text:
# Space Searches with a Quantum Robot

## 1. Introduction

Quantum computers have been the subject of much study, mainly because of computations that can be done more efficiently than on classical computers. Well known examples include Shor’s and Grover’s algorithms, . Quantum robots have also been recently described as mobile systems, with an on board quantum computer and ancillary systems, that move in and interact with environments of quantum systems . Dynamics of quantum robots are described as tasks consisting of alternating computation and action phases.

Quantum robots can be used to carry out many types of tasks. These range from simple ones such as searching a region of space to determine the unknown location of a system to complex tasks such as carrying out physical experiments. The fact that the spatial searches are similar to the data base searches which are efficiently implemented using Grover’s Algorithm  suggests that similar results might hold for use of Grover’s Algorithm to process results of a quantum search of a spatial region. This is an example of the possible applicability of Grover’s algorithm to various physical measurements . If this can be done for the search task, then one would have an example of a task that can be carried out more efficiently by a quantum robot than by any classical robot.

This possibility is analyzed here for a search of a 2 dimensional space region by a quantum robot to locate a system. It is seen that for reversible searches with time independent unitary dynamics, there are two problems preventing the efficient use of Grover’s Algorithm. One is that it appears impossible to remove entanglements generated during the search process. The other problem is that the action in the search task, which is the equivalent of the ”oracle function”, which is assumed in Grover’s Algorithm to be evaluated on any argument in one step, takes many steps to evaluate. The result is that even if the entanglement problem is ignored, quantum searches of 2 dimensional space regions are no more efficient than classical searches. However quantum searches of higher dimensional space regions are more efficient than classical searches.

The plan of this paper is to give, in the next section, a brief description of quantum robots and a summary of how they are different from quantum computers. This is followed, in Section 2, by a description of the dynamics of tasks as sequences of alternating computation and action phases. An explicit description of the dynamics is given as a Feynman sum over computation-action phase paths. An example of a quantum robot searching a space area to determine the unknown location of a systems is then described, Section 3. The next section is concerned with the use of Grover’s algorithm to process the search results. A very brief summary of Grover’s Algorithm, in Subsection 4.1, is followed by a description of the problems encountered, Subsection 4.2. The paper finishes with a discussion of why quantum robots are interesting independent of these results.

## 2. Quantum Robots

### 2.1. Comparison with Quantum Computers

Quantum robots are similar to quantum computers in that an important component is an on board quantum computer. Other systems such as a memory system $`m`$, an output system $`o`$, and a control qubit $`c`$ are also present in quantum robots . A relatively minor difference is that quantum robots are mobile whereas quantum computers are stationary relative to the environment. For quantum Turing machine models of quantum computers the head moves but the quantum registers are stationary. For networks of quantum gates the qubit systems move but the gates are stationary. This is shown in physical models of interacting qubits. Examples include ion trap models  or nuclear magnetic resonance models . In these cases the ion traps and the liquid of active molecules are stationary.

As is the case for quantum computers the effects of the environment on the component systems of the quantum robot need to be minimized. Methods to achieve this include the possible use of shielding or quantum error correction codes . However other than this the dynamical properties of the environment are completely arbitrary.

This is quite different than the case for quantum computers. To see this assume for quantum Turing machines that the quantum registers are the environment of the head. Similarly for gate networks the moving qubits may be considered as the environment of the network of quantum gates. Here the dynamics of these systems is quite restricted in that the states of the registers or moving qubits can change only during interaction with the head or the gate systems. Also the types of changes that can occur are limited to those appropriate for the specific computation being carried out.

This shows the main difference between quantum robots and quantum computers, namely, that for quantum computers the states of the qubits must not change spontaneously in the absence of interactions related to the computation. No such dynamical restrictions apply to the environment of quantum robots. The states of environmental systems may change spontaneously whether the quantum robot is or is not interacting with them.

Another aspect relates to the requirement that the quantum robot cannot be a multistate system with one or a very few number of degrees of freedom, but must include a quantum computer. One reason is the need for computations as part of the implementation of any task (see below). Another is that the quantum robot may need to be able to respond to a large number of different environmental states. Also a large repertoire of different (task dependent) responses to the same environmental state must be available. If the total number $`N`$ of needed responses is large then the only physically reasonable approach is to make the number of degrees of freedom of the quantum robot proportional to $`\mathrm{log}N`$. This is satisfied by including a quantum computer on board.

### 2.2. Task Dynamics

The dynamics of quantum robots are described as tasks consisting of alternating computation and action phases . The purpose of each computation phase is to determine what is to be done in the next action phase. The computation may depend on the states of $`o,m`$, and the local environment as input. The goal is to put $`o`$ in one of a set $``$ of basis states each of which specifies an action. During the computation the quantum robot does not move. Interactions with the environment, if any, are limited to local entanglement interactions of the type occurring in the measurement process (premeasurements in the sense of Peres ).

The purpose of an action phase is to carry out the action determined by the previous computation phase. The action is determined by the state of $`o`$ and may include local premeasurements of the environment state. Activities during this phase include motion of the quantum robot and local changes in the state of the environment. The action is independent of the state of the on board quantum computer and the $`m`$ system. If $`o`$ is in a state in $``$, then the state does not change during the action.

The purpose of the control qubit $`c`$ is to regulate which type of phase is active. The computation \[action\] phase is active only if $`c`$ is in state $`|1,[|0]`$. Thus the last step of the computation \[action\] phase is the change $`|1|0,[|0|1]`$.

The overall system evolution is described here using a discrete space time lattice. In this case a unitary elementary step operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives the overall system evolution during an elementary time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has, in general, nonzero matrix elements between environmental degrees of freedom and quantum robot degrees of freedom, it describes the evolution of the environment and the quantum robot as well as interactions between the environment and the quantum robot.

It is useful to decompose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into two terms based on the states of the control qubit. If $`P_0^c`$ and $`P_1^c`$ are projection operators on the respective control qubit states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, then

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(P_0^c+P_1^c)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ are step operators for the action and computation phases. Interactions among environmental degrees of freedom as well as degrees of freedom of the quantum robot other than those taking part in the task dynamics, if any, are also included in both operators.

Some of the conditions described for the computation and action phases are reflected in properties that the operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ must satisfy. In particular, if $`P_x^{QR},P_d^o`$ are projection operators for finding the quantum robot at each lattice position $`x`$ ($`x=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_d`$ in d-dimensional space) and the output system in any state $`|d`$ in $``$, then one has

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_cP_x^{QR}`$ $`=`$ $`P_x^{QR}\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$
(2.2) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_aP_d^o`$ $`=`$ $`P_d^o\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$
These commutation relations express the requirements that the position of the quantum robot does not change during the computation phase and, except for possible entanglements with environmental states, the state of the output system is not changed during the action phase. These entanglements would occur if $`o`$ was in a linear superposition of $``$ states each of which resulted in different environment states during the action. Another property of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is that it is the identity operator on the space of states for the on board quantum computer and memory system degrees of freedom. Note also that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ do not commute.

If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the overall system state at time $`0`$ then the state at time $`n\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)^n\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The amplitude for finding the quantum robot and environment in a state $`|w^{},j`$ is given by

(2.3)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n(w^{},j)=\underset{w,i}{}w^{},j|(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)^n|w,i\mathrm{\Psi }_0(w,i).$$

Here $`|w,|w^{}`$ denote the states of all environmental and quantum robot systems except the control qubit in some suitable basis, and $`i,j=0,1`$ refer to the states of $`c`$.

All the information about the dynamics of the system is given in the matrix elements $`w^{},j|(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)^n|w,i`$. For each $`w,w^{},n,i,j`$ the matrix element can be expanded in a Feynman sum over phase paths . One first expands $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)^n`$ as a sum of products of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$:

(2.4) $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v_1=a,c}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{h_1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_t=1}{\overset{\delta ({\scriptscriptstyle },n)}{}}}(P_0^c+P_1^c)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v_t})^{h_t}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v_{t1}})^{h_{t1}},`$
$`\mathrm{},(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v_2})^{h_2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v_1})^{h_1}.`$
In this expansion the number of phases is given by the value of $`t`$ which ranges from $`t=1`$ corresponding to one phase with $`n`$ steps to $`t=n`$ corresponding to n alternating phases each of $`1`$ step. The duration of the $`\mathrm{}th`$ phase is given by the value of $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},t`$. The requirement that the total number of steps equals $`n`$, or $`h_1+h_2+,\mathrm{},+h_t=n`$, is indicated by the upper limit $`\delta (,n)`$ on the $`h`$ sum. The alternation of phases is shown by $`v`$ where $`v_{m+1}=a`$ (or $`c`$) if $`v_m=c`$ (or $`a`$). The factor $`P_0^c+P_1^c`$ expresses the fact that the $`t`$th phase may not be completed.

Expansion in a complete set of states between each of the phase operators $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_v_{\mathrm{}})^h_{\mathrm{}}`$ gives the desired path sum:

(2.5) $`w^{},j|(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)^n|w,i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p_2,\mathrm{},p_t}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{h_1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_t=1}{\overset{\delta ({\scriptscriptstyle },n)}{}}}w^{},j|(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v_t})^{h_t}|p_t`$
$`\mathrm{},p_3|(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{v(2)})^{h_2}|p_2p_2|(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)^{h_1}|w,i`$
Here the sum is over all paths $`p`$ of states of length $`t+1`$ with beginning and endpoints given by the states $`|w`$ and $`|w^{}`$. That is $`|p_1=|w,|p_t=|w^{}`$. The states of the control qubit have been suppressed as they correspond to the values of $`v`$. Note that $`v(1)=i`$.

Each term in this large sum gives the amplitude for finding $`t`$ alternating phases in the first $`n`$ steps where the $`\mathrm{}th`$ phase begins with all systems (except for c) in state $`|p_{\mathrm{}}`$ and ends after $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ steps in state $`|w_{\mathrm{}+1}`$. The sums express the dispersion in the duration or number of steps in each phase ($`h`$ sums), in the number of phases ($`t`$ sum), and in the initial and terminal states for each phase ($`p`$ sums).

## 3. An Example of Quantum Searching

Quantum robots are well suited for carrying out search tasks. As a simple example consider a search task where a quantum robot searches a large square area $`R`$ of $`N\times N`$ sites to locate a system $`s`$. To keep things simple $`s`$ is assumed to be motionless and located at just one unknown site. The goal of the search is to determine the location of $`s`$ in $`R`$.

The quantum robot consists of an on board quantum computer, memory and output systems, and a control qubit. The on board computer is assumed here to be a quantum Turing machine consisting of a head moving on a cyclic lattice of $`O(\mathrm{log}N)`$ qubits. $`O()`$ denotes of the order of. The memory system also is a cyclic lattice which is taken here to have about the same number of qubits and to lie adjacent to the computation lattice. A schematic representation of the quantum robot located at a corner (the origin) of $`R`$ is shown in the figure.

One method of carrying out the search is to let the coordinates $`X,Y`$ with $`0X,YN1`$ of each point of $`R`$ define a search path. If the memory is initially in state $`|X,Y_m`$ the quantum robot, starting from the location $`0,0`$ moves $`X`$ sites in the $`x`$ direction, then $`Y`$ sites in the $`y`$ direction and looks for $`s`$ at its location. After recording the presence or absence of $`s`$ at the site and further processing, if any, the quantum robot returns along the path to the origin.

A more detailed description starts with the qubits in the memory, $`m`$, and computation lattice, $``$, in the state $`|X,Y_m|0_{}`$ the output system $`o`$ in state $`|dn_o`$ and a computation phase active ($`c`$ in state $`|1_c`$). After copying the m state onto $``$ to give the state $`|X,Y_m|X,Y_{}`$, the computation phase checks to see if $`X=0`$ or $`X>0`$. If $`X>0`$ the computation phase continues by subtracting $`1`$ from $`|X,Y_{}`$ to give $`|X1,Y_{}`$. It ends by changing the $`o`$ state to $`|+x_o`$ and the $`c`$ state to $`|0_c`$.

The action phase consists of one step (one iteration of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$) in which the quantum robot moves one lattice site in the $`+x`$ direction and the $`c`$ state is converted back to $`|1_c`$. The process is repeated until the state with $`X=0`$ is reached on $``$. Then the above process is repeated for $`Y`$ (the $`o`$ state now becomes $`|+y_o`$ to denote one step motion in the $`+y`$ direction) until $`Y=0`$ is reached in the state of $``$.

At this point the presence or absence of $`s`$ at the location $`X,Y`$ of the quantum robot is recorded during a computation phase and, after further processing, if any, the quantum robot returns along the same path. This is done by interleaving motion of the quantum robot in the $`y`$ and $`x`$ directions, with corresponding $`o`$ states $`|y_o,|x_o`$, with adding $`1`$ to the $`y`$, and then $`x`$ components of the $``$ state with checking if the values $`Y`$ and then $`X`$ are reached. This is done by stepwise comparison with the state of $`m`$ which remains unchanged.

When the state of $``$ is the same as the state of $`m`$ the quantum robot has returned to the starting point at the origin of $`R`$. A computation phase changes the $`o`$ state to $`|dn_o`$ and transfers motion to some ballast system. As has been noted this is necessary to preserve reversibility and the corresponding unitarity of the dynamics .

Examples of ballast motion consist of repetitions of adding $`1`$ to a large lattice of $`M`$ qubits or emitting a particle which moves away from $`R`$. In the first case with a finite number $`2^M`$ of ballast states, the quantum robot remains in the final state of the search degrees of freedom for a finite time only before the search process is undone. This does not occur for the second case with an infinite number of ballast states.

## 4. Grover’s Algorithm and the Quantum Search

Before applying Grover’s Algorithm to process the results of the search,it is useful to understand what it does and how it works. A very brief summary, that follows Grover  and Chen et al , is given next.

### 4.1. Grover’s Algorithm

Suppose one has a data base $`B`$ of $`N`$ elements and a function $`f`$ that takes the value $`0`$ on all elements except one, $`\omega `$, on which $`f`$ has value $`1`$. It is assumed that $`\omega `$ is completely unknown and that a procedure is available for obtaining the value of $`f`$ on any element of the data base in 1 step. Let each $`x`$ in $`B`$ correspond to a unique length $`n`$ binary string and $`|x_B`$ be the corresponding n-qubit state.

Let the initial state for the search be given by

(4.1)
$$\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{xϵB}{}|x$$

where the sum is over all $`N`$ elements $`x`$ in $`B`$. This corresponds to a coherent sum over all product $`|0,|1`$ states of $`n`$ qubits in a quantum computer if $`N=2^n`$. This state is easily constructed from the constant $`0`$ state $`|\underset{¯}{0}=_{j=1}^n|0_j`$ by applying the operator $`(1/\sqrt{2})(\sigma _z+\sigma _x)`$ to each qubit. Here $`\sigma _x,\sigma _z`$ are the Pauli matrices. This is referred to as the Walsh-Hadamard transformation $`W`$. Thus $`\varphi =W|\underset{¯}{0}`$.

Define the unitary operator $`Q`$ by $`Q=I_\varphi I_\omega `$ where $`I_\varphi =12P_\varphi `$ and $`I_\omega =12P_\omega `$. Both $`P_\varphi `$ and $`P_\omega `$ are projection operators on the states $`\varphi `$ and $`|\omega `$. Let $`|\alpha =(1/\sqrt{N1})_{x\omega }|x`$ be the coherent sum over all states $`|x`$ with $`x`$ in $`B`$ and different from $`\omega `$. Since $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\omega `$ are orthonormal they form a binary basis for a 2 dimensional Hilbert space.

One can expand $`\varphi `$ in this basis:

(4.2)
$$\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{N1}{N}}|\alpha +\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}|\omega .$$

In the same basis $`Q`$ has the representation

(4.3)
$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)$$

where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =12/N`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =2\sqrt{N1}/N`$.

This shows that $`Q`$ acting on $`\varphi `$ corresponds to a rotation by $`\theta `$, and $`m`$ iterations of $`Q`$ correspond to a rotation by $`m\theta `$. So, carrying out $`m`$ iterations of $`Q`$ on $`\varphi `$ where $`m\theta \pi /2`$, rotates $`\varphi `$ from a state that is almost orthogonal to $`|\omega `$ to a state that is almost parallel to $`|\omega `$. Measurement of this final state gives with high probability, the value of $`\omega `$.

Grover’s algorithm derives its efficiency from the fact that this rotation is achieved with $`m\sqrt{N}`$ whereas classically $`N`$ steps are needed to find $`\omega `$ with high probability. The iteration of $`Q`$ must be stopped at the right value of $`m`$ because additional iterations will continue to rotate $`\varphi `$.

Efficient implementation of this algorithm on a quantum computer, corresponds to iteration of $`Q`$ on each component of $`\varphi `$. This requires that it is possible to determine, in a small number of steps, if $`x=\omega `$ or $`x\omega `$. This is often described in terms of an unknown or ”oracle” function $`f`$ on $`B`$, where $`f(x)=0[=1]`$ if $`x\omega [x=\omega ]`$, that can be evaluated in one step on any $`x`$ in $`B`$. $`I_\varphi `$ is implementable in $`O(n)`$ steps as $`\varphi =W|\underset{¯}{0}`$ and $`W`$ is the product of $`n`$ single qubit operators.

Grover  first introduced the algorithm for searching an unstructured data base of $`N=2^n`$ elements for a single element (f has value 1 on just one element). Since then the algorithm has been much studied under various generalizations. These include searches for several elements (f has value 1 on several elements) , searches in which $`N`$ is arbitrary , and searches in which the initial amplitude distribution of the component states is arbitrary . It has also been shown that the algorithm is optimally efficient . Further development is described in other work . However, as has been recently emphasized , all these searches depend on the fact that the evolving state is and remains a coherent superposition of components corresponding to elements of the data base.

### 4.2. Problems with the Use of Grover’s Algorithm

The description in Section 3 of the quantum search was for the initial memory state $`|X,Y_m`$. However if the memory system lattice is in the initial state

(4.4)
$$\psi _m=(1/N)\underset{X,Y=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|X,Y_m,$$

then the description also applies to each component state $`|X,Y`$.

As was the case for the initial state $`\varphi `$, the state $`\psi _m`$ can be efficiently prepared from the state $`|0_m`$ using the Walsh-Hadamard transformation. $`(1/\sqrt{2})(\sigma _z+\sigma _x)`$ on each qubit of $`m`$. For this initial memory state all $`N^2`$ searches are carried out coherently. Since the path lengths range from $`0`$ to $`2N`$, the quantum robot can search all sites of $`R`$ and return to the origin in $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps. Since this is less than the number of steps, $`O(N^2\mathrm{log}N)`$, required by a classical robot, the question arises if Grover’s algorithm can be used to process the final memory state to determine the location of $`s`$. If this is possible, the overall search and processing should require $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps which is less than that required by a classical robot.

It is worth a digression at this point to see that Grover’s Algorithm is not applicable to the usual method of recording the presence or absence of $`s`$ at a site. To see this assume that $`s`$ is at site $`X_0,Y_0`$ and that an extra qubit, $`r`$ of the memory is set aside to record the presence or absence of $`s`$. If $`r`$ is initially in state $`|0_r`$ and is changed to state $`|1_r`$ only in the presence of $`s`$, then the initial memory state $`\varphi _I=(1/N)_{X,Y=0}^{N1}|X,Y_m|0_r`$ is changed to the final memory state

(4.5)
$$\varphi _f=(1/N)(\underset{X,YX_0Y_0}{}|X,Y_m|0_r+|X_0,Y_0_m|1_r).$$

after the quantum robot has returned to the origin of $`R`$.

The idea then would be to use Grover’s algorithm  by carrying out $`N`$ iterations of a unitary operator $`U`$ to amplify the component state $`|X_0,Y_0_m|1_r`$ at the expense of the other components. Following Grover and others , define $`U`$ by $`U=I_{\varphi _i}I_{|1_r}`$ where $`I_{\varphi _i}=12P_{\varphi _i}`$ and $`I_{|1_r}=12P_{|1_r}`$. Here $`P_{\varphi _i}`$ and $`P_{|1_r}`$ are projection operators on the memory state $`\varphi _i`$ and the record state $`|1_r`$. $`P_{|1_r}`$ is the identity on other memory degrees of freedom.

It is clear that for this case iterations of $`U`$ can be carried out efficiently. However, the problem is that the initial state $`\varphi _i`$ contains a component, $`|X_0,Y_0_m|0_r`$, not present in the final state $`\varphi _f`$, Eq. 4.5. Also the state $`\varphi _i`$ does not contain the state $`|X_0,Y_0_m|1_r`$. In this case $`U`$ does not have a two dimensional representation in the basis pair

(4.6)
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{N^21}}\underset{X,YX_0Y_0}{}|X,Y_m|0_r;|X_0Y_0_m|1_r$$

obtained from Eq. 4.5. As a result $`U`$ cannot be represented as a rotation that, under iteration, rotates the desired component to be almost parallel to the initial state.

This problem can be avoided by changing the method of recording the presence or absence of $`s`$ and not using an extra qubit $`r`$. Here, following Grover , the sign of the component corresponding to the location of $`s`$ is changed. In this case the initial memory state, Eq. 4.4, becomes the final memory state

(4.7)
$$\psi _f=(1/N)(\underset{X,YX_0Y_0}{}|X,Y_m|X_0,Y_0_m).$$

after return of the quantum robot. In this case $`U`$ is defined as $`U=I_{\psi _m}I_{X_0Y_0}`$ where $`I_{\psi _m}=12P_m`$ and $`I_{X_0Y_0}=12P_{X_0Y_0}`$. Here $`P_m`$ and $`P_{X_0Y_0}`$ are projection operators on the memory states $`\psi _m`$ and $`|X_0Y_0_m`$.

The problem here is that the only way to determine the action of $`I_{X_0Y_0}`$ is by repeating the search part of the process. This is not efficient as it requires $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps. In the language of much of the work on Grover’s algorithm this corresponds to the fact that it requires $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps to determine the value of the oracle function instead of just one step as is usually assumed. In this case the advantage of quantum over classical searching is lost for 2 dimensional regions as use of Grover’s Algorithm would require $`O(N)`$ searches each requiring $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps.

This suggests that a method be considered in which the Grover iterations are done prior to return when the quantum robot is at the path endpoint. At this point the component memory states are entangled with the quantum robot position states as the overall state has the form $`(1/N)_{X,Y}|X,Y_m|X,Y_{QR}`$ where $`|X,Y_{QR}`$ is the quantum robot position state for the site $`X,Y`$.

In this case $`I_{X_0Y_0}`$ can be efficiently carried out on each initial component memory state $`|X,Y`$ by a local observation to see if $`s`$ is or is not at the site $`X,Y`$. Also the action of $`U=I_{\psi _m}I_{X_0Y_0}`$ on each component memory state is given by

(4.8)
$$U|X,Y_m=I_m|X,Y_m=\frac{2}{\sqrt{N}}\psi _m|X,Y_m$$

if $`|X,Y_m|X_0,Y_0_m`$ and

(4.9)
$$U|X_0,Y_0_m=I_m|X_0,Y_0_m=\frac{2}{\sqrt{N}}\psi _m+|X_0,Y_0_m$$

if $`|X,Y_m=|X_0,Y_0_m`$. Here, as before, $`\psi _m=(1/N)_{X,Y=0}^{N1}|X,Y_m`$.

Here the problem is that there is no efficient way to carry out more than one iteration of $`U`$. As noted above the first iteration can be done efficiently. However additional iterations require that the action of $`I_{X_0Y_0}`$ on memory component states $`|X^{},Y^{}`$ be evaluated for arbitrary values of $`X^{},Y^{}`$ while the quantum robot remains at site $`X,Y`$. This cannot be done efficiently as the quantum robot has no way of knowing whether $`s`$ is or is not at these different locations. To know this the quantum robot must go to the site $`X^{},Y^{}`$ to see if $`s`$ is there. This is inefficient as such a trip requires $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps.(Actions are efficient if they require $`O(\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps or less. Low powers of $`\mathrm{log}N`$ are also acceptable.)

One sees from this that implementation of Grover’s Algorithm using either of these methods requires $`O(N)`$ iterations of $`U`$ (as $`R`$ has $`N^2`$ sites) where each iteration requires $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps. The resulting number of steps required, $`O(N^2\mathrm{log}N)`$, is the same as that needed by a classical robot. So quantum searches of 2 dimensional space regions combined with Grover’s Algorithm are no more efficient than classical searches.

It is of interest to note that quantum searches of higher dimensional space regions combined with Grover’s Algorithm are more efficient than classical searches. To see this assume a search of a d dimensional cube of $`N^d`$ sites with the memory in the initial state

(4.10)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{N^{d/2}}\underset{X_1,\mathrm{}X_d=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|X_1,X_2,\mathrm{}X_d_m$$

Carrying out Grover’s Algorithm requires $`O(N^{d/2})`$ iterations of $`U`$ where, as before, each iteration of $`U`$ requires $`O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps. This follows from the fact that the number of dimensions appears as a multiplicative factor for the number of steps. Also $`O(dN\mathrm{log}N)=O(N\mathrm{log}N)`$. So the overall process requires $`O(N^{(d/2)+1}\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps. For $`d>2`$ this is more efficient than a classical search requiring $`O(N^d\mathrm{log}N)`$ steps.

The discussion so far has ignored the entanglement problems. These problems, which apply to all the above cases, result from the fact that the task evolution, starting from the initial unentangled product state $`\psi _m|0_{}|0,0_{QR}\mathrm{}`$, generates entanglements between the position states $`|X^{},Y^{}_{QR}`$ of the quantum robot and the components $`|X,Y_m`$ of the memory state $`\psi _m`$. In order for Grover’s Algorithm to work it is necessary to remove this entanglement at the end of each search cycle or iteration of $`U`$ so that the final memory state is $`\psi _f`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The entanglement referred to here is different from that of the memory state qubits. The latter is generated during iteration of the Grover operator and is necessary for successful operation of Grover’s Algorithm on multiqubit states ..

This entanglement occurs because the unitary dynamics is reversible and the number of steps needed to complete the search task is different for different component states of $`\psi _m`$. Here the number ranges from $`O(1)`$ for the path $`|0,0_m`$ to $`O(2N)`$ for the path $`|N1,N1_m`$. This means that the various components of the quantum robot complete an iteration of $`U`$ at different times. This is independent of whether the Algorithm is completed after or prior to return.

Because of the reversibility each component cannot simply stop and wait until the longest search component is complete. It must instead embark on motion of irrelevant or ballistic degrees of freedom. This means that the memory components $`|X,Y_m`$ exchange entanglement with the quantum robot position states for entanglement with states of ballistic degrees of freedom. Since use of Grover’s Algorithm requires the removal of this entanglement , the question arises whether it is possible to insert delays into each of the memory components that are computed, for example, after the quantum robot returns to the origin of $`R`$ at the end of each cycle. If this works then there would be some time or step number at which the entanglement is removed and the original product structure of the initial state recovered, with $`\psi _f`$ replacing $`\psi _m`$.

This use of delays to remove the entanglements reversibly requires that no memory of the magnitude of the delay be left in the delay degrees of freedom. Otherwise one ends up with entanglement with the delay degrees of freedom. Also determining the magnitude of each delay is not trivial as it depends not only on the lengths of each of the paths but on the number of steps in the computation phases used to determine motion along the paths. This includes the dependence of the number of steps required to subtract $`1`$ from a number $`M`$ on the value of $`M`$ (through the number of ”carry $`1`$” operations needed ).

Based on these considerations it is seems doubtful that one can use Grover’s Algorithm to efficiently process the results of a quantum search of a space region $`R`$. Even if the entanglement problem were solvable, the above results show that, for 2 dimensional space regions, use of Grover’s Algorithm is no more efficient than a classical search. For higher dimensional searches the Algorithm is more efficient. Note that this conclusion is independent of the details of the quantum robot. It applies to any quantum system such as a mobile head that contains sufficient information on board to tell it where to go, what to do on arrival at the endpoint, and how to return to the origin.

## 5. Discussion

In spite of these pessimistic results, quantum robots are interesting objects of study. For instance they may be useful test beds for study of control of quantum systems  as the dependence of the task dynamics on the local environmental state is, for some tasks, similar to a feedback loop.

Quantum robots and the associated task dynamics also make clear what is and is not being done in any task. This is shown by the quantum search task in that the quantum robot does no monitoring or control of its behavior. It (or the on board quantum computer) has no knowledge of where it is in $`R`$ at any point or even if it is in $`R`$. For each component memory state $`|X,Y_m`$ there are $`X`$ computation phases with the output system o in state $`|+x_o`$ and $`Y`$ phases with o in state $`|+y_o`$. These phases are interspersed with $`X`$ and $`Y`$ action phases during which anything can happen. For example the quantum robot might move outside $`R`$ or it might not move at all. Of course for these cases it is unlikely that the quantum robot would return to the origin at the end of the task.

This illustrates a valuable aspect of the description of the task dynamics of quantum robots as sequences of alternating computation and action phases. This is that, for the search task examples described here, it makes very clear the lack of awareness and control the quantum robot has over what has happened in the action phases and what it is doing. This argument applies to the computation phases also. For example the ”subtract $`1`$” steps could carry out an arbitrary change to the memory state and the task would continue. In this case the task would no longer be a search task but would be something else.

These considerations are also part of foundational reasons why quantum robots and quantum computers are interesting. If quantum mechanics (or some extension such as quantum field theory) is assumed to be universally applicable, then all systems involved in the validation of quantum mechanics are quantum systems. This includes the systems that make theoretical computations (which includes quantum computers) and the systems that carry out experiments (which includes quantum robots). Thus, in some sense quantum mechanics must describe its own validation, to the maximum extent possible. Exploration of this and the questions of self consistency and possible incompleteness that may occur make this an interesting path of inquiry.

In addition quantum robots, and to some extent quantum computers, are natural systems for investigating several questions. In particular what physical properties must a quantum system have such that

* It is aware of its environment?
* It has significant characteristics of intelligence?
* It changes states of some quantum systems so that the new states can be interpreted as text having meaning to the system generating the text ?

In addition there is a sense in which the existence problem for quantum systems having all these properties is already solved. That is, these systems include the readers, and hopefully the author, of this paper.

PHYSICS DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, ARGONNE, IL 60439
Current address: Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL 60439
E-mail address: pbenioff@anl.gov


format: text

text:
# Quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate.

## 1 Introduction.

We study the effect of quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate on the physical vacuum. We use an $`SU\left(2\right)_f`$ Nambu Jona-Lasinio model in the chiral limit. Two ultra-violet regularizations are considered:

* regularization using a sharp cut-off, in which the quark propagators are set to zero when $`k_\mu ^2>\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, where $`k_\mu `$ is the euclidean 4-momentum of the quark propagator;
* regularization using a smooth gaussian regulator which will be described below.

We introduce a current quark mass $`m`$ as a source term $`m\overline{\psi }\psi `$ to calculate the quark condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$. We introduce another source term $`\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ which allows us to calculate the expectation value $`\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ of the *squared* quark condensate. We shall however maintain $`j`$ at a finite value in order to study the response of the system to a deformation induced by this source term. We include the $`1/N_c`$ effects due to the quantum fluctuations of the meson fields. In the quark language, this means that we include the exchange (Fock) term as well as the (RPA) ring diagrams.

Although the quantum fluctuations of the meson fields do not restore chiral symmetry, we do find surprisingly large fluctuations of the quark condensate. We also find that the effective potential is very sensitive to the shape of the regulator. Apparent instabilities appear which we show to be artefacts sharp cut-of used in conjunction with the relatively low values of the cut-offs, used in chiral quark models.

The quantum fluctuations of the meson fields in the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model have been studied for several years , , , . In these studies, the quark and meson loops were regularized with different cut-offs. Since both the quark and meson loops diverge, their relative contribution could be adjusted at will by a proper choice of the cut-offs thereby making it impossible to estimate the importance of the quantum fluctuations of the meson fields.

In this study we consider the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model to be a quark model in the sense that all physical processes can be expressed in term of Feynman graphs involving only quark propagators. The meson fields which are introduced in the process of bosonization are mere intermediate quantities introduced to calculate the partition function. When the quark propagators are regularized, a single cut-off regularizes both the quark and meson loops. No further regularization is required for higher order loops. This approach has also been adopted in Ref. for example, with the exception that a 3-momentum cut-off was used. We shall show that results obtained with 3 and 4-momentum cut-offs can differ even qualitatively. We show that regularization with a 4-momentum cut-off introduces a non-locality which makes the ground state energy unbounded from below, or, equivalently, which makes the model acausal. We relate this instability to the unphysical poles of the quark propagator which are introduced by the regulator.

We consider the regularization of a model to be a physical phenomenon and not simply a way to be rid of infinities wherever they turn up. Because of this we regularize the model action from the outset before calculating the loop integrals and we shall see that this makes a significant difference with the common practice of regularizing the infinities of the loop integrals which are deduced from an unregularized action. We derive all quantities in terms of a regulator which is a function of the squared euclidean 4-momentum $`k^2`$.

The paper is composed of three parts. In the first part we set the notation, we explain how the calculation was performed and we define the relevant range of the model parameters. The second part is devoted to a discussion of the quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate. The last part discusses the instabilities which are displayed by the response of the system, subject to constraint proportional to the squared quark condensate.

## 2 The model euclidean action.

The model is defined by the euclidean action:

$$I_m(q,\overline{q})=\overline{q}\left|i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr\right|q\frac{g^2}{2N_c}d_4x\left(\overline{q}\left|r\right|x\mathrm{\Gamma }_ax\left|r\right|q\right)^2$$
(1)
It involves a quark field $`q\left(x\right)x|q`$. The euclidean Dirac matrices are $`\gamma _\mu =\gamma ^\mu =(i\beta ,\stackrel{}{\gamma })`$. The model includes a regulator $`r`$ which is assumed to be diagonal in $`k`$-space: $`k\left|r\right|k^{}=\delta _{kk^{}}r\left(k\right)`$. We consider both a gaussian regulator:

$$r\left(k\right)=e^{\frac{k^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}$$
(2)
and a sharp cut-off:

$$r\left(k\right)=1ifk^2<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2r\left(k\right)=0ifk^2>\mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$
(3)
The use of the the sharp cut-off is tantamount to the calculation of Feynman graphs in which the quark propagators are set to zero when their euclidean 4-momentum $`k_\mu ^2`$ exceeds the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The bra-ket notation for the Dirac fields is:

$$\overline{q}\left|i_\mu \gamma _\mu +m\right|qd_4x\overline{q}\left(x\right)\left(i_\mu \gamma _\mu +m\right)q\left(x\right)$$

$$x\left|r\right|q=d_4yx\left|r\right|yq\left(y\right)\overline{q}\left|r\right|x=d_4y\overline{q}\left(y\right)y\left|r\right|x$$
(4)
We use the current quark mass $`m`$ to evaluate a regularized quark condensate and that is why the current quark mass $`m`$ is multiplied by the regulator. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=(1,i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau })`$ are the generators of chiral rotations. The number of flavors is $`N_f`$ and there are $`N_f^2`$ generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$. We assumed that the coupling constant $`\frac{g^2}{N_c}`$ is inversely proportional to $`N_c`$.

The partition function $`W`$ is given by the euclidean path integral222Pedantically, the partition function is $`Z=e^W`$. In the following we shall call $`W`$ the partition function without fear of confusion.:

$$e^{W\left(m\right)}=D\left(q\right)D\left(\overline{q}\right)e^{I(q,\overline{q})}$$
(5)
At zero temperature and for an infinite translationally invariant system, $`W=\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon `$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the space-time volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d_4x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy density $`\epsilon =\frac{E}{V}`$, which is the energy per unit volume of the system in its ground state.

The model is regularized in the same way as the effective quark model which has been derived from a study of the propagation of quarks in an instanton liquid , in which case both the shape of the regulator and the value of the cut-off are derived. However, the model action (1) we are using is not exactly the same as that derived from the instanton liquid . The model described by the action (1) has been actively investigated in both the soliton  and meson sectors  .

We now adopt a notation which adds considerable transparency to the manipulations made below. We define an interaction $`V`$ by its matrix element:

$$xa\left|V\right|yb=yb\left|V\right|xq=\delta _{ab}\delta \left(xy\right)\frac{g^2}{N_c}xa\left|V^1\right|yb=\delta _{ab}\delta \left(xy\right)\frac{N_c}{g^2}$$
(6)
We define a *delocalized* quark field $`\psi \left(x\right)`$ and the corresponding bilinear forms $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi `$:

$$\psi \left(x\right)=d_4xx\left|r\right|yq\left(y\right)\overline{\psi }\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \left(x\right)=d_4yd_4z\overline{q}\left(y\right)y\left|r\right|x\mathrm{\Gamma }_ax\left|r\right|zq\left(z\right)$$
(7)
In this notation, the action (1) takes the form:

$$I_m(q,\overline{q})=\overline{q}\left|i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr\right|q+\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)V\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)$$
(8)
The chiral limit is defined to be $`m0`$.

## 3 The constrained system and the effective potential.

The current quark mass $`m`$ serves as a source term to calculate the normalized quark condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$. In order to calculate the quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate, we introduce an extra source term:

$$\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2=\frac{1}{2}jd_4x\left[\left(\overline{\psi }\psi \right)^2+\left(\overline{\psi }i\gamma _5\tau _a\psi \right)^2\right]$$
(9)
which acts as a constraint on the system and which allows us to calculate the expectation value $`\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ of the *squared* condensate. We prefer to work with the squared condensate $`\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ rather than with $`\left(\overline{\psi }\psi \right)^2`$ because $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ is only one of the four components of the chiral 4-vector $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi `$. If the system chooses to vibrate in the direction $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ defined by the ground state, it will do so because the amplitudes of the vibrations in the four directions are independent. But there is no reason to prevent the system to vibrate in the other three directions.

The constraint is introduced into the action (8) and we define *the constrained system* by the partition function:

$$e^{W(j,m)}=D\left(q\right)D\left(\overline{q}\right)e^{I_m(q,\overline{q})+\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)}=D\left(q\right)D\left(\overline{q}\right)e^{I_{j,m}(q,\overline{q})}$$
(10)
where:

$$I_{j,m}(q,\overline{q})=\overline{q}\left|i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr\right|q+\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)\left(Vj\right)\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)$$
(11)
is the action of the constrained system.

The ground state expectation value $`\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ of the squared condensate in the constrained system is given by:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2=\frac{W(j,m)}{j}|_{m=0}$$
(12)
and the quark condensate is given by the expression:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\psi }\psi =\frac{W(j,m)}{m}|_{m=0}$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the space-time volume in euclidean space.

The constrained system, described by the partition function $`W(j,m)`$ is not the same as the system described by the partition function $`W\left(m\right)`$ because it has an additional potential energy equal to $`\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2=j\frac{W(j,m)}{j}`$. This is why, in the presence of the constraint, the energy density of the system is defined in terms of the *effective potential*:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=W(j,m)+\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2=W(j,m)j\frac{W(j,m)}{j}|_{m=0}$$
(14)
Viewed as a function of $`j`$ (for a fixed $`m`$), a stationary point of the action occurs when:

$$\frac{W(j,m)}{j}=j\frac{^2W(j,m)}{j^2}$$
(15)
so that the effective action is stationary when $`j=0`$, that is, in the absence of the constraint. This is true whatever approximation we use to calculate $`W(j,m)`$.

The effective potential allows us to map out the energy of the system as it deforms under the effect of the constraint $`\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$. The choice of the constraint used to probe the energy surface of the system is, of course, arbitrary. Our choice is justified by the fact that, as we shall see in section 10, the system offers a relatively soft response to the constraint and in some cases it actually displays an instability of the ground state.

## 4 Bosonization in terms of local fields.

Bosonization is simply a convenient way to calculate the partition function $`W(j,m)`$. We introduce *local* auxiliary fields $`\phi _a\left(x\right)`$ and we consider the new euclidean action:

$$I_{j,m}(q,\overline{q},\phi )=\overline{q}\left|i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr+r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar\right|q\frac{1}{2}\phi \left(Vj\right)^1\phi $$
(16)
Consider the partition function $`W^{}(j,m)`$ defined by the path integral:

$$e^{W^{}(j,m)}=D\left(\phi \right)D\left(q\right)D\left(\overline{q}\right)e^{I_{j,m}(q,\overline{q},\phi )}$$
(17)
The integral over $`\phi `$ yields:

$$D\left(\phi \right)e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)\phi \left(Vj\right)^1\right)\left(Vj\right)\left(\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi \right)\left(Vj\right)^1\phi \right)}=e^{\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(Vj\right)}$$
(18)
where $`tr`$ denotes a trace in $`(x,a)`$ space:

$$tr\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=\mathrm{\Omega }N_f^2$$
(19)
(because there are $`N_f^2`$ generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$). From (17) and (18) we deduce a relation between the partition functions $`W^{}(j,m)`$ and $`W(j,m)`$:

$$W(j,m)=W^{}(j,m)+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(Vj\right)$$
(20)
If we integrate out the quarks in the path integral (17), we get the partition function $`W(j,m)`$ in the form:

$$e^{W(j,m)}=D\left(\phi \right)e^{I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(Vj\right)}$$
(21)
where $`I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)`$ is the so-called ”bosonized action”:

$$I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)=Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr+r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar\right)\frac{1}{2}\phi \left(Vj\right)^1\phi $$
(22)
The trace $`Tr`$ is over the variables (space-time $`x`$, Dirac indices, flavor and color) which define the quark field:

$$Tr\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}=4N_cN_f\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(23)
It is convenient to shift the constituent quark mass to the interaction term by writing $`m+\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\phi _a^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$. The bosonized action (22) becomes:

$$I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)=Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(i_\mu \gamma _\mu +r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi m\right)\left(Vj\right)^1\left(\phi m\right)$$
(24)
where dropped the prime on $`\phi `$. The partition function is then given by the expression (21) in which $`I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)`$ is the action (24). In the expression (24), $`m`$ stands for the vector $`m_a`$ with components $`m_a=(m,0,0,0)`$.

It is usual to calculate the effective potential from the texbook formula :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\phi \right)=I_m\left(\phi \right)+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\frac{^2I_m\left(\phi \right)}{\phi \phi }$$
(25)
obtained from a Legendre transform which relates a source term to the expectation value of the field. We do not use this formalism because, in our case, the operator $`\frac{^2I_m\left(\phi \right)}{\phi \phi }`$ has negative eigenvalues. This is easily seen by considering cuts in the Mexican hat shaped $`I_m\left(\phi \right)`$.

## 5 The classical approximation to the constrained system.

The classical approximation consists in approximating the path integral (21) as:

$$W(j,m)=I_{j,m}\left(\phi _j\right)$$
(26)
where $`\phi _j`$ is a stationary point of the action $`I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)`$, defined in (24). In the classical approximation, we also neglect the constant $`\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(Vj\right)`$ which we will include in section 6 together with the contribution of the field fluctuations. The term ”classical” will be used throughout although, at the quark level, it includes the quark loop. As it turns out, it is the classical approximation *to the constrained system* determines the response of the system to the constraint and the quantum fluctuations of the fields are only small corrections. The classical approximation is the leading order contribution in $`N_c`$ and, in the quark representation, it corresponds to the Hartree approximation.

### 5.1 The gap equation and the relation between $`j`$ and $`M`$.

A stationary point of the action (24) occurs for $`\phi _a=(M,0,0,0)`$ where $`M`$ is the solution of the so-called gap equation:

$$\left(Vj\right)^1=\frac{M}{Mm}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}Tr\frac{r^4}{_\mu ^2+r^4M^2}4N_cN_f\frac{M}{Mm}g_M$$
(27)
where $`g_M=g_M\left(q=0\right)`$ and $`g_M\left(q\right)`$ is the function (B.6), defined in appendix B. We shall denote by $`I_{j,m}\left(M\right)`$ the action at the stationary point. An explicit expression is given in appendix A.

Let $`M_0`$ be the solution of the gap equation in the absence of a constraint $`\left(j=0\right)`$:

$$V^1=4N_cN_f\frac{M_0}{M_0m}g_{M_0}$$
(28)
This equation relates $`M_0`$ to the interaction strength $`V`$. The minus sign indicates that the interaction $`V`$ is attractive. Otherwise chiral symmetry would not be spontaneously broken and $`\phi _a=0`$ would be the only stationary point of the action.

We can calculate $`j`$ from the equation:

$$j=\frac{1}{4N_cN_f}\left(\frac{1}{g_M}\frac{1}{g_{M_0}}\right)\frac{m}{4N_cN_f}\left(\frac{1}{Mg_M}\frac{1}{M_0g_{M_0}}\right)$$
(29)
In practice, we start by choosing a value of $`M_0`$, which determines $`V`$. We then choose a value of $`M`$ which determines $`j`$. We can easily derive the relation:

$$\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta j}=4N_fN_cg_M^2\left(\frac{dg_M}{dM^2}\right)^1\left(m=0\right)$$
(30)
which shows that $`M`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`j`$ so that it makes little difference if we plot the effective potential as a function of $`j`$ or $`M`$. The choice of $`M`$ is more transparent.

### 5.2 The classical estimates of $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and $`\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ in the chiral limit.

In the classical approximation, the quark condensate (13) is given by the expression:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\psi }\psi _{class}=\frac{I_{j,m}\left(M\right)}{m}|_{m=0}=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(Vj\right)^1M=4\mathrm{\Omega }N_cN_fMg_M$$
(31)
The classical approximation to the squared quark condensate (12) is:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2_{class}=\frac{dI_{j,m}\left(M^2\right)}{dj}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }M^2\left(4N_cN_fg_M\right)^2$$
(32)
where we used the fact that, for a given value of $`j`$, $`M`$ is a stationary point of the action $`I_{j,m}\left(M\right)`$ .

It follows that, in the classical approximation, the *fluctuation* of the quark condensate is zero:

$$\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2_{class}=\overline{\psi }\psi _{class}^2$$
(33)
as expected. The quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate are due to the quantum fluctuations of the $`\phi `$ fields and they are introduced in section 6.

The gap equation (27) relates $`M`$ to the classical quark condensate and $`M`$ is simply a Hartree insertion:

| $`M=\left(Vj\right)\overline{\psi }\psi _{class}`$ |  |
| --- | --- |

(34)
### 5.3 The classical effective potential in the chiral limit.

Because $`M`$ is a stationary point of the action $`I_{j,m}\left(M\right)`$, the classical approximation to the effective potential (14) is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{class}=I_{j,m}\left(M\right)j\frac{I_{j,m}\left(M\right)}{j}=I_{j,m}\left(M\right)+j\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(Vj\right)^2M^2$$
(35)
Using (27) and (29), the classical effective potential can also be expressed as the following function of $`M`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{class}\left(M\right)=I_{j,m}\left(M\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(4N_cN_f\right)M^2g_M\left(1\frac{g_M}{g_{M_0}}\right)\left(m=0\right)$$
(36)
An explicit expression for $`I_{j,m}\left(M\right)`$ is given in appendix A.

## 6 Inclusion of the quantum fluctuations of the fields $`\phi `$.

A saddle point evaluation of the partition function (21) yields:

$$W(j,m)=I_{j,m}\left(\phi _j\right)+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\frac{\delta ^2I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)}{\delta \phi \delta \phi }|_{\phi =\phi _j}+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(Vj\right)$$
(37)
where $`\phi _j`$ is the stationary point of $`I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)`$, which is determined by the gap equation (27).

### 6.1 Calculation of $`W(j,m)`$.

To calculate the second term of (37), we need to evaluate the inverse meson propagator matrix:

$$K_{ab}^1(x,y)=\frac{\delta ^2I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)}{\delta \phi _a\left(x\right)\delta \phi _b\left(y\right)}$$
(38)
at the stationary point of $`I_{j,m}\left(\phi \right)`$. From the action (24), we see that:

$$K^1=\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)^1$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the polarization function (Lindhardt function):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}(x,y)=\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \phi _a\left(x\right)\delta \phi _b\left(y\right)}Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr+r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar\right)$$

$$=Tr\frac{1}{i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr+r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar}|x\mathrm{\Gamma }_ax\left|\frac{1}{i_\mu \gamma _\mu +rmr+r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar}\right|y\mathrm{\Gamma }_by|$$
(40)
The partition function (37) becomes:

$$W(j,m)=I_{j,m}\left(\phi _j\right)+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\right)|_{\phi =\phi _j}$$
(41)
The matrices $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`V`$, and therefore $`K`$, are diagonal in momentum space and in the flavor indices:

$$qa\left|K^1\right|q^{}b=\delta _{ab}\delta _{qq^{}}K_a^1\left(q\right)qa\left|\mathrm{\Pi }\right|q^{}b=\delta _{ab}\delta _{qq^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_a\left(q\right)$$

In particular:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a=0}\left(q\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_S\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)+f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a=1,2,3}\left(q\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_P\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)$$
(42)
where the functions $`f_M^{np}\left(q\right)`$ and $`g_M\left(q\right)`$ are defined by the expressions (B.5) and (B.6) of appendix B. The regulator $`r`$ ensures that the polarization functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }\left(q\right)`$ vanish when $`q>>2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

If we use the gap equation (27) to express $`\left(Vj\right)^1`$ in terms of $`g_Mg_M\left(q=0\right)`$, we obtain analogous expressions for the inverse meson propagators:

$$K_{a=0}^1\left(q\right)K_S^1\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)+f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)+\frac{M}{Mm}g_M\right)$$

$$K_{a=1,2,3}^1\left(q\right)K_P^1\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)+\frac{M}{Mm}g_M\right)$$
(43)
The pion remains a Goldstone boson even in the constrained system because, in the chiral limit, $`K_{a=1,2,3}^1\left(q\right)\underset{q0}{}0`$. This is an important feature of the choice we have made of the constraint which does not break the chiral symmetry of the lagrangian.

The partition function (41) is then:

$$W(j,m)=I_{j,m}\left(M^2\right)$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}\underset{q}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{Mm}{M}\frac{1}{g_M}\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)+f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)\right)$$

$$+\frac{N_f^21}{2}\underset{q}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{Mm}{M}\frac{1}{g_M}\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)\right)$$
(44)
It is because we took the trouble to keep track of the term $`\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(Vj\right)`$ that the sums over $`q`$ converge. Another way to write $`W(j,m)`$ is:

$$W(j,m)=I_{j,m}\left(M\right)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{qa}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{K_a^1\left(q\right)}{4N_cN_fg_M}\frac{Mm}{M}$$
(45)
### 6.2 The Fock term (exchange energy) and the ring diagrams.

Consider the expression (41) of $`W(j,m)`$. Using the explicit form (24) of the action $`I_{j,m}\left(M\right)`$ as well as the relation (34), we can write the partition function $`W(j,m)`$, in the chiral limit, as follows:

$$W(j,m)=Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(i_\mu \gamma _\mu +r^2M\right)\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\psi \left(Vj\right)\overline{\psi }\psi +\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\right)|_{\phi =\phi _j}$$
(46)
We can express the second term, together with the expansion of the logarithm, in terms of Feynman graphs. The second term of (46) is the direct (Hartree) energy:

| $`\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\psi \left(Vj\right)\overline{\psi }\psi =`$ |  |
| --- | --- |

(47)
The expansion of the logarithm in (46) generates the exchange (Fock) energy as well as the ring diagrams:

$$\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\right)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)+\frac{1}{4}tr\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\frac{1}{6}tr\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)+\mathrm{}$$

(48)
The terms of (48) are the next to leading order in $`N_c`$. The first term, which is the exchange (Fock) term, is special in that it does not induce any correlations in the quark wavefunction. It is easy to see that the exchange term is more sensitive than the ring diagrams to the high momenta running in the meson loop. As a result, when a sharp cut-off is used, it is the exchange term and not the ring diagrams which dominates the next to leading order contribution (48).

### 6.3 Expressions for the quark condensates and the quark condensates in the chiral limit.

The ground state expectation value of the squared condensate (12) can be calculated from the expression:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2=\frac{I_{j,m}\left(M\right)}{j}|_{m=0}\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta j}\frac{\delta }{\delta M^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\underset{qa}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{K_a^1\left(q\right)}{4N_cN_fg_M}\right)$$
(49)
where $`\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta j}`$ is given by (30). The contribution of the exchange term to the squared condensate is:

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2_{exch}=\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta j}\frac{\delta }{\delta M^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(Vj\right)\underset{qa}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_a\left(q\right)\right)$$
(50)
The quark condensate (13) can be calculated with the help of (41):

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\psi }\psi =\frac{W(j,m)}{m}=\frac{}{m}\left(I_{j,m}\left(M\right)+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{\Pi }\left(Vj\right)\right)|_M\right)$$
(51)
We calculate the derivative $`\frac{W(j,m)}{m}`$ keeping $`j`$ constant. However, we must remember that $`M`$ depends on both $`j`$ and $`m`$ and therefore a contribution arises from the change in $`M`$ when $`m`$ is varied because, in contrast to $`I_{j,m}`$, $`W(j,m)`$ is not stationary with respect to variations of $`M`$. When $`mm+\delta m`$, $`\left(Vj\right)`$ remains constant and:

$$\delta \frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(1\left(Vj\right)\mathrm{\Pi }\right)=\frac{1}{2}tr\frac{Vj}{1\left(Vj\right)\mathrm{\Pi }}\delta \mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1}{2}trK\delta \mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta m}trK\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }}{\delta M^2}$$
(52)
The quark condensate is thus:

$$\overline{\psi }\psi =\overline{\psi }\psi _{class}+\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta m}\frac{1}{2}\underset{qa}{}K_a\left(q\right)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }_a\left(q\right)}{\delta M^2}$$
(53)
From the gap equation (27) we see that $`\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta m}=\frac{g_M}{M}\left(\frac{dg_M}{dM^2}\right)^1`$.

The contribution of the exchange term to the quark condensate is:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\psi }\psi _{exch}=\left(Vj\right)\frac{\delta M^2}{\delta m}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{qa}{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }_a\left(q\right)}{\delta M^2}$$
(54)
The effective potential (14) can be calculated from the expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=W(j,m)+j\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2$$
(55)
where $`j`$ is given by (29) and $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$ by (49).

## 7 The relevant range of parameters.

We consider now the parameters of the model. We calculate all quantities in units of the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which appears in the regulators (2) and (3). This is convenient because, for example, the effective potential is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ but otherwise it depends only on the ratios $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, the stability of the system depends on the single parameter $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and, of course on the shape of the regulator. The ratio $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is therefore the key parameter to consider and we must determine the physically meaningful range of values for $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In the vicinity of $`q=0`$, the inverse pion propagator determines the value of $`f_\pi `$. In the chiral limit, we have:

$$K_P^1\left(q\right)Z_Pq^2f_\pi =M_0\sqrt{Z_P}$$
(56)
and $`Z_P`$ is the residue of the pion propagator at the pole $`q=0`$. For a given value of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the value of $`f_\pi `$ depends on the value of $`M_0`$. Tables 1 and 2 give the values of $`Z_P`$ and $`f_\pi `$ for various values of $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and for two values of $`M_0`$, namely $`M_0=300MeV`$ and $`M_0=400MeV`$. For $`M_0=300MeV`$, the observed value $`f_\pi =93MeV`$ is fitted with $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.4`$. For $`M_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}400}MeV`$, higher values $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.6`$ and $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0.7`$ are required respectively, when a sharp cut-off and a gaussian regulator are used. Soliton calculations require $`M_0`$ to lie between $`300`$ and $`400MeV`$ . Higher values of $`M_0`$ and therefore of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have also been considered in order to push the unphysical $`q\overline{q}`$ continuum well above the $`\rho `$ mass of $`770MeV`$. In Ref. for example, the value $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.74`$ is used. In order to cover the full range of physically meaningful parameters, we perform our calculations from $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2`$, which means a relatively high value of the cut-off, up to $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$, which means a low value of the cut-off.

One crucial point here is that the relevant range of parameters (typically $`0.4<M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.8`$) corresponds to uncomfortably *low* values of the cut-off. Most field theoretic methods applied to statistical mechanics and particle physics have been developed to systems in which $`M_0<<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Considerable errors can be (and have been) made by applying methods and concepts, borrowed from the study of systems in which $`M_0<<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and applied to systems in which the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of the same order of magnitude as $`M_0`$. Our calculations focus on several problems which one encounters when the cut-off is not much larger than the calculated observables. This is the regime applicable to low-energy hadronic physics and it is not an artefact of the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model. For example, low energy effective theories derived from an instanton liquid  yield values of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the order of $`0.4`$.

As an example, consider the inverse $`\sigma `$-meson propagator at $`q=0`$ in the chiral limit. It is given by (43):

$$K_S^1\left(q=0\right)=8N_cN_fM^2f_M4M^2Z_S$$
(57)
where $`f_M`$ is the function $`f_M^{np}\left(q\right)`$, defined in (B.5), and taken at $`q=0`$, where it is independent of $`n`$ and $`p`$. This definition of $`Z_S`$ is quite arbitrary except for the fact that, for large values of the cut-off, that is, when $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$, we have $`Z_S=Z_P`$ and the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model reduces to a linear sigma model. The values of $`Z_S`$ are also listed in the tables 1 and 2. We see that, with a sharp cut-off, $`Z_S`$ and $`Z_P`$ differ by about 30% in the relevant parameter range $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8}`$. With a gaussian cut-off the equality $`Z_S=Z_P`$ is not even approximately obtained. The fact that $`Z_SZ_P`$ contradicts most, if not all previously reported calculations of the meson propagators, when they are derived from an unregularized action with loop integrals subsequently regularized. If we had proceeded this way, the loop integrals $`f_M^{np}\left(q\right)`$ would have been independent of $`n`$ and $`p`$, and the function $`g_M\left(q\right)`$ would have become independent of $`q`$. Instead of the expression (43), the meson propagators would have been equal to the usually quoted expressions (in the chiral limit):

$$K_S^1\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\frac{1}{2}\left(q^2+4M^2\right)f_M\left(q\right)K_P^1\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M\left(q\right)$$
(58)
and $`Z_S`$ would equal $`Z_P`$. The tables 1 and 2 show that considerable errors can be introduced if the regularization is not specified in the action from the outset and adhered to. Of course, these errors would be small if the cut-off were large, that is, if $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ were very small. However, in the applications of the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model to low energy hadronic physics, it is not.

The recently claimed instability of the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model, heralded by Kleinert et al., is based on a reduction of the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model to a non-linear $`\sigma `$-model. Although the arguments presented above raise doubts as to the validity of this reduction, and such doubts have also been voiced elsewhere , we shall show in section 10 that instabilities do indeed arise but that they are artefacts of the sharp cut-off regularization when the cut-off is close to $`M_0`$.

## 8 The quark condensate of the unconstrained system.

In this section we consider the quark condensate (53) of the unconstrained system $`\left(j=0\right)`$. Various contributions to the quark condensate are listed in table 3 for various values of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. They are expressed in units of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$. We see that, throughout the range of relevant parameters, the quadratic fluctuations of the fields do not alter significantly the quark condensate. They show no sign of restoring chiral symmetry. These results agree with those found in Ref.. A finer analysis would show that the negative contributions of the pion field are due to the exchange term. Although the field fluctuations do not alter significantly the ground state expectation value of the quark condensate, we shall see in the next section that they do cause an appreciable *quantum fluctuation* of the condensate.

## 9 The quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate in the unconstrained system.

The expressions (53) and (49), which give the quark condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and the squared condensate $`\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$, allow us to calculate the *quantum* *fluctuation* of the quark condensate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\psi }\psi }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\psi }\psi }=\sqrt{\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2\overline{\psi }\psi ^2}$$
(59)
The values are listed in table 4 for various values of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The fluctuations are due to the exchange and ring diagrams and they vanish in the classical approximation. We see that, relative to the quark condensate, they are quite large: about 50% when a sharp cut-off is used and between 70% and 80% when a gaussian regulator is used. We also see that the quark condensates are more sensitive to the shape of the regulator than $`f_\pi `$. This is because $`f_\pi `$ would diverge logarithmically with a large cut-off, whereas the quark condensates would have a quadratic dependence on the cut-off. This is also the reason why, once $`f_\pi `$ is fixed, larger condensates are obtained with a sharp cut-off than with a gaussian regulator.

## 10 The effective potential in the chiral limit.

Figure 1 shows the classical effective potential (36) in the chiral limit, as a function of $`\frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, calculated with a gaussian regulator, for various values of $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The minimum occurs at $`M=M_0`$ and in all this work, we define the zero of energy to be equal to the minimum of the classical action at the point $`M=M_0`$. These curves map out the energy surface of the system while it is being deformed by the constraint $`\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$. As stressed in section 5.1, it makes no difference whether we plot the effective potential as a function of $`j`$, or of $`M`$. Plotted as a function of $`M`$, the curves are easier to understand.

Figure 2 shows shows the classical effective potential (36) calculated with a sharp cut-off. The code can be checked against analytic expressions in this case. We see that for increasing values of $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, that is, for decreasing values of the cut-off, the minimum of the effective potential at $`M=M_0`$ becomes increasingly shallower and that it disappears altogether at the critical value $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{0.\hspace{0.17em}742}`$which can be evaluated analytically. When a gaussian regulator is used, the onset of the instability occurs at the much higher value $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}2.93`$ which was evaluated numerically.

The system appears to display an instability with respect to perturbations caused by the constraint $`\frac{1}{2}j\left(\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\psi \right)^2`$. Furthermore, the energy of the system does not seem bounded from below. It goes without saying that the classical action (as opposed to the classical effective potential) displays a minimum at $`M=M_0`$ for all values of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Let us take a closer look at this apparent instability. It is not an artefact of the classical approximation. Figure 3 shows the various contributions to the effective potential when the $`1/N_c`$ field fluctuations are included, using a sharp cut-off with $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$. We see that the field fluctuations lower the energy but that they do not significantly change the shape of the effective potential, so that the instability remains. We also see that the exchange (Fock) term dominates the $`1/N_c`$ corrections because it is more sensitive than the ring diagrams to the high momenta running in the meson loop. These conclusions remain valid for smaller values of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

By way of comparison, figure 4 shows the contributions of the $`1/N_c`$ corrections when a gaussian regulator is used. Although the effect of the meson fluctuations is somewhat larger, the stability of the system is not modified. We see however that the ring diagrams make a somewhat larger contribution than the exchange (Fock) term, because the gaussian regulator reduces the effect of the high momenta running in the meson loop. The same conclusions can be reached for different values of $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. As mentioned above, the instability also occurs when a gaussian cut-off is used, but at much higher values of $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }2.93`$. For such high values, the cut-off is too small to be physically meaningful. With a gaussian regulator and in the relevant range of parameters $`0.4<M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.8`$, one needs to probe the system with values as high as $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }>4`$ before it becomes apparent that the energy is not bounded from below.

A clue concerning the nature of the instability can be obtained by considering the effective potential obtained with a sharp 3-momentum regularisation. In this regularization, the trace of the quark loop is calculated by integrating the energy variable from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, and by limiting the 3-momentum by the condition $`\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This regularization is tantamount to a limitation of the quantum mechanical Hilbert space available to the quarks. Figure 5 shows that the effective potential, calculated with a sharp 3-momentum cut-off, behaves as expected and that it does not display the instability.

## 11 Unphysical poles of the quark propagator.

The fact that the effective potential, calculated with a sharp 4-momentum cut-off, displays an instability that does not occur when a sharp 3-momentum cut-off is used, can be understood as an effect of the unphysical poles of the quark propagator which are introduced by the 4-momentum regulator. For constant fields, the quark propagator can be written in the form:

$$\frac{1}{k_\mu \gamma _\mu +r^2M}=\frac{k_\mu \gamma _\mu +r_k^2M}{\omega ^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2+r_k^4M^2}\left(k_\mu =(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})\right)$$
(60)
When a 3-momentum regularisation is used, we have $`r_k^2=1`$ when $`\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`r_k^2=0`$ otherwise. In the complex $`\omega `$-plane, the quark propagator has only on-shell poles at $`\omega =\pm i\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+M^2}`$.

However, when a 4-momentum regulator is used, the quark propagator acquires extra poles, which also occur when proper-time regularization is used . Such poles are unphysical in the sense that, taken seriously, they lead to instabilities of the vacuum. Equivalently one can say that the system behaves as if it was governed by a non-hermitian hamiltonian. This is sometimes also expressed by saying that the theory becomes acausal. We assign the cause of the instability discussed above to the existence of such unphysical poles. When the 4-momentum cut-off is high (and $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correspondingly low) the effect of these unphysical poles is not felt. But this is not the case in low energy hadronic physics where the parameter $`M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in the range $`0.4<M_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.8`$. Furthermore, the position (and therefore the effect) of the unphysical poles depends very much on the shape of the regulator.

A qualitative understanding of the difference between a sharp 4-momentum cut-off and a soft gaussian regulator can be understood by comparing the location of the poles of the quark propagator in the complex $`k^2`$ plane. When a gaussian regulator is used, the poles of the quark propagator occur when:

$$k^2+M^2e^{\frac{2k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}=0$$
(61)
Poles on the real axis of the complex $`k^2`$ plane occur only if $`M^2<\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}`$. Otherwise and in addition, poles occur in the complex plane. Figure 6 shows the poles of the quark propagator in the two cases $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2`$ (large cut-off) and $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$ (small cut-off). The poles all lie to the left of the imaginary axis and they move closer to it when the cut-off gets small. Table 5 gives the residues of the poles.

Consider next regularisation using a sharp 4-momentum cut-off. The corresponding regulator does not have an analytic form, but we have checked that very similar results are obtained with a Wood-Saxon shaped regulator $`r_k^4=\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}}`$ which becomes equivalent to a sharp cut-off when $`c0`$. The poles of the quark propagator are then the solution of the the equation:

$$k^2+\frac{M^2}{1+e^{\frac{k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}}=0$$
(62)
Setting $`k^2=x+iy`$, this equation decomposes into the two equations:

$`x+M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{\frac{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{y}{c}}{\left(1+e^{\frac{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{y}{c}\right)^2+\left(e^{\frac{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{y}{c}\right)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (63)
$`yM^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{y}{c}}{\left(1+e^{\frac{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{y}{c}\right)^2+\left(e^{\frac{x\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{c}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{y}{c}\right)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (64)
One pole occurs on the negative real axis $`\left(y=0xM^2\right)`$ in the vicinity of $`M^2`$. It is simple to see that the complex poles all occur in the vicinity of the line $`x=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The imaginary part $`y`$ is then the solution of the equation:

$$\frac{y}{2c}=\frac{M^2}{4c}\mathrm{tan}\frac{y}{2c}$$
(65)
The spacing between the poles is thus close to $`2\pi c`$ so that they get denser in number as $`c0`$. In that limit, the continuum of poles forms a cut which expresses the discontinuity of the regulator when a sharp cut-off is used. A more exact numerical calculation of the position and residues of the poles is given in the table 6 for the case where $`c=0.05`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$.

The unphysical poles produced by a soft gaussian regulator lie to the left of the imaginary axis of the complex $`k^2`$ plane. They are therefore mostly felt at low values of $`k^2`$ where phase space factors reduce their effect. The unphysical poles produced by a sharp cut-off lie close to the boundary $`k^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ of high values of $`k^2`$ from which diverging quantities derive most of their contribution. This explains qualitatively the difference between the effect of the two regularizations on the effective potential. It would be worth analyzing whether the instabilities, recently heralded by Kleinert et al.\[Kleinert\], are not also artefacts of the use of a sharp 4-momentum in conjunction with a low cut-off.

## 12 Conclusions.

Although the meson loop contributions do not modify appreciably the value of the quark condensate, they do cause large quantum fluctuations of the quark condensate. The Lorentz invariant regularization of the quark propagator, used in conjunction with the relatively low cut-off values required in low energy hadronic physics, makes the physical vacuum unstable against distortions caused by the squared quark condensate. The instability depends strongly on the shape of the regulator. It is only weakly felt when a soft gaussian regulator is used but its effects are greatly enhanced in calculations which use a sharp 4-momentum cut-off. Large errors can be made if loop integrals are regularized after being derived from an unregularized action, instead of including the regulator in the model action from the outset. The ground state instability can be traced to unphysical poles of the quark propagator which are introduced by the regulator.

## Appendix A Expressions for the classical action and the classical effective action.

In the chiral limit, the value of the classical action at the stationaty point is:

$$I_{j,m=0}\left(M^2\right)I\left(M_0^2\right)$$
(A.1)
$$=\frac{1}{2}4N_cN_f\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}d_4k\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{k^2+r_k^4M^2}{k^2+r_k^4M_0^2}+\frac{r_k^4M^2}{k^2+r_k^4M^2}\frac{r_k^4M_0^2}{k^2+r_k^4M_0^2}\right)$$
(A.2)
We measure all energies relative to the minimum $`I\left(M_0^2\right)`$ of the classical action in the unconstrained system where $`j=0`$. In units of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$, the classical action depends only on the two variables $`\frac{M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

## Appendix B Expressions for the meson propagators.

### B.1 The meson propagators $`K_{ab}^1`$ and the polarization function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ at a point $`\phi _a=(M,0,0,0)`$.

From the second order expansion of $`Tr\mathrm{ln}\left(i_\mu \gamma _\mu +r\phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar\right)`$ we obtain the following expression for the polarization function:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(2\right)}\left(\delta \phi \right)=\frac{1}{2}Tr\frac{1}{i_\mu \gamma _\mu +r^2M}r\delta \phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar\frac{1}{i_\mu \gamma _\mu +r^2M}r\delta \phi _a\mathrm{\Gamma }_ar$$
(B.1)
The calculation is standard. Taking traces over the Dirac and flavor indices, and keeping track of the regulator, we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(2\right)}=4N_cN_f\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{q}{}\delta S\left(q\right)\delta S\left(q\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)+f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)$$

$$+4N_cN_f\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{q}{}\delta P_i\left(q\right)\delta P_i\left(q\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)$$
(B.2)
where we wrote the fields $`\phi _a`$ in terms of scalar and pseudoscalar fields $`S`$ and $`P_i:`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\phi _a=S+i\gamma _5\tau _iP_i$$
(B.3)
The Fourier transforms are defined to be:

$$S\left(q\right)=d_4xe^{iq_\mu x_\mu }S\left(x\right)P_i\left(q\right)=d_4xe^{iq_\mu x_\mu }P_i\left(x\right)$$
(B.4)
The function $`f_M^{np}\left(q\right)`$ is:

$$f_M^{np}\left(q\right)=\frac{4\pi }{\left(2\pi \right)^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}k^3𝑑k_0^\pi 𝑑\alpha \mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\alpha \frac{r_{k_1}^nr_{k_2}^p}{\left(k_1^2+r_{k_1}^4M^2\right)\left(k_2^2+r_{k_2}^4M^2\right)}$$
(B.5)
with $`k_1=k\frac{q}{2}`$ and $`k_2=k+\frac{q}{2}`$. The function $`g_M\left(q\right)`$ is:

$$g_M\left(q\right)=\frac{4\pi }{\left(2\pi \right)^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}k^3𝑑k_0^\pi 𝑑\alpha \mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\alpha \frac{r_{k_1}^2}{k_1^2+r_{k_1}^4M^2}r_{k_2}^2$$
(B.6)
and we denote by $`g_M`$ the function $`g_M\left(q=0\right)`$.

It follows that the polarization function is diagonal in momentum space:

$$qa\left|\mathrm{\Pi }\right|q^{}b=\delta _{ab}\delta _{qq^{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_a\left(q\right)$$
(B.7)
where:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a=0}\left(q\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_S\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)+f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{a=1,2,3}\left(q\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_P\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)\right)$$
(B.8)
The inverse propagator matrix $`K^1`$ is obtained by adding $`xa\left|\left(Vj\right)^1\right|yb`$. We use the gap equation (27) to write:

$$\left(Vj\right)^1=4N_cN_f\frac{M}{Mm}g_M$$
(B.9)
so that:

$$K_S^1\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)+f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)+\frac{M}{Mm}g_M\left(0\right)\right)$$

$$K_P^1\left(q\right)=4N_cN_f\left(\frac{1}{2}q^2f_M^{22}\left(q\right)+M^2\left(f_M^{26}\left(q\right)f_M^{44}\left(q\right)\right)g_M\left(q\right)+\frac{M}{Mm}g_M\left(0\right)\right)$$
(B.10)
Acknowledgments.

The author wishes to thank W.Broniowski and B.Golli for numerous discussions, and J.Zinn-Justin and L.Pitaevskii for help in undestanding reference .