text:
# Beamstrahlung at the NLC

## I Introduction.

There has been a lot of simulation and theoretical work about beamstrahlung at future linear colliders over the years, yet that work only scratches the surface of beamstrahlung phenomenology. Beamstrahlung is of interest to the particle physicist, who needs to know the energy distribution of colliding beam particles at collision time (dL/dE), and to the accelerator physicist who must make the beams collide and then steer the spent beams out of the Interaction Region.

In a series of recent papers we have made clear that recovering complete information on low energy beamstrahlung effectively recovers most of the available information about the BBC in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders$`[13]`$. A large-angle infrared beamstrahlung detector is being built for CESRdetgen .

As remarked in Ref.luckwald , there are seven transverse degrees of freedom ($`dof`$) in the BBC that may decrease luminosity and need to be monitored (Fig. 1). In the following the discussion is restricted, without loss of generality, to the four BBC presented in Fig. 2.

Without the accurate measurement and monitoring of so many $`dof`$, even the most accurate of BBC simulations is of limited usefulness. For example, if the bunches collide perfectly (Fig. 2a) the particles in the center of each beam will have maximal fractional luminosity and will produce zero beamstrahlung. If the two beams are offset by 1.5 sigma (Fig. 2b), the particles in the center of each beam will have close to maximal fractional luminosity and close to maximal beamstrahlung. The dL/dE curve is vastly different in the two cases, yet both BBC types contribute usable amounts of luminosity.

The idea underlying the usage of low energy beamstrahlung is actually a simple one. Given the four Maxwell equations,

$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \rho ,`$
$`\times 𝐁{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐄}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}𝐉,`$
$`\times 𝐄+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
the beams are the currents, and beamstrahlung is the emitted EM field. The equations describe the correlation between currents and fields. We know the correlations, and we measure the field to figure out the currents. The fields are vectors, and that is why is necessary to measure their components. Fig. 3 shows the beamstrahlung polarization components for each beam, corresponding to the four BBC sketched in Fig. 2.

In practice, it is difficult to measure the polarization of photons of energy higher than UV, and that is why we limit ourselves to the study of low energy beamstrahlung in the present paper. Coherent beamstrahlung is available for observation in the microwave region, however in that case the polarization information is not meaningful (see Section IV).

This paper is written with three goals in mind:

1. to make it clear that large angle incoherent beamstrahlung (IB) is a necessary feature, if polarization information is to be had (Section II). Because large angle observation is also used for background suppression at CESR, background suppression at the NLC is also briefly discussed;
2. to discuss the possibility of measuring beam jitter at the NLC (Section III);
3. to introduce coherent beamstrahlung (CB), its properties and its potential (Section IV).

## II Low energy beamstrahlung phenomenology.

Some points need to be addressed in regard to the usage of this technique at the NLC. We show that polarization information at the NLC is as pristine as at CESR. We also discuss separation of signal and backgrounds and point out that there are four proposed methods to improve the S/B ratio.

Beamstrahlung yields suffer no signficant quantum corrections at low energies, making classical formulae precise enough to be usable. The only quantum corrections arise from those beam particles which, having lost much of their energy through beamstrahlung, have special trajectories through the other beam. These corrections (Table I) are at the percent level and can be ignored throughout this paper.

A single bunch crossing will generate approximately 1012 visible photons at the NLC, a good statistics to work with. Very low energy photons have a much larger angular spread than the usual $`1/\gamma `$ angle. The total beamstrahlung power at the NLC is of order 1MW, a rate at which any kind of instrumentation is unlikely to survive. The radiation is mostly confined to a spot of order 1 mrad.

The Maxwell equations point out the need to measure the polarization of beamstrahlung. In the classical description of synchrotron radiation (SR), and therefore of beamstrahlung, the polarization is mostly carried by high energy photons (of energy comparable to the critical energy)jackson . Even at CESR the polarization of $``$10-keV X-rays can not be measured. At the NLC, a precision measurement of the polarization of 100-1000 GeV gamma rays is probably out of the question.

Whether one computes visible beamstrahlung by using the classical formulaejackson  or by using the “short-magnet” formulaecoisson , the polarization content of the radiation, integrated over the solid angle, is virtually zero (Table I). Ref.approxi  discusses the validity of the two approaches (Ref.jackson  versus Ref.coisson ) in different regions of radiation phase space. By applying those formulae, we find that the “short magnet” approximation is most accurate for all visible beamstrahlung at the NLC, regardless of angle. It is used to produce the numbers in Table I.

However, Ref.coisson  shows that, if an electron is subject to a transverse force, its large angle radiation is unpolarized as a whole but its azimuthal pattern at large angles exhibits 100% linear polarization at 8 nodes (for an elementary derivation of these equations, see Ref.luckwald ):

$`I_{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`I_0(\theta ,\omega )\mathrm{cos}^2(2\varphi ),`$ (1)
$`I_{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`I_0(\theta ,\omega )\mathrm{sin}^2(2\varphi ),`$ (2)
where $`I_{}`$ and $`I_{}`$ are the polarization components w.r.t. to the bending force. $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle with respect to the transverse force. At nodes equal to a multiple of $`\pi /4`$ the polarization is 100%, either parallel or perpendicular to the bending force.

In practice, the beams are 3-dimensional and flat (horizontal transverse size much larger than the vertical), with electric charge moving both horizontally and vertically as the BBC progresses. A fixed reference frame has to be chosen (naturally, one chooses the horizontal and vertical directions) and the spacetime charge distributon of the beams always generates some particle deflection along each of the axes. Eqs. (1-2) become

$`I_{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`I(\theta ,\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{U_x\mathrm{cos}^2(2\varphi )+U_y\mathrm{sin}^2(2\varphi )}{U_0}},`$ (3)
$`I_{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`I(\theta ,\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{U_x\mathrm{sin}^2(2\varphi )+U_y\mathrm{cos}^2(2\varphi )}{U_0}}.`$ (4)
The $`U`$ factors are form factors describing the integral over the beam charge distribution. The normalizing factor $`U_0`$ is introduced, which is the form factor (for either component) when the BBC is an exact overlap (Fig. 2a))luckwald . The same factors are the coordinates of the diagrams in Fig. 3.

At CESR, the detector has been placed at an angle of 10.4 mrad (or $`100/\gamma `$)detgen . Above angles $`10/\gamma `$, Eqs. (1-4) hold precisely, so that the polarization components are disentangled by extracting lights at large angle and appropriate azimuthal locations.

In the process, the large angle provides virtually all of the background suppression, using the fact that a “short magnet”(the beam) will produce a radiation cone far wider (in angle) than a “long magnet” (the various magnets of CESR)welch ; coisson . In short, at CESR the large angle does two things for the experimenter: make the polarization observable, and separate signal and background.

At the NLCnlc , a beamstrahlung power of order 1MW imposes a stay-clear cone of 1 mrad (or $`1000/\gamma `$). Clearly at such a large angle the 8-fold pattern of Eqs. (1-4) will be available, however optically one can no longer hope to disentangle signal and background (assuming a diffraction-limited optical resolution of 1mrad, as in the CESR case). Background will be rejected by other methods.

The visible beamstrahlung rates at the NLC for each bunch within the train are given in Table I, assuming full azimuthal acceptance. They are certainly abundant and capable of providing subpercent precision in the measurement of the beamstrahlung diagram.

The principal issue, as usual, is whether the backgrounds can be controlled. Three background rejection methods have already been suggestedgangsun .

The first uses the fact that the beamstrahlung pulse is shorter than the coincident, SR background pulse by a factor of $`2\sqrt{2}`$. A streak chamber could disentangle the two components, with a possible background rejection of order $`10^2`$.

A second method uses the fact that SR background tends to be strongly ($`90\%`$) polarized radially. By extracting only tangential components, one could reduce backgrounds by one order of magnitude.

A much more powerful method than the previous two was the focus of Ref.gangsun . An elliptical grating is the primary mirror, placed so that the Interaction Point (IP) is located at one of the ellipse foci, and the main collimator at the other focus. Such a device has extremely shallow field depth ($`100\mu `$m at 10 meters distance). The background rejection is roughly equal to the number of lines in the grating ($`10^4`$). It has, however, also a very narrow frequency acceptance ($`10^5`$), which may prove to be too large a signal reduction at the NLC.

Recently, I. Avrutskyavrutsky  has systematically researched all possible methods of optical background rejection. He has found that whole-azimuth imaging, by a means of a ring-like mirror, offers at the same time a field depth of order one meter and a diffraction-limit of order 0.1 mrad. This method should allow background rejection at the $`10^3`$ level,without any signal bandwidth loss.

## III Measuring jitter at the NLC.

The algorithm to make use of these diagrams was worked out in Ref.luckwald , and is summarized here. A set of four asymmetries, obtained directly from the diagrams of Fig. 3, is defined and ranked, and the feedback system acts when anyone of the asymmetries becomes significantly different from zero. The wasted luminosity is then expressed as a function of certain partial derivatives. Tuning of a single corrector magnet (dipole, quadrupole, or sextupole) will correct any of the “pathologies” shown in Fig. 3. If more than one “pathology” exists, it was also proven that minimization of the asymmetries the order of their multipole ranking (dipole first) always converges to the proper overall correction.

The meaning of the diagram is that it can correct the various ways in which a beam can drift away from its nominal working point over time. The diagram both diagnoses and quantifies drift. It identifies which beam is going bad, which corrector magnet needs to be tuned, and by how much it needs to be tuned. If a machine drifts only (that is, if there is negligible beam jitter) it is important to notice that after a correction is applied, a new diagram is observed. That is why a 4-dimensional diagram monitors a 6-dimensional parameter space. The missing $`dof`$ was identifiedluckwald  with the smallest of the two $`\sigma _y`$, which can be measured by scanning one beam across the other (in the process, however, purely passive monitoring is lost).

When measuring jitter, control on the time evolution is lost. It is clear that the diagram will still work as a monitoring tool. For example, if the beam is oscillating between the BBC of Fig. 2a) and that of Fig. 2b) the diagram will be oscillating between those of Fig. 3a) and Fig. 3b). The diagram will still be able to pick out jitter components that other methods can not measure, and the diagram time evolution will be able to provide information about the frequency, waveform, and amplitude of the jitter.

There are, however, two limitations that arise in the case of jitter. The first and most obvious one is that each singular BBC needs to be recorded. We have seen in Table I that each BBC provides large statistics, and this is not expected to be a problem ( for comparison, at CESR rates are integrated over 1 sec, or 17 millions BBCs). The second limitation is due to lack of control on the diagram evolution. The diagram jitters uncontrollably and the space it covers is equal to its own dimensionality, or four. Three $`dof`$ are folded in without possibility of detection.

## IV Coherent beamstrahlung at the NLC.

If one wants to monitor the luminosity of a machine, any of several low-$`Q^2`$ QED processes can be used. For the purpose of discussion, let us consider $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma `$. Most of these events (above a minimum angle) consist of one fermion and one photon at low angle in the same emisphere, balanced in $`p_T`$, while the other fermion continues down the beam pipe. One can reasonably speak of a radiating beam, the beam in the same hemisphere as the photon. The event rate in each emisphere, $`R_{1,2}`$, is proportional to the luminosity, and therefore to the product of the two beam populations

$$R_{1,2}LN_1N_2.$$
(5)
When IB is considered, SR formulae are used. In SR theory, the power is proportional to the beam charge and proportional to the square of the bending force. This readily translates into a photon rate

$$R_1N_1N_2^2.$$
(6)
When CB is used, the beam moves coherently under the influence of the EM field of the other beam. Radiation is proportional to the square of the emitting charge, so that

$$R_{1,2}N_1^2N_2^2.$$
(7)
A brilliant description of the coherent and incoherent limits for SR can be found in Ref.panofsky , which concisely derives the $`N_1`$ and $`N_1^2`$ factors in Eqs. (6-7).

Equations (5-7) show at a glance why beamstrahlung is preferrable to quantum processes - the $`N`$ factors are huge numbers which make for more abundant, more precisely measured rates. As we will find in this Section, CB has other unique properties.

We have already noted at CESR that the overall $`N^3`$ dependence of IB does not favor the early development of the detector. Weak beams (a factor of ten below nominal) will result in a signal a thousand times weaker than nominal (at CESR, such a factor is enough to lower the signal down to the observed background rate). At the NLC there will be an extensive initial phase of machine development, with weak, relatively broad beams. CB provides the large enhancement needed to observe precisely such weak beams. This is a first, important property of coherent beamstrahlung.

The relativistically invariant coherence condition is

$$d^4x\rho (x)e^{ikx}1,$$

where $`k`$ is the observed photon 4-momentum, and $`\rho (x)`$ is the electron probability distribution in space-time (normalized to 1). Given that both the beam and the emitted photons are extremely longitudinal, the coherence condition becomes simply

$$R=\frac{\lambda }{\sigma _z}1.$$

If the wavelength is of order of the beam length, the radiation emitted will be coherent, otherwise it will be incoherent. At CESR, this translates to wavelengths greater than 1cm. At the NLC, the wavelengths of interest are those in excess of 0.1mm. The expected enhancement is also huge, of order $`N_{1,2}10^{10}`$. A second important property of CB is that one can reasonably expect it to be background-free. The SR from the magnets will be incoherent, and therefore much weaker, because the magnets are much longer than $`\lambda `$.

It becomes immediately clear that at CESR observation is hampered by having a beam pipe whose diameter is comparable to the wavelength (3cm), resulting in the well-known absorption of EM waves as they travel down the beam pipejackson . At the NLC, however, 0.1 mm waves are a factor of 25 shorter than the beam pipe diameter and will be able to travel long distances. Detection of signals is also much easier in the 0.1 mm range than in the 1cm range. A third important property is that at the NLC the experimental conditions are much more favorable than at current storage rings (basically due to much shorter beams).

Another feature of coherent beamstrahlung radiation can be inferred directly from Fig. 2. It is clear that, for radiation to become coherent, the whole beam has to move in a certain direction coherently. In Figs. 2c) and 2d), different parts of the beams move in opposite directions and interfere destructively. It is only in the case of a beam-beam offset (Fig. 2b)) that the beam as a whole moves vertically. Therefore coherent radiation will only appear in the presence of a non-zero offset and will primarily measure an offset. It is also immediately evident that (as long as the offset along the $`x`$axis is not significant) only the $`y`$component of the polarization will be coherent, as the coherent motion is purely along that direction. Thus coherent radiation will isolate and amplify two single components (one for each beam) of the diagrams of Fig. 3.

To produce quantitative results, the beam-beam simulation program of Ref.luckwald  was developed further to include coherent radiation scoring. This program is one of many cloud-in-cell programs existing on the market, and since it was developed for CESR, beamstrahlung energy loss by the beam particles is not included. This is a small deficiency of the program that does not affect the main results produced below - at the NLC (Table I) the typical beamstrahlung loss is of order a few to several percent (small corrections like these can be introduced at a later stage).

When scoring incoherent beamstrahlung, under the assumption discussed above that one can recover 100% linear polarization, one makes use of the following formulaeluckwald  to find the force exerted by all cells (index $`i`$) in beam 2 on a cell in the beam 1 (index $`j`$) is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫_{}^{}{}_{1j}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_2r_e}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{2i}𝐛_{ij}}{b_{ij}^2}},`$ (8)
$`𝐅_{1j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma mc^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_z}}\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫_{}^{}{}_{1j}{}^{}.`$ (9)
$`\gamma `$ is the relativistic factor, $`m`$ the electron mass, $`c`$ the speed of light, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z`$ the step along the beam collision axis, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫^{}`$ the (transverse) deflection during such a step. $`𝐅_{1j}`$ is the force exerted on one particle of beam 1 by the whole beam 2.

The $`P`$ are the fractional charge population in each cell, and b is the transverse impact parameter between the centers of the two cells. The energy vector $`𝐔_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for beam 1 is computed by summing

$`U_{1x}={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }U_{1xj}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Nr_e\mathrm{\Delta }_z\gamma ^2}{3mc^2}}{\displaystyle P_jF_{1jx}^2},`$ (10)
$`U_{1y}={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }U_{1yj}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Nr_e\mathrm{\Delta }_z\gamma ^2}{3mc^2}}{\displaystyle P_jF_{1jy}^2}.`$ (11)
The $`U`$ quantities are the low energy power emitted by the beams (appropriately scaled by the perfect collision power $`U_0`$, they form the diagrams of Fig. 3).

When scoring coherent beamstrahlung, the formulae become

$`W_{1x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N^2r_e\mathrm{\Delta }_z\gamma ^2}{3mc^2}}({\displaystyle P_je^{ikx}F_{1jx}})^2,`$ (12)
$`W_{1y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N^2r_e\mathrm{\Delta }_z\gamma ^2}{3mc^2}}({\displaystyle P_je^{ikx}F_{1jy}})^2,`$ (13)
and we apply the normalization condition $`W_0=U_0`$. The limitation of the method is that there exists a transition region between incoherent and coherent beamstrahlung, where the program will not work. The two sets of formulae do coincide, in the limit of very large statistics and short wavelength, and in a way that is consistent with Ref.panofsky . However the cell population $`C`$ inside each beam is finite (typically $`C3\times 10^4`$), and we found that the CB program would be numerically stable only if the coherent enhancement was greater than the number of cells

$$C<\frac{U_{CB}}{U_{IB}}.$$

The total power emitted in the microwave region may exceed 10W when full strength NLC beams are offset by a few $`\sigma _y`$ (Table I). The main simulation results are shown in Figs. 4-6 for “weak” beams. In Fig. 4, the microwave power (in units of IB power) is shown as a function of the beam-beam vertical offset (in beam width units). The curves show the dependence of the coherent yield for various R ratios.

Fig. 5 shows the side-to-side power ratio, for beams which have different beam lengths ($`\sigma _{z2}/\sigma _{z1})=0.8`$. The ordinate in this plot is the ratio of the powers emitted by the beams. The shorter beam will obtain coherence at a lower wavelength than the other one, resulting in substantially more power. From the ratio, and its dependence on wavelength, one measures accurately the two beam lengths (with a precision which is probably dominated by uncertainties in the wavelength in use).

Fig. 6 shows the same plot as Fig. 4, for beams which have different beam widths ($`\sigma _{y2}/\sigma _{y1}=3`$). The slower turn-on of the coherence curve of the wider beam is noted. Clearly CB measures two distinct degrees of freedom, which are, roughly speaking but not exactly, the ratio of the beam-beam offset and the vertical width of each beam.

The alert reader will notice that in general the coherent enhancements are greater than $`N`$ at large offsets, by a factor of several. This is a consequence of the fact that, even in the IB case, the overlap of one beam’s density (peaked at 0) and the other beam’s field (peaked at $`1.6\sigma _y`$) is greater when the two beams are offset, effectively pushing the enhancement above $`N`$.

It is clear from Figs. 4 and 6 that the microwave power dependence on offset is very strong. Together with such large derivatives comes the possibility to measure jitter to precisions which until today were thought to be impossible. As a working example, consider the LINX facilitylinx , which would provide a major proof of principle for future linear colliders. LINX would produce and collide 50 nm-wide beams, and use them to measure the beam jitter. A simple way to do that is depicted in Fig. 4. The beams are brought to a collision, then displaced by a quantity of order 0.5$`\sigma _y`$. From Fig. 4, one can see that a 0.1 nm jitter will produce emitted power fluctuations of order 10%. Moving the beams to a separation of 3.0$`\sigma _y`$ would provide good online calibration against possible instrumental jitter.

## V Conclusions.

At the NLC, incoherent beamstrahlung (IB) should retain its usefulness as a near-complete BBC monitor. The expected light signals are large, and there are, on paper, methods to reduce machine backgrounds.

As beamstrahlung will evolve from CESR to the NLC, it will be required to do more to monitor the quality and shape of the BBC. At CESR, like at the NLC, there will be a slow machine drift that incoherent beamstrahlung (IB) can monitor almost completely by itself (six out of seven $`dof`$, with the seventh one being measurable by scanning beams).

At NLC, there will be also substantial beam jitter (also potentially a 7-dimensional phenomenon). IB will be able to monitor only four of these seven $`dof`$. In part to counter this limitation, we have introduced the idea of measuring the coherent, microwave part of beamstrahlung. This part of the spectrum provides two extra, independent $`dof`$, bringing the total back to six and effectively providing almost complete monitoring. CB will also provide precision measurements of the beam length, and will work initially with very weak beams.

Like the beamstrahlung diagrams of Fig. 3, the CB plots presented here are semi-universal. What that means is that, up to small corrections related to the beams disruption during the BBC, Figs. (4-6) are universal. That is why both axes are scaled variables, with each curve depending on a third, scaled parameter.

By introducing two extra, independent measurements with CB, one may wonder whether the BBC is now fully monitored in a purely passive way, both for drift and for jitter. The short answer is no. Refs.welch ; luckwald  discuss how the total IB power is insensitive to $`\sigma _y`$. Consider now a situation where the BBC is jittering between Fig. 2a) and Fig. 2c). IB will track that jitter, but will only provide the time evolution of a quantity which is the ratio of the two $`\sigma _y`$. There will be no CB. The problem will be identified, and the jitter of the ratio well measured. The absolute size of the smaller of the two $`\sigma _y`$ will have to be determined by scanning one beam through the other. Every other of the seven $`dof`$ is, however, accounted for and measurable passively.

Experimental issues will be discussed in a future paper. Once the visible SR backgrounds at the IP will be available, one or more of the four background rejection methods will be implemented in a final design.

In the case of CB, the rates are truly enormous (Table I), which allows the usage of anything sensitive to microwaves (including microantennas inside the beam pipe). CB will probably be measured above a certain threshold in the beam-beam offset, of order 0.1$`\sigma _y`$. We note that the experimental issues related to CB are entirely technical, within including how to avoid burning the microwave detector, how to ensure a very large dynamic range, and how to read the microwave signal for each bunch (with a time separation of 1.4 nsec).

Finally, one needs to point out that there are some significant differences between the low energy beamstrahlung method and the beam-beam deflection method (see for exampleemma ). This method is purely passive, and it is sensitive, in a passive way, to pathologies other than offsets. It also measures the ratio of the two $`\sigma _y`$ in a purely passive way, so that one beam’s detuning is diagnosed instantly. When the beams are scanned through one another, this method measures both $`\sigma _y`$ (as opposed to the quadratic sum of the two). This method will not be affected by different bunch lengths, and will provide a positive signal when the beams are colliding properly, whereas the beam-beam deflection provides zero signal. Finally, beamstrahlung is sensitive to vertical jitter (expressed in units of $`\sigma _y`$) far smaller than the beam-beam deflection method.

We thank I. Avrutsky, D. Cinabro and M. Woods for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSF grants NSF-PHY-0113556, NSF-PHY-0116058 and NSF-PHY-0101649.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The quantum Hall (QH) effect has bred much beautiful theory. Indeed, Laughlin’s wave functions  are good wave functions for describing the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) at filling factor $`\nu =\frac{1}{m}`$, where $`m`$ is an odd integer. For other filling factors several attempts have been suggested to extend Laughlin’s theory by adopting different approaches and assumptions. In particular, Halperin  proposed a family of generalized Laughlin wave functions that could incorporate reversed spins. In fact a candidate for an unpolarized wave function at filling factor $`\frac{2}{5}`$ was given. Subsequently, Yoshioka, MacDonald and Girvin  generalized the Laughlin wave functions to those of the bilayered QH systems and derived that corresponding to the $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ state. Moreover, other theories have been elaborated and led to understand the observed values of $`\nu `$, in particular $`\nu =\frac{5}{2}`$  as well as others .

The first experimental indications for an unpolarized ground-state spin configuration in the FQHE came with the discovery of the $`\nu =\frac{5}{2}`$ state  and later the $`\nu =\frac{4}{3}`$ state . More compelling evidence for novel spin phenomena in the FQHE was subsequently reported . On the other hand, it was shown experimentally that multi–layer systems also exhibit the FQHE . In fact, several filling factors have been observed, for instance the $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ state  and $`\nu =\frac{9}{2},\frac{11}{2},\mathrm{}`$ .

Recently, Susskind  proposed a novel method to investigate the FQHE. He claimed that the non-commutative Chern-Simons theory (NCCS) at level $`k`$ is exactly equivalent to Laughlin’s theory at the filling factor $`\nu _\mathrm{S}=\frac{1}{k}`$. He formulated his approach as a matrix theory similar to that describing $`D0`$-branes in string theory. However, Susskind’s theory is an alternative approach to the FQHE which so far has not produced anything new but has just recovered the Laughlin approach by adopting a new formalism. Nevertheless it remains a new way of thinking and is worth studying in the hope that it will bring new results in the future.

Although the proposed matrix model seems to reproduce the basic features of the Laughlin QH droplets, still some problems remain to be solved. Indeed, Susskind’s approach is valid only for infinite matrices and also shows an anomaly for $`k=0`$. To solve these problems, Polychronakos  introduced a boundary term to Susskind matrix model. He proposed a finite matrix model as a regularized version of the NCCS theory. It allowed him to find a quantum correction to $`\nu _\mathrm{S}`$, where $`k`$ is shifted to $`k+1`$ and the filling factor became $`\nu _{\mathrm{PS}}=\frac{1}{k+1}`$. As another consequence, he pointed out that his matrix model is equivalent to the Calogero model .

Sometimes later, observing that the Laughlin wave functions can be mapped onto many-body wave functions of the harmonic oscillator, Hellerman and Van Raamsdonk  built a complete minimal basis of wave functions of the theory at arbitrary level $`k`$ and rank $`M`$, see also . Other investigations about the relation between NCCS and Laughlin fluids can be found in . Subsequently, the Susskind model and its regularized version introduced by Polychronakos was extended to FQH states that are not of Laughlin type: a multicomponent Chern-Simons approach was introduced  and another proposal based on the Haldane hierarchy  was developed .

Despite the progress in the study of the FQH fluids in the framework of NCCS matrix model, several open questions remain which have not been addressed so far. One of these questions concerns the wave functions that are not of Laughlin type. In fact there are many wave functions, that have been constructed years ago, e.g. by Yoshioka et al., Halperin, $`\mathrm{}`$, but cannot be recovered by what is developed so far.

In what follows we propose a matrix model to investigate the possibility to obtain two of those wave functions. This can be done by extending the Susskind–Polychronakos model to deal with the QH fluids at the filling factor

$$\nu =q_iK_{ij}^1q_j$$
(1)
where $`K_{ij}`$ is an $`N\times N`$ matrix and $`q_i`$ is a vector. The basic idea is to consider several Susskind–Polychronakos systems, let us say $`M`$ systems, with an interaction between them and suppose that all systems possess the same number of particles. In the QHE language, this picture is equivalent to considering multi-layered systems. Without loss of generality, we fix $`M=2`$, but as we will see later our analysis can directly be extended to the generic case $`M3`$.

We start by writing down an appropriate action as a sum of two terms, for the free and the interacting part. Subsequently, we derive the corresponding Hamiltonian, which of course contains an interaction. Using a unitary transformation, we show that this Hamiltonian can be transformed to a diagonalized one. Next, we determine the vacuum configuration that allows us to recover two different states. Indeed, we show that how the Yoshioka–MacDonald–Girvin wave functions at the filling factor $`\nu =\frac{2}{m+n}`$ can be obtained from our model and in particular that describing the FQHE at $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$. Moreover, the unpolarized Halperin wave functions will be derived and especially that corresponding to $`\nu =\frac{2}{5}`$ state.

In section 2 we recall briefly the NCCS matrix model description of the Laughlin fluid. In section 3, we propose an action describing a system of two layers, we derive the Gauss law constraint as well as the equations of motion for the different variables. A quantum mechanical analysis will be the subject of next section, where we develop a Hamiltonian that corresponds to the system under consideration. Under rotation, we define a set of matrices of harmonic–oscillator operators to diagonalize the system. In section 5, we build the vacuum configuration that satisfies the constraint. A link with literature will be discussed in the last section where the two wave functions mentioned above will be recovered. We conclude our paper by putting some questions to be investigated in forthcoming works.

## 2 Chern-Simons matrix model

Starting from the matrix formulation of a two-dimensional system with a large number of electrons in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field $`B`$, Susskind  showed that the resulting effective theory is a non-commutative $`U(1)`$ Chern–Simons gauge theory at level $`k=B\theta `$. As a consequence, he found a relation

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2\pi \theta }$$
(2)
which links the non-commutivity parameter $`\theta `$ to the density of electrons $`\rho `$. By using the definition of the filling factor

$$\nu =\frac{2\pi \rho }{B}$$
(3)
in the system of units $`(\mathrm{},e,c)`$, it is easily seen that the fraction $`\nu `$ can be written in terms of the parameter $`\theta `$ as

$$\nu =\frac{1}{B\theta }.$$
(4)
This beautiful relation is one of the interesting results obtained recently by Susskind in dealing with the FQH fluids.

Moreover, by exploring the possibility to develop a consistent finite matrix model for the description of the FQH droplet, Polychronakos  suggested to include a new field into the Susskind model. The proposed action is given by

$$S=𝑑t\frac{B}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{ϵ^{ab}\left(\dot{X}_a+i[A_0,X_a]\right)X_b+2\theta A_0\omega X_a^2\right\}+\psi ^{}\left(i\dot{\psi }A_0\psi \right)$$
(5)
where $`X_a,a=1,2`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices and $`\psi `$ is a complex $`N`$-vector, and $`ϵ^{12}=ϵ^{21}=1`$, $`ϵ^{aa}=0`$. The action is invariant under the gauge group $`U(N)`$ and the matrix model variables transform as

$$X_aUX_aU^1,\psi U\psi .$$
(6)
The equation of motion for $`A_0`$ leads to the Gauss law constraint

$$GiB[X_1,X_2]+\psi \psi ^{}B\theta =0.$$
(7)
The trace of this equation gives

$$\psi ^{}\psi =NB\theta .$$
(8)
Upon quantization the matrix elements of $`X_a`$ and the components of $`\psi `$ become operators, obeying the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{c}[\psi _i,\psi _j^{}]=\delta _{ij}\hfill \\ [(X_1)_{ij},(X_2)_{kl}]=\frac{i}{B}\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The Hamiltonian can be obtained from (5) as

$$H=\omega \left(\frac{N^2}{2}+A_{nm}^{}A_{mn}\right)$$
(9)
where the $`N\times N`$ matrix of harmonic-oscillator operators is defined by

$$A_{nm}=\sqrt{\frac{B}{2}}\left(X_1+iX_2\right)_{nm}.$$
(10)
The corresponding wave function is

$$|k=\left[ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}\psi _{i_1}^{}(\psi ^{}A^{})_{i_2}\mathrm{}(\psi ^{}A^{N1})_{i_N}\right]^k|0$$
(11)
where the vacuum $`|0`$ is annihilated by $`A`$’s and $`\psi `$’s and $`ϵ`$ is the fully antisymmetric tensor. This is a physical state and therefore satisfies the relation

$$G|k=0.$$
(12)
It is similar to the Laughlin wave function  at the filling factor

$$\nu =\frac{1}{k+1}.$$
(13)
Subsequently, one of us and others  generalized the above results to any filling factor which can be expressed as

$$\nu _{k_1k_2}=\frac{1}{k_1}+\frac{1}{k_2}$$
(14)
and in particular to level two of the Haldane hierarchy

$$\nu _{p_1p_2}=\frac{p_2}{p_1p_21}$$
(15)
by setting

$$k_1=p_1,k_2=p_1(p_1p_21)$$
(16)
where $`p_1`$ is an odd and $`p_2`$ is an even integer.

## 3 Two coupling matrices model

We consider two systems with a total number of particles $`M_1+M_2`$ which interact with each other. Such systems can be seen like two coupling layers $`i`$ containing $`M_i`$ particles. The appropriate action to describe the FQH fluids of the whole system at filling factor (1), is given by

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{j}{}\frac{K_{jj}}{2\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\left\{ϵ^{ab}\left(\dot{X}_a^{(j)}+i[A_0,X_a^{(j)}]\right)X_b^{(j)}+2\theta A_0\omega _j\left(X_a^{(j)}\right)^2\right\}}`$
$`+\psi ^{(j)}\left(i\dot{\psi }^{(j)}A_0\psi ^{(j)}\right)+{\displaystyle 𝑑tK_{12}\left\{\frac{\omega _{12}}{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\left(X_a^{(1)}X_a^{(2)}\right)+\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(2)}\right\}}`$ (17)
which involves two copies of the single-layer action (5) forming the free part. It also contains an interacting part, where the scalar $`K_{12}`$ is playing the rule of a coupling parameter between the layers $`1`$ and $`2`$. The ratio $`\frac{K_{jj}}{\theta }`$ is basically the magnetic field $`B`$.

It is clear that for $`K_{12}=0`$, the total system becomes decoupling. Note that as far as the total action is concerned, the full gauge symmetry is $`U(M_1)\times U(M_2)`$. The matrix model variables transform under this invariance as

$$X_a^{(i)}UX_a^{(i)}U^1,\psi ^{(i)}U\psi ^{(i)}.$$
(18)
Compared to the original matrix model, there is the potential term

$$V=\underset{j}{}\frac{K_{jj}}{2\theta }\omega _j\mathrm{Tr}\left(X_a^{(j)}\right)^2\frac{K_{12}}{\theta }\omega _{12}\mathrm{Tr}\left(X_a^{(1)}X_a^{(2)}\right)$$
(19)
analogous to the potential of two coupled harmonic oscillators  in two-dimensional space. This provides a Hamiltonian for the theory.

The Gauss law constraint can be obtained by evaluating the equation of motion for $`A_0`$. In our case it reads

$$𝒢iK_{11}[X_1^{(1)},X_2^{(1)}]iK_{22}[X_1^{(2)},X_2^{(2)}]+\left(\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(1)}+\psi ^{(2)}\psi ^{(2)}K_{11}K_{22}\right)=0$$
(20)
where its trace gives

$$\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(1)}+\psi ^{(2)}\psi ^{(2)}=M_1K_{11}+M_2K_{22}.$$
(21)
Other equations of motion can also be calculated. For the $`X`$’s we get

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{11}ϵ^{ab}\dot{X}_a^{(1)}+K_{11}\omega _1X_a^{(1)}+K_{12}\omega _{12}X_a^{(2)}=0\hfill \\ K_{22}ϵ^{ab}\dot{X}_a^{(2)}+K_{22}\omega _2X_a^{(2)}+K_{12}\omega _{12}X_a^{(1)}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
while for the $`\psi `$’s we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}i\psi ^{(1)}+K_{12}\psi ^{(2)}=0\hfill \\ i\psi ^{(2)}+K_{12}\psi ^{(1)}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Of course the last set of equations shows a difference with respect to the decoupled case. It can be solved by using a unitary transformation.

## 4 Hamiltonian formalism

Let us now consider the proposed model quantum mechanically. We proceed by determining the total Hamiltonian, which describes the system under consideration. It can be obtained from the relation

$$=\dot{X}\frac{L}{\dot{X}}L$$
(24)
where $`\frac{L}{\dot{X}}`$ defines the conjugate momentum. This leads to a Hamiltonian as the sum of the free and the interacting parts as

$$=\underset{j}{}\frac{K_{jj}}{2\theta }\omega _j\mathrm{Tr}\left(X_a^{(j)}\right)^2\frac{K_{12}}{\theta }\omega _{12}\mathrm{Tr}\left(X_a^{(1)}X_a^{(2)}\right)$$
(25)
which is nothing but the confining potential (19). This means that the kinetic energy is negligible compared to $`V`$.

It is clear that this form of $``$ cannot be diagonalized directly. Nevertheless, $``$ can be transformed to another, factorizing Hamiltonian $`^{}`$ . Probably the best way to do this is to perform a rotation by a mixing angle $`\phi `$, of the $`X`$’s to new matrices

$$\begin{array}{c}Y_a^{(1)}=X_a^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}X_a^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\hfill \\ Y_a^{(2)}=X_a^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}+X_a^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
It can easily be checked that this rotation is a unitary transformation. Inserting (26) into (25), one can show that $``$ transform to

$$^{}=\alpha \mathrm{Tr}\left(Y_a^{(1)}\right)^2+\beta \mathrm{Tr}\left(Y_a^{(2)}\right)^2$$
(27)
if the rotating angle satisfies the relation

$$\mathrm{tan}\phi =\frac{K_{12}\omega _{12}}{K_{11}\omega _1K_{22}\omega _2}.$$
(28)
The parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha =\frac{1}{\theta }\left(K_{11}\omega _1\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\phi }{2}+K_{22}\omega _2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi }{2}\frac{1}{2}K_{12}\omega _{12}\mathrm{sin}\phi \right)\hfill \\ \beta =\frac{1}{\theta }\left(K_{11}\omega _1\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi }{2}+K_{22}\omega _2\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\phi }{2}+\frac{1}{2}K_{12}\omega _{12}\mathrm{sin}\phi \right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
To diagonalize $`^{}`$, we define two couples of creation and annihilation matrices of harmonic oscillator operators,

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{nm}^{(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{2}}(Y_1^{(1)}+iY_2^{(1)})_{nm}\hfill \\ C_{nm}^{(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{2}}(Y_1^{(2)}+iY_2^{(2)})_{nm}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
They satisfy the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{c}[C_{nm}^{(1)},C_{n^{}m^{}}^{(1)}]=\delta _{nm^{}}\delta _{n^{}m}\hfill \\ [C_{ij}^{(2)},C_{i^{}j^{}}^{(2)}]=\delta _{ij^{}}\delta _{i^{}j},\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
while all others commutators vanish. Now $`^{^{}}`$ can be rewritten as

$$^{^{}}=\frac{\alpha }{2}\left(2_1+M_1^2\right)+\frac{\beta }{2}\left(2_2+M_2^2\right)$$
(32)
where the number operators

$$\begin{array}{c}_1=_{n,m=1}^{M_1}C_{mn}^{(1)}C_{nm}^{(1)}\hfill \\ _2=_{i,j=1}^{M_2}C_{ij}^{(2)}C_{ji}^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
are counting the $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ particles. Thus under the unitary transformation the system became decoupling.

## 5 Ground-state wave functions

To begin we emphasize a difference between the ground state of two coupled harmonic oscillators in terms of the coordinates $`x_i`$ and that in terms of their mapped representations $`y_i`$. The wave function

$$\psi _0(\stackrel{}{y})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\alpha y_1^2\beta y_2^2\right\}$$
(34)
is separable in the variables $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$. However, for the variables $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, the wave function (34) reads

$$\psi _0(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\alpha \left(x_1\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}x_2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)^2\beta \left(x_1\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}+x_2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)^2\right\}.$$
(35)
Next, we will see how these ground states can be extended to the matrix model formalism. We begin to determine that for the matrices $`Y`$. By transforming the Gauss law constraint to the variables $`Y`$, i.e.

$`\left(K_{11}\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}+K_{22}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}\right)[Y_1^{(1)},Y_2^{(1)}]+\left(K_{11}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}+K_{22}\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}\right)[Y_1^{(2)},Y_2^{(2)}]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(K_{11}K_{22}\right)\mathrm{sin}\phi \left\{[Y_1^{(1)},Y_2^{(2)}]+[Y_1^{(2)},Y_2^{(1)}]\right\}=i\theta \left(K_{11}+K_{22}\varphi ^{(1)}\varphi ^{(1)}\varphi ^{(2)}\varphi ^{(2)}\right)`$ (36)
where the Polychronakos fields are also rotated to new fields

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^{(1)}=\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}\psi ^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\hfill \\ \varphi ^{(2)}=\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}+\psi ^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
For simplicity let us fix $`K_{11}=K_{22}=K`$, then (5) becomes

$$[Y_1^{(1)},Y_2^{(1)}]+[Y_1^{(2)},Y_2^{(2)}]=2iK\theta \left(1\frac{1}{2K}\varphi ^{(1)}\varphi ^{(1)}\frac{1}{2K}\varphi ^{(2)}\varphi ^{(2)}\right).$$
(38)
Now it is clear that the ground state is simply a tensor product between those states corresponding to each layer

$`|K=\left[ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{M_1}}\varphi _{i_1}^{(1)}(\varphi ^{(1)}C^{(1)})_{i_2}\mathrm{}(\varphi ^{(1)}C^{(1)M_11})_{i_{M_1}}\right]^K`$ (39)
$`\left[ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_{M_2}}\varphi _{j_1}^{(2)}(\varphi ^{(2)}C^{(2)})_{j_2}\mathrm{}(\varphi ^{(2)}C^{(2)M_21})_{j_{M_2}}\right]^K|0.`$
The ground state (39) can be mapped in terms of the operators of the matrices $`X`$ by expressing the matrices $`C`$ of harmonic-oscillator operators in terms of those corresponding to the matrices $`X`$. Using (26) one can show that (30) takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}C_{nm}^{(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha }{B}}\left(A^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}A^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)_{nm}\hfill \\ C_{nm}^{(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{B}}\left(A^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}+A^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)_{nm}\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
where the operators

$$\begin{array}{c}A_{nm}^{(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{B}{2}}\left(X_1^{(1)}+iX_2^{(1)}\right)_{nm}\hfill \\ A_{nm}^{(2)}=\sqrt{\frac{B}{2}}\left(X_1^{(2)}+iX_2^{(2)}\right)_{nm}\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
commute:

$$\begin{array}{c}[A_{nm}^{(1)},A_{n^{}m^{}}^{(1)}]=\delta _{nm^{}}\delta _{n^{}m}\hfill \\ [A_{ij}^{(2)},A_{i^{}j^{}}^{(2)}]=\delta _{ij^{}}\delta _{i^{}j}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
Inserting (37) and (40) in (39), we obtain

$`|K=[ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{M_1}}(\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}\psi ^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}})_{i_1}\mathrm{}`$
$`\left\{(\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}\psi ^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}})(A^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}A^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}})^{M_11}\right\}_{i_{M_1}}]^K`$
$`[ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_{M_2}}(\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}+\psi ^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}})_{j_1}\mathrm{}`$ (43)
$`\left\{(\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}+\psi ^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}})(A^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}}+A^{(2)}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{2}})^{M_21}\right\}_{j_{M_2}}]^K|0.`$
In what follows, we proceed without the use of the unitary transformation to construct the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ describing the system of $`M_1+M_2`$ electrons at filling factor (1). One has to realize a physical state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that satisfies the Gauss law constraint (20)

$$𝒢|\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(44)
and allows us to establish a link with two well-known wave functions. May be the best way to do this is to define two operators

$$\begin{array}{c}A=A^{(1)}A^{(2)}\hfill \\ \psi =\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
where $``$ is the tensor product. Using these matrices of harmonic-oscillator operators, we build a vacuum configuration

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\left[ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_{M_1}}\psi _{i_1}^{(1)}\left(\psi ^{(1)}A^{(1)}\right)_{i_2}\mathrm{}\left(\psi ^{(1)}A^{(1)M_11}\right)_{i_{M_1}}\right]^{K_{11}K_{12}}`$
$`\left[ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_{M_2}}\psi _{j_1}^{(2)}\left(\psi ^{(2)}A^{(2)}\right)_{j_2}\mathrm{}\left(\psi ^{(2)}A^{(2)M_21}\right)_{j_{M_2}}\right]^{K_{22}K_{12}}`$ (46)
$`\left[ϵ^{k_1\mathrm{}k_{M_1+M_2}}\psi _{k_1}^{}\left(\psi ^{}A^{}\right)_{k_2}\mathrm{}\left(\psi ^{}A^{M_1+M_21}\right)_{k_{M_1+M_2}}\right]^{K_{12}}|0.`$
which satisfies the Gauss law constraint (20) and therefore we have

$$\left(\psi ^{(1)}\psi ^{(1)}+\psi ^{(2)}\psi ^{(2)}M_1K_{11}M_2K_{22}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(47)
Novel about this vacuum configuration is that one can interpret the term

$$\left[ϵ^{k_1\mathrm{}k_{M_1+M_2}}\psi _{k_1}^{}\left(\psi ^{}A^{}\right)_{k_2}\mathrm{}\left(\psi ^{}A^{M_1+M_21}\right)_{k_{M_1+M_2}}\right]^{K_{12}}$$
(48)
as an inter-layer correlation. In conclusion, our configuration could well be a good ansatz for the ground states of double–layered FQH fluids in the formalism of the NCCS matrix model. This will be clarified in the next section.

## 6 Link with literature

Here we show how the Yoshioka–MacDonald–Girvin and Halperin wave functions describing, respectively, the double-layer and the unpolarized QH systems can be recovered from our vacuum configuration (5).

Before starting, we note that for any $`N`$-dimensional vector $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`N\times N`$ matrix $`A^{}`$, the expression of the form

$$F(\psi ^{},A^{})=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}\psi _{i_1}^{(1)}\left(\psi ^{(1)}A^{(1)}\right)_{i_2}\mathrm{}\left(\psi ^{(1)}A^{(1)N1}\right)_{i_N}$$
(49)
has a one-to-one correspondence to the polynomial

$$f(z)=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}z_{i_1}^0\mathrm{}z_{i_N}^{N1}.$$
(50)
Now our task can be done by defining a new complex variable

$$\zeta _i=\{\begin{array}{c}z_i^{(1)}\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},N\hfill \\ z_{iN}^{(2)}\text{for}i=N+1,\mathrm{},2N\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
assuming that the particle numbers are equal, $`M_1=M_2=N`$, and recalling the Vandermonde determinant:

$$\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_iz_j\right)=\mathrm{det}\left(z_i^{Nj}\right)=ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}z_{i_1}^0\mathrm{}z_{i_N}^{N1}.$$
(52)
In terms of the complex coordinates, (5) reads

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(K_{11},K_{22},K_{12})}=\left[ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}\left(z_{i_1}^{(1)}\right)^0\mathrm{}\left(z_{i_N}^{(1)}\right)^{N1}\right]^{K_{11}K_{12}}`$
$`\left[ϵ^{j_1\mathrm{}j_N}\left(z_{j_1}^{(2)}\right)^0\mathrm{}\left(z_{j_N}^{(2)}\right)^{N1}\right]^{K_{22}K_{12}}`$ (53)
$`\left[ϵ^{k_1\mathrm{}k_{2N}}\zeta _{k_1}^0\mathrm{}\zeta _{k_{2N}}^{2N1}\right]^{K_{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0.`$
It can be written in standard form as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(K_{11},K_{22},K_{12})}=\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)^{K_{11}}\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^{K_{22}}\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^{K_{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0$$
(54)
and now the inter-layer correlation is

$$\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^{K_{12}}.$$
(55)
Next, we will give two different applications of (54).

### 6.1 YMG wave functions

Considering the two layers and treating them as additional degrees of freedom, the $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ state was predicted by Yoshioka, MacDonald and Girvin . They made a straightforward generalization of the Laughlin wave functions to those with the filling factor

$$\nu =\frac{2}{m+n}$$
(56)
where $`m`$ and $`n`$ are integers. This can be obtained from our analysis by taking

$$\begin{array}{c}K=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m\hfill & n\hfill \\ n\hfill & m\hfill \end{array}\right),q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
leading to the wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(m,m,n)}=\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)^m\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^m\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^n\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(58)
Choosing $`m=3`$ and $`n=1`$, we recover the FQHE $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ state corresponding to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(3,3,1)}=\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)^3\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^3\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(59)
### 6.2 Halperin wave functions

Another interesting result can be obtained. In the Halperin picture  in the context of single-layered unpolarized QH systems, the labels $`1`$ and $`2`$ can be considered as an analogue of spin. Following this idea, our bilayered system can be seen as mixing layers of particles with spin up and spin down.

As a consequence, we obtain for $`m=3`$ and $`n=2`$ the unpolarized Halperin wave function with the filling factor $`\frac{2}{5}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(3,3,2)}=\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(1)}\right)^3\underset{i<j}{}\left(z_i^{(2)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^3\underset{i,j}{}\left(z_i^{(1)}z_j^{(2)}\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(60)
This can be seen as a wave function of a system of $`N`$ particles with spin parallel and another $`N`$ particles with spin antiparallel to the external magnetic field.

## 7 Conclusion

We have developed a matrix model to describe bilayered QH systems at the filling factor $`\nu =q_iK_{ij}^1q_j`$. The basic idea was to use two coupled harmonic-oscillators in a similar fashion as done by Susskind and Polychronakos. Our model is a generalization of their model and of course reproduces its basic features by taking the coupling parameter $`K_{12}`$ to be zero.

Starting from an appropriate action we derived the equations of motion for the different matrix model variables. The corresponding Hamiltonian was obtained as the sum of free and interacting terms. A unitary transformation, more precisely a rotation around an angle $`\phi `$, led to a factorizing Hamiltonian.

Next, we have constructed the ground states of the system in two different ways. The first was based on the unitary transformation and from the ground state after rotation we have derived that before rotating the system. The second was performed directly in terms of a combination of the matrices of harmonic-oscillator operators of two layers. The obtained vacuum configuration involved three different quantities where one describes the inter-layer interaction.

Subsequently, we have investigated the link between our second wave function and two others from literature. After projecting the vacuum configuration on the complex plane and using the Vandermonde determinant, we have shown how the Yoshioka–MacDonald–Girvin wave function with the filling factor $`\nu =\frac{2}{m+n}`$ can be obtained from our model, in particular that corresponding to the $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}`$ state. Likewise, we have recovered the unpolarized Halperin wave function, especially that for the $`\nu =\frac{2}{5}`$ state.

The case we have studied is in fact just a particular case of more general FQH states where the fluid droplet is assumed to consist of several coupled branches, say $`M`$ branches. $`M=1`$ is the Laughlin (Susskind–Polychronakos) model, $`M=2`$ is the model we have discussed here and $`M3`$ is the generic case, which can be seen as a straightforward generalization of our case.

Of course still some important questions remain to be answered e.g. about the fractional charge and statistics of the particles and how to describe them in terms of the proposed model. Another interesting question is related to the link between our model and Calogero and super–Calogero models. We will return to these issues and related matter in future.

We close this section by noting that our model will be investigated in the forthcoming work  for the case of a single layer. Basically, we will consider the Laughlin liquids in a confining potential that is not of parabolic type and see how this affects the basic features of the Susskind–Polychronakos model.

## Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to P. Bouwkgnet for extremely helpful discussions. AJ’s work is supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the Schwerpunkt “Quantum-Hall-Effekt”.


text:
# Continuous-Variable Quantum Teleportation with a Conventional Laser 1footnote 11footnote 1This is a revised version of quant-ph/0301045. The author has not replaced that original version with this revised one so that readers can easily verify priority of ideas first presented in the original version in every arXiv mirror site.

## Abstract

We give a description of balanced homodyne detection (BHD) using a conventional laser as a local oscillator (LO), where the laser field outside the cavity is a mixed state whose phase is completely unknown. Our description is based on the standard interpretation of the quantum theory for measurement, and accords with the experimental result in the squeezed state generation scheme. We apply our description of BHD to continuous-variable quantum teleportation (CVQT) with a conventional laser to analyze the CVQT experiment \[A. Furusawa et al., Science 282, 706 (1998)\], whose validity has been questioned on the ground of intrinsic phase indeterminacy of the laser field \[T. Rudolph and B.C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 077903 (2001)\]. We show that CVQT with a laser is valid only if the unknown phase of the laser field is shared among sender’s LOs, the EPR state, and receiver’s LO. The CVQT experiment is considered valid with the aid of an optical path other than the EPR channel and a classical channel, directly linking between a sender and a receiver. We also propose a method to probabilistically generate a strongly phase-correlated quantum state via continuous measurement of independent lasers, which is applicable to realizing CVQT without the additional optical path.

Quantum teleportation is a method to move quantum states from a sender “Alice” to a receiver “Bob” by the aid of entanglement. The original protocol Original QT  has later been extended to continuous-variable quantum teleportation (CVQT) using a two-mode squeezed state and balanced homodyne detection (BHD) CVQT . While experimental demonstration of CVQT was reported as the first achievement of unconditional quantum teleportation CVQT Experiment , there has been controversy over its validity on the ground of intrinsic phase indeterminacy of the laser field RS ; vEF . The laser field is often assumed to be a coherent state having a fixed phase, but the steady-state solution of the master equation in the quantum theory of the laser shows that the phase of the laser field inside the cavity is completely unknown in operation well above threshold RS ; vEF ; Walls and Milburn ; Moelmer .

In this Letter, we first discuss a description of the laser field outside the cavity in line with the previous discussions RS ; vEF . We then analyze BHD using a laser as a local oscillator (LO), and give a physically appropriate description of BHD based on the standard interpretation of the quantum theory for measurement. We apply our description of BHD to CVQT with a laser to analyze the CVQT experiment CVQT Experiment . Finally, we propose a method to probabilistically produce a strongly phase-correlated quantum state via continuous measurement of independent lasers, which is applicable to realizing CVQT without an optical path between Alice and Bob for sharing the same laser field.

In Ref. vEF , van Enk and Fuchs claim that the standard description of the laser field used in Ref. RS  is surprisingly insufficient to understand CVQT with a laser. By employing the input-output theory Walls and Milburn , they find that the laser field outside the cavity is a continuous-mode mixed state which is in form identical to the steady-state field inside the cavity. They then go on to express the field state in terms of noncontinuous operators given by them, and discuss its coherency.

The definition of noncontinuous operators is based on the narrow bandwidth approximation (NBA) $`B\omega _0`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the central frequency of the bandwidth $`B`$. Under NBA, the annihilation operator part of the continuous-mode electric field is approximated as $`\widehat{E}^+(z,t)i_0_n\varphi _n(tz/c)\widehat{c}_n`$, where $`_0[\mathrm{}\omega _0/(2ϵ_0cA)]^{1/2}`$, $`\{\varphi _n(t)\}`$ are basis functions giving a profile of the fundamental modes, and $`\widehat{c}_n`$ is a noncontinuous annihilation operator BLP .

In Ref. vEF , a subset of basis functions $`\{\psi _n(t)\}`$ is specifically chosen as $`\psi _n(t)(T)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _0t)\mathrm{\Pi }(t/Tn)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ is the rectangle function, and importance of the field expression in terms of noncontinuous operators defined by $`\{\psi _n(t)\}`$ is emphasized in view of the quantum de Finetti theorem. But this given expression is nothing more than one possible approximation of the field state outside the cavity by NBA, where the exact state obtained by the input-output theory is actually identical to the standard description of the laser field used in Ref. RS .

We will show that, contrary to the claims of Ref. vEF , the standard description of the laser field used in Ref. RS  is sufficient to understand CVQT with a laser. Throughout this Letter, we use the standard description of the laser field in Ref. RS  for the continuous mode outside the cavity. We explain coherency of the laser field not by interpreting a new approximate expression of the laser field as Ref. vEF , but by appropriately formulating measurement process for the laser field.

Now, we will give a description of BHD with a conventional laser. As long as the photon number operator well represents an observable for an efficient photodetector lacking single photon resolution Carmichael ; Gardiner and Zoller , we may regard $`\widehat{a}_l^{}\widehat{a}_s+\widehat{a}_l\widehat{a}_s^{}`$ as an observable for BHD, where $`\widehat{a}_l`$ and $`\widehat{a}_s`$ are annihilation operators for the LO field and the signal field, respectively Braunstein . If the signal field $`|\psi _s`$ satisfies $`r\sqrt{\psi |\widehat{X}_s\left(\theta \right)^2|\psi _s}\sqrt{\psi |\widehat{a}_s^{}\widehat{a}_s|\psi _s}`$, which holds when the intensity of the LO field is extremely larger than that of the signal field, this observable satisfies

$`(\widehat{a}_l^{}\widehat{a}_s+\widehat{a}_l\widehat{a}_s^{})|re^{i\theta }_l|\psi _s`$ $``$ $`r\widehat{X}_s(\theta )|re^{i\theta }_l|\psi _s,`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{X}(\theta )\widehat{a}e^{i\theta }+\widehat{a}^{}e^{i\theta }`$ and $`|re^{i\theta }`$ is the coherent state in polar coordinates Walls and Milburn . According to the standard interpretation of the quantum theory Sakurai , Eq. (1) implies if we obtain the measurement outcome $`rx`$ in one trial of BHD with the prior knowledge of $`r`$, $`|\psi _s`$ instantaneously reduces to $`|x,\theta _s`$ satisfying $`\widehat{X}_s(\theta )|x,\theta _s=x|x,\theta _s`$.

Since $`r`$ of the laser field is measurable beforehand, we may define the measurement operator Nielsen and Chuang  for BHD as

$`\widehat{M}(x,r,\theta )\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}|re^{i\theta }_l|x,\theta _sx,\theta |_sre^{i\theta }|_l,`$ (2)
where $`|x,\theta `$ is the quadrature eigenstate written as

$`|x,\theta `$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{x^2}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(xe^{i\theta }\widehat{a}^{}\frac{1}{2}e^{i2\theta }\widehat{a}^2\right)|0.`$ (3)
$`|x,\theta `$ satisfies the orthonormalization condition $`x_1,\theta |x_2,\theta =\delta (x_1x_2)`$ and the completeness relation $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|x,\theta x,\theta |=1`$ on $`x`$. Since the coherent state also satisfies the completeness relation Walls and Milburn , Eq. (2) satisfies the completeness relation $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{}}r𝑑r_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \widehat{M}^{}(x,r,\theta )\widehat{M}(x,r,\theta )=1`$.

Considering that we cannot distinguish between $`|x,\theta _1`$ and $`|x,\theta _2`$ ($`\theta _1\theta _2`$) by measurement results due to intrinsic phase indeterminacy of the laser field RS ; Moelmer , the probability of obtaining the measurement outcome $`x=\overline{x}`$ with the prior knowledge of $`r`$ is

$`P(\overline{x})={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta \mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{M}(\overline{x},r,\theta )\widehat{\rho }_o\widehat{M}^{}(\overline{x},r,\theta )\right\},`$ (4)
and the density operator after the measurement is

$`\widehat{\rho }=P(\overline{x})^1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta \widehat{M}(\overline{x},r,\theta )\widehat{\rho }_o\widehat{M}^{}(\overline{x},r,\theta ),`$ (5)
where $`\widehat{\rho }_o`$ is the density operator before the measurement.

We will denote the procedure described above the observable-based projection method (OBPM) in the rest of this Letter. Note that above discussion is not based on the assumption that the laser field is the coherent state (“partition ensemble fallacy” RS ; KB ). It is the property of the observable for BHD that approximately projects the strong laser field of the LO mode onto the coherent state after the measurement. On the contrary, the number states in the LO mode cannot be eigenstates of the observable for BHD, because $`|n|n1`$ even in the limit $`n+\mathrm{}`$ due to their rigid orthogonality.

As an example of BHD, we will calculate $`P(\overline{x})`$ in the squeezed light generation scheme Squeezed State Experiment  by OBPM. In the scheme, the same laser source is used for supplying the LO field, and pumping the nonlinear medium to generate the squeezed state. The density operator of the system before the measurement is

$`\widehat{\rho }_o={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}|r_oe^{i(\varphi +\phi )}_l|0,se^{i2\varphi }_s0,se^{i2\varphi }|_sr_oe^{i(\varphi +\phi )}|_l,`$ (6)
where $`\varphi `$ is the unknown phase of the pump field, $`\phi `$ is the phase delay by a controllable phase shifter, and $`|0,\epsilon \widehat{S}(\epsilon )|0`$ is the squeezed vacuum state Walls and Milburn . The unknown phase of the squeezed state is $`2\varphi `$ instead of $`\varphi `$, because frequency of the pump field is doubled by second harmonic generation before the field enters an optical parametric oscillator. By using Eqs. (4), (6), orthogonality approximation of the coherent state $`|re^{i\theta }|r_oe^{i\theta _o}|^2(\pi /r_o)\delta (rr_o)\delta (\theta \theta _o)`$ in the limit $`r_o+\mathrm{}`$ derived from $`lim_{ϵ0+}\mathrm{exp}[t^2/(4ϵ)]/(2\sqrt{\pi ϵ})=\delta (t)`$, and the relation

$`x,\theta |0,se^{i2(\theta \phi )}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x,\theta |nn|0,se^{i2(\theta \phi )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2\pi )^{\frac{1}{4}}(2^nn!)^{\frac{1}{2}}H_n\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)e^{\frac{x^2}{4}in\theta }`$
$`\times [2^nn!\mathrm{cosh}(s)]^{\frac{1}{2}}[e^{i2(\theta \phi )}\mathrm{tanh}(s)]^{\frac{n}{2}}H_n(0)`$
$`=`$ $`x,\phi |0,s`$
where $`H_n(x)`$ are Hermite polynomials, we find $`P(\overline{x})=|\overline{x},\phi |0,s|^2`$, which agrees with the experimental result of Ref. Squeezed State Experiment .

Next, we will apply OBPM to CVQT with a laser CVQT ; RS . In the measurement step by Alice, the probability of obtaining $`\overline{x}_1`$ in BHD1 and $`\overline{x}_2`$ in BHD2 is $`P(\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2)_0^{\mathrm{}}r_1𝑑r_1_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _1_0^{\mathrm{}}r_2𝑑r_2_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _2\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{M}_2\widehat{M}_1\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{I}\widehat{M}_1^{}\widehat{M}_2^{}\}`$ and the density operator after the measurement is $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{II}}P^1(\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2)_0^{\mathrm{}}r_1𝑑r_1_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _1_0^{\mathrm{}}r_2𝑑r_2_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _2\widehat{M}_2\widehat{M}_1\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{I}\widehat{M}_1^{}\widehat{M}_2^{}`$, where $`\widehat{M}_j\pi ^{1/2}|r_je^{i\theta _j}_{lj}|\overline{x}_j,\theta _j_{sj}\overline{x}_j,\theta _j|_{sj}r_je^{i\theta _j}|_{lj}(j=1,2)`$. $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{I}`$ is the density operator of the total system before the measurement written as

$`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}|r_oe^{i\varphi }_{l1}|r_oe^{i(\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2})}_{l2}|\eta e^{i2\varphi }_{1,2}`$ (7)
$`|r_oe^{i\varphi }_{l3}\widehat{\rho }_{in}r_oe^{i\varphi }|_{l3}`$
$`\eta e^{i2\varphi }|_{1,2}r_oe^{i(\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2})}|_{l2}r_oe^{i\varphi }|_{l1},`$
where the modes $`l1,l2`$ are for LOs of BHD1,2 in Alice, $`l3`$ for LO in Bob, $`\varphi `$ is the unknown phase of the pump field, $`\widehat{\rho }_{in}`$ is an arbitrary density operator supplied by a third party “Victor” to Alice, and $`|\eta e^{i2\varphi }_{1,2}\sqrt{1\eta ^2}\mathrm{exp}(\eta e^{i2\varphi }\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{})|0_1|0_2`$ is a two-mode squeezed state Walls and Milburn  as the EPR state. Again, the unknown phase in the modes $`1,2`$ is $`2\varphi `$ instead of $`\varphi `$. (See Fig. 1 in Ref. RS .)

By using Eq. (3) and $`\widehat{a}_{s1}=(\widehat{a}_{in}\widehat{a}_1)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`\widehat{a}_{s2}=(\widehat{a}_{in}+\widehat{a}_1)/\sqrt{2}`$ where the modes $`s1,s2`$ are for the signal field of BHD1,2, the quadrature eigenstates of the modes $`s1,s2`$ are written in the modes $`in,1`$ as $`|\overline{x}_1,\varphi _{s1}|\overline{x}_2,\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2}_{s2}=[\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\left|\gamma \right|^2}{2})/\sqrt{2\pi }]\mathrm{exp}[(\gamma \widehat{a}_{in}^{}\gamma ^{}\widehat{a}_1^{})e^{i\varphi }+\widehat{a}_{in}^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}e^{i2\varphi }]|0_{in}|0_1,`$ where $`\gamma (\overline{x}_1+i\overline{x}_2)/\sqrt{2}`$. By using this and the relation for bosons $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu \widehat{a})\mathrm{exp}(\nu \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}^{})=\mathrm{exp}(\mu \nu \widehat{b}^{})\mathrm{exp}(\nu \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}^{})\mathrm{exp}(\mu \widehat{a})`$ derived from the Baker-Hausdorff formula Scully and Zubairy , we find

$`\overline{x}_1,\varphi |_{s1}\overline{x}_2,\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2}|_{s2}|\eta e^{i2\varphi }_{1,2}=e^{\frac{|\gamma |^2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta ^2}{2\pi }}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(\eta \gamma e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_2^{})\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\eta ^n|n_2n|_{in}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma ^{}e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_{in}).`$ (8)
With orthogonality approximation of the coherent state, we find $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{II}}`$ includes Eq. (8). Ideal quantum teleportation is possible only when $`\eta =1`$, where a two-mode squeezed state is maximally entangled CVQT . Eq. (8) shows that the unitary transform $`\widehat{U}_2`$ applied by Bob to the mode $`2`$ in the reconstruction step must satisfy $`\widehat{U}_2|_{\eta =1}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\left|\gamma \right|^2}{2})\mathrm{exp}(\gamma e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_2^{})\mathrm{exp}(\gamma ^{}e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_2)=const.`$, because $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}|n_2n|_{in}`$ transfers a state of the mode $`in`$ to the mode $`2`$ with absolute precision.

The necessary condition for $`\widehat{U}_2`$ is then found to be $`\widehat{U}_2|_{\eta =1}=\mathrm{exp}(\gamma e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_2^{}\gamma ^{}e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_2)`$, which means Bob needs not only the measurement results by Alice $`\gamma `$ but also the unknown phase of Alice’s LO fields $`\varphi `$ to perform $`\widehat{U}_2`$. Hence, to share $`\varphi `$ between Alice and Bob by a certain means is essential to realizing CVQT with a laser.

In the experiment CVQT Experiment , Bob obtains $`\varphi `$ from the LO at hand directly connected to Alice’s LOs and the pump field of a two-mode squeezed state. If Bob performs the unitary transform $`\widehat{U}_{2,l3}(\gamma ,\eta )\mathrm{exp}[(\eta /r_o)(\gamma \widehat{a}_{l3}\widehat{a}_2^{}\gamma ^{}\widehat{a}_{l3}^{}\widehat{a}_2)]`$ after he obtains $`\gamma `$, the density operator of the total system $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{III}}\widehat{U}_{2,l3}(\gamma ,\eta )\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{II}}\widehat{U}_{2,l3}^{}(\gamma ,\eta )`$ becomes

$`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{III}}P^1(\overline{x}_1,\overline{x}_2)`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}|r_oe^{i\varphi }_{l1}|\overline{x}_1,\varphi _{s1}|r_oe^{i(\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2})}_{l2}|\overline{x}_2,\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2}_{s2}`$
$`|r_oe^{i\varphi }_{l3}\widehat{T}_{2,in}(\gamma ,\eta ,\varphi )\widehat{\rho }_{in}\widehat{T}_{2,in}^{}(\gamma ,\eta ,\varphi )r_oe^{i\varphi }|_{l3}`$
$`\overline{x}_2,\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2}|_{s2}r_oe^{i(\varphi +\frac{\pi }{2})}|_{l2}\overline{x}_1,\varphi |_{s1}r_oe^{i\varphi }|_{l1},`$
where $`\widehat{a}^{}|r_oe^{i\theta }r_oe^{i\theta }|r_oe^{i\theta }`$ in the limit $`r_o+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\widehat{T}_{2,in}`$ is defined as

$`\widehat{T}_{2,in}(\gamma ,\eta ,\varphi )e^{\frac{|\gamma |^2}{2}(1\eta ^2)}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta ^2}{2\pi }}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(\eta \gamma ^{}e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_2)\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\eta ^n|n_2n|_{in}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\gamma ^{}e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_{in}),`$ (10)
which corresponds to the transfer operator in Ref. Hofmann  from the mode $`in`$ to the mode $`2`$.

Eqs. (9) and (10) clearly show that in the special case $`\eta =1`$ $`\widehat{T}_{2,in}`$ is independent of the unknown phase $`\varphi `$ where ideal quantum teleportation is realized, while in the usual case $`0\eta <1`$ $`\widehat{T}_{2,in}`$ is dependent on the unknown phase $`\varphi `$ where the reconstructed density operator in the mode $`2`$ is distorted from $`\widehat{\rho }_{in}`$.

We will subsequently discuss generation of a strongly phase-correlated quantum state necessary in CVQT by measuring two independent laser fields

$`\widehat{\rho }_o={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _a}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _b}{2\pi }}|r_ae^{i\varphi _a}_a|r_be^{i\varphi _b}_br_be^{i\varphi _b}|_br_ae^{i\varphi _a}|_a.`$ (11)
In the case of BHD, since the observable satisfies $`(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}+\widehat{a}\widehat{b}^{})|r_ae^{i\varphi }|r_be^{i(\varphi \pm \phi )}2r_ar_b\mathrm{cos}(\phi )|r_ae^{i\varphi }|r_be^{i(\varphi \pm \phi )}(0\phi \pi )`$ in the limit $`r_a,r_b+\mathrm{}`$, the measurement operator for OBPM may be defined as $`\widehat{M}(\overline{\mathrm{cos}(\phi )},r_1,r_2,\varphi )\pi ^1|r_1e^{i\varphi }|r_2e^{i(\varphi \pm \phi )}r_2e^{i(\varphi \pm \phi )}|r_1e^{i\varphi }|`$. Then, the density operator after the measurement becomes $`\widehat{\rho }=\frac{1}{2}_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }|r_ae^{i\varphi }_a|r_be^{i(\varphi +\phi )}_br_be^{i(\varphi +\phi )}|_br_ae^{i\varphi }|_a+\frac{1}{2}_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }|r_ae^{i\varphi }_a|r_be^{i(\varphi \phi )}_br_be^{i(\varphi \phi )}|_br_ae^{i\varphi }|_a`$, i.e., BHD does not determine a unique phase difference of two lasers except exactly when $`\overline{\mathrm{cos}(\phi )}=\pm 1`$ with negligible probability. Hence, the generated quantum state by BHD is not applicable to CVQT to share the unknown phase of the laser field.

But if we perform continuous measurement Carmichael ; DCM ; Scully and Zubairy  presented in Fig. 1, a unique phase difference of two lasers is chosen with non-zero probability. In Fig. 1, two-level atom beams are used as probes to ensure that photoabsorption occurs at most one time within the infinitesimal atom-field interaction time $`\tau `$, which is not feasible by a present photodetector lacking single photon resolution in the strong field Carmichael ; Gardiner and Zoller .

Given that the total photoabsorption (quantum jump) occurs either in the mode $`c`$ or $`d`$ at times $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_s`$ in the time interval $`[0,t]`$ with no absorption between these times, the conditional probability that photoabsorption occurs $`p,q(=sp)`$ times in the mode $`c,d`$, respectively, is

$`P(t;p,q|s)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{p}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{c}^p\widehat{d}^qe^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{\rho }(0)e^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{d}^q\widehat{c}^p\}}{{\displaystyle \underset{p+q=s}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{p}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{c}^p\widehat{d}^qe^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{\rho }(0)e^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{d}^q\widehat{c}^p\}}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\pi ^1\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{p}}\right)B(p+\frac{1}{2},q+\frac{1}{2}),`$
and the density operator becomes

$`\widehat{\rho }(t;p,q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{c}^p\widehat{d}^qe^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{\rho }(0)e^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{d}^q\widehat{c}^p}{\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{c}^p\widehat{d}^qe^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{\rho }(0)e^{R(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})t}\widehat{d}^q\widehat{c}^p\}}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{B(p+\frac{1}{2},q+\frac{1}{2})}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _a}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _b}{2\pi }}\mathrm{sin}^{2p}\left(\frac{\varphi _a\varphi _b}{2}\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{cos}^{2q}\left(\frac{\varphi _a\varphi _b}{2}\right)|r_te^{i\varphi _a}_a|r_te^{i\varphi _b}_br_te^{i\varphi _b}|_br_te^{i\varphi _a}|_a,`$
where $`\rho (0)`$ is Eq. (11) with $`r_a=r_b(r_o)`$, $`e^{R\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}(p\tau )}e^{R\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c}(q\tau )}1`$, $`B(x,y)`$ is the beta function, $`r_tr_oe^{Rt}`$, $`Rg^2\tau /2`$, and $`g`$ is the atom-field coupling constant Scully and Zubairy .

The proposed continuous measurement is valid when $`\tau (\sqrt{2s}r_og)^1`$. In Eq. (13), we find that atoms simultaneously intersecting the output modes with no absorption (null measurement) damp both laser fields, leaving phase correlation between the fields unchanged. The absorption rate is assumed to be quite high, where $`t`$ is much smaller than the dynamical time scale of an individual laser.

For $`s1`$, the distribution of the phase difference of states in the integrand of Eq. (13) has a peak at $`|\varphi _a\varphi _b|=\pi `$ when $`p=s`$, or at $`|\varphi _a\varphi _b|=0`$ when $`p=0`$. Since Eq. (12) has peaks at $`p=0,s`$, the probability of obtaining Eq. (13) with $`p=0,s`$ is not negligible.

The photon number distribution of the mode $`c`$, $`P_c(m)m|\mathrm{Tr}_d\{\widehat{\rho }(t;p,q)\}|m_c`$, is found to be

$`P_c(m)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2r_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2r_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(m+p+\frac{1}{2},q+\frac{1}{2})}{B(p+\frac{1}{2},q+\frac{1}{2})}}`$ (14)
$`\times {}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(q+\frac{1}{2};m+p+q+1;2r_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$
where $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ;\beta ;z)`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function of the first kind. $`P_d(n)`$ is easily obtained by replacing $`m`$ with $`n`$ and interchanging $`pq`$ in Eq. (14). Fig. 2 is for $`P_c(m),P_d(n)`$.

When $`p=0,s`$ with $`s1`$, the generated quantum state is applicable to CVQT as a means to share the unknown phase of the laser field between Alice and Bob, though the phase correlation formed after the continuous measurement will slowly be broken by the phase diffusion effect of lasers.

The famous experiment for interference of two independent lasers by Pfleegor and Mandel PM , where weak laser fields were mixed by beamsplitters and all the output fields were continuously measured by photomultipliers, should carefully be reviewed in terms of phase-correlated quantum state generation by measurement.

In conclusion, we have shown that, contrary to the claims of Ref. vEF , the standard description of the laser field used in Ref. RS  is sufficient to understand CVQT with a conventional laser. By using the standard description of the laser field RS , we have presented OBPM for BHD to analyze CVQT with a laser. CVQT is found to be possible only if the unknown phase of the laser field is shared among Alice’s LOs, the EPR state, and Bob’s LO by a certain means. The demonstrated experiment for CVQT CVQT Experiment  is valid, but needs an optical path other than the EPR channel and a classical channel allowed to use in the teleportation protocols Original QT ; CVQT  to share the unknown phase of the same laser field between Alice and Bob. We have proposed a method to probabilistically generate a strongly phase-correlated quantum state via continuous measurement of independent lasers, which is applicable to realizing CVQT without the additional optical path.

The author is greatly indebted to Kenji Ohkuma, Kouichi Ichimura, and Noritsugu Shiokawa for intensive and fruitful discussions on the subject of this Letter. The author also acknowledges useful discussions with Mio Murao, Hirofumi Muratani, and Toshiaki Iitaka.


text:
# References

Differential Geometry of the Lie algebra of the quantum plane

Salih Çelik 111E-mail address: sacelik@yildiz.edu.tr and Sultan A Çelik

Yildiz Technical University, Department of Mathematics,

34210 Davutpasa-Esenler, Istanbul, TURKEY.

We present a differential calculus on the extension of the quantum plane obtained considering that the (bosonic) generator $`x`$ is invertible and furthermore working polynomials in $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ instead of polynomials in $`x`$. We call quantum Lie algebra to this extension and we obtain its Hopf algebra structure and its dual Hopf algebra.

Quantum plane  is a simple example of quantum space and has been studied intensively by many authors in the past years. It can be obtained by deformation of the classical plane . For references to the literature we refer to the recent book by Majid .

As usual in noncommutative geometry  quantum plane has many differential calculi. By using the noncommutative differential geometry method in Ref. 5 and interpreting the dual plane of the quantum plane to consist of differentials of the coordinates of the quantum plane, covariant differential calculus on the quantum plane has been developed. Therefore the quantum plane provides a simple example for noncommutative differential geometry .

It is known that, in order to construct a noncommutative differential calculus on quantum groups and Hopf algebras, one takes into consideration the associative algebra of functions on the group. The starting point of this work is its Lie algebra. For quamtum superplane, similar a work studied in Ref. 7. In this work, we present here a differential calculus on the Lie algebra of the associative algebra of functions on the extended quantum plane.

The quantum plane  is defined as an associative algebra generated by two noncommuting coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ with the single quadratic relation

$$xyqyx=0q𝒞\{0\}.$$
$`(1)`$
This algebra is known as the algebra of polynomials over the quantum plane and we shall denote by $`𝒜_q=Fun_q(R(2))`$. We extend the algebra $`𝒜_q`$ by including inverse of $`x`$ which obeys

$$xx^1=1=x^1x.$$

We know, from Ref. 8, that the extended algebra $`𝒜_q`$ is a Hopf algebra with the following costructures:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=xx\mathrm{\Delta }(y)=y1+xy$$

$$ϵ(x)=1ϵ(y)=0$$
$`(2)`$
$$\kappa (x)=x^1\kappa (y)=x^1y.$$

It is not difficult to verify the following properties of costructures:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }=(\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }$$

$$m(ϵ\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }=m(\text{id}ϵ)\mathrm{\Delta }$$
$`(3)`$
$$m(\kappa \text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }=ϵ=m(\text{id}\kappa )\mathrm{\Delta }$$

where id denotes the identity mapping and $`m`$ is the multiplication map

$$m:𝒜_q𝒜_q𝒜_qm(ab)=ab.$$

It is known that an element of a Lie group can be represented by exponential of an element of its Lie algebra. Using this fact, we can define the generators of $`𝒜_q`$ as

$$x=e^Xy=e^XYq=e^h.$$
$`(4)`$
Then we obtain the relation

$$[X,Y]=hY$$
$`(5)`$
where

$$[a,b]_\pm =ab\pm ba.$$

This is the relations of a Lie algebra and we shall denote it by $`(𝒜_q)=:g_h`$. The Hopf algebra structure of $`g_h`$ can be read off from (2),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(X)=X1+1X$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Y)=Ye^X+1Y$$

$$ϵ(X)=0ϵ(Y)=0$$
$`(6)`$
$$\kappa (X)=X\kappa (Y)=Ye^X.$$

We now shall build up a noncommutative differential calculus on the Lie algebra $`g_h`$. This must be involve functions on the Lie algebra $`g_h`$, differentials and differential forms. For this, we have to define a linear map $`\delta `$ which acts on the functions of the elements of $`g_h`$. The exterior differential $`\delta `$ is an operator which gives the mapping from the generators of $`g_h`$ to the differentials:

$$\delta :u\delta uu\{X,Y\}.$$

We demand that the exterior differential $`\delta `$ has to satisfy two properties: the nilpotency

$$\delta ^2=0$$
$`(7a)`$
and the Leibniz rule

$$\delta (fg)=(\delta f)g+f(\delta g).$$
$`(7b)`$
In order to establish a noncommutative differential calculus on the algebra $`g_h`$, we assume that the commutation relations between the elements of $`g_h`$ and their differentials are the following form:

$$X\delta X=A_{11}\delta XX+B_1\delta X+B_2\delta Y$$

$$X\delta Y=A_{12}\delta YX+B_3\delta X+B_4\delta Y$$

$$Y\delta X=A_{21}\delta XY+B_5\delta X+B_6\delta Y$$

$$Y\delta Y=A_{22}\delta YY+B_7\delta X+B_8\delta Y.$$
$`(8)`$
The coefficients $`A_{ij}`$ and $`B_i`$ will be determined in terms of the ”new” deformation parameter $`h`$. To find them we shall use the consistency of calculus.

Using the consistency conditions

$$\delta (XYYXhY)=0$$

$$(XYYXhY)\delta X=0$$

$$(XYYXhY)\delta Y=0$$

we obtain the system

$$A_{11}=A_{12}=A_{21}=0B_2(1A_{22})=0$$

$$B_3B_5=0B_4B_6=hB_3B_6B_2B_7=hB_5$$

$$(B_1B_4)B_6+(B_8B_5)B_2=hB_6$$

$$B_3B_6B_2B_7=hB_8$$

$$(B_1B_4)B_7+(B_8B_5)B_3=hB_7$$

or

$$A_{11}=A_{12}=A_{21}=0B_2(1A_{22})=0$$

$$B_3=B_5=B_8B_4B_6=h(B_1B_4h)B_7=0.$$

Thus we have the following algebra

$$[X,\delta X]=B_1\delta X+B_2\delta Y$$

$$[X,\delta Y]=B_3\delta X+B_4\delta Y$$

$$[Y,\delta X]=B_3\delta X+(B_4h)\delta Y$$

$$[Y,\delta Y]=(A_{22}1)\delta YY+B_7\delta X+B_3\delta Y.$$
$`(9)`$
But we do not have the required relations because of the constants. To find the constans in the above relations, we shall consider the covariance of the noncommutative differential calculus.

We first note that consistency of a differential calculus with commutation relation (5) means that the algebra is a graded associative algebra generated by the elements of the set $`\{X,Y,\delta X,\delta Y\}`$. So, it is sufficient only describe the actions of co-maps on the subset $`\{\delta X,\delta Y\}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a free left module over the algebra $`g_h`$ generated by the elements of the set $`\{X,Y,\delta X,\delta Y\}`$. The module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes a unital associative algebra if one defines a multiplication law on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by relations (5) and (9).

We consider a map $`\varphi _L:\mathrm{\Gamma }g_h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that

$$\varphi _L\delta =(\text{id}\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
$`(10)`$
Thus we have

$$\varphi _L(\delta X)=1\delta X\varphi _L(\delta Y)=1\delta Y+\frac{1e^h}{h}YXe^X.$$
$`(11)`$
We now define a map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L(a_1\delta b_1+\delta b_2a_2)=\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1)\varphi _L(\delta b_1)+\varphi _L(\delta b_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(a_2).$$
$`(12)`$
Applying the linear map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ to relations (9) we get, as the solution of the obtained system,

$$A_{11}=A_{12}=A_{21}=1A_{22}=e^h$$

$$B_1=B_6=hB_2=B_3=B_4=B_5=B_7=B_8=0.$$
$`(13)`$
Consequently, the relations (9) is of the form

$$[X,\delta X]=h\delta X[X,\delta Y]=0$$

$$[Y,\delta X]=h\delta Y[Y,\delta Y]=(e^h1)\delta YY.$$
$`(14)`$
Applying the exterior differential $`\delta `$ to the relation (14) one has

$$[\delta X,\delta Y]_+=0(\delta X)^2=0=(\delta Y)^2.$$
$`(15)`$
Note that, the differentials of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in terms of $`x`$ and $`y`$ as follows:

$$\delta X=\frac{h}{1e^h}\delta xx^1\delta Y=x^1(\delta y\delta xx^1y).$$

We now consider another map $`\varphi _R:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }g_h`$ such that

$$\varphi _R\delta =(\delta \text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
$`(16)`$
Thus one has

$$\varphi _R(\delta X)=\delta X1\varphi _R(\delta Y)=\delta Ye^X.$$
$`(17)`$
We define a map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ with again (12) by replacing $`R`$ with $`L`$. The map $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ also leaves invariant the relations (14) and (15), and the following identities are satisfied:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_L=(\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta }_L)\mathrm{\Delta }_L(ϵ\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\text{id}$$

$$(\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }_R=(\mathrm{\Delta }_R\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_R(\text{id}ϵ)\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\text{id}.$$
$`(18)`$
To denote the coproduct, counit and coinverse which will be defined on the algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with those of $`𝒜`$ may be inadvisable. For this reason, we shall denote them with a different notation. Let us define the map $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\mathrm{\Delta }_L$$
$`(19)`$
which will allow us to define the coproduct of the differential algebra. We denote the restriction of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ to the algebra $`g_h`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the extension of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the differential algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. It is possible to interpret the relation

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}|_{g_h}=\mathrm{\Delta }$$
$`(20)`$
as the definition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ on the generators of $`g_h`$ and (19) as the definition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ on differentials.

It is not difficult to verify the following conditions:

a) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`g_h`$-bimodule,

b) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`g_h`$-bicomodule with left and right coactions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$, respectively, making $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a left and right $`g_h`$-comodule with (18), and

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_L\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_R=(\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta }_R)\mathrm{\Delta }_L$$
$`(21)`$
which is the $`g_h`$-bimodule property. So, the triple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }_L,\mathrm{\Delta }_R)`$ is a bicovariant bimodule over Hopf algebra $`g_h`$. In additional, since

c) $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\delta )`$ is a first order differential calculus over $`g_h`$, and

d) $`\delta `$ is both a left and a right comodule map, i.e. for all $`ag_h`$

$$(\text{id}\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\delta a)(\delta \text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=\mathrm{\Delta }_R(\delta a)$$
$`(22)`$
the quadruple $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },d,\mathrm{\Delta }_L,\mathrm{\Delta }_R)`$ is a first order bicovariant differential calculus over Hopf algebra $`g_h`$.

Now let us return Hopf algebra structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If we define a counit $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ for the differential algebra as

$$\widehat{ϵ}\delta =\delta ϵ=0$$
$`(23)`$
and

$$\widehat{ϵ}|_{g_h}=ϵϵ|_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\widehat{ϵ}.$$
$`(24)`$
we have

$$\widehat{ϵ}(\delta X)=0\widehat{ϵ}(\delta Y)=0$$
$`(25)`$
where

$$\widehat{ϵ}(a_1\delta b_1+\delta b_2a_2)=ϵ(a_1)\widehat{ϵ}(\delta b_1)+\widehat{ϵ}(\delta b_2)ϵ(a_2).$$
$`(26)`$
Here we used the fact that $`\delta (1)=0`$.

As the next step we obtain a coinverse $`\widehat{\kappa }`$. For this, it suffices to define $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ such that

$$\widehat{\kappa }\delta =\delta \kappa $$
$`(27)`$
and

$$\widehat{\kappa }|_{g_h}=\kappa \kappa |_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\widehat{\kappa }$$
$`(28)`$
where

$$\widehat{\kappa }(a_1\delta b_1+\delta b_2a_2)=\widehat{\kappa }(\delta b_1)\kappa (a_1)+\kappa (a_2)\widehat{\kappa }(\delta b_2).$$
$`(29)`$
Thus the action of $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ on the generators $`\delta X`$ and $`\delta Y`$ is as follows:

$$\widehat{\kappa }(\delta X)=\delta X\widehat{\kappa }(\delta Y)=e^{Xh}\left(\delta Y+\frac{e^h1}{h}\delta XY\right).$$
$`(30)`$
Note that it is easy to check that $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ and $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ leave invariant the relations (14) and (15). Consequently, we can say that the structure $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{ϵ},\widehat{\kappa })`$ is a graded Hopf algebra.

Just as we introduced the derivatives of the generators of $`𝒜_q`$ in the standard way, let us introduce derivatives of the generators of $`g_h`$ and multiply explicit expression of the exterior differential $`\delta `$ from the right by $`Xf`$ and $`Yf`$, respectively. Then, using the Leibniz rule for partial derivatives

$$_i(fg)=(_if)g+f(_ig)$$

we obtain

$$[_X,X]=\frac{h}{1e^h}\left(1+(e^h1)_X\right)$$

$$[_X,Y]=0[_Y,X]=0$$

$$[_Y,Y]=e^h+(1e^h)\left(_XY_Y\right).$$
$`(31)`$
Note that, the partial derivatives of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in terms of $`x`$ and $`y`$ as follows:

$$_X=x_x+y_y_Y=e^hx_y.$$

The commutation relations among the partial derivatives can be easily obtained by using $`\delta ^2=0`$. So it follows that

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1e^h}{h}}\delta X_X+e^h\delta Y_Y`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^2=\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^h}{h}}\delta X_X+e^h\delta Y_Y\right)`$
$`=`$ $`e^h{\displaystyle \frac{e^h1}{h}}\delta X\delta Y\left(_Y_X_X_Y\right)`$
which says that

$$[_X,_Y]=0.$$
$`(32)`$
In order to find the commutation relations between the differentials and partial derivatives, we demand a form similar to (8). After some tedious but straigtword calculations, we find

$$[_X,\delta X]=(e^h1)\delta X_Xe^h\delta X$$

$$[_X,\delta Y]=(e^h1)\delta Y_Xe^h\delta Y$$

$$[_Y,\delta X]=0$$
$`(33)`$
$$[_Y,\delta Y]=(e^h1)\delta Y_Y+\frac{(e^h1)^2}{h}\delta X_X+e^h\frac{1e^h}{h}\delta X.$$

We now define two one-forms using the generators of $`g_h`$ and show that the algebra of forms is a graded Hopf algebra.

If we call them $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ then we can define them as follows:

$$w_1=\frac{1e^h}{h}\delta Xw_2=e^X\delta Y.$$
$`(34)`$
We denote the algebra of forms generated by $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The generators of the algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the generators of $`g_h`$ satisfy the following relations:

$$[w_1,X]=hw_1[w_1,Y]=(1e^h)e^Xw_2$$

$$[w_2,X]=0[w_2,Y]=0.$$
$`(35)`$
The commutation rules of the generators of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are

$$w_1w_2=e^hw_2w_1w_1^2=0=w_2^2.$$
$`(36)`$
One can make the algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into a graded Hopf algebra with the following costructures: the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }:\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(w_1)=w_11+1w_1$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(w_2)=w_21+e^Xw_2e^XYw_1.$$
$`(37)`$
The counit $`ϵ:\mathrm{\Omega }𝒞`$ is given by

$$ϵ(w_1)=0ϵ(w_2)=0$$
$`(38)`$
and the coinverse $`\kappa :\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined by

$$\kappa (w_1)=w_1\kappa (w_2)=e^Xw_2+Yw_1.$$
$`(39)`$
Now we shall obtain the universal enveloping algebra of $`g_h`$, $`𝒰(g_h)`$, via the vector fields related to the one-forms. We first write the Cartan-Maurer forms as

$$\delta X=\frac{h}{1e^h}w_1\delta Y=e^Xw_2.$$
$`(40)`$
Writing the exterior differential $`\delta `$ in the form

$$\delta =w_1T_1+w_2T_2$$

and considering an arbitrary function $`f`$ of the generators of $`g_h`$ and using the nilpotency of $`\delta `$ one has

$$T_2T_1=e^hT_1T_2+T_2.$$
$`(41)`$
The commutation relations of vector fields with the generators of $`g_h`$ as follows:

$$[T_1,X]=\frac{h}{1e^h}\left(1+(e^h1)T_1\right)$$

$$[T_1,Y]=0[T_2,X]=0$$

$$[T_2,Y]=e^X\left(1+(e^h1)T_1\right).$$
$`(42)`$
The Hopf algebra structure of the vector fields is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(T_1)=T_11+1T_1+(e^h1)T_1T_1$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(T_2)=T_21+1T_2+(e^h1)T_2T_1$$

$$ϵ(T_1)=0ϵ(T_2)=0$$
$`(43)`$
$$\kappa (T_1)=T_1\left(1+(e^h1)T_1\right)^1$$

$$\kappa (T_2)=T_2\left\{1(e^h1)T_1\left(1+(e^h1)T_1\right)^1\right\}.$$

If we introduce the operators $`H`$ and $`N`$ as

$$T_1=\frac{e^{hN}1}{e^h1}\text{and}T_2=e^{hN}H$$
$`(44)`$
we get

$$[H,N]=H.$$
$`(45)`$
Then, dual Hopf algebra to $`𝒰(g_h)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(N)=N1+1N$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(H)=H1+e^{hN}H$$

$$ϵ(N)=0ϵ(H)=0$$
$`(46)`$
$$\kappa (N)=N\kappa (H)=e^{hN}H.$$

Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by TBTAK the Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council.