text:
# New quantum aspects of a vacuum-dominated universe

## I Introduction

Ever since the path-breaking prediction by Casimir  that a quantized field in its vacuum state will exert a force on nearby conducting plates, and its confirmation in the laboratory , the fundamental importance of the vacuum has been clear. The electromagnetic vacuum also manifests itself through other observable effects such as the Lamb shift , the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron , and the anomaly-driven two-photon decay of the pion . The predicted magnitudes of these effects are obtained through renormalization of fields and coupling constants, which absorb the infinities in a covariant manner. Renormalization methods have long been extended to quantized fields propagating in the curved spacetime of general relativity  (see also  and references therein), but predicted quantum vacuum effects of curved spacetime have been too small to be directly observed. Quantum vacuum effects in curved spacetimes have also been explored in connection with particle creation by the expansion of the universe and by black holes . In addition, vacuum effects of self-interacting scalar fields have been invoked to produce inflation of the very early universe .

As is well-known, observations of an accelerating expansion of the recent universe , together with other observations, such as those of small-angular-scale fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), imply the existence of a dark form of energy . The present authors have argued that the recent acceleration of the universe is the first directly observable manifestation of quantum vacuum effects produced by the curved spacetime of general relativistic cosmology, and have presented a cosmological model, based on general relativity and quantum field theory, that fits the current data . These quantum vacuum effects involve an ultralow-mass particle and are nonperturbative in the curvature. They do not become significant until a transition that occurs at about half the present age of the universe (i.e., at a redshift $`z1`$.)

In the present paper, we explore new features of our model, and their possible cosmological significance. In particular, we calculate the creation rate of these ultralight particles resulting from the effect of the spacetime curvature on the vacuum. The analytic result for the particle production rate during the vacuum-dominated stage predicted by our model reduces to that obtained in the massless limit by other methods, and extends the result to the massive case. This agreement adds confidence to the validity of our effective action and its other predictions, such as that of a recent acceleration of the expansion of the universe. The predicted acceleration and the particle production arise from the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of the same term in the effective action.

We then find the effective temperature of the particles created during the vacuum-dominated stage. This effective temperature at the present time would be very small (only about $`10^{112}`$ K), and is not expected to alter the vacuum-dominated behavior. It should be kept in mind that the remnant of these particles left over from the very early universe would have a much higher temperature today, probably of the order of 1 K.

The mass of the ultralight scalar particle in our model is typical of masses expected for pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons (PNGB). In Ref.  the PNGB mass scale arises from the ratio of $`m_\nu ^2`$ to $`f`$ ($`m_\nu 10^3`$ eV is a neutrino mass and $`f10^{18}`$ GeV is a global symmetry-breaking scale), quantities that are a priori independent of the present expansion rate of the universe. If the mass comes from a PNGB mechanism, then this may introduce additional interaction terms into our free-field model. Also, it is known that in a FRW universe, the graviton field equation can be expressed in the form of two scalar field equations. If the graviton has an ultralow mass, then we expect that it would lead to the same cosmological consequences as the scalar particle discussed here. Furthermore, such a low graviton mass appears to be consistent with gravitational experiments and observations.

The expansion rate being related to the ultralow mass is not a coincidence in our model, because after the transition, such a relation between the mass of the particle and the expansion rate remains true for a time of the order of the present age of the universe. In addition, the vacuum energy density remains within an order of magnitude of the matter density for a time of the order of the present age of the universe.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section II, we briefly summarize our model and the cosmological solution that arises from it. In Section III, we discuss the particle production rate found from the imaginary part of the effective action. In Section IV, we discuss the fine-tuning problem in our model and in a model with cosmological constant plus non-relativistic matter (referred to here as the $`Ł`$-model). In Section V, we derive the equation of state of the vacuum in our model. In Section VI, we calculate the ratio of total (i.e., matter plus vacuum contributions) pressure and total energy density for our model and compare it to that for a $`Ł`$-model. This ratio as function of redshift is useful for future comparison to observations. In Section VII, we discuss nonperturbative quantum vacuum effects of this ultralow-mass field in the early universe, and show that the standard cosmological model is not significantly altered for times less than about half the present age of the universe. Finally, in Section VIII, we state our conclusions.

## II Nonperturbative vacuum energy effects

We start with a brief summary of our non-perturbative vacuum energy model and our previous results . Consider a free, massive quantized scalar field of inverse Compton wavelength $`m`$, and curvature coupling $`\xi `$. The effective action for gravity coupled to such a field is obtained by integrating out the vacuum fluctuations of the field  and renormalized as in Ref. . This effective action is the simplest one that gives the standard trace anomaly in the massless-conformally-coupled limit, and contains the nonperturbative sum (in arbitrary dimensions) of all terms in the propagator having at least one factor of the scalar curvature, $`R`$. It is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\kappa _oR+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[m^4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m^2}}`$ (3)
$`+m^2\overline{\xi }R(12\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m^2}})2f_2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{\xi }^2R^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{64\pi }}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}(M^4+2\overline{f}_2)\theta (M^2)},`$
where $`\kappa _o(16\pi G)^1`$ ($`G`$ is Newton’s constant), $`\overline{\xi }\xi 1/6`$, and

$`M^2`$ $``$ $`m^2+\overline{\xi }R`$ (4)
$`\overline{f}_2`$ $``$ $`(1/6)(1/5\xi )\mathrm{}R+(1/180)(R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta })`$ (5)
$`f_2`$ $``$ $`\overline{f}_2+(1/2)\overline{\xi }^2R^2.`$ (6)
The renormalized cosmological constant has been set to zero in deriving the above effective action. The last term in the above equation constitutes the imaginary part of the effective action, implying particle production. We will discuss the magnitude of the imaginary part in the next section. For now, we focus on the real part of the effective action.

The trace of the Einstein equations, obtained by variation of the real part of the effective action with respect to the metric tensor takes the following form in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetime (in units such that $`c=1`$):

$`R+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{cl}}{2\kappa _o}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}m^2}{32\pi ^2\kappa _o}}\{(m^2+\overline{\xi }R)\mathrm{ln}1+\overline{\xi }Rm^2`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\overline{\xi }R}{m^2+\overline{\xi }R}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{R}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\xi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{m^4}}(\overline{\xi }^2(1080)^1)+v)\},`$
where $`T_{cl}`$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of classical, perfect fluid matter and $`v(R^2/4R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu })/(180m^4)`$ is a curvature invariant that vanishes in de Sitter space. As a result of including the nonperturbative sum of scalar curvature terms in the effective action, the right hand side of Eq. (8) becomes large as $`Rm^2/(\overline{\xi })`$. This resonance can occur even at low curvatures if $`m^2`$ is sufficiently small, and is not displayed by a perturbative treatment of $`R`$; as can be seen by expanding Eq. (8) in powers of $`R/m^2`$ and keeping a finite number of terms.

As noted earlier, $`m`$ is the inverse Compton wavelength of the field. It is related to the actual mass of the field by $`m_{\mathrm{actual}}=\mathrm{}m`$. Equation (8) above is nonperturbative in $`R`$ because it contains terms that involve an infinite sum of powers of $`R`$. However, for a sufficiently low mass, it is possible to treat $`m_{\mathrm{actual}}^2/m_{Pl}^2\mathrm{}m^2/(16\pi \kappa _o)`$ (where $`m_{Pl}`$ is the Planck mass) as a small parameter and expand perturbatively in this parameter.

For a sufficiently low mass, in an expanding FRW universe the quantum contributions to the Einstein equations become significant at a time $`t_j`$, when the density of classical matter, $`\rho _m`$, has decreased to a value given by

$$\rho _m(t_j)=2\kappa _0\overline{m}^2,$$
(9)
where

$$\overline{m}^2m^2/(\overline{\xi }).$$
(10)
The time $`t_j`$ occurs in the matter-dominated stage of the evolution. Furthermore for $`t>t_j`$, the scalar curvature, $`R`$, remains constant to excellent approximation near the value $`\overline{m}^2`$. For $`t<t_j`$, the quantum contributions to the Einstein equations are negligible and the scale factor is that of a matter-dominated FRW universe. Then, equation (9) implies that, in a spatially flat universe with line element $`ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)`$, one has

$$t_j=(2/\sqrt{3})\overline{m}^1,H(t_j)=\overline{m}/\sqrt{3},$$
(11)
where $`H(t_j)`$ is the Hubble constant at $`t_j`$.

The condition of the constancy of the scalar curvature after $`t_j`$ leads to a solution for the scale factor that can be joined, with continuous first and second derivatives (i.e., in a $`C^2`$ manner), to the matter-dominated solution for $`t<t_j`$. The scale factor is given by

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a(t_j)\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t\overline{m}}{\sqrt{3}}}\alpha \right)/\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha \right)},t>t_j,`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`a(t_j)\left(\sqrt{3}\overline{m}t/2\right)^{2/3},t<t_j,`$ (13)
with

$$\alpha =2/3\mathrm{tanh}^1(1/2)0.117.$$
(14)
We would like to point out here that the above solution also satisfies, up to terms of order $`m_{\mathrm{actual}}/m_{Pl}`$, the one remaining independent Einstein equation in a FRW universe, which can be taken to be $`G_{00}=(2\kappa _o)^1T_{00}`$, where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor, including classical and quantum contributions. This equation takes the form, with zero cosmological constant,

$`k_oG_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{64\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\xi }R_{00}}{m^2+\overline{\xi }R}}(m^4+2m^2\overline{\xi }R+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }}{90}}+R^2(\overline{\xi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{270}}))`$ (17)
$`3\overline{\xi }^2RR_{00}+m^2\overline{\xi }G_{00}\}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{64\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}|1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\xi }R}{m^2}}\left|\right\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^4g_{00}}{2}}+2m^2\overline{\xi }G_{00}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{00}R^2}{2}}(\overline{\xi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}g_{00}R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }+2\overline{\xi }^2RR_{00}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{45}}R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }R_{0\alpha }\}.`$
To verify that equation (12) is indeed a solution of the above equation for $`t>t_j`$, we note that, when $`R`$ is very close to the value $`\overline{m}^2`$, the dominant terms in the right hand side of equation (17) are those that have a factor of $`m^2+\overline{\xi }R`$ in the denominator. Keeping these terms and substituting for the various curvature quantities derived from equation (12), one finds that equation (12) satisfies equation (17) up to terms of order $`m_{\mathrm{actual}}/m_{Pl}`$.

The solution in equation (12) corresponds to a universe that is accelerating (i.e., has $`\ddot{a}>0`$) for $`t>\sqrt{3}\overline{m}^1(\alpha +\mathrm{tanh}^1(2^{1/2}))1.50t_j`$. This solution gives a good fit  to the SNe-Ia data, for the mass range

$$6.40\times 10^{33}\mathrm{eV}<\left(\frac{\overline{m}}{h}\right)<7.25\times 10^{33}\mathrm{eV},$$
(18)
where $`h`$ is the present value of the Hubble constant, measured as a dimensionless fraction of the value $`100`$ km/(s Mpc).

The ratio of matter density to critical density at the present time, $`Ø_0`$, is a function of the single parameter $`\overline{m}/h`$ and turns out to have the range $`0.58>Ø_0>0.15`$ for the range of values of Eq. (18). For the same range of values, the age of the universe $`t_0`$ lies in the range $`8.10h^1`$ Gyr $`<t_0<`$ $`12.2h^1`$ Gyr. These ranges for $`Ø_0`$ and $`t_0`$ agree with current observations .

## III Particle Production and Effective Temperature

In this section, we consider the rate of particle production in the cosmological solution discussed above. We find that the effective action from which our cosmological solution is derived leads to a particle production rate that is consistent with that obtained using other methods, and generalizes the other methods to the case of production of massive particles. We also discuss the effective temperature of these particles.

The constant-$`R`$ solution after the transition at time $`t_j`$ was obtained from a consideration of the Einstein equations based on variation of the real part of the effective action. The imaginary part of the effective action is related to the probability of the production of at least one pair of particles , following Schwinger . When the imaginary part is small, this probability is given by

$$P=2\frac{\mathrm{Im}W}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(19)
¿From Eq. (1), we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{Im}W}{\mathrm{}}=(64\pi )^1d^4x\sqrt{g}(M^4+2\overline{f}_2)\theta (M^2).$$
(20)
When $`M^2<0`$ and $`m=0`$, the above formula reduces to that derived in Refs.  and . The derivation of the particle production rate in  is based on the non-local effective action derived in , which contains, in the $`m0`$ limit, terms of the form $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{})`$. Similar terms were discussed in . It is noteworthy that the nonperturbative scalar curvature sum used here gives the same imaginary part, in the limiting case of zero mass, as the nonlocal effective action. The reason for the similar results in the two cases was suggested in , based on renormalization group arguments . However, these renormalization group arguments are generally reliable only in the large-$`R`$ limit. The partially summed form of the effective action that we use here is also valid at small values of $`R`$, as in the present universe.

For $`m0`$, Eq. (20) agrees, to leading order, with the particle production rate derived in . Since the imaginary and real parts of the effective action arise out of the same term, the agreement of the imaginary part with that found in the literature using other methods gives a further justification of our approximation.

For our cosmological solution, $`M^2<0`$ for all time, therefore the step function in the above equation is equal to 1. The term $`\overline{f}_2(1/6)(1/5\xi )\mathrm{}R+(1/180)(R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta })`$ can be expressed as

$$\overline{f}_2=\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{1}{5}\xi \right)\mathrm{}R+\frac{1}{120}C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }C^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\frac{1}{360}G,$$
(21)
where $`C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is the Weyl tensor, and $`G`$ is the Gauss-Bonnet invariant

$$G=R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }4R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }+R^2.$$
(22)
In conformally flat spacetimes, such as the one under consideration, the Weyl tensor vanishes. Therefore $`\overline{f}_2`$ is a total derivative term***$`\mathrm{}R`$ is obviously a total derivative, and in Robertson-Walker spacetimes, $`\sqrt{g}G=24\frac{d}{dt}(\dot{a}^3/3+k\dot{a})`$, which is a total time derivative ($`k=0,\pm 1`$, corresponding to flat, closed or open spatial sections)., and $`d^4x\sqrt{g}\overline{f}_2`$ only has boundary contributions. Since these boundary contributions would vanish if the metric were static at the boundaries, one expects that the $`\overline{f}_2`$ term in the imaginary part of the effective action does not correspond to real particle production . The remaining term, $`M^4`$, will be used to estimate the probability of particle production.

¿From Refs.  and , we find, for $`t>t_j`$,

$$M^4(4320\pi )^2\left(\frac{m}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^4\overline{m}^4.$$
(23)
¿From Eqs. (20) and (23), we obtain the probability per unit proper volume, $`p`$, for production of at least one pair of particles after time $`t_j`$, as

$$p(32\pi )^1(4320\pi )^2\left(\frac{m}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^4\overline{m}^4a(t)^3_{t_j}^t𝑑t^{}a(t^{})^3.$$
(24)
To find the effective temperature of the particles produced, we compare the above expression with the case when the particles are produced with a thermal spectrumAlthough the actual spectrum may not be thermal, the high-frequency behavior of the spectrum is expected to be so .. For thermal production, we have

$$p=\frac{\pi ^2}{90}(k_BT)^3,$$
(25)
where $`T`$ is the physical, or measured, temperature, and $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. From Eqs. (35) and (25), we obtain the effective physical temperature of the particles produced, as

$$k_BT=\mathrm{}\overline{m}c^2\left(\frac{90\sqrt{3}}{32(4320)^2\pi ^5}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{m}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^{4/3}(\overline{m}ct)^{1/3},$$
(26)
where we have now inserted appropriate factors of $`c`$, and $`(\overline{m}ct)`$ is the dimensionless function

$$(\overline{m}ct)=(\mathrm{sinh}x)^{3/2}_{2/3\alpha }^x𝑑y(\mathrm{sinh}y)^{3/2},$$
(27)
with $`x=\overline{m}ct/\sqrt{3}\alpha `$. Note that the factor of $`\mathrm{}`$ that appears in Eq. (26) above is necessary because $`\overline{m}`$ is an inverse length scale, rather than a mass. A plot of $`(x)`$ vs. $`x`$ is shown in Fig. 1. It is easy to verify analytically that $`(\mathrm{})=2/3`$. Also, at the present time, $`t_0`$ (defined as the time at which the Hubble constant has the value $`65`$ km/(s-Mpc)), one obtains $`(\overline{m}ct_0/\sqrt{3}\alpha )0.5`$.

As shown earlier, a good fit to the SNe-Ia data is obtained when the mass parameter $`m_h`$ has the value $`6.93\times 10^{33}`$ eV. With the rescaled Hubble parameter, $`h=0.65`$, this gives a value $`\overline{m}=4.5045\times 10^{33}`$ eV. Also, $`m_{Pl}1.2211\times 10^{28}`$ eV. One can reexpress the effective temperature as

$$T(\overline{m}ct)1.31\times 10^{112}\mathrm{K}(\overline{m}ct)\left(\frac{\overline{m}}{4.5045\times 10^{33}\mathrm{eV}}\right)\left(\frac{m}{4.5045\times 10^{33}\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{4/3}.$$
(28)
If $`m`$ and $`\overline{m}`$ are roughly equal to $`4.5045\times 10^{33}`$ eV, then the above temperature corresponds to the temperature of the Hawking radiation emitted by a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $`10^{138}`$ g, which is about $`10^{105}`$ solar masses.

The fact that the one can associate a temperature with the created particles does not mean that the vacuum possesses thermodynamic entropy. Indeed, from the equation of state of the vacuum, it is straightforward to check that the change of entropy in a comoving volume of space $`a^3V`$ is given by $`TdS=d(\rho _Va^3V)+p_Vd(a^3V)`$, which vanishes as a consequence of conservation of vacuum energy.

## IV The fine-tuning problem

In the absence of data that does not distinguish between models for an accelerating universe, a criterion for the success of a given model is the lack of fine-tuning of fundamental parameters. In a spatially flat model with cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and non-relativistic matter ($`Ł`$-model), the fine-tuning problem is often understood as a coincidence between the matter density $`\rho _m`$ and the energy density associated with the cosmological constant, $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, at the present time. However, it is straightforward to show, in both our model and the $`Ł`$-model, that the time interval for which $`\rho _m`$ is, say, between $`0.1`$ and $`0.9`$ times the critical density, $`\rho _c`$ is of the order of the age of the universe. This is also the time interval for which $`\rho _m`$ and the vacuum energy densityWe will often refer to the vacuum energy density as $`\rho _V`$, independent of the model under consideration. For the $`Ł`$-model, $`\rho _V=\rho _Ł`$. $`\rho _V`$ are roughly within an order of magnitude of each other. The calculation runs as follows. In our model, $`Ø_0`$ and $`ht_0`$ are the following functions of the single parameter $`m_h\overline{m}/h`$ :

$`Ø_0`$ $`=`$ $`(2.996\times 10^6\mathrm{Mpc})^2m_h^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(cm_hht_0/\sqrt{3}\alpha )}{\mathrm{sinh}(2/3\alpha )}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (29)
$`ht_0`$ $`=`$ $`3.26\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{yr}}{\mathrm{Mpc}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{m_h}}\right)\left(\mathrm{tanh}^1(865.4\mathrm{Mpc}m_h)+\alpha \right),`$ (30)
where $`m_h`$ is in units of Mpc-1. If $`0.1<Ø_0<0.9`$, then the above equations give $`1.143\times 10^3\mathrm{Mpc}^1>m_h>7.955\times 10^4\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. For this range of $`m_h`$ values, one then obtains $`13.4\mathrm{Gyr}>ht_0>6.83\mathrm{Gyr}`$. Thus the time interval for which $`0.1<Ø_0<0.9`$ is $`(13.46.83)h^1`$ Gyr, or $`6.57h^1`$ Gyr, which is of the order of the age of the universe.

In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-model, it is straightforward to show that $`Ø_0`$ and $`ht_0`$ are functions of the single parameter $`C\sqrt{6\pi G\rho _Ł}/(ch)`$, which has dimensions of (time)-1 (with the rescaled Hubble parameter $`h`$ regarded as a dimensionless quantity). They are

$`Ø_0`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\left(C\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9.78}\mathrm{Gyr}\right)^2`$ (31)
$`ht_0`$ $`=`$ $`C^1\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9.78}\mathrm{Gyr}\right).`$ (32)
One similarly finds, for $`0.1<Ø_0<0.9`$, that $`12.49\mathrm{Gyr}>ht_0>6.75\mathrm{Gyr}`$, giving a time interval of $`5.74h^1`$ Gyr, again of the order of the age of the universe.

The preceding arguments show that there is no “coincidence” problem in the sense of the present time being special in either model. However, in the case of the $`Ł`$-model, an alternative statement of the fine-tuning problem is that there is no “natural” explanation, within elementary particle physics, of a small non-zero value of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The favored values of $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are either $`0`$ or $`m_{Pl}^4`$, the latter value being at discrepancy with observations by about $`122`$ orders of magnitude.

In our model, the question then is whether there may be a natural explanation for the small value of the mass parameter $`\overline{m}H_0`$. Frieman et al.  show that, for spin-0 pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons (PNGB), a mass scale $`\overline{m}`$ of the order of the present value of the Hubble constant can be generated from the neutrino mass $`m_\nu 10^3`$ eV and a global symmetry breaking scale (for example, the scale for spontaneous breaking of the U(1) Peccie-Quinn symmetry) $`f10^{18}`$ GeV, via the combination $`\overline{m}m_\nu ^2/f`$. They also show that this combination arises out of the coupling of such a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson to neutrinos in a low-energy effective theory. It therefore appears possible that the ultralight spin-0 particle we consider in our model may be related to a PNGB, although such a relation would involve additional self-interaction terms.

## V Vacuum equation of state

Although the basic dynamical equations, (2) and (8), incorporate non-trivial quantum effects, our model admits a remarkably simple description. Indeed, the scale factor (12) may be used to find the total effective energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ of vacuum plus matter by directly computing the Einstein tensor. We obtain, for $`t>t_j`$,

$`\rho (t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _0G_{00}=(\kappa _0\overline{m}^2/2)\mathrm{coth}^2\left(t\overline{m}/\sqrt{3}\alpha \right)`$ (34)
$`=(3/2)\kappa _o\overline{m}^2\left(a(t)/a(t_j)\right)^4+(1/2)\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$
$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _0a(t)^2G_{ii}=(\kappa _0\overline{m}^2/6)\mathrm{coth}^2\left(t\overline{m}/\sqrt{3}\alpha \right)(2/3)\kappa _0\overline{m}^2.`$ (35)
The effective equation of state for $`t>t_j`$ is therefore

$$p=(1/3)\rho (2/3)\kappa _0\overline{m}^2,$$
(36)
which is identical to the equation of state for a classical model consisting of radiation plus cosmological constant. In our model, the equation of state of pressureless matter and the equation of state of quantum vacuum terms combine so as to appear as a sum of radiation and cosmological constant equations of state. Our model differs, even at the classical level, from the usual mixed matter-cosmological constant model because (i) for $`t<t_j`$ the effective cosmological constant vanishes, and (ii) for $`t>t_j`$ vacuum contributions transmute the effective equation of state into that of radiation (rather than pressureless matter) plus cosmological constant; this surprising metamorphosis is a result of the near-constancy of the scalar curvature, which causes certain terms in $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ to take the form of an effective cosmological constant term in Einstein’s equations. In a general spacetime, these terms do not have the form of a cosmological constant term.

The equation of state for the quantum vacuum terms alone may be inferred from equations (34) and (35), and from the fact that the density of pressureless matter is given by

$`\rho _m(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _m(t_j)(a(t_j)/a(t))^3`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`2\kappa _0\overline{m}^2\left(\mathrm{sinh}(2/3\alpha )/\mathrm{sinh}(t\overline{m}/\sqrt{3}\alpha )\right)^{3/2},`$ (38)
where equations (9) and (12) have been used to arrive at the second equality. The quantum vacuum energy density $`\rho _V`$ and pressure $`p_V`$ then follow, for $`t>t_j`$, as

$`\rho _V(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (t)\rho _m(t)`$ (40)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0\overline{m}^2}{2}}\left[\mathrm{coth}^2\left(t\overline{m}/\sqrt{3}\alpha \right)4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2/3\alpha )}{\mathrm{sinh}(t\overline{m}/\sqrt{3}\alpha )}}\right)^{3/2}\right]`$
$`p_V(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p(t),`$ (41)
with $`p(t)`$ given by equation (35). The above equations show that for $`t>t_j`$ the vacuum energy density is positive, while the vacuum pressure is negative. As stated earlier, the vacuum terms are negligible for $`t<t_j`$.

As a consequence of equations (13) and (14), we find that the equation of state for the vacuum is

$$\rho _V=3p_V+2\overline{m}^2\kappa _0\left[1\left(1+2p_V/(\kappa _0\overline{m}^2)\right)^{3/4}\right].$$
(42)
This vacuum equation of state joins continously to the equation of state $`\rho _V=p_V=0`$ at $`t=t_j`$ and is asymptotic to the pure cosmological constant equation of state $`\rho _V=p_V`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Equation (42) is parametrized by the single parameter, $`\overline{m}`$, and is different from the equation of state of a pure cosmological constant. However, Eq. (42) holds only in the case of Robertson-Walker symmetry. Any inhomogenous perturbation of the matter content or the metric in our model would change the effective equation of state of the vacuum, since such perturbations would change the form of the right-hand-sides of Eqs. (2) and (8). This feature is a complication when one analyzes the evolution of small perturbations in the theory. However, we expect that the terms of Eq. (42) may still dominate the equation of state for the perturbations.

## VI Ratio of pressure and energy density

In this section, we derive the ratio of total pressure $`p`$ and total matter density $`\rho `$ in our model, as a function of redshift. This quantity, which we call $`w(z)p/\rho `$, is a useful one for comparison with future observations. We also compare $`w(z)`$ in our model with the same quantity in a model with non-relativistic matter plus cosmological constant.

¿From Eqs. (24) and (25) above, we find that, for $`z<z_j`$,

$$w(z)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{2}{3}\frac{\kappa _o\overline{m}^2}{\rho },$$
(43)
with

$$\rho (z)=\kappa _o\overline{m}^2\left\{\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{1+z}{1+z_j}\right)^4+\frac{1}{2}\right\}.$$
(44)
The redshift at which the transition occurs, $`z_j`$, is given by

$$1+z_j\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t_j)}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(ct_0\overline{m}/\sqrt{3}\alpha \right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(2/3\alpha \right)}},$$
(45)
where we have inserted an appropriate factor of $`c`$. Using the value of $`\alpha `$ from Eq. (7), and the present value of the Hubble constant,

$$H_0=\frac{c\overline{m}}{\sqrt{12}}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{ct_0\overline{m}}{\sqrt{3}}\alpha \right),$$
(46)
one can reexpress Eq. (45) as

$`1+z_j`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4H_0^2}{c^2\overline{m}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right)^{1/4}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`\left\{0.3788\left({\displaystyle \frac{6.93\times 10^{33}\mathrm{eV}}{m_h}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right\}^{1/4},`$ (48)
where we have substituted for the numerical value of the speed of light, $`c`$, in the second equality.

Combining Eqs. (43), (44) and (47), we obtain

$$w(z)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{4}{3}\left\{1.1364(1+z)^4\left(\frac{6.93\times 10^{33}\mathrm{eV}}{m_h}\right)^2(1+z)^4+1\right\}^1,$$
(49)
for $`z<z_j`$. For $`z>z_j`$, our model is entirely matter-dominated, therefore $`p=w(z)=0`$.

On the other hand, in a spatially flat model with non-relativistic matter plus cosmological constant, it is straightforward to show that

$$w(z)=\left\{1+(1+z)^3\left(Ø_Ł^11\right)\right\}^1,$$
(50)
where $`Ø_Ł`$ is the ratio of the energy density in the cosmological constant and the critical density.

A plot of $`w(z)`$ for both models discussed above is shown in Fig. 2, with representative values of $`m_h=6.93\times 10^{33}`$ eV (in our model), and $`Ø_Ł=0.7`$ (in the non-relativistic matter plus cosmological constant model). Future experimental data should be able to distinguish between these models.

Noting that the equation of state of non-relativistic matter would give $`w(z)=0`$, and the equation of state of a pure cosmological constant would give $`w(z)=1`$, we see from Fig. 2 that the redshift interval for which the effects of non-relativistic matter and vacuum energy are both significant is $`\mathrm{\Delta }z2`$. This range is a small one compared to the full redshift range, which is infinite. This feature is often taken to comprise an alternative statement of the “coincidence” problem outlined in the previous section. However, as we showed there, the small redshift range corresponds to a large range in time. The discrepancy between posing the “coincidence” problem in terms of time range and redshift range reflects the subjective nature of this problem. We reiterate that the most reasonable way to pose the fine-tuning problem is in terms of a fundamental explanation for the smallness of $`Ł`$ or $`m_h`$.

## VII Nonperturbative effects of an ultralow mass field in the early universe

In this section, we consider the possible quantum vacuum effects of an ultralow mass field ($`m10^{33}`$ eV) in the early, post-inflationary universe. We first note that quantum vacuum effects become significant whenever the “resonance” condition is satisfied, i.e., whenever the trace of the classical stress tensor $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}\rho _{\mathrm{cl}}+3p_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ decreases below the value $`2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$ (see the arguments leading from Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) for details). Consider now the evolution of $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ from early inflation to the present time. During early inflation, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ has a large negative value, i.e., $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$. After the reheating process at the end of inflation, the universe is expected to be radiation-dominated, with $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ decreasing to a small value. As the universe expands, and enough matter becomes non-relativistic, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ increases smoothly to a maximum value much greater than $`2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$. As the universe expands further, it enters a matter-dominated stage. During this stage, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ decreases again, until about half the age of the universe ($`z1`$), when it passes through the value $`2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$, and quantum vacuum effects begin to dominate, leading to the present acceleration. However, as described above, there are two early stages of the evolution during which $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ may pass through the value $`2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$, namely, during the reheating from inflationary expansion to radiation-dominated expansion, and when $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is increasing during the radiation-dominated stage of the expansion of the universe. What role do quantum vacuum effects of this ultralow-mass particle play during these two early stages?

To answer this question, we consider two possibilities for the value of $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ during the radiation-dominated stage: (a) there is sufficient non-relativistic matter at the end of post-inflationary reheating so that $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is always greater than $`2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$ during the radiation-dominated stage, or (b) there is not enough non-relativistic matter, and the condition, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}<2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$, is satisfied at some time during the radiation-dominated stage.

If possibility (a) occurs, then the “resonance” condition is never satisfied during the reheating from inflationary to radiation-dominated expansion or the subsequent evolution from radiation-dominated to matter-dominated expansion. Thus these quantum vacuum effects of an ultralow-mass particle remain negligible in the early universe and in the matter-dominated stage, until the universe transits to vacuum-dominance at about half its present age, as described in Section II.

If possibility (b) occurs, then a resonance of the type discussed here will occur during the reheating from inflationary expansion to radiation-dominated expansion, and will force $`R`$ to remain nearly equal to $`\overline{m}^2`$ during the early part of the radiation-dominated stage. During such a stage, the scale factor would be $`a(t)\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}(t\overline{m}/\sqrt{3})}`$. However, $`t\overline{m}1`$ during this stage, and the scale factor, to excellent approximation, exhibits radiation-dominated behavior, i.e., $`a(t)t^{1/2}`$. Once enough non-relativistic matter has accumulated, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ increases above the value $`2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$ while the universe is still radiation-dominated. At this point, quantum effects become negligible, as can be seen from Eq. (5). Once there is sufficient non-relativistic matter, the exit from vacuum-dominance must occur§§§This exit is analogous to the time-reversed evolution of the present vacuum-dominated stage through the transition at time $`t_j`$.. Eventually, the universe transits to the matter-dominated stage. Much later, at time $`t_j`$, when the condition $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}=2\kappa _o\overline{m}^2`$ is again satisfied, the universe transits to vacuum-dominance, giving rise to the present acceleration. However, because the density of non-relativistic matter (or equivalently, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$) is now decreasing, the universe remains vacuum-dominated for all time.

The above arguments show that, even if these ultralow-mass nonperturbative quantum vacuum effects become significant at early times in the evolution of the universe, the eventual transition to the present vacuum-dominated stage is not affected and the early universe dynamics is not significantly altered beyond the standard cosmological model.

## VIII Conclusions

The cosmological model that we investigate here is based on nonperturbative vacuum effects of a quantized noninteracting massive scalar field. This model is the simplest one exhibiting these nonperturbative quantum effects. It is based on the extension of quantum field theory to curved spacetime, a subject that has been extensively developed and has given rise to fundamental advances in black hole physics and cosmology.

In the present paper, we have studied the particle production resulting from the imaginary part of the same term that, in earlier work, we showed would cause, through its real part, an acceleration of the universe consistent with that inferred from recent supernovae observations and other cosmological data. We find that the predicted rate of particle production during the recent vacuum-dominated era is the same as that found by other methods. It has been shown  that this production rate also agrees with that found by the Bogolubov transformation technique . This agreement of the particle production rate given by the imaginary part of our effective action, adds confidence to the validity of the acceleration resulting from the real part of the same term in the effective action.

The density and effective temperature of these ultralight particles created after the transition to vacuum dominance is negligible compared to the matter and radiation already present. However, the production of these particles in the early universe would leave a remnant of such particles similar to the remnant of gravitons created near the big bang. The mass of these particles is such that they may contribute a component to dark matter that is sufficiently cold to be gravitationally concentrated in the vicinity of galaxies. The possibility that these may contribute to extended galactic halos is worth exploring, as is the effect, if any, of these particles on big-bang nucleosynthesis in the early universe.

The evolution of the scale factor, $`a(t)`$, in our cosmological solution depends on a single parameter related to the mass $`m`$ of the particle. Cosmological data give a value for $`m`$ of order $`10^{33}`$ eV. This mass is of the same order of magnitude as the mass of a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson, obtained by independent particle physics considerations . As discussed in Sec. IV, this fact may be significant with regard to the question of fine-tuning.

We calculated the effective equation of state during the vacuum-dominated era in our model, and gave the function $`w(z)p/\rho `$. The effective equation of state of vacuum plus matter during the vacuum-dominated stage turns out to be the same as that of a classical model with radiation plus cosmological constant, although the actual matter content is mainly non-relativistic.

We showed that these nonperturbative vacuum effects of an ultralow mass field would not significantly alter standard cosmology at early times. The possible existence of much more massive scalar fields, for which these nonperturbative vacuum effects would be significant in the very early universe, may enhance inflation. In addition, the associated particle production may help reheat the universe during the exit from early inflation. It is possible that processes, such as spontaneous symmetry breaking (caused, for example, by a self-interaction), may cause the vacuum expectation value of the field to become non-zero, while its fluctuations are reduced. In the present non-interacting model, such processes are absent. The effect of interactions, such as those arising from a PNGB, on the observational predictions of the present model (involving an ultralight mass) is also worth exploring.

Also worth noting is that quantum vacuum terms would become dominant in regions of low average density (i.e., $`\rho _m<2\overline{m}^2\kappa _o`$) earlier than in regions of high average density. This would alter the evolution of density inhomogeneities that existed during the early matter-domnated stage of the expansion. This may eventually provide another observational test of our model.

Our present model may soon be observationally tested relative to other models through observations of the small-scale CMBR fluctuations. These fluctuations are determined by the function $`w(z)`$ (given in Sec. VI). Non-zero spatial curvature would, of course, affect the predicted shape of the CMBR fluctuation spectrum, as would the addition of interactions to our present free-field model.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank C. T. Hill and E. W. Kolb for helpful comments. This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-9507740.


format: text

text:
# Poles and zeros of the scattering matrix associated to defect modes

## Abstract

We analyze electromagnetic waves propagation in one-dimensional periodic media with single or periodic defects. The study is made both from the point of view of the modes and of the diffraction problem. We provide an explicit dispersion equation for the numerical calculation of the modes, and we establish a connection between modes and poles and zeros of the scattering matrix.

Periodic media with defects have been intensively addressed in the field of Quantum Mechanics (see  and references therein) and also, since the development of photonic crystals, in Electromagnetics . On the general subject of photonic crystals, the interested reader can find an impressive bibliography on the Internet. From the theoretical point of view, the quasi-totality of the studies are involved in the characterization of the spectrum of the infinite medium. Nevertheless, for the working physicists, the main problem is that of the finite structure. Indeed, one can only imagine experiments, such as the diffraction of a plane wave, by finite devices. The main question is then to relate the modes with the behavior of the diffracted field. The simplest connection is that of the determination of the conduction bands: whenever the frequency belongs to the spectrum of the infinite structure, the finite one allows the guidance of waves while in the gap the electromagnetic field decreases exponentially. In the present paper, we study, as a model problem, the simple case of a one dimensional periodic structure with defects, which may model for instance a quantum cavity. Such a device has also been intensively addressed . Nevertheless, these studies involve the infinite structure for which a spectral analysis is given, whereas in the present communication we aim at establishing a link between the diffractive properties of a finite structure with a defect, and the known spectral properties of an infinite structure with a defect.

Throughout this paper, an orthonormal triaxial cartesian coordinate system $`(0,x,y,z)`$ is used. We consider a periodic structure, described by a bounded real one-periodic function $`\epsilon (x)`$, ($`\epsilon (x)=\epsilon (x+1)`$), representing the relative permittivity with respect to $`x`$, whereas the permeability is assumed to be $`\mu _0`$, i.e. that of vacuum. The structure is assumed to be invariant in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions and the harmonic fields (time dependence of $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega t\right)`$) are invariant along $`z`$. That way, the field is described by a function $`u_n(x)\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha y)`$, where $`\alpha (\pi ,+\pi ]`$ is the Bloch frequency (in case of a scattering problem, the frequency $`\alpha `$ is equal to $`k_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle of incidence of an incident plane wave). When the electric field $`𝐄`$ is parallel to the $`z`$-axis ($`E||`$ case), $`u_N(x)\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha y)`$ represents the $`z`$-component of $`𝐄`$ and when the magnetic field $`𝐇`$ is parallel to the $`z`$-axis ($`H||`$ case), it represents the $`z`$-component of $`𝐇`$.

Denoting: $`\beta ^2\left(x\right)=k_0^2\epsilon (x)\alpha ^2`$, $`\beta _0^2=k_0^2\alpha ^2`$, and setting $`U=(u,q^1_xu)`$, the propagation equation takes the form:

$$_xU=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& q\\ q^1\beta ^2& 0\end{array}\right)U$$
(1)
with: $`q\left(x\right)1`$ for $`E||`$ polarization, $`q\left(x\right)\epsilon \left(x\right)`$ for $`H||`$ polarization. The monodromy matrix of the equation, or Floquet operator, is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`𝐓_{k,\alpha }`$ such that: $`U(x+d)=𝐓_{k,\alpha }U\left(x\right)`$. When considering only $`n`$ periods of the medium embedded in vacuum and illuminated by a plane wave (the device extends over $`[0,n]`$), the following boundary conditions hold:

$$\begin{array}{c}i\beta _0u|_{x=0}+_xu|_{x=0}=2i\beta _0\hfill \\ i\beta _0u|_{x=n}_xu|_{x=n}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
from which the reflection and transmission coefficients can be derived:

$`\begin{array}{c}r_n=u|_{x=0}1\hfill \\ t_n=u|_{x=n}\hfill \end{array}`$In the infinite medium, the conduction bands are characterized by the condition $`\left|tr\left(𝐓\right)\right|2`$, we thus define:

$`\begin{array}{c}𝐆=\left\{(k,\alpha )/\left|tr\left(𝐓_{k,\alpha }\right)\right|>2\right\}\\ 𝐁=\left\{(k,\alpha )/\left|tr\left(𝐓_{k,\alpha }\right)\right|<2\right\}\end{array}`$

For $`(k,\alpha )𝐆𝐁`$, we denote $`(𝐯,𝐰)`$ a basis of eigenvectors of $`𝐓_{k,\alpha }`$, such that $`det(𝐯,𝐰)=1`$, associated to eigenvalues $`\mu `$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}`$( as a convention $`\left|\mu \right|<1`$ for $`(k,\alpha )𝐆`$). We write in the canonical basis of $`^2`$: $`𝐯=(v_1,v_2),𝐰=(w_1,w_2)`$.

Let us now introduce a defect in the crystal in the following way: we replace one period of the crystal by a layer of width $`h`$ and permittivity $`\epsilon _d\left(x\right)`$ ($`\epsilon _d`$ is simply assumed to be real and bounded). In view of the spectral problem, the structure is therefore made of two periodic half-spaces connected by an inhomogeneous layer extending over $`[0,h]`$. We denote by $`𝐓_0`$ the monodromy matrix of the defect, omitting here to explicitly write the dependence in $`(k,\alpha )`$. We have the following results:

Proposition 1(): The defect does not modify the conduction bands.

Proposition 2: The defect modes of the structure correspond to couples $`(k,\alpha )`$ such that $`det(𝐓_0𝐰,𝐯)=0`$

Proof: As we introduced a defect, we may now accept an increasing solution in the left semi-crystal and a decreasing solution in the right semi-crystal. The problem is to match these two solutions. This is only possible if $`𝐓_0`$ switches increasing solutions to decreasing ones, that is if $`𝐓_0𝐰Vect(𝐯)`$ QED.

Suppose that the structure is finite and that the defect is switched between $`n`$ periods. The monodromy matrix is: $`𝐓_{k,\alpha }^n𝐓_0𝐓_{k,\alpha }^n`$. In basis $`(𝐯,𝐰)`$, $`𝐓_0`$ is written:

$`𝐓_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_0& c_0\\ b_0& d_0\end{array}\right)\text{ .}`$Denoting:

$$\chi =\left(\chi _{ij}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w_2i\beta _0w_1& w_2+i\beta _0w_1\\ v_2+i\beta _0v_1& v_2i\beta _0v_1\end{array}\right)\text{,}$$
(3)
an expression of the coefficients $`(r_n,t_n)`$ can be easily obtained:

$$r_n(k,\alpha )=\frac{p(\mu ^{2n})}{q(\mu ^{2n})},t_n(k,\alpha )=\frac{2i\beta _0\mu ^{2n}}{q(\mu ^{2n})}$$
(4)
where:

$`p\left(X\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{21}\chi _{11}a_0X^2+\left(\chi _{21}^2c_0\chi _{11}^2b_0\right)X\chi _{21}\chi _{11}d_0`$
$`q\left(X\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{21}\chi _{12}a_0X^2+\left(\chi _{21}\chi _{22}c_0+\chi _{11}\chi _{12}b_0\right)X+\chi _{11}\chi _{22}d_0\text{ .}`$
Assume now that there exists some defect mode for a couple $`(k_0,\alpha _0)`$ so that $`\left|\alpha _0\right|<k_0`$, allowing to define an angle of incidence $`\theta _0`$ by $`\alpha _0=k_0\mathrm{sin}\theta _0`$.

It is easily seen that the equation of Proposition 2 simply writes: $`d_0(k_0,\alpha _0)=0`$ , whence we get from (4):

$`r_n(k_0,\theta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{11}^2b_0+\chi _{21}^2c_0+\chi _{21}\chi _{11}\mu ^{2n}a_0}{\chi _{11}\chi _{12}b_0\chi _{21}\chi _{22}c_0\chi _{21}\chi _{12}\mu ^{2n}a_0}}`$
$`t_n(k_0,\theta _0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i\beta _0}{\chi _{21}\chi _{22}c_0+\chi _{11}\chi _{12}b_0\chi _{21}\chi _{12}\mu ^{2n}a_0}}`$
As $`n`$ tends to infinity, we have the following limits:

$$\begin{array}{cc}r_n(k_0,\theta _0)\frac{\chi _{21}^2c_0\chi _{11}^2b_0}{\chi _{21}\chi _{11}b_0\chi _{22}\chi _{21}c_0}\hfill & t_n(k_0,\theta _0)\frac{2i\beta _0}{\chi _{21}\chi _{11}b_0\chi _{22}\chi _{21}c_0}\hfill \\ r_n(k,\theta _0)\frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{22}}\text{, for }kk_0\hfill & t_n(k,\theta _0)0\text{, for }kk_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Remark 1: Obviously from (3): $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{22}}}\right|=1`$, and so as a conclusion $`\left|r_n(k_0,\theta _0)\right|`$ tends pointwise towards a value that is strictly less than $`1`$, whereas for any point different from $`k_0`$, in a small enough neighborhood of $`k_0`$, $`\left|r_n(k,\theta _0)\right|`$ tends to $`1`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. This result means that the reflected energy admits a sharp minimum near $`k_0`$. It is important to note that the minimum of $`\left|r_n(k,\theta _0)\right|`$ is not a priori reached for value $`k_0`$ of the wavenumber, but the sharpness is all the more important as $`n`$ is important. Clearly, for a given incidence $`\theta _0`$, it is possible to transmit waves of wavenumber belonging to a small interval near $`k_0`$ and tending to $`\left\{k_0\right\}`$ as $`n`$ tends to infinity

It is known that for a fixed incidence $`\theta `$, the scattering matrix admits a meromorphic extension to the complex half-space $`\left\{Im(k)<0\right\}`$. From (4), poles and zeros of $`r_n`$ are solutions respectively of equations:

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mu ^{4n}a_0+\mu ^{2n}\left(\frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{11}}c_0\frac{\chi _{11}}{\chi _{21}}b_0\right)=d_0\\ \hfill \mu ^{4n}\frac{\chi _{21}\chi _{12}}{\chi _{11}\chi _{22}}a_0+\mu ^{2n}\left(\frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{11}}c_0\frac{\chi _{12}}{\chi _{22}}b_0\right)=d_0\end{array}$$
(6)
and the limit of both equations as $`n`$ tends to infinity is just $`d_0(k,k\mathrm{sin}\theta )=0`$, which is the equation defining the defect modes. As both equations (6) are analytic perturbations of $`d_0(k,k\mathrm{sin}\theta )=0`$ we can conclude:

Proposition 3: One defect mode $`(k_0,k_0\mathrm{sin}\theta _0)`$ is associated to exactly one zero $`k_z^n`$ of $`r_n`$ and one pole $`k_p^n`$ of $`r_n`$ and $`t_n`$ . Moreover $`k_z^n`$ and $`k_p^n`$ tend to $`k_0`$ as $`n`$ tends to infinity.

Remark 2: This suggests that, for sufficiently large $`n`$, there exist two positive numbers $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\delta _n`$ such that:

$`\begin{array}{c}k_z^n=k_0i\gamma _n\delta _n+O\left(\delta _n\right)\hfill \\ k_p^n=k_0i\delta _n+O\left(\delta _n\right)\hfill \end{array}`$We know that, as $`n`$ tends to infinity, $`\delta _n`$ tends to $`0`$ and that $`r_n(k_0,\theta _0)`$ admits a limit given by (5). In the vicinity of $`k_0`$, we can write $`r_n(k,\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{22}}}{\displaystyle \frac{kk_z^n}{kk_p^n}}`$ whence we obtain: $`r_n(k_0,\theta _0){\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{22}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Im\left(k_z^n\right)}{Im\left(k_p^n\right)}}`$, so that $`\gamma _n={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{11}^2\chi _{21}^1b_0\chi _{21}c_0}{\chi _{21}c_0\chi _{21}\chi _{11}\chi _{22}^1b_0}}`$.

Remark 3: For real $`z`$, $`z{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{21}}{\chi _{22}}}{\displaystyle \frac{zk_z^n}{zk_p^n}}`$ is the equation of a circle of diameter $`\sqrt{1+\gamma _n^2}`$, so that while in the gap the reflection coefficient belongs to the unit circle of the complex plane, it describes a circle for real $`k`$ varying in the vicinity of $`k_0`$.

In order to be able to apply Bloch-waves method to defect structures, an approximate way consists in periodizing the defect, it is the so-called supercell approximation. Let us apply this method to our simple example. We consider thus an infinite periodic structure whose period is made of one defect switched between $`n`$ periods of the previous medium. We call it a super-structure. We know that the global monodromy matrix of the super-structure is: $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}_{k,\alpha }=𝐓_{k,\alpha }^n𝐓_0𝐓_{k,\alpha }^n`$, and that the conduction bands are characterized by $`\left|tr\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐓}\right)\right|<2.`$ Now what happens at $`k=k_0`$? Obviously:$`tr\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐓}_{k,\alpha }\right)=\mu ^{2n}a_0+\mu ^{2n}d_0`$ so that for $`(k,\alpha )=(k_0,\alpha _0)`$ : $`tr\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐓}_{k_0,\alpha _0}\right)=\mu ^{2n}a_0`$ and thus tends to $`0`$ as $`n`$ tends to infinity. This means that, at $`\alpha =\alpha _0,`$ there exists an interval $`J_n`$ of wavenumbers $`k`$ over which $`\left|tr\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐓}_{k,\alpha _0}\right)\right|<2`$ and therefore $`J_n`$ is a conduction band in the super-structure. Of course the length of this interval depends upon $`n`$ and tends to $`0`$ as $`n`$ tends to infinity because $`J_n`$ tends to $`\left\{k_0\right\}`$. This is a crucial point as it justifies the use of Bloch-waves theory in the framework of the super-cell approximation, at least in a small neighborhood of $`k_0`$. Finally, we can state:

Proposition 4: In the super-structure, the existence of a defect $`(k_0,\alpha _0)`$ implies the opening of conduction bands inside gaps of the unperturbed structure that can support defect modes. The widths of these ”defect”-conduction bands tend to zero exponentially with the number $`n`$ of subperiods constituting one period of the super-structure.

Remark 4: For a finite superstructure, and as the medium is periodic, we may apply a theory  allowing to compute the superior envelop of the modulus of the reflection coefficient of a periodic structure. In the present problem, this is just the graph of:

$`k\sqrt{1\left(4tr(\stackrel{~}{𝐓})^2\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐭}_{12}\beta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐭}_{21}}{\beta _0}}\right)^2}`$where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}=\left(\stackrel{~}{𝐭}_{ij}\right).`$

We have analyzed wave propagation in one-dimensional photonic crystals with one defect. We have shown a connection between the scattering properties and the modes: defect modes of the infinite structure give rise to a pole and a zero explaining the behavior of the refection coefficient. These results should help in the understanding of more complicated structures such as bidimensional photonic crystals, for which our present work could be used as an approximate theory .


text:
# Generalized Schmidt decomposition and classification of three-quantum-bit states

## Abstract

We prove for any pure three-quantum-bit state the existence of local bases which allow one to build a set of five orthogonal product states in terms of which the state can be written in a unique form. This leads to a canonical form which generalizes the two-quantum-bit Schmidt decomposition. It is uniquely characterized by the five entanglement parameters. It leads to a complete classification of the three-quantum-bit states. It shows that the right outcome of an adequate local measurement always erases all entanglement between the other two parties.

The Schmidt decomposition  allows one to write any pure state of a bipartite system as a linear combination of biorthogonal product states or, equivalently, of a non-superfluous set of product states built from local bases. For two quantum-bits (qubits) it reads

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{cos}\theta |00+\mathrm{sin}\theta |11,0\theta \pi /4.$$
(1)
Here $`|ii|i_A|i_B`$, both local bases $`\{|i\}_{A,B}`$ depend on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the relative phase has been absorbed into any of the local bases, and the state $`|00`$ has been defined by carrying the larger (or equal) coefficient. A larger value of $`\theta `$ means more entanglement. The only entanglement parameter, $`\theta `$, plus the hidden relative phase, plus the two parameters which define each of the two local bases are the six parameters of any two-qubit pure state, once normalization and global phase have been disposed of.

Very many results in quantum information theory have been obtained with the help of the Schmidt decomposition: its simplicity reflects the simplicity of bipartite systems as compared to N-partite systems. Much of its usefulness comes from it not being superfluous: to carry one entanglement parameter one needs only two orthogonal product states built from local bases states, no more, no less.

The aim of this work is to generalize the Schmidt decomposition of (1) to three qubits. It is well known  that its straightforward generalization, that is, in terms of triorthogonal product states, is not possible (see also ). Nevertheless, having a minimal canonical form in which to cast any pure state, by performing local unitary transformations, will provide a new tool for quantifying entanglement for three qubits, a notoriously difficult problem. It will lead to a complete classification of exceptional states which, as we will see, is much more complex than in the two-qubit case. The generalization to $`N`$ quantum dits ($`d`$-state systems) is not completely straightforward and will be given elsewhere.

Linden and Popescu  and Schlienz  showed that for any pure three-qubit state the number of entanglement parameters is five and, using repeatedly the two-qubit Schmidt decomposition, proved the existence for any pure state of a reference form in terms of six orthogonal product states built from local bases. The five entanglement parameters are one phase (all others can be absorbed) and four moduli of the six coefficients, so that a further constraint beyond the normalization exists. In other words, exactly as (1) shows that local unitary transformations allow to make two of the four components vanish (corresponding to $`|01`$ and $`|10`$) for a two-qubit pure state, Linden, Popescu and Schlienz proved that, also for a three-qubit system two of the, now eight, components can be made zero. However, the set of six states is superfluous in the sense that its coefficients require a constraint to lead to a unique representative of any pure state. It is not clear whether this is the best one can do, i.e. whether the set is minimal. We will now prove that indeed, combining adequately the local changes of bases corresponding to $`U(1)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ transformations, one can always do with five terms, which precisely can carry only five entanglement parameters, leading thus to a non-superfluous unique representation.

Notice that a straightforward counting of parameters shows that a nonsuperfluous set will have five states, i.e. three vanishing coefficients. There exist three inequivalent sets of five local bases product states

$`\{|000,|001,|010,|100,|111\}`$ (2)
$`\{|000,|001,|110,|100,|111\}`$ (3)
$`\{|000,|100,|110,|101,|111\}`$ . (4)
Whereas the first set is symmetric under permutation of parties, the other two are not.

The nonequivalence of the three sets follows from the different degrees of orthogonality between the five states within each set. One can also readily check that all three sets can carry exactly five entanglement parameters, four moduli and one phase, and are thus nonsuperfluous. This is of course no proof that any state can always be written as a linear combination of the five states of one and the same set. We will now prove that it can always be done for the last two sets, or their versions obtained by permuting parties.

As an introduction let us first present a one-line proof of the Schmidt decomposition of a two-qubit state, Eq. (1). Writing any state in a basis of product states built from any two local bases,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i,j}{}t_{ij}|ij,$$
(5)
calling $`T`$ the matrix of elements $`t_{ij}`$, and recalling that for any $`T`$ there always exist two unitary matrices which diagonalize it,

$$U_1TU_2=D,$$
(6)
the Schmidt decomposition follows at once. Note that $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ correspond to the local basis changes necessary for casting the original state into its Schmidt form.

For a three-qubit state the proof goes as follows, from

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i,j,k}{}t_{ijk}|ijk,$$
(7)
one introduces the matrices $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$ with elements

$$(T_i)_{jk}t_{ijk}.$$
(8)
Consider now the unitary transformation on the first qubit,

$$T_i^{}=\underset{j}{}u_{ij}T_j,$$
(9)
such that

$$detT_0^{}=0.$$
(10)
Notice that (10) has always two solutions. The matrix obtained from $`T_0^{}`$ after diagonalization following (6), which corresponds to unitary transformations on the last two qubits, has at least three zeros,

$$(D_0^{})_{01}=(D_0^{})_{10}=(D_0^{})_{11}=0.$$
(11)
This finishes the proof that any pure state of three qubits can always be written as a linear superposition of the five states of the last set of (2).

The generalization to three qubits of the Schmidt decomposition, i.e. one more zero for one more qubit, thus reads

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _0|000+\lambda _1e^{i\phi }|100+\lambda _2|101+\lambda _3|110+\lambda _4|111`$ (13)
$`\lambda _i0,0\phi \pi ,\mu _i\lambda _i^2,{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i=1,`$
where we have chosen the second coefficient to carry the only relevant phase, whose range, to be proven later, is also given. Notice that we have singled out party A in obtaining (13), but we could have chosen any of the three parties.

An immediate and important consequence of this decomposition is that there always exists for any state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and any (genderless) party $`X`$ a state $`|0_X`$ such that $`{}_{X}{}^{}0|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a product state of the other two parties (unless party $`X`$ is not entangled with the other two parties). That is, party $`X`$, knowing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, can perform a local measurement which, for one outcome, allows it to be sure that the other two parties share no entanglement whatsoever. Note that when (10) displays two different solutions, two such states exist. This property suggests some applications to quantum information processing. It also leads to an efficient algorithm for computing the $`\lambda `$’s and $`\phi `$.

There is one small hitch left: as (10) has generically two different solutions, any state can be written in the form of (13) with two different sets of coefficients. Let us dispose generically of this redundancy. Recall that after diagonalization of $`T_0^{}`$ we are left with the matrices

$$M_0D_0^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),M_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\phi }\lambda _1& \lambda _2\\ \lambda _3& \lambda _4\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
for one solution of Eq. (10) and

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{M}_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\phi }}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2\\ \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
for the other solution. Of course, both solutions can be related by a $`U(1)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ transformation:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{M}_0=e^{i\omega }U_1(u_{00}M_0+u_{01}M_1)U_2\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{M}_1=e^{i\omega }U_1(u_{01}^{}M_0+u_{00}^{}M_1)U_2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
and the inverse

$$\begin{array}{c}M_0=e^{i\omega }U_1^{}(u_{00}^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_0u_{01}\stackrel{~}{M}_1)U_2^{}\hfill \\ M_1=e^{i\omega }U_1^{}(u_{01}^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_0+u_{00}\stackrel{~}{M}_1)U_2^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The condition $`detM_0=det\stackrel{~}{M}_0=0`$ leads to

$$u_{00}=\frac{detM_1}{\lambda _0\lambda _4}u_{01}u_{00}^{}=\frac{det\stackrel{~}{M_1}}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4}u_{01}.$$
(18)
It is tedious, but straightforward, to solve the previous equations. Here we only need the following results

$$\lambda _0\lambda _4=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4,u_{01}^{}=u_{01},$$
(19)
which, from Eq. (18), imply

$$detM_1=(det\stackrel{~}{M}_1)^{}.$$
(20)
From here it follows that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}0<\phi <\pi \hfill & & \pi <\stackrel{~}{\phi }<2\pi \hfill \\ 0<\stackrel{~}{\phi }<\pi \hfill & & \pi <\phi <2\pi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
so that one can always choose the solution for which

$$0\phi \pi ,$$
(22)
which explains the range of $`\phi `$ given in Eq. (13).

Let us mention here that by performing a unitary transformation on the third qubit,

$$|0^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu _1+\mu _2}}(\lambda _1e^{i\phi }|0+\lambda _2|1),$$
(23)
the decomposition for the second set of (2) is obtained. In the remainder we will use the first decomposition (13), which is physically and mathematically more convenient.

A generalization of the Schmidt decomposition is thus given by (13); any state can be written in this minimal form, generically in a unique way. The explicit algorithm for constructing this canonical form follows from the set of Eqs. (7-10). However, particular states can be obtained for different values of the five entanglement parameters. It is thus useful to have five independent invariants for the classification of states which we will obtain from (13). We will take here the five minimal polynomial invariants of .

Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }|\lambda _1\lambda _4e^{i\phi }\lambda _2\lambda _3|^2`$ we find

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}I_1Tr\rho _A^2=12\mu _0(1\mu _0\mu _1)1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}I_2Tr\rho _B^2=12\mu _0(1\mu _0\mu _1\mu _2)2\mathrm{\Delta }1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}I_3Tr\rho _C^2=12\mu _0(1\mu _0\mu _1\mu _3)2\mathrm{\Delta }1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}I_4Tr(\rho _A\rho _B\rho _{AB})\hfill \\ =1+\mu _0(\mu _2\mu _3\mu _1\mu _42\mu _23\mu _33\mu _4)\hfill \\ (2\mu _0)\mathrm{\Delta }1\hfill \\ 0I_5|\mathrm{Hdet}(t_{ijk})|^2=\mu _0^2\mu _4^2\frac{1}{16},\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
where

$`\rho _{AB}Tr_C|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho _CTr_{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ (25)
$`\rho _ATr_B\rho _{AB}\rho _BTr_A\rho _{AB},`$ (26)
and Cayley’s hyperdeterminant, Hdet$`(t_{ijk})`$, can be found in  and corresponds to the three-tangle of .

Although these five invariants are computationally simple and physically meaningful, as they give local information, it can be convenient to trade them, recalling $`_i\mu _i=1`$, for algebraically simpler ones:

$$\begin{array}{c}0J_1\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{4}\hfill \\ 0J_2\mu _0\mu _2\frac{1}{4}\hfill \\ 0J_3\mu _0\mu _3\frac{1}{4}\hfill \\ 0J_4\mu _0\mu _4\frac{1}{4}\hfill \\ J_5\mu _0(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mu _2\mu _3\mu _1\mu _4).\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
The invariants $`J_4`$ and $`J_5`$ are symmetric under permutation of parties, while $`J_1(J_2,J_3)`$ is symmetric under exchange of parties B and C (A and C, A and B).

We can now proceed with the complete classification of nongeneric three-qubit states with the help of Eqs. (13) and (27):

Type 1 (product states): $`J_i=0`$ for $`i=1,2,3,4,5`$.

Type 2a (biseparable states): $`J_i=0`$ except $`J_1(J_2,J_3)`$ when party A(B,C) is not entangled with the other two parties.

They carry only bipartite entanglement and depend on one parameter.

Type 2b (generalized GHZ states): $`J_i=0`$ except $`J_4`$.

They include the standard GHZ states  and depend on one parameter.

Type 3a (tri-Bell states): $`\mu _1=\mu _4=0`$.

It implies $`J_4=0`$, $`J_1J_2+J_1J_3+J_2J_3=\sqrt{J_1J_2J_3}=\frac{J_5}{2}`$. They depend on two parameters.

Type 3b (extended GHZ states): $`\mu _j=\mu _k=0`$, for $`j,k\{1,2,3\}`$ and $`jk`$.

It implies $`J_j=J_k=J_5=0`$. They depend on two parameters and correspond to the slice states of .

Type 4a: $`\mu _4=0`$.

It follows $`J_4=0`$ and $`\sqrt{J_1J_2J_3}=\frac{J_5}{2}`$. They depend on three parameters.

Type 4b: $`\mu _2=0`$ $`(\mu _3=0)`$.

Then, $`J_2=J_5=0`$ $`(J_3=J_5=0)`$. They depend on three parameters.

Type 4c: $`\mu _1=0`$.

Then, $`J_1(J_2+J_3+J_4)+J_2J_3=\sqrt{J_1J_2J_3}=\frac{J_5}{2}`$ and they depend on three parameters.

Type 5 (real states): $`\phi =0,\pi `$.

It implies $`\sqrt{J_1J_2J_3}=\frac{J_5}{2}`$. They depend on four parameters and they are, generically, on the boundary of the state space in the space of the five invariants.

Notice that the type-number indicates how many of the five states of (13) characterize the states of that type. Because of the asymmetric character of the decomposition (13), some of the states included in type 5 can be written in terms of four states, had we singled out party B or C . Notice also that, in some sense, the $`J_i`$’s are indicators of entanglement: only when all of them vanish there is no entanglement at all, $`J_1(J_2,J_3)`$ indicate bipartite entanglement and $`J_4`$ indicates GHZ-entanglement.

Let us further exploit our previous results. An alternative generalization of the Schmidt decomposition could be writing the state as a superposition of two nonorthogonal product states which are not built from local bases,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |abc+\beta |a^{}b^{}c^{},$$
(28)
with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ real.

Beside the trivial cases of type-1 and type-2a states, this decomposition is always possible except for a familly of states depending on three parameters . Our decomposition allows to reproduce this result and shows that (28) is not possible when $`I_5`$=0 (corresponding to type-3a and type-4a states). It can be proved that when $`I_5=0`$ the two solutions of (10) coincide. The same happens had we chosen to single out any of the other parties. Therefore, for any party $`X`$, there is only one state $`|0_X`$ such that $`{}_{X}{}^{}0|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a product state of the other two parties. Since (28) implies two such states, e.g. $`|a_{}_A`$ and $`|a_{}^{}_A`$, it follows that type-3a and type-4a states cannot be written as a sum of two nonorthogonal product states. When the decomposition (28) is possible, our results give the constructive method to obtain it. From (13), the second coefficient can be split into two terms

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\lambda _0|000+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1\lambda _4e^{i\phi }\lambda _2\lambda _3}{\lambda _4}}|100\right)`$ (30)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2\lambda _3}{\lambda _4}}|100+\lambda _2|101+\lambda _3|110+\lambda _4|111\right).`$
It is easy to see that (30) corresponds to the sum of two nonorthogonal product states as (28) with coefficients

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _4}}\sqrt{J_1+J_4}`$ (31)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _4}}\sqrt{\mu _2\mu _3+\mu _4(\mu _4+\mu _2+\mu _3)}.`$ (32)
This decomposition is unique. The states that appear in (28) are orthogonal to the ones that allow each party to destroy the entanglement between the other two parties with some non-vanishing probability.

A final consequence of (13) is that, by using the bipartite Schmidt decomposition, any pure state can be written as a superposition of a product state and a biseparable state, i.e.

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{cos}\theta |000+\mathrm{sin}\theta |1(\mathrm{cos}\omega |0^{}0^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{sin}\omega |1^{}1^{\prime \prime }),`$ (33)
which is the minimal decomposition in terms of orthogonal product states. It exhibits explicitly two of the five entanglement parameters. The other three are hidden in the moduli of the scalar products $`0|0^{}`$ and $`0|0^{\prime \prime }`$, and in one phase absorbed by one of the local bases. It is also a nonsuperfluous form, though not built from local bases.

In this work we have found the minimal decomposition of any pure three-qubit state in terms of orthogonal product states built from local bases. It generalizes the Schmidt decomposition and leads to a complete classification of pure three-qubit states, which fine grains the fully inseparable states class of the general entanglement classification of mixed three-qubit states . Our decomposition shows that any party can, performing a clever local measurement, kill the entanglement between the other two parties with nonvanishing probability. A decomposition in terms of the minimal number of orthogonal product states has also been found.

Finally, we have explored whether a pure three-qubit state can be written as a sum of two nonorthogonal product states, which can be thought as an alternative generalization of the Schmidt decomposition. We have verified that only a subfamily depending on three parameters cannot be expressed in this form , corresponding to states with $`I_5=0`$.

The authors thank Guifré Vidal and Sandu Popescu for useful discussions. J.I.L. and R.T. acknowledge financial support by CICYT project AEN 98-0431, CIRIT project 1998SGR-00026 and CEC project IST-1999-11053, A. Andrianov by RFBR 99-01-00736 and CIRIT, PIV-2000, L.C. by PB97-0893, A. Acín and E.J. by a grant from MEC. Financial support from the ESF is also acknowledged.