format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Snyder’s  old idea that spatial coordinates do not commute has undergone a recent revival due to its appearance in string theory . Inspired by this fact, several papers have appeared discussing different aspects of quantum mechanics and field theory on noncommutative space .

There are, however, some issues which have received less attention than others. For instance, only a few papers  discuss the hamiltonian treatment of noncommutative gauge theories. Indeed one possible approach to study these theories is to exploit the Seiberg-Witten map  that yields a commutative equivalent to the original noncommutative theory. However this transition is done at the level of the lagrangian. Also, nonabelian theories  have not been that widely studied as their abelian counterparts. The issue of algebraic consistency among the various approaches is left open. Likewise, the implications of the Seiberg-Witten map in constructing effective theories from the noncommutative theories is not completely clear. Indeed it is known that the energy -momentum tensor obtained directly from the noncommutative theory and then using the map is different from the expression obtained by considering the action of the effective theory .

In this paper we show that noncommuting electric fields occur in noncommutative gauge theories, mapped to their commutative equivalents by the Seiberg-Witten transformation. This algebra is used to obtain the equations of motion from the hamiltonian.Its equivalence with the lagrangian equations of motion is established. By a suitable redefinition, we show that both the lagrangian and hamiltonian can be put in the usual form as the difference or the sum of the squares of the electric and magnetic fields. The entire effect of noncommutativity is shifted to the nontrivial algebra among these fields. A hamiltonian generalisation of the Seiberg-Witten map is obtained. This is used to show that the commutative equivalents obtained either from the noncommutative lagrangian or hamiltonian are compatible. In conformity with  we find that the computation of the hamiltonian density does not commute with the Seiberg-Witten expansion and the star products. The result is different depending upon whether it is obtained directly from the effective theory or whether it is obtained in the noncommutative version, after which the map is exploited. However we find that, after implementing the Gauss constraint, this difference is a total boundary, so that the expressions for the hamiltonian agree. The stability of the Poisson algebra among the electric and magnetic fields, under the generalised Seiberg-Witten map, is examined. This is used to clarify certain issues regarding the possible interpretation of this map as a canonical transformation. Our analysis is for Yang-Mills theory with $`U(N)`$ gauge group, including, in particular $`N=1`$ (i.e. Maxwell’s theory).

An application of the hamiltonian analysis has been discussed in details where the gauge symmetries of the action are systematically derived, following the Dirac algorithm. For the $`U(1)`$ case it implies that the equations of motion can always be put in a ‘Maxwell’-like form.

After setting up the notations, we carry out the hamiltonian analysis, both in the noncommutative and effective theories, in section 2. Section 3 contains our analysis of the Seiberg-Witten map as a canonical transformation. The hamiltonian formulation is used to derive, in section 4, the gauge symmetries of the action in the noncommutative variables, while the concluding remarks are given in section 5.

The ordinary Yang-Mills action is given by,

$$S=\frac{1}{4}d^4xTr(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })$$
(1)
where the nonabelian field strength is defined as usual,

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]$$
(2)
in terms of the gluon field,

$$A_\mu (x)=A_\mu ^a(x)T^a$$
(3)
Here $`T^a`$ are the generators of a $`U(N)`$ gauge group satisfying,

$$[T^a,T^b]=if^{abc}T^c,\{T^a,T^b\}=d^{abc}T^c,Tr(T^aT^b)=\delta ^{ab}$$
(4)
The noncommutative generalisation of this theory involves the star product of the noncommutative field strength $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$, expressed in terms of the field $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$,

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i(\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu )$$
(5)
so that,

$$\widehat{S}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xTr(\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu })=\frac{1}{4}d^4xTr(\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu })$$
(6)
where the second equality follows on using the definition of the star product,

$$(AB)(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta ^{}}A(x)B(x^{})|_{x^{}=x}$$
(7)
and dropping boundary terms. Here $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a real and antisymmetric constant matrix.

## 2 The hamiltonian analysis

We now carry out a hamiltonian analysis of this theory. In order to avoid higher order time derivatives , henceforth $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ will be chosen to have only spatial components so that $`\theta ^{0\alpha }=0`$ and $`\theta ^{ij}=ϵ^{ijk}\theta ^k`$. Also, the ensuing analysis will be confined to the leading order in $`\theta `$ only. First, the effective theory obtained by the Seiberg-Witten map  is considered.

### 2.1 The effective theory

To first order in $`\theta `$ it is possible to relate the variables in the noncommutative spacetime with those in the usual one by the map ,

$$\widehat{A}_\mu =A_\mu \frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\{A_\alpha ,_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu }\}+O(\theta ^2)$$
(8)
$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }(2\{F_{\mu \alpha },F_{\nu \beta }\}\{A_\alpha ,D_\beta F_{\mu \nu }+_\beta F_{\mu \nu }\})+O(\theta ^2)$$
(9)
where the covariant derivative is defined as,

$$D_\mu \lambda =_\mu \lambda +i[\lambda ,A_\mu ]$$
(10)
On applying this map, the action (6) is written in terms of an effective theory comprising the usual variables ,

$$\widehat{S}S_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xTr\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\left(2\{F_{\mu \alpha },F_{\nu \beta }\}\{A_\alpha ,D_\beta F_{\mu \nu }+_\beta F_{\mu \nu }\}\right)F^{\mu \nu }\right)+O(\theta ^2)$$
(11)
The above form is further simplified by dropping a boundary term that does not affect the equations of motion, to yield the following lagrangian, expressed solely in terms of the field strength,

$$_{eff}=\frac{1}{4}Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\left(2\{F_{\mu \alpha },F_{\nu \beta }\}+\frac{1}{2}\{F_{\beta \alpha },F_{\mu \nu }\}\right)F^{\mu \nu }\right)+O(\theta ^2)$$
(12)
In this form the gauge invariance of the theory under the usual gauge transformations $`(\delta A_\mu =D_\mu \alpha )`$ becomes manifest.

Since the lagrangian is written in terms of the field strengths, it is possible to work with the electric and magnetic fields, exactly as happened in the case of the abelian theory ,

$$E_i^a=F_{0i}^a,B_i^a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}^a$$
(13)
In terms of these variables, the effective lagrangian (12) becomes,

$$_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}Tr((𝐄^2𝐁^2)(1\theta .𝐁)+\theta .𝐄(𝐁.𝐄+𝐄.𝐁))$$
(14)
The canonical momenta $`\pi _\mu ^a`$, conjugate to $`A^{\mu a}`$, are found to be,

$$\pi _0^a=0$$
(15)
which is the primary constraint of the theory, while the true momenta are,

$$\pi _i^a=E_i^a+\frac{1}{2}Tr\left[\left(\{B_i,\theta ^jE_j\}\{E_i,\theta ^jB_j\}+\theta ^i\{B_j,E_j\}\right)T^a\right]$$
(16)
Since the canonical variables are $`(A_i,\pi _i)`$, it is useful for later convenience to invert the above relation and solve the electric field in terms of the momenta,

$$E_i^a=\pi _i^a\frac{1}{2}Tr\left[\left(\{B_i,\theta ^j\pi _j\}\{\pi _i,\theta ^jB_j\}+\theta ^i\{B_j,\pi _j\}\right)T^a\right]$$
(17)
The hamiltonian is now obtained in the usual way by a Legendre transform,

$$H_{eff}=d^3x(\pi _i^a\dot{A}_i^a_{eff})=d^3x(\pi _i^aE_i^a+A_0^a(D_i\pi _i)^a_{eff})$$
(18)
Time conservation of the primary constraint yields a secondary constraint. For that it is essential to express the hamiltonian in terms of the canonical variables. In this case it is obvious from (14) and (17) that the dependance of the hamiltonian on $`A_0`$ has been isolated completely. The secondary constraint is therefore the usual Gauss constraint,

$$(D_i\pi _i)^a=0$$
(19)
It is also possible to verify that no further constraints are generated by this iterative prescription. As expected, there are only first class constraints in the theory, which annihilate the physical states of the theory. The physical hamiltonian; i.e. the hamiltonian acting on the physical states, is thus given by dropping the second term of the last expression in (18). Using (14) and (16) in (18), we get,

$$H_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}d^3xTr((𝐄^2+𝐁^2)(1\theta .𝐁)+\theta .𝐄(𝐁.𝐄+𝐄.𝐁))$$
(20)
which has a very similar structure as the effective lagrangian (14). Note also that setting the noncommutative parameter to zero reproduces the standard expression for the Yang-Mills theory. For the abelian theory, the above form was obtained and discussed in .

The positive definiteness of the above hamiltonian is not manifest. It is however possible to redefine the electric and magnetic fields,

$$\overline{E}_i^a=E_i^a\frac{1}{4}\theta ^jd^{abc}(B_j^bE_i^c2E_j^bB_i^c)$$
(21)
$$\overline{B}_i^a=B_i^a\frac{1}{4}\theta ^jd^{abc}B_j^bB_i^c$$
(22)
so that the hamiltonian, in these variables, becomes,

$$H_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}d^3xTr(\overline{𝐄}^2+\overline{𝐁}^2)$$
(23)
It is now structurally identical to the hamiltonian for the ordinary Yang-Mills theory. The entire effect of noncommutativity will be shifted to the nontrivial algebra among the electric and magnetic fields, a point which we shall consider in some details later. Also note that in these variables, the lagrangian (14) has the form of the usual Yang-Mills lagrangian,

$$_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(\overline{𝐄}^2\overline{𝐁}^2)$$
(24)
### 2.2 Analysis in the noncommutative variables

We shall now consider the lagrangian following from the action (6) in the original hat variables and obtain the hamiltonian. This will be expressed in terms of the usual variables by using the map (9), so that a comparison can be made with (20). We find that although the hamiltonian densities are different, the hamiltonians on the physical subspace become identical. A hamiltonian analysis of (6) has also been done in .

The definition of the canonical momenta leads to a primary constraint,

$$\widehat{\pi }_0^a=0$$
(25)
and,

$$\widehat{\pi }_i^a=\widehat{F}_{0i}^a=\widehat{E}_i^a$$
(26)
The hamiltonian follows from the Legendre transform and the use of certain symmetry operations,

$$\widehat{H}=d^3xTr\left(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\pi }_i\widehat{\pi }_i+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{F}_{ij}\widehat{F}_{ij}+\widehat{(D_i\pi _i)}\widehat{A}_0\right)$$
(27)
where the (hat) covariant derivative is defined as,

$`\widehat{(D_i\pi _i)}^a`$ $`=`$ $`_i\widehat{\pi }_i^a+i(\widehat{\pi }_i\widehat{A}_i\widehat{A}_i\widehat{\pi }_i)^a`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`_i\widehat{\pi }_i^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}\{\widehat{A}_i^b,\widehat{\pi }_i^c\}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d^{abc}[\widehat{A}_i^b,\widehat{\pi }_i^c]_{}`$ (29)
Here both the commutator and the anticommutator involve the star multiplication. The above equation defines the Gauss operator, whose vanishing yields the secondary constraint. As done earlier we pass to the physical sector by imposing this constraint. In terms of the (hat) electric and magnetic fields, the hamiltonian reduces to,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2}d^3xTr\left(\widehat{𝐄}^2+\widehat{𝐁}^2\right)$$
(30)
It should be pointed out this is an exact result valid to all orders in the expansion parameter $`\theta `$. To compare with (20), we use the map (9). Then it would be useful to recast this map in terms of the electric and magnetic fields,

$$\widehat{E}_i^a=E_i^a+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{lm}d^{abc}\left(ϵ_{imp}B_p^cE_l^bA_l^b_mE_i^c+\frac{1}{2}f^{cde}A_l^bA_m^eE_i^d\right)$$
(31)
$$\widehat{B}_i^a=B_i^a\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{lm}d^{abc}\left(ϵ^{lmp}B_p^bB_i^c+2A_l^b_mB_i^cf^{cde}A_l^bA_m^eB_i^d\right)$$
(32)
which leads to,

$$Tr\widehat{𝐄}^2=Tr(𝐄^2(1\theta .𝐁)+\theta .𝐄(𝐁.𝐄+𝐄.𝐁)\theta .\times (𝐄^2𝐀))$$
(33)
$$Tr\widehat{𝐁}^2=Tr(𝐁^2(1\theta .𝐁)\theta .\times (𝐁^2𝐀))$$
(34)
Using (33) and (34) in (30), we see that the hamiltonian density is different from that given in (20). However the difference is a boundary term so that the hamiltonians in the two cases agree, as announced earlier. Also, it should be mentioned that the agreement holds only for the physical hamiltonians, obtained from the canonical hamiltonians by dropping the terms proportional to the Gauss constraint in either description.

## 3 Seiberg-Witten map as a canonical transformation

The relations (17) and (26) connecting the electric field with the momenta, together with (31), provide a map between the momenta in the noncommutative space and the ordinary one,

$$\widehat{\pi }_i=\pi _i+\frac{\theta ^{lm}}{4}\left(\{F_{lm},\pi _i\}\{A_l,D_m\pi _i+_m\pi _i\}\right)\frac{\theta ^{im}}{2}\{F_{lm},\pi _l\}$$
(35)
which may be regarded as the hamiltonian generalisation of the usual Seiberg-Witten map (8). This result is true for any dimensions. If we specialise to $`3+1`$-dimensions, it simplifies to,

$$\widehat{\pi }_i=\pi _i+\frac{ϵ^{ijk}}{4}\{F_{jk},\theta ^l\pi _l\}\frac{ϵ^{lmn}\theta ^n}{4}\{A_l,D_m\pi _i+_m\pi _i\}$$
(36)
while in $`2+1`$ dimensions, with $`\theta ^{lm}=ϵ^{lm}\theta `$, it is even simpler,

$$\widehat{\pi }_i=\pi _i\frac{ϵ^{lm}\theta }{4}\{A_l,D_m\pi _i+_m\pi _i\}$$
(37)
We shall next discuss the possible interpretation of this map as a canonical transformation. Instead of working with the usual canonical coordinates and momenta, we might as well formulate the discussion in terms of the electric and magnetic fields that have been considered so far. Also, since all the essential features are contained in the abelian version itself, henceforth we confine to this case. It also simplifies the algebra and permits a quick check with some existing results .

As a first step it is necessary to derive the algebra among the electric and magnetic fields. Using the definition (17) of the electric field in terms of the canonical variables, it is possible to get the complete algebra,

$$\{B_i(x),B_j(y)\}=0$$
(38)
$$\{E_i(x),B_j(y)\}=(1+\theta ^kB_k(x))\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(xy)+\theta ^{\{i}B_{k\}}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{kj}(xy)$$
(39)
$$\{E_i(x),E_j(y)\}=\theta ^{[j}E_{k]}(y)\mathrm{\Delta }_{ik}(xy)+\theta ^{[i}E_{k]}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}(xy)+\theta ^k(E_k(y)E_k(x))\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(xy)$$
(40)
where,

$$A_{\{i}B_{k\}}=A_iB_k+A_kB_i,A_{[i}B_{k]}=A_iB_kA_kB_i$$
(41)
and the derivative operator has been absorbed in,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(xy)=ϵ_{ijk}_k\delta (xy)$$
(42)
Apart from (38), the other two brackets involve correction terms which vanish with the vanishing of the expansion parameter. In particular, the electric fields become noncommuting. Moreover, since this noncommutativity is field dependent, it is essential to verify the Jacobi identity for the complete algebra. Those involving three $`B`$ terms are trivially zero. The Jacobi involving three $`E`$ terms is also trivial, since the terms are of $`O(\theta ^2)`$. The one involving two $`B`$ terms and one $`E`$ term is also zero, as may be quickly verified by simple inspection. The only nontrivial check involves two $`E`$ terms and one $`B`$ term. Some amount of algebra is now required. We find,

$$\{E_i(x),\{E_j(y),B_k(z)\}\}=\theta ^n\mathrm{\Delta }_{in}(xy)\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}(yz)\left(\theta ^j\mathrm{\Delta }_{in}(xy)+\theta ^n\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}(xy)\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{nk}(yz)$$
(43)
The other double bracket is obtained by interchanging $`i`$ with $`j`$ and $`x`$ with $`y`$, so that a total of six terms emerges from this algebra. There is an exact one to one cancellation of these terms with the six terms obtained from the final $`BEE`$ double bracket, so that the Jacobi identity is satisfied.

As an illustration of the use of this involved algebra, we show that it correctly reproduces the lagrangian equations of motion, in the hamiltonian formulation. The equations of motion obtained from the lagrangian (12) can be expressed in terms of a displacement field $`𝐃`$ and a magnetic field $`𝐇`$ as ,

$$.𝐃=0$$
(44)
$$\frac{}{t}𝐃\times 𝐇=0$$
(45)
where,

$$𝐃=(1\theta .𝐁)𝐄+(\theta .𝐄)𝐁+(𝐁.𝐄)\theta $$
(46)
$$𝐇=(1\theta .𝐁)𝐁(\theta .𝐄)𝐄+\frac{1}{2}(𝐄^2𝐁^2)\theta $$
(47)
We now reproduce these equations in the hamiltonian formulation. The first of these equations is just the Gauss constraint (19). This is easily verified by looking at the definition of the canonical momenta (16) and identifying it with the displacement field $`𝐃`$. Effectively (45) is the genuine equation of motion since it involves the accelerations. Having obtained the complete algebra, the equations of motion for the magnetic and electric fields are obtained by bracketing with the hamiltonian (20). It yields,

$$\frac{}{t}𝐁=\times 𝐄$$
(48)
$$\frac{}{t}𝐄=\times 𝐇+𝐌$$
(49)
where,

$$𝐌=(𝐄.\times 𝐄𝐁.\times 𝐁)\theta +\theta .𝐁(\times 𝐁)+\theta .𝐄(\times 𝐄)\theta .(\times 𝐄)𝐄\theta .(\times 𝐁)𝐁$$
(50)
and $`𝐇`$ has been defined in (47).

The first of these equations is the standard Maxwell equation, which is a consequence of the definition of the electric and magnetic fields in terms of the field tensor. The second equation gives a complicated time evolution for the electric field, where the correction terms to the usual Maxwell equation have been isolated. Note that in the limit of vanishing $`\theta `$, the ordinary Maxwell equations are reproduced, as expected. It is now possible to express the additional $`𝐌`$ term in (49) as a total time derivative. To do this the curl of the $`𝐄`$ field is replaced by the time derivative of the $`𝐁`$ field by using the identity (48). The curl of the $`𝐁`$ is likewise replaced by the time derivative of the $`𝐄`$ field since any correction to this Maxwell equation must involve terms of $`O(\theta )`$ leading to terms of $`O(\theta ^2)`$ in $`𝐌`$, that can be ignored. Thus we find,

$$𝐌=\frac{}{t}((\theta .𝐁)𝐄(\theta .𝐄)𝐁(𝐄.𝐁)\theta )$$
(51)
It is now trivial to reproduce (45). This completes our demonstration of the equivalence of the equations of motion obtained in the lagrangian and hamiltonian formulations.

It may be recalled that we had introduced redefined electric $`\overline{𝐄}`$ (21) and magnetic $`\overline{𝐁}`$ (22) fields in terms of which both the lagrangian (24) and hamiltonian (23) assumed the same structures as in the usual theory. The equations of motion in these variables, as well as their algebra, can be easily obtained from our results.

Finally, in order to discuss the role of the Seiberg-Witten map as a canonical transformation, we consider the issue of the stability of the Poisson algebra among the electric and magnetic fields under the transformation (31) and (32) and the algebra (38), (39), (40). In the hat variables, the electric field is the momenta (26) conjugate to the potential $`\widehat{A}_i`$, so that,

$$\{\widehat{B}_i(x),\widehat{B}_j(y)\}=\{\widehat{E}_i(x),\widehat{E}_j(y)\}=0$$
(52)
$$\{\widehat{E}_i(x),\widehat{B}_j(y)\}=ϵ_{ijk}_k\delta (xy)+ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}\theta ^n_l\widehat{A}_k_m\delta (xy)$$
(53)
Now these brackets are computed in a different way. Using the map (31) and (32), the hat variables are expressed in terms of the ordinary variables. The algebra among these variables, given in (38)- 40), is then used. A slightly lengthy algebra leads to the following brackets,

$`\{\widehat{B}_i(x),\widehat{B}_j(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (54)
$`\{\widehat{E}_i(x),\widehat{B}_j(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}_k\delta (xy)+ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}\theta ^n_lA_k_m\delta (xy)`$ (55)
$`\{\widehat{E}_i(x),\widehat{E}_j(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}\theta ^k(_lE_l)\delta (xy)`$ (56)
The algebra among the magnetic fields is trivially identical to (52). If we make further use of the Seiberg-Witten map, we see that $`\widehat{A}`$ in (53) can be identified with the usual $`A`$ in (56), since the corrections will at least involve terms up to $`(\theta ^2)`$. Thus the electric-magnetic field bracket in the two cases agree. The last bracket among the electric fields has to be interpreted with some care. The point is that, on account of (17), up to the order we are dealing with, it is possible to rewrite it as,

$$\{\widehat{E}_i(x),\widehat{E}_j(y)\}=ϵ_{ijk}\theta ^k(_lE_l)\delta (xy)=ϵ_{ijk}\theta ^k(_l\pi _l)\delta (xy)$$
(57)
The bracket is thus proportional to the Gauss constraint (in the usual variables) , so that on the physical sector, the second equality in (52) is obtained. This shows that, with a suitable interpretation, the Seiberg-Witten map may be regarded as a canonical transformation.

## 4 Application to gauge symmetries

It is possible to provide an application of the hamiltonian formulation to derive the gauge symmetry of the noncommutative theory governed by the action (6). Moreover the analysis is completely general and not confined to any specific order in the expansion parameter $`\theta `$. It is known by inspection that the action (6) is invariant under star gauge transformations, whose infinitesimal version is given by,

$$\delta \widehat{A}_\mu ^a=\widehat{(D_\mu ϵ)}^a$$
(58)
where $`ϵ`$ is the gauge parameter. The (hat) covariant derivative is defined in (29). We now derive this result.

We adopt the same techniques developed earlier for treating conventional gauge theories . However, there are some subtle issues related to the fact that ordinary multiplication gets replaced by star multiplication. Any gauge theory in the hamiltonian formulation is characterised by the following involutive (first class) algebra involving the constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the canonical hamiltonian $`H`$,

$`[H,\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yV_a^b(x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)}`$ (59)
$`[\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x),\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑zC_{ab}^c(x,y,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_c(z)}`$ (60)
where $`V,C`$ denote the structure functions which, in the general case, may depend on the phase space variables. The symbols $`a,b`$ etc. contain the symmetry indices, as well as the number of the constraints. The brackets denote the usual Poisson brackets. Furthermore, in the noncommutative case, the multiplication in the right side is replaced by a star multiplication. However since the expressions are within an integral, the star multiplication can be replaced by the ordinary one and hence (60), as it stands, is correct. Following the Dirac algorithm, the gauge generator $`G`$ is defined as a linear combination of the first class constraints,

$$G=𝑑xϵ^a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)$$
(61)
where ‘$`a`$’ enumerates the constraints. Now all the gauge parameters $`ϵ^a`$ are not independent. The number of independent parameters is identical to the number of primary first class constraints. The other ones are fixed by the following conditions ,

$$\frac{dϵ^{b_2}(x)}{dt}=𝑑yϵ^a(y)V_a^{b_2}(y,x)+𝑑y𝑑zϵ^a(y)v^{a_1}(z)C_{a_1a}^{b_2}(z,y,x)$$
(62)
Here the labels 1 and 2 denote the primary and secondary sectors, respectively, so that the full set of constraints denoted by the label ‘$`a`$’ would be divided into two parts- $`a_1`$ denoting the primary constraints (i.e. those obtained from the basic definition of the canonical momenta) and $`a_2`$ denoting the secondary constraints (i.e. those found by the consistency requirement of time conservation of the primary constraints). The lagrange multipliers entering in the definition of the total hamiltonian $`H_T`$ are given by $`v^{a_1}`$,

$$H_T=H+v^{a_1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{a_1}$$
(63)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a_1}`$ denotes the primary first class constraints. In the noncommutative theory, the products in the various integrands are replaced by the star products. Then the second integral in (62) requires care since it would involve the star product of three objects. However, in the present problem, this term actually vanishes, as shown below.

We have one primary constraint (25) and one secondary (Gauss) constraint (29). Following our conventions, we label these constraints as,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\pi }_0`$ (64)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{D_i\pi _i}`$ (65)
The Poisson algebra involving the primary constraint is trivial,

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1]=[\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2]=0$$
(66)
This implies that the $`C`$-function in (62) vanishes. A non-vanishing piece arises only if the algebra of the primary constraint is non-trivial. Thus we obtain,

$$\frac{dϵ^{b_2}(x)}{dt}=𝑑yϵ^a(y)V_a^{b_2}(y,x)$$
(67)
The variations of the fields are now defined by bracketing with the generator (61) in the manner,

$$\delta \widehat{A}_\mu (x)=𝑑yϵ^a(y)[\widehat{A}_\mu (x),\mathrm{\Phi }_a(y)];a=1,2$$
(68)
The variation of the time component of the field is easily obtained, with the contribution coming from the primary sector,

$$\delta \widehat{A}_0(x)=𝑑yϵ^1(y)\delta (xy)=𝑑yϵ^1(y)\delta (xy)=ϵ^1(x)$$
(69)
The variation of the space component gets a nonvanishing contribution from the Gauss constraint. This constraint is first written in terms of the structure constants ($`f^{abc},d^{abc}`$) of the symmetry group (see (29)), after which the star products are expanded in full. Computing the algebra and dropping boundary terms, one finally obtains,

$$\delta \widehat{A}_i(x)=\widehat{D_iϵ^2}(x)$$
(70)
However $`ϵ^1`$ and $`ϵ^2`$ are not independent. It is possible to determine $`ϵ^1`$ in terms of $`ϵ^2`$ by using (67). The first step is to obtain the $`V`$-functions. The algebra of the constraints with the canonical hamiltonian (27) is given by,

$`[\widehat{H},\widehat{\pi }_0^a]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{(D_i\pi _i)}^a`$ (71)
$`[\widehat{H},\widehat{(D_i\pi _i)}^a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}\{\widehat{A}^{0b},\widehat{(D_i\pi _i)}^c\}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d^{abc}[\widehat{A}^{0b},\widehat{(D_i\pi _i)}^c]_{}`$ (72)
where the closure of the Gauss constraint involves both (star) commutator and anticommutator. While the closure of the primary constraint is trivial, that of the Gauss constraint requires some algebra, but the details are given in . The $`V`$-functions appearing in (60) are now obtained from the above algebra. The only nonvanishing ones are given by,

$`(V_1^2)^{ab}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}\delta (xy)`$ (73)
$`(V_2^2)^{ab}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}\{\delta (xy),\widehat{A}^{0c}(y)\}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d^{abc}[\delta (xy),\widehat{A}^{0c}(y)]_{}`$ (74)
In deriving these relations use has been made of the cyclicity of the star product within an integral,

$$(ABC)=(BCA)=(CAB)$$
(75)
and the operator identity,

$$A(x)\delta (xy)=\delta (xy)A(y)$$
(76)
There is only one equation for (67) that has to be solved. Writing it out in an expanded form, we find,

$$\frac{dϵ^{2a}(x)}{dt}=𝑑yϵ^{1b}(y)(V_1^2)^{ba}(y,x)+𝑑yϵ^{2b}(y)(V_2^2)^{ba}(y,x)$$
(77)
Using the first equation in (74), the first integral in the above relation is trivially done to yield,

$$𝑑yϵ^{1b}(y)(V_1^2)^{ba}(y,x)=ϵ^{1a}(x)$$
(78)
The second involves the star product of three objects<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Note that, although not written explicitly, star products are always implied in such products. It is not written explicitly since the star product of two objects within an integral can be replaced by an ordinary product.. We evaluate it in some details.

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yϵ^{2b}(y)(V_2^2)^{ba}(y,x)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}{\displaystyle 𝑑yϵ^{2b}(y)\left(\delta (xy)\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)+\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)\delta (xy)\right)}`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d^{abc}{\displaystyle 𝑑yϵ^{2b}(y)}`$ $``$ $`\left(\delta (xy)\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)\delta (xy)\right)`$ (80)
The star operation is meaningful when the variables are defined at the same point. Thus the argument of the potential has to be converted from $`x`$ to $`y`$. This is done by using the identity (76). Finally, using (75), we get,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yϵ^{2b}(y)(V_2^2)^{ba}(y,x)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}{\displaystyle 𝑑y\delta (xy)\{ϵ^{2b}(y),\widehat{A}^{0c}(y)\}_{}}`$ (81)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d^{abc}{\displaystyle 𝑑y\delta (xy)[ϵ^{2b}(y),\widehat{A}^{0c}(y)]_{}}`$ (82)
Replacing the first star product by an ordinary product, the integrals are evaluated by using the delta function to yield,

$$𝑑yϵ^{2b}(y)(V_2^2)^{ba}(y,x)=\frac{1}{2}f^{abc}\{ϵ^{2b}(x),\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)\}_{}\frac{i}{2}d^{abc}[ϵ^{2b}(x),\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)]_{}$$
(83)
Using (77), (78) and (83), we obtain,

$`ϵ^{1a}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{ϵ}^{2a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{abc}\{ϵ^{2b}(x),\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)\}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d^{abc}[ϵ^{2b}(x),\widehat{A}^{0c}(x)]_{}`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{(D_0ϵ^2)}^a`$ (85)
Combining (69), (70) and (85), we obtain the covariant transformation law,

$$\delta \widehat{A}_\mu ^a=\widehat{(D_\mu ϵ^2)}^a$$
(86)
which reproduces (58) once $`ϵ^2`$ is identified with $`ϵ`$. This completes our derivation of the infinitesimal gauge transformations. Note that it has the correct form in the limit $`\theta 0`$, when the noncommutative gauge transformations reduce to the standard nonabelian gauge transformations.

As a further application of the hamiltonian approach, it is possible to prove that the “Maxwell” type equations (44) and (45) satisfied by noncommutative electrodynamics in the usual variables are actually valid for any order in $`\theta `$ and not just up to the first order, which has been done explicitly. The first of these equations, as discussed there, is the Gauss constraint, with the displacement field $`𝐃`$ identified with the canonical momenta conjugate to $`𝐀`$. This constraint is the generator of time independent gauge transformations. Since the nature of the gauge transformation $`(\delta A_\mu =_\mu ϵ)`$ generating the abelian gauge symmetry remains the same, independent of the specific order of $`\theta `$, such an equation characterising the Gauss constraint will always occur. Thus we have,

$$.𝒟=0$$
(87)
where,

$$𝒟_i=E_i+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.$$
(88)
where the dots represent additional terms in distinct orders of the expansion parameter $`\theta `$. Here $`𝒟_i`$ is the momenta conjugate to $`A_i`$ in the full $`\theta `$-expanded theory. The leading term is given by the usual electric field since it is the conjugate momenta in the conventional Maxwell theory. The first correction term in $`\theta `$ has been explicitly given in (46).

Having obtained the constraint, the genuine equation of motion can now be derived. This is found by bracketing the $`𝒟`$ with the hamiltonian. Since the electromagnetic field tensor is the local gauge invariant object, the gauge invariant lagrangian will always be constructed in terms of this tensor, as for instance shown in (12). Likewise the physical hamiltonian (i.e. the canonical hamiltonian after the imposition of the Gauss constraint) will be constructed in terms of the gauge invariant variables, which are the momenta ($`𝒟_i`$) and the magnetic field $`B_i`$. The hamiltonian (20) has this form once the electric fields are replaced in favour of the momenta by using (17). The contribution to the bracket of $`𝒟_i`$ with the hamiltonian will come only from the magnetic field terms. Since the magnetic field is expressed as the curl of the vector potential, the result will involve the curl of something so that one obtains,

$$\frac{}{t}𝒟\times =0$$
(89)
where,

$$_i=B_i+\mathrm{}..$$
(90)
As before, the dots denote additional terms in powers of $`\theta `$. The leading term is given by the usual magnetic field to correctly reproduce the standard Maxwell equation, in analogy to the Gauss law, in the limit $`\theta 0`$. The first correction term is given in (47).

Equations (87) and (89) are the analogues of (44) and (45). The fact that the equations can always be put in this form justifies the terminology “noncommutative electrodynamics”. This feature may be used to extend the $`O(\theta )`$ results, as for instance obtained in . More recently, explicit computations up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ in , also confirm the general structure given here.

## 5 Discussions

We have analysed the noncommutative Yang-Mills theory both in the original variables defined in the noncommutative space and also in an effective version by exploiting the Seiberg-Witten map to recast the theory in conventional variables. Noncommuting electric fields are a natural outcome of the effective theory. They are essential to correctly reproduce the equations of motion in the hamiltonian formulation. This noncommutativity may be interpreted as a sort of distortion in noncommutating electrodynamics, since the electric fields are now a nonlinear function of the canonical variables. Something similar happens when the plane waves of the commuting Maxwell theory get distorted in noncommutating electrodynamics , leading to a violation of the superposition principle . It was possible, after a suitable change of variables, to express both the lagrangian and hamiltonian in the form of usual gauge theories, with the complete effect of noncommutativity relegated to the nontrivial algebra. Although noncommuting electric fields have appeared earlier-as for instance in topologically massive gauge theories  or in anomalous gauge theories -here these are field dependent, in contrast to the examples cited.

Our analysis clarified certain issues concerning the reduction of the noncommutative theory to an effective theory by the application of the Seiberg-Witten map. This was possible either through the lagrangian or through the hamiltonian. As shown in , the results need not agree in general. For example, the energy momentum tensor computed from the original action and then expanded by the Seiberg-Witten map is not the same as obtained by first expanding the action itself by this map, after which the tensor is computed. In our analysis, however, we have shown that the hamiltonian, which is a component of the energy momentum tensor, agrees by either approach, provided a passage to the physical subspace is done by a suitable imposition of the appropriate Gauss constraint in the different descriptions. The mismatch in  comes about presumably because these constraints (19) and (29) do not get mapped by the Seiberg-Witten transformation<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3The fact that the Gauss constraints are not mapped may be seen easily in the $`U(1)`$ case. In the usual picture, this constraint is gauge invariant, while in the noncommutative picture, it is gauge covariant. Since the map connects gauge equivalent classes only, the two constraints do not get identified.. Thus it is essential to first pass on to the physical subspace before applying the map. In that case there is no mismatch. Indeed, the imposition of the Gauss law was also crucial for showing that the hamiltonian version of the Seiberg-Witten map discussed here, was a canonical transformation.

The hamiltonian formulation was applied to explicitly derive the gauge symmetries, that are otherwise postulated on inspection, of the action in the noncommutative variables. The result was valid for any order in $`\theta `$. The nontrivial algebra of the first class constraints and the hamiltonian, as well certain properties of field variables and distributions operated under the star multiplication, were essential for getting this result. Furthermore, based on the structure of the gauge generators it was possible to show that the equations of motion for the $`\theta `$-expanded noncommutative electrodynamics could always be cast in the form of “Maxwell” equations. This suggests that results, which have been computed up to the first order in $`\theta `$, could possibly be extended for higher orders.

The implications of our analysis at the quantum level may be discussed both in the effective ($`\theta `$)-expanded theory and in the original noncommutating variables. In the former case, the Poisson brackets among the gauge invariant variables obtained here in (38), (39) and (40) can be expressed as commutators since the expressions involve only linear variables so that there is no ordering ambiguity. Expressions involving products of field variables should be defined by the Weyl ordering. This is the natural prescription once it is realised that the star operation, through the composition law, directly leads to this ordering. In the noncommutating variables, the basic brackets are just the usual Poisson brackets. Complications arise because of the nontrivial algebra of the constraints and the hamiltonian. However we have shown here how to handle such complications, precisely obtaining the gauge symmetries. The construction of the BRST charge, which acts as the generator of the BRST transformations, should be possible along these lines, with suitable inclusion of ghosts, in analogue to usual Yang-Mills theory. Another aspect is the well known fact that the process of obtaining a quantum theory from a classical one by constraining and quantising is not commutative; i.e. one can get different results by first solving the constraints and then quantising or by reversing the process. Here we have found that the hamiltonian in the $`\theta `$-expanded theory and the one in the original variables get mapped only if the constraints are first eliminated. Otherwise we get two distinct formulations. A more detailed description of these and other issues related to the quantisation procedure are beyond the scope of the present paper.

We conclude by mentioning that, noncommutative field theory, being an emergent topic, it is desirable to explicitly show that the hamiltonian formulation is consistent with the lagrangian one, even at the classical level. Indeed certain discrepancies were already mentioned . We have shown how to obtain a consistent formulation, apart from providing certain applications of the hamiltonian approach that could be used for a quantum analysis. Finally, since the Seiberg-Witten map connects gauge equivalent classes, it is expected to be related to canonical transformations. We proved this explicitly in the physical subspace, using the hamiltonian analysis.

Acknowledgments

I thank the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) for support and the members of the theory group, KEK, for their gracious hospitality.


text:
# Scissors mode of a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate

## Abstract

A scissors mode of a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate is investigated both theoretically and experimentally. The condensate is confined in an axi-symmetric harmonic trap, superimposed with a small rotating deformation. For angular velocities larger than $`\omega _{}/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`\omega _{}`$ is the radial trap frequency, the frequency of the scissors mode is predicted to vanish like the square root of the deformation, due to the tendency of the system to exhibit spontaneous rotational symmetry breaking. Measurements of the frequency confirm the predictions of theory. Accompanying characteristic oscillations of the internal shape of the condensate are also calculated and observed experimentally.

Bose-Einstein condensates rotating at high angular velocity exhibit spontaneous breaking of rotational symmetry alessio . This phenomenon, which is the consequence of two-body repulsive interactions, shows up in the occurrence of considerable deformations of the trapped atomic cloud in the plane normal to the rotation axis. These configurations have been recently observed experimentally using a nearly axi-symmetric harmonic trap, with a small deformation of the trapping potential rotating around the $`z`$ axis ens1 .

Under such conditions the collective modes of the system exhibit new interesting features. In particular one mode in the transverse plane (orthogonal to the rotation axis) corresponds to a shape-preserving oscillation of the atomic cloud with respect to the principal axes $`xy`$ of the rotating trap. The frequency $`\omega `$ of this scissors-type motion is much smaller than the mean transverse trap frequency $`\omega _{}`$. This surprisingly low value originates from the fact that the restoring force of the oscillation is proportional to the small trap deformation, while the moment of inertia of the condensate remains finite due to its considerable deformation. This represents a major difference with respect to the traditional scissors mode david ; Marago  of a non-rotating condensate where both the restoring force and the moment of inertia vanish in the limit of an axi-symmetric trap.

The purpose of this work is to provide both a theoretic and experimental investigation of the problem. We first derive the relevant equations describing the scissors mode. For a rotation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ larger than the critical value $`\omega _{}/\sqrt{2}`$, we show that the scissors mode frequency $`\omega `$ vanishes like the square root of the trap deformation. We then report on the experimental observation of this scissors mode, and we present results which confirm the theoretic predictions with good accuracy.

The atoms of mass $`m`$ are confined in the transverse plane by the potential

$$V_{}(x,y)=m(\omega _x^2x^2+\omega _y^2y^2)/2,$$
(1)
where $`\omega _{x,y}^2=\omega _{}^2(1\pm ϵ)`$. The $`(x,y)`$ coordinates in the rotating frame are deduced from the coordinates in the laboratory frame by a rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ and the trap deformation $`ϵ`$ is positive. A simple description of the collective oscillations of a rotating condensate is provided by the hydrodynamic equations of superfluids evaluated in the rotating frame:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\mathbf{}[\rho (𝐯𝛀𝐫)]=0,$$
(2)
$$m\frac{𝐯}{t}+\mathbf{}\left[\frac{mv^2}{2}+V+g\rho m𝐯(𝛀𝐫)\right]=0,$$
(3)
where $`\rho (𝐫,t)`$ is the spatial density, $`𝐯(𝐫,t)`$ is the velocity field in the laboratory frame, and $`𝛀=\mathrm{\Omega }𝐮_z`$ ($`𝐮_z`$ unit vector along the $`z`$ axis). The harmonic confining potential $`V(𝐫)=V_{}(x,y)+m\omega _z^2z^2/2`$ is time independent in the rotating frame. The parameter $`g`$ characterizes the strength of the interatomic interactions and is related to the $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$ by $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$. These equations are valid in the Thomas-Fermi limit, where the so-called quantum pressure term can be neglected in (3) review . We shall be interested here in vortex-free solutions for which $`\mathbf{}𝐯=0`$.

Stationary solutions of these equations can be obtained in the form $`𝐯_0(𝐫)=\alpha \mathbf{}(xy)`$ for the velocity field and $`\rho _0(𝐫)=\left[\stackrel{~}{\mu }m\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_x^2x^2+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_y^2y^2+\omega _z^2z^2\right)/2\right]/g`$ for the density profile. The density profile has the form of an inverted parabola whose parameters ($`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_x`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_y`$) are determined in a self-consistent way as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ alessio . The value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ is determined by the solution(s) of the cubic equation $`\alpha ^3+\alpha (\omega _{}^22\mathrm{\Omega }^2)+ϵ\omega _{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. It is related to the deformation $`\delta =y^2x^2/x^2+y^2`$ of the atomic cloud by the simple expression $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }\delta `$. In the present work we will be interested in the so-called normal branch alessio , corresponding to the stationary solutions which can be obtained by an adiabatic increase of the angular velocity of the trap, starting from $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ (see Fig. 1). For $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{}/\sqrt{2}`$ these solutions exhibit large values of the cloud deformation ($`\delta 1`$) even if the trap deformation $`ϵ`$ is much smaller than 1.

An important class of collective oscillations can be derived on top of such stationary solutions by looking for time dependent solutions of the form $`\delta \rho (𝐫)=a_0+a_xx^2+a_yy^2+a_zz^2+a_{xy}xy`$ and $`\delta 𝐯(𝐫)=\mathbf{}(\alpha _xx^2+\alpha _yy^2+\alpha _zz^2+\alpha _{xy}xy)`$ where $`a_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ are time dependent parameters to be determined by solving Eqs. (2) and (3). In the linear limit, one can look for solutions varying in time like $`e^{i\omega t}`$. The collective frequencies $`\omega `$ are then found to obey the equation

$$\omega ^8+c_3\omega ^6+c_2\omega ^4+c_1\omega ^2+c_0=0$$
(4)
with the coefficients $`c_i`$ given in the appendix. In alessio  it has been shown that these collective oscillations are dynamically stable when evaluated on the normal branch. The stability conditions for higher multipole oscillations have been studied in sinha , where it has been shown that the normal branch becomes dynamically unstable against the production of such excitations for $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.8\omega _{}`$ when $`ϵ0`$.

For the two external branches (see Fig. 1), one finds that the coefficient $`c_0`$ in (4) vanishes linearly with $`ϵ`$ as $`ϵ0`$. In this limit, one of the eigenfrequencies of (4) tends to $`0`$, while the others remain finite. The frequency $`\omega `$ of the corresponding “soft” mode is:

$$\omega ^2=\frac{c_0}{c_1}=\pm \frac{10\omega _{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega _{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\omega _{}^2}}{3\omega _{}^4+3\omega _{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }^4}ϵ.$$
(5)
The positive value for $`\omega ^2`$ corresponds to the normal branch while the negative value, which is a signature of dynamical instability, corresponds to the opposite branch. For the normal branch, the frequency $`\omega `$ of the low energy mode vanishes like the square root of the trap deformation $`ϵ`$, as announced in the introduction of this paper. It is worth noticing that this frequency does not depend on the value of $`\omega _z`$. By looking at the corresponding form of the solution for $`\delta \rho `$ and $`\delta 𝐯`$, one can show that it corresponds to a scissors mode, i.e. to the oscillation of the angle $`\theta `$ between the axes of the condensate and the principal axes $`x,y`$ of the trap. The oscillation of $`\theta `$ is accompanied by an oscillation of the condensate deformation $`\delta `$ around the equilibrium value $`\delta _0`$. This oscillation of $`\delta `$ is dephased by $`\pi /2`$ with respect to the one of the angle $`\theta `$. For small trap deformations we find

$$\delta (t)\delta _0=\frac{\omega _{}^2\dot{\theta }}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\omega _{}^2}}.$$
(6)
The fact that the frequency of the scissors mode vanishes when $`ϵ=0`$ (see Eq. (5)) reflects the rotational invariance of the Hamiltonian. This behavior deeply differs from the scissors mode in a non rotating condensate, whose frequency is given by $`\omega _{}\sqrt{2}`$ and does not vanish in the limit of a symmetric trap david . The result (5) holds for a small amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ of the oscillatory motion of $`\theta `$. To study motions with a larger amplitude, one has to solve numerically the hydrodynamic equations (2) and (3). We find that the frequency of the motion decreases as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ increases, as for a simple gravitational pendulum.

We now turn to the experimental observation of this scissors mode. We use a 87Rb gas in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap, with frequencies $`\omega _x/2\pi =182`$ Hz, $`\omega _y\omega _x`$, and $`\omega _z/2\pi =11.7`$ Hz. The cloud is pre-cooled using optical molasses to a temperature $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mu `$K. The gas is further cooled by radio-frequency evaporation to a temperature around $`50`$ nK, corresponding to a quasi-pure condensate with $`10^5`$ atoms. We denote by $`t_0`$ the time at which the evaporation phase ends. For time $`t>t_0`$, the atomic cloud is stirred by a focused laser beam of wavelength $`852`$ nm and waist $`w_0=20\mu `$m, whose position is controlled using acousto-optic modulators ens1 . This laser beam creates a rotating optical-dipole potential which is harmonic over the extension of the cloud. The superposition of this dipole potential and the magnetic one creates a transverse trapping potential identical to (1). The trap deformation $`ϵ`$ is proportional to the laser intensity $`I_L`$ and can be adjusted between 0 and $`4\%`$.

The displacement of the center of the trap due to gravity and slight asymmetries in the trapping geometry produce an additional static deformation which has been estimated to be $`1\%`$ by measuring the splitting between the center of mass frequencies along the $`x`$ or $`y`$ axes. This static anisotropy plays a minor role in the present study and has been neglected in the analysis above.

The frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ of the stirrer is first varied linearly during the time interval $`(t_0,t_1)`$, starting from $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t_0)=0`$ up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)=2\pi \times 139`$ Hz (so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)0.76\omega _{}`$). The stirring frequency then stays constant in the time interval $`(t_1,t_2)`$. At time $`t_2`$ we switch off the magnetic trap and the laser stirrer, allow for a 25 ms free-fall, and image the absorption of a resonant laser beam propagating along $`z`$. We measure in this way the transverse density profile of the atom cloud, which we fit assuming a parabolic shape. We extract from the fit the long and short diameters in the transverse plane (hence the deformation $`\delta (t)`$), and the orientation $`\theta (t)`$ of the condensate axes with respect to the rotating frame of the laser stirrer.

The excitation of the scissors mode arises directly from the small non-adiabatic character of the condensate evolution as $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ increases, during the time interval $`(t_0,t_1)`$. At time $`t_1`$, the state of the condensate slightly differs from the steady-state corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)`$. Consequently the state of the condensate still evolves in the rotating frame in the time interval $`(t_1,t_2)`$, even though the characteristics of the stirrer do not change anymore.

We have plotted in Fig. 2 the angle $`\theta `$ and the condensate deformation $`\delta `$ as a function of the time $`\tau =t_2t_1`$. These data have been obtained for a ramping time $`t_1t_0=360`$ ms and a spoon anisotropy $`ϵ=0.017(6)`$. The angle $`\theta `$ oscillates with a frequency $`\omega /2\pi =11.6(\pm 0.1)`$ Hz, in good agreement with the value $`11.4(\pm 2.1)`$ Hz expected from (5). The initial amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is 43 degrees, and the oscillation is damped with a time constant $`110`$ ms. The deformation $`\delta `$ of the condensate also exhibits a small oscillatory motion with an amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =0.16`$ around the mean value $`\delta _0=0.51`$. This motion has the same frequency as that of $`\theta `$, is phase shifted by $`\pi /2`$, as expected from (6) for the scissors mode, and it is damped with a similar time constant.

To confirm that the oscillatory motion shown in Fig. 2 indeed corresponds to the scissors mode described above, we have measured the variation of the frequency $`\omega `$ as a function of the laser intensity, which is itself proportional to the trap anisotropy $`ϵ`$. The data are plotted in Fig. 3. They clearly show the expected dependance $`\omega ^2ϵ`$. Actually, this scissors mode constitutes a very precise way to measure $`ϵ`$, once the frequencies $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are known with sufficient precision.

We have also compared the measured amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (t_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta (t_2)`$ with the results from a numerical integration of the equations of motion for the coefficients $`a_i`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is ramped from 0 up to its final value $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)`$. The calculated results reproduce the behavior found experimentally. The amplitude of the scissors mode decreases when the ramping time $`t_1t_0`$ or the trap anisotropy $`ϵ`$ are increased. The physical reason for this variation is clear: the evolution of the condensate during the time interval $`(t_0,t_1)`$ is closer to adiabatic following, and the condensate is left at time $`t_1`$ in a state closer to the stationary state expected for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)`$. However we could not reach a strict quantitative agreement between the calculated amplitudes and the measured ones (typical deviation of 50%). We think that this is due to the damping of the scissors mode, present in the experiment (see Fig. 2) and neglected in our simple theoretical model. A proper description of this damping could be obtained using a formalism similar to Zaremba , where the damping of the scissors mode in a static trap is investigated.

Our final study concerns the behavior of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta /\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ at $`t_2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ are the oscillation amplitudes for the deformation and for the angle respectively. The results, plotted in Fig. 4, show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta /\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ varies linearly with $`\omega /2\pi `$ with a slope of $`3.2\times 10^4`$ \[degree.Hz\]-1 (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta /(\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\theta )2.9\times 10^3`$ s/radian2). This is in good agreement with the prediction of Eq. (6) which gives an expected slope of $`4.0\times 10^4`$ \[degree.Hz\]-1. The small deviation between predicted and experimental slopes may be due to nonlinearities originating from the relatively large amplitude of the excitation. This linear dependance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta /\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ on the scissors frequency confirms the idea that for almost symmetric traps, where $`ϵ0`$ and thus $`\omega 0`$, the motion of the condensate is shape-preserving, similar to that of a rigid body.

To summarize, in this paper we have presented the theoretic analysis and the experimental observation of a new mode of a trapped rotating condensate. The existence of this mode relies upon the breaking of the rotational symmetry of the condensate caused by atom interactions. The rotating condensate can have a sizeable deformation even in the limit of an arbitrarily small stirring potential, and this gives unique properties to the mode of interest, such as a frequency much smaller than the trap frequency. Here we have been mostly interested in the small oscillations of the condensate around its rotating steady-state. A natural extension of this work consists in studying the non-linear regime of the system, where a chaotic dynamics can emerge.

###### Acknowledgements.

P. R. acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung and by the EU, contract no. HPMF-CT-2000-00830. S. S. likes to thank the hospitality of the Laboratoire Kastler Brossel. This work was partially supported by the Région Ile de France, CNRS, Collège de France, DRED and the EU, contract no. HPRN-CT-2000-00125 and by the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST).
Appendix

The values of the coefficients $`c_i`$ entering into (4) are:

$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{}^2\{8(1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2)+3\lambda ^2\},`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{}^4\{4(52ϵ^2)+16\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2+16\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^4`$
$`4[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21)3\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}ϵ]`$
$`+2\lambda ^2(11\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2+12\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2)\},`$
$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{}^6\{16[(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21)(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21+ϵ^2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21+3ϵ^2)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}ϵ(54\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2)3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2ϵ^2]`$
$`+4\lambda ^2[(135ϵ^2)+8\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2+12\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^4`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21)+3\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}ϵ]\},`$
$`c_0`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{}^8\{40\lambda ^2[(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21)(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21+ϵ^2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^21+3ϵ^2)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}ϵ(54\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2)3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2ϵ^2]\},`$
where we have introduced the reduced quantities $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _{}`$, $`\lambda =\omega _z/\omega _{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\alpha /\omega _{}`$.


text:
# Entangling power and operator entanglement in qudit systems

## I Introduction

Entanglement has been established as a crucial resource for quantum information tasks such as quantum communication and quantum computation Nie00 . Consequently, generating or enhancing entanglement between separate physical systems is of paramount importance in quantum information theory, and two cases are typically studied: (i) ancilla-assisted entanglement generation, and (ii) entanglement generation without assistance from ancillas. Significant effort is currently directed to quantifying entanglement of states; similarly it is important to quantify entanglement capabilities Zan00 ; Dur ; Mak00 ; Lei02 ; Kra01 ; Ben02 ; Chi02 ; Ber02 ; Wol02  of unitary operations, or more generally, the “strength” Nie02  of the operator.

Entangling power based on the linear entropy Zan00  is a valuable, and relatively easy to calculate, measure of the entanglement capability of an operator. We extend this definition to the ancilla-assisted case, and establish an equivalence between entangling power and an alternative quantity, “operator entanglement” Zan01 ; Wan02 , for arbitrary controlled unitary operations acting on two equal-dimensional qudits.

Any gate that creates entanglement between qudits without ancillas acts as a universal gate for quantum computation when assisted by arbitrary one-qudit gates Bry02 ; Bre02 . Therefore, the SUM gate Got98 ; Alb00 ; Bar02 ; San02  \[a generalization of the controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate for qubits\] can be chosen as the basic, or primitive, two-qudit gate for qudit-based quantum computation. We study entangling power of the SUM gate and other two-qudit gates, namely the double-SUM (DSUM) and SWAP gate to illustrate our results on more general gates as well as the general applicability of our approach.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the von Neumann entropy and linear entropy as entanglement measures. In Sec. III, we review the entangling power based on the linear entropy without ancillas, and extend to entangling power assisted by ancillas. We also give relations between the entangling power based on the von Neumann entropy and the entangling power based on the linear entropy. In Sec. IV, we study the entangling power of a general controlled unitary operaror $`C_U`$, and build an equivalence relation between entangling power and operator entanglement. We also provide an example of $`C_U`$ resulting from higher-order spin-spin interactions. In Sec. V, we discuss entangling capabilities of representative two-qudit gates, including SUM Got98 ; Alb00 ; Bar02 ; San02 , DSUM and SWAP gates, and summarize our results in Sec. VI.

## II Entanglement measures

Various measures of entanglement exist, each with its own advantages and disadvantages Kra01 . Two commonly used entanglement measures for pure states are the von Neumann entropy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and the linear entropy $`E`$. For a two-qudit pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d_d`$ they are defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{E}(|\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`:=\text{Tr}_1[\rho _1\mathrm{ln}\rho _1],`$ (1)
$`E(|\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`:=\text{Tr}_1[\rho _1(1\rho _1)]=1\text{Tr}_1\rho _1^2,`$ (2)
where $`\rho _1=\text{Tr}_2(|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|)`$ is the reduced density matrix. For convenience, we use natural logarithms throughout this paper. The von Neumann entropy that we define therefore differs from the usual von Neumann entropy by a factor of $`\mathrm{ln}2`$. The von Neumann entropy and the linear entropy satisfy the inequalities

$$0\stackrel{~}{E}(|\mathrm{\Psi })\mathrm{ln}d,0E(|\mathrm{\Psi })11/d,$$
(3)
where the lower (upper) bound is reached if and only if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a product state (maximally entangled state).

The entanglement measures discussed above can also be applied to the study of entanglement of operators Zan01 . An operator can increase entanglement of a state, but an operator can also be considered to be entangled because operators themselves inhabit a Hilbert space. The entanglement of quantum operators is introduced Zan01  by noting that the linear operators over $`_d`$ span a $`d^2`$-dimensional Hilbert space with the scalar product between two operators $`X`$ and $`Y`$ given by the Hilbert-Schmidt product $`X,Y:=\text{Tr}(X^{}Y)`$, and $`X_{\mathrm{HS}}:=\sqrt{\text{Tr}(X^{}X)}`$. We denote this $`d^2`$-dimensional Hilbert space as $`_{d^2}^{\text{HS}}`$. Thus, the operator acting on $`_{d_1}_{d_2}`$ is a state in the composite Hilbert space $`_{d_1^2}^{\text{HS}}_{d_2^2}^{\text{HS}}`$, and the entanglement of an operator $`X`$ is well-defined Zan01 .

Any operator $`O`$ (not necessarily unitary) acting on $`_{d_1}_{d_2}`$ may be Schmidt-decomposed as Nie02  $`O=_ns_nA_nB_n,`$ where $`s_n0`$ and $`\{A_n\}`$ and $`\{B_n\}`$ are orthonormal operator bases for systems $`1`$ and $`2`$. From the Schmidt form, entanglement measures for a unitary operator $`U`$ can be determined to be

$`\stackrel{~}{E}(U)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_n^2}{d_1d_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_n^2}{d_1d_2}}\right),`$ (4)
$`E(U)`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1^2d_2^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}s_n^4,`$ (5)
where the factor $`1/(d_1d_2)`$ arises from normalization of the unitary operator.

## III Assisted and unassisted entangling powers

The entangling power of a unitary operator $`U`$ is defined over $`_{d_1}_{d_2}`$ as the average entanglement of the state $`U|\psi _1|\psi _2`$ for product states $`|\psi _1|\psi _2_{d_1}_{d_2}`$. The entangling power $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)`$ based on the von Neumann entropy and $`e_\text{p}(U)`$ based on the linear entropy are given by Zan00 ; Symbol

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)\stackrel{~}{E}(U|\psi _1|\psi _2)},`$ (6)
$`e_\text{p}(U)`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)E(U|\psi _1|\psi _2)},`$ (7)
where $`d\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ denotes an integral measure over product states.

These two entangling powers are related, and relations between linear entropy and von Neumann entropy have been investigated Wei1 ; Berry1 . Let us first rewrite Eqs. (6) and (7) in the form

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)\underset{i}{}\left[\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)\mathrm{ln}\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)\right]},`$ (8)
$`e_\text{p}(U)`$ $`=1{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)^2},`$ (9)
where $`\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ are the squares of the coefficients in the Schmidt decomposition of $`U|\psi _1|\psi _2`$. In addition, let us define the entangling power

$$\overline{e}_\text{p}(U)=\mathrm{ln}(1e_\text{p}(U)),$$
(10)
which is a monotonic function of the entangling power $`e_\text{p}(U)`$, and satisfies $`\overline{e}_\text{p}(U)e_\text{p}(U)`$.

Evaluating $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)\overline{e}_\text{p}(U)`$ gives

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)\overline{e}_\text{p}(U)`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)\underset{i}{}\left[\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)}{1e_\text{p}(U)}\right]}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)\left[1\frac{\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)}{1e_\text{p}(U)}\right]}`$
$`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e_\text{p}(U)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\psi _1,\psi _2)\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\psi _1,\psi _2)^2}`$
$`=0.`$ (11)
This result implies that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)\overline{e}_\text{p}(U).`$ Another useful bound on $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)`$ can be obtained by noting that the average entanglement generation cannot be larger than the maximum entanglement generation: $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}(U)\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{max}}(U),`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{max}}(U)=\underset{|\psi _1,|\psi _2}{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{~}{E}(U|\psi _1|\psi _2).$$
(12)
These relations are useful because $`\overline{e}_\text{p}(U)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{max}}(U)`$ may be determined analytically, and used to draw conclusions about $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}(U)`$.

Now we investigate the entangling power based on the linear entropy. The calculation of linear entropy $`E`$ can be simplified by doubling the Hilbert space from $`_{d_1}_{d_2}`$ to $`_{d_1}_{d_2}_{d_1}_{d_2}`$ and using the identity $`\text{Tr}_{12}[(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})S_{12}]=\text{Tr}_1(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})`$ Zan00 . Here $`S_{ij}`$ denotes the swap operation between equal-dimensional systems $`i`$ and $`j`$. It is clear from Eq. (7) that different integral measures give different entangling powers. For the Haar measure, group theory techniques yield Zan00

$`e_\text{p}(U)`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1(d_1+1)d_2(d_2+1)}}[d_1d_2^2+d_2d_1^2`$
$`+\text{Tr}_{1234}(U^2S_{13}U^2S_{13})`$
$`+\text{Tr}_{1234}(U^2S_{24}U^2S_{13})].`$ (13)
This definition of entangling power presents an anomaly that the entangling power of a SWAP gate over a $`d\times d`$ space is zero Zan00 . The entangling power defined by Eq. (7) does not include the advantage of incorporating ancilla assistance. With assistance from ancillas the SWAP gate can generate entanglement. The dimension of each ancilla can be chosen as the dimension of the original system because the Schmidt number of a state in the composite system of the original system plus ancilla is at most the dimension of the original system Nie02 .

Let the SWAP gate for systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ act on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A^{}A}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{BB^{}}`$, where

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{A^{}A}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}|n_A^{}|n_A_d_d,`$ (14)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{BB^{}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}|n_B|n_B^{}_d_d,`$ (15)
and $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ denote ancillas for $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. The final state after applying $`U`$ will have entanglement increased by $`E=11/d^2`$. The entanglement increase draws on the ancillary resources. Without these ancillas, the SWAP gate cannot increase entanglement, which is the case considered in Ref. Zan00 .

We consider a $`d_1\times d_2`$ system, and introduce two ancillas $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ with dimension $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$, respectively. Then, the whole state space expands to $`_{d_1}^2_{d_2}^2`$ in which the first and fourth systems are ancillas. Let the unitary operator $`U`$ act on the whole state space $`_{d_1}^2_{d_2}^2`$. Analogous to Eq. (7), we define the ancilla-assisted entangling power as

$$e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(U)=𝑑\mu (\alpha ,\beta )E(U|\alpha _{12}|\beta _{34}),$$
(16)
where $`|\alpha _{12}_{d_1}^2`$ and $`|\beta _{34}_{d_2}^2`$. By splitting the whole system as subsystems 12 and 34, extending Eq. (13), and using the Haar measure, we obtain the assisted entangling power as

$`e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(U)`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_1^2(d_1^2+1)d_2^2(d_2^2+1)}}\{d_1^2d_2^4+d_2^2d_1^4`$
$`+\text{Tr}_{12\mathrm{}8}[U^2(S_{15}S_{26})U^2(S_{15}S_{26})]`$
$`+\text{Tr}_{12\mathrm{}8}[U^2(S_{37}S_{48})U^2(S_{37}S_{48})]\},`$ (17)
where the state space now involved has doubled to $`_{d_1}^2_{d_2}^2_{d_1}^2_{d_2}^2`$. Operator $`S_{ij}S_{kl}`$ is the swap between systems $`i`$ and $`k`$ and systems $`j`$ and $`l`$. We are interested only in the case that the unitary operator acts on the system and not the ancillas, i.e., $`UI_{14}U_{23}.`$ Equation (17) enables the calculation of the assisted entangling power of $`U`$.

Qudit quantum computation is normally considered for many qudits with equal dimension Bry02 . We will mainly examine the entangling powers of two-qudit quantum gates as building blocks of the quantum computer, and therefore we restrict to the case of equal dimension Lei02  ($`d_1=d_2`$). In this case it is found that the entangling power of a unitary operator $`U`$ is related to the entanglement of quantum unitary operators Zan01 ; Wan02 . The operator entanglement of unitary operator $`U`$ is given by Zan01

$$E(U)=1\frac{1}{d^4}\text{Tr(}U^2S_{13}U^2S_{13}),$$
(18)
where $`1/d^4`$ is just the normalization factor for $`U^2`$. From Eqs. (13) and (18), it is straightforward to verify Zan00

$$e_\text{p}(U)=\left(\frac{d}{d+1}\right)^2\left[E(U)+E(US_{12})E(S_{12})\right].$$
(19)
Thus, the unassisted entangling power defined on $`d\times d`$ systems can be expressed in terms of the entanglement of three operators, $`U`$, $`US_{12}`$, and $`S_{12}`$. Therefore, by studying the entanglement of these three operators we can determine the entangling power of $`U`$.

From Eqs. (17) and (18), a similar result can be obtained for the assisted entangling power as follows

$`e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(U)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d^2+1}}\right)^2`$
$`\times [E(U)+E(US_{13}S_{24})E(S_{13}S_{24})].`$ (20)
Note that relations (19) and (20) hold only when we quantify the entanglement by the linear entropy, and from these relations we know that unassisted and assisted entangling powers are completely determined by the operator entanglement of $`U`$, $`US_{12}`$, and $`US_{13}S_{24}`$ (the entangling powers of $`S_{12}`$ and $`S_{13}S_{24}`$ are given below). Based on these results for the entangling powers, we next investigate a general controlled-$`U`$ quantum operation on qudits.

## IV A general two-qudit controlled-$`U`$ gate

A general controlled-$`U`$ quantum operation on two qudits is given by

$$C_U:=\underset{n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}P_{n,n}U_n,$$
(21)
with $`P_{n,n}:=|nn|`$. We also define $`P_{n,m}:=|nm|`$, which satisfies $`P_{n,m}P_{k,l}=\delta _{mk}P_{n,l}`$. The controlled-$`U`$ gate implements the unitary operator $`U_n`$ on the second system if and only if the first system is in the state $`|n`$. The unassisted entangling power and operator entanglement have been computed for the $`C_U`$ with $`d`$ orthogonal $`U_n`$ Zan00 ; Zan01 . Here, $`U_n`$ can be arbitrary unitary operators. For the controlled-$`U`$ operation we have the following proposition.

Proposition 1: For the general controlled-$`U`$ gate acting on $`_d_d`$,

$`e_\text{p}(C_U)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{d+1}}\right)^2E(C_U),`$ (22)
$`e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(C_U)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d^2+1}}\right)^2E(C_U).`$ (23)
Proof: From Eqs. (19) and (20), we only need to prove that

$$E(C_US_{12})=E(S_{12}),E(C_US_{13}S_{24})=E(S_{13}S_{24}).$$
(24)
Let us first prove $`E(C_US_{12})=E(S_{12})`$. The swap operator $`S_{12}`$ can be written as

$$S_{12}=\underset{i=j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}P_{i,j}P_{j,i}.$$
(25)
It is easy to check that $`P_{i,j},P_{k,l}=`$Tr$`(P_{j,i}P_{k,l})=\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}`$. Therefore, $`S_{12}`$ is in the Schmidt form with Schmidt number $`d^2`$, and the operator entanglement is given by

$$E(S_{12})=11/d^2.$$
(26)
From Eqs. (21) and (25), we write the product of the operators $`C_U`$ and $`S_{12}`$ as

$$C_US_{12}=\underset{i,j}{}P_{i,j}U_iP_{j,i}.$$
(27)
The operator product $`C_US_{12}`$ is also in the Schmidt form with Schmidt number $`d^2`$ since

$$U_iP_{j,i},U_kP_{l,k}=\text{Tr}(P_{i,j}U_i^{}U_kP_{l,k})=\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}.$$
(28)
Thus, the operator entanglement is

$$E(C_US_{12})=E(S_{12})=11/d^2,$$
(29)
which complete the proof of Eq. (22).

To prove Eq. (23) we write

$$S_{13}S_{24}=\underset{ijkl}{}(P_{i,j}P_{k,l})(P_{j,i}P_{l,k}).$$
(30)
Then the operator product $`C_US_{13}S_{24}`$ is given by

$$C_US_{13}S_{24}=\underset{ijkl}{}(P_{i,j}P_{k,l})(U_kP_{j,i}P_{l,k}).$$
(31)
It is straightforward to check that operators $`S_{13}S_{24}`$ and $`C_US_{13}S_{24}`$ are in equivalent Schmidt forms; hence their entanglements are equal, i.e.,

$$E(C_US_{13}S_{24})=E(S_{13}S_{24})=11/d^4.$$
(32)
This completes the proof of Eq. (23). $`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 1 builds an equivalence relation between entangling powers and operator entanglement. The higher the operator entanglement, the higher the entangling powers are for the general $`C_U`$ gate. From Eqs. (22) and (23), we immediately find

$$\frac{e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(C_U)}{e_\text{p}(C_U)}=\left(\frac{d^2+d}{d^2+1}\right)^2>1,$$
(33)
which means that the entangling power of $`C_U`$ is enhanced by introducing ancillas.

We now apply Proposition 1 to study an example of a $`C_U`$ gate, and we will see that the controlled-PHASE (CPHASE) gate Got98  is a special case of this $`C_U`$ gate. We consider the interaction between two spin-$`j`$ systems via the Hamiltonian WanSan00

$$H=gJ_{1z}J_{2z},$$
(34)
with $`g`$ the coupling strength and $`J_{iz}`$ the $`z`$-component of the angular momentum operator $`\stackrel{}{J}_i`$. Up to local unitary operations, the evolution operator $`\mathrm{exp}(igtJ_{1z}J_{2z})`$ is equivalent to $`U(\theta )=e^{i\theta N_1N_2},`$ where $`N_i=J_{iz}+j`$ and $`\theta =gt`$. Note that the above unitary operator can be written as $`U(\theta )=_{n=0}^{d1}P_{n,n}e^{in\theta N_2},`$ where $`d=2j+1`$. Then the unitary operator $`U(\theta )`$ is a special case of the controlled-$`U`$ gate. The application of Proposition 1 to $`U(\theta )`$ tells us that the entangling power $`e_\text{p}`$ and $`e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}`$ are proportional to the operator entanglement of $`U(\theta )`$. Thus, we only need to calculate the operator entanglement.

The unitary operator $`U(\theta )`$ can be rewritten as

$$U(\theta )=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\frac{1}{d}e^{i\theta mn}P_{n,n}P_{m,m},$$
(35)
where $`1/d`$ is just the normalization factor. We consider the operators $`U`$ and $`P_{n,n}`$ as states $`|U`$ and $`|P_{n,n}`$, where the bra-ket formalism is used. After tracing out the second system we obtain the “mixed operator” for the first system,

$$\text{Tr}_2(|UU|)=\underset{mn}{}A_{mn}(\theta )|P_{m,m}P_{n,n}|,$$
(36)
with

$`A_{mn}(\theta )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}e^{i\theta k(mn)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[d\theta (mn)/2]}{\mathrm{sin}[\theta (mn)/2]}}e^{i(d1)\theta (mn)/2}.`$ (37)
For the case of two spin-1/2 systems it is straightforward to check that $`E(U)=1/2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)`$ Zan01 . For higher spins we need to find the eigenvalues of the $`d\times d`$ matrix $`A`$, from which the linear entropy can be obtained. We numerically diagonalize the matrix, and the results for the linear entropy are shown in Fig. 1.

From Fig. 1, we see that the entanglement is a periodic function of $`\theta `$ with period $`2\pi `$, which can also be seen from Eq. (37). The entanglement attains its maximum value of $`1/2`$ at $`\theta =\pi `$ for spin-$`1/2`$, but does not reach its maximum value $`11/d`$ at $`\theta =\pi `$ for spins greater than $`1/2`$. The first maximum value occurs at $`\theta =2\pi /d`$. We also observe that there are two maximum values in one period for spin 1 and spin 3/2 and four for spin 2. When $`\theta =2\pi /d`$ the unitary operator $`U(2\pi /d)`$ becomes the CPHASE gate on qudits Got98 . Detailed analysis of the operator entanglement for the CPHASE gate and other representative quantum gates is provided in Sec. V.

## V Entanglement capability of qudit gates

A qudit quantum computer is comprised of a network of one-qudit, two-qudit, and multi-qudit gates. Two-qudit or multi-qudit gates usually have entanglement capability. In this section, we calculate and compare entanglement capabilities of different two-qudit gates. Before going to entangling gates let us first review several useful one-qudit gates.

### V.1 One-Qudit gates

Two essential one-qudit gates, denoted by $`X`$ and $`Z`$, are defined by their action on the computational basis $`|n(n=0,\mathrm{},d1)`$

$$X|n=|n+1(modd),Z|n=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi n/d)|n.$$
(38)
Another useful quantum operation on qudits is the Fourier transformation $`F`$, which is defined as

$$F|n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i2nk\pi /d)|k.$$
(39)
The Fourier transformation reduces to the Hadamard gate for the case of $`d=2`$.

### V.2 The CPHASE and SUM gate

Henceforth we use $`U_{\text{GATE}}`$ to denote a two-qudit gate which includes the CPHASE, SUM, DSUM, and SWAP gates. Now we examine the unitary operator $`U(\theta )=e^{i\theta 𝒩_1𝒩_2}`$ again. Note that the number operator $`𝒩`$ is now simply defined as $`𝒩|n=n|n`$. For $`\theta =2\pi /d`$, $`U(\theta )`$ can be written as

$$U_{\text{CPHASE}}=U(2\pi /d)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}P_{n,n}Z^n,$$
(40)
which is exactly the CPHASE gate Got98 . We will see that the CPHASE gate differs from the SUM gate (defined below) only by local operations.

Let us consider one representative two-qudit gate, namely the SUM gate, which is defined as Got98 ; Alb00 ; Bar02 ; San02

$$U_{\text{SUM}}=U_{\text{SUM}}(12):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}P_{n,n}X^n.$$
(41)
The notation $`(12)`$ indicates that the first qudit is the control and the second qudit is the target. By using the Fourier transform we have $`F^1ZF=X.`$ Then, acting on the CPHASE gate $`U_{\text{CPHASE}}`$ by $`IF^1`$ from the left and $`IF`$ from the right leads to the relation between the CPHASE gate and the SUM gate,

$$U_{\text{SUM}}=(IF^1)U_{\text{CPHASE}}(IF).$$
(42)
Relation (42) shows that the SUM and CPHASE gates differ only by local unitary operations. Therefore, they have same operator entanglement and entangling powers. The SUM gate is an example of a general controlled-$`U`$ gate, and it has Schmidt form

$$U_{\text{SUM}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\sqrt{d}P_{n,n}\left(X^n/\sqrt{d}\right).$$
(43)
Thus, the entanglement of the SUM gate is given by

$$E(U_{\text{SUM}})=11/d.$$
(44)
According to Proposition 1 the unassisted and assisted entangling powers are immediately evident.

### V.3 The SWAP gate

Another representative quantum gate is the SWAP gate $`U_{\text{SWAP}}`$, which we have denoted by SWAP and $`S_{ij}`$ in the preceding sections. We know that $`E(U_{\text{SWAP}})=11/d^2`$; now, from Eq. (19), it is easy to ascertain that $`e_\text{p}(U_{\text{SWAP}})=0`$.

Now we calculate the assisted entangling power of the SWAP gate. As we already know the entanglement of operators $`S_{23}`$ and $`S_{13}S_{24}`$, only the entanglement of the operator $`S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$ needs to be calculated. The operator $`S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$ can be expressed as

$`S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mnijkl}{}}(P_{i,j}P_{m,n}P_{k,l})(P_{n,m}P_{j,i}P_{l,k})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{il}{}}𝒫_{i,l}𝒫_{i,l}^{},`$ (45)
with $`𝒫_{i,l}=_jP_{i,j}P_{j,l}`$ satisfying the relations

$$𝒫_{i,l},𝒫_{i^{^{}},l^{^{}}}=d\delta _{ii^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}.$$
(46)
Therefore, the Schmidt form of $`S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$ is given by

$$S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}=\underset{il}{}d\left(𝒫_{i,l}/\sqrt{d}\right)\left(𝒫_{i,l}^{}/\sqrt{d}\right),$$
(47)
from which the operator entanglement of $`S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$ is obtained as

$$E(S_{23}S_{13}S_{24})=E(S_{23})=11/d^2.$$
(48)
Then, substituting the above equation and Eq. (32) into Eq. (20), we obtain

$$e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(S_{23})=\left(\frac{d^21}{d^2+1}\right)^2.$$
(49)
After introducing ancillas the entangling power of the SWAP gate is no longer zero.

### V.4 Double SUM gate

In this subsection we introduce and define a double SUM gate as

$$U_{\text{DSUM}}=U_{\text{SUM}}^1(21)U_{\text{SUM}}(12)$$
(50)
which can be considered as a generalization of the double CNOT gate for qubits in the sense that the DSUM gate reduces to the double controlled-NOT gate Zho00 ; Col01  for the case of dimension $`d=2`$.

Using the relation between SWAP and SUM gates given by Dab02 ; Swap1 ; Swap2

$`S_{12}`$ $`=(F^2I)U_{\text{SUM}}(12)U_{\text{SUM}}^1(21)U_{\text{SUM}}(12)`$
$`=(F^2I)U_{\text{SUM}}U_{\text{DSUM}},`$ (51)
we observe that the SWAP gate can be constructed from three SUM gates and the square of the Fourier transformation. This relation is useful for the following analysis.

By using Eq. (51) we can express DSUM as

$$U_{\text{DSUM}}=U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{12}(IF^2),$$
(52)
where the identity $`(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})S_{12}=S_{12}(\widehat{B}\widehat{A})`$ is used. From Proposition 1, we know that for any controlled-$`U`$ we have $`E(C_US_{12})=E(S_{12})`$. As $`U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)`$ is a special $`C_U`$ with $`U=X^1`$, we have

$`E(U_{\text{DSUM}})`$ $`=E[U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{12}(IF^2)]`$
$`=E[U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{12}]=E(S_{12}),`$ (53)
where the second equality is obtained by noticing that the local unitary operators do not modify operator entanglement. Thus, we find that the entanglement of the DSUM gate is equal to that of the SWAP gate. Using this fact the unassisted entangling power is simplified to

$`e_\text{p}(U_{\text{DSUM}})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{(d+1)^2}}E[U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{12}(IF^2)S_{12}]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{(d+1)^2}}E[U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)]`$
$`=e_\text{p}[U_{\text{SUM}}(12)].`$ (54)
The last equality in the above equation results from the fact $`E(U)=E(U^{})`$ Zan01 . Therefore, the unassisted entangling power of the DSUM gate is equal to that of the SUM gate.

To obtain the assisted entangling power of the DSUM gate we need to calculate the entanglement of the operator $`U_{\text{DSUM}}S_{13}S_{24}`$. Up to local unitary operations the operator is equivalent to $`U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$, which can be expressed as

$`U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{iml}{}}(P_{m,i}P_{i,l})\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}P_{ji,m}P_{l,j}\right).`$ (55)
It is straightforward to show the relations

$`P_{m,i}P_{i,l},P_{m^{},i^{}}P_{i^{},l^{}}`$ $`=\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{ii^{}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}P_{ji,m}P_{l,j},{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}}{}}P_{j^{}i^{},m^{}}P_{l^{},j^{}}`$ $`=d\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{ii^{}}.`$ (56)
Thus, $`U_{\text{SUM}}^1(12)S_{23}S_{13}S_{24}`$ can be written in the Schmidt form and the entanglement

$$E(U_{\text{DSUM}}S_{13}S_{24})=11/d^3$$
(57)
follows. Using the above equation, $`E(U_{\text{DSUM}})=11/d^2`$, and $`E(S_{13}S_{24})=11/d^4`$, we obtain the assisted entangling power of the double SUM gate as

$$e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}(U_{\text{DSUM}})=\frac{d^4d^2d+1}{(d^2+1)^2}.$$
(58)
We summarize the results of the three representative quantum gates by Table 1. In particular, the two equalities

$$E(U_{\text{SWAP}})=E(U_{\text{DSUM}}),e_\text{p}(U_{\text{SUM}})=e_\text{p}(U_{\text{DSUM}}),$$
(59)
hold. As the entangling power $`e_\text{p}`$ of the DSUM gate is not zero, we can use it as a universal gate in a qudit quantum computer. Although the operator entanglement of the SWAP gate is equal to that of the DSUM gate, we cannot use the SWAP gate as a universal gate since the corresponding entangling power $`e_\text{p}`$ is zero.

### V.5 Large dimension limit

Now we consider the large $`d`$ limit. In this limit, we find that in every case (except for the SWAP without ancillas) the values of $`e_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}`$ approach 1. It is therefore better to consider the measure $`\overline{e}_\mathrm{p}`$ (10), for the case without ancillas, and $`\overline{e}_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}=\mathrm{ln}(1e_\text{p}^{\text{anc}})`$, for the case with ancillas. The asymptotic expressions for these quantities for the three different gates are given in Table 2.

These asymptotic results may be used to gain information about the entangling powers based on the von Neumann entropy, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}`$. As was shown above, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}\overline{e}_\mathrm{p}`$, and it is also easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}^{\text{anc}}\overline{e}_\mathrm{p}^{\text{anc}}`$. In addition, the maximum von Neumann entropy generation for each of the operations foot  is equal to the leading terms in the asymptotic expressions in Table 2 .

These results allow us to accurately estimate the asymptotic values of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}`$. For example, for the case of the SUM gate without ancillas,

$$\mathrm{ln}d\mathrm{ln}3+O(d^1)\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}(U_{\text{SUM}})\mathrm{ln}d.$$
(60)
This result means that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{p}(U_{\text{SUM}})=\mathrm{ln}d+O(1)`$. The corresponding results for the other cases are given in Table 3. In every case, to leading order $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}`$, $`\overline{e}_\text{p}^{\text{anc}}`$, and the maximal entanglement are the same.

We therefore find that, in each of these cases (except the case of the SWAP without ancillas)

$$\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}}{\overline{e}_\text{p}}=\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}}{\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{max}}}=1.$$
(61)
In the case of the SUM gate with ancillas the agreement is particularly close. Because the second term is of order $`d^1`$, rather than order 1,

$$\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{e}_\text{p}^{\mathrm{anc}}(U_{\mathrm{SUM}})=\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{e}_\text{p}^{\mathrm{anc}}(U_{\mathrm{SUM}})=\stackrel{~}{E}_{\text{max}}(U_{\mathrm{SUM}}).$$
(62)
That is, the average entanglement created approaches the maximum possible, rather than just the ratio approaching 1. In addition, the results obtained for the SUM gate is applicable to any controlled-$`U`$ gate $`C_U`$ (21) with $`d`$ orthogonal $`U_n`$.

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion, we have extended the entangling power based on the linear entropy from the ancilla-unassisted case to the ancilla-assisted case. The assisted and unassisted entangling powers, quantifying the average amount of entanglement created by a unitary operator, turn out to be easy-to-use entanglement capability measures which are complementary to the entanglement capability measures based on the maximal entanglement Kra01 ; Ben02 ; Nie02  that an operator can generate.

We have studied the general controlled-$`U`$ operator and found that both the unassisted and assisted entangling powers are proportional to its operator entanglement, which builds equivalence relations between the entangling power and operator entanglement. This is important because the set of controlled-$`U`$ gates contains some very useful quantum gates such as the CPHASE and SUM gates, and our result shows that it is sufficient to study the entanglement capability by examining the operator entanglement. From the SUM gate, we have derived a new quantum gate, the DSUM gate, which for qubits reduces to the double CNOT gate. The entangling powers and operator entanglement of the SUM, DSUM, and SWAP gates were examined in detail.

We have mainly considered the entangling power based upon the linear entropy. However, one is more interested in the entangling power based on the von Neumann entropy. Fortunately, the former provides a lower bound to the latter. In each of the cases we consider, our results show that for large dimension, to leading order the average entanglement created is equal to the maximum entanglement. Investigations of the entangling powers and operator entanglement will be helpful in understanding the entangling capabilities of quantum operations as physical resources, and will play an important role in quantum information theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with Paolo Zanardi, Jamil Daboul, and Stephen D Bartlett. This project has been supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant and Macquarie University Research Fellowship.