format: text

text:
# Quantum State Control via Trap-induced Shape Resonance in Ultracold Atomic Collisions

## Abstract

We investigate controlled collisions between trapped but separated ultracold atoms. The interaction between atoms is treated self-consistently using an energy-dependent delta-function pseudopotential model, whose validity we establish. At a critical separation, a “trap-induced shape resonance” between a molecular bound states and a vibrational eigenstate of the trap can occur. This resonance leads to an avoided crossing in the eigenspectrum as a function of separation. We investigate how this new resonance can be employed for quantum control.

The ability to arbitrarily manipulate the quantum state of a many-body ensemble represents the ultimate control of a physical system. This task has steadily advanced in atomic-molecular-optical systems with tremendous progress in cooling and trapping technology. This has led to the creation of Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) and Fermi degenerate gases, and the explorations of new forms of matter and mesoscopic quantum states previously accessible only in condensed matter systems nat . The addition of engineered traps, such as optical lattices Deutsch and Jessen (1998) and other optical Sch  and magnetic Folman et al. (2000) microtraps provides a new knob with which to control the quantum state. A dramatic example of many-body control in lattices was demonstrated through the observation of a superfluid to Mott insulator quantum phase transition and the collapse and revival of the mean field coherence Gre .

The standard approach to modelling and designing coherent states of matter, such as occur in a quantum phase transition, has its foundations in condensed matter theory, where one considers solutions to the entire many-body Hamiltonian. An alternative viewpoint arises from a fundamental theorem of quantum information theory Nielsen and Chuang (2000): an arbitrary state of a many-body system can be reached entirely through operations on single bodies and pairwise interactions. This provides a direct approach to engineering mesoscopic states through the application of a “quantum circuit” Jan . Moreover, one requires only a single two-body interaction (e.g. CPHASE or CNOT gate) that entangles the “particles” to contribute to a universal set of quantum logic gates.

In the context of ultracold neutral atoms, whereas manipulating the quantum state of an individual atom is a very mature technique, arbitrary unitary mapping of a two-atom system has not yet been achieved. Neutrals, by their very nature, do not strongly couple to anything. This may be an advantage for avoiding noise, but it implies that the two-body interaction will generally require close overlap of the atomic wavepackets. By bringing two atoms within the same well of a tightly confining microtrap, one can achieve this strong coupling while remaining in the electronic ground state. Proposals for two-atom control in such a geometry have been considered using ground state $`s`$-wave collisions Jaksch et al. (1999), Feshbach resonances Mies et al. (2000) and laser induced Raman transitions Jaksch et al. (2002). At such close range, the atoms lose their individual identities and instead must be described as a molecular dimer which generally does not respect the atomic symmetries. This constrains the possible encodings of quantum information such that two-body logic gates can be performed within a well-defined “logical basis”. This constraint can be overcome by placing the particles in distinguishable locations where the atomic quantum numbers are conserved asymptotically. Under typical conditions such separated atoms would generally encounter very weak interactions. The coupling between atoms can be dramatically increased, however, when a resonance of the two-body system is excited, resulting in long-range interactions. An example of this is induced electric dipole-dipole interactions associated with excited electronic states Brennen et al. (2002); Jaksch et al. (2000).

In this letter we describe the physics at the foundation of these protocols by considering ultracold collisions between trapped but separated atoms. Our studies show that the trapping potential can lead to new resonances not found in free space. Unlike standard atomic collisions, here the relative motion of the atoms is quantized by the trap, making its description intrinsic to the process. Resonances can then occur between eigenstates of the trap and molecular bound states, allowing us to overcome the generally very weak interactions associated with the van der Waals potential. These “trap induced shape resonances” (TISR) can be substantial but are not accounted for within perturbation theory, that was applied in previous proposals for quantum logic via cold collisions Jaksch et al. (1999). The TISR provides a new tool for molecular dimer control (e.g., the production of cold molecules) and the design of two-atom quantum logic gates.

Our model system consists of two trapped and separated atoms that interact through the molecular potential $`V_{\mathrm{int}}`$, described by a Hamiltonian,

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐩}_1^2}{2m}}+V_\mathrm{t}\left(𝐫_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }𝐳}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐩}_2^2}{2m}}+V_\mathrm{t}\left(𝐫_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }𝐳}{2}}\right)`$ (1)
$`+V_{\mathrm{int}}(𝐫_1𝐫_2),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is the separation of the traps (chosen in the $`z`$-direction). The trapping potential $`V_t`$ for the two atoms could be, for example, the state-dependent trap of a three-dimensional optical lattice potential. In this system $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ can be continously controlled by the angle between the polarization vectors of the counter propagating laser beams Deutsch and Jessen (1998); O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. Haensch, and I. Bloch (2003). We assume atoms are well-localized near a potential minimum that is approximated as isotropic and harmonic with frequency $`\omega `$. The two-atom Hamiltonian then separates into one for the center-of-mass moving in an isotropic harmonic potential, and one for relative coordinate dynamics governed by

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{rel}}=\frac{\widehat{𝐩}_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu }+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega ^2\left|𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }𝐳\right|^2+V_{\mathrm{int}}(𝐫).$$
(2)
The reduced mass $`\mu =m/2`$ moves under the combined effects of a harmonic trap centered at $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐳`$ and a central interatomic potential (Fig. 1).

The harmonic trap is characterized by $`z_0=\left(\mathrm{}/\mu \omega \right)^{1/2}`$, the width of the trap ground wave function, while the interatomic potential has a much shorter range $`x_0`$; for ground state van der Waals interaction $`V_{\mathrm{int}}(r)=C_6/r^6`$ at large interatomic separation, $`x_0=(2\mu C_6/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/4}/2`$ Gribakin and Flambaum (1993). Since for alkali atoms in typical optical lattices $`x_0z_0`$, distortion of the interatomic potential due to the harmonic trap can be neglected. Furthermore, for the ultra-cold collisions under consideration here, $`s`$-wave scattering dominates the collision. Under these conditions, the interatomic interaction $`V_{\mathrm{int}}(𝐫)`$ can be replaced by a zero-range effective-scattering length pseudopotential Huang and Yang (1957); Bol ; Blu

$$\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{eff}}(𝐫,E_K)=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{\mu }a_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_K)\delta (𝐫)\frac{}{r}r.$$
(3)
Here $`E_K=(\mathrm{}k)^2/(2\mu )`$ is the kinetic energy of relative motion for two atoms in an asymptotic scattering state with momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$. It determines an “energy-dependent scattering length,”

$$a_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_K)=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\delta _0(E_K)}{k},$$
(4)
where $`\delta _0(E_K)`$ is the $`s`$-wave collisional phase shift. However, unlike in a traditional collision where the two atoms are asymptotically free, in this system the atoms are trapped. The eigenvalues of the system must thus be solved self-consistently Bol . To this end, the eigenspectrum of the system is first calculated as a function of the (energy-independent) scattering length. Second, the effective-scattering length is calculated as a function of kinetic energy $`E_K`$ for two untrapped atoms. The self-consistent energy eigenvalues are then found numerically as the simultaneous solutions of these functions. This method has been shown to yield the correct scattering behavior and energy spectrum for two atoms in a tight harmonic trap Bol  for $`z_0x_0`$.

Full characterization of the interatomic potential by a pseudopotential requires not only accurately reproducing the scattering behavior but also the molecular bound state spectrum. This is particularly important for the TISR described below. We accomplish this by analytic continuation of the effective scattering length Eq. (4) to negative kinetic energies $`E_K=\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^2/(2\mu )`$ according to $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_K)=\mathrm{tanh}ı\delta _0(E_K)/\kappa `$, with real and positive $`\kappa `$. The self-consistent solutions for these negative energies then accurately reproduce the entire $`s`$-wave bound state spectrum as can be easily understood as follows. Suppose there is a bound state of the actual potential $`V_{int}`$ at $`E_b=(\mathrm{}\kappa _b)^2/(2\mu )`$. The corresponding pole of the $`S`$-matrix implies that $`\mathrm{tanh}ı\delta _0(E_b)1`$, and hence $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_b)=1/\kappa _b`$. Now, a pseudopotential with scattering length $`a>0`$ possesses exactly one bound state at $`E_\delta =(\mathrm{}^2/(2\mu a^2)`$. By setting $`a=a_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_b)`$ we recover the exact bound state, $`E_\delta =E_b`$. Note that without a self-consistent solution one cannot choose a pseudopotential which simultaneously matches the scattering length and last bound state of the true potential. Moreover, although the pseudopotential can have no more that one bound state, this self-consistent solution via the energy-dependent scattering length captures exactly all of the $`s`$-wave bound states, since they are obtained from $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_K)`$ and therefore the $`S`$-matrix.

With this model we calculate the energy spectrum of Eq. (2) for two trapped but separated atoms. First consider the spectrum for a given scattering length. We represent the Hamiltonian for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ in the basis corresponding to the solutions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$ and a fixed scattering length $`a`$ (i.e. not the self-consistent solution). This basis, derived by Busch et al. Busch et al. (1998), consists of 3D-harmonic-oscillator-like solutions. The pseudopotential couples only $`s`$-waves, resulting in irregular $`l=0`$ radial waves with singularities at the origin. These solutions also include the pseudopotential bound state at negative energy. The $`l1`$ wave functions are the regular 3D-harmonic oscillator wave functions. The trap potential, proportional to $`\left|𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }𝐳\right|^2=r^2\mathrm{\Delta }zr\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{\Delta }z^2`$ is axially symmetric and dipolar, thereby preserving the magnetic quantum number of relative motion and coupling the partial waves $`l`$ to $`l\pm 1`$. The Hamiltonian is diagonalized in this basis at each trap separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. The resulting energy spectrum for two atoms is shown in Fig. 2 for both positive and negative scattering lengths, $`a=+0.5z_0`$ and $`a=0.5z_0`$, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. The results of first-order perturbation theory are also shown for comparison. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }zz_0`$, we recover the expected unperturbed 3D harmonic oscillator eigenenergies. As the separation between traps is decreased, perturbation theory predicts a negative ($`a<0`$) or positive ($`a>0`$) energy shift to the ground state. The expected behavior is seen for $`a=0.5z_0`$, but an unexpected solution is seen for $`a=+0.5z_0`$.

The results for the positive scattering length are explained as follows. For large positive $`a`$ there is a molecular bound state close to dissociation. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is increased, the interatomic potential, located at very small internuclear distances, is pushed up in energy by $`\mu \omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z^2/2`$ due to the parabolic trapping potential in Eq. (2). That is, in order for the separated atoms to collide, they must overcome the potential barrier created by the trap (see Fig. 1). When the molecular bound state becomes resonant with the lowest trap eigenstate, an avoided crossing occurs in the energy spectrum(see Fig. 2). As the separation is increased even further, the molecular bound state becomes resonant with higher-lying trap states and more avoided crossings occur. This is a new “shape resonance” for $`s`$-wave collisions in which the trap barrier plays the role of the centrifugal barrier in a standard free-space shape resonance for higher partial waves. Analogous, Feshbach-like, “confinement induced resonances” have recently been predicted for 1D and 2D trapped bose gases and for delocalized states in 3D-optical lattices Bol ; CIR .

The separation at which the lowest resonance occurs, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{\mathrm{res}}`$, is easily estimated by equating the sum of the molecular binding energy and trapping potential at the origin, $`E_b+\mu \omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z^2/2`$, to the vibrational ground state energy of the oscillator, $`3\mathrm{}\omega /2`$, yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{\mathrm{res}}/z_0=\sqrt{3+z_0^2/a^2}`$. The location and gap of the avoided crossing depends strongly on the molecular binding energy. For a deeply bound state, but still positive scattering length, corresponding to $`0<az_0`$, the resonance occurs at much larger separations and with an exponentially small energy gap. This corresponds to the small probability for the atoms to tunnel from the trap into the chemical binding potential. Using a standard variational approach Merzbacher (1998) based on symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$ bound state Busch et al. (1998) and the trap ground state, we find that for $`0<a<0.2z_0`$ the gap is smaller than $`10^4\mathrm{}\omega `$. For $`az_0`$ the energy gap asymptotes to a large value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{max}}=0.5640\mathrm{}\omega `$. The shape resonance can therefore be easily observed for large positive scattering lengths, where the bound state would be close to dissociation. This can be achieved in tight traps, where the scattering length is on the order of $`z_0`$ and the energy gap approaches a significant fraction of $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ (see Fig. 3). For example, in an optical lattice of $`{}_{}{}^{133}Cs`$ atoms the large scattering lengths of $`280a_0`$ to $`2400a_0`$ are comparable to typical trap sizes in an optical lattice, corresponding to a modest Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\eta =k_Lz_0=0.1`$. A substantial TISR will result.

To obtain a more accurate spectrum in the case of trapped alkali atoms, we must account for the energy-dependence of the scattering length in the self-consistent model described above. As a test case we consider the simplest possible interatomic potential – a step-potential of radius $`R`$ and depth $`V_0`$ with a single $`s`$-wave bound state. The $`s`$-wave phase shift is given explicitly by $`\delta _0(E_K,V_0)=\mathrm{arctan}\left(k\mathrm{tan}(qR)/q\right)kR`$, where $`q=\sqrt{2\mu (E_K+V_0)/\mathrm{}^2}`$Merzbacher (1998). The energy-dependent scattering length is evaluated using Eq.(4) as a function of $`E_K`$. The relative kinetic energy of the colliding atoms is given by the total energy eigenvalue $`E`$ minus the trap potential at the origin.

Figure 3 shows the self-consistent energy spectrum as a function of well separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. These approximate eigenvalues are compared with the exact solution for the step-potential ($`V_0=36.79\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`R=0.2z_0`$) plus harmonic potential, calculated numerically. We accomplish this by expanding the total Hamiltonian in isotropic 3D-harmonic oscillator wavefunctions and diagonalizing the matrix. Figure 3 also shows a plot of the constant scattering length approximation, using the zero-energy scattering length $`a=a_{\mathrm{eff}}(0)`$. As expected, this approximation fails to capture the correct bound state energy and therefore the correct location of the shape resonance. In contrast, the self-consistent solution using the energy-dependent pseudopotential shows excellent agreement with the exact calculation, even for a well that was chosen to have a fairly long range, $`R=0.2z_0`$. The agreement only breaks down when the range of the potential becomes on the order of trap size, $`R>0.5z_0`$.

Having confirmed the validity of the self-consistent pseudopotential model, we can use the calculated energy spectrum to design two-atom quantum logic gates. The use of ultracold collisions was initially considered by Jaksch et al.Jaksch et al. (1999) in the non-resonant case, using perturbation theory. Our analysis shows that in principle, for positive scattering lengths, resonances will occur at some atomic separation, and perturbation theory will break down. The resulting avoided crossing in the energy spectrum must be properly accounted for. This is particularly true for atoms with very large scattering lengths, such as 133Cs. The TISR opens the door to new protocols for entangling two-atom logic gates with separated atoms. For example, a $`2\pi `$ Rabi oscillation between the trapped atoms and an auxiliary molecular bound state leads to a phase shift of $`1`$ on the two-atom state. If the acquired phase shift occurs only for one logical encoding of the atoms, the resulting unitary transformation is the so called “CPHASE” two-qubit logic gate Nielsen and Chuang (2000). An optimal regime for operation of this protocol is where $`z_0a`$. In this regime the energy gap (Fig.3 inset) asymptotes to its maximum value, minimizing the dependence of the cooperative phase shift on the precise value of the trap width $`z_0`$, and hence reducing errors due to trap-laser intensity fluctuations.

More generally, beyond quantum logic, the TISR provides a new avenue for spectroscopy and coherent control of ultracold molecular dimers. Like magnetic Feshbach resonances, these shape resonances can provide new ultra-high precision spectroscopic data on the molecular potential Chin et al. (2000), and the production of cold molecules tunable by the trap parameters. A complete characterization of these protocols requires a generalization of our model, including the full spin-dependent nature of the collision process via the hyperfine and exchange interactions. We plan to address this in future work using multichannel Born-Oppenheimer potentials approximated by energy dependent pseudopotentials.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Paul Julienne, Carl Williams, and Eite Tiesinga for very helpful discussions. This work was partly supported by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) under Army Research Office (ARO) Contract No. DAAD19-01-1-0648 and by the Office of Naval Research under Contract No. N00014-00-1-0575.


text:
# The Grover algorithm with large nuclear spins in semiconductors

## I Introduction

Recent experiments have shown that electron spins in GaAs can preserve their coherence for distances of more than 100 $`\mu `$m and for times of up to 130 ns. Long coherence lengths and times are the main requirement for performing logic operations in spintronics and quantum computing, because both research fields are interested in the complete control over the phase information of the spins and qubits, respectively. Among the various available information carriers, nuclear spins have one of the longest coherence times due to their weak interaction with the environment. which amounts to storing phase information for a long time in e.g. semiconductor structures. Either they can be used as qubits or in the unary representation. Although implementations based on the latter are not scalable, they are more feasible, more robust, and can also be implemented in classical systems. Coherent access to the nuclear spins in semiconductors is achieved by the all-optical NMR method shown in Refs.  and , which makes use of the hyperfine interaction between the electron and nuclear spins and relies on the large coherence time of the electrons. A further possibility to access the nuclear spins coherently is conventional NMR using coils. However, compared to the all-optical method, coils do not provide the spatially selective manipulation of nuclear spins. Recently incoherent transfer of electronic spin to nuclear spin has been demonstrated experimentally in semiconductor structures using the quantum Hall effect or ferromagnetic imprinting.

One of the most interesting quantum algorithms was introduced by Grover, who demonstrated that the parallelism of unitary operations can speed up the search for a desired quantum state. Since the Grover algorithm needs only the superposition principle of quantum or classical mechanics, the unary representation of an ensemble of single particles can be used, such as the atomic levels of a beam of atoms or the large spin of molecular magnets embedded in a crystal. In this paper we show that the NMR method presented in Ref.  works for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$. We compute the Grover algorithm on the single-spin states $`|m`$ of the large spin of nuclear spins in semiconductors. For this it is essential that a delocalized state $`|\psi =_{m=I}^Ia_m|m`$ with arbitrary amplitudes $`a_m`$ can be produced, which we show to be feasible with a single magnetic rf pulse. Since arbitrary amplitudes $`a_m`$ are needed, we derive a non-perturbative method to calculate the time evolution of the nuclear spins that is valid for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$. We also perform exact numerical calculations based on solving the Schrödinger equation. It turns out that the larger the quadrupolar splitting, the better the agreement between our non-perturbative method and the exact numerical calculations. In order to be able to control the nuclear spins coherently, the energy levels $`\epsilon _m`$ have to be non-equidistant, which is ensured by the quadrupolar splitting. Instead of encoding the information into the phases of $`a_m`$, we encode the information into the eigenenergies $`\delta _{Im}`$ of the eigenstates $`|m`$ in the generalized rotating frame (see below). After choosing a specific basis state $`|M`$ to be looked for, we make it degenerate with the completely delocalized state $`|s=_{m=I}^Ia_m|m`$ that has equal amplitudes $`a_m`$ in the generalized rotating frame, i.e. a second magnetic rf pulse lets $`|s`$ evolve into $`|M`$, which is ensured by the finite overlap of $`|s`$ and $`|M`$.

In Sec. II we give the Hamiltonian that is the most suitable for nuclear spins in semiconductors. For the time evolution of the nuclear spins we first identify the transition (Feynman) diagrams that give the largest contribution to the multiphoton transition amplitudes by means of high-order time-dependent perturbation theory, which is demonstrated in Sec. III. From this we derive effective Hamiltonians in the so-called generalized rotating frame that describe the time evolution of the nuclear spins non-perturbatively for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$, which is shown in Sec. V. In order to understand better our concept of the generalized rotating frame in Sec. V, we first review the transformation to the standard rotating frame in Sec. IV. In Sec. VI we explain our proposed method to implement the Grover algorithm into the single-spin system of nuclei in semiconductors. Finally, Sec. VII shows that conventional incoherent NMR can be used to read out the searched state after performing the Grover quantum search algorithm.

## II Model Hamiltonian

The ensemble of nuclear spins in semiconductors is best described by the single-spin Hamiltonian

$$_0=_\mathrm{Z}+_\mathrm{Q},$$
(1)
which consists of the nuclear Zeeman term

$$_\mathrm{Z}=g_N\mu _NH_zI_z,$$
(2)
with the nuclear $`g`$-factor $`g_N=1.3`$ (see Ref. ), and the quadrupolar term

$$_\mathrm{Q}=A[3I_z^2I(I+1)].$$
(3)
The quadrupolar constant $`A`$ differs significantly between the various nuclei. For example the all-optical NMR method shown in Ref.  yields the following quadrupolar constants for Ga and As nuclei in GaAs semiconductors: $`A=7\times 10^7`$ K for 69Ga, $`A=3\times 10^7`$ K for 71Ga, and $`A=2\times 10^6`$ K for 75As. Let $`|m`$ be the eigenstates of $`_0`$ with eigenenergies $`\epsilon _m`$.

Next, we apply external magnetic fields $`H_{x,k}(t)=\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _kt+\mathrm{\Phi }_k)`$, $`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, that differ by the phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and oscillate at frequencies $`\omega _k`$ being detuned by $`\delta _k`$ from the differences between the energy levels $`\epsilon _m`$. To be more precise, $`\omega _k`$ is detuned by $`\delta _k`$ from $`\epsilon _{2Ik+1}\epsilon _{2Ik}`$. Fig. 1 shows the example for $`I=3/2`$ and $`k=1,2,3`$. If $`\delta _k<0`$ the detuning is said to be blue, and if $`\delta _k>0`$ the detuning is said to be red. For GaAs, $`\omega _k,\omega _k^{}10`$ MHz with $`\delta _k1`$ kHz, and a longitudinal magnetic field $`H_z1`$ T is appropriate. It is desirable to make $`H_z`$ sufficiently large to accommodate many spin precessions before the spins dephase. The complete Hamiltonian has then the form

$$=_0+V(t),$$
(4)
where

$$V(t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2I}{}}g_N\mu _N\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _kt+\mathrm{\Phi }_k)I_x$$
(5)
is the driving Hamiltonian given by the external magnetic fields. As usual, the spin operator can be decomposed into ladder operators, i.e. $`I_x=(I_++I_{})/2`$.

For the implementation of the non-perturbative version of the Grover algorithm we have to be able to produce a completely delocalized state of the form $`|\psi =_{m=I}^Ia_m|m`$ with arbitrary amplitudes $`a_m`$. Furthermore, we need to have coherent control over the unitary time evolution of $`|\psi (t)`$ for arbitrary times $`t`$. We will show in the next sections that our non-perturbative method gains complete control over all the amplitudes $`a_m(t)`$, which can be used in a future experimental implementation.

## III Perturbative expansion

Usually perturbation theory is useful only if the transverse term $`V(t)`$ is small compared to the longitudinal term $`_0`$. But here we use high-order time-dependent perturbation theory to identify the transition diagrams with the largest contribution to the transition amplitudes $`S_{m,m^{}}=lim_{t\mathrm{},t^{}\mathrm{}}m\left|U(t,t^{})\right|m^{}`$. For this we first expand the $`S`$-matrix in powers of $`V(t)`$, i.e. $`S=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}S^{(j)}`$. The $`j`$th-order term of the perturbation series of the $`S`$-matrix in powers of the driving Hamiltonian $`V(t)`$ is expressed by

$`S^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}\right)^j{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_k{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_j\mathrm{\Theta }(t_kt_{k+1})U_0(\mathrm{},t_1)`$ (7)
$`\times V(t_1)U_0(t_1,t_2)V(t_2)\mathrm{}V(t_j)U_0(t_j,\mathrm{}),`$
which corresponds to the sum over all transition diagrams of order $`j`$, and where $`U_0(t,t_0)=e^{i_0(tt_0)/\mathrm{}}`$ is the free propagator, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ is the Heavyside function.

For illustration, we derive now a three $`\sigma `$-photon transition from $`|3/2`$ to $`|3/2`$. All the relative phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ between the magnetic fields are assumed to be zero in this calculation. Then we obtain

$`S_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _N}{4i\mathrm{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2𝑑t_3\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_3)}`$ (10)
$`\times p_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}e^{i\epsilon _{\frac{3}{2}}t_1/\mathrm{}}e^{i\epsilon _{\frac{1}{2}}(t_1t_2)/\mathrm{}}e^{i\epsilon _{\frac{1}{2}}(t_2t_3)/\mathrm{}}`$
$`\times e^{i\epsilon _{\frac{3}{2}}t_3/\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t_l)\left(e^{i\omega _kt_l}+e^{i\omega _kt_l}\right)`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _N}{4i\mathrm{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2𝑑t_3\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_3)}`$ (13)
$`\times p_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_3(t_1)\stackrel{~}{H}_2(t_2)\stackrel{~}{H}_1(t_3)e^{i(\omega _{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3)t_1}`$
$`\times e^{i(\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1\omega _2)(t_1t_2)}e^{i(\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1)(t_2t_3)}`$
where from the $`3^3=27`$ terms remains only one due to the rotating wave approximation and after keeping only the terms with the smallest detuning. This diagram is the most left one in Fig. 1.

Next, we make use of the relation

$`e^{i(\omega _{m,m^{}}\omega )(tt^{})}\mathrm{\Theta }(tt^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (15)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }(tt^{})}}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{m,m^{}}+\omega +i\epsilon }}`$
and substitute the Fourier transform

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{H}(t)e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}𝑑t,$$
(16)
which yields

$`S_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(3)}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _N}{4\mathrm{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi }i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_2(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\stackrel{~}{H}_3(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}+\omega _1+i\epsilon }}`$ (18)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_1(\omega _{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}+\omega _1+\omega _2+i\epsilon }}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _N}{4\mathrm{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi }i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_2(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\stackrel{~}{H}_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}+\omega _1}}`$ (20)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_3(\omega _{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3\mathrm{\Omega })}{\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}+\omega _1+\omega _2}},`$
as long as all $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ have a sufficiently narrow peak around $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`\omega _k`$ are detuned.

After evaluation of the three-fold convolution we obtain

$`S_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(3)}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _N}{4\mathrm{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑t_{k=1}^3\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)e^{i(\omega _{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3)t}}{ip_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^1(\omega _1\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}})(\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}})}}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _N}{4\mathrm{}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}H_k\delta ^{(T)}(\omega _{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3)}{i(2\pi p_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}})^1\delta _1\delta _2}},`$ (22)
where $`p_{m,m^{}}=_{k=m}^m^{}k\left|I_{}\right|k+1`$ is the spin amplitude between $`|k`$ and $`|k+1`$ and $`\delta ^{(T)}(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{T/2}^{+T/2}e^{i\omega t}𝑑t=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\omega T/2)}{\pi \omega }`$ is the delta-function of width $`1/T`$. In addition, we have used rectangular pulse shapes of duration $`T`$ for all fields, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)=\{\begin{array}{c}H_k\text{ for }T/2<t<T/2,\hfill \\ 0\text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
The energy is conserved for $`\omega T1`$. Also, the duration $`T`$ of the rf pulses must not exceed the dephasing time $`\tau _\varphi `$ of the spin states.

If we keep also the further five diagrams shown in Fig. 1, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H_ke^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_k}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _1\delta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _1(\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}\delta _1+\delta _2)}}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1\delta _2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{12A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{12A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}\delta _1+\delta _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{12A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1}})]`$
for $`\delta _3=0`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(2)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_ke^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_k}\left(\frac{1}{\delta _1}+\frac{1}{\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1}\right)$$
(27)
for $`\delta _2=0`$ and $`H_3=0`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(1)}=H_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}$$
(28)
for $`\delta _1=0`$ and $`H_2=H_3=0`$, where $`S_{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}^{(j)}=\frac{2\pi }{i}\left(\frac{g_N\mu _N}{4\mathrm{}}\right)^j\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}^{(j)}p_{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}\delta ^{(T)}(\omega _{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}_{k=1}^j\omega _k)`$.

It is interesting to note that

$$\underset{A0}{lim}S_{3/2,3/2}^{(3)}=\underset{A0}{lim}S_{1/2,3/2}^{(2)}=0,$$
(29)
i.e. destructive interference is maximal. However, if

$$A\mathrm{}|\delta _k|,k=1,2,3,$$
(30)
destructive interference is negligible. In other words, the most left diagram in Fig. 1 gives the largest contribution to the transition amplitude. This means that this diagram only is responsible for the time evolution of the nuclear spins. So Eq. (30) is the basis condition for finding the Hamiltonian in the generalized rotating frame that describes the time evolution of our nuclear spin system for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$ and arbitrary times $`t`$ (see Sec. V).

## IV The standard rotating frame

Before deriving the transformation of the Hamiltonian $``$ including many magnetic fields $`H_{x,k}(t)`$ oscillating at different frequencies $`\omega _k`$ to the generalized rotating frame (see next section), it is instructive to have a look at the transformation of a Hamiltonian $`_\mathrm{s}`$ including only a single circularly polarized oscillating magnetic field $`𝐇_{}(t)=H_{}(\mathrm{cos}\omega t𝐞_x+\mathrm{sin}\omega t𝐞_y)`$ to the standard rotating frame. We start from the Hamiltonian

$`_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`g_N\mu _N[H_zI_z+H_{}(I_x\mathrm{cos}\omega t+I_y\mathrm{sin}\omega t)]`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`g_N\mu _NH_zI_z+g_N\mu _N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{}e^{i\omega tI_z}I_xe^{i\omega tI_z}.`$ (32)
The proof for the second equality can be given as follows: First let us define the function

$$f(\phi )=e^{i\phi I_z}I_xe^{i\phi I_z}.$$
(33)
The first and second derivative read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df}{d\phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi I_z}I_ye^{i\phi I_z},`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f}{d\phi ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`f(\phi ).`$ (35)
The solution of the last differential equation is

$$f(\phi )=A\mathrm{cos}\phi +B\mathrm{sin}\phi .$$
(36)
The boundary conditions

$$f(0)=A=I_x,\left(\frac{df}{d\phi }\right)_{\phi =0}=B=I_y$$
(37)
reduce Eq. (36) to

$$f(\phi )=I_x\mathrm{cos}\phi I_y\mathrm{sin}\phi ,$$
(38)
which proves Eq. (32).

In order to derive the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame, we have to transform the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{|\psi }{t}=_\mathrm{s}|\psi $$
(39)
with the unitary operation $`U`$. The left hand side of Eq. (39) transforms into

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{|\psi }{t}=i\mathrm{}\left(U^1\frac{|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}}{t}+\frac{U^1}{t}|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}\right),$$
(40)
and the right hand side of Eq. (39) into

$$|\psi =U^1|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}},$$
(41)
where we have defined the state in the rotating frame by $`|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}=U|\psi `$. Combining both sides (40) and (41) yields

$$i\mathrm{}\left(U^1\frac{|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}}{t}+\frac{U^1}{t}|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}\right)=U^1|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}},$$
(42)
from which we obtain

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}}{t}=\left(UU^1i\mathrm{}U\frac{U^1}{t}\right)|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}_{\mathrm{rot}}|\psi _{\mathrm{rot}}$$
(43)
by multiplying $`U`$ to Eq. (42) from the left. From Eq. (43) we can immediately read off the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame:

$$_{\mathrm{rot}}=UU^{}i\mathrm{}U\frac{U^{}}{t}=UU^{}+i\mathrm{}\frac{U}{t}U^{}.$$
(44)
If we insert $`U(t)=e^{i\omega tI_z}`$, we get

$$_{\mathrm{rot}}=(g_N\mu _NH_z\mathrm{}\omega )I_z+g_N\mu _NH_{}I_x.$$
(45)
which is completely time-independent. In the next section we will show that under the special condition of quadratic anisotropy we can transform a Hamiltonian with more than one oscillating term into a Hamiltonian that is also completely time-independent.

## V The generalized rotating frame

For the case where the Hamiltonian $``$ contains many magnetic fields $`H_{x,k}(t)`$ that oscillate at different frequencies $`\omega _k`$, the transformation to the standard rotating frame cannot be used anymore. In this section we develop a concept that allows us to transform the Hamiltonian $``$ into a generalized rotating frame, i.e. $`_{\mathrm{grot}}`$, where $`_{\mathrm{grot}}`$ is completely time-independent. Then the time evolution of the nuclear spins can be calculated non-perturbatively in this generalized rotating frame. In contrast to previous work our method also holds for vanishing detuning energies $`\mathrm{}\delta _k0`$, which is essential to perform non-perturbative unitary operations. Once the control over $`2I`$ magnetic fields is established, the scheme proposed here allows for quantum information processing and quantum storage with a single pulse, provided that there is sufficient signal amplification due to the spin ensemble. The only requirements are that the quadrupolar splitting $`A`$ is much larger than the detuning energies $`\delta _k`$, so that only the most left diagram in Fig. 1 governs the time evolution of the nuclear spins (see Sec. III).

We first start with the example for two detuning energies $`\mathrm{}\delta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{}\delta _2`$ and give the general derivation for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$ afterwards. The corresponding Hamiltonian for three states reads

$$^{(2)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon _a& a\left|V\right|b& 0\\ b\left|V\right|a& \epsilon _b& b\left|V\right|c\\ 0& c\left|V\right|b& \epsilon _c\end{array}\right],$$
(46)
where $`|a`$, $`|b`$, and $`|c`$ are three consecutive spin states ($`a,b,c`$ are integers or half-integers with $`a=b+1=c+2`$, $`Ia,b,cI`$) with their eigenenergies $`\epsilon _a,\epsilon _b,\epsilon _c`$. For example $`a=3/2`$, $`b=1/2`$, and $`c=1/2`$, which is shown in Fig. 1. If the quadratic anisotropy $`A`$ is much larger than the detuning energies $`\mathrm{}\delta _k`$, we can neglect all the transition diagrams with blue detuning energies shown in Fig. 1. Applying also the rotating wave approximation leaves us with

$$_{\mathrm{app}}^{(2)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon _a& h_1e^{i\omega _1t+i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}& 0\\ h_1e^{i\omega _1ti\mathrm{\Phi }_1}& \epsilon _b& h_2e^{i\omega _2t+i\mathrm{\Phi }_2}\\ 0& h_2e^{i\omega _2ti\mathrm{\Phi }_2}& \epsilon _c\end{array}\right],$$
(47)
where $`h_1=H_1a\left|I_x\right|b`$, $`h_2=H_2b\left|I_x\right|c`$.

The goal is now to find a unitary transformation $`U`$ that renders our Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{app}}^{(2)}`$ time-independent. We know from the previous section that the transformed Hamiltonian has the form

$$_{\mathrm{grot}}=U_{\mathrm{app}}U^{}i\mathrm{}U\frac{U^{}}{t}=U_{\mathrm{app}}U^{}+i\mathrm{}\frac{U}{t}U^{}.$$
(48)
Instead of inserting $`U(t)=e^{i\omega tI_z}`$, we make an ansatz with three parameters $`\omega _a`$, $`\omega _b`$, and $`\omega _c`$:

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\omega _at}& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\omega _bt}& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\omega _ct}\end{array}\right].$$
(49)
Evaluation of $`U_{\mathrm{app}}^{(2)}U^{}`$ yields

$`_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon _a& h_1e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_1t}& 0\\ h_1e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_1t}& \epsilon _b& h_2e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_2t}\\ 0& h_2e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_2t}& \epsilon _c\end{array}\right]`$ (54)
$`+i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{U}{t}}U^{},`$
with the abbreviations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\omega _a+\omega _b+\omega _1+\mathrm{\Phi }_1/t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\omega _b+\omega _c+\omega _2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2/t`$. Since we want to make the Hamiltonian in Eq. (54) time-independent, we require that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _a+\omega _b+\omega _1+\mathrm{\Phi }_1/t=0,`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _b+\omega _c+\omega _2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2/t=0.`$ (56)
In this way we get also rid of the Phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. Solving the Eqs. (55) and (56) gives

$`\omega _a`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1+\omega _2+\omega _c+(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)/t,`$ (57)
$`\omega _b`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2+\omega _c+\mathrm{\Phi }_2/t.`$ (58)
$`\omega _c`$ is a free parameter, which we choose to be $`\omega _c=(\omega _1+\omega _2)/2(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)/2t`$. Then Eqs. (57) and (58) simplify to

$`\omega _a`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _1+\omega _2)/2+(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)/2t,`$ (59)
$`\omega _b`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _2\omega _1)/2+(\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_1)/2t.`$ (60)
Then the second term in Eq. (48) is

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{U}{t}U^{}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\mathrm{}(\omega _1+\omega _2)}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{\mathrm{}(\omega _2\omega _1)}{2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{}(\omega _1+\omega _2)}{2}\end{array}\right].$$
(61)
If we insert the external frequencies $`\omega _1=\epsilon _b/\mathrm{}\epsilon _a/\mathrm{}\delta _1`$ and $`\omega _2=\epsilon _c/\mathrm{}\epsilon _b/\mathrm{}+\delta _1\delta _2`$, we obtain

$$_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\epsilon _a+\epsilon _c\mathrm{}\delta _2}{2}& h_1& 0\\ h_1& \frac{\epsilon _a+\epsilon _c+\mathrm{}(2\delta _1\delta _2)}{2}& h_2\\ 0& h_2& \frac{\epsilon _a+\epsilon _c+\mathrm{}\delta _2}{2}\end{array}\right],$$
(62)
which is equivalent to

$$_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& h_1& 0\\ h_1& \mathrm{}\delta _1& h_2\\ 0& h_2& \mathrm{}\delta _2\end{array}\right],$$
(63)
where we have subtracted $`\frac{\epsilon _a+\epsilon _c\mathrm{}\delta _2}{2}\mathrm{Id}`$. Id is the identity matrix.

Now we give the general derivation for the transformation to the generalized rotating frame for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$. From the above derivation, we know that for a spin of arbitrary length $`I`$ the Hamiltonian in the generalized rotating frame has the form

$`_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & \\ \mathrm{}& \epsilon _{m_5}& h_5e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_5t}& & \\ & h_5e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_5t}& \epsilon _{m_6}& h_6e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_6t}& \\ & & h_6e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_6t}& \epsilon _{m_7}& \mathrm{}\\ & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]`$ (70)
$`+i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{U}{t}}U^{},`$
which has non-zero entries only in the diagonal and first off-diagonal lines. $`|m_0=|2I,|m_1=|2I1,\mathrm{},|m_{2I}=|2I`$ are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian shown in Eq. (1) with eigenenergies $`\epsilon _{m_0},\epsilon _{m_1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{m_{2I}}`$. The unitary transformation reads

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{}& & & & \\ & e^{i\omega _{m_5}t}& & & \\ & & e^{i\omega _{m_6}t}& & \\ & & & e^{i\omega _{m_7}t}& \\ & & & & \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],$$
(71)
with only diagonal elements that are non-zero.

For $`_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}`$ to be time-independent we have to solve $`2I`$ linear equations of the form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_0}+\omega _{m_1}+\omega _1+\mathrm{\Phi }_1/t=0,`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_1}+\omega _{m_2}+\omega _2+\mathrm{\Phi }_2/t=0,`$ (73)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (74)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_5}+\omega _{m_6}+\omega _5+\mathrm{\Phi }_5/t=0,`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_6`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_6}+\omega _{m_7}+\omega _6+\mathrm{\Phi }_6/t=0,`$ (76)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (77)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2I1}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I2}}+\omega _{m_{2I1}}+\omega _{2I1}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{2I1}/t=0,`$ (78)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2I}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I1}}+\omega _{m_{2I}}+\omega _{2I}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{2I}/t=0,`$ (79)
Summing over all linear equations (72) to (79) leads to

$$\omega _{m_0}=\omega _{m_{2I}}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{2I}{}}(\omega _k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k/t),$$
(80)
where $`\omega _{m_{2I}}`$ can be chosen arbitarily. Inserting this result back into the linear equations (72) to (79) gives

$`\omega _{m_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{2I}{}}}(\omega _k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k/t),`$ (81)
$`\omega _{m_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{2I}{}}}(\omega _k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k/t),`$ (82)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (83)
$`\omega _{m_5}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=6}{\overset{2I}{}}}(\omega _k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k/t),`$ (84)
$`\omega _{m_6}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=7}{\overset{2I}{}}}(\omega _k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k/t),`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (86)
$`\omega _{m_{2I1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{m_{2I}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=2I}{\overset{2I}{}}}(\omega _k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k/t).`$ (87)
Then the second term in Eq. (70) $`i\mathrm{}\frac{U}{t}U^{}`$ has the diagonal elements $`\mathrm{}(\omega _{m_{2I}}+_{k=1}^{2I}\omega _k),\mathrm{}(\omega _{m_{2I}}+_{k=2}^{2I}\omega _k),\mathrm{},\mathrm{}(\omega _{m_{2I}}+_{k=2I}^{2I}\omega _k),\mathrm{}\omega _{m_{2I}}.`$ All the off-diagonal elements of $`i\mathrm{}\frac{U}{t}U^{}`$ are zero. The external frequencies are

$`\omega _1`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{m_1}/\mathrm{}\epsilon _{m_0}/\mathrm{}\delta _1`$ (88)
$`\omega _2`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{m_2}/\mathrm{}\epsilon _{m_1}/\mathrm{}\delta _2+\delta _1`$ (89)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (90)
$`\omega _5`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{m_5}/\mathrm{}\epsilon _{m_4}/\mathrm{}\delta _5+\delta _4`$ (91)
$`\omega _6`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{m_6}/\mathrm{}\epsilon _{m_5}/\mathrm{}\delta _6+\delta _5`$ (92)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (93)
$`\omega _{2I}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{m_{2I}}/\mathrm{}\epsilon _{m_{2I1}}/\mathrm{}\delta _{2I}+\delta _{2I1}`$ (94)
After setting $`\omega _{m_{2I}}=0`$, we then obtain for the diagonal elements of $`i\mathrm{}\frac{U}{t}U^{}`$ the following results: $`(\epsilon _{m_0}+\epsilon _{m_{2I}}\mathrm{}\delta _{2I}),(\epsilon _{m_1}+\epsilon _{m_{2I}}+\mathrm{}\delta _1\mathrm{}\delta _{2I}),(\epsilon _{m_2}+\epsilon _{m_{2I}}+\mathrm{}\delta _2\mathrm{}\delta _{2I}),\mathrm{},(\epsilon _{m_{2I1}}+\epsilon _{m_{2I}}+\mathrm{}\delta _{2I1}\mathrm{}\delta _{2I}),0.`$ Finally, subtracting $`(\epsilon _{m_{2I}}\mathrm{}\delta _{2I})`$Id from $`_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}`$ in Eq. (70) yields the time-independent Hamiltonian

$$_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& h_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ h_1& \mathrm{}\delta _1& h_2& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& h_2& \mathrm{}\delta _2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& h_{2I}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& h_{2I}& \mathrm{}\delta _{2I}\end{array}\right].$$
(95)
This Hamiltonian allows us to evaluate the time evolution of the nuclear spin system for arbitrary spin lengths $`I`$ and arbitrary times $`t`$ non-perturbatively. Note that the Hamiltonian in Eq. (95) remains valid even in the limit $`\delta _k0`$, where the perturbation expansions for multiphoton (more than 1) transition amplitudes, such as in Eqs. (26) and (27), break down. However, we must require that $`|g_N\mu _NH_k||A|`$, which means that the larger $`|A|`$, the faster the quantum information processing (see Ref. ). The time evolution of the state $`|\psi (t)`$ reads

$$|\psi (t)=U^{}(t)e^{i_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}t/\mathrm{}}|\psi (t=0).$$
(96)
Propagators of the form $`U^{}(t)e^{i_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}t/\mathrm{}}`$ have $`2I`$ phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and $`2I`$ detunings $`\mathrm{}\delta _k`$, which determine the $`2I`$ phases and the $`2I`$ moduli of $`a_m`$. We subtracted two degrees of freedom: the global phase and the normalization condition, respectively. In this way we can produce a state $`|\psi (t)`$ with arbitrary amplitudes $`a_m`$.

## VI The Grover algorithm

Now we make use of the non-perturbative calculation method shown in the previous section to compute the Grover algorithm. We start from a configuration where mainly the ground state $`|3/2`$ is populated, see Fig. 1. This can be achieved by the Overhauser effect. Then we produce an equal superposition of the nuclear spin states $`|s=(1/\sqrt{n})_m|m`$, which represents the initial state of the Grover algorithm. $`n`$ is the number of basis states involved in the search. For example we can prepare the state $`|s=(1/\sqrt{3})_{m=1/2}^{3/2}|m`$ with the parameters $`H_1=H_2=1`$ G, $`H_3=0`$, $`\delta _1=6083`$ s-1, and $`\delta _2=0`$, which is shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3 we calculated the time evolution of $`|s`$ exactly by solving the Schrödinger equation numerically. This calculation reveals small oscillations that are mainly due to the five neglected diagrams in Fig. 1.

Next, we choose one basis state $`|M`$ to be the one that we are looking for. Since we encode the information into the eigenenergies $`\delta _{Im}`$ of the eigenstates $`|m`$ in the generalized rotating frame, we can choose $`\delta _{Im}=0`$ for all $`m`$, except for $`M`$, i.e. $`\delta _{IM}0`$. In order to find $`|M`$, we make it degenerate with the state $`|s`$ in the generalized rotating frame. So $`\delta _{IM}=s\left|_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}\right|s0`$. As we want to obtain the highest speed for the quantum information processing, the best choice for the Zeeman fields is to make them all equal, i.e. $`h_1=h_2=\mathrm{}=h_{2I}=:h`$. The degeneracy condition now leads to

$$s\left|_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(2I)}\right|s=\frac{1}{n}(2n2)h+\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=1}{\overset{2I}{}}\mathrm{}\delta _k\stackrel{!}{=}\mathrm{}\delta _{IM},$$
(97)
from which we obtain directly

$$h=\frac{\mathrm{}\delta _{IM}}{2}.$$
(98)
We continue the above example, where we have prepared the state $`|s=(1/\sqrt{3})_{m=1/2}^{3/2}|m`$. After making $`|s`$ degenerate with $`|1/2`$ in the generalized rotating frame, i.e. $`s\left|_{\mathrm{grot}}^{(3)}\right|s=\mathrm{}\delta _2`$, the amplitude concentrates mainly into the state $`|1/2`$ after 0.2 ms. In contrast to Refs. , the Hamiltonian in Eq. (95) has only nearest-neighbor couplings, which results in a decreasing amplification of $`|M`$ with increasing $`I`$ or $`|M|`$. However, even for the largest nuclear spin $`I=9/2`$, we find that the resolution for identifying $`|M`$ is still sufficient, i.e. greater than 10% (see below). Again, we have also calculated this time evolution exactly by solving the Schrödinger equation numerically, which is shown in Fig. 5. The small oscillations due to the five neglected diagrams in Fig. 1 are now almost invisible. Thus the larger the quadrupolar splitting $`A`$, the better the agreement between our non-perturbative method and exact numerics.

We have also calculated the Grover sequence for spin lengths up to $`I=9/2`$. In all the cases for all spin lengths up to $`I=9/2`$ and for all the searchable states $`IMI`$ the Grover sequence leads to an amplification of the amplitude of $`|M`$ between about 10% and 100%. In Figs. 6 and 7 the spin has length $`I=3/2`$ and the searched state is $`|M=1/2`$ and $`|M=3/2`$, respectively. When we increase the spin length $`I`$, the most interesting elements for applications in semiconductors are 27Al, 55Mn, and 67Zn with nuclear spin $`I=5/2`$, and 73Ge and 113In with nuclear spin $`I=9/2`$. Therefore we have computed the Grover sequence for $`I=5/2`$ and $`M=1/2,3/2,5/2`$, which can be seen in Figs. 8, 9, 10, respectively, and also for $`I=9/2`$ and $`M=1/2,3/2,5/2,7/2,9/2`$, which is shown in Figs. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, respectively. Because of the symmetry of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (95) along the diagonal, the two computations for $`\pm M`$ look always the same. Hence, we have shown the Grover sequence only for half of the states $`IM<0`$.

## VII Readout of the result

After we have performed the Grover quantum search algorithm, we wish to extract the final state that we have been searching for. This can be achieved by using conventional pulsed NMR, where no coherence is required. Fig. 16 demonstrates an example where only the state $`|1/2`$ is completely populated. If we irradiate the sample with magnetic fields $`H_{x,k}(t)`$ with zero detuning energies $`\delta _k=0`$ $`k`$, where the external frequencies are tuned in such a way that they match the energy level spaces, i.e. $`\omega _{Im}=\epsilon _{m+1}\epsilon _m`$, then we induce only emission from $`|1/2`$ to $`|3/2`$ and absorption from $`|1/2`$ to $`|1/2`$. The emission and absorption spectrum shown in Fig. 17 identifies unambigously the state $`|1/2`$. In this way we can read out any information stored in the nuclear spin system.

## VIII Conclusion

In our theoretical proposal we have shown that the Grover algorithm can be performed in the nuclear spin system of semiconductors. The main requirement for the Grover algorithm to work is the anisotropy in the spin system, which is provided by the quadrupolar splitting. The reason is that the quadrupolar splitting makes the energy levels non-equidistant, which renders the nuclear spin states distinguishable. Only then we can find an effective Hamiltonian of the form shown in Eq. (95) that describes the coherent time evolution of the nuclear spin ensemble for arbitrary spin lengths and times. It turned out that the larger the quadrupolar splitting, the better the agreement between our non-perturbative method using the effective Hamiltonian and exact numerical calculations. So the larger the symmetry breaking of the energy spacings, the better the control over the coherent time evolution of the nuclear spin system.

The first test for the experimental feasibility of our proposal would be the implementation of multiphoton Rabi oscillations, as proposed in Ref. . This can be achieved by applying only one oscillating magnetic field. Fig. 18 shows a 2-photon Rabi oscillation between the states $`|3/2`$ and $`|1/2`$ for a nuclear spin $`I=3/2`$. In general, multiphoton Rabi oscillations can be thought of as nutation of the large spin between the spin states $`|m`$.

Once our scheme works experimentally, it would be interesting to apply a longitudinal magnetic field that has a large gradient. In this case the semiconductor sample could be divided into several regions, each of which could be addressed separately by different transverse magnetic fields. In this way one could perform parallel quantum information processes in each of the regions. Instead of using a large gradient field, it would also be possible to vary the g-factor in the sample, as was shown in the experiment of Ref.  for the electron spin in AlxGa1-xAs, where the variation of the concentration of Al $`x`$ leads to a variation of the electron g-factor.

## IX Acknowledgement

We thank M. E. Flatté for useful comments. We acknowledge the Swiss NSF, NCCR Nanoscience, and the US NSF and DARPA for financial support.


text:
# Recent Progress in Kähler GeometryParitally supported by NSF research grant DMS-0110321 (2001-2004).

## 0.1. Some background

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a polarized $`n`$-dimensional compact Kähler manifold, where $`\omega `$ is a Kähler form on $`M`$. In local coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$, we have

$$\omega =\sqrt{1}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_{i\overline{j}}dz^idz^{\overline{j}}>0,$$

where $`\{g_{i\overline{j}}\}`$ is a positive definite Hermitian matrix function. The Kähler condition requires that $`\omega `$ is a closed positive (1,1)-form. The Kähler metric corresponding to $`\omega `$ is given by

$$g_\omega =\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}dz^\alpha dz^{\overline{\beta }}.$$

For simplicity, in the following, we will often denote by $`\omega `$ the corresponding Kähler metric. The Kähler class of $`\omega `$ is its cohomology class $`[\omega ]`$ in $`H^2(M,).`$ It follows from the Hodge-Dolbeault theorem that any other Kähler metric in the same Kähler class is of the form

$$\omega _\phi =\omega +\sqrt{1}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^2\phi }{z^iz^{\overline{j}}}>0$$

for some real valued function $`\phi `$ on $`M.`$

Given a Kähler metric $`\omega `$, its volume form is

$$\frac{1}{n!}\omega ^n=\left(\sqrt{1}\right)^ndet\left(g_{i\overline{j}}\right)dz^1dz^{\overline{1}}\mathrm{}dz^ndz^{\overline{n}}.$$

Its Ricci (curvature) form is:

$$Ric(\omega )=\sqrt{1}R_{i\overline{j}}dw_id\overline{w}_j=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}det\omega ^n.$$

Note also that $`R(\omega )=g^{i\overline{j}}R_{i\overline{j}}`$ corresponds to one half times the scalar curvature as it is usually defines in Riemannian geometry. We say that the first Chern class of $`M`$ is positive of negative definite, if there exists a real valued function $`\psi `$ on $`M`$ such that $`R_{i\overline{j}}+\frac{^2\psi }{w_i\overline{w}_j}`$ is, respectively, positive of negative definite. A Kähler metric is Kähler-Einstein, if the Ricci form is proportional to the Kähler form by a constant factor. A Kähler metric is called extremal in the sense of E. Calabi , if it is a critical point of the functional $`{\displaystyle _M}|Ric(\omega )|^2\omega ^n,`$ or, equivalently, if the complex gradient vector field of the scalar curvature function $`g^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}(\omega )\frac{R(\omega )}{\overline{z}_\beta }\frac{}{z_\alpha }`$ is a holomorphic vector field.

## 0.2. Existence of extremal Kähler metrics

It is well known that a Kähler-Einstein metric satisfies a Monge-Ampere equation

$$\mathrm{log}det\frac{\omega _\phi ^n}{\omega ^n}=\lambda \phi +h_\omega $$

where $`[Ric(\omega )]=\lambda [\omega ]`$ and

$$Ric(\omega )\lambda \omega =i\overline{}h_\omega .$$

In Calabi’s work in the 1950s, he made conjectures about the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on compact Kähler manifolds with definite first Chern class. In 1976, Aubin and Yau independently obtained existence when the first Chern class is negative. Around the same time, Yau proved also the existence of a Kähler-Einstein metric when the first Chern class vanishes. This is a celebrated work; and any Kähler manifold admit such a metric is called “Calabi-Yau” manifold. The positive case remains open, but significant progress has been made in the last two decades. G. Tian proved in  the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on any complex surface with positive first Chern class and reductive automorphism group. In 1997, Tian  proved that existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature is equivalent to an analytic stability. It remains open how this analytic stability follows from certain algebraic stability in geometric invariant theory.

The construction of complete non-compact Calabi-Yau manifolds has also enjoyed a good deal of success through the work of Calabi, Tian and Yau, Anderson, Kronheimer, LeBrun, Joyce and many others. These non-compact metrics are related to manifolds with $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy, which are important in M-theory.

A lot of effort has also gone into constructing special or explicit examples of Kähler-Einstein metrics and extremal Kähler metrics. The same is true for hyperkaehler metrics as well. Counter examples to the existence of extremal metrics have given by Levine, Burns-De Bartolomeis, and LeBrun.

There has not been much progress made on the existence of extremal metrics in general. One of the possible reasons is the lack of maximum principle for non-linear equations of 4th order. A general existence result, even in complex surfaces, will be highly interesting.

## 0.3. Obstructions

In 1983, A. Futaki  introduced a complex character $`(X,[\omega ])`$ on the complex Lie algebra of all holomorphic vector fields $`X`$ in $`M,`$ depending only on the Kähler class $`[\omega ],`$ and show that its vanishing is a necessary condition for the existence of a Kähler-Einstein metric on the manifold. In 1985, E. Calabi generalized Futaki’s result to cover the more general case of any extremal Kähler metric: the generalized Futaki invariant of a given Kähler class is zero or not, according to whether any extremal metric in that class has constant scalar curvature or not. S. Bando also obtained some generalizations of the Futaki invariant. More recently, a finite family of obstructions was introduced in . For any holomorphic vector field $`X`$ inducing the trivial translation on the Albanese torus there exists a complex valued potential function $`\theta _{X,\omega },`$ uniquely determined up to additive constants, defined by the equation: $`L_X\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}\theta _X`$( Here $`L_X`$ denote the Lie derivative along vector field $`X.`$). Now, for each $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}n,`$ define the functional $`\mathrm{}_k(X,\omega )`$ by111This is a formula for canonical Kähler class. For general Kähler class, see .

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}_k(X,\omega )=(nk)_M\theta _X\omega ^n\hfill & \\ +_M\left((k+1)\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _X\mathrm{Ric}(\omega )^k\omega ^{nk}(nk)\theta _X\mathrm{Ric}(\omega )^{k+1}\omega ^{nk1}\right).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here and elsewhere, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$ denotes the one half times the Laplacian-Beltrami operator of the induced Riemannian structure $`\omega .`$

The next theorem assures that the above integral gives rise to a holomorphic invariant.

###### Theorem 0.1.

The integral $`\mathrm{}_k(X,\omega )`$ is independent of choices of Kähler metrics in the Kähler class $`[\omega ]`$, that is, $`\mathrm{}_k(X,\omega )=\mathrm{}_k(X,\omega ^{})`$ so long as the Kähler forms $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ represent the same Kähler class. Hence, the integral $`\mathrm{}_k(X,\omega )`$ is a holomorphic invariant, which will be denoted by $`\mathrm{}_k(X,[\omega ])`$. Note that $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is the usual Futaki invariant.

## 0.4. Uniqueness of extremal Kähler metrics

We now turn to the uniqueness of extremal metrics. In the 1950s, Calabi used the maximum principle to prove the uniqueness of Kähler-Einstein metrics when the first Chern class is non-positive. In 1987, Mabuchi introduced the “K-energy”, which is essentially a potential function for the constant scalar curvature metric equation. Using the K-energy, he and Bando  proved that the uniqueness of Kähler-Einstein metric up to holomorphic transformations when the first Chern class is positive. Recently, Tian and X. H. Zhu proved that the uniqueness of Kähler-Ricci Soliton on any Kähler manifolds with positive first Chern class.

###### Theorem 0.2.

,  The Kähler Ricci soliton of a Kähler manifold $`M`$ is unique modulo the automorphism subgroup $`Aut_r(M);`$ more precisely, if $`\omega _1,\omega _2`$ are two Kähler Ricci solitons with respect to a holomorphic vector field X, i.e., they satisfies

$$Ric(\omega _i)\omega _i=_X(\omega _i),\mathrm{where}i=1,2.$$
(0.1)
Then there are automorphism $`\sigma `$ in $`Aut^o(M)`$ and $`\tau `$ in $`Aut_r(M)`$ such that $`\sigma _{}^1X\eta _r(M)`$ and $`\sigma ^{}\omega _2=\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}\omega _1,`$ where $`\eta _r(M)`$ denotes the Lie algebra of $`Aut_r(M).`$ In fact, $`\sigma _{}^1X`$ lies in the center of $`\eta _r(M).`$ Moreover, this vector field $`X`$ is unique up to conjugations.

Following a program of Donaldson (which will be explained in Subsection 0.7), we proved in 1998  that the uniqueness for constant scalar curvature metric in any Kähler class when $`C_1<0`$ along with some other interesting results:

###### Theorem 0.3.

 If the first Chern class is strictly negative, then the extremal Kähler metric is unique in each Kähler class. Moreover, the K energy must have a uniform lower bound if there exists an extremal Kähler metric in that Kähler class.

Very recently, Donaldson proved a beautiful theorem which states

###### Theorem 0.4.

 For algebraic Kähler class with no non-trivial holomorphic vector field, the constant scalar curvature metric is unique.

The two theorems overlaps in a lot cases, but mutually non-inclusive.

## 0.5. Lower bound of the K energy

According to T. Mabuchi and S. Bando, the existence of a lower bound of the K energy is a necessary condition for the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics in the first Chern class. Tian  showed that in a Kähler manifold with positive first Chern class and no non-trivial holomorphic fields, the Kähler-Einstein metric exists if and only if the Mabuchi functional is proper. When the first Chern class is negative, making use of Tian’s explicit formulation , a simple idea in  reduces a lower bound of the K energy to the existence of critical point for the following convex functional:

$$J(\phi )=\underset{p=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{(p+1)!(np1)!}_V\phi Ricci(\omega _0)\omega _0^{np1}(\overline{}\phi )^p,$$

where $`Ricci(\omega _0)<0.`$ In complex surfaces, we solves this existence problem completely, which leads to the following interesting result:

###### Theorem 0.5.

 Suppose $`\mathrm{dim}V=2`$ and $`C_1(V)<0.`$ For any Kähler class $`[\omega _0]`$, if $`2\frac{[C_1(V)][\omega _0]}{[\omega _0]^2}[\omega _0]+[C_1(V)]>0,`$ then the K energy has a lower bound in this Kähler class.

It will be very interesting to generalize this result to higher dimensional Kähler manifold.

## 0.6. Donaldson’s program

Mabuchi defined in  a Weil-Petersson type metric on the space of Kähler potentials in a fixed Kähler class. Consider the space of Kähler potentials

$$=\{\phi \omega _\phi =\omega +\overline{}\phi >0,\mathrm{on}M\}.$$

A tangent vector in $``$ is just a real valued function in $`M.`$ For any vector $`\psi T_\phi ,`$ we define the length of this vector as:

$$\psi _\phi ^2=_V\psi ^2𝑑\mu _\phi .$$

It is easy to see that the geodesic equation for this metric is

$$\phi ^{\prime \prime }(t)g_\phi ^{\alpha \overline{\beta }}\frac{\phi ^{}}{w_\alpha }\frac{\phi ^{}}{w_{\overline{\beta }}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

where $`g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}^{}{}_{\phi }{}^{}=g_{0}^{}{}_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}{}^{}+\frac{^2\phi }{w_\alpha w_{\overline{\beta }}}>0.`$ It is first observed (cf. Semmes S.  )that one can complexified the $`t`$ variable, denoted it by $`w_{n+1}.`$ Then, the geodesic equation becomes a homogenous complex Monge-Ampere equation:

$$det\left(g_{0,i\overline{j}}+\frac{^2\phi }{w_i\overline{w_j}}\right)_{(n+1)(n+1)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{on}\mathrm{\Sigma }\times M.$$
(0.2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=[0,1]\times S^1.`$ It turns out that we don’t need to restrict to this special case. For any Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with boundary, and for any $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ map $`\phi _0`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`,`$ one can always ask the following existence problem:

###### Question 0.6.

(Donaldson)For any smooth map $`\phi _0:\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ does there exists a smooth map $`\phi :\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which satisfies the Homogenous Monge-Ampere equation 0.2 such that $`\phi =\phi _0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ?

###### Theorem 0.7.

(X. Chen ) For any smooth map $`\phi _0:\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ there always exists a $`C^{1,1}`$ map $`\phi :\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{}`$ which solves the Homogenous Monge-Ampere equation 0.2 such that $`\phi =\phi _0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

An important conjecture by Donaldson in  was that the space of Kähler potentials is a metric space which is path-connected with respect to this Weil-Petersson metric. This conjecture was complete verified here.

###### Theorem 0.8.

 The space $``$ is a genuine metric space: the minimal distance between any two Kähler metrics is realized by the unique $`C^{1,1}`$ geodesic; and the length of this geodesic is positive.

Collaborating with E. Calabi, we proved the following

###### Theorem 0.9.

 The space $``$ in a fixed Kähler class is a non-positively curved space in the sense of Alexandrov: Suppose A, B, C are three smooth points in $``$ and $`P_\lambda `$ is a geodesic interpolation point for $`0\lambda 1`$: the distance from $`P`$ to $`B`$ and $`C`$ are respectively $`\lambda d(B,C)`$ and $`(1\lambda )d(B,c)`$ 222In affine space, this means $`P_\lambda =\lambda B+(1\lambda )C.`$. Then the following inequality holds:

$$d(A,P_\lambda )^2(1\lambda )d(A,B)^2+\lambda d(A,C)^2\lambda (1\lambda )d(B,C)^2.$$

###### Theorem 0.10.

 Given any two Kähler potentials $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ in $``$ and a smooth curve $`\phi (t),0t1`$ which connects them in $`.`$ Suppose $`\phi (s,t)`$ are the family of curves under the Calabi flow and suppose that $`L(s)`$ is the length of this curve at time $`s.`$ Then

$$\frac{dL}{ds}=_0^1\left(_M|D\frac{\phi }{t}|_{\phi (s,t)}^2\omega _{\phi (s,t)}^n\sqrt{_M|\frac{\phi }{t}|^2\omega _{\phi (s,t)}^n}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)𝑑t,$$

where $`D`$ is the 2nd order Lichernowicz operator. For any smooth function $`f`$ in $`V,D(f)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_{,\alpha \beta }dz^\alpha dz^\beta `$ where $`f_{,\alpha \beta }`$ is the second covariant derivatives of $`f.`$

## 0.7. The Calabi flow and the Kähler Ricci flow

In a sequence of papers , and  , we develop some new techniques in attacking the convergence problems for the geometric flow, in particular, the Calabi flow and the Kähler Ricci flow. The main ideas are to find a set of new functionals which will be preserved (or decreased) under the flow with a uniform lower bound, then using the principle of concentration to attack the compactness/convergence problem. Following our work , M. Struwe  gave a more concise proof on Ricci flow and Calabi flow in Riemann surface. This simple idea of using integral estimates in the flow should be able to be applied in other geometric flows.

### 0.7.1. The Calabi flow on Riemann surfaces

The Calabi flow is the gradient flow of the K energy and it is a 4th order parabolic equation, proposed by E. Calabi in 1982. Namely, for a given Kähler manifold $`(M,[\omega ]),`$ the Calabi flow was defined by

$$\frac{\phi (t)}{t}=R(\omega _\phi )\frac{1}{vol(M)}_MR(\omega )\omega ^n.$$

The local existence for this flow is known, while very little is known for its long term existence since this is a 4th order flow. The only known result is in Riemann surface where Chrusciel proved that the flow converges exponentially fast to a unique constant scalar curvature metric. In 1998 , we gave a new proof based on some geometrical integral estimate and concentration compactness principle. Now the challenging question is:

###### Question 0.11.

Does the Calabi flow exists globally for any smooth initial metric?

### 0.7.2. The Kähler Ricci flow

A Kähler Ricci flowis defined by

$$\frac{}{t}\omega _\phi =\omega _\phi Ric(\omega _\phi ).$$

This flow was first studied by H. D. Cao , following the work of R. Hamilton on the Ricci flow333The Ricci flow was introduced by R. Hamilton  in 1982. There are extensive study in this subject (cf. ) since his famous work in 3-dimensonal manifold with positive Ricci curvarure (cf.  for further references). Another important geometric flow is the so called “mean curvature flow. ” The codimension 1 case was studied extensively by G. Huisken and many others. Recently, there are some interesting progress made in codimension 2 case (cf.   for further references). . Cao proved that the flow always exists for all the time along with some other interesting results. It was proved by S. Bando  for 3-dimensional Kähler manifolds and by N. Mok  for higher dimensional Kähler manifolds that the positivity of bisectional curvature is preserved under the Kähler Ricci flow. The main issue here is the global convergence on manifold with positive bisectional curvature. In the work with Tian, we found a set of new functionals $`\{E_k\}_{k=0}^n`$ on curvature tensors such that the Ricci flow is the gradient like flow of these functionals. On Kähler-Einstein manifold with positive scalar curvature, if the initial metric has positive bisectional curvature, we can prove that these functionals have a uniform lower bound, via the effective use of Tian’s inequality. Consequently, we are able to prove the following theorem:

###### Theorem 0.12.

, Let $`M`$ be a Kähler-Einstein manifold with positive scalar curvature. If the initial metric has nonnegative bisectional curvature and positive at least at one point, then the Kähler Ricci flow will converge exponentially fast to a Kähler-Einstein metric with constant bisectional curvature.

The above theorem in complex dimension $`1`$ was proved first by Hamilton . B. Chow  later showed that the assumption that the initial metric has positive curvature in $`S^2`$ can be removed since the scalar curvature will become positive after finite time anyway.

###### Corollary 0.13.

The space of Kähler metrics with non-negative bisectional curvature is path-connected.

Moreover, we can carry over the proof of Theorem 0.12 to a more general case of Kähler orbifolds, for which we will not go into details here. Now the definition of these functionals $`E_k=E_k^0J_k(k=0,1,\mathrm{},n)`$:

###### Definition 0.14.

For any $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$, we define a functional $`E_k^0`$ on $``$ by

$$E_{k,\omega }^0(\phi )=\frac{1}{vol(M)}_M\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{n}}{\omega ^n}h_\omega \right)\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{Ric}(\omega _\phi )^i\omega ^{ki}\right)\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{nk}+c_k,$$

where

$$c_k=\frac{1}{vol(M)}_Mh_\omega \left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{Ric}(\omega )^i\omega ^{ki}\right)\omega ^{nk},$$

and

$$Ric(\omega )\omega =\sqrt{1}\overline{}h_\omega ,\mathrm{and}_M(e^{h_\omega }1)\omega ^n=0.$$

###### Definition 0.15.

For each $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$, we will define $`J_{k,\omega }`$ as follows: Let $`\phi (t)`$ ($`t[0,1]`$) be a path from $`0`$ to $`\phi `$ in $``$, we define

$$J_{k,\omega }(\phi )=\frac{nk}{vol(M)}_0^1_M\frac{\phi }{t}\left(\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{k+1}\omega ^{k+1}\right)\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{nk1}dt.$$

Put $`J_n=0`$ for convenience in notations.

Note that $`E_0`$ is the well known K energy function introduced by T. Mabuchi in 1987. Direct computations lead to

###### Theorem 0.16.

For any $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_k}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k+1}{vol(M)}}{\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{t}}\right)\mathrm{Ric}(\omega _\phi )^k\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{nk}`$ (0.3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{nk}{vol(M)}}{\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{t}}\left(\mathrm{Ric}(\omega _\phi )^{k+1}\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{k+1}\right)\omega _{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{nk1}.`$
Here $`\{\phi (t)\}`$ is any path in $``$.

Note that under the Kähler Ricci flow, these functionals essentially decreases! We then prove the derivative of these functionals along a curve of holomorphic automorphisms give rise to a set of holomorphic invariants $`\mathrm{}_k(k=0,1,\mathrm{},n)`$ (cf. Theorem 0.1). In case of Kähler-Einstein manifolds, all these invariants vanishes. This give us freedom to re-adjust the flow so that the evolving Kähler potentials are perpendicular to the first eigenspace of a fixed Kähler-Einstein metric. Then we will be able to show that the evolved volume form has a uniform lower bound. From this point on, the boot-strapping process will give us necessary estimates to obtain global convergence.

## 0.8. Some new result with G. Tian

In 2001, Donaldson proved the following

###### Theorem 0.17.

 (Openness) For any smooth solution to the geodesic equation with a disc domain, there are always exists a smooth solution to the geodesic equation if we perturb the boundary data in a small open set (of the given boundary data).

This is somewhat surprising result since it is very hard to deform any solution of a homogenous Monge-Ampere equation even locally. However, Donaldson was able to make clever use of the Fredholm theory of holomorphic discs with totally real boundary in his proof. Then the problem of closed-ness becomes very important in light of this theorem. Tian and I are able to establish the closed-ness in this case.

###### Theorem 0.18.

 (Closure property) The defomation of geodesic solution in the preceding theorem is indeed closed, provided we allow solution to be smooth almost everywhere.

This is a deep theorem and we will not go into detail here due to the expository nature of this talk. However, this theorem, along with the ideas of proof, shall have implication in both geometry and other Monge-Ampere type equation in the future.


text:
# Triviality of Higher Derivative Theories

On leave from \]Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 66318, 05315-970, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

## Abstract

We show that some higher derivative theories have a BRST symmetry. This symmetry is due to the higher derivative structure and is not associated to any gauge invariance. If physical states are defined as those in the BRST cohomology then the only physical state is the vacuum. All negative norm states, characteristic of higher derivative theories, are removed from the physical sector. As a consequence, unitarity is recovered but the S-matrix is trivial. We show that a class of higher derivative quantum gravity theories have this BRST symmetry so that they are consistent as quantum field theories. Furthermore, this BRST symmetry may be present in both relativistic and non-relativistic systems.

Higher derivative (HD) theories were introduced in quantum field theory in an attempt to get rid of ultraviolet divergences Thirring . It was soon recognized that they have an energy which is not bounded from below Pais:1950za  and that these negative energy states can be traded by negative norm states (or ghosts) Heisenberg  leading to non unitary theories. Although inconsistent, HD theories have better renormalization properties than conventional ones and a large amount of work was dedicated to the study of such theories toomany . In the gravitational context, for instance, it is able to produce a renormalizable quantum gravity theory Stelle:1976gc . To overcome the ghost problem many attempts were done mainly by imposing some superselection rule or some subsidiary condition to remove the undesirable states toomany . However, there is no general scheme to remove the ghosts and this is done in a case by case basis.

In this letter we will show that some HD theories have a BRST symmetry after ghost fields are introduced. Usually the BRST symmetry is found in gauge theories as a symmetry of the gauge fixed action Rivelles:1995gb . Its purpose is to remove the negative norm states associated to the gauge invariance. Physical states are then defined as those which have zero ghost number and are invariant under the BRST symmetry. In the present case, however, the BRST symmetry is not due to gauge invariance. Rather, it is a feature of the HD structure of the action. As it will be shown, it can be found even in the case of a HD real scalar field. Since we have a BRST symmetry it is natural to require that the physical states are those which have zero ghost number and are left invariant by this symmetry, in analogy to what is done in gauge theories. With these requirements we find that HD theories have only one physical state, the vacuum, since all others physical states appear in zero norm combinations. Therefore, the resulting theory is ghost free but it is also empty. In this way the unitarity problem associated to HD theories can be overcome but the resulting theory has no states besides the vacuum. We will show that this symmetry is present in HD non-Abelian gauge theories and also in HD gravity theories, so that they are unitary but have a trivial S-matrix.

Even though we work mostly with relativistic systems, relativistic invariance is not a necessary ingredient. The HD BRST symmetry may also be found in non-relativistic situations. We will exemplify this for the case of the HD harmonic oscillator.

Let us first consider a real scalar field $`\varphi `$ in $`d`$ dimensions with an action

$$S=d^dx\left(\frac{1}{2}𝒪^n\varphi 𝒪^n\varphi \overline{c}𝒪^nc\right),$$
(1)
where $`𝒪=_{i=1}^N(\mathrm{}+m_i^2)`$ is a product of $`N`$ Klein-Gordon operators with masses $`m_i`$, $`c`$ is a ghost, $`\overline{c}`$ an anti-ghost and $`n`$ is an integer. This HD action is invariant under the following BRST transformations

$$\delta \varphi =c,\delta c=0,\delta \overline{c}=𝒪^n\varphi .$$
(2)
These transformations are nilpotent for $`\varphi `$ and $`c`$ and on-shell nilpotent for $`\overline{c}`$. To find out the role of this symmetry let us introduce an auxiliary field $`b`$ and rewrite the action (1) as

$$S=d^dx\left(b𝒪^n\varphi \frac{1}{2}b^2\overline{c}𝒪^nc\right).$$
(3)
The BRST transformations now read

$$\delta \varphi =c,\delta c=0,\delta \overline{c}=b,\delta b=0,$$
(4)
and are off-shell nilpotent. This action can now be written as a total BRST transformation

$$S=d^dx\delta \left[\overline{c}(𝒪^n\varphi \frac{1}{2}b)\right],$$
(5)
indicating that theory may be empty. It looks like a topological theory of Witten type Birmingham:1991ty  but it clearly depends on the local structure of the space-time. In topological theories there are no local degrees of freedom from the start while here we have positive and negative norm states before introducing the ghost fields. The requirement that the physical states are in the cohomology of the BRST charge means that all of them, except the vacuum, appear in zero norm combinations as we will show.

Interactions can be introduced trough a prepotential $`U(\varphi )`$. The action

$$S=d^dx\delta \left[\overline{c}(𝒪^n\varphi \frac{1}{2}bU)\right],$$
(6)
which is invariant under the BRST transformations (4), yields, after elimination of the auxiliary field,

$$S=d^dx\left[\frac{1}{2}(𝒪^n\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2}U^2+U𝒪^n\varphi \overline{c}\left(𝒪^nc+U^{}c\right)\right].$$
(7)
Assuming that the BRST symmetry has no anomaly it is enough to examine the free case to find out the physical states.

In order to simplify the analysis we will consider from now on the case $`n=1`$ and only one factor in $`𝒪`$, that is $`N=1`$. The simplest situation is the one dimensional case, that is, quantum mechanics, where $`𝒪=d^2/dt^2+m^2`$. Then the action (1) reduces to that of a HD harmonic oscillator. Canonical quantization is straightforward if we keep the auxiliary field and use the action in the form (3) where only first order derivatives appear after an integration by parts is performed. We then find that the non trivial equal time commutation relations are

$$[\varphi ,\dot{b}]=[b,\dot{\varphi }]=i,$$
(8)
where dots denote time derivatives. The solution to the field equation for $`\varphi `$ and $`b`$ can be expanded as

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{3/2}}}\left[(a+bmt)e^{imt}+(a^{}+b^{}mt)e^{imt}\right],`$ (9)
$`b(t)`$ $`=`$ $`im^{1/2}\left(be^{imt}b^{}e^{imt}\right).`$ (10)
The canonical Hamiltonian yields

$$H=m(2b^{}bib^{}a+ia^{}b),$$
(11)
and using the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{a}=iab/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}=ia3b/2`$ we find

$$H=m(\stackrel{~}{a}^{}\stackrel{~}{a}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}),$$
(12)
so that it is not positive definite at the classical level. Upon quantization we find that the non-trivial commutators for the operators $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given by

$$[a,a^{}]=1,[a,b^{}]=i,$$
(13)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are annihilation operators and $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are creation ones. By the transformation $`\widehat{a}=bia`$, $`\widehat{b}=ia`$, we find

$$[\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{}]=[\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{}]=1,$$
(14)
so that the Hilbert space is not positive definite.

We now consider the ghost fields in (1). Quantization is straightforward. The solution to the equations of motion can be expanded as

$`c(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{3/2}}}\left(ce^{i\omega t}+c^{}e^{i\omega t}\right),`$ (15)
$`\overline{c}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`m^{1/2}\left(\overline{c}e^{i\omega t}+\overline{c}^{}e^{i\omega t}\right),`$ (16)
where $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ are annihilation operators and $`c^{}`$ and $`\overline{c}^{}`$ are creation operators. The non trivial anti-commutators are given by

$$\{c,\overline{c}^{}\}=\{\overline{c},c^{}\}=1.$$
(17)
The BRST transformations (4) for the operators in (9), (10), (15) and (16) (not for the fields) are

$$\delta a=c,\delta c=0,\delta \overline{c}=ib,\delta b=0.$$
(18)
This means that the these operators belong to the quartet representation of the BRST algebra Kugo:gm . As a consequence, the BRST invariant states, build out of these operators, appear only in zero norm combinations through the quartet mechanism. Therefore the only physical state is the vacuum. In this way the HD harmonic oscillator is free of negative norm states but the only state left is the vacuum.

The situation for the scalar field is analogous to the quantum mechanical case. Now $`𝒪=\mathrm{}+m^2`$ and the fields have expansions similar to (9),(10),(15) and (16) with the creation and annihilation operators depending on the momenta. They obey commutation relations similar to (13) and (17) and the Hamiltonian has the same form as (11). Hence the BRST transformations are the same as in (18) and the quartet mechanism is also operational in this case. The only physical state is the vacuum. The massless case needs some care but again the same result is found.

At this point it is worth to remind that to remove the negative norm states for the HD scalar field theory the condition $`b=0`$ is often employed scalar . It is argued that there is a “gauge symmetry” $`\delta \varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ satisfying $`(\mathrm{}+m^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. The “gauge condition” $`b=0`$ is then imposed to remove the ghost states. However, the Hamiltonian analysis reveals that there is no true gauge symmetry since there are no constraints at all. Amazingly, a “BRST symmetry” associated to this “gauge symmetry” can be found Flato:1986rx  and it agrees with (18). Now its origin is clear; it is completely due to the HD structure as we have shown.

We can now easily generalize this construction to other types of fields. Since we want to keep the same BRST transformations (4) then the ghosts and the auxiliary field $`b`$ must have the same tensor structure as the field under consideration. For gauge theories we should also take into account the ordinary Faddeev-Popov ghosts associated to the gauge symmetry since they have a different origin from the ghosts coming from the HD structure Gavrielides:qw . We will argue, however, that only one set of ghost fields is needed.

For a theory with a non-Abelian vector field we start with

$$S=d^dxTr\delta \left[\overline{c}^\mu (E_\mu \frac{1}{2}b_\mu )\right],$$
(19)
where $`E_\mu `$ depends only on the vector field $`A_\mu `$. The BRST transformations are given by

$$\delta A_\mu =c_\mu ,\delta c_\mu =0,\delta \overline{c}_\mu =b_\mu ,\delta b_\mu =0.$$
(20)
This structure is similar to that found in topological field theories Brooks:1988jm . There, $`E,b`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ are two forms instead of vectors so that a topological invariant is generated after the elimination of the auxiliary field. Here the tensor structure is quite different and $`E_\mu `$ is chosen so that it gives rise to a HD theory. For a fourth order gauge theory we can choose

$$E_\mu =D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }+\frac{1}{2\xi }_\mu ^\nu A_\nu .$$
(21)
The first term in (21) will produce a gauge invariant term in the action if the second term is absent. The second term breaks gauge invariance and can be regarded as a gauge fixing term since it allows us to find the propagator for $`A_\mu `$. At this point we should decide whether we introduce the gauge fixing term in $`E_\mu `$, as in (21), or if we consider the ordinary Faddeev-Popov procedure for gauge fixing. If we do not add the gauge fixing term in (21) then $`E_\mu `$ will give rise to an action for $`\overline{c}_\mu `$ and $`c_\mu `$ which has a gauge symmetry $`\delta \overline{c}_\mu =D_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }},\delta c_\mu =D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are Grassmannian functions. This would require the introduction of ghosts for ghosts besides the ordinary Faddeev-Popov ghosts for $`A_\mu `$. We then choose to introduce the gauge fixing term directly in $`E_\mu `$ to avoid the proliferation of ghost fields.

With the choice (21) we find that (19) yields the following action

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^dxTr(D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }D_\rho F^{\rho \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\xi ^2}}^\mu A_\mu A`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }^\mu A+\overline{}^{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }2i\{\overline{c}^\mu ,c^\nu \}F_{\mu \nu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}^\mu \overline{c}_\mu ^\nu c_\nu ),`$ (22)
where $`\overline{}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`_{\mu \nu }`$ are the field strengths for $`\overline{c}^\mu `$ and $`c_\mu `$, respectively. Canonical quantization is easily performed keeping the auxiliary field $`b_\mu `$ since it gives rise to a first order Lagrangian. No constraints are found and the Hamiltonian is not positive definite. Quantization simplifies in the Feynman gauge $`\xi =1`$ and we find that the quartet mechanism applies to each component of the vector field. Again, the only physical state is the vacuum. Coupling to ordinary or HD matter is straightforward. However, only non-minimal couplings arise. Details will be given elsewhere.

Other choices for $`E_\mu `$ are possible. For instance,

$$E_\mu =\frac{1}{m}D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }+\frac{m}{2}A_\mu ,$$
(23)
gives rise to a fourth order massive vector theory which includes the standard Maxwell term. However, there is no gauge invariance in this case.

For gravity the ghosts and the auxiliary field are second order symmetric tensors. The action is

$$S=d^dx\delta \left[\overline{c}^{\mu \nu }(E_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}b_{\mu \nu })\right],$$
(24)
and the BRST transformations are given by

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }=c_{\mu \nu },\delta c_{\mu \nu }=0,\delta \overline{c}^{\mu \nu }=b^{\mu \nu },\delta b^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(25)
For a generic fourth order gravity theory we can choose

$$E_{\mu \nu }=g^{1/4}\left(c_1R_{\mu \nu }+c_2g_{\mu \nu }R+c_3g_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(26)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric, $`g`$ its determinant, $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ the Ricci tensor, $`R`$ the curvature scalar and dots denote the gauge fixing terms. After the elimination of the auxiliary field we find that the action for the gravitational sector can be written as

$$S_{gr}=d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\gamma R\mathrm{\Lambda }+\alpha R^2+\beta R^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(27)
with $`\gamma ^2=4\mathrm{\Lambda }(d\alpha +\beta )/d`$. Gauge fixing terms were omitted. Notice that we can not get the Einstein-Hilbert action since setting $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ to get rid of the HD contributions also eliminates the term in $`R`$. However, we can choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ in order to get a purely HD gravity theory. Alternatively we can choose $`\beta =d\alpha `$, which corresponds to a traceless Ricci tensor. This case is distinguished by energy considerations Deser:2002rt . The conformal case has no special features. Notice also that (26) does not allow us to generate the square of the Riemann tensor thus precluding Gauss-Bonnet terms which arise in string theory. Details will be presented elsewhere.

Some final remarks are in order. Could a BRST symmetry be found for ordinary second order theories? Covariance requires that the operator $`𝒪`$ be at least quadratic in the derivatives. However, in lower dimensions, this requirement can be relaxed. Chiral bosons in two dimensions have a BRST symmetry which allows the vacuum as the only physical state Girotti:1992hy . In higher dimensions we could consider the action (6) without the term $`𝒪^n\varphi `$ and $`U`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$ and its derivatives. Then we can take $`U=\sqrt{\varphi (\mathrm{}+m^2)\varphi }`$. The term $`U^2`$ in (7) yields the Lagrangian for the ordinary scalar field but we get non-local interactions with the ghosts due to the term $`U^{}\overline{c}c`$. Even though there is a BRST symmetry, a detailed analysis shows that on-shell $`\overline{c}=b=0`$ so that the quartet mechanism can not be applied. It is imperative to have non-trivial solutions to the field equation for the quartet mechanism to work. Since $`\overline{c}=0`$ all contributions from the ghost sector to the physical Hilbert space vanish because they must be functions of $`\overline{c}c`$. Then we end up with the usual scalar theory and the BRST symmetry is trivial in this case.

A more radical possibility would be to consider non-local expression for $`𝒪`$, for instance $`𝒪=\sqrt{\mathrm{}+m^2}`$. The action (1) with $`n=1`$ would be the ordinary one for a scalar field but for the ghosts we find a non-local action. Quantization of such non-local theories has been done Barci:1995ad  but it not clear how the quartet mechanism can be applied with non-local ghosts. This deserves further understanding.

Returning to the quantum mechanical case, the action (7) resembles that of supersymmetric quantum mechanics if $`𝒪=d/dt`$ and the ghosts are regarded as fermions. The BRST transformations (4) are identical to the supersymmetry transformations but the anti-BRST transformation (obtained by replacing ghosts by anti-ghosts and vice-versa) $`\overline{\delta }\varphi =\overline{c},\overline{\delta }\overline{c}=0,\overline{\delta }c=(𝒪+V),`$ are not. The anti-commutator of the BRST and anti-BRST transformations vanishes as expected while in the supersymmetric case it would be proportional to the Hamiltonian. There are crucial signs in the action and in the transformation rules which, when changed, produces the supersymmetric model. Hence the supersymmetric model is obtained by twisting the BRST symmetry.

We should also remark that the BRST symmetry can not be found in any HD theory. For instance, in the simple case of non-degenerated masses

$$S=d^dx\left[\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{}+m_1^2)\varphi (\mathrm{}+m_2^2)\varphi \overline{c}(\mathrm{}+m_1^2)c\right],$$
(28)
there is a symmetry of the action given by $`\delta \varphi =c,\delta c=0,\delta \overline{c}=(\mathrm{}+m_2^2)\varphi .`$ However, this symmetry is not nilpotent since on-shell $`\delta ^2\overline{c}=(m_2^2m_1^2)c0`$. It is nilpotent only when both masses are equal thus implying in (1) with $`n=1`$ and $`𝒪=\mathrm{}+m^2`$, where $`m`$ is the common mass.

As a last remark it must be stressed that a trivial topology for the space (or space-time) was assumed throughout the paper. If a non-trivial topology is present then topological excitations may arise as they do in topological field theories of Witten type. For instance, in the case of non-Abelian gauge fields (Triviality of Higher Derivative Theories) there are instanton solutions which may give non-trivial contributions to correlation functions. This is presently under investigation and will be reported elsewhere.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank A. J. Accioly, S. Deser, R. Jackiw, I. Shapiro and S. Sorella for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by CAPES, CNPQ and PRONEX under contract CNPq 66.2002/1998-99.