text:
# Stochastic Force Defined Evolution in Dynamical Systems

## Abstract

Dynamics near and far away from thermal equilibrium is studied within the framework of Langevin equations. A stochasticity-dissipation relation is proposed to emphasize the equal importance of the stochastic and deterministic forces in describing the system’s evolution and destination. It is a generalization of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Close to a stationary state an explicit construction of the potential energy is given through a gauged singular decomposition. Possible directions to extend the present study into generic situations are pointed out.

In biology, chemistry, and physics, a system under investigation can often be well modeled by a set of deterministic differential equations. Those deterministic differential equations, describing phenomena on a macroscopic level ranging from near to far from thermal equilibrium, are usually motivated by empirical observations. In addition, it is frequently found that adding the noise or stochastic force into them can result in a better description of systems, or, enables investigators to get certain desired results, such as particular stationary distributions. This is usually done in an ad hoc manner. The important question arises that whether or not the noise is an integral part of the mathematical modeling, such that the stochastic force has a transparent role and is directly connected to experimental observations. Ample experimental evidence from physics to biology, particularly the studies of the properties near thermal equilibrium in chemistry and physics and of the evolution of species in biology, suggests the affirmative answer. In attempt to address this question, our first response may be to resort to a microscopic derivation under appropriate conditions. This would certainly be advantageous, because it shows the coherence between the macro and micro modeling. However, often in reality, apart from a heuristic justification, not only the microscopic derivation is completely missing in a reductionist’s point of view, the very existence of the corresponding microscopic base can be called into doubt. Even in a situation that such a microscopic base exists, as typically believed in physics, the derivation involves a careful consideration of the emerging properties and can be highly nontrivial. Therefore, granted the autonomy of the macroscopic description, can we formulate the deterministic equations and the noise in a coherent manner? In this letter we will present an explicit construction leading to the positive answer. The presentation is inspired by the methodology of Onsager  in his classical investigation of dynamics near thermal equilibrium. We have generalized Onsager‘s results in two important directions: We elevate the stochastic force to the position of equal importance to that of the deterministic equation, and explicitly construct the stationary distribution for the state variable in typical situations far away from thermal equilibrium where the detailed balance condition does not hold.

To avoid the unnecessary mathematical complication, we will restrict the differential equations to be a set of first order ordinary differential equations. This corresponds to the homogeneous and well-stirred situation in a chemical reaction network widely encountered in biology and chemistry. Let the $`d`$ component state variable be presented by $`x^\tau =(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$, a vector in $`d`$ dimensional real space, the deterministic dynamical equation is

$$\dot{x}=f(x).$$
(1)
Here the superscript $`\tau `$ denotes the transpose, the dot over the state variable denotes the derivative with respect to time $`t`$, $`\dot{x}=dx/dt`$, and the $`n`$ component force $`f^\tau (x)=(f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_d(x))`$ with $`f_i(x)=f_i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d),i=1,\mathrm{},d`$ is a smooth function specifying the evolution of the state variable in a deterministic manner. Eq.(1) is a shorthand writing for $`dx_i/dt=f_i(x),i=1,\mathrm{},d`$.The force $`f`$ is specified by a set of controlling parameters which we will not further discuss in this letter, except we assume the force is explicitly time independent. The state variable can be the particle position in physics, or the concentrations of reactants in chemistry, or the protein expression levels in biology. There are two important features differ Eg.(1) from the usual Hamiltonian dynamics. First, the divergence of the force is finite except for a few isolated points: $`f0`$, where $`f=_{i=1}^d_if_i(x)`$, and $`_i=/x_i`$. The finite divergence implies that both the energy and the volume of phase space are not conserved. Second, the skew matrix $`\times f`$ generated by the skew operation $`(\times f)_{ij}=_if_j(x)_jf_i(x)`$ is in general finite, too: $`\times f0`$. In two and three dimensions, $`d=2,3`$, the skew operation reduces to the usual curl operation, $`\times `$, and the skew matrix can be represented by a vector. The finiteness of the skew matrix is a characteristic of the system far away from thermal equilibrium. It is believed that it can cause the absence of a potential. We will, however, present an explicitly construction of a potential function.

To emphasize the essential idea of our method, we further simplify our problem by considering the dynamics near a stable point specified by zero force, $`f=0`$. We will choose this stable point to be the origin in our $`d`$ dimension state space. A stable point represents a stable stationary state. Its existence is evident in chemistry and physics. In biology, where systems are believed to operate under the condition far away from thermal equilibrium, the existence of such a stable stationary state has also been demonstrated.. Hence, to the linear order in $`x`$, the leading order close to the stable point $`x=0`$, $`f=Fx`$ or $`f_i=_{j=1}^dF_{ij}x_j`$. Adding the noise, the stochastic force, into Eq.(1), we have

$$\dot{x}=Fx+\zeta (t),$$
(2)
where the stochastic force $`\zeta ^\tau (t)=(\zeta _1(t),\mathrm{},\zeta _d(t))`$, which is chosen to be represented by a Gaussian and white noise, with zero mean, $`<\zeta (t)>=0`$, and the variance

$$<\zeta (t)\zeta ^\tau (t^{})>=2D\delta (tt^{}).$$
(3)
Here $`\delta (t)`$ is the Dirac delta function and the constant diffusion matrix $`D`$ is explicitly defined by $`<\zeta _i(t)\zeta _j(t^{})>=2D_{ij}\delta (tt^{})`$. The average $`<\mathrm{}>`$ is carried out in the distribution function for the noise, not in terms of distribution function for the state variable. Unless explicitly specified, whenever it can be defined, the temperature in the present letter is always set to be 1: $`k_BT=1`$. This is equivalent to a rescale of energy. To ensure the independence of all components of the state variable near the stable point, we will require the determinant of the constant force matrix $`F`$ to be finite: $`det(F)0`$. We will call Eq.(2) the standard Langevin equation, or, the standard form of the stochastic differential equation.

Now, we assert that there exists a transformation, such that we can transform Eq.(2) into the following form:

$$(S+A)\dot{x}=u(x)+\xi (t),$$
(4)
with following properties: $`S`$ is a constant symmetric and semi-positive matrix, $`A`$ a constant antisymmetric matrix, and $`u(x)`$ a single valued scale function to be specified below. The stochastic force $`\xi ^\tau (t)=(\xi _1(t),\mathrm{},\xi _d(t))`$ is Gaussian and white and has the same origin as that of $`\zeta (t)`$ . We further require that the determinant of $`S+A`$ is finite, $`det(A+S)0`$, for the same reason of requiring $`det(F)0`$. We will call such a transformation from Eq.(2) to (4) the singular decomposition. Clearly, the symmetric matrix $`S`$ plays the role of friction, and the antisymmetric matrix $`A`$ the role of ‘magnetic’ field: ‘Energy’ dissipation is always non-negative, $`\dot{x}^\tau S\dot{x}0`$, and the transverse force, a ‘Lorentz’ force, does no work, $`\dot{x}^\tau A\dot{x}=0`$. The function $`u(x)`$ hence acquires the meaning of potential energy. While given Eq.(4) a unique Eq.(2) can be obtained, we point out that if the stochastic forces would be ignored, that is, $`\zeta (t)=\xi (t)=0`$, the singular decomposition would not be unique. There would exist a family of singular decompositions transforming Eq.(2) to (4). One would be easily able to verify this observation by multiplying an arbitrary finite constant to Eq.(4): a large friction and a large potential has the same deterministic dynamics of a small friction and a small potential. Thus for the same deterministic dynamics specified by Eq.(1) ( $`\zeta (t)=0`$ in Eq.(2) ), the underlying system properties such as the energy dissipation determined specified by Eq.(4) with $`\xi (t)=0`$ would be totally different. This observation strongly indicates that the stochastic force is an integral part of the system’s dynamics: the stochastic force introduces an intrinsic scale into the problem. Specifically, requiring the uniqueness of the singular decomposition, we impose the following condition which links the stochastic force to the dissipation matrix:

$$<\xi (t)\xi ^\tau (t^{})>=2S\delta (tt^{}).$$
(5)
Together with $`<\xi (t)>=0`$, Eq. (5) will be called the stochasticity-dissipation relation, and Eq.(4) will be called the normal Langevin equation, or, the normal form of the stochastic differential equation. The singular decomposition under this stochasticity-dissipation relation will be called the gauged singular decomposition.

By our construction, the same dynamics is described by either the standard Langevin equation, Eq.(2), or, the normal Langevin equation, Eq.(4). Eliminating $`\dot{x}`$ from those two equations leads to

$$(S+A)[Fx+\zeta (t)]=u(x)+\xi (t).$$
(6)
Because the stochastic forces come from the same source, and their dynamics is independent of that of the state variable, separately we have $`(S+A)Fx=Ux`$, where we have set $`u(x)=Ux`$, and $`(S+A)\zeta (t)=\xi (t)`$. Since $`x`$ can be an arbitrary state vector, we have

$$(S+A)F=U.$$
(7)
Using Eq.(5) and $`<(S+A)\zeta (t)\zeta ^\tau (t^{})(SA)>=<\xi (t)\xi ^\tau (t^{})>`$, we obtain the following generalized Einstein relation between the diffusion matrix $`D`$ and the friction matrix $`S`$:

$$(S+A)D(SA)=S.$$
(8)
Eq.(8) suggests a duality between the standard and the normal Langevin equations: large friction matrix implies small diffusion matrix, and vice versa.

We next prove the existence and uniqueness of the gauged singular decomposition by an explicit construction. Using the fact that the potential matrix $`U`$ is symmetric as required by $`\times u(x)=0`$, we have

$$(S+A)FF^\tau (SA)=0.$$
(9)
Defining an auxiliary matrix $`G(S+A)^1`$, the generalized Einstein relation, Eq.(8), and the above equation lead to the following two coupled inhomogeneous linear equations for $`G`$ and its transpose:

$$GF^\tau FG^\tau =0,$$
(10)
and

$$G+G^\tau =2D.$$
(11)
The symmetric part of the auxiliary matrix $`G`$ is readily available from Eq.(11). Equations similar to Eq.(11) have been discussed Before in the context of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process The antisymmetric part, $`Q(GG^\tau )/2`$, can be formally expressed as a series after a straightforward matrix manipulation:

$$Q=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n[F^nD(F^\tau )^nF^nD(F^\tau )^n].$$
(12)
Having obtained the auxiliary matrix $`G`$ in terms of the force matrix $`F`$ and the diffusion matrix $`D`$, $`G=D+Q`$, the gauged singular decomposition is uniquely determined:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}U\hfill & =\hfill & G^1F\hfill \\ S\hfill & =\hfill & [G^1+(G^\tau )^1]/2\hfill \\ A\hfill & =\hfill & [G^1(G^\tau )^1]/2\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
The potential energy is $`u(x)=x^\tau Ux/2`$. This completes our proof of the existence and uniqueness of the gauged singular decomposition.

With the energy function in the present problem as the potential energy $`u(x)`$, the stationary distribution function $`\rho _0(x)`$ for the state variable should be given by

$$\rho _0(x)=\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\{u(x)\},$$
(14)
with the partition function $`Z=d^dx\mathrm{exp}\{u(x)\}`$. The normal Langevin equation, Eg.(4), allows a particular easy identification of the energy function. Without the stochastic force, no energy can be uniquely defined from Eq.(1) or Eq.(2), and the singular decomposition is not unique, too. The available volume of phase space for the state variable would be shrank to zero, to a point defined by the stationary state.

From either the standard or the normal Langevin equations, it is straightforward to obtain the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation for the distribution function $`P(x,t)`$ of state variable:

$$_tP(x,t)+[(fD)P(x,t)]=0.$$
(15)
Here $`_t=/t`$. If the probability current density is defined as $`J(x,t)(fD)P(x,t)`$, the Fokker-Planck equation is a statement of the probability continuity: $`_tP(x,t)+J(x,t)=0`$. The stationary state corresponds to the condition

$$J_0(x)=0.$$
(16)
Particularly, the condition

$$J_0(x)=0$$
(17)
has been called the detailed balance condition. One can check that the stationary distribution $`P_0(x)`$ in Eq.(14) is indeed the time independent solution of the Fokker-Planck equation: The stationary probability current $`J_0(x)=GAG^TUxP_0(x)`$ and $`J_0(x)=0`$. Unless the transverse matrix $`A`$ is zero, the detailed balance condition does not hold. This suggests a natural description of a stationary cyclic motion by the normal Langevin equation.

One comment is in order: The uniqueness of the gauged singular decomposition is guaranteed by the conditions $`det(F)0`$ and $`det(S+A)0`$, which leads to the Gaussian distribution for the stationary distribution for state variable. Hence near thermal equilibrium the stochasticity-dissipation relation is equivalent to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Nevertheless, in the normal Langevin equation no assumption is made on the underlying thermal dynamics. The real difference is that by the stochasticity-dissipation relation the emphasis is on the stochastic force, therefore on dynamics, and by the usual fluctuation-dissipation theorem the emphasis is on the stationary state distribution, therefore on statics. In this sense one may regard the stochasticity-dissipation relation as a generalization of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.

To further illustrate the coherence and generality of the present method, we discuss three aspects of the normal Langevin equation and the gauged singular decomposition. We first look further into the detailed balance condition. In order to have the stationary probability current $`J_0(x)=0`$, the necessary and sufficient condition is the transverse matrix to be zero: $`A=0`$. This is equivalent, according to Eq.(13), $`G=G^\tau `$. It follows that both the matrix $`UF`$ and matrix $`SF`$ are symmetric. For a symmetric force matrix $`F`$, this further leads to the condition $`SF=FS`$, that is, $`S`$ and $`F`$ commute. This implies that, even for a symmetric force matrix $`F`$, not every choice of the friction matrix $`S`$, therefore the potential matrix $`U`$, can guarantee the detailed balance condition.

Second, we consider four examples from four different fields, where either the force matrix $`F`$ is explicit asymmetric or the transverse matrix $`A`$ is finite. They belong to two special but important classes where the direct connection between the deterministic force and the stochastic force can be established microscopically. The first example is well-known in physics: the charged particle moving in a magnetic field, the magneto-transport in solid state physics. The second example is the emergent vortex dynamics in superfluids and superconductors, whose microscopic derivation is very technical. When the damping is strong enough, the equation of motions are already in the form of normal Langevin equation. For both cases at two dimension, $`d=2`$, we can identify the friction and transverse matrices as:

$$S+A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta & b\\ b& \eta \end{array}\right)$$
(18)
In both cases the friction and stochastic force can be formulated as the results of the coupling between the system and a reservoir. The stochastic dynamics can be formulated within the Hamiltonian framework cherished in physics. Dynamical equations already in the form of standard Langevin equation are the Lotka-Volterra equation for species competition , and the toggle equation for the stability of gene switch, our third and fourth examples. In the corresponding force matrix $`F`$

$$F_{12}F_{21}.$$
(19)
The Lotka-Volterra and toggle equations describe processes belong to the generic predator-prey or growth-decay process, where the diffusion matrix $`D`$ can be obtained based on the knowledge of the deterministic equation when large number of birth and death events occur on the macroscopic time scale.

In most cases, however, both the intrinsic and the extrinsic noise coexist. They are equally important and can be determined experimentally. The stochasticity-dissipation relation treats them on the equal footing to determine the gauged singular decomposition. Quantitative and global predictions can be made based on the normal Langevin equation.

Finally, we consider the classical example of a damped harmonic particle in one dimension to illustrate the consistency of our method. The celebrated equation of motion for momentum $`p`$ and coordinate $`q`$ is

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\dot{q}& =& p/m\hfill \\ \dot{p}& =& \eta /mpkq+\zeta (t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Here $`<\zeta (t)>=0`$ and $`<\zeta (t)\zeta (t^{})>=2\eta \delta (tt^{})`$, $`m`$ is the mass of the particle, and $`k`$ the spring constant. The equilibrium distribution function is $`P_0(x)=1/Z\mathrm{exp}\{(p^2/2m+kq^2/2)\}`$, because the total energy can be readily identified as $`E=p^2/2m+kq^2/2`$, the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy. Let $`x_1=q,x_2=p`$, the force matrix $`F`$ and the diffusion matrix $`D`$ can be easily identified as

$$F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1/m\\ k& \eta /m\end{array}\right),D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \eta \end{array}\right).$$
(21)
By a straightforward calculation, the gauged singular decomposition consisting of the friction matrix $`S`$, the transverse matrix $`A`$ and the potential matrix $`U`$ is found as,

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}k& 0\\ 0& 1/m\end{array}\right),S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta & 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
which gives the same energy function, as it should.

In conclusion, we have explicitly constructed the normal Langevin equation from the standard Langevin equation via a gauged singular decomposition. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem is generalized to the stochasticity-dissipation relation to emphasize the dynamical nature of the stochastic force. We have obtained the potential energy which determines the stationary distribution even when the detailed balance condition does not hold. Finally, we point out that the normal Langevin equation enables the generalization in several directions. It is straightforward to generalize the approach to unstable fix points. Taking corresponding limits of the dimension of the phase space goes to infinite, t may be applied to the stochastic partial differential equations. We note that it is already in the form ready for the color noise case as demonstrated in the study of the dissipative dynamics; and if we view the present construction as a local approximation, the extension to the generic nonlinear situation is implied.

Discussions with Lee Hood, David Thouless, Lan Yin, and Xiaomei Zhu are highly appreciated. This work was supported in part by Institute for Systems Biology.


format: text

text:
# Resonance-continuum interference in the di-photon Higgs signal at the LHC

thanks: Research supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515.

## Abstract

A low mass Standard Model Higgs boson should be visible at the Large Hadron Collider through its production via gluon-gluon fusion and its decay to two photons. We compute the interference of this resonant process, $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$, with the continuum QCD background, $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ induced by quark loops. Helicity selection rules suppress the effect, which is dominantly due to the imaginary part of the two-loop $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ scattering amplitude. The interference is destructive, but only of order 5% in the Standard Model, which is still below the 10–20% present accuracy of the total cross section prediction. We comment on the potential size of such effects in other Higgs models.

Higgs boson search, perturbative QCD  preprint: hep-ph/0302233
preprint: SLAC–PUB–9654

The Higgs boson is the lone undetected elementary particle of the Standard Model (SM), and the only scalar Higgs . In the SM, it accounts for the masses of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons, quarks and charged leptons, and its properties are completely fixed by its mass. Its detection, and measurement of its properties, are among the prime goals of the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

There is a good chance that the Higgs boson will be quite light. Its mass in the SM is bounded from above by precision electroweak measurements, $`m_H\stackrel{<}{_{}}196`$$`230`$ GeV at 95% CL HiggsRadCorr . The lightest Higgs boson in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) must have a mass below about 135 GeV SusyHiggs . These upper limits are not far above the lower bounds established by direct searches in the process $`e^+e^{}HZ`$ at LEP2. The lower bound on the Higgs mass in the SM is 114.1 GeV; it drops to 91.0 GeV in the MSSM because the $`HZZ`$ coupling can be suppressed LEP2SMandMSSMLimit .

With sufficient integrated luminosity, Run II of the Tevatron may be able to discover a low mass Higgs; otherwise the task will fall to the LHC. For $`m_H<140`$ GeV, the most important mode at the LHC involves Higgs production via gluon fusion, $`ggH`$ ggHGeorgi , followed by the rare decay into two photons, $`H\gamma \gamma `$ HggVertex ; Higgsgammagamma . Although this mode has a very large continuum $`\gamma \gamma `$ background Higgsgammagamma ; DW , the narrow width of the Higgs boson, combined with the 1% mass resolution achievable in the LHC detectors, allows the background to be measured experimentally and subtracted from a putative signal peak ATLASCMSetc .

The branching ratio information provided by the $`\gamma \gamma `$ signal is limited by the accuracy of the cross section for inclusive Higgs production, $`\sigma _H\sigma (ppHX)`$, because only the product $`\sigma _H\times \mathrm{Br}(H\gamma \gamma )`$ is measured experimentally. The next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $`\sigma _H`$ (dominated by gluon fusion) are very large NLOHiggs . Recently $`\sigma _H`$ was computed at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) NNLOHiggs , in the heavy top quark limit — which is an excellent approximation to the exact NLO cross section NLOHiggs  for $`m_H<200`$ GeV. Threshold logarithms have also been resummed at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy CdFG . The residual theoretical uncertainties for $`\sigma _H`$, estimated by varying renormalization and factorization scales, are currently of order 10–20%. (The uncertainty in $`\mathrm{Br}(H\gamma \gamma )`$ is dominated by that in the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ partial width, and is smaller, of order 6% DSZ .) In comparison, the anticipated experimental uncertainty in $`\sigma _H\times \mathrm{Br}(H\gamma \gamma )`$ with 100 fb<sup>-1</sup> of integrated luminosity per LHC detector is about 10% for 115 GeV $`<m_H<145`$ GeV ZKNR .

It is critical to verify that no other physics alters the strength of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ signal at the 10% level. A potential worry, addressed in this letter, is the interference between the resonant Higgs amplitude $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$, and the continuum $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ scattering process induced by light quark loops. Higgs resonance-continuum interference has been studied previously in $`ggHt\overline{t}`$ at a hadron collider DSW , and in $`\gamma \gamma HW^+W^{}`$ and $`ZZ`$ at a photon collider MTZNZK . These studies assumed that the Higgs boson is heavy enough to have a GeV-scale width. In the case of a light ($`m_H<2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}(m_W,m_t)`$), narrow-width Higgs boson, the interference in $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$ was considered DW , but the dominant contribution in the SM was not identified. Resonance-continuum interference effects are usually tiny for a narrow resonance, and for $`m_H<150`$ GeV the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is less than 17 MeV. However, the $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$ resonance is also rather weak. As shown in fig. 1, it consists of a one-loop production amplitude followed by a one-loop decay amplitude. Thus a one-loop (or even two-loop) continuum amplitude can partially compete with it.

In the SM, the production amplitude $`ggH`$ is dominated by a top quark in the loop. The decay $`H\gamma \gamma `$ is dominated by the $`W`$ boson, with some $`t`$ quark contribution as well. For $`m_H<160`$ GeV, the Higgs is below the $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`WW`$ thresholds, so the resonant amplitude is mainly real, apart from the relativistic Breit-Wigner factor. The full $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude is a sum of resonance and continuum terms,

$$𝒜_{gg\gamma \gamma }=\frac{𝒜_{ggH}𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }}{\widehat{s}m_H^2+im_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}+𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}},$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the gluon-gluon invariant mass. The interference term in the partonic cross section is

$`\delta \widehat{\sigma }_{ggH\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`2(\widehat{s}m_H^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(𝒜_{ggH}𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{}\right)}{(\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+m_H^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2}}`$ (2)
$`2m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\left(𝒜_{ggH}𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{}\right)}{(\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+m_H^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2}}.`$
At the hadron level, the interference term is

$$\delta \sigma _{ppH\gamma \gamma }=\frac{d\widehat{s}}{\widehat{s}}\frac{dL_{gg}}{d\widehat{s}}\delta \widehat{\sigma }_{ggH\gamma \gamma },$$
(3)
where the gluon-gluon luminosity function is

$$\frac{dL_{gg}}{d\widehat{s}}=_0^1𝑑x_1𝑑x_2x_1g(x_1)x_2g(x_2)\delta (\widehat{s}/sx_1x_2).$$
(4)
The intrinsic Higgs width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is much narrower than the experimental resolution $`\delta m_H1`$ GeV, so the observable interference effect requires an integral across the entire linewidth. The integral of the first, “real” term in eq. (2) vanishes in the narrow-width approximation DW  and leads to a subdominant effect, to be discussed below.

The second, “imaginary”, term in eq. (2) has the same $`\widehat{s}`$ dependence as the resonance itself, so it survives integration over $`\widehat{s}`$ in the narrow-width limit (not counting the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ factor already explicit in eq. (2)). However, it requires a relative phase between the resonant and continuum amplitudes. As mentioned above, in the SM the resonant amplitude, apart from the Breit-Wigner factor, is predominantly real. The one-loop continuum $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude is mediated by light quarks in the loop. Thus one might expect $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ to have a large imaginary part, which is related by unitarity to the tree amplitude product $`𝒜_{ggq\overline{q}}\times 𝒜_{q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma }`$. For some gluon-photon helicity configurations this is true, but for the like-helicity cases $`g^\pm g^\pm `$ and $`\gamma ^\pm \gamma ^\pm `$ relevant for interference with a scalar Higgs resonance, the tree amplitudes vanish as $`m_q0`$ DW . At one loop, the imaginary part of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ comes mainly from the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quark loops (as indicated in fig. 1) and is suppressed by factors of order $`e_q^2m_q^2/m_H^2`$.

A much larger imaginary part of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ arises at the two-loop order, where there is no quark mass suppression GGGamGamtwoloop . In fact, the imaginary part of the two-loop $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude is divergent due to an exchange of a soft-collinear virtual gluon between the two incoming gluons, but this divergence cancels against a similar two-loop contribution to the production amplitude $`𝒜_{Hgg}`$. We write the fractional interference correction to the resonance, for polarized gluons and photons, as

$`\delta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{\sigma }}{\widehat{\sigma }}}=2m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(1)}}{𝒜_{ggH}^{(1)}𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(1)}}}\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(2)}}{𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{ggH}^{(2)}}{𝒜_{ggH}^{(1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}}{𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(1)}}}\right)\right],`$ (5)
where for $`\widehat{s}=m_H^2`$ ggHGeorgi ; HggVertex

$$𝒜_{ggH}^{(1)}=\sqrt{\frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}}\frac{\alpha _s(m_H)m_H^2}{3\pi }\underset{q=t,b,c}{}A_Q(4m_q^2/m_H^2),$$
(6)
$`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_H^2}{2\pi }}(3{\displaystyle \underset{q=t,b,c}{}}e_q^2A_Q^{}(4m_q^2/m_H^2)`$ (7)
$`+A_Q^{}(4m_\tau ^2/m_H^2)+A_W^{}(4m_W^2/m_H^2)),`$
with

$`A_Q(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A_Q^{}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}x(1+(1x)f(x)),`$ (8)
$`A_W^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+3(2x)f(x)\right),`$ (9)
$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{sin}^1(1/\sqrt{x}))^2,\hfill & x1\text{,}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1x}}{1\sqrt{1x}}\right)i\pi \right]^2,\hfill & x<1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
Up to constant prefactors, the one-loop continuum amplitude $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(1)}`$ for $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ is the same as for light-by-light scattering GGGamGamoneloop ; DW , and is included with full quark mass dependence. The two-loop amplitude $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(2)}`$ is evaluated in the $`m_q0`$ limit GGGamGamtwoloop , after cancelling the divergent terms in the ratio $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(2)}/𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(1)}`$ against those in $`𝒜_{ggH}^{(2)}/𝒜_{ggH}^{(1)}`$. The remaining two-loop QCD corrections from $`𝒜_{ggH}^{(2)}`$ and $`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}`$ are included SpiraReview , but are small because they do not induce new phases.

A simplified approximate formula can be given by neglecting the remaining $`𝒜_{ggH}^{(2)}`$ and $`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(2)}`$ terms, the small phase of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(1)}`$, and all but the (real) $`W`$ and $`t`$ loops in $`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒜_{ggH}^{(1)}`$. There are two CP-inequivalent helicity configurations, $`g^+g^+\gamma ^+\gamma ^+`$ and $`g^{}g^{}\gamma ^+\gamma ^+`$. However, the latter configuration continues to have vanishing imaginary part at two loops, for massless quarks. In terms of the functions $`F_{++}^\mathrm{L}`$ and $`F_{++}^{\mathrm{SL}}`$ used in ref. GGGamGamtwoloop  to describe the former configuration, the correction in the unpolarized case is

$`\delta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha \alpha _s^2(m_H)m_H\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\underset{q=u,c,d,s,b}{}e_q^2}{\pi \mathrm{Re}(𝒜_{ggH}^{(1)})\mathrm{Re}(𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }^{(1)})}}\times \left(3\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}F_{++}^\mathrm{L}(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Im}F_{++}^{\mathrm{SL}}(\theta )\right),`$ (11)
where $`\theta `$ is the $`gg\gamma \gamma `$ center of mass scattering angle.

Figure 2 shows the result of evaluating the unpolarized version of eq. (5). We let $`\alpha =1/137.036`$, $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.119`$, and use $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ quark masses evaluated at $`\mu =m_H`$, with $`m_t(m_t)=164.6`$ GeV, $`m_b(m_b)=4.24`$ GeV. Our program for Higgs boson decay widths is in good agreement with ref. HDECAY . The left panel of fig. 2 plots $`\delta `$ as a function of $`m_H`$, for $`\theta =45^{}`$. The solid curve is the full result, while four other dashed and dotted curves illustrate the result with one source of phase turned on at a time. The effect is dominated by the phase arising from the imaginary part of the two-loop continuum amplitude, for the helicity configuration $`g^+g^+\gamma ^+\gamma ^+`$, as given by eq. (11). Not surprisingly, it is smallest in the region the $`\gamma \gamma `$ signal is the strongest, $`100\mathrm{GeV}<m_H<140\mathrm{GeV}`$. As $`m_H`$ increases toward $`2m_W`$, the channel $`HWW^{}`$ opens up, so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ and hence $`\delta `$ rise rapidly. The large phase arising from $`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }`$ for $`m_H>2m_W`$ is visible in the plot; however, such a signal will not be visible at the LHC.

The right panel of fig. 2 gives the $`\theta `$ dependence of $`\delta `$, for $`m_H=140`$ GeV. The imaginary part of the continuum amplitude is forward peaked, so the effect rises there. But the incoherent $`q\overline{q}\gamma \gamma `$ background is also forward peaked, and so the experimental searches focus on central scattering angles. Indeed, at $`m_H=140`$ GeV, an event with $`\theta <34.9^{}`$ and no gluon radiation will produce photons with transverse momentum $`p_\mathrm{T}(\gamma _{1,2})<40`$ GeV, below the standard ATLAS and CMS $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ cuts ATLASCMSetc .

At the same order in $`\alpha _s`$ as the virtual corrections to $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$ represented by eq. (5), there are radiative corrections from the process $`ggH\gamma \gamma g`$ interfering with the one-loop $`gg\gamma \gamma g`$ continuum amplitude induced by light quarks. We evaluate the resonant amplitude in the heavy top approximation (see e.g. ref. ggHg ), neglecting its small absorptive part, and take the absorptive part of the continuum amplitude for five massless quarks gggamgamg . In the unpolarized cross section, only three CP conjugate pairs contribute, due to helicity selection rules. We convolute the interference term with standard gluon distributions, and integrate over the final-state gluon momentum numerically, with realistic rapidity and $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ cuts on the photons. The result is remarkably miniscule compared to the virtual correction, amounting to 0.01% or less of the signal.

Finally, we return to the “real” term in eq. (2). It contains the factor $`\widehat{s}m_H^2`$ which is odd about $`m_H`$. The resulting dip-peak structure vanishes under integration DW , provided that the nonresonant functions of $`\widehat{s}`$ vary slowly enough. We perform a first-order Taylor expansion of these functions about $`m_H`$, which introduces a linear dependence on the cutoff (mass resolution) into the integral. For a resolution of 1 GeV, the integral of the real term in eq. (2) is negligible, representing 0.1% or less of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ signal over the region where it is visible. The contribution rises to a few percent for $`m_H`$ very near $`2m_W`$, where $`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }`$ has a sharp energy dependence (which is likely to be smoothed out by finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ effects). At this large a Higgs mass, however, the $`H\gamma \gamma `$ signal is unobservable.

Nonstandard Higgs sectors or other particle content could in principle generate a larger interference effect. For example, the Higgs coupling to the $`b`$ quark and $`\tau `$ lepton can be greatly enhanced in two-Higgs doublet models, including the MSSM. This will increase the size of the phases of $`𝒜_{ggH}`$ and $`𝒜_{H\gamma \gamma }`$ in fig. 2. However, these phases are subdominant to the phase of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{cont}}^{(2)}`$ in the SM, so the largest effect on eq. (5) may come from an increase in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ due to the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ coupling. Yet if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ increases, the $`H\gamma \gamma `$ branching ratio typically decreases, making this mode more difficult to detect and measure accurately. A more quantitative study is in progress DSinProgress .

Could other Higgs production and decay processes have appreciable interference effects? At hadron or lepton colliders, the process $`ggH\gamma \gamma `$ is almost unique in proceeding only at two loops. The only other potential signal of this type is $`ggHZ\gamma `$. The same helicity selection rules prohibit a one-loop continuum phase, but allow a two-loop one, so we expect to find an effect of similar magnitude, once the two-loop $`ggZ\gamma `$ amplitude is computed. The photon collider process $`\gamma \gamma H\gamma \gamma `$ will be discussed elsewhere; the corrections are below 1% DSinProgress . Returning to the LHC, weak boson fusion followed by $`HWW^{}`$ proceeds at tree level. However, the $`Z`$ resonance can produce a significant phase in the one-loop continuum $`W^{}W^{}WW^{}`$ amplitude, so this case may deserve investigation as well.

In summary, we have computed the dominant continuum interference corrections to the di-photon signal for the Standard Model Higgs boson produced via gluon fusion. The effects are at the 2–6% level, depending on the Higgs mass and scattering angles. While still small compared to present theoretical and anticipated experimental errors, they are not totally negligible, and suggest that further study is warranted of similar effects in nonstandard models and for selected other channels.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Zvi Bern for suggesting this work. We also thank Stefano Catani, Howard Haber, Maria Krawczyk, Zoltan Kunszt, Stefano Moretti, Michael Peskin and Dieter Zeppenfeld for helpful discussions.


text:
# The Radio Jet Velocities at High Resolution

## 1 Introduction

Jets are the structures through which energy and matter can flow from the Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) to the extended radio lobes. There are now widely accepted lines of evidences for the existence of relativistic bulk velocities in the parsec scale jets of radio sources. This result implies that the observational data are affected by relativistic effects (Doppler boosting) and provides the basis of the current unified theories (see e.g. up95 ), which suggest that the appearance of an AGN strongly depends on the orientation. However, it is not well understood if the jet velocity is the same in all radio sources, if it is correlated to other source properties as the radio power, and if velocity structures are common.
In this review I will discuss the jet kinematic properties.

## 2 The Measurement of the Jet Velocity

### 2.1 Proper Motion

Many AGNs contain compact radio sources with different components which appear to move apart. Multi epoch studies of these sources allow a direct measure of the apparent jet pattern velocity ($`\beta _a`$). The observed distribution of the apparent velocity shows a large range of values vc94 ; k2000 . From the measure of $`\beta _a`$ we can derive constraints on $`\beta _p`$ and $`\theta `$ where $`\beta _p`$ is the intrinsic velocity of the pattern flow and $`\theta `$ is the jet orientation with respect to the line of sight:

$`\beta _p`$ = $`\beta _a/(\beta _acos\theta +sin\theta )`$

A main problem is to understand the difference between the bulk and pattern velocity. In few cases where proper motion is well defined and the bulk velocity is strongly constrained, there is a general agreement between the pattern velocity and the bulk velocity (see e.g. NGC 315, cot99 , and 1144+35, here). However, in the same source we can have different pattern velocities as well as stationary and high velocity moving structures. Moreover, we note that in many well studied sources the jet shows a smooth and uniform surface brightness and no (or very small) proper motion (as in the case of Mkn 501, Giroletti et al. in preparation, and M87 in the region at $``$ 1 pc from the core jun99 ).

### 2.2 Jet Sidedness

Assuming that the jets are intrinsically symmetric we can use the observed jet to counter-jet brightness ratio R to constrain the jet bulk velocity $`\beta `$c and its orientation with respect to the line of sight ($`\theta `$):

R = (1+$`\beta cos\theta )^{2+\alpha }`$ (1-$`\beta cos\theta )^{(2+\alpha )}`$

where $`\alpha `$ is the jet spectral index (S($`\nu `$) $``$ $`\nu ^\alpha `$). Some problems can be related to this measurement: free free absorption may affect the observed jet brightness, moreover, we cannot derive strong constraints in intrinsically low luminosity jets: e.g. in 3C264 where a well studied optical and radio jet is present lar99  the highest j/cj ratio is R $`>`$ 37 which implies that the source is oriented at $`\theta `$ $`<`$ 52 with a jet moving with $`\beta `$ $`>`$ 0.62.

### 2.3 Radio Core Dominance

The core radio emission measured at arcsecond resolution is dominated by the Doppler-boosted pc-scale relativistic jet. The source radio power measured at low frequency (e.g. 408 MHz), instead, is due to the extended emission, which is not affected by Doppler boosting. At low frequency the observed core radio emission is not relevant since it is mostly self-absorbed. Given the existence of a general correlation between the core and total radio power discussed in gg01 , we can derive the expected intrinsic core radio power from the unboosted total radio power. The comparison between the expected intrinsic core radio power and the observed core radio power will give constraints on the jet velocity and orientation gg01 . We note that the core radio power is best measured at 5 GHz where it is dominant because of the steep spectrum of the extended emission, self-absorption is not relevant, and high angular resolution images allow us to separate the core from the extended jet emission.
Plotting the observed core radio power at 5 GHz against the total radio power at 408 MHz gg88  we find a large dispersion in the core radio power. This is expected because of the strong dependance of the observed core radio power on $`\theta `$ and $`\beta `$. From the data dispersion, assuming that no selection effect is present in the source orientation ($`\theta `$ = 0 to 90), we can derive that the jet Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ has to be $`<`$ 10 otherwise we should observe a larger core radio power dispersion.
A problem related with this measurement is a possible nuclear intrinsic variability. However, we note that a flux density variability larger than a factor 2 in the nuclear radio emission is uncommon.

### 2.4 Other Methods

Synchrotron-Self-Compton Emission: in principle when the core angular size is known, the comparison between the observed and predicted nuclear non thermal X-ray emission gives a limit to the source Doppler factor $`\delta `$ ghis93 . A problem in this approach is the too large uncertainty in the observed nuclear X-Ray emission and in the core angular size.

Arm Length Ratio: by comparison of the size of the approaching (La) and receding jet (Lr) we derive:

La/Lr = (1 + $`\beta `$ cos$`\theta `$)(1 - $`\beta `$ cos$`\theta `$)-1

A major problem is that the source size is related to the uv coverage and image sensitivity, moreover, the jet interaction with the ISM can affect the source size.

Brightness Temperature: estimates of the Tb from source variability or high resolution images (e.g. Space VLBI) can give constraints on the source Doppler factor (up to 1000 for Intra Day Variable (IDV) sources). I will not discuss this point, since IDV is still a hot and controversial topic (see cim02 ).
Readhead read94  suggested an alternative method:

$`\delta `$ = T$`{}_{b,VLBI}{}^{}/T_{eq}`$

where the brightness temperature under equipartition conditions is Teq $``$ 5 1010 K.

## 3 Results

In the literature many single sources and/or samples have been studied. In most cases observational data are in agreement with Unified Scheme Models and with the presence of a high velocity pc scale jet.
To derive statistical properties of radio jets on the pc scale, we extended the results discussed in gg01  selecting all sources of the 3CR and B2 catalogues in a sky region, with z $`<`$ 0.1 (to avoid selection effects on the source orientation and core radio power).
The sample consists of 95 sources, 53 of which have been observed with VLBI. Among them we have 32 FR I, 10 FR II, 10 compact flat spectrum sources (2 BL-Lacs, 1 CSO), and 1 CSS. From these preliminary results (Giovannini et al., in preparation), we found that in all sources pc scale jets move at high velocity. No correlation has been found between the jet velocity and the core or total radio power. Highly relativistic parsec scale jets are present regardless of the radio source power. Sources with a different kpc scale morphology, and total radio power have pc scale jets moving at similar velocities.
We used the estimated jet $`\beta `$ and $`\theta `$ to derive the Doppler factor $`\delta `$ for each source, and the corresponding intrinsic core radio power (assuming $`\alpha `$ = 0):

Pc-observed = Pc-intrinsic $`\times `$ $`\delta ^2`$

We found a good correlation between Pc-intrinsic and Pt with a small dispersion since plotting Pc-intrinsic, we removed the spread due to the different orientation angles (Fig. 1). We found that a Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ in the range 3 to 10 is consistent with the observational data. The Lorentz factor cannot be $`>`$ 10 for the previous considerations (Sect. 2.3). It cannot be $`<`$ 3 to remove the dispersion due to the different source orientations. The result that sources with different Pt and kpc scale morphology show the same correlation, implies that all pc scale jets have a similar velocity. Two sources do not follow the general correlation: M87 where we should have a higher jet velocity to fit with the general correlation and 3C 192 which core radio power is lower than expected (it could be in a pre-relic phase).

## 4 Acceleration and Deceleration in Jets

In some sources evidences of increasing velocity in pc scale jets have been found: e.g. M87 bir95 ; 3C84 dha98 ; Cygnus A kr98 . However, in these sources the jet velocity was measured from the jet apparent motion. Thus the increasing velocity could be non intrinsic but due to a change in the jet direction or to a change in the jet pattern velocity unrelated to the jet bulk velocity. In NGC 315 Cotton et al. cot99  found an increasing jet velocity in the 5 inner pc from the core both from proper motion measurements AND from the sidedness ratio.
A jet deceleration is evident in the FR I radio sources (see Laing this volume). In many low power sources there are observational evidences that jets are relativistics at their beginning and strongly decelerate within a few kpc from the core (see e.g. 3C449 fer99 ).
In FR II radio sources kpc scale jets are still affected by Doppler boosting effects, but the jet sidedness ratio decreases with the core distance implying a velocity decrease. Observational data are consistent with $`\gamma `$ $``$ 2 on the kpc scale br94 .

## 5 Velocity Structures

An evident limb-brightened jet morphology on the pc scale is present in some FR I sources as 1144+35, Mkn 501, 3C264, M87, 0331+39 gg01 , and also in a few high power radio sources as 1055+018 att99 , 3C 236 (Giovannini et al. in preparation). We interpret the limb-brightened structure as due to a different Doppler boosting effect in a two-velocity relativistic jet. If the source is oriented at a relatively large angle with respect to the line of sight, the inner very high velocity spine could be strongly deboosted, while the slower external layer could be boosted and become brighter than the inner jet region. Therefore only sources in a small range of $`\theta `$ will appear limb-brightened. For this reason, and for the observational difficulties of transversally resolving the radio jets, we expect that the number of sources exhibiting limb-brightened jets is low, as observed.

At present it is not clear if the velocity structure is strictly related to the jet interaction with the ISM as suggested by gg01  or it is an intrinsic jet property. The presence of this structure very near to the central core as in M87 jun99  and MKn 501 (Giroletti et al. in preparation) is in favour of a jet intrinsic property in the inner region (as discussed by Meier in this volume), whereas a jet velocity decrease due to the ISM is likely to be present in an intermediate region (from the pc to the kpc scale) gg01 .

## 6 The Source 1144+35

1144+35 is a giant radio galaxy which shows a strong extended jet and a short counter-jet on the pc scale gg99 . The main jet is limb-brightened with evident substructures in the external shear layer which are moving with $`\beta _a`$ $``$ 2.7 (Fig. 2). New recent observations at 8.4 GHz have allowed to measure a possible proper motion also in the cj: $`\beta _{acj}`$ = 0.3 $`\pm `$ 0.1 in the time range 1995 - 2002 with 4 different epochs (Giovannini et al. in preparation). The jet bulk velocity is in the range 0.8c - 0.9c, as derived from the jet sidedness ratio, for the bright jet external regions. The pattern velocity, derived from the main jet proper motion in the same regions, is $`>`$ 0.8c. In both cases the derived jet orientation angle to the line of sight is $`\theta `$ $`<`$ 37. Moreover, according to mir94  using both the jet and counter jet proper motions we can obtain directly $`\theta `$ = 30 and $`\beta `$ = 0.9. From these data we can obtain a comprehensive scenario, as follows: 1) the bulk and pattern velocity are the same; 2) the shear layer Doppler factor is $``$ 2 (being $`\gamma `$ $``$ 2.3) while assuming $`\gamma `$ = 15 for the inner spine, its Doppler factor is 0.7 in agreement with the observed brightness distribution; 3) if the external shear layer started with the same velocity of the inner spine, its velocity decreased from 0.998c to 0.9c in less than 100 pc suggesting an intrinsic origin for the jet velocity structure (Meier this volume).

## 7 Conclusions

The jet velocity and orientation can be estimated with good observational data. In a few sources the bulk and pattern jet velocity are the same, but the problem is still open.
The pc scale jet velocity is highly relativistic ($`\gamma `$ = 3 to 10) in both high and low power radio sources, with no relation with the total radio power and the large scale morphology.
The jet velocity from the pc to the kpc scale decreases dramaticaly in FR I radio sources and more slowly in FR II sources. In a few cases a jet acceleration has been found in the source inner regions (few pc).
A two velocity regime has been found in some low power sources and in a few high power sources. The different Doppler factor can explain the observed limb-brightened structures visible in some high resolution images. The presence of a shear layer could be an intrinsic property; a velocity decrease in the shear layer could be due to the interaction with the surrounding ISM in the tens of pc – kpc scale.


text:
# Canonical and Grand Canonical Ensemble Expectation Values from Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations

## I Introduction

The properties of strongly correlated electron systems near the Mott insulating phase depend sensitively on the doping.REVIEW  Most simulations of these systems have been carried out within the grand canonical ensemble, where a convenient formalism exists for the evaluations of finite temperature Green’s functions and other physical quantities that can be expressed in terms of them.DET  In this framework, to explore the doping dependence, it is necessary to carry out simulations at various discrete values of the chemical potential $`\{\mu _\alpha \}`$, and interpolate between them. In this paper we describe a method for optimally combining data from these simulations to obtain results for a continuous range of $`\mu `$. We first evaluate canonical ensemble expectation values and partition functions (up to an overall constant) from simulations performed in the grand canonical ensemble. Using the approach of Ferrenberg and Swendsen FS  to combine results from simulations performed with different value of the chemical potential, we obtain canonical ensemble quantities for a wide range of fillings from a modest number of simulations. From these we are able to construct grand canonical expectation values, enabling us to study a variety of physical quantities as a continuous function of the chemical potential.

In Section II we present our methodology, and in Section III we illustrate it with results for the two-dimensional Hubbard model.

## II Methodology

We begin by briefly summarizing the approach to the simulation of strongly correlated many-electron systems in the grand canonical ensemble set out in Ref. DET, . The expectation value of a physical observable $`O`$ is

$$O(\mu )=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left[Oe^{\beta (H\mu N)}\right]}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\beta (H\mu N)}\right]},$$
(1)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian, $`\beta `$ the inverse temperature, $`\mu `$ the chemical potential and $`N`$ the number operator for the electrons. In order to perform a numerical simulation, one must first evaluate the traces over the electron degrees of freedom. This is possible if the Hamiltonian is quadratic in the electron creation and annihilation operators, or can be made so through a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. To this end we introduce a small imaginary-time step, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$, by writing $`\beta =\mathrm{\Delta }\tau L`$. The partition function can then be written in the form

$$Z(\mu )=\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\beta (H\mu N)}\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (H\mu N)}\right]^L.$$
(2)
For each time-slice $`\mathrm{}=1\mathrm{}L`$, we introduce a set of Hubbard-Stratonovich variables $`x(\mathrm{})`$ such that

$$e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau H}=\underset{x(\mathrm{})}{}\omega \left(x(\mathrm{})\right)e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{i,j,\sigma }c_{i\sigma }^{}h_{i,j}^\sigma \left(x(\mathrm{})\right)c_{j\sigma }}.$$
(3)
Here $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and $`c_{i\sigma }`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for electrons at lattice site $`i`$ with $`z`$-component of spin $`\sigma `$; $`h_{i,j}^\sigma \left(x(\mathrm{})\right)`$ is a single particle Hamiltonian for an electron propagating through the external field, $`x(\mathrm{})`$; and $`\omega \left(x(\mathrm{})\right)`$ is a positive definite weight function. $`_{x(\mathrm{})}`$ indicates an integral over continuous Hubbard-Stratonovich variables or a sum over discrete ones. Typically, $`x(\mathrm{})`$ has a component for each spatial lattice site or link.

The traces in Eq. (1) can now be performed, yielding an expression of the general form

$$O(\mu )=\frac{_x\rho (x,\mu )O(x,\mu )}{_x^{}\rho (x^{},\mu )}.$$
(4)
Here $`x`$ stands for the totality of Hubbard-Stratonovich variables on all time slices,

$$\rho (x,\mu )=D_{}(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{L}{}}\omega \left(x(\mathrm{})\right)$$
(5)
and the determinants for spin up and down electrons are given by

$$D_\sigma (x,\mu )=\mathrm{Det}\left[I+e^{\beta \mu }A_\sigma (x)\right],$$
(6)
where $`I`$ is the unit matrix and

$$A_\sigma (x)=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h^\sigma (x(L))}\mathrm{}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau h^\sigma (x(1))}.$$
(7)
The quantity $`O(x,\mu )`$ in Eq. (4) can generally be expressed in terms of finite temperature Green’s functions for a single electron propagating in the background field provided by the Hubbard-Stratonovich variables, $`x`$. For example,

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left[c_{i\sigma }c_{j\sigma ^{}}^{}e^{\beta (H\mu N)}\right]=`$ $`D_{}(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}`$ (8)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{I+e^{\beta \mu }A_\sigma (x)}}\right)_{i,j}.`$
For models with particle-hole symmetry, such as the Hubbard model at half-filling, the product of the electron determinants is positive, and one can use importance sampling techniques to generate a sequence of Hubbard-Stratonovich configurations with the probability distribution

$$P(x,\mu )=\frac{\rho (x,\mu )}{_x^{}\rho (x^{},\mu )}.$$
(9)
The average value of $`O(x,\mu )`$ in these configurations is then an estimator for $`O(\mu )`$. Details of an algorithm for efficiently generating configurations are given in Ref. DET, .

For systems which do not have particle-hole symmetry, such as the Hubbard model away from half-filling, the product of electron determinants will in general not be positive definite. In such cases, one can generate Hubbard-Stratonovich fields using the probability distribution

$$P_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )=\frac{|\rho (x,\mu )|}{_x^{}|\rho (x^{},\mu )|}.$$
(10)
It is then necessary to move the sign of $`\rho (x,\mu )`$,

$$S(x,\mu )=\frac{\rho (x,\mu )}{|\rho (x,\mu )|}=\pm 1$$
(11)
into the measurements yielding

$`O(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}P(x,\mu )O(x,\mu )`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_xP_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )O(x,\mu )S(x,\mu )}{_x^{}P_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )S(x,\mu )}}.`$
The expectation value of the sign can be written

$`S(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}P_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )S(x,\mu )`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_x\rho (x,\mu )}{_x^{}|\rho (x^{},\mu )|}}={\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu )}{Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )}}.`$
Here $`Z(\mu )`$ is the partition function of the physical system, and $`Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )`$ that of a fictitious one in which the sign of the product of determinants, $`S(x,\mu )`$, is ignored.

To obtain information about the canonical ensemble from grand canonical simulations, we note that so long as the electron number operator commutes with the Hamiltonian, and the Hubbard-Stratonovich variables are chosen so that Eq. (3) holds, then the product of electron determinants has an expansion in the fugacity of the form

$$D_{}(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )=\underset{N}{}Z_N(x)e^{\beta \mu N}.$$
(14)
Once we have gone to the computational expense of perform an LDU decomposition of $`A_\sigma (x)`$, Eq. (7), which we must do each time we make a measurement,DET  it is straightforward to evaluate the left-hand side of Eq. (14) for a number of different values of $`\mu `$. Eq. (14) then yields a set of linear equations that can be solved for the $`Z_N(x)`$. At moderate to low temperatures, only a limited subset of the $`Z_N(x)`$ will make a significant contribution to the product of determinants, so the system of equations to be solved is considerably smaller than the number of spatial lattice points. Since the canonical partition function for the sector with electron number $`N`$ is given by

$$\underset{x}{}\frac{P_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )Z_N(x)}{|D_{}(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )|}=\frac{Z_N}{Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )}\stackrel{~}{Z}_N(\mu ),$$
(15)
where

$$Z_N=\underset{x}{}Z_N(x)\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{L}{}}\omega \left(x(\mathrm{})\right),$$
(16)
we can evaluate $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_N`$ using an ensemble of Hubbard-Stratonovich fields generated with the probability distribution $`P_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )`$.

If the operator $`O`$ is defined on a single imaginary-time slice, or if it does not change the electron number from time slice to time slice, then we can also write

$$O(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )=\underset{N}{}O_N(x)e^{\beta \mu N},$$
(17)
and we can obtain a set of linear equations for the $`O_N(x)`$ by evaluating the left-hand side of Eq. (17) for different values of $`\mu `$. In this case

$$\underset{x}{}\frac{P_{\left|\right|}(x,\mu )O_N(x)}{|D_{}(x,\mu )D_{}(x,\mu )|}=\frac{O_N}{Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )}\stackrel{~}{O}_N(\mu ).$$
(18)
Finally, the expectation value of the operator $`O`$ in the canonical ensemble sector with electron number $`N`$ is

$$O_N=\frac{\stackrel{~}{O}_N}{\stackrel{~}{Z}_N}=\frac{O_N}{Z_N}.$$
(19)
Also, once the $`Z_N`$ and $`O_N`$ are in hand,

$$O=\frac{_NO_Ne^{\beta \mu N}}{_NZ_Ne^{\beta \mu N}}$$
(20)
gives the grand canonical expectation values as continuous functions of $`\mu `$.

From simulations at a single value of $`\mu `$ one only expects to be able to make accurate determinations of the $`Z_N`$ and $`O_N`$ for $`N`$ in the vicinity of $`N`$. We must therefore perform a set of simulations with chemical potentials $`\mu _\alpha `$, sufficiently spaced to cover the range of $`N`$ relevant to the problem of interest. As indicated in Eqs. (15) and (18), the outputs of our simulations are $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_N(\mu _\alpha )=Z_N/Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O}_N(\mu _\alpha )=O_N/Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )`$, rather than $`Z_N`$ and $`O_N`$. We can combine results from simulations with different values of the chemical potential by writing

$`Z_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}c_\alpha \stackrel{~}{Z}_N(\mu _\alpha )Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )`$ (21)
$`O_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}d_\alpha \stackrel{~}{O}_N(\mu _\alpha )Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha ),`$ (22)
with

$$\underset{\alpha }{}c_\alpha =\underset{\alpha }{}d_\alpha =1.$$
(23)
Following Ferrenberg and Swendsen, we choose the $`c_\alpha `$ and $`d_\alpha `$ to minimize the variance of $`Z_N`$ and $`O_N`$ subject to the constraints of Eq. (23). A short calculation yields

$$c_\alpha =\frac{1/[Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )\sigma _N^2(\mu _\alpha )]}{_\gamma \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/[Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\gamma )\sigma _N^2(\mu _\gamma )]},$$
(24)
where $`\sigma _N^2(\mu _\alpha )`$ is the variance of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_N(\mu _\alpha )`$, which we determine from the simulation. Of course, a corresponding result holds for the $`d_\alpha `$ with $`\sigma _N^2(\mu _\alpha )`$ replaced by the variance of the $`\stackrel{~}{O}_N(\mu _\alpha )`$.

The constants $`Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )`$ can be determined up to an overall normalization by iteratively solving the equation

$$Z(\mu _\alpha )=Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )S(\mu _\alpha )=\underset{N}{}Z_Ne^{\beta \mu _\alpha N}$$
(25)
with the $`Z_N`$ given by Eqs. (22) and (24). The $`S(\mu _\alpha )`$ are measured directly in the simulations.

It is also possible to obtain $`Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )`$, and therefore $`S(\mu )`$, as a continuous function of $`\mu `$. We simply note that

$$Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )=\underset{N}{}Z_{N}^{}{}_{\left|\right|}{}^{}(\mu )e^{\beta \mu N},$$
(26)
where

$$Z_{N}^{}{}_{\left|\right|}{}^{}(\mu )=\underset{x}{}Z_N(x)S(x,\mu )\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{L}{}}\omega \left(x(\mathrm{})\right).$$
(27)
Note that once the $`Z_N(x)`$ are known for any configuration, we can determine $`S(x,\mu )`$ for any value of $`\mu `$ from the right-hand side of Eq. (14). A simulation performed at the chemical potential, $`\mu _\alpha `$, will, of course, only determine the ratio $`Z_{N}^{}{}_{\left|\right|}{}^{}(\mu )/Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )`$. However, we can combine results from simulations performed at different values of the chemical potential just as for the $`Z_N`$.

## III Numerical Results

We illustrate the methodology outlined in the last section with results for the two-dimensional Hubbard model. The Hamiltonian is

$$H=t\underset{<ij>,\sigma }{}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }+U\underset{i}{}(n_i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}})(n_i{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}).$$
(28)
Here $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ and $`c_{i\sigma }`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for electrons with $`z`$-component of spin $`\sigma `$ at lattice site $`i`$, and $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. The sum $`<ij>`$ is over all pairs of nearest neighbor lattice sites. $`t`$ is the hopping parameter, and $`U`$ the Coulomb coupling constant.

The Coulomb term is reduced to quadratic form in the electron creation and annihilation operators using Hirsch’s discrete Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation HIRSCH

$$\begin{array}{c}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau U(n_i\frac{1}{2})(n_i\frac{1}{2})}=\hfill \\ \hfill {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau U/4}\underset{x_i(\mathrm{})=\pm 1}{}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau x_i(\mathrm{})\lambda (n_in_i)}.\end{array}$$
(29)
For $`\mu =0`$, which corresponds to half-filling, particle-hole symmetry implies that $`D_{}(x,0)D_{}(x,0)`$ is always positive,HIRSCH  so $`S(x,0)=1`$, and there is no sign problem. It is therefore convenient to adopt the normalization $`Z_{\left|\right|}(0)=Z(0)=1`$ in solving Eq. (25) for $`Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu _\alpha )`$. Thus, we are in fact able to use Eqs. (25) and (26) to determine $`Z(\mu )/Z(0)`$ and $`Z_{\left|\right|}(\mu )/Z_{\left|\right|}(0)`$ respectively.

All of the results we present here are on a $`4\times 4`$ lattice with $`t=1`$ and $`U=4`$. The number of time slices, $`L`$, is chosen so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =1/8`$. Except where otherwise noted, simulations were performed at $`\mu =1.025`$ and $`\mu =0.6`$ for each temperature. At $`\beta =8`$ we performed additional runs at both $`\mu =0.9625`$ and $`\mu =0.9`$, while at other temperatures either $`\mu =0.9625`$ or $`\mu =0.90`$ was used. For runs at $`\mu =0.6`$, 100,000 Monte Carlo sweeps with 10,000 warmup sweeps were performed. For all other runs, 400,000 Monte Carlo sweeps with 10,000 warmup sweeps were performed. For all simulations, non-local moves, as suggested in Ref. Scalettar:erg, , were used to assure ergodicity. To invert Eqs. (14) and (17), the right-hand sides are measured at the set of chemical potentials,

$$\mu (i)=\mu _\alpha +i\delta \mu ,$$
(30)
where $`\mu _\alpha `$ is the chemical potential used in the simulation, $`i=7\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}7`$ and $`\delta \mu =0.02`$. After inversion and averaging over configurations, particle sectors where $`Z_Ne^{\beta \mu _\alpha N}/Z(\mu _\alpha )<10^4`$ are dropped to prevent the spread of roundoff error from the inversion. The jackknife method was used for error analysis. It should be noted that, after analysis, results at different values of $`\mu `$ are not statistically independent.

In Fig. 1 we plot the free energy difference,

$$F(\mu )F(0)=\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\{Z(\mu )/Z(0)\},$$
(31)
as a function of $`\mu `$, for two values of $`\beta `$. In Fig. 2 we plot the density defined by $`n(\mu )=N/V`$. Here $`V`$ is the number of spatial lattice points and $`N`$ is calculated using the standard thermodynamic identity,

$$N=\frac{F}{\mu }=\frac{_NNZ_Ne^{\beta \mu N}}{_NZ_Ne^{\beta \mu N}}.$$
(32)
As the temperature is lowered, the transition between the half-filled state ($`n=1.0`$) and the 6-hole state ($`n=0.625`$) becomes sharper. In particular, at zero-temperature the density decreases in a series of jumps, due to the discreteness of the finite-size spectrum.

Within our framework it is also straightforward to compute the compressibility of the system, $`\kappa =n/\mu `$, by differentiation of Eq. (32). Note that the differentiation can be performed analytically. Figure 3 shows the compressibility as a function of $`\mu `$ for different values of $`\beta `$. As the temperature is lowered, the compressibility develops a peak around $`\mu =1.0`$ that is likely to be the signature of the low-temperature divergence expected from the metal-insulator transition.IMADA

As previously mentioned, within our numerical scheme it is possible to calculate observables that are not diagonal in the particle number. Figure 4(a) shows the antiferromagnetic structure factor. This is given by

$$S^{zz}(\pi ,\pi )=\frac{1}{V}\underset{ij}{}(1)^{i+j}S_i^zS_j^z,$$
(33)
where $`S_i^z=\frac{1}{2}c_{i\alpha }^{}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^zc_{i\beta }`$ is the standard spin operator. The plot of this quantity vs. $`\mu `$ clearly indicates that the antiferromagnetic correlations present at half-filling are sharply suppressed upon doping. A similar plot of the equal-time $`d`$-wave pair field correlation function is shown in Fig. 4(b). Here the $`d`$-wave pair field correlation function is given by

$$\rho _d=\frac{1}{V}\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{}$$
(34)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}=\frac{1}{2}_\delta (1)^\delta c_i^{}c_{i+\delta }^{}`$ creates two electrons in a $`d`$-state. Here, $`\delta `$ sums over the four near-neighbor sites of $`l`$ and $`(1)^\delta `$ gives the sign alternation characteristic of a $`d`$-wave pairing amplitude. The enhancement of $`\rho _d`$ toward $`\mu =0.0`$ is a finite-size effect due to a strong antiferromagnetic response in the nearest-neighbor terms in Eq. (34).

Finally, we show the expectation value of the sign in Fig. 5. Here the sign is calculated as a continuous function of $`\mu `$ using Eqs. (26) and (27). Note that the sign is small in the $`\mu =1.0`$ region where the density is changing rapidly and electron correlations are believed to be important. The statistical fluctuations of the other observables grow as the sign decreases.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper we have presented a new method for extracting canonical ensemble results from grand canonical ensemble quantum Monte Carlo simulations. As canonical information is only extracted from sectors whose particle number is close to the average number of particles in the simulation, simulations must be performed at several different chemical potentials to obtain results for a range of particle number sectors. These separate simulations can then be combined to obtain a complete picture of the different canonical ensembles with lower statistical fluctuations than any of the simulations taken individually. Once the canonical results are obtained, they can be combined to give grand canonical results as a continuous function of the chemical potential.

In this work we have presented results for the two-dimensional Hubbard model on a $`4\times 4`$ lattice with Coloumb interactions of moderate strength, but the method is applicable to any quantum mechanical problem, simulated in the grand canonical ensemble, for which particle number is conserved.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank R.T. Scalettar and A. Sandvik for insightful discussions and Federico Becca for help with the Lanczos calculations. This work was supported by the Department of Energy under Grant #DOE85-45197.


text:
# An Introduction to Quantum Teleportation

## I Introduction

Teleportation is commonly understood as a fictional method for disembodied transport: An object or person is disintegrated at one place and it is perfectly reconstructed somewhere else. Thus, teleportation can be compared to transmission of a three-dimensional object using a kind of super fax machine which, however, destroys the original object on scanning. In a sense, the dokodemo-door (literally: door-to-anywhere) from the Japanese Manga story “Dora-e-mon” can be considered as a teleporting device (teleporter). In the movie “Star Trek”, teleportation serves as a standard transportation mean almost as common as elevators. A Hollywood vision of possible dangers of non-perfect teleportation has been created in the famous sci-fi movies “The Fly” (1958,1986) and their sequels. Obviously, all these examples sound completely unrealistic.

Until recently, physicists had ruled out teleportation because of the implication of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle formulated as the No Cloning Theorem, which prohibits making an exact copy of an unknown quantum state. Yet, in 1993, an international team of six scientists including Charles Bennett Ben93  demonstrated that it is possible to transmit an unknown quantum state from one place to another without propagation of the associated physical object through the intervening space by way of a process called the quantum teleportation (QT). The success of the first experimental teleportation realized by Anton Zeilinger’s group of the University of Insbruck in 1997 Bou97  was the cover story of many journals, including “Scientific American” Zei00 , and even newspapers all around the world. These spectacular scientific achievements have caused much rumour.

Obviously, the underlying principles of the quantum teleportation are fundamentally different from those of the dokodemo-door or the “Star Trek” teleporters of beaming people around. The phenomenon that makes quantum teleportation possible is the quantum entanglement also referred to as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Ein35 . Entanglement is a special interrelationship between objects, in which measuring one object instantly influences the other, even if the two are completely isolated and separated from one another. For example, if two photons come into contact with each other, they can become entangled: The polarization of each photon is in a fuzzy, undetermined state, yet the two photons have a precisely defined interrelationship. If one photon is later measured by linear polarizer to have, say, a vertical polarization, then the other photon must collapse into the complementary state of horizontal polarization. But if the entangled photon was measured by circular polarizer, instead of the linear one, to have, say, a right-circular polarization then the other photon had to collapse into the complementary state of the left-circular polarization. Thus, if one of the entangled photons is measured in any basis to have a definite polarization, then the state of the other must be exactly complementary to this polarization. It is so bizarre that even Albert Einstein, who predicted this effect, considered it not to be real and called it spooky Ein35 . An entangled state of a system consisting of two subsystems cannot be described as a product of the quantum states of these subsystems. In this sense, the entangled system is considered inseparable and nonlocal. Entanglement is usually manifested in systems consisting of a small number of microscopic particles but, recently, it has also been experimentally observed in macroscopic systems of $`10^{12}`$ atoms Jul01 , which sounds promising for further research in teleportation of states of mesoscopic or even macroscopic objects. Entanglement is one of the most profound features of quantum mechanics having fundamental importance not only for quantum teleportation but also for quantum computing and quantum cryptography.

## II Principles of quantum teleportation

Here, we present the quantum teleportation protocol devised by Bennett et al. Ben93  in 1993. This protocol is limited to teleportation of states of a two-level quantum system, referred to as the quantum bit or qubit. Nevertheless, generalization for teleportation of states of multi-level or infinitely-level systems is conceptually simple.

Qubit states to be teleported can be chosen as, for example, the polarization states of single photon ($`|`$ and $`|`$, or $`|+`$ and $`|`$), the photon-number states of a cavity ($`|0`$ and $`|1`$), the spin states of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle (like electron) ($`|`$ and $`|`$), ground and excited states of an atom or ion ($`|g`$ and $`|e`$), or others. But it should be stressed that all these realizations of qubits are mathematically equivalent. Thus, to describe the principles of QT in this section, we use the standard information notation of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ for qubit states.

The heart of teleportation are entangled qubits and the measurement of their joint state performed in the basis of four maximally entangled states, which are referred to as the Bell states or the EPR states:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ $`=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1|1|0)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ $`=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1+|1|0)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_C`$ $`=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|0|1|1)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_D`$ $`=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|0+|1|1)`$ (1)
Quantum teleportation is a scheme by which the state of a qubit can be transmitted from one place to another by classical communication, provided that the sender (say Alice) and the receiver (say Bob) have previously shared halves of two-qubit entangled state. In detail, this is how it works: Assume that Alice has a qubit 1 in the state $`|in_1=a|0_1+b|1_1`$ with unknown amplitudes $`a`$ and $`b`$ normalized to unity, $`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$. In addition, Alice has qubit 2 initially entangled to Bob’s qubit 3 being in one of the Bell states, e.g., $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_A_{23}`$, where subscripts 2 and 3 refer to relevant qubits. The goal of teleportation is to transmit the state of Alice’s qubit 1 to Bob’s qubit 3. The total initial state, given by $`|in_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_A_{23}`$, can be rewritten in the Bell basis as

$`\frac{1}{2}[|\mathrm{\Phi }_A_{12}(a|0_3+b|1_3)+|\mathrm{\Phi }_B_{12}(a|0_3b|1_3)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_C_{12}(a|1_3+b|0_3)+|\mathrm{\Phi }_D_{12}(a|1_3b|0_3)]`$ (2)
simply by regrouping terms and omitting unimportant global phase factor ($`e^{i\pi }=1`$). Alice measures the joint state of qubits 1 and 2 in the Bell basis obtaining one of four possible results {A,B,C,D}$``${00,01,10,11} (in classical bit notation). The box BSM in figure 1 represents this Bell state measurement. No matter what the two-qubit input state is, Alice’s measurement gives a uniformly distributed random two-bit classical result. However, this measurement clarifies the difference between Alice’s initial qubit state and Bob’s qubit: (A) If the measured qubits 1 and 2 are found to be in state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_A_{12}`$, then Alice’s classical output is $`00`$ and Bob’s state is $`|out_3=a|0_3+b|1_3`$, which is exactly the initial Alice’s state $`|in_1`$ without need to apply any additional transformation ($`U_A=I`$); (B) If qubits 1 and 2 are found to be in state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_B_{12}`$, then Alice’s output is $`01`$ and Bob’s state is $`|out_B_3=a|0_3b|1_3`$, which differs from $`|in_1`$. However, a little thought shows that by applying a simple phase flip $`|x(1)^x|x`$ ($`x=0,1`$), which is realizable by the Pauli operator $`U_B=\sigma _z`$, Bob gets state $`|out_3=U_B|out_B_3`$ being the exact copy of Alice’s state $`|in_1`$. Similarly, in cases C and D, Bob applies the proper unitary transformations $`U_C=\sigma _x`$ (a bit flip $`|x|x1`$) and $`U_D=i\sigma _y`$ (a bit flip + phase flip $`|x(1)^{x+1}|x1`$) to obtain exactly the same state as Alice’s state $`|in_1`$. Thus, we conclude that to make a successful teleportation, Alice has to inform Bob which of the four states she measured, i.e., she must send him two bits of classical information. Only then Bob can perform the correction procedure by applying the appropriate unitary transformation $`U`$ ($`I`$, $`\sigma _z`$, $`\sigma _x`$ or $`i\sigma _y`$) to recover the initial Alice state. It is worth stressing that the transmission of qubit states cannot be accomplished faster than light because Bob must wait for Alice’s measurement result to arrive before he can recover the quantum state. Another important point is that Alice by performing the Bell state measurement destroys the initial state $`|in_1`$ of her photon. This loss of Alice’s state is the reason that QT does not violate the no-cloning principle.

So far, we have explained the teleportation for qubit states only. As an example, we will discuss another protocol, which can be used for teleportation of qubit states but also for state truncation. In figure 2, we present a device proposed by David Pegg of Griffith University, and Lee Phillips and Stephen M. Barnett of the University of Strathclyde Peg98 , which is referred to as the quantum scissors. In fact, this process can be considered as the quantum teleportation since it is based on the same principles as the original Bennett’s scheme: (i) entanglement, and so nonlocality, and (ii) the Bell-state measurement (the projection postulate). The entangled state is generated by Bob’s beam splitter BS2 from the input states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. Please note that no light from input qubit $`|in`$ reaches output qubit $`|out`$ so, indeed, the process is a nonlocal phenomenon relying on quantum entanglement. Alice implements her Bell-state measurement by beam splitter BS1 and photon counters $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$. And, as required for teleportation, the original Alice’s state $`|in`$ is destroyed by her measurement. The first experiment with the quantum scissors has been done by Alex Lvovsky’s group of the University of Konstanz Bab02 .

Bennett’s protocol is deterministic (unconditional), which means that every qubit state entering the setup can be teleported for any output of Alice’s measurement. The experimental protocols of Akira Furusawa et al. carried out at the California Institute of Technology Fur98  and Michael Nielsen et al. of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Nie98  are also deterministic. However, the experimental protocols of Zeilinger’s group Bou97  and Francesco De Martini’s group of La Sapienza University in Rome Bos98 , or also the quantum scissors are only probabilistic (conditional): The teleportation is successful conditional on appropriate results of Alice’s measurement.

## III Atomic-state teleportation

In the former section, we have described schemes for quantum teleportation of optical qubit states since the first proposal Ben93  and the majority of experimental implementations of teleportation to date Bou97 ; Fur98 ; Bos98  were performed in optical domain. However, from the practical point of view, photonic qubits are not ideal for the long-term storage of quantum information since they are very difficult to keep in certain place as, e.g., light trapped in a cavity eventually leaks out. Thus, in the quest for practical applications of quantum computers, the teleportation of states of nuclear or atomic qubits attracts an increasing interest to mention the spectacular experiment of Nielsen et al. Nie98  of complete quantum teleportation of states of nuclear qubits, where quantum state of carbon nucleus was teleported to a hydrogen nucleus over interatomic distances using nuclear magnetic resonance. Atoms (their electrons or nuclei) are ideal for the long-term storage of quantum information. Unfortunately, atoms move slowly and also interact strongly with their environment and therefore they are not ideal for the quantum information transfer at long distances. By contrast, photonic states are ideal for the information transmission but not the information storage. Here, we will describe another interesting proposal of Peter Knight’s group of Imperial College Bos99  for teleportation of atomic states over macroscopic distances. This scheme takes advantages both of photons for transfer and atoms for storage of quantum information.

The crucial role in this teleportation protocol plays cavity spontaneous photon leakage. It is a well accepted fact that spontaneous decay of excited quantum systems is a mechanism of their coherence loss (referred to as the decoherence) and therefore usually plays a destructive role in quantum information processing. However, Knight et al. have shown how detection of decay can be used constructively not only for establishment of entanglement but also for the complete quantum information processing such as teleportation. This surprising result can be understood by recalling the fact that a detected decay is a measurement on the state of the system from which the decay ensues.

Outline of the scheme is shown in figure 3. The setup consists of two optical cavities: Alice’s $`C_a`$ and Bob’s $`C_b`$ tuned to the same frequency $`\omega _a^{(C)}=\omega _b^{(C)}`$. Each cavity contains a single trapped three-level atom ($`A_a`$ or $`A_b`$), which is illuminated within a proper period of time by classical laser field ($`L_a`$ or $`L_b`$). The atomic energy levels are depicted in figure 4. By illuminating the atoms with the classical laser field of frequency $`\omega _n^{(L)}`$, Alice (designated by subscript $`n=a`$) and Bob ($`n=b`$) can drive the transition $`|e_n|r_n`$. The other transition of $`|g_n|r_n`$ is driven by the quantized cavity field of frequency $`\omega _n^{(C)}`$. It is important to assume that detunings $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are large enough such the upper levels $`|r_n`$ can effectively be decoupled (so neglected) from the evolution of the lower levels. Thus, we can assume that the quantum information is stored only in two levels $`|g_n`$ and $`|e_n`$. Both Alice’s and Bob’s cavities initially have no photons being described by vacuum state $`|0_n`$, and Bob’s atom is initially in state $`|e`$. Alice does not know her atomic state, which is of the form $`|\psi _a=c|g_a+c^{}|e_a`$ (with the unknown coefficients $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ such that $`|c|^2+|c^{}|^2=1`$). The main task is to teleport the state $`|\psi _a`$ to Bob. First, as a preparation of the state, Alice maps the atomic state $`|\psi _a`$ on her cavity mode by illuminating the atom $`A_a`$ with the laser $`L_a`$ for a proper period of time. In the meantime, Bob illuminates his atom $`A_b`$ with the laser $`L_b`$ for another appropriate time period to generate an atom–cavity-field entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_b=2^{1/2}(|e_b|0_b+i|g_b|1_b)`$, where $`|1_b`$ and $`|0_b`$ stand for the cavity mode state with one or no photons, respectively. Alice and Bob should synchronize their actions to finish simultaneously the preparations of their states since photons are leaking out from both the cavities. Those photons are mixed on the 50 -50 beam splitter BS. Cavities are assumed to be single-sided so that the only leakage of photons occur through the sides of the cavities facing BS. The next step is the detection of the photons, when Alice just waits for a finite time period for click of the photon counter either $`D_1`$ or $`D_2`$. This joint detection of photons leaking from distinct cavities $`C_a`$ or $`C_b`$ constitutes a measurement that enables a disembodied transfer of quantum information from Alice’s atom $`A_a`$ to Bob’s atom $`A_b`$. The cases, when Alice registers no clicks or two clicks, are rejected as the failure of the teleportation. At the post detection stage, Bob applies to the transferred state a proper phase shift depending on whether detector $`D_1`$ or $`D_2`$ clicked. This step corresponds to the unitary transformation $`U`$ described in figure 1 and completes the teleportation protocol.

It is worth noting that the presented scheme, like the quantum scissors, is probabilistic in the sense that the original state is destroyed even if the teleportation fails, which is the case when photon counters do not register one photon. However, the scheme can be modified to a teleportation protocol with insurance by entangling the initial Alice’s atom $`A_a`$ with a reserve atom $`A_r`$ also trapped in her cavity $`C_a`$ Bos99 .

## IV Entanglement swapping

Quantum teleportation of qubit states is one of the most fundamental protocols of quantum communication. The generalized version of the standard QT protocol is the entanglement swapping Ben93 ; Zuk93 , where an entangled state of qubit is teleported, as explained in figure 5. The QT and entanglement swapping are essential parts of any quantum communication toolbox. To show the similarities between the protocols we have used the same symbols in figures 1 and 5. There are two equivalent ways to interpret teleportation in the scheme: The state of qubit 1 is teleported to qubit 3 or that of qubit 2 is teleported to qubit 4 after additional unitary transformation of the output states of qubits 3 and 4, respectively. The first experiment demonstrating the entanglement swapping was performed also by Zeilinger’s group Pan98 . They succeeded to entangle freely propagating particles that never physically interacted with one another or which have never been dynamically coupled by any other means. This was probably the first direct experimental demonstration that quantum entanglement requires the entangled particles neither to come from a common source nor to have interacted in the past.

## V Entanglement Distillation

As emphasized in all our discussions, EPR pair is an essential resource for teleportation. So far, we have assumed that Alice and Bob share the EPR states that can be accurately represented by for instance $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ in Eq. (1). Since Alice and Bob cannot create the EPR pairs by classical communication, in order to share the EPR pairs, distribution processes are required. Suppose that Alice creates the EPR pairs and sends half of the pairs to Bob. In realistic situations, due to the noise in transmission channel or the imperfections of Alice’s and Bob’s devises, the shared pairs are not the same as the ones represented by $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$. Thus, for the QT protocol or other applications, conversions from these imperfect pairs (less entangled pairs) to the EPR pairs are needed. This process is called the entanglement distillation and so far many theoretical proposals on physical realization of the process have been suggested distillation . These proposals allow Alice and Bob to distill the EPR pairs from less entangled pairs by means of the operations performed separately by Alice and Bob, and the classical communication. In 2001, the joint groups of Paul Kwiat of Los Alamos National Laboratory and of Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva Kwi01  have first demonstrated experimental distillation of the EPR pairs by local filtering, which is an operation individually applied to each distributed pair. Recently, Nobuyuki Imoto’s group at SOKENDAI Yam03  successfully extracted an entangled photon pair from two identically less entangled pairs by collective operations, which are the operations applied to two distributed pairs. This is the first experiment that involves the collective operations. These experiments are a step towards experimental realizations of more complicated applications in quantum information theory.

## VI Perspectives and conclusions

In Zeilinger’s opinion, quantum teleportation between atoms separated at macroscopic distances can experimentally be realized within a few years and between molecules within a decade or so. Nielsen’s et al. Nie98  experimental teleportation of nuclear-spin states although over microscopic distances is a good prognostic. But, probably, the most spectacular and promising is the experiment of Eugene Polzik’s group of the University of Aarhus Jul01  realizing the quantum entanglement between macroscopic objects, i.e., a pair of caesium gas clouds containing $`10^{12}`$ atoms each. Even though, the two samples were just millimeters apart, they could in principle be entangled at much longer distances. Entanglement of such large objects enables ‘bulk’ properties, like collective spin, to be teleported from one gas cloud to another. Thus, the Polzik experiment, possibly, opens the way for quantum teleportation between macroscopic atomic objects.

The natural question arises what is the greatest difficulty in teleporting people or other macroscopic objects. According to quantum teleportation protocol, information from every tiny particle in a person should be extracted, transferred to particles elsewhere and assembled into an exact replica of the person. And the problem is that human body is composed of about $`10^{27}`$ of atoms and sending information about each individual atom state (not only about collective properties as was done in Polzik’s experiment) would require, by applying the up-to-date technology, time longer than that of the Universe. Thus, as emphasized by scientists, anything even approximating quantum teleportation of complex living beings, even bacteria or virus, is completely beyond our technological capabilities.

Despite this unrealistic dream of new means of transportation, quantum teleportation is not only a trick but plays one of the key roles in quantum information research of the last decade. Without any doubt, it has already become an essential tool in quantum computers Got99 , which in turn enable, if constructed, super-fast calculations for simulation of the Universe, weather forecasts or artificial intelligence. But physicists must humbly admit that they only begin to understand why, in fact, the quantum teleportation is possible in our quantum world.

Acknowledgments. It is our pleasure to thank S.M. Barnett, G. Chimczak, A. Grudka, Y. Hirayama, N. Imoto, M. Koashi, Yu-xi Liu, Ş. K. Özdemir, R. Tanaś, A. Wójcik, and T. Yamamoto for stimulating discussions and collaboration. We also thank Prof. Izumi Tsutsui for his kind invitation to write this article.

published in Math. Sciences (Suri-Kagaku) 473 (November 2002) 28–34