text:
# Transitive simple subgroups of wreath products in product action

## 1. Introduction

The main result of this paper is that a transitive simple subgroup of a finite symmetric group is very rarely contained in a full wreath product in product action, so rarely that all such cases can be explicitly tabulated here. In other words, apart from a short list of exceptions, a simple subgroup of a finite wreath product in product action can never be transitive. A brief summary of the product action of wreath products is provided at the beginning of Section 2.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a finite set, let $`T<W<\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`T`$ is a finite simple group, and $`W`$ is permutationally isomorphic to a wreath product $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}𝖲_{\mathrm{}}`$ in product action. Then either $`T`$ is intransitive or $`T`$, $`W`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ are as in Table 1. Moreover, if $`T`$ is transitive, then $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(T\right)`$ is an almost simple group.

This classification is reached after observing that, in Theorem 1.1, the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be identified with the Cartesian product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that the action of $`W`$ is compatible with this identification. In order to make this idea precise, we introduce the concept of a ‘Cartesian decomposition’ of a set, and we also notice that $`W`$ can be viewed as the full stabiliser in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence we reduce the problem of classifying the pairs $`T,W`$ in Theorem 1.1 to the problem of classifying all Cartesian decompositions of finite sets that are invariant under the action of a transitive, simple group of permutations.

Let $`T`$ be a finite simple group acting on a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the classification of $`T`$-invariant Cartesian decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we use ideas that are familiar from the elementary theory of permutation groups. Namely, we investigate how the subgroup lattice of $`T`$ might reflect the existence of a $`T`$-invariant Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In Definition 1.3 we define the concept of a ‘Cartesian system of subgroups’, and in Theorem 1.4 we establish a one-to-one correspondence between the set of $`T`$-invariant Cartesian decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the set of Cartesian systems with respect to a fixed element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The concepts of Cartesian decompositions and Cartesian systems, and the bijective connections between them, are explored in greater generality in Sections 24. Our motivation in doing so is to provide with a theoretical background for a future investigation of Cartesian decompositions that are invariant under a transitive permutation group.

Some of the concepts we use may be new to most of our readers. We define a permutation group to be innately transitive if it has a transitive minimal normal subgroup, and a transitive minimal normal subgroup of an innately transitive group is referred to as a plinth. Most of the results of this paper are expressed in the context of innately transitive groups. The structure of innately transitive groups is investigated in \[BP\]. The problem of finding innately transitive subgroups of wreath products in product action is studied more extensively in \[BPS\]. Theorem 1.1 is equivalent to the following result, which is formulated in terms of innately transitive groups. Here, a permutation group is *quasiprimitive* if all of its minimal normal subgroups are transitive.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a finite set, let $`G<W<\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`G`$ is an innately transitive group with a simple plinth $`T`$, and $`W`$ is permutationally isomorphic to a wreath product $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}𝖲_{\mathrm{}}`$ in product action. Then $`T`$ and $`W`$ are as in Table 1, and $`G`$ is an almost simple quasiprimitive group.

Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are easy consequences of Theorem 6.1 as explained at the end of Section 6.

A Cartesian decomposition of a finite set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a collection $``$ of partitions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$|\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}|=1\text{for all}\gamma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}.$$

A Cartesian decomposition is said to be homogeneous if its elements have the same size and this common size is at least 2. The number of partitions in a Cartesian decomposition is called the index. A Cartesian decomposition is said to be non-trivial if it has index at least 2. In this paper, Cartesian decompositions are assumed to be non-trivial, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. If $``$ is a Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be identified with the Cartesian product $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. More information on Cartesian decompositions is provided in \[Kov89\], where a Cartesian decomposition $``$ stabilised by a permutation group $`G`$ such that the elements of $``$ form a single $`G`$-orbit is said to be a system of product imprimitivity for $`G`$. A maximal subgroup $`W`$ of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is said to be of product action type, or simply PA type, if $`W`$ is the full stabiliser of a non-trivial, homogeneous Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If a permutation group $`G`$ is contained in such a $`W`$, then we also say that $`W`$ is a maximal overgroup of $`G`$ with product action type, or simply PA type.

It is, in general, a difficult problem to describe maximal overgroups with PA type of a transitive permutation group. In the case where $`G`$ itself is primitive, this question is answered by \[Pra90\], but \[BP02\] leaves this problem open for a quasiprimitive $`G`$. Clearly our Theorem 1.2 gives a full classification of the maximal overgroups of product action type for an innately transitive permutation group $`G`$ with a simple plinth. This is achieved by listing all non-trivial, homogeneous Cartesian decompositions stabilised by $`G`$. We found that such decompositions can be identified by information about the subgroups of the plinth. This motivates the following definition.

###### Definition 1.3.

Let $`M`$ be a transitive permutation group on a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. We say that a set $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ of subgroups of $`M`$ is a Cartesian system of subgroups of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$ if

(1) $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}K_i`$ $`=`$ $`M_\omega \text{and}`$
(2) $`K_i\left({\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}K_j\right)`$ $`=`$ $`M\text{for all}i\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}.`$
A Cartesian system is said to be homogeneous if its elements are proper subgroups and they have the same size. A Cartesian system is non-trivial if it has at least two subgroups. If $`M`$ is an abstract group and $`𝒦=\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is a set of subgroups satisfying (2), then $`𝒦`$ is called a Cartesian system of $`M`$.

In this paper Cartesian systems are assumed to be non-trivial unless it is explicitly stated otherwise.

For a permutation group $`G\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$ denote the set of $`G`$-invariant Cartesian decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Cartesian systems provide a way of identifying the set $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$ from information internal to $`G`$.

###### Theorem 1.4.

Let $`G`$ be an innately transitive permutation group on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with plinth $`M`$. Then for a fixed $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ there is a one-to-one correspondence between the set $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$ and the set of $`G_\omega `$-invariant Cartesian systems of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$.

Theorem 1.4 is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.2 where an explicit one-to-one correspondence is constructed.

The major results of this paper are presented in Section 6. There we study innately transitive permutation groups with a non-abelian, simple plinth that preserve a Cartesian decomposition of the underlying set. The main result of Section 6 gives rise to a complete description of maximal overgroups with product action type for such an innately transitive group. Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 follow immediately from Theorem 6.1(i), where we give a detailed description of $`G`$-invariant homogeneous Cartesian decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for innately transitive groups $`G`$ with a simple plinth $`T`$. In particular, Table 3 contains the possibilities for $`G`$, $`T`$, $`W`$, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$, and the isomorphism types of the subgroups in the associated Cartesian system, as given by Theorem 1.4. Part (ii) of Theorem 6.1 gives a detailed description of Cartesian decompositions $``$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with index at least 3 that are invariant under the action of an innately transitive group with a non-abelian, simple plinth. In Table 4, we list the possibilities for the plinth, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$, the full stabiliser of $``$ in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the isomorphism types of the elements in the corresponding Cartesian system. In the case where $`G`$ is primitive, Theorem 6.1 reduces to \[Pra90, Proposition 6.1(ii)\]. Problems similar to ours were also addressed in \[Bau97\].

Our notation concerning actions and permutation groups is standard. If $`G`$ is a group acting on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`G_{(\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ denote the setwise and the pointwise stabilisers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, respectively. If $`G_\mathrm{\Delta }=G`$ then $`G^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ induced by $`G`$. If $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`\omega ^G`$ denotes the $`G`$-orbit $`\{\omega ^g|gG\}`$.

## 2. Cartesian decompositions

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a finite set, $`L\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{}2`$ an integer, and $`H𝖲_{\mathrm{}}`$. The wreath product $`L\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}H`$ is the semidirect product $`L^{\mathrm{}}H`$, where, for $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})L^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\sigma 𝖲_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})^{\sigma ^1}=(x_{1^\sigma },\mathrm{},x_\mathrm{}^\sigma )`$. The product action of $`L\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}H`$ is the action of $`L\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}H`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by

$$(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}})^{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})}=(\gamma _1^{x_1},\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^x_{\mathrm{}})\text{and}(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}})^{\sigma ^1}=(\gamma _{1^\sigma },\mathrm{},\gamma _\mathrm{}^\sigma )$$

for all $`(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}L`$ and $`\sigma H`$. The important properties of wreath products can be found in most textbooks on permutation group theory, see for instance Dixon and Mortimer \[DM96\].

The full stabiliser $`W`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a homogeneous Cartesian decomposition $``$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}𝖲_{\mathrm{}}`$ acting in product action on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Moreover, if $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|3`$ then $`W`$ is primitive on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and if $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|5`$ then $`W`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As mentioned in Section 1, such maximal subgroups are usually referred to as maximal subgroups of product action type. They form one of several classes of primitive maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, identified by the O’Nan–Scott Theorem; see \[LPS87\]. Thus an important part of classifying the primitive maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ containing a given (innately transitive) subgroup $`G`$ is finding all homogeneous Cartesian decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that are stabilised by $`G`$. Our first result is that the plinth must leave invariant each partition in such a Cartesian decomposition.

###### Proposition 2.1.

If $`G`$ is an innately transitive group on a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with plinth $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$, then $`M_{()}=M`$.

###### Proof.

We let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and show that each element of the $`G`$-orbit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^G`$ is stabilised by $`M`$. Suppose that $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\}`$ is the $`G`$-orbit in $``$ containing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Set

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _m|\gamma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\}$$

and

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i=\{\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }|\sigma \gamma \}|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_i\}\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$

Then it is a routine calculation to check that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`G`$-invariant partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and that $`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m\}`$ is a $`G`$-invariant Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Moreover, $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i|=|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i|`$ for all $`i`$, and since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ form a $`G`$-orbit, $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i|=|\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_j|`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$. It is also easy to see that if $`gG_{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i)}`$ then $`gG_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)}`$. Since $`G_{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m)}`$ is a normal subgroup of $`G`$ and $`M`$ is a minimal normal subgroup of $`G`$, either $`MG_{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m)}`$ or $`MG_{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m)}=1`$. Suppose that $`MG_{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m)}=1`$, so $`M`$ acts on the set $`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m\}`$ faithfully. Therefore $`M`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`𝖲_m`$. Note that $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }|=|\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1|^m`$, and let $`p`$ be a prime dividing $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1|`$. Then $`p^m`$ divides $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$. Since $`M`$ is transitive on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`p^m|M|`$. However, $`M`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`𝖲_m`$, and so $`p^m`$ divides $`m!`$, which is a contradiction to \[Pra90, Lemma 4.2\]. Hence $`MG_{(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m)}`$, that is, each $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i`$ is stabilised by $`M`$, and so is each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. Thus $`M`$ stabilises $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was chosen arbitrarily, this shows that every element of $``$ is stabilised by $`M`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`M`$ be a transitive subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(M)`$ such that $`M_{()}=M`$. Suppose that $`=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\}`$, let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a fixed element, and for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ let $`\gamma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ be such that $`\omega \gamma _i`$. Set $`𝒦_\omega ()=\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ where $`K_i=M_{\gamma _i}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Then $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ is a Cartesian system of subgroups of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$. Moreover, if $`\omega ^m=\omega ^{}`$ for some $`mM`$, then $`𝒦_\omega ^{}()=𝒦_\omega ()^m`$.

###### Proof.

Let us prove that $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}K_i=M_\omega `$. Since the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are $`M`$-invariant partitions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the stabiliser of a point stabilises the block in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ that contains this point. Hence $`M_\omega K_i`$ for all $`i`$, and so $`M_\omega _iK_i`$. Now suppose $`x_iK_i`$. Then $`x`$ stabilises $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$. Since $``$ is a Cartesian decomposition, $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=\{\omega \}`$, and so $`x`$ stabilises $`\omega `$. Thus $`xM_\omega `$, and so $`_iK_i=M_\omega `$.

Now we prove that (2) also holds. We may suppose without loss of generality that $`i=1`$. Let $`xM`$, $`\delta _1=\gamma _1^x,\mathrm{},\delta _{\mathrm{}}=\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^x`$, and $`\{\xi \}=\delta _1\mathrm{}\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`\{\zeta \}=\delta _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ then the transitivity of $`M`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that there exists $`zM`$ with $`\xi ^z=\zeta `$ and so $`\delta _1^z=\delta _1`$, $`\delta _2^z=\gamma _2,\mathrm{},\delta _{\mathrm{}}^z=\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$, whence $`\gamma _j^{xz}=\gamma _j`$ for $`j=2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma _1^{xzx^1}=\gamma _1`$, that is $`xz_{j=2}^{\mathrm{}}K_j`$ and $`xzx^1K_1`$. It follows that

$$x=(xzx^1)^1(xzx^1x)K_1\left(\underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_j\right),$$

and we deduce that the first factorisation of (2) holds. The other factorisations can be proved identically. Thus $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ is a Cartesian system of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$.

If $`mM`$ and $`\omega ^{}=\omega ^m`$ then $`\{\omega ^{}\}=\gamma _1^m\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^m`$ and $`M_{\gamma _i^m}=M_{\gamma _i}^m`$, which proves that $`𝒦_\omega ^{}()=𝒦_\omega ()^m`$. ∎

If $`M\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(M)`$ such that $`M_{()}=M`$, then, for a fixed $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, we define the Cartesian system $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ with respect to $`\omega `$ as in Lemma 2.2. The last result of this section establishes one direction of the one-to-one correspondence in Theorem 1.4.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`G`$ be an innately transitive group with plinth $`M`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$, then $`M_{()}=M`$. Assume that $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ is the Cartesian system of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$. Then $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ is invariant under conjugation by $`G_\omega `$, and the $`G_\omega `$-actions on $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ and on $``$ are equivalent.

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 2.1 that $`M_{()}=M`$, and so we can use Lemma 2.2 to construct $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ for $`\omega `$. Suppose that $`=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\}`$, and let $`𝒦_\omega ()=\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ such that $`K_i=M_{\gamma _i}`$ where $`\gamma _i`$ is the unique element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ containing $`\omega `$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ and $`gG_\omega `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^g=\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ then $`\omega ^g=\omega `$, and so $`\gamma _i^g=\gamma _j`$. Hence

$$K_i^g=\left(M_{\gamma _i}\right)^g=M_{\gamma _i^g}=M_{\gamma _j}=K_j,$$

and so $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ is invariant under conjugation by $`G_\omega `$. This argument also shows that the $`G_\omega `$-actions on $``$ and on $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ are equivalent. ∎

## 3. Cartesian systems

In this section we summarise the most important properties of Cartesian systems of abstract groups. The following lemma is useful when working with Cartesian systems. If $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is a Cartesian system for a group $`M`$ and $`I\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$ then let $`K_I`$ denote the subgroup $`K_I=_{iI}K_i`$. We use the convention that if $`I=\mathrm{}`$ then $`_{iI}K_i=M`$ for any collection $`\{K_i\}_i`$ of subgroups in $`M`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ be a (possibly trivial) Cartesian system for an abstract group $`M`$, and let $`I`$, $`J`$ be subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$.

(a) If $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}}M`$, then $`_{iI}K_ix_i`$ is a coset modulo $`K_I`$.

(b) $`|M:K_I|=_{iI}|M:K_i|`$.

(c) $`K_IK_J=K_{IJ}`$.

###### Proof.

If an intersection of (right) cosets is nonempty then it is a (right) coset modulo the intersection of the relevant subgroups. The statement of (a) above, and the simple proof below, make use of this fact. We prove the lemma by induction on $`\mathrm{}`$. Notice that there is nothing to prove if $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Our inductive hypothesis is that $`\mathrm{}>1`$ and the lemma holds for all Cartesian systems for $`M`$ which consist of fewer than $`\mathrm{}`$ subgroups. Thus (a) and (b) only have to be proved for the case $`I=\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Put $`L=_{i>1}K_i`$, and note that $`\{K_1,L\}`$ is also a Cartesian system for $`M`$ (that is, $`K_1L=M`$).

We also know from the inductive hypothesis that $`_{i>1}K_ix_i`$ is a coset modulo $`L`$, so for (a) it is sufficient to show that $`K_1x_1Ly`$ is never empty. In order to show this we choose $`zL`$ such that $`K_1z=K_1x_1y^1`$; this is possible, as $`K_1L=M`$. Then $`K_1zy=K_1x_1`$, and so $`zyK_1x_1`$, and also $`zyLy`$. Hence $`zyK_1x_1Ly`$, and consequently $`K_1x_1Ly`$ is non-empty.

For (b), it is enough to show that $`|M:K_I|=|M:K_1||M:L|`$, but this follows from

$$|M|=|K_1L|=|K_1||L|/|K_1L|=|K_1||L|/K_I|.$$

For an easy proof of (c) we first observe that

$$|K_IK_J|=|K_I||K_J|/|K_IK_J|.$$

It is obvious that $`K_IK_JK_{IJ}`$ and, as $`K_IK_J=K_{IJ}`$, one can calculate from (b) and the last display that $`|K_IK_J|=|K_{IJ}|`$. This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

Note that, in Lemma 3.1(a), if we choose $`x`$ to be any element of $`_{iI}K_ix_i`$, then $`K_ix_i=K_ix`$ holds, for all $`iI`$.

## 4. Cartesian systems and Cartesian decompositions

In a transitive group $`M\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a subgroup $`K`$ satisfying $`M_\omega KM`$ for some $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ determines an $`M`$-invariant partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ comprising the $`M`$-translates of the $`K`$-orbit $`\omega ^K`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`G`$ be an innately transitive group on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with plinth $`M`$, and let $`\omega `$ be a fixed element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Suppose that $`𝒦=\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is a $`G_\omega `$-invariant Cartesian system of subgroups of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the $`M`$-invariant partitions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ determined by $`K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. Then $`=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is a $`G`$-invariant Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, such that $`𝒦_\omega ()=𝒦`$. Moreover, if $`M`$ is non-abelian and the Cartesian system $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is homogeneous, then the stabiliser $`W`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $``$ is a maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`GW`$.

###### Proof.

As $`M_\omega K_iM`$, each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is an $`M`$-invariant partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ let $`\gamma _i`$ be the unique element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ containing $`\omega `$. In order to prove that $``$ is a Cartesian decomposition, we only have to show that

$$\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta _i\right|=1\text{whenever}\delta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\delta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}.$$

To see this, choose $`\delta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\delta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$. Now $`\delta _i=\gamma _i^{x_i}`$ for some $`x_iM`$, and by Lemma 3.1(a), there exists some $`xM`$ such that $`K_ix_i=K_ix`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _i=\gamma _i^{x_i}=\{\omega ^k|kK_i\}^{x_i}=\{\omega ^k^{}|k^{}K_ix_i\}\hfill \\ \hfill =\{\omega ^k^{}|k^{}K_ix\}=\{\omega ^k|kK_i\}^x=\gamma _i^x.\end{array}$$

Thus

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta _i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _i^x=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _i\right)^x,$$

and therefore we only have to prove that $`|_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _i|=1`$. Note that $`\omega \gamma _i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Suppose that $`\omega ^{}\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ for some $`\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then there is some $`xM`$ such that $`\omega ^x=\omega ^{}`$. Then $`x`$ must stabilise $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$, and hence $`xK_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Since $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}K_i=M_\omega `$, it follows that $`xM_\omega `$, and so $`\omega ^x=\omega `$. Thus $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _i=\{\omega \}`$, and $``$ is a Cartesian decomposition.

Since each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is an $`M`$-invariant partition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $``$ is invariant under $`M`$. Since $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is $`G_\omega `$-invariant, $``$ is also $`G_\omega `$-invariant, and so $``$ is $`MG_\omega `$-invariant. Since $`M`$ is transitive, $`MG_\omega =G`$. Therefore $``$ is $`G`$-invariant. Note that

$$𝒦=\{M_{\gamma _1},\mathrm{},M_\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\}\text{and}K_\omega ()=\{M_{\gamma _1},\mathrm{},M_\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\}.$$

Thus $`𝒦=𝒦_\omega ()`$, as required.

Since $`M`$ is non-abelian, $`M`$ is a direct product of isomorphic non-abelian, simple groups. Hence for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$, the group $`M^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}`$ is also isomorphic to a direct product of non-abelian simple groups. Moreover, $`M^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}`$ is transitive and faithful on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, and so $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i|5`$ for all $`i`$. As $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is homogeneous, $``$ is also homogeneous and $`W`$ is permutationally isomorphic to $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{𝗐𝗋}𝖲_{\mathrm{}}`$ in product action for some set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{}2`$. Hence the results of \[LPS87\] show that $`W`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`W⩽̸\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`W`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ otherwise. Since $``$ is $`G`$-invariant, clearly $`GW`$. ∎

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`G`$ be an innately transitive group on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with plinth $`M`$. For a fixed $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ the map $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ is a bijection between the set $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$ and the set of $`G_\omega `$-invariant Cartesian systems of subgroups of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒞`$ denote the set of $`G_\omega `$-invariant Cartesian systems of subgroups of $`M`$ with respect to $`\omega `$. In Lemma 2.2, we explicitly constructed a map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)𝒞`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Psi }()=𝒦_\omega ()`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a bijection. Let $`𝒦𝒞`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the $`M`$-invariant partitions determined by the elements $`K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`𝒦`$, and let $`=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\}`$. We proved in Lemma 4.1 that $``$ is a $`G`$-invariant Cartesian decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`𝒦_\omega ()=𝒦`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is surjective.

Suppose now that $`_1,_2\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$ is such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(_1)=\mathrm{\Psi }(_2)`$ and let $`𝒦`$ denote this common Cartesian system. Let $``$ be the set of $`M`$-invariant partitions determined by the elements of $`𝒦`$. Then, by the definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(_i)`$ in Lemma 2.2, $`_1=`$ and $`_2=`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is injective, and so $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a bijection. ∎

Theorem 1.4 is an immediate consequence of the previous result.

## 5. Some factorisations of finite simple groups

To prove Theorem 1.1 we need first to prove some results about factorisations of certain finite simple groups. If $`G`$ is a group and $`A,BG`$ such that $`G=AB`$, then we say that the expression $`G=AB`$ or the set $`\{A,B\}`$ is a factorisation of $`G`$. In \[BP98\] full factorisations of almost simple groups were classified up to the following equivalence relation. The factorisations $`G=A_1B_1`$ and $`G=A_2B_2`$ of a group $`G`$ are said to be equivalent if there are $`\alpha \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(G)`$, and $`x,yG`$ such that $`\{A_1,B_1\}=\{A_2^{\alpha x},B_2^{\alpha y}\}`$. The following lemma shows that this equivalence relation can be expressed in a simpler way.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`G`$ be a group.

1. If $`G=AB`$ for some $`A,BG`$, then the conjugation action of $`A`$ is transitive on the conjugacy class $`B^G`$, and $`B`$ is transitive on $`A^G`$.
2. The factorisations $`G=A_1B_1`$ and $`G=A_2B_2`$ of $`G`$ are equivalent if and only if there is $`\beta \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(G)`$ such that $`\{A_1,B_1\}=\{A_2^\beta ,B_2^\beta \}`$.

###### Proof.

(i) As $`AB=G`$, we also have $`A𝖭_G\left(B\right)=G`$. Since $`𝖭_G\left(B\right)`$ is a point stabiliser for the conjugation action of $`G`$ on the conjugacy class $`B^G`$, we obtain that $`A`$ is a transitive subgroup of $`G`$ with respect to this action. Similar argument shows that $`B`$ is transitive by conjugation on $`A^G`$.

(ii) It is clear that if there is $`\beta \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(G)`$ such that $`\{A_1,B_1\}=\{A_2^\beta ,B_2^\beta \}`$ then the two factorisations in the lemma are equivalent. Suppose that $`G=A_1B_1`$ and $`G=A_2B_2`$ are equivalent factorisations. By assumption, there is $`\alpha \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(G)`$ and $`x,yG`$ such that $`\{A_1,B_1\}=\{A_2^{\alpha x},B_2^{\alpha y}\}`$. Then we have $`A_1^G=(A_2^\alpha )^G`$ and $`B_1^G=(B_2^\alpha )^G`$, or $`A_1^G=(B_2^\alpha )^G`$ and $`B_1^G=(A_2^\alpha )^G`$. Suppose without loss of generality that $`A_1^G=(A_2^\alpha )^G`$ and $`B_1^G=(B_2^\alpha )^G`$. Since $`A_1`$ and $`A_2^\alpha `$ are conjugate, there is some $`gG`$ such that $`A_1^g=A_2^\alpha `$, and $`B_1^g`$ is conjugate to $`B_2^\alpha `$. As $`G=(A_1B_1)^g=A_1^gB_1^g`$, we have that $`A_1^g`$ is transitive by conjugation on $`(B_1^g)^G=B_1^G`$. Hence there is some $`aA_1^g`$ such that $`A_1^{ga}=A_1^g=A_2^\alpha `$, and $`B_1^{ga}=B_2^\alpha `$. Hence $`A_1=A_2^{\alpha a^1g^1}`$ and $`B_1=B_2^{\alpha a^1g^1}`$. Thus we may take $`\beta `$ as $`\alpha `$ followed by the inner automorphism corresponding to $`a^1g^1`$. ∎

If $`G`$ is a group and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are subgroups then let

$$𝖭_G\left(\{A,B\}\right)=\{gG|\{A^g,B^g\}=\{A,B\}\}.$$

In the proof of the following result we use the following simple fact, called Dedekind’s modular law. If $`K,L,H`$ are subgroups of a group $`G`$ such that $`KL`$, then

(3)
$$(HK)L=(HL)K.$$

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`T`$ be a finite simple group and $`A,B`$ proper subgroups of $`T`$ such that $`|A|=|B|`$ and $`T=AB`$. Then the following hold.

1. The isomorphism types of $`T`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$ are as in Table 2, and $`A`$, $`B`$ are maximal subgroups of $`T`$.
2. There is an automorphism $`\vartheta \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ such that $`\vartheta `$ interchanges $`A`$ and $`B`$.
3. The group $`AB`$ is self-normalising in $`T`$.
4. If $`T`$ is as in row $`1`$, $`2`$, or $`4`$ of Table 2, then

$$𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(AB\right)=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)=N,$$

say, and moreover $`TN=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$.

###### Proof.

(i) Note that, since $`|A|=|B|`$, the factorisation $`T=AB`$ is a full factorisation of $`T`$, that is, the sets of primes dividing $`|T|`$, $`|A|`$, and $`|B|`$ are the same. It was proved in \[BP98\], that $`T`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$ are as in \[BP98, Table I\]. It is easy to see that the only possibilities where $`|A|=|B|`$ are those in Table 2, and it follows that in these cases $`A`$ and $`B`$ are maximal subgroups of $`T`$.

(ii) In each line of Table 2, the groups $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not conjugate, but there is an outer automorphism $`\sigma \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ which swaps the conjugacy classes $`A^T`$ and $`B^T`$ (see the Atlas \[Atlas\] for $`T𝖠_6,𝖬_{12}`$, \[Kle87\] for $`T𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$, and \[BP98, page 155\] for $`T\mathrm{𝖲𝗉}_4(q)`$). By Lemma 5.1(i), the group $`A`$ is transitive in its conjugation action on the conjugacy class $`B^T`$ and $`B`$ is transitive on $`A^T`$. Thus there is an element $`aA`$ such that $`A^{\sigma a}=B`$ and $`B^{\sigma a}`$ is conjugate in $`T`$ to $`A`$. Since $`B`$ is transitive on $`A^T`$, there is an element $`bB`$ such that $`A^{\sigma ab}=B`$ and $`B^{\sigma ab}=A`$. Therefore we can take $`\vartheta `$ as $`\sigma `$ followed by the inner automorphism induced by the element $`ab`$.

(iii) Set $`C=AB`$. First we prove that $`C`$ is self-normalising in $`T`$. If $`T`$ is isomorphic to $`𝖠_6`$ or $`𝖬_{12}`$ then the information given in the Atlas \[Atlas\] shows that if $`N`$ is a proper subgroup of $`T`$ properly containing $`C`$, then $`N`$ is isomorphic to $`A`$ or $`B`$. In all cases $`A`$ and $`B`$ are simple, and so $`𝖭_T\left(C\right)=C`$. If $`T𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$ then we obtain from \[Kle87, 3.1.1(vi)\] that $`C𝖦_2(q)`$ and \[Kle87, 3.1.1(iii)\] yields that $`𝖭_T\left(C\right)=C`$.

Now let $`T\mathrm{𝖲𝗉}_4(q)`$ for $`q4`$, $`q`$ even. In this case $`AB\mathrm{𝖲𝗉}_2(q^2)2`$. Consider the fields $`𝔽_q`$ and $`𝔽_{q^2}`$ as subfields of the field $`𝔽_{q^4}`$ and consider the field $`𝔽_{q^4}`$ as a 4-dimensional vector space $`V`$ over $`𝔽_q`$. Let $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}:𝔽_{q^4}𝔽_{q^2}`$ and $`\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}:𝔽_{q^2}𝔽_q`$ denote the norm and the trace map, respectively. For the basic properties of these maps see \[LN97, 2.3\]. Using the fact that $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)=x^{q^2+1}`$ for all $`x𝔽_{q^4}`$, we obtain that $`x_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)`$ is an $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-quadratic form on $`V`$, such that $`(x,y)_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x+y)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(y)`$ is a non-degenerate, symmetric, $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-bilinear form with Witt defect 1 (we recall that $`q`$ is a 2-power). Hence $`Q=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}`$ is an $`𝔽_q`$-quadratic form $`V𝔽_q`$, and $`f(x,y)=Q(x+y)+Q(x)+Q(y)`$, is a non-degenerate, symmetric $`𝔽_q`$-bilinear form on $`V`$ with Witt defect 1. Then without loss of generality we may assume that $`T`$ is the stabiliser of $`f`$ in $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_4(q)`$, $`A`$ consists of elements of $`T`$ that are $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-semilinear, and $`B`$ is the stabiliser of $`Q`$.

For $`aV\{0\}=𝔽_{q^4}^{}`$, define the map $`s_a:xxa`$. Then it is well-known that $`S=\{s_a|a𝔽_{q^4}^{}\}`$ is a cyclic subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_4(q)`$. A generator of $`S`$ is called a Singer cycle; see Satz II.7.3 in Huppert \[Hup67\]. Let $`Z`$ denote the subgroup $`\{s_a|_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a)=1\}`$ of $`S`$. Since the restriction of $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}`$ to $`𝔽_{q^4}^{}`$ is an epimorphism $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}:𝔽_{q^4}^{}𝔽_{q^2}^{}`$, and $`Z`$ is the kernel of this epimorphism, we have that $`|Z|=q^2+1`$. If $`\sigma `$ is the Frobenius automorphism $`xx^q`$ of $`𝔽_{q^4}`$ then $`(s_a)^\sigma =s_{a^\sigma }`$ for all $`s_aS`$. Therefore $`\sigma `$ normalises $`S`$, and, since $`S`$ is cyclic, $`\sigma `$ also normalises $`Z`$. We claim that $`C=Z\sigma `$. Since $`T=AB`$, $`|C|=4(q^2+1)`$, and hence it suffices to prove that $`Z\sigma C`$. It is clear that $`\sigma `$ is $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-semilinear, and so $`\sigma A`$. Also

$$\begin{array}{c}Q(\sigma (x))=Q(x^q)=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}\left(x^q\right)\right)=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}\left(x\right)^q\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}\left(x\right)\right)=Q(x).\end{array}$$

Therefore $`\sigma B`$, and so $`\sigma C`$. Let $`a𝔽_{q^4}`$ such that $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a)=1`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}Q(s_a(x))=Q(xa)=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(xa)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a)\right)=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)\right)=Q(x).\end{array}$$

Thus $`s_aB`$. Since $`s_a`$ is also $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-linear, we obtain $`s_aC`$. Hence $`C=Z\sigma `$.

We will now prove that $`C`$ is self-normalising in $`T`$. First notice that $`q^2+1`$ is divisible by an odd prime $`r`$ such that $`r(q^21)`$. Hence there is a unique subgroup $`R`$ in $`Z`$ with order $`r`$. Since $`Z`$ is the commutator subgroup of $`C`$, it is a characteristic subgroup of $`C`$. Also $`R`$ is the unique subgroup of $`Z`$ with order $`r`$, and so $`R`$ is characteristic in $`Z`$. Thus $`R`$ is characteristic in $`C`$ and $`𝖭_T\left(C\right)`$ must normalise $`R`$. By Satz II.7.3 of Huppert \[Hup67\], $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_4(q)}\left(R\right)=SC=S\sigma `$.

Let us now determine how much of $`S\sigma `$ is contained in $`T`$. Since $`\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}`$ is additive,

$$\begin{array}{c}f(x^q,y^q)=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x^q+y^q)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x^q)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(y^q)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x+y)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(y)\right)^q\right)=f(x,y),\end{array}$$

and hence the cyclic subgroup $`\sigma `$ is in $`T`$. Using (3), we have $`(S\sigma )T=(ST)\sigma `$. Thus we need to compute $`ST`$. If $`x𝔽_{q^4}^{}`$ such that $`f(xa,xb)=f(a,b)`$ for all $`a,bV`$ then

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a+b)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(b)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(xa+xb)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(xa)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(xb)\right)\\ \hfill =\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)\left(_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a+b)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(a)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(b)\right)\right).\end{array}$$

As observed above,

$$(u,v)_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(u+v)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(u)+_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(v)$$

is a non-degenerate, symmetric, $`𝔽_{q^2}`$-bilinear form, and so it maps $`V\times V`$ onto $`𝔽_{q^2}`$. Hence (4) shows that $`y=_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)`$ has the property that $`\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}(yu)=\text{Tr}_{𝔽_{q^2}/𝔽_q}(u)`$ for all $`u𝔽_{q^2}`$, that is, $`yu+y^qu^q=u+u^q`$, for all $`u𝔽_{q^2}`$. Thus $`(yu+u)^q=yu+u`$. Hence $`u(y+1)𝔽_q`$ for all $`u𝔽_{q^2}`$, and consequently $`y=1`$. Thus if the map $`s_x`$ preserves $`f`$ then $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)=1`$. On the other hand from (4) it is clear that if $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}(x)=1`$ then multiplication by $`x`$ preserves $`f`$. Since the norm is a group epimorphism $`_{𝔽_{q^4}/𝔽_{q^2}}:𝔽_{q^4}^{}𝔽_{q^2}^{}`$ it follows that the elements of norm 1 form a cyclic group of order $`q^2+1`$. Hence $`ST=Z`$ and $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_4(q)}\left(C\right)T=C`$, that is, $`C`$ is self-normalising in $`T`$.

(iv) Finally we assume that $`T`$ is as in row 1, 2, or 4 of Table 2, and we prove the assertion that $`N_1=N_2`$, where $`N_1=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(C\right)`$ and $`N_2=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)`$. It is clear that $`N_2N_1`$, and so we only have to prove $`|N_1||N_2|`$. Since $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not conjugate in $`T`$, we have that $`N_2T=𝖭_T\left(A\right)𝖭_T\left(B\right)=AB=C`$, and, since $`C`$ is self-normalising in $`T`$, we also have $`N_1T=C`$. Thus it suffices to prove that $`TN_1TN_2`$, which follows immediately once we show that $`TN_2=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$. Since $`N_2`$ interchanges $`A`$ and $`B`$, we have that $`N_2=(𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(A\right)𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(B\right))\vartheta `$ where $`\vartheta \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ is as in (ii). If $`T𝖠_6`$ then $`|𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(A\right):𝖭_T\left(A\right)|=|𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(B\right):𝖭_T\left(B\right)|=2`$, and so $`TN_2=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ (see \[Atlas\]). If $`T𝖬_{12}`$ then $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(A\right)=𝖭_T\left(A\right)`$ and $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(B\right)=𝖭_T\left(B\right)`$, and so $`TN_2=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ (see \[Atlas\]). If $`T\mathrm{𝖲𝗉}_4(q)`$ then the field automorphism group $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ normalises $`A`$ and $`B`$. If $`\vartheta \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ is as in (ii), then $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)=T\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta `$, and so we obtain that $`TN_2=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$. Hence if $`T`$ is as in row 1, 2, or 4 of Table 2, then $`TN_2=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$, and $`TN_1TN_2`$ clearly holds. Thus $`N_1=N_2`$ follows. ∎

We recall a couple of facts about automorphisms of $`𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$. Let $`T=𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$. Then, as shown in \[Kle87, pp. 181–182\], $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)=\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the group of field automorphisms of $`T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a certain subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ containing the commutator subgroup $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)^{}`$. We also have $`\mathrm{𝖮𝗎𝗍}(T)=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)/T=\mathrm{\Theta }/T\times \mathrm{\Phi }T/T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }/T𝖲_m`$ where $`m=3`$ for even $`q`$, and $`m=4`$ for odd $`q`$. Let $`\pi :\mathrm{\Theta }𝖲_m`$ denote the natural epimorphism. The following lemma derives the information about $`𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$ similar to that in Lemma 5.2(iv).

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`T=𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$, let $`A`$, $`B`$ be subgroups of $`T`$ such that $`A,B\mathrm{\Omega }_7(q)`$ and $`AB=T`$, and set $`C=AB`$. Then the following hold.

1. We have $`\mathrm{\Phi }𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(A\right)𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(B\right)`$.
2. The groups $`(𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(A\right)\mathrm{\Theta })T/T`$ and $`(𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(B\right)\mathrm{\Theta })T/T`$ are conjugate to the subgroup in column X of \[Kle87, Results Matrix\], so that

$$\pi (𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(A\right)\mathrm{\Theta })\pi (𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(B\right)\mathrm{\Theta })_2\times _2.$$
3. We have $`\mathrm{\Phi }𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(C\right)`$ and $`(𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(C\right)\mathrm{\Theta })T/T`$ is conjugate to the subgroup in column VII of \[Kle87, Results Matrix\], so that $`\pi (𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(C\right)\mathrm{\Theta })𝖲_3`$ and

(5)
$$|𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(C\right):𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)|=3.$$
4. We have $`T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)=T\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta `$, where $`\vartheta `$ is as in Lemma 5.2(ii), so that $`\pi (𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)\mathrm{\Theta })/T_2`$.

###### Proof.

Claims (i)–(ii) can easily be verified by inspection of \[Kle87, Results Matrix\]. In (iii) we only need to prove (5). Let $`N_1=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(C\right)`$ and $`N_2=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)`$. Clearly $`N_2N_1`$. By \[Kle87, Proposition 3.1.1(vi)\], $`C𝖦_2(q)`$, and \[Kle87, Proposition 3.1.1(iii)\] shows that $`\pi (N_1\mathrm{\Theta })𝖲_3`$. From \[Kle87, Results Matrix\] we obtain $`\pi (N_2\mathrm{\Theta })=_2`$. As in the proof of Lemma 5.2, we have $`N_1T=N_2T=C`$. As $`T=\mathrm{ker}\pi `$ this implies $`N_1\mathrm{ker}\pi =N_2\mathrm{ker}\pi `$, and so $`|N_1\mathrm{\Theta }|=3|N_2\mathrm{\Theta }|`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }N_1N_2`$ we have $`N_1\mathrm{\Theta }=N_2\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$, and so $`|N_1|=3|N_2|`$, as required. In (iv) we notice that $`T\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)`$. On the other hand, (iii) implies that $`|T\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta |=|T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{A,B\}\right)|`$, hence equality follows. ∎

## 6. Innately transitive groups with a non-abelian, simple plinth

In this section we prove our second main theorem, namely Theorem 1.1, which is a consequence of the following result.

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`G`$ be an innately transitive permutation group on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a non-abelian, simple plinth $`T`$, let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$, and let $`W`$ be the stabiliser of $``$ in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`||3`$ and the following hold.

1. Suppose that $``$ is homogeneous. Then $`||=2`$, $`W`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗅𝗍}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`G`$, $`T`$, $`W`$, the subgroups $`K𝒦_\omega ()`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ are as in Table 3. In particular, the set $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ contains two isomorphic subgroups. Moreover, the group $`G`$ is quasiprimitive and $`T`$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $`G`$. Moreover exactly one of the following holds:

1. $`|\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)|=1`$;
    2. $`|\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)|=3`$, $`T`$ is as in row $`3`$ of Table 3, $`GT\mathrm{\Phi }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the group of field automorphisms of $`T`$.
2. Suppose that $`||=3`$. If $`W`$ is the stabiliser in $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $``$, then $`T`$, $`W`$, the elements of $`𝒦_\omega ()`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ are as in Table 4.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)`$. Then Proposition 2.1 implies that $`T_{()}=T`$. Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be the index of $``$, and let $`𝒦_\omega ()=\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ be the corresponding Cartesian system for $`T`$. Then the definition of $`𝒦_\omega ()`$ implies that if $`\mathrm{}3`$ then $`\{K_1,\mathrm{},K_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is a strong multiple factorisation of the finite simple group $`T`$. Strong multiple factorisations of finite simple groups are defined and classified in \[BP98\]; in particular it is proved that $`\mathrm{}3`$.

(a) If $`\mathrm{}=3`$ then \[BP98, Table V\] shows that $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$ have different sizes. Thus if $``$ is homogeneous then $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and the factorisation $`T=K_1K_2`$ is as in Lemma 5.2. Hence $`T`$, $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ are as in Table 3. The maximality of $`W`$ follows from Lemma 4.1.

Let us now prove that $`G`$ is quasiprimitive. As $`T`$ is transitive on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we have $`𝖢_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}(T)𝖭_T\left(T_\omega \right)/T_\omega `$; see \[DM96, Theorem 4.2A\]. On the other hand $`T_\omega =K_1K_2`$, and Lemma 5.2 shows that $`𝖭_T\left(K_1K_2\right)=K_1K_2=T_\omega `$. Hence $`𝖢_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}(T)=1`$, and so $`T`$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $`G`$. Hence $`G`$ is an almost simple quasiprimitive group acting on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Now we prove that the information given in the $`G`$-column of Table 3 is correct. Since $`T`$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $`G`$, we have that $`G`$ is an almost simple group and $`TG\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$. Let $`N=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{K_1,K_2\}\right)`$. Note that $`G=TG_\omega `$ and $`G_\omega N`$. On the other hand, $`N`$ has the property that, since $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not conjugate in $`T`$,

$$TN=𝖭_T\left(K_1\right)𝖭_T\left(K_2\right)=K_1K_2=T_\omega ,$$

and so the $`T`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be extended to $`TN`$ with point stabiliser $`N`$. Thus $`GTN`$. By Lemmas 5.2(iv) and 5.3(iv), for $`T𝖠_6`$, $`𝖬_{12}`$, $`𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$, and $`\mathrm{𝖲𝗉}_4(q)`$, we have $`TN=𝖯\mathrm{\Gamma }𝖫_2(9)`$, $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(𝖬_{12})`$, $`𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta `$ (where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the group of field automorphisms and $`\vartheta `$ is as in Lemma 5.2(ii)), and $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(\mathrm{𝖲𝗉}_4(q))`$, respectively. Hence the assertion follows.

Finally we prove the claim concerning $`|\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)|`$. Suppose that $`L_1,L_2T`$ is such that $`|L_1|=|L_2|`$, $`L_1L_2=T`$ and $`L_1L_2=T_\omega `$. By \[BP98\], the full factorisation $`T=K_1K_2`$ is unique up to equivalence, Lemma 5.1(ii) shows that there is an element $`\alpha \mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ such that $`\{K_1,K_2\}^\alpha =\{L_1,L_2\}`$, and so $`\alpha 𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(K_1K_2\right)`$. Lemma 5.2(iii) implies that if $`T`$ is as in row 1, 2, or 4 of Table 3 then $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{K_1,K_2\}\right)=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$ and so $`\{L_1,L_2\}=\{K_1,K_2\}^\alpha =\{K_1,K_2\}`$. Thus $`|\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)|=1`$ in these cases, as asserted.

Suppose now that $`T𝖯\mathrm{\Omega }_8^+(q)`$ for some $`q`$. Then we obtain from Lemma 5.3(iii) that $`|𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right):𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{K_1,K_2\}\right)|=3`$, and so the $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$-orbit containing $`\{K_1,K_2\}`$ has 3 elements, which gives rise to 3 different choices of Cartesian systems with respect to $`\omega `$. Let $`_1`$, $`_2`$, and $`_3`$ denote the corresponding Cartesian decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, such that $`=_1`$. We computed above that $`𝖢_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}(T)=1`$, and this implies that $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(T\right)=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In other words, $`N=𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(T\right)`$ is the largest subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ that extends the $`T`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`T`$ is a transitive subgroup of $`N`$, we have $`N=TN_\omega `$. As $`T_\omega `$ is a normal subgroup of $`N_\omega `$, it follows that $`NT𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$. On the other hand

$$|T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right):𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)|=|T:T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)|=|T:𝖭_T\left(T_\omega \right)|=|T:T_\omega |,$$

by Lemma 5.2(iii). This shows that the $`T`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be extended to $`T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$ with point stabiliser $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$. In other words $`T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$ is the largest subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ that extends the $`T`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The stabiliser of $`_1`$ in $`T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$ is $`T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{K_1,K_2\}\right)`$. Hence if $`G\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)`$ is such that $`TG`$ and $`G`$ leaves the Cartesian decomposition $`_1`$ invariant, then $`GT𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(\{K_1,K_2\}\right)=T\mathrm{\Phi }\vartheta `$, by Lemma 5.3(iii). If $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖣}(G)\{\}`$ then, $`G`$ leaves $`_1`$, $`_2`$, and $`_3`$ invariant. Therefore $`G`$ lies in the kernel of the action of $`T𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(T)}\left(T_\omega \right)`$ on $`\{_1,_2,_3\}`$. Hence $`GT\mathrm{\Phi }`$, as required.

(b) Suppose that $`||=3`$. Then $`\{K_1,K_2,K_3\}`$ is a strong multiple factorisation of $`T`$. Therefore using Table V in \[BP98\] we obtain that $`T`$, $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$, and the degree $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|=|T:K_1K_2K_3|`$ of $`G`$ are as in Table 4. ∎

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is now easy, because Theorem 6.1 implies that $`𝖢_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}(T)=1`$, and so $`𝖭_{\mathrm{𝖲𝗒𝗆}\mathrm{\Omega }}\left(T\right)`$ is an almost simple group with socle $`T`$. For the proof of Theorem 1.2, notice that $`W`$ is the full stabiliser of a Cartesian decomposition $``$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As $`GW`$, the Cartesian decomposition $``$ is also $`G`$-invariant. Hence Theorem 6.1 implies the required result.

## 7. Acknowledgments

This paper forms part of an Australian Research Council large grant project. We are grateful to Cai Heng Li for his valuable advice. We also wish to thank the anonymous referee for his or her many suggestions that much improved our exposition: in particular for recommending that we draw attention to Theorem 1.1, and for suggesting a new version of Lemma 3.1.


format: text

text:
# Generation of Entangled 𝑁-Photon States in a Two-Mode Jaynes–Cummings Model

## I Introduction

Entangled states are one of the building blocks in quantum information processing and non-locality tests Bouwmeester . They can be used, in the case of the electromagnetic field, to improve the sensitivity of interferometric measurements Yurke ; Hillery ; Brif ; Dowling , and may help to overcome the classical Rayleigh diffraction limit in quantum optical lithography Boto . A feasible way to generate such states is given by the atom-field interaction in the framework of one- or two-mode Jaynes–Cummings (JC) models Deb ; IkramZubairy ; Rauschenbeutel ; Solano ; Fiurasek ; Unanyan .

Here we consider the generation of entangled two-mode field states by different schemes inspired partly by Refs. Schleich ; Deb ; IkramZubairy . We let two-level atoms interact, one at a time, with two degenerate modes of a lossless cavity. Solving the corresponding JC model algebraically by an SU(2) transformation, we discuss the generation of entangled $`N`$-photon states of the general form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}c_k^{(N)}|Nk,k,$$
(1)
which comprises the maximally entangled Bell states

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|N,0\pm |0,N\right).$$
(2)
The field states are defined in terms of the usual two-mode Fock states $`|n_1,n_2:=|n_1_1|n_2_2`$, with $`n_1`$ ($`n_2`$) photons in mode one (two). The two modes have the same energy and are in resonance with the two-level atom. We solve the model algebraically by combining the two field modes into two quasi-modes of which only one enters in the interaction term, yielding an effective one-mode JC model Quattropani . Using its known solution and the transformation between mode and quasi-mode Fock states, the generation probabilities of the entangled states are found for three different schemes.

## II Algebraic Solution of the Two-Mode Jaynes-Cummings Model

The JC Hamiltonian for resonant interaction of a two-level atom ($`|e,|g`$) with two field modes ($`a_1,a_2`$) in the dipole and rotating wave approximation is given by $`H=H_0+H_{\text{int}}`$, where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _z+\mathrm{𝟏}}{2}}+\left(a_1^{}a_1+a_2^{}a_2\right)\mathrm{𝟏}\right),`$ (3)
$`H_{\text{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left(\sigma ^+\left(g_1a_1+g_2a_2\right)+\sigma ^{}\left(g_1^{}a_1^{}+g_2^{}a_2^{}\right)\right).`$ (4)
Here $`\sigma _z:=|ee||gg|`$, $`\sigma ^+:=|eg|`$, $`\sigma ^{}:=|ge|`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}=|ee|+|gg|`$ are operators for the two-level atom, $`g_i`$ is the coupling constant of the $`i`$th mode with the atom, and $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is the photon energy. We introduce the quasi-mode operators

$$A_1=\gamma _1a_1+\gamma _2a_2,A_2=\gamma _2^{}a_1+\gamma _1^{}a_2,$$
(5)
where $`\gamma _i:=g_i/g`$, and $`g:=\sqrt{|g_1|^2+|g_2|^2}`$. Equation (5) defines an SU(2) transformation of the mode operators $`a_1,a_2`$, leaving the commutation relations and the number-sum operator $`a_1^{}a_1+a_2^{}a_2=A_1^{}A_1+A_2^{}A_2`$ invariant. The transformed Hamiltonian then reads

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _z+\mathrm{𝟏}}{2}}+\left(A_1^{}A_1+A_2^{}A_2\right)\mathrm{𝟏}\right),`$ (6)
$`H_{\text{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}g\left(\sigma ^+A_1+\sigma ^{}A_1^{}\right),`$ (7)
representing a JC Hamiltonian for the quasi-mode $`A_1`$ decoupled from the non-interacting quasi-mode $`A_2`$. Since $`H_{\text{int}}`$ depends only on quasi-mode one and $`[H_0,H_{\text{int}}]=0`$, the time evolution operator $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}H_{\text{int}}t/\mathrm{})`$ in the interaction picture is the same as for a one-mode JC model. Expanding $`U`$ in the atom basis $`\{|e,|g\}`$

$$U=U_{ee}|ee|+U_{ge}|ge|+U_{eg}|eg|+U_{gg}|gg|,$$
(8)
the matrix elements $`U_{ab}(t)`$ are given by Zubairy

$`U_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\tau \sqrt{A_1^{}A_1+1}\right),U_{ge}=A_1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\tau \sqrt{A_1^{}A_1+1}\right)}{\text{i}\sqrt{A_1^{}A_1+1}}},`$
$`U_{eg}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\tau \sqrt{A_1^{}A_1+1}\right)}{\text{i}\sqrt{A_1^{}A_1+1}}}A_1,U_{gg}=\mathrm{cos}\left(\tau \sqrt{A_1^{}A_1}\right),`$
where $`\tau :=gt`$ is the dimensionless “interaction time”. The model can be solved in the usual way in terms of quasi-mode Fock states defined as the common eigenstates of $`A_1^{}A_1`$ and $`A_2^{}A_2`$. The complete solution is then found by giving the relation between the quasi-mode and the mode Fock states.

The quasi-mode operators $`A_i`$, $`A_i^{}`$, $`i=1,2`$, obey the same algebra as the mode operators $`a_i`$, $`a_i^{}`$, so that two-quasi-mode Fock states (denoted by a double-ket) can be defined by

$$|n_1,n_2:=\frac{A_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}A_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_2}}{\sqrt{n_1!n_2!}}|0,0.$$
(10)
To find the transformation between the two-mode Fock states $`|n_1,n_2`$ and the two-quasi-mode Fock states $`|n_1,n_2`$, we use Schwinger’s oscillator model Sakurai  and introduce angular momentum states $`|j,m`$ and $`|j,m`$, where $`j=(n_1+n_2)/2`$ and $`m=(n_1n_2)/2`$. In cases where it is not obvious, we shall write a subindex S on the state vectors to indicate the Schwinger angular momentum basis, e.g., $`|2,0=|1,1_\text{S}`$. Inserting Eq. (5) into Eq. (10) and identifying the two vacua $`|0,0`$ and $`|0,0`$, we obtain

$$|j,m:=\frac{\left(\gamma _1^{}a_1^{}+\gamma _2^{}a_2^{}\right)^{j+m}\left(\gamma _2a_1^{}+\gamma _1a_2^{}\right)^{jm}}{\sqrt{(j+m)!(jm)!}}|0,0.$$

Expanding the products, rearranging the terms Wigner  and using the definition of the Fock basis $`|n_1,n_2`$ in terms of $`a_1^{}`$ and $`a_2^{}`$, we obtain the important relation between the quasi-mode and the mode Fock bases

$`|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=j}{\overset{j}{}}}D_{m^{}m}^{(j)}(\phi ,\vartheta ,\chi )|j,m^{},`$ (11)
$`|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=j}{\overset{j}{}}}D_{m^{}m}^{(j)^{}}(\phi ,\vartheta ,\chi )|j,m^{}.`$ (12)
Here $`D_{m^{}m}^{(j)}(\phi ,\vartheta ,\chi )=\mathrm{exp}[\text{i}(m^{}\phi +m\chi )]d_{m^{}m}^{(j)}(\vartheta )`$ are the Wigner $`D`$-matrix elements of the SU(2) group Sakurai ; Wigner , with arguments determined by $`\phi =\phi _1\phi _2`$, $`\chi =\phi _1+\phi _2`$, $`\mathrm{cos}(\vartheta /2):=|\gamma _1|`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(\vartheta /2):=|\gamma _2|`$, and $`\gamma _i=|\gamma _i|\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\phi _i)`$. It follows that the mode and quasi-mode Fock states belonging to the same total number of photons, $`n_1+n_2=2j`$, are related by an irreducible rotation matrix of weight $`j`$ and with Euler angles determined solely by the interaction constants.

The action of $`U_{ab}`$ on the field states is easily calculated in the quasi-mode Fock basis

$`U_{ee}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+m+1}\right)|j,m,`$
$`U_{ge}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}\mathrm{sin}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+m+1}\right)|j+\frac{1}{2},m+\frac{1}{2},`$
$`U_{eg}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}\mathrm{sin}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+m}\right)|j\frac{1}{2},m\frac{1}{2},`$
$`U_{gg}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+m}\right)|j,m,`$ (13)
showing that $`U_{ee}`$ and $`U_{gg}`$ do not change the number of quasi-photons, whereas $`U_{ge}`$ ($`U_{eg}`$) act as creation (annihilation) operators of quasi-mode one. Using Eq. (11) and Eq. (12), we find for the action on the usual Fock states

$`U_{ee}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=j}{\overset{j}{}}}C_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )|j,m^{},`$
$`U_{ge}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=j\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{j+\frac{1}{2}}{}}}S_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )|j+\frac{1}{2},m^{},`$
$`U_{eg}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=j+\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{j\frac{1}{2}}{}}}\overline{S}_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )|j\frac{1}{2},m^{},`$
$`U_{gg}(\tau )|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=j}{\overset{j}{}}}\overline{C}_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )|j,m^{},`$ (14)
where we have introduced the following coefficients

$`C_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =j}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+\nu +1}\right)D_{m^{}\nu }^{(j)}D_{\nu m}^{(j)^{}},`$
$`S_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =j}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+\nu +1}\right)D_{m^{},\nu +\frac{1}{2}}^{(j+\frac{1}{2})}D_{\nu m}^{(j)^{}},`$
$`\overline{S}_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{i}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =j}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+\nu }\right)D_{m^{},\nu \frac{1}{2}}^{(j\frac{1}{2})}D_{\nu m}^{(j)^{}},`$
$`\overline{C}_{m^{}m}^j(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =j}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\tau \sqrt{j+\nu }\right)D_{m^{}\nu }^{(j)}D_{\nu m}^{(j)^{}}.`$ (15)
Given the above equations, we now have all the ingredients to calculate the time evolution of the density operator according to $`\rho (t)=U(t)\rho (0)U^{}(t)`$.

## III Generation of Entanglement in one Step

We start with the calculation of the probability to find at time $`\tau `$ the field state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ in Eq. (1), assuming an initial field state $`|\xi `$ and an atom entering the cavity in either the excited or ground state. The analytical calculation is straightforward. The initial field state is expanded according to

$$|\xi =\underset{n_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{n_1n_2}|n_1,n_2=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{^{}}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{jm}|j,m,$$
(16)
where the primed summation symbol indicates a sum over integer and half integer values of $`j`$. The expansion coefficients with respect to the Fock and Schwinger basis are related by $`b_{j+m,jm}=\stackrel{~}{b}_{j,m}`$. The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ is given in the Schwinger basis by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N=\underset{m=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m}|\frac{N}{2},m_\text{S},$$
(17)
with density operator $`\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_N\mathrm{\Psi }_N|`$. From the time-evolved initial states

$`U|e;\xi `$ $`=`$ $`U_{ee}|e;\xi +U_{ge}|g;\xi ,`$
$`U|g;\xi `$ $`=`$ $`U_{eg}|e;\xi +U_{gg}|g;\xi ,`$
we obtain the reduced density operator of the field by tracing out the atomic degrees of freedom: $`\rho _\text{F}^{(a)}(t)=\text{tr}_\text{A}(U(t)|a;\xi a;\xi |U^{}(t))`$, $`a=e`$ or $`g`$. The probability to find $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ at time $`t`$ follows from $`\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N}^{(a)}=\text{tr}(\rho _\text{F}^{(a)}(t)\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N})`$ and is given by

$`\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N}^{(e)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{\frac{N}{2}m}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m^{}}^{}C_{m^{}m}^{\frac{N}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2`$ (18)
$`+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m=\frac{N1}{2}}{\overset{(N1)/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{\frac{N1}{2}m}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m^{}}^{}S_{m^{}m}^{\frac{N1}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2`$
for the initial atom-field state $`|e;\xi `$, and by

$`\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N}^{(g)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{\frac{N}{2}m}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m^{}}^{}\overline{C}_{m^{}m}^{\frac{N}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2`$ (19)
$`+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m=\frac{N+1}{2}}{\overset{(N+1)/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{\frac{N+1}{2}m}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m^{}}^{}\overline{S}_{m^{}m}^{\frac{N+1}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2`$
for the initial state $`|g;\xi `$. It follows that in order to obtain non-vanishing probabilities at time $`\tau `$, the initial field state must contain at least one of the Fock states from the set

$`\{|N,0,|N1,1,\mathrm{},|0,N\}`$ (20)
$`\{|N1,0,|N2,1,\mathrm{},|0,N1\},`$
if the atom is initially in the excited state, or from the set

$`\{|N,0,|N1,1,\mathrm{},|0,N\}`$ (21)
$`\{|N+1,0,|N,1,\mathrm{},|0,N+1\},`$
if it is in the ground state.

For $`N=1`$ the set of contributing atom-field states according to Eq. (20) is

$$\{|e;1,0,|e;0,1\}\left\{|e;0,0\right\}$$
(22)
and according to Eq. (21)

$$\{|g;1,0,|g;0,1\}\{|g;2,0,|g;1,1,|g;0,2\}.$$
(23)
We illustrate the probabilities for the generation of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1^\pm =(|1,0\pm |0,1)/\sqrt{2}`$ in Fig. 1, where we have taken $`g_1=g_2`$, $`\phi _1=\phi _2=0`$ (real coupling constants).

The states shown on the right are just the initial atom-field states from Eqs. (22) and (23). The interesting case is $`|e;0,0`$, where the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1^+`$ is produced periodically with probability one at the times $`\tau _n=(n+1/2)/\pi `$, for $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$

Next we consider the creation of various Bell states, Eq. (2), resulting from the initial atom-field state $`|e;N,0=|e;\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}_\text{S}`$. We obtain from Eq. (18) the entangled $`N`$-photon field states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm `$ with probabilities

$$\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm }^{(e)}=\frac{1}{2}\left|C_{\frac{N}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}(\tau )\pm C_{\frac{N}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2,$$
(24)
as well as the entangled $`(N+1)`$-photon states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{N+1}^\pm `$ with probabilities

$$\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_{N+1}^\pm }^{(e)}=\frac{1}{2}\left|S_{\frac{N+1}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}(\tau )\pm S_{\frac{N+1}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}(\tau )\right|^2.$$
(25)
In the case of Eqs. (25) the Bell states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{N+1}^\pm `$ have no overlap with the initial field state $`|N,0`$. The probabilities at time $`\tau `$, however, may come close to one for some particular values of the coupling constants and interaction time. In this case we may say that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{N+1}^\pm `$ have been generated in a single step or single shot. This property of the two-mode JC model can be understood if we think of the atom (re)emitting photons into and (re)absorbing photons from the two modes many times during the interaction time $`\tau `$.

## IV Conditional Generation

Next we present a conditional scheme for the generation of $`N`$-photon entangled states starting with an empty cavity Deb ; IkramZubairy . The scheme implies sending consecutively atoms in the excited state through a two-mode cavity and detecting them in the ground state. We start with an initial atom-field state $`|e;0,0=|e;0,0_\text{S}`$ and let the first atom interact for a time $`\tau _1`$. By using Eq. (II) we obtain the state

$$U(\tau _1)|e;0,0_\text{S}=\mathrm{cos}(\tau _1)|e;0,0_\text{S}\text{i}\mathrm{sin}(\tau _1)|g;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}_\text{S}.$$

Detecting the atom in the ground state leaves the field in the state $`|\chi _1=K_1(\text{i})\mathrm{sin}(\tau _1)|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}_\text{S}`$, where $`K_1=\left|\mathrm{sin}(\tau _1)\right|^1\mathrm{exp}(\text{i}\alpha _1)`$ is a normalization constant. By choosing the phase $`\alpha _1`$ appropriately, the factor entering the normalized state may be set equal to one, yielding the state $`|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}_\text{S}`$. Proceeding this way the field state obtained after $`N`$ conditional steps is simply given by

$$|\chi _N=|\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}_\text{S}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}D_{\frac{N}{2}k,\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}(\phi ,\vartheta ,\chi )|Nk,k,$$
(26)
where we have used Eq. (11) and Fock-state notation on the r.h.s. This is precisely a state of the form given in Eq. (1) with coefficients determined by the Wigner rotation matrix elements. Since these elements depend solely on the coupling constants, the generated entangled state is sensitive to their magnitudes and phases. The state in Eq. (26) corresponds to the quasi-mode Fock state $`|N,0`$, implying that each conditional step generates one photon in quasi-mode one. The generation probabilities of the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm `$ after $`N`$ conditional steps are given by

$`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_N\chi _N\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m}^{}D_{m\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}\right|^2,`$ (27)
$`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm \chi _N\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|D_{\frac{N}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}\pm D_{\frac{N}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}\right|^2.`$ (28)
We shall show that the probability to detect the atoms $`N`$ times consecutively in the ground state is a rapidly decaying function of $`N`$. But, as discussed below, it is not essential to rely on this assumption. Actually, it is sufficient to detect them in a sequence of $`n(N)`$ steps $`N`$ times in the ground state.

## V Non-Conditional Generation

In the following we consider a non-conditional scheme. We start with an empty cavity and send a sequence of excited atoms through it without detecting their final states. The reduced density operator of the field after the passage of the first atom (interaction time $`\tau _1`$) is given by

$`\rho _\text{F}^{(1)}(\tau _1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\tau _1)|0,0_\text{S}0,0|+\mathrm{sin}^2(\tau _1)|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}_\text{S}\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}|`$
and serves as the “initial” field configuration for the second excited atom. Proceeding this way, the reduced density operator of the field after $`n`$ steps turns out to be of the form

$$\rho _\text{F}^{(n)}(\{\tau _n\})=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n/2}{^{}}}p_j^{(n)}(\{\tau _n\})|j,j_\text{S}j,j|,$$
(29)
where the coefficients $`p_j^{(n)}`$ are given recursively by

$`p_0^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\tau _n\right)p_0^{(n1)},`$
$`p_j^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\tau _n\sqrt{2j+1}\right)p_j^{(n1)}+\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\tau _n\sqrt{2j}\right)p_{j\frac{1}{2}}^{(n1)},`$
$`p_{n/2}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\tau _n\sqrt{n}\right)p_{(n1)/2}^{(n1)},`$ (30)
for $`1/2j(n1)/2`$ and $`p_0^{(0)}=1`$. The argument $`\{\tau _n\}`$ stands for all interaction times $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)`$ of the $`n`$ steps. Equation (29), which is obviously true for $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ (see Eq. (31)), can be proven by induction.

The coefficients $`p_j^{(n)}`$ in Eq. (29) are the probabilities to find the field after $`n`$ non-conditional steps in the quasi-mode state $`|j,j_\text{S}`$. In particular $`p_0^{(n)}=\mathrm{cos}^2(\tau _1)\mathrm{cos}^2(\tau _2\sqrt{2})\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^2(\tau _n\sqrt{n})`$ and $`p_{n/2}^{(n)}=\mathrm{sin}^2(\tau _1)\mathrm{sin}^2(\tau _2\sqrt{2})\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}^2(\tau _n\sqrt{n})`$ correspond to the cases where in $`n`$ steps the initially excited atoms emerge $`n`$ times in the excited and ground state, respectively. The intermediate $`p_j^{(n)}`$’s correspond to the cases where the $`n`$ atoms emerge $`2j`$ times in the ground state and $`n2j`$ times in the excited state, irrespective of the order of appearance. The coefficient $`p_j^{(n)}`$ consists of a sum of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2j}\right)`$ terms, each of which corresponds to a particular sequence of $`|g`$’s and $`|e`$’s contributing, respectively, a sine squared and cosine squared factor. There are altogether $`2^n`$ terms in Eq. (29). All this is easily seen by giving $`\rho _\text{F}^{(2)}`$ as an example:

$`\rho _\text{F}^{(2)}=\mathrm{cos}^2\tau _1\mathrm{cos}^2\tau _2|0,0_\text{S}0,0|`$ (31)
$`+(\mathrm{cos}^2\tau _1\mathrm{sin}^2\tau _2+\mathrm{sin}^2\tau _1\mathrm{cos}^2(\tau _2\sqrt{2}))|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}_\text{S}\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}|`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\tau _1\mathrm{sin}^2(\tau _2\sqrt{2})|1,1_\text{S}1,1|.`$
Here the four terms correspond to the final state sequences ($`e`$,$`e`$), ($`e`$,$`g`$), ($`g`$,$`e`$), and ($`g`$,$`g`$).

The states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm `$ are generated in a non-conditional $`n`$-step process with probabilities

$`\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{\frac{N}{2}}^{(n)}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m=\frac{N}{2}}{\overset{N/2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\frac{N}{2}m}^{}D_{m\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}\right|^2,`$ (32)
$`\rho _{\mathrm{\Psi }_N^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_{\frac{N}{2}}^{(n)}\left|D_{\frac{N}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}\pm D_{\frac{N}{2}\frac{N}{2}}^{(\frac{N}{2})}\right|^2,`$ (33)
which are the conditional probabilities found before, multiplied by the probability $`p_{N/2}^{(n)}`$. Here the interaction times must be chosen such that $`p_{N/2}^{(n)}0`$, which amounts to control the $`n`$ parameters $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)`$. The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ can be generated in a minimum number of $`n=N`$ steps with probability $`p_{N/2}^{(N)}`$ which, however is a rapidly decaying function of $`N`$.

In the non-conditional scheme all field states $`|j,j_\text{S}=|2j,0`$ for $`j=0,1/2,\mathrm{},n/2`$ are produced, Eq. (29). On the contrary, in the conditional scheme only the entangled $`N`$-photon state $`|N,0`$, Eq. (26), is generated, if in $`n`$ steps $`N`$ atoms are detected in the ground state. To produce $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ it is, therefore, not crucial that the atoms have been detected $`N`$ times consecutively in their ground state. Any sequence of ground and excited states containing $`N`$ times the ground state will do it. Finally, we note that there is a particular choice of the interaction time of the $`\mathrm{}`$th atom, given by $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}=\pi /(2\sqrt{\mathrm{}})`$ for which both, the conditional and non-conditional scheme give (with probability one) the same entangled state $`|N,0`$ in Eq. (26).

## VI Conclusion

To conclude, we have solved the two-mode JC model algebraically by reducing it to an effective one quasi-mode JC model. The mode and quasi-mode picture are unitarily related by an SU(2) transformation. The solution found is used to discuss three different schemes for the generation of entangled states of the two field modes. To generate entangled $`N`$-photon states in a single step the initial state must contain at least $`N1`$ photons and an excited atom. Starting from the vacuum we need at least $`nN`$ steps to produce pure (mixed) field states in the conditional (non-conditional) scheme presented.

###### Acknowledgements.

C.W. acknowledges helpful discussions with H.D. Dahmen and thanks R.J. Glauber and H. Walther for their interest and encouragement expressed at ICAP 2002.


text:
# 1 Intoduction

## 1 Intoduction

In the Deutsch ’s book  the sketch of structure of physical reality named Multiverse which is set of the parallel universes is given. Correct description of the Multiverse can be done only within the framework of the quantum theory.

In this article a sketch of formal theory and topos-theoretic models of the Deutsch multiverse are given (see more in ).

We wish to preserve the framework of the mathematical apparatus of the 4-dimensional General theory of Relativity, and so we shall consider the Universe as concrete 4-dimensional Lorentz manifold $`<^4,g^{(4)}>`$ (named space-time).

## 2 Formal theory of Multiverse

We construct the theory of Multiverse as formal theory $`𝒯`$ which is maximally similar to the General theory of Relativity, i.e. as theory of one 4-dimensional universe, but other parallel universes must appear under costruction of models of formal theory.

The basis of our formal theory $`𝒯`$ is the Kock-Lawvere Synthetic Differential Geometry (SDG) .

It is important to say that SDG has no any set-theoretic model because Lawvere-Kock axiom is incompatible with Law of excluded middle. Hence we shall construct formal theory of Multiverse on base of the intuitionistic logic. Models for this theory are smooth topos-theoretic models and for stheir description the usual classical logic is used.

In SDG the commutative ring $``$ is used instead of real field $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$. The ring $``$ must satisfy the following

Lawvere-Kock axiom. Let $`D=\{x:x^2=0\}`$. Then

$$(f^D)!(a,b)\times dD(f(d)=a+bd).$$

and some other axioms (see in \[4, Ch.VII\].).

Ring $``$ includes real numbers from $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ and has new elements named infinitesimals belonging to ”sets”

$$D=\{d:d^2=0\},\mathrm{},D_k=\{d:d^{k+1}=0\},\mathrm{}$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }=\{x:f(x)=0,\text{all}fm_{\{0\}}^g\},$$

where $`m_{\{0\}}^g`$ is ideal of smooth functions having zero germ at 0, i.e. vanishing in a neighbourhood of 0.

We have

$$DD_2\mathrm{}D_k\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

We can construct Riemmanian geometry for four-dimensional (formal) manifolds $`<^4,g^{(4)}>`$. These manifolds are basis for the Einstein theory of gravitation .

We postulate that multiverse is four-dimensional space-time in SDG, i.e. is a formal Lorentz manifold $`<^4,g^{(4)}>`$ for which the Einstein field equations are held:

$$R_{ik}^{(4)}\frac{1}{2}g_{ik}^{(4)}(R^{(4)}2\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{ik}.$$
(1)
A solution of these equations is 4-metric $`g^{(4)}(x),`$ $`x`$.

Below we consider the physical consequences of our theory in so called well-adapted smooth topos models of the form $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$ which contain as full subcategory the category of smooth manifolds $``$.

## 3 Smooth topos models of multiverse

Let $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}`$ be dual category for category of finitely generated $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-rings. It is called category of loci . The objects of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}`$ are finitely generated $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-rings, and morphisms are reversed morphisms of category of finitely generated $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-rings.

The object (locus) of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}`$ is denoted as $`\mathrm{}A`$, where $`A`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-ring. Hence, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}`$-morphism $`\mathrm{}A\mathrm{}B`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-homomorphism $`BA`$.

A finitely generated $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-ring $`\mathrm{}A`$ is isomorphic to ring of the form $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n)/I`$ (for some natural number $`n`$ and some ideal $`I`$ of finitely generated functions).

Category $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$ is topos . We consider topos $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$ as model of formal theory of multiverse.

With the Deutsch point of view the transition to concrete model of formal theory is creation of virtual reality 111This thought belongs to Artem Zvyagintsev.. Physical Reality that we perceive was called by Deutsch Multiverse 222Multiverse = many (multi-) worlds; universe is one (uni) world. . Physical Reality is also virtual reality which was created our brain \[1, p.140\].

A model of multiverse is generator of virtual reality which has some repertoire of environments. Generator of virtual reality creates environments and we observe them. Explain it.

Under interpretation $`i:\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}𝒯`$ of formal multiverse theory $`𝒯`$ in topos $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{𝐨𝐩}}}`$ the objects of theory, for example, ring $``$, power $`^{}`$ and so on are interpreted as objects of topos, i.e. functors $`F=i()`$, $`F^F=i(^{})`$ and so on. Maps, for example, $``$, $`^{}`$ are now morphisms of topos $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$, i.e. natural transformations of functors: $`FF`$, $`FF^F`$.

Finelly, under interpretation of language of formal multiverse theory we must interpret elements of ring $``$ as ”elements” of functors $`F\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$. In other words we must give interpretation for relation $`r`$. It is very difficult problem because functor $`F`$ is defined on category of loci $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}`$; its independent variable is arbitrary locus $`\mathrm{}A`$, and dependent variable is a set $`F(\mathrm{}A)\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$. To solve this problem we consider generalized elements $`x_\mathrm{}AF`$ of functor $`F`$.

Generalized element $`x_\mathrm{}AF`$, or element $`x`$ of functor $`F`$ at stage $`\mathrm{}A`$, is called an element $`xF(\mathrm{}A)`$.

Now we element $`r`$ interpret as generalized element $`i(r)_\mathrm{}AF`$, where $`F=i()`$. We have such elements so much how much loci. Transition to model $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$ causes ”reproduction” of element $`r`$. It begins to exist in infinite number of variants $`\{i(r):i(r)_\mathrm{}AF,\mathrm{}A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}\}`$.

Note that since 4-metric $`g^{(4)}`$ is element of object $`^{^4\times ^4}`$ then ”intuitionistic” 4-metric begins to exist in infinite number of variants $`i(g)^{(4)}_\mathrm{}Ai(^{^4\times ^4})`$. Denote such variant as $`i(g)^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)`$.

For simplification of interpretation we shall operate with objects of models $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$. In other words, we shall write $`g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)`$ instead of $`i(g)^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)`$.

Every variant $`g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)`$ of 4-metric $`g^{(4)}`$ satisfies to ”own” Einstein equations

$$R_{ik}^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)\frac{1}{2}g_{ik}^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)[R^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{}A)]=$$

$$=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{ik}(\mathrm{}A).$$

(Constants $`c,G`$ can also have different values at different stages $`\mathrm{}A`$).

It follows from theory that when $`\mathrm{}A=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^m)`$ then

$$g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)=[g_\mathrm{}A^{^4\times ^4}]g_{ik}^{(4)}(x^0,\mathrm{},x^3,a)dx^idx^k,$$

$$a=(a^1,\mathrm{},a^m)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^m.$$

Four-dimensional metric $`g_{ik}^{(4)}(x^0,\mathrm{},x^3,a)`$ we extend to (4+m)-metric in space $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{4+m}`$

$$g_{AB}^{(4+m)}dx^Adx^B$$

$$g_{ik}^{(4)}(x^0,\mathrm{},x^3,a)dx^idx^kda^{1^2}\mathrm{}da^{m^2},$$
(2)
We get $`(4+m)`$-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian geometry $`<\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{4+m},g_{AB}^{(4+m)}>`$.

Symbolically procedure of creation of many-dimensional variants of space-time geometry by means of intuitionistic 4-geometry $`<^4,g^{(4)}>`$ one can represent in the form of formal sum

$$g^{(4)}=c_0\underset{\text{4-geometry}}{\underset{}{[g^{(4)}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{^4\times ^4}]}}+$$

$$+c_1\underset{\text{5-geometry}}{\underset{}{[g^{(4)}_{\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^1)}^{^4\times ^4}]}}+\mathrm{}$$

$$\mathrm{}+c_{n4}\underset{\text{n-geometry}}{\underset{}{[g^{(4)}_{\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{n4})}^{^4\times ^4}]}}+\mathrm{},$$

where coefficients $`c_m`$ are taked from the field of complex numbers.

Because number of stages is infinite, we must write integral instead of sum:

$$g^{(4)}=\underset{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}}{}𝒟[\mathrm{}A]c(\mathrm{}A)[g^{(4)}_{\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{n4})}^{^4\times ^4}].$$
(3)
Use denotations of quantum mechanics 333Dirac denotations: $`|P=\psi (\xi )\psi (\xi )`$; in given case $`\psi (\xi )`$ is $`g^{(4)}`$ (representative of state $`|P`$), and $`|P`$ is $`|g^{(4)}`$ \[6, p.111-112\].:

$$g^{(4)}|g^{(4)},[g^{(4)}_{\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{n4})}^{^4\times ^4}]|g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A).$$

Then (3) is rewrited in the form

$$|g^{(4)}=\underset{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}}{}𝒟[\mathrm{}A]c(\mathrm{}A)|g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A).$$
(4)
Consequently, formal the Lawvere-Kock 4-geometry $`<^4,g^{(4)}>`$ is infinite sum

$$^4=\underset{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}}{}𝒟[\mathrm{}A]c(\mathrm{}A)_\mathrm{}A^4$$

of classical many-dimensional pseudo-Riemmanian geometries $`_\mathrm{}A^4=`$ $`=<\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^{4+m},g_{AB}^{(4+m)}(x,a)>`$ every of which contains the foliation of 4-dimensional parallel universes (leaves) (under fixing $`a=const`$). Geometrical properties of these universes as it was shown in  to be different even within the framework of one stage $`\mathrm{}A`$.

Now we recall about environments of virtual reality which must appear under referencing to model of multiverse, in this instance, to model $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$. This model is generator of virtual reality. It is not difficult to understand that generalised element $`|g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)`$ is metric of concrete environment (=hyperspace $`_\mathrm{}A^4`$) with ”number” $`\mathrm{}A`$. In other words, study of any object of theory $`𝒯`$ at stage $`\mathrm{}A`$ is transition to one of the environments from repertoire of virtual reality generator $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$.

## 4 The Gödel-Deutsch Multiverse

As example of multiverse we consider cosmological solution of Kurt Gödel

$$g_{ik}^{(4)}=\alpha ^2\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& e^{x^1}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ e^{x^1}& 0& e^{2x^1}/2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
This metric satisfies the Einstein equations (1) with energy-momentum tensor of dust matter

$$T_{ik}=c^2\rho u_iu_k,$$

if

$$\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^2}\rho ,\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}=\frac{4\pi G\rho }{c^2}.$$
(6)
Take

$$\alpha =\alpha _0+d,\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\lambda ,\rho =\rho _0+\varrho ,$$
(7)
where $`d,\lambda ,\varrho D`$ are infinitesimals and substitute these in (6). We get

$$\frac{1}{(\alpha _0+d)^2}=\frac{1}{\alpha _0^2}\frac{2d}{\alpha _0^3}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^2}(\rho _0+\varrho ),$$

$$2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+2\lambda =\frac{1}{\alpha _0^2}+\frac{2d}{\alpha _0^3},\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\lambda =\frac{4\pi G\rho _0}{c^2}\frac{4\pi G\varrho }{c^2}.$$

Suppose that $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho _0\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$ are satisfied to relations (6). Then

$$\lambda =\frac{4\pi G}{c^2}\varrho ,d=\frac{4\pi G\alpha _0^3}{c^2}\varrho .$$

Under interpretation in smooth topos $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{L}^{op}}`$ infinitesimal $`\varrho D`$ at stage $`\mathrm{}A=C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^m)/I`$ is class of smooth functions of the form $`\varrho (a)modI`$, where $`[\varrho (a)]^2I`$ \[4, p.77\].

Consider the properties of the Gödel-Deutsch multiverse at stage $`\mathrm{}A=`$ $`\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})/(a^4)`$ 444Here $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_k)`$ is ideal of ring $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n)`$ generated dy functions $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_kC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n)`$, i.e. having the form $`_{i=1}^kg_if_i`$, where $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_kC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n)`$ are arbitrary smooth functions., where $`a\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$. Obviously that it is possible to take infinitesimal of form $`\varrho (a)=a^2`$. Multiverse at this stage is 5-dimensional hyperspace. This hyperspace contains a foliation, leaves of which are defined by the equation $`a=const`$. The leaves are parallel universes in hyperspace (environment) $`_\mathrm{}A^4`$ with metric $`g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)=g_{ik}^{(4)}(x,a)`$ defined formulas (5), (7). Density of dust matter $`\rho =\rho _0+\varrho (a)`$ grows from classical value $`\rho _0210^{31}`$ g/cm3 to $`+\mathrm{}`$ under $`a\pm \mathrm{}`$. Cosmological constant grows also infinitely to $`\mathrm{}`$. Hence parallel universes have different from our Universe physical properties.

At stage $`\mathrm{}A=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})/(a^2)`$ $`\varrho (a)=a`$ and $`\rho =\rho _0+\varrho (a)\mathrm{}`$ under $`a\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`\rho `$ is not phisically interpreted (we have ”exotic” matter with negative density).

Finally, at stage $`\mathrm{𝟏}=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})/(a)`$ all $`\varrho (a)=d(a)=\lambda (a)=0`$, i.e. we have classical the Gödel universe.

## 5 The Friedman-Deutsch Multiverse

Now we consider closed Friedman model of Universe, which in coordinates $`(x^0,\chi ,\theta ,\phi ),x^0=ct,`$ has the following metric

$$ds^2=g_{ik}^{(4)}dx^idx^k=$$

$$=c^2dt^2R^2(t)[d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)].$$
(8)
This metric satisfies the Einstein equations with energy-momentum tensor of dust matter

$$T_{ik}=c^2\rho u_iu_k,$$

under the condition that

$$\rho R^3(t)=const=\frac{M}{2\pi ^2}$$
(9)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}R=R_0(1\mathrm{cos}\eta ),\hfill \\ t=\frac{R_0}{c}(\zeta \mathrm{sin}\eta ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
$$R_0=\frac{2GM}{3\pi c^3},$$
(11)
where $`M`$ is sum of body mass in 3-space \[10, p.438\].

Let

$$G=k+d,dD$$
(12)
where $`k=6,6710^8[CGS]`$ is classical gravitational constant.

At stage $`\mathrm{𝟏}=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})/(a)`$ $`d(a)=0`$, i.e. we have classical Friedman Universe.

Consider the state of the Friedman-Deutsch multiverse at stage $`\mathrm{}A=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R})/(a^4),`$ where $`a\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$. Obviously that it is possible to take infinitesimal of form $`\varrho (a)=a^2`$. Multiverse at this stage is 5-dimensional hyperspace. This hyperspace contains a foliation, leaves of which are defined by the equation $`a=const`$. The leaves are parallel universes in hyperspace (environment) $`R_\mathrm{}A^4`$ with metric $`g^{(4)}(\mathrm{}A)=g_{ik}^{(4)}(x,a)`$ defined formulas (8)-(11).

Radius of ”Universe” with number $`a=const`$ and dust density as it follows from (9) are equal to

$$R=\frac{2}{3\pi c^3}(k+a^2)(1\mathrm{cos}\eta ),$$

$$\rho (a)=\frac{27\pi c^3}{16k^3M^2(1\mathrm{cos}\eta )^3}\left(1\frac{3}{k}d(a)\right).$$

So under $`d=a^2`$ the radius of parallel universes with numbers $`|a|+\mathrm{}`$ grows to $`+\mathrm{}`$. The dust density $`\rho (a)`$ will decreas, then $`\rho (a)`$ is crossing zero and becomes negative, $`\rho (a)\mathrm{}`$ under $`|a|+\mathrm{}`$. All this says that parallel universes can have a physical characteristics which are absolutely different from characteristics of our Universe.

## 6 Transitions between parallel hyperspaces

Change of stage $`\mathrm{}A`$ on stage $`\mathrm{}B`$ is morphism between two stages

$$\mathrm{}B\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}\mathrm{}A.$$

When $`\mathrm{}A=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n)`$ and $`\mathrm{}B=\mathrm{}C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^m).`$ Then transition $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ between stages gives smooth mapping

$$\varphi :\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^mba\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^n,$$

$$a=\varphi (b).$$

Hence if constants $`G=G(a),\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(a)`$ at stage $`\mathrm{}A`$, then we have at new stage $`\mathrm{}B`$ $`G=G(\varphi (b)),\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi (b))`$. In other words, dependence of physical constants on exra-dimensions is transformated in dependence of physical constants on some exra-field $`\varphi `$. This fact can be useful in connection with investigations, concerning introduction effective fravitational constant depending on some scalar field (see, for example ).

## 7 Conclusion

As it follows from sections 4,5 the source of multiplicity of objects and appearance of parallel hyperspaces are the physical constants (for example, $`\rho ,\mathrm{\Lambda },G`$). Reason this in following. Traditionally we consider physical constants as real numbers. It means impossibility of findings of their exact values. So we musr take that physical constant $`K=K_0+d`$, where $`d`$ is an infinitesimal. The last gives multiplicity.


text:
# Bose-Einstein Correlations as correlations of fluctuations

## Acknowledgments

One of us (GW) would like to thank the Bogolyubow-Infeld Program (JINR, Dubna) for financial help in attending the XXXII ISMD conference where the above material has been presented.