sequences of compact stars are separated by unstable region corresponding to the interval of central densities $`0.78\mathrm{fm}^3<\rho _c<0.9\mathrm{fm}^3`$.

From our more comprehensive study  involving many other models of EoS we conclude that two sequences of compact stars, sometimes called twin stars, appear only in very exceptional cases. There is no guarantee that this picture is the one that corresponds to the reality. But we find it interesting to study its possible consequences for the dynamics and observable signatures of compact stars.

## 4 The twin star collapse

One can imagine the situation when a compact star on the first sequence has a mass close to $`M_{\mathrm{max}}`$. If this star is a member of binary system, then its mass and, therefore, its central density may grow due to accretion from a companion star. Eventually the mass will exceed the maximum value when the star becomes unstable with respect to radial compression. Usually it is assumed that this loss of stability leads to the collapse into a black hole. However, our calculations open another possibility: the collapse into the twin star on the second sequence.

Let us assume that no matter is ejected during this process, i.e. the total baryon number, $`N_B`$ is conserved. Figure 4 shows the gravitational mass of the star as a function of its total baryon number. The star from the first sequence which reaches the maximum mass (point A) will collapse to its twin star. The latter is the corresponding star on the second sequence, i.e. the one which has the same total baryon number (point B). The difference in energy between these two stars, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, is given by the difference in their gravitational masses. In the case considered here, the released energy is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E6\times 10^3M_{}10^{52}`$ erg. This amount of energy should finally be emitted in one or the other way.

The baryonic density profiles of the twin stars A and B are compared in Fig. 5. One can see that an extended MP is present in both cases but the star B has much larger quark core as compared to the star A, where this core is only marginally present. So, the instability develops practically at the end of the MP region. In other words, this shows that stars with small quark cores are unstable. In the considered example the new equilibrium state appears only when the core radius exceeds about 4 km. This reminds the well known result from the theory of nonrelativistic stars with a density jump inside. Namely, if $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are baryon densities just below and above this jump, then small dense core becomes unstable if $`\rho _1/\rho _2`$ is larger than a certain critical value (3/2 for incompressible matter ). Of course, in our case there appears no jumps of density, although its gradients are large near the core boundary.

This kind of instability associated with a first order phase transition in hadronic matter was first studied in Ref.  and later on in Refs. . It was shown that the transition from a small-core to a large-core configuration proceeds via large-scale damped oscillations around the new equilibrium state. We expect that the collapse of twin stars may proceed in a similar way. After reaching the critical state A the star looses stability and enters the stage of catastrophic rearrangement. Since the QP in the core has higher density than the replaced MP, surrounding layers of the star will acquire collective inward motion. Due to inertial effects, the star will overshoot the new equilibrated state B and rebound. This will give rise to the damped oscillations around this state. As simple dimensional estimates show , the initial implosion and following oscillations are characterized by the millisecond time scale.

Such star rearrangement may involve many interesting processes. First of all, large amount of hadronic matter will be transformed into deconfined phase. Since strangeness and leptonic contents are very different in two phases, this transformation will require not only strong-interaction reactions but also weak processes changing strangeness and lepton numbers. Such reactions will inevitably produce large numbers of neutrinos. For instance, to achieve chemical equilibrium in the deconfined phase one needs reactions $`e+ud+\nu `$ and $`u+ds+u`$ which lead, respectively, to emission of neutrinos and production of additional strange quarks. We believe that the time scales of these weak processes are much shorter than the characteristic times of the star collapse.

The total number of neutrinos, $`N_\nu `$ , produced during the transition process can be estimated as follows. From Fig. 5 one can see that the final star has the quark core with baryon density $`\rho _{\mathrm{core}}5\rho _0`$ and radius $`R_{\mathrm{core}}4`$ km. Thus, the core contains $`N_{\mathrm{core}}2\times 10^{56}`$ baryons. They were initially in the HP at lower density $`\rho _B2\rho _0`$ . According to Fig. 2 the fraction of electrons in this phase was about 10% and practically no electrons were in the QP. Therefore, the difference between the number of electrons in configurations A and B is $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_e2\times 10^{55}`$ (the direct numerical calculation gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_e=1.6\times 10^{55}`$). Because of lepton number conservation, all these electrons should be transformed into neutrinos and therefore, $`N_\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }N_e2\times 10^{55}`$. This number is about 1% of the total baryon number of the star $`N_B1.7\times 10^{57}`$ . The neutrino energies will cover a broad range up to a maximum value $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}=\mu _e+\mu _u\mu _d`$ . One can estimate $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ by assuming that initially the deconfined phase was produced in the nonequilibrium state with the flavor composition corresponding to the HP. The latter consisted mainly of neutrons, with the quark structure $`udd`$ , as well as about 10% admixture of protons and electrons. Taking $`\rho _d2\rho _u10\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _e0.5\rho _0`$ we get $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}150`$ MeV which corresponds to the mean neutrino energy $`100`$ MeV. Multiplying this energy by $`N_\nu `$ one obtains that a significant fraction ( $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 30%) of the released energy will be carried away by the prompt neutrino burst.

We expect that the remaining energy will be transformed into heat. Nonequilibrium processes during the phase transformation as well as viscosity effects might be responsible for dissipation of collective kinetic energy and eventually for damping of oscillations. Assuming that thermal energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_T`$ is initially dissipated in the quark core, one can estimate its temperature $`T_0`$ from the relativistic Fermi gas formula

$$\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\frac{T_0^2}{\mu _q}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_T}{3N_{\mathrm{core}}},$$
(16)
where $`\mu _q=\mu _b/30.4`$ GeV is typical quark chemical potential at $`\rho _B\rho _{\mathrm{core}}`$ . For $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_T7\times 10^{51}`$ erg Eq. (16) gives $`T_040`$ MeV. At later times the heat wave will propagate through the whole star and finally will produce photons and, possibly, electron-positron pairs at its surface. The emission temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{em}}`$ , can be estimated by assuming that the thermal energy is distributed over the whole stellar matter, which is nonrelativistic outside the core. Then one obtains $`T_{\mathrm{em}}2\mathrm{\Delta }E_T/3N_B2`$ MeV. These predictions give us a ground to think that the discussed mechanism may serve as the engine for Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB) . Another obvious prediction is that the discussed rearrangement of the star will lead to a significant change in its moment of inertia. In a rotating star this will result in a super-glitch phenomenon .

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

It is shown that within a realistic hybrid (NLZY-MIT Bag) model two sequences of compact stars (twin stars) are possible. We demonstrate that their interiors differ mainly by the size of pure quark core. The energy difference between two twin stars with the same baryon number is about $`10^{52}`$ erg which is approximately 1% of their total energy. The transition between twin stars may be triggered by accretion of mass from a companion star or by some other processes leading to increase of the central density above the critical value. After that a catastrophic rearrangement of the star begins. It will first collapse and then oscillate around a new equilibrium state.

Our estimates show that in the course of this process the quark core can be heated up to temperature of about 40 MeV which is comparable to the one in supernova explosions. Our main prediction is that the transition between twin stars will produce a prompt burst of neutrinos (with energies of about 100 MeV) followed by a gamma ray burst (with photon energies of about 1 MeV). These features of the twin star collapse make it a potential candidate for the GRBs. On the other hand, there are some characteristics of GRBs, e.g. beaming of radiation, which is impossible to explain without additional assumptions invoking rotation and strong magnetic fields. This problem needs further study.

It is interesting to note that the presented model predicts maximum masses of compact stars, $`(1.351.38)M_{}`$ , which agree well with observed masses of pulsars . Moreover, the twin stars of the second sequence have nearly the same masses in the broad range of $`\rho _c`$ . If pulsars have quark cores, this may explain why their measured masses are clustered near the mass of about $`1.4M_{}`$ .

Other phase transitions may take place in the interiors of compact stars, e.g. kaon condensation, color superconductivity etc. In Ref.  it was shown that formation of metastable hyperonic matter can also lead (in a certain range of parameters) to the twin star solutions. The comparison of twin star properties predicted by different models will be given in a separate work .

## Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. Schaffner–Bielich for fruitful discussions. This work was funded in part by GSI, DAAD, DFG and the Hessische Landesgraduiertenförderung. A.B. thanks the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for support. I.N.M. and L.M.S. acknowledge support from the RFBR Grant No. 00–15–96590.


text:
# QUANTUM COHERENCE, CORRELATED NOISE AND PARRONDO GAMES

## 1 Introduction

Decoherence is a uniquely quantum phenomenon which results in the decay of the off-diagonal elements of the system’s density matrix. This implies that quantum superposition states decay into a probabilistic mixture. Decoherence, and in particular the control of decoherence, is crucial to the success of quantum information processing and quantum computation . Decoherence can be considered as arising due to the presence of some kind of ‘noise’. Regardless of its origin, such ‘noise’ is typically assumed to be a statistically independent stochastic process, i.e. lacking any temporal correlations. The off-diagonal elements of the density matrix then tend to decay in time as a simple exponential, with the decay constant denoting a ‘relaxation time’. However, recent work has shown that such approximations are highly questionable - or even plainly wrong - in the ultrafast optical regime being explored for nanostructure-based quantum information processing .

In this Letter we investigate the effect of correlated noise on quantum coherent phenomena. First we consider a simple, toy model of a two-level system in order to illustrate the effect that such correlations can have on decoherence. Then we show how decoherence rates can be suppressed via a Parrondo-like effect . Finally, we report the results of detailed many-body calculations in which an experimentally-measurable quantum coherent phenomenon is significantly enhanced by non-Markovian dynamics arising from the noise source. Our results show that, in addition to yielding non-trivial dynamics, correlated noise can play an important role in determining the dynamics of the decoherence process.

## 2 Toy Model of Decoherence

We start by considering decoherence of a two-level system under the physical assumptions that the channel is isolated (i.e. no entanglement between the system and the environment) and non-dissipative (i.e. only phase damping). We further assume discrete time-evolution for simplicity. Our model is a generalization of Nielsen and Chuang’s treatment of a single phase-kick .

Suppose we have a qubit $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=a_0|0+b_0|1`$ at timestep $`t=0`$. A rotation $`R_z(\theta _1)`$ is applied at timestep $`t=1`$, to model a phase-kick. The random angle $`\theta _1`$ is drawn from a probability distribution $`P_1(\theta _1)`$. The output state is given by the density matrix obtained from averaging over $`\theta _1`$:

$$\rho _1=_\pi ^\pi R_z(\theta _1)\rho _0R_z^{}(\theta _1)P_1(\theta _1)𝑑\theta _1.$$
(1)
The density matrix after $`n`$ timesteps is given by:

$$\rho _n=_\pi ^\pi \mathrm{}_\pi ^\pi _\pi ^\pi R_z(\theta _n)\mathrm{}R_z(\theta _2)R_z(\theta _1)\rho _0\mathrm{}$$

$$R_z^{}(\theta _1)R_z^{}(\theta _2)\mathrm{}R_z^{}(\theta _n)P(\theta _n,\theta _{n1},\mathrm{},\theta _2,\theta _1)d\theta _1d\theta _2\mathrm{}d\theta _n$$
(2)
where Bayes’ rule yields

$$P(\theta _n,\theta _{n1},\mathrm{},\theta _2,\theta _1)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(\theta _i|\theta _{i1},\theta _{i2},\mathrm{},\theta _2,\theta _1).$$
(3)
$`R_z(\theta _n)R_z(\theta _{n1})\mathrm{}R_z(\theta _2)R_z(\theta _1)`$ can be rewritten exactly as a single net rotation $`R_z(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_{i=1}^n\theta _i`$. In general the stochastic process producing the kicks may have temporal correlations, and may not be stationary - hence the kicks may be dependent and/or have a time-dependent probability distribution (e.g. if the noise-source were changing in time).

We start by considering independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) kicks. Hence $`P(\theta _i|\theta _{i1},\mathrm{})=P_i(\theta _i)`$ with $`P_i(\mathrm{})=P(\mathrm{})`$ for all $`i`$. Thus

$$P(\theta _n,\theta _{n1},\mathrm{},\theta _2,\theta _1)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(\theta _i)$$
(4)
If we also assume that $`P(\theta )`$ is Gaussian, then $`P(\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \lambda }}e^{\frac{\theta ^2}{4\lambda }}`$ where the mean is 0 and the variance is $`2\lambda `$. With the assumption that the Gaussian distributions have narrow peaks, we can allow the lower (upper) limits of the integrals to go to minus infinity (plus infinity). This yields $`\rho _n`$ as a matrix with off-diagonal elements $`a_0b_0^{}e^{n\lambda }`$. This exponential linear dependence on $`n`$ is basically just the effect of $`n`$ independent Gaussian integrals. Equivalently we can think of the net rotation $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_{i=1}^n\theta _i`$ as having a variance $`2\lambda _n`$ given by the sum of the variances $`2\lambda _n=2\lambda n`$. For non-Gaussian $`P(\theta )`$, it can be shown that an exponential decay also arises.

We now consider dependent, but identically distributed (d.i.d.) kicks. As an illustration, we consider the simple case of the angles being so strongly correlated that $`\theta _2=\theta _1`$, $`\theta _3=\theta _2`$, etc. This is equivalent to saying that all the conditional probabilities $`P(\theta _i|\theta _{i1},\theta _{i2},\mathrm{},\theta _2,\theta _1)=\delta (\theta _i\theta _1)`$. Assuming that $`\theta _1`$ has a Gaussian distribution, then $`P(\theta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \lambda }}e^{\frac{\theta ^2}{4\lambda }}`$. Now $`\rho _n`$ has off-diagonal elements $`a_0b_0^{}e^{n^2\lambda }`$. This exponential quadratic dependence on $`n`$ is basically just the effect of $`n`$ dependent integrals. Equivalently we can think of the net rotation $`\mathrm{\Theta }=_{i=1}^n\theta _i=n\theta _1`$ as having a variance $`2\lambda _n`$ given by $`2\lambda _n=2\lambda n^2`$. Hence the noise correlations have significantly affected the decoherence process.

## 3 Decoherence Control using Parrondo Effect

We now proceed to investigate the counter-intuitive effect whereby noise correlations might be exploited in an active way, in order to reduce decoherence. The Parrondo effect  is a remarkable result whereby two losing ‘games’, when combined, become winning. Pioneered by J.M.R. Parrondo, and by D. Abbott and collaborators, the most striking feature is arguably the fact that this combination can be random, i.e. random switching between two losing games A and B can produce a winning game C. Several realizations of the Parrondo effect have recently been suggested in the quantum regime: in particular, quantum games , quantum lattice gases  and quantum algorithms . But couldn’t the same idea be applied to quantum decoherence? In particular, could two decoherence sources (two ‘private baths’) be combined to produce a single decoherence source (a ‘public bath’) with a longer coherence time?

For independent kicks (either identically or non-identically distributed) we have been able to show that it is not possible to produce such a Parrondo effect . Remarkably, however, we can produce a Parrondo-like effect if we allow for correlated kicks, i.e. correlated noise. We now illustrate this, using a specific example motivated by the classical vector-rotating game of Ref. . Consider two probability distributions $`P_A,P_B`$ corresponding to two ‘private baths’ for phase-damping kicks. These distributions are such that the kick rotation angle $`\theta _2`$ is correlated to the previous rotation angle ($`\theta _1`$) in the following manner:

$`P_A(\theta _2|\theta _1)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{3}[\delta (\theta _2)+\delta (\theta _2+\frac{\pi }{2})+\delta (\theta _2\frac{\pi }{2})]\hfill & ,\theta _1\{\frac{\pi }{2},0,\frac{\pi }{2}\}\hfill \\ \delta (\theta _2)\hfill & ,\mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`P_B(\theta _2|\theta _1)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{3}[\delta (\theta _2ϵ)+\delta (\theta _2+\frac{3\pi }{4})+\delta (\theta _2\frac{\pi }{4})]\hfill & ,\theta _1\{\frac{3\pi }{4},ϵ,\frac{\pi }{4}\}\hfill \\ \delta (\theta _2ϵ)\hfill & ,\mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
with similar conditions holding for all subsequent pairs $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _{i1}`$. We note that the specific choice of angles is designed to make analytical calculations possible, and may be generalized. The parameter $`ϵ`$ is supposed to be small—its presence serves to ‘memorize’ which probability distribution was selected in the previous step. If $`P_A`$ represents the only noise-source applied to the system, and assuming the initial angle of rotation is $`0`$ (i.e. $`\theta _1=0`$) then we have

$$P_A(\theta _n,\mathrm{},\theta _1)=\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}P_A(\theta _i|\theta _{i1})=(\frac{1}{3})^{n1}$$
(11)
since the angles always lie in the set $`\{\pi /2,0,\pi /2\}`$. If the initial density matrix is

$$\rho _1:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b^{}& d\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
then the density matrix after $`n`$ time steps is:

$$\rho _n:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\gamma ^ne^{in\varphi }\\ b^{}\gamma ^ne^{in\varphi }& d\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where

$$\gamma e^{\pm i\varphi }:=\frac{1}{3}$$
(14)
assuming that the system is under the influence of $`P_A`$ alone. Similar arguments hold if $`P_B`$ is the only noise-source applied to the system and if we assume $`\theta _1=ϵ`$. In this case,

$$\gamma e^{\pm i\varphi }:=\frac{1}{3}e^{\pm iϵ}.$$
(15)
Combining the two noise-sources (i.e. probability distributions) at random gives

$$P(\theta _2|\theta _1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\delta (\theta _2ϵ)+\frac{1}{6}[\delta (\theta _20)+\delta (\theta _2+\frac{\pi }{2})+\delta (\theta _2\frac{\pi }{2})]\hfill & ,\theta _1\{\frac{\pi }{2},0,\frac{\pi }{2}\}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{2}\delta (\theta _20)+\frac{1}{6}[\delta (\theta _2ϵ)+\delta (\theta _2+\frac{3\pi }{4})+\delta (\theta _2\frac{\pi }{4})]\hfill & ,\theta _1\{\frac{3\pi }{4},ϵ,\frac{\pi }{4}\}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{2}[\delta (\theta _2)+\delta (\theta _2ϵ)]\hfill & ,\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The density matrix $`\rho _n`$ is given by

$$R_z(\theta _1)\mathrm{}R_z(\theta _n)\rho _0R_z^{}(\theta _n)P(\theta _n|\theta _{n1})𝑑\theta _n\mathrm{}R_z^{}(\theta _1)P(\theta _1)𝑑\theta _1$$
(17)
where $`P`$ only has one-step correlations. We define the following functions recursively:

$`f_1(\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i\varphi }P(\varphi |\theta )𝑑\varphi }`$ (18)
$`f_{k+1}(\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i\varphi }f_k(\varphi )P(\varphi |\theta )𝑑\varphi }`$ (19)
for $`1kn`$. Assuming the initial angle is 0, we have

$$\rho _n:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b[f_n(0)]^{}\\ b^{}f_n(0)& d\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
For the combined probability distribution $`P`$ above, the angles of rotation can only take on seven values, $`\{\pi /3,\pi /2,0,ϵ,\pi /3,\pi /2,\pi \}`$. We can calculate the $`f_k`$’s as follows:

$`f_1`$ $`:=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\pi /2,0,\pi /2\}\hfill & e^{iϵ}/2+1/6\hfill \\ \{3\pi /4,ϵ,\pi /4\}\hfill & 1/2+e^{iϵ}/6\hfill \end{array}`$ (23)
$`f_{k+1}`$ $`:=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\{\pi /2,0,\pi /2\}\hfill & \frac{e^{iϵ}}{2}f_k(ϵ)+\frac{1}{6}f_k(0)\hfill \\ \{3\pi /4,ϵ,\pi /4\}\hfill & \frac{1}{2}f_k(0)+\frac{e^{iϵ}}{6}f_k(ϵ).\hfill \end{array}`$ (26)
Letting $`ϵ`$ go to zero and writing $`e^{iϵ}`$ as $`1+𝒪(ϵ)`$, we see that $`f_1(0)=f_1(ϵ)=2/3+𝒪(ϵ)`$, $`f_2(0)=\frac{1}{2}f_1(ϵ)+\frac{1}{6}f_1(0)=(2/3)(2/3)+𝒪(ϵ)`$, and so on. Indeed, $`f_k(0)=(2/3)^{k1}+𝒪(ϵ)`$ for all $`k`$. Hence the decay factor $`\gamma `$ here is $`2/3+𝒪(ϵ)`$, which is an improvement over $`1/3`$. This reflects the Parrondo effect. Hence our toy model has established that, in principle, it might be possible to change decoherence properties in a favourable way by adding more noise to a quantum system. Our toy model has also demonstrated that temporal correlations can have a significant effect on decoherence properties and hence must be accounted for properly in any realistic calculations.

## 4 Enhancement of Quantum Coherent Phenomena

The possibility of performing quantum information processing in nanostructure systems, such as semiconductor quantum dots (QD), is of great interest from the perspectives of both fundamental science and future emerging technologies . Significant advances have been made recently in the fabrication of such nanostructures. Apart from quantum dots, there are a wide range of inorganic and organic structures which also qualify as ‘nanostructures’, including microbiological molecular structures such as the photosynthetic complexes in purple bacteria. However the great challenge facing any such information processing in the quantum regime lies in avoiding, controlling or overcoming the effects of decoherence. Typical decoherence times are of the order of picoseconds, and hence impose severe constraints on the timscales within which quantum logic gates need to be perfomed. For this reason, it is now widely believed that excitons generated optically in such nanostructures, could serve as useful qubits. Their manipulation (i.e. quantum logic gates) could then be achieved by ultrafast femtosecond laser pulses. Remarkably, such manipulation has already been demonstrated experimentally for single quantum dot nanostructures .

Given the potential importance of correlated noise on decoherence effects demonstrated in this Letter, we have investigated the effect of non-Markovian dynamics (i.e. correlated noise) in such nanostructure systems. In particular, we performed large-scale, many-body calculations of the ultrafast second-order coherence function of the emitted light from the optically-generated exciton in a single nanostructure (QD). Non-Markovian effects are included for both exciton-photon and exciton-phonon couplings. We find that a strong photon antibunching effect (a purely quantum phenomenon) arises in the resonance fluorescence response at very short times, if and only if the initial exciton state comprises a quantum superposition . More importantly for the present study, we find that correlation effects significantly enhance the antibunching signal, hence demonstrating explicitly that temporal correlations cannot be neglected a priori in such ultrafast regimes. The typical Markov approach, via Master equations with time-independent damping coefficients corresponding to an exponential decay in decoherence (c.f. earlier discussion for i.i.d. kicks), cannot account for the evolution of an open system on very short time scales. In short, Markov approximations (which are valid on long time-scales) overestimate the decay effects at short times. Hence great care must be exercised when treating temporal correlation effects on such short time-scales.

## 5 Conclusion

We have discussed the effects of correlated noise on quantum coherence, and have shown the possibility of decoherence control through a Parrondo-like effect. We have also reported the crucial role that non-Markovian damping effects (temporal correlations) can play in nanostructure-based quantum information processing.

## Acknowledgements

CFL thanks NSERC (Canada), ORS (U.K.) and Clarendon Fund (Oxford) for financial support. FR and LQ acknowledge support from COLCIENCIAS (Colombia) projects No.1204-05-10326, 1204-05-1148 and Banco de la República (Colombia). NFJ thanks EPSRC for a Travel Grant.