text:
# The conflict between Bell-Żukowski inequality and Bell-Mermin inequality

## I Introduction

Local and realistic theories assume that physical properties exist irrespective of whether they are measured and that the result of measurement pertaining to one system is independent of any other measurement simultaneously performed on a different system at a distance. As Bell reported in 1964 bib:Bell , certain inequalities that correlation functions of a local realistic theory must obey can be violated by quantum mechanics. Bell used the singlet state to demonstrate this. Likewise, a certain set of correlation functions produced by quantum measurements of a single quantum state can contradict local realistic theories. That is, we can see the conflict between local realism and quantum mechanics. Since Bell work, local realistic theories have been researched extensively bib:Redhead ; bib:Peres . Numerous experiments have shown that Bell inequalities and local realistic theories are violated ex1 ; ex2 ; ex3 ; ex4 ; ex5 ; ex6 ; ex7 ; ex8 ; ex9 .

In 1982, Fine presented Fine1 ; Fine2  the following example. A set of correlation functions can be described with the property that they are reproducible by local realistic theories for a system in two-partite states if and only if the set of correlation functions satisfies the complete set of (two-setting) Bell inequalities. This is generalized to a system described by multipartite bib:Zukowski ; gene1 ; gene2  states in the case where two dichotomic observables are measured per site. We have, therefore, obtained the necessary and sufficient condition for a set of correlation functions to be reproducible by local realistic theories in the specific case mentioned above.

A violation of ‘standard’ two-settings Bell inequalities bib:Zukowski ; gene1 ; gene2 ; Mermin ; Roy ; Belinskii  is sufficient for experimentalists to show the conflict between local realism and quantum mechanics. However, it is necessary to create an entangled state with sufficient visibility to violate a Bell inequality. Furthermore, measurement settings should be established such that the Bell inequality is violated. We consider, therefore, the following question: What is a general method for experimentalists to see the conflict between local realism and quantum mechanics only from actually measured data?

In many cases one can build a local realistic model for the observed data. However, many such models are artificial and can be disproved if some principles of physics are taken into account. An example of such a principle is rotational invariance of correlation function — the fact that the value of correlation function does not depend on the orientation of reference frames. Taking this additional requirement into account rules out local realistic models even in situations in which standard Bell inequalities allow for an explicit construction of such models Nagata .

In this paper, we study the physical phenomenon presented in Ref. Nagata . Here, we present a method using two Bell operators Bellope . To this end, only a two-setting and two-particle Bell experiment reproducible by local realistic theories is needed. Such a Bell experiment also reveals, despite appearances, the conflict between Bell-Żukowski inequality and Bell-Mermin inequality in the sense that the Bell-Żukowski inequality bib:Zukowski2  is violated.

Our thesis is as follows. Consider two-qubit states that, under specific settings, give correlation functions reproducible by specific local realistic theory. Imagine that $`N`$ copies of the states can be distributed among $`2N`$ parties, in such a way that each pair of parties shares one copy of the state. The parties perform a Bell-Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) $`2N`$-particle experiment bib:Zukowski ; gene1 ; gene2 ; Mermin ; Roy ; Belinskii  on their qubits. Each of the pairs of parties uses the measurement settings noted above. The Bell-Mermin operator, $`B`$, for their experiment does not show violation of local realism. Nevertheless, one find another Bell operator, which differs from $`B`$ by a numerical factor, that does show such a violation.

This phenomenon can occur when the system is in a mixed two-qubit state. We analyze threshold visibility for two-particle interference to reveal the conflict mentioned above. It is found that the threshold visibility agrees with the value to obtain a violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality.

## II Experimental situation

Consider two-qubit states:

$`\rho _{a,b}=V|\psi \psi |+(1V)\rho _{\mathrm{noise}}(0V1),`$ (1)
where $`|\psi `$ is Bell state as $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+^a;+^bi|^a;^b)`$. $`\rho _{\mathrm{noise}}=\frac{1}{4}𝟙`$ is the random noise admixture. The value of $`V`$ can be interpreted as the reduction factor of the interferometric contrast observed in the two-particle correlation experiment. The states $`|\pm ^k`$ are eigenstates of $`z`$-component Pauli observable $`\sigma _z^k`$ for the $`k`$th observer. Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the label of parties (say Alice and Bob). Then we have $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _x^b]=0`$, $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _y^b]=0`$, $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _y^b]=V`$, and $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _x^b]=V`$. Here $`\sigma _x^k`$ and $`\sigma _y^k`$ are Pauli-spin operators for $`x`$-component and for $`y`$-component, respectively. This set of experimental correlation functions is described with the property that they are reproducible by two-settings local realistic theories. See the following relations along with the arguments in Fine1 ; Fine2

$`|\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _x^b]\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _y^b]+\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _y^b]+\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _x^b]|=2V2,`$
$`|\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _x^b]+\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _y^b]\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _y^b]+\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _x^b]|=02,`$
$`|\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _x^b]+\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _y^b]+\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _y^b]\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _x^b]|=02,`$
$`|\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _x^b]\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _y^b]\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _x^a\sigma _y^b]\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{a,b}\sigma _y^a\sigma _x^b]|=2V2.`$ (2)
In the following section, we will use this kind of experimental situation. Interestingly, those experimental correlation functions can compute a violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality. In order to do so, we will present Bell operator method for such experimental data to reveal that constructed local realistic models are not rotationally invariant if $`V>2(2/\pi )^20.81`$. Of course, such conflict between Bell-Żukowski inequality and Bell-Mermin inequality is derived only from actually measured data which is modeled by two-settings local realistic theories.

## III conflict between local realism and quantum mechanics

Let $`𝐍_{2N}`$ be $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},2N\}`$. Imagine that $`N`$ copies of the states introduced in the preceding section can be distributed among $`2N`$ parties, in such a way that each pair of parties shares one copy of the state

$`\rho ^N=\underset{N}{\underset{}{\rho _{1,2}\rho _{3,4}\mathrm{}\rho _{N1,N}}}.`$ (3)
Suppose that spatially separated $`2N`$ observers perform measurements on each of $`2N`$ particles. The decision processes for choosing measurement observables are spacelike separated.

We assume that a two-orthogonal-setting Bell-GHZ $`2N`$-particle correlation experiment is performed. We choose measurement observables such that

$`A_k=\sigma _x^k,A_k^{}=\sigma _y^k.`$ (4)
Namely, each of the pairs of parties uses measurement settings such that they can check the condition (2). Therefore, it should be that given $`2^{2N}`$ correlation functions are described with the property that they are reproducible by two-settings local realistic theories.

Bell-Mermin operators $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$ and $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{}`$ (defined as follows) do not show any violation of local realism as shown below.

Let $`f(x,y)`$ denote the function $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi /4}(x+iy),x,y𝐑`$. $`f(x,y)`$ is invertible as $`x=\mathrm{}f\mathrm{}f,y=\mathrm{}f+\mathrm{}f`$. Bell-Mermin operators $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$ and $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{}`$ are defined by Mermin ; Roy ; Belinskii ; bib:Werner2  $`f(B_{𝐍_{2N}},B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{})=_{k=1}^{2N}f(A_k,A_k^{})`$. Bell-Mermin inequality can be expressed as bib:Werner2

$`|B_{𝐍_{2N}}|1,|B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{}|1,`$ (5)
where $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$ and $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{}`$ are Bell-Mermin operators defined by

$`f(B_{𝐍_{2N}},B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{})=_{k=1}^{2N}f(A_k,A_k^{}).`$ (6)
We also define $`B_\alpha `$ for any subset $`\alpha 𝐍_{2N}`$ by

$`f(B_\alpha ,B_\alpha ^{})=_{k\alpha }f(A_k,A_k^{}).`$ (7)
It is easy to see that, when $`\alpha ,\beta (𝐍_{2N})`$ are disjoint,

$`f(B_{\alpha \beta },B_{\alpha \beta }^{})=f(B_\alpha ,B_\alpha ^{})f(B_\beta ,B_\beta ^{}),`$ (8)
which leads to following equations,

$`B_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)B_\alpha (B_\beta +B_\beta ^{})+(1/2)B_\alpha ^{}(B_\beta B_\beta ^{}),`$
$`B_{\alpha \beta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)B_\alpha ^{}(B_\beta ^{}+B_\beta )+(1/2)B_\alpha (B_\beta ^{}B_\beta ).`$
(9)
In specific operators $`A_k,A_k^{}`$ given in Eq. (4), where $`\sigma _x^k=|+^k^k|+|^k+^k|`$ and $`\sigma _y^k=i|+^k^k|+i|^k+^k|`$, we have (cf. bib:scarani )

$`f(A_k,A_k^{})=(e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}/\sqrt{2})(\sigma _x^k+i\sigma _y^k)`$
$`=e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\sqrt{2}|+^k^k|`$ (10)
and

$`f(B_{𝐍_{2N}},B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{})=_{k=1}^{2N}f(A_k,A_k^{})`$
$`=e^{i\frac{2N\pi }{4}}2^N_{k=1}^{2N}|+^k^k|`$
$`=e^{i\frac{2N\pi }{4}}2^N|+^{2N}^{2N}|.`$ (11)
Hence we obtain

$`B_{𝐍_{2N}}=2^{(2N1)/2}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+||\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}|),`$ (12)
where $`e^{i\frac{(2N1)\pi }{4}}|+^{2N}=|1^{2N}`$. Here the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\pm `$ are Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states bib:GHZ , i.e.,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0^{2N}\pm |1^{2N}).`$ (13)
Measurements on each of $`2N`$ particles enable them to obtain $`2^{2N}`$ correlation functions. Thus, they get an average value of specific Bell-Mermin operator given in Eq. (12). According to Eq. (9), we obtain

$`B_{𝐍_{2N}}=B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}}B_{\{i1,i\}}=V^N(1).`$ (14)
Clearly, Bell-Mermin operators, $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$ and $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}^{}`$, for their experiment do not show any violation of local realism as we have mentioned above.

Nevertheless, one can find $`2N`$-partite Bell operator, which one may call Bell-Żukowski operator $`Z_{2N}`$, which differs from $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$ only by a numerical factor, that does show such a violation. Bell-Żukowski operator $`Z_{2N}`$ is as (cf. Appendix A, Eq. (40))

$`Z_{2N}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^{2N}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+||\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}|).`$ (15)
Clearly, we see that Bell-Mermin operator given in Eq. (12) is connected to Bell-Żukowski operator $`Z_{2N}`$ in the following relation

$`Z_{2N}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^{2N}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{(2N1)/2}}}B_{𝐍_{2N}}.`$ (16)
One can see that specific two settings Bell $`2N`$-particle experiment in question computes an average value of Bell-Żukowski operator $`Z_{2N}`$ via an average value of $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$.

Therefore, from the Bell-Żukowski inequality $`|Z_{2N}|1`$, we have a condition on the average value of Bell-Mermin operator $`B_{𝐍_{2N}}`$ which is written by

$`|B_{𝐍_{2N}}|2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\right)^{2N}2^{(2N1)/2}.`$ (17)
Please notice that the Bell-Żukowski inequality $`|Z_{2N}|1`$ is derived under the assumption that there are predetermined ‘hidden’ results of the measurement for all directions in the rotation plane for the system in a state. On the other hand, Bell-Mermin inequality is derived under the assumption that there are predetermined ‘hidden’ results of the measurement for two directions for the system in a state. Thus, Bell-Żukowski inequality governs rotationally invariant descriptions while Bell-Mermin inequality does not.

When $`N2`$ and $`V`$ is given by

$$\left(2\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{2N}2^{(2N1)/2}\right)^{1/N}<V1,$$
(18)
one can compute a violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality $`|Z_{2N}|1`$, that is, the explicit local realistic models are not rotationally invariant. The condition (18) says that threshold visibility decreases when the number of copies $`N`$ increases. In extreme situation, when $`N\mathrm{}`$, we have desired condition $`V>2(2/\pi )^2`$ to show the conflict in question. It agrees with the value to get a violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality. (It also agrees with the value to get a violation of the generalized Bell inequality presented in Ref. Nagata .)

Thus the given example using two-qubit states reveals the violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality. The interesting point is that all the information to get the violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality can be obtained only by a two-setting and two-particle Bell experiment reproducible by two-settings local realistic theories.

It presents a quantum-state measurement situation that admits local realist descriptions for the given apparatus settings, but no local realist descriptions which are rotationally invariant, even though the experiment should be ruled by rotationally invariant laws. There is no local realist theory for the experiment as a whole and so such a descriptions is only possible for certain setting.

What the result illustrates is that there is a further division among the measurement settings, those that admit rotational invariant local realist models and those that do not. This is another manifestation of the underlying contextual nature of realist theories of quantum experiments.

## IV summary

In summary, we have presented a Bell operator method. This approach provides a means to check if the explicit model is rotationally invariant, i.e., if a conflict between Bell-Żukowski inequality and Bell-Mermin inequality occurs. Our argument relies only on a two-setting and two-particle Bell experiment reproducible by a local realistic theory which is not rotationally invariant. Given a two-setting and two-particle Bell experiment reproducible by specific local realistic theory, one can compute a violation of Bell-Żukowkski inequality. Measured data indicates that the explicit local realistic models are not rotationally invariant. Thus, the conflict between Bell-Żukowski inequality and Bell-Mermin inequality is, despite appearances, revealed.

This phenomenon can occur when the system is in a mixed state. We also analyzed the threshold visibility for two-particle interference in order to bring about the phenomenon. The threshold visibility agrees well with the value to obtain a violation of the Bell-Żukowski inequality.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by Frontier Basic Research Programs at KAIST and K.N. is supported by a BK21 research grant.

## Appendix A Bell-Żukowski inequality

Let us review the Bell-Żukowski inequality proposed in Ref. bib:Zukowski2 . Let $`L(H)`$ be the space of Hermitian operators acting on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space $`H`$, and $`T(H)`$ be the space of density operators acting on the Hilbert space $`H`$. Namely, $`T(H)=\{\rho |\rho L(H)\rho 0\mathrm{tr}[\rho ]=1\}`$. We also consider a classical probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma },M_\rho )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a nonempty space, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`\sigma `$-algebra of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`M_\rho `$ is a $`\sigma `$-additive normalized measure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`M_\rho (\mathrm{\Omega })=1`$. The subscript $`\rho `$ expresses following meaning. The probability measure $`M_\rho `$ is determined uniquely when a state $`\rho `$ is specified.

Consider a quantum state $`\rho `$ in $`T(_{k=1}^nH_k)`$, where $`H_k`$ represents the Hilbert space with respect to party $`k𝐍_n(=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\})`$. Then we can define measurable functions $`f_k:o_k,\omega f_k(o_k,\omega )[I(o_k),S(o_k)],o_kL(H_k),\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here $`S(o_k)`$ and $`I(o_k)`$ are the supremum and the infimum of the spectrum of $`o_kL(H_k)`$, respectively. Those functions $`f_k(o_k,\omega )`$ must not depend on the choices of $`v`$’s on the other sites in $`𝐍_n\backslash \{k\}`$. Using the functions $`f_k`$, we define a quantum correlation function which admits a local realistic model WERNER1 .

Definition 1. A quantum correlation function $`\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{k=1}^no_k]`$ is said to admit a local realistic model if and only if there exist a classical probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma },M_\rho )`$ and a set of functions $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n`$, such that

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}M_\rho (d\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_k(o_k,\omega )=\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{k=1}^no_k]`$ (19)
for a Hermitian operator $`_{k=1}^no_k`$, where $`o_kL(H_k)`$. Note that there are several (noncommuting) observables per site, however above definition is available for just one $`o_k`$ per site.

We consider a situation where each of the $`n`$ spatially separated observers has infinite number of settings of measurements (in the $`xy`$ plane) to choose from. The operation of each of the measuring apparatuses is controlled by a knob. The knob sets a parameter $`\varphi `$. An apparatus performs measurements of a Hermitian operator $`\sigma _\varphi `$ on two-dimensional space with two eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. The corresponding eigenstates are defined as $`|\pm ;\varphi =(1/\sqrt{2})(|1\pm e^{(i\varphi )}|0).`$ The local phases that they are allowed to set are chosen as $`0\varphi ^k<\pi `$ for the $`k`$th observer. The Bell-Żukowski inequality can be written as

$`|Z_n|1,`$ (20)
where the corresponding Bell operator $`Z_n`$ is

$`Z_n=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}\right){\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi ^k\right)_{k=1}^n\sigma _{\varphi ^k},`$
(21)
where

$`\sigma _{\varphi ^k}=e^{i\varphi ^k}|1^k0^k|+e^{i\varphi ^k}|0^k1^k|,k𝐍_n.`$ (22)
Bell-Żukowski operator $`Z_n`$ is a sum of infinite number of Hermitian operators, except for fixed number $`1/(2^n)`$. We shall mention why $`Z_n`$ given in Eq. (21) is a Bell operator when Eq. (20) is a Bell inequality as follows.

Let us assume that all of quantum correlation functions (every setting lies in $`xy`$ plane) admit a local realistic model. Here each party $`k`$ performs locally measurements on an arbitrary single state $`\rho `$.

Then, according to Definition 1 (Eq. (19)), there exists a classical probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma },M_\rho )`$ related to the state in question $`\rho `$. And there exists a set of functions $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n([1,1])`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}M_\rho (d\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_k(\sigma _{\varphi ^k},\omega )=\mathrm{tr}[\rho _{k=1}^n\sigma _{\varphi ^k}]`$ (23)
for every $`0\varphi ^k<\pi ,k𝐍_n`$. Hence an expectation of a sum of infinite number of Hermitian operators (i.e., $`2^nZ_n`$) is bounded by the possible values of

$`S_\omega ^{(\mathrm{},n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi ^k\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_k(\sigma _{\varphi ^k},\omega )\right]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}z_k^{}\right),`$
where $`z_k^{}=_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\sigma _{\varphi ^k},\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi ^k\right)`$.

Let us derive an upper bound of $`S_\omega ^{(\mathrm{},n)}`$. We may assume $`f_k=\pm 1`$. Let us analyze the structure of the following integral

$`z_k^{}={\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\sigma _{\varphi ^k},\omega )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi ^k\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\sigma _{\varphi ^k},\omega )(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k+i\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k).`$ (25)
Notice that Eq. (25) is a sum of the following integrals:

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\varphi ^k,\omega )\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k`$ (26)
and

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\varphi ^k,\omega )\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k.`$ (27)
We deal here with integrals, or rather scalar products of $`f_k(\varphi ^k,\omega )`$ with two orthogonal functions. One has

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^k\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k=0.`$ (28)
The normalized functions $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k`$ form a basis of a real two-dimensional functional space, which we shall call $`S^{(2)}`$. Note further that any function in $`S^{(2)}`$ is of the form

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k+B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k,`$ (29)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants, and that any normalized function in $`S^{(2)}`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k+\mathrm{sin}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ^k\psi ).`$ (30)
The norm $`f_k^{||}`$ of the projection of $`f_k`$ into the space $`S^{(2)}`$ is given by the maximal possible value of the scalar product $`f_k`$ with any normalized function belonging to $`S^{(2)}`$, that is

$`f_k^{||}=\underset{\psi }{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\varphi ^k,\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ^k\psi ).`$ (31)
Because $`|f_k(\varphi ^k,\omega )|=1`$, one has $`f_k^{||}2/\sqrt{\pi /2}`$. Since $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k`$ are two orthogonal basis functions in $`S^{(2)}`$, one has

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\varphi ^k,\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^k=\mathrm{cos}\beta _kf_k^{||}`$ (32)
and

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^kf_k(\varphi ^k,\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi /2}}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^k=\mathrm{sin}\beta _kf_k^{||},`$ (33)
where $`\beta _k`$ is some angle. Using this fact, one can put the value of (25) into the following form

$`z_k^{}=\sqrt{\pi /2}f_k^{||}(\mathrm{cos}\beta _k+i\mathrm{sin}\beta _k)`$
$`=\sqrt{\pi /2}f_k^{||}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\beta _k\right).`$ (34)
Therefore, since $`f_k^{||}2/\sqrt{\pi /2}`$, the maximal value of $`|z_k^{}|`$ is 2. Hence, we have $`|_{k=1}^nz_k^{}|2^n`$. Then we get

$`|S_\omega ^{(\mathrm{},n)}|2^n.`$ (35)
Let $`E()`$ represent an expectation on the classical probability space. If we integrate this relation (35) under normalized measure $`M_\rho (d\omega )`$ over a space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we obtain the relation (20). Here we have used the relation that $`E(S_\omega ^{(\mathrm{},n)})=2^n\mathrm{tr}[\rho Z_n]`$ (see Eq. (23)). Therefore, we have proven the Bell-Żukowski inequality (20) from an assumption. The assumption is that all of infinite number of quantum correlation functions (every setting lies in $`xy`$ plane) admit a local realistic model.

Let us consider matrix elements of Bell-Żukowski operator $`Z_n`$ as given in Eq. (21) on using GHZ basis

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|j|0\pm |2^{n1}j1|1),`$ (36)
where $`j=j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{n1}`$ is understood in binary notation. It is clear that no off-diagonal element appears, because of the form of the operator $`\sigma _{\varphi ^k}`$ as given in Eq. (22).

Let $`\beta `$ be a subset $`\beta 𝐍_n`$ and $`l(\beta )`$ be an integer $`l_1\mathrm{}l_n`$ in the binary notation with $`l_m=1`$ for $`m\beta `$ and $`l_m=0`$ otherwise. And let $`j(\beta )`$ be an integer binary-represented by $`l_1\mathrm{}l_{n1}`$. Then we define a two-to-one function $`g:\beta g(\beta )\{0\}𝐍_{2^{(n1)}1}`$ where $`g(\beta )`$ takes the values $`j(\beta )`$ and $`2^{n1}j(\beta )1`$, respectively, for even and odd values of $`l(\beta )`$.

In what follows, we show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{g(\alpha )}^\pm |Z_n|\mathrm{\Phi }_{g(\alpha )}^\pm =0`$ for any subset $`\alpha 𝐍_n`$ when $`\alpha \mathrm{},𝐍_n`$. We also show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g(\alpha )}^\pm |Z_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_{g(\alpha )}^\pm =\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^n`$ when $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ or $`\alpha =𝐍_n`$. When $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ or $`\alpha =𝐍_n`$, we have

$`2^n\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\pm |Z_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\pm `$
$`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi ^k\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\left[1+\mathrm{cos}\left(2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi ^k\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\left[1+\mathrm{exp}\left(2i{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\varphi ^k\right)\right]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^n}{2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\varphi ^k\right)\right).`$
Since $`_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi ^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\varphi ^k\right)=0,k𝐍_n`$, the last term vanishes. Hence we get

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\pm |Z_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^\pm =\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^n.`$ (38)
On the other hand, when $`\alpha \mathrm{},𝐍_n`$, we obtain

$`2^n|\mathrm{\Phi }_{g(\alpha )}^\pm |Z_n|\mathrm{\Phi }_{g(\alpha )}^\pm |`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k\alpha }{}}\varphi ^k+{\displaystyle \underset{k𝐍_n\backslash \alpha }{}}\varphi ^k\right)\times \mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k\alpha }{}}\varphi ^k{\displaystyle \underset{k𝐍_n\backslash \alpha }{}}\varphi ^k\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^n\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(2{\displaystyle \underset{k\alpha }{}}\varphi ^k\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(2{\displaystyle \underset{k𝐍_n\backslash \alpha }{}}\varphi ^k\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{|𝐍_n\backslash \alpha |}}{2}}\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\varphi ^k\right)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{|\alpha |}}{2}}\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k𝐍_n\backslash \alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi ^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\varphi ^k\right)\right).`$
Since $`_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi ^k\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\varphi ^k\right)=0,k𝐍_n`$, the last two terms vanish.

Hence, Bell operator $`Z_n`$ as given in Eq. (21) can be rewritten as

$`Z_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^n(|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+\mathrm{\Psi }_0^+||\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}|).`$ (40)


format: text

text:
# Three Loop Top Quark Contributions to the 𝜌 Parameter

## 1 Introduction

The standard model predicts a strong influence of virtual heavy top quarks in the low energy limit on four-fermion processes through their virtual contributions to the W and Z boson self energies . This effect allows the indirect determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and is generally essential for electroweak precision tests.

The bulk of the heavy top quark corrections to the W and Z self energies can be collected in a deviation of the so called $`\rho `$ parameter from the tree level result $`\rho _{\text{tree}}=1`$. The $`\rho `$ parameter is usually defined by the ratio of the neutral and charged current coupling constants at zero momentum transfer :

$$\rho =\frac{J_{NC}(0)}{J_{CC}(0)},$$
(1)
where $`J_{CC}(0)`$ is given by the Fermi coupling constant $`G_F`$ determined from the $`\mu `$-decay rate whereas $`J_{NC}(0)`$ is measured by neutrino scattering on electrons or hadrons.

In leading order contributions from the Yukawa coupling of the top quark to $`\rho `$ are parameterized in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. This contributions stem from the transversal parts of the self energies of the $`W`$\- and $`Z`$-boson:

$$\rho =\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{M_W^2\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{WW}(0)}{M_Z^2\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{ZZ}(0)},$$
(2)
where $`c^2=M_W^2/M_Z^2`$ represents the cosine of the weak mixing angle, defined in the standard on-shell scheme. Corrections from vertex and box diagrams always involve extra powers of the weak coupling constant $`g_{weak}^2`$ and are thus suppressed by powers of $`(g_{\mathrm{weak}}/g_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}^{\mathrm{top}})^2`$, i.e. $`(M_W/m_t)^2`$.

In this context $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{WW}(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T^{ZZ}(0)`$ can be taken as the bare one-particle irreducible amplitudes. The divergencies are absorbed by the Higgs mass, top mass, and W boson mass renormalization, i.e. by expressing the bare $`m_t`$, $`M_H`$, and $`M_W`$ in terms of the renormalized quantities. In the following we will first express the final answer in terms of the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ top mass $`m_t`$, the on-shell Higgs mass $`M_H`$, and the low energy Fermi constant $`G_F`$ obtained from $`\mu `$-decay. The latter is introduced to absorb the vector boson mass $`M_W`$. In a last step the transformation from the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ top quark mass $`m_t`$ to the on-shell top quark mass $`M_t`$ will be performed.

The first two-loop results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in the limits $`M_H0`$ and $`M_Hm_t`$ for large $`m_t`$ can be found in , for arbitrary $`M_H`$ in . The result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ of order $`G_Fm_t^2\alpha _s^2`$ was obtained in . By including terms of $`𝒪(M_W^2/m_t^2)`$ this has even been extended to predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ in three-loop approximation.

The present paper is concerned with mixed QCD and electroweak contributions of order $`(G_Fm_t^2)^2\alpha _s`$ and purely electroweak contributions of order $`(G_Fm_t^2)^3`$. It extends the result of  where the special case $`M_H=0`$ has been considered. Using the technique of heavy mass expansion for the limit $`M_Hm_t`$ and considering sufficiently many terms leads to stable predictions down to Higgs Mass values as low as twice $`m_t`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ is furthermore evaluated for $`M_H`$ around $`m_t`$, and with the help of expansions, a stable approximation is provided in the region from close to zero up to twice $`m_t`$. Combining the results from the different regions, the three-loop corrections to the $`\rho `$ parameter are well under control.

An outline of the calculation, including a short discussion of the renormalization, is given in section 2. In section 4 the transformation of the top quark mass from the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme to the on-shell top mass is treated in detail. Our results111Only numerical results are presented for the values of the coefficients of the various expansions. Their representations in terms of fractions and transcendental numbers can be obtained from the authors. at order $`G_F^3`$ and $`\alpha _sG_F^2`$ are presented in sections 3 and 5 in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ and on-shell definition for the top quark mass respectively.

## 2 Treatment of diagrams and renormalization

The computation of the three-loop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ at orders $`G_F^3`$ and $`\alpha _sG_F^2`$ for $`M_Hm_t`$ and $`M_Hm_t`$ is similar to the one discussed in  for $`M_H=0`$. The same Feynman diagrams contribute: $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson self energies up to three loops, top quark self energies up to two loops, one-loop Higgs boson self energies, and Higgs tadpoles up to two loops. All diagrams were generated using the program QGRAF .

In comparison to  a non-vanishing Higgs mass introduces a second mass scale into the problem. In order to calculate such diagrams we consider two different ranges of the Higgs mass: First, in the range of $`M_H`$ around $`m_t`$ we perform a straightforward Taylor expansion in the mass difference $`M_Hm_t`$ around the point $`M_H=m_t`$. In the second region, i.e. for $`M_Hm_t`$, we use asymptotic expansions  and made use of the program EXP . In both cases the resulting diagrams contained at most one non-vanishing mass scale.

From equation (2) the vector boson self energies can be taken at zero external momentum. After the application of the expansion procedures the resulting integrals are of tadpole type with one mass scale. Their computation can be performed using the program package MATAD  written in FORM . Apparently the Higgs tadpoles, which are needed to renormalize the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs boson, can be treated using the same program package. To renormalize the mass of the Higgs boson, the computation of on-shell Higgs boson self energy diagrams is necessary. The corresponding renormalization constant is needed to one-loop order only and the relevant integrals are straightforward. The remaining two-loop top quark mass renormalization is, however, more involved, in particular in the on-shell scheme. Details on this issue are given in sections 3 and 4.

The whole calculation was performed using dimensional regularization and anticommuting $`\gamma _5`$. This prescription preserves the Ward–Takahashi identities which relate the self energies of the gauge bosons to the non-diagonal self energies of the gauge-to-goldstone and the goldstone boson self energies. The validity of these identities was verified by explicit calculations.

## 3 The $`\rho `$-parameter in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme

In this section we present our results for the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ definition of the top quark mass. The renormalization constant of the top quark mass can be obtained by calculating the relevant one- and two-loop self energy diagrams in the limit of vanishing external momentum. After the application of the expansions mentioned in section 2, the remaining integrals were computed using the program package MATAD.

The radiative corrections to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ depend on the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ top mass $`m_tm_t(m_t)`$, the on-shell Higgs mass $`M_H`$, the Fermi constant $`G_F`$ and the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ and are written as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ $`=`$ $`x_t\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t)}+x_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}x_t\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sx_t)}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2x_t\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _s^2x_t)}`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}x_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sx_t^2)}+x_t^3\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^3)}+\mathrm{},`$
with

$$x_t=\frac{G_Fm_t^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}3.010^3.$$

Here and later on we always set the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ renormalization scale $`\mu `$ equal to $`m_t`$

In this paper we evaluate the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^3)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sx_t^2)}`$. Numerically they are given by:

$`M_H=0`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^3)}`$ $`=`$ $`47.73,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sx_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`76.91.`$ (5)
$`M_Hm_t`$: In this case we have computed five terms in the expansion in $`\delta `$ defined by the relation $`M_H=m_t(1+\delta )`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^3)}`$ $`=`$ $`40.30138.26\delta 32.39\delta ^2+10.32\delta ^33.27\delta ^40.01\delta ^5+𝒪(\delta ^6),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sx_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`93.07+21.27\delta +0.53\delta ^22.29\delta ^3+1.14\delta ^40.51\delta ^5+𝒪(\delta ^6).`$ (7)
$`M_Hm_t`$: The application of the hard mass procedure leads to an expansion in the ratio $`y4m_t^2/M_H^2`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}(12.80+24.75\mathrm{log}y)`$
$``$ $`192.86394.05\mathrm{log}y275.02\mathrm{log}^2y24.25\mathrm{log}^3y`$
$`+`$ $`y\left(337.88+408.59\mathrm{log}y233.35\mathrm{log}^2y+108.04\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^2\left(82.56378.31\mathrm{log}y+26.14\mathrm{log}^2y+48.60\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^3\left(82.58291.03\mathrm{log}y11.37\mathrm{log}^2y+56.87\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^4\left(44.06366.54\mathrm{log}y3.27\mathrm{log}^2y+59.62\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^5\left(42.49409.57\mathrm{log}y4.44\mathrm{log}^2y+64.70\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪(y^6),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sx_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`216.07+131.38\mathrm{log}y+57.07\mathrm{log}^2y+9.00\mathrm{log}^3y`$
$`+`$ $`y\left(59.9966.29\mathrm{log}y+18.39\mathrm{log}^2y19.22\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^2\left(66.31+21.04\mathrm{log}y37.76\mathrm{log}^2y5.57\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^3\left(9.7328.56\mathrm{log}y29.38\mathrm{log}^2y5.46\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^4\left(4.4837.23\mathrm{log}y30.13\mathrm{log}^2y5.25\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`y^5\left(2.4941.12\mathrm{log}y31.92\mathrm{log}^2y5.14\mathrm{log}^3y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪(y^6).`$
In Fig. 2 and 2 these results are plotted as functions of the ratio of the Higgs mass $`M_H`$ and the top mass $`m_t`$. The left scale gives the coefficient of the contribution under consideration. The right scale includes the prefactor for $`m_t=165\text{ GeV}`$, so the full numerical effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ can be directly read off. In Fig. 2 the numerical value $`\alpha _s(m_t)=0.109`$ was used for the right scale.

The solid lines represent the sum of all terms displayed above. The dashed curves represent successive approximations. From Figs. 2 and 2 we infer that the series given in equations (6) to (3) provides a satisfactory approximation to the full result. In fact, a fairly smooth transition between the two approximations is observed for $`M_H2.5m_t`$. In addition the expansion seems to provide a good approximation even down to $`M_H=0`$, where it can be compared to the exact result.

Note, that the dominant term of the three-loop electroweak corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(x_t^3)}`$ in the limit of large Higgs masses is proportional to $`M_H^2`$. This is in agreement with the screening theorem  stating that the highest power correction depending on the mass of the Higgs boson is at least one power of $`M_H^2`$ below the expectation based on naive power counting. The terms $`M_H^2`$ stem directly from the large mass expansion of the three-loop $`W`$ and $`Z`$ self energies. However, the absolute size is small when the prefactor $`x_t^3`$ is included.

The smooth behavior of the two expansions in Figs. 2 and 2 together with the agreement with the result for $`M_H=0`$ leads to the assumption that the three-loop corrections are well under control in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme.

## 4 Transition from $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ to on-shell top quark mass

In a final step the result for the on-shell definition of the top quark mass are presented. This requires the ratio between the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ renormalized top quark mass $`m_t`$ and the on-shell mass $`M_t`$ in two-loop approximation, again in the limit of large top quark mass. Let us parameterize the ratio between $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ in the following way

$$\frac{m_t}{M_t}=1+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C^{(\alpha _s)}+X_tC^{(X_t)}+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2C^{(\alpha _s^2)}+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }X_tC^{(\alpha _sX_t)}+X_t^2C^{(X_t^2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(10)
using the expansion parameter

$$X_t=\frac{G_FM_t^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}3.210^3,$$

which depends on the on-shell top quark mass $`M_t`$.

The results for $`C^{(\alpha _s)}`$, $`C^{(X_t)}`$ (e.g.  and  respectively), and $`C^{(\alpha _s^2)}`$  are well known. Results for both $`C^{(\alpha _sX_t)}`$ and $`C^{(X_t^2)}`$ were obtained from the large mass and the mass difference expansion and are needed for the present discussion.

The corresponding two-loop top quark self energy diagrams, already discussed in section 3 for vanishing external momentum, have to be recalculated for external momentum on mass shell. In general the relevant diagrams can be divided into two classes: those containing at least one virtual Higgs boson and those without Higgs bosons. The latter have already been evaluated for the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in the case $`M_H=0`$ . However, the former class of diagrams needs additional attention.

Let us first consider the limit $`M_Hm_t`$. Asymptotic expansions reduce the two-loop on-shell integrals containing two mass scales to combinations of one scale integrals. These one scale integrals include: tadpole integrals up to two loops, one-loop on-shell integrals, and one and two-loop integrals containing a small (compared to the internal Higgs mass) external momentum. Each of these integrals is either straightforward to calculate or can be treated using MATAD and MINCER . Thus one obtains the on-shell top quark self mass in terms of the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass in two-loop approximation for the region $`M_Hm_t`$. The result reads as follows:

$`C^{(X_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y}}(1.6118.00\mathrm{log}Y)`$
$`+`$ $`8.092.10\mathrm{log}Y1.50\mathrm{log}^2Y`$
$`+`$ $`Y\left(4.50+6.05\mathrm{log}Y1.73\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^2\left(14.609.74\mathrm{log}Y+1.69\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^3\left(2.022.34\mathrm{log}Y+0.64\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^4\left(0.560.94\mathrm{log}Y+0.32\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^5\left(0.220.48\mathrm{log}Y+0.17\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)+𝒪(Y^6),`$
$`C^{(\alpha _sX_t)}`$ $`=`$ $`7.093.66\mathrm{log}Y+1.50\mathrm{log}^2Y`$
$`+`$ $`Y\left(3.78+2.93\mathrm{log}Y0.36\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^2\left(0.89+0.99\mathrm{log}Y0.23\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^3\left(0.28+0.42\mathrm{log}Y0.15\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^4\left(0.11+0.21\mathrm{log}Y0.11\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^5\left(0.220.48\mathrm{log}Y+0.17\mathrm{log}^2Y\right)+𝒪(Y^6),`$
where $`Y=4M_t^2/M_H^2`$ is used.

For $`M_H`$ around $`m_t`$ two-loop on-shell diagrams composed of several massive and massless lines enter. Let us start with the case $`M_H=m_t`$ which involves two-loop on-shell diagrams with internal propagators which are either massless or of mass $`m_t`$. The program packages ONSHELL2  and TARCER , based on the recurrence relations , are specifically tailored to this case. In the next step the Taylor expansion around this point is performed and five terms of order $`\alpha _sx_t`$ and $`x_t^2`$ are evaluated. It should be mentioned, that in order $`x_t^2`$ there are several diagrams with threshold at $`M_H^2`$. This means that in order to expand these diagrams the threshold expansion should be applied . By explicit calculation, however, we find that the first five coefficients are given by the naive Taylor series. The results read as follows:

$`C^{(X_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`33.5022.91\delta +13.96\delta ^22.30\delta ^3+2.71\delta ^43.46\delta ^5+𝒪(\delta ^6),`$ (13)
$`C^{(\alpha _sX_t)}`$ $`=`$ $`22.15+34.76\delta 6.83\delta ^2+2.64\delta ^31.32\delta ^4+0.19\delta ^5+𝒪(\delta ^6),`$ (14)
using $`\delta `$ defined by $`M_H=M_t(1+\delta )`$.

For completeness we also include the result for $`M_H=0`$:

$$C^{(X_t^2)}=83.58\text{ and }C^{(\alpha _sX_t)}=17.53.$$
(15)
The results are shown in Fig. 4 and 4. A smooth transition between the two regions of large $`M_H`$ and $`M_HM_t`$ is observed. Furthermore, the expansion around $`M_HM_t`$, when extrapolated down to $`M_H=0`$, leads to a remarkably good agreement with the value obtained from an analytical calculation at $`M_H=0`$, a further and independent test of the approximation procedure.

The result for the ratio between $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ mass and on-shell mass — as well as the analytical expressions for the coefficients given in sections 3 and 5 — is available from the authors upon request.

## 5 $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ expressed through the on-shell top quark mass

Combining the results of sections 3 and 4 we compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in terms of the on-shell top quark mass $`M_t`$, the on-shell Higgs mass $`M_H`$ and the low energy Fermi constant $`G_F`$. Our calculation reproduces the one- and two-loop results for the $`\rho `$ parameter at orders $`G_F`$, $`G_F^2`$ and $`G_F\alpha _s`$ .

The result for the on-shell definition of the top quark mass is parameterized in the same way as the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ result in section 3. In order to distinguish the two schemes we use again the expansion parameter $`X_t`$, depending on the on-shell top quark mass $`M_t`$.

For completeness we also include the results for $`M_H=0`$, computed in :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(X_t^3)}`$ $`=`$ $`249.74,`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sX_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2.94.`$ (17)
For the expansion around $`M_H=M_t`$ we obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(X_t^3)}`$ $`=`$ $`95.92111.98\delta +8.099\delta ^2+9.36\delta ^3+7.27\delta ^4+15.60\delta ^5+𝒪(\delta ^6),`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sX_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`157.295+112.00\delta 24.73\delta ^2+7.39\delta ^33.52\delta ^4+2.06\delta ^5+𝒪(\delta ^6),`$ (19)
using $`\delta `$ defined by $`M_H=M_t(1+\delta )`$.

In the limit $`M_HM_t`$ we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(X_t^3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y}}(3.1783.25\mathrm{log}Y)`$
$``$ $`189.93231.48\mathrm{log}Y142.06\mathrm{log}^2Y+2.75\mathrm{log}^3Y`$
$`+`$ $`Y\left(332.34+77.71\mathrm{log}Y68.67\mathrm{log}^2Y+51.79\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^2\left(227.55510.55\mathrm{log}Y+87.77\mathrm{log}^2Y+6.41\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^3\left(58.40329.18\mathrm{log}Y+20.42\mathrm{log}^2Y+14.54\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^4\left(36.14381.88\mathrm{log}Y+18.63\mathrm{log}^2Y+15.04\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^5\left(39.08416.36\mathrm{log}Y+13.76\mathrm{log}^2Y+17.19\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪(Y^6),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(\alpha _sX_t^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`79.7347.77\mathrm{log}Y+42.07\mathrm{log}^2Y+9.00\mathrm{log}^3Y`$
$`+`$ $`Y\left(225.16179.74\mathrm{log}Y+70.22\mathrm{log}^2Y19.22\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^2\left(76.07+25.33\mathrm{log}Y9.17\mathrm{log}^2Y5.57\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^3\left(10.1024.69\mathrm{log}Y0.30\mathrm{log}^2Y5.46\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^4\left(4.5232.85\mathrm{log}Y+0.72\mathrm{log}^2Y5.25\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`Y^5\left(2.5536.61\mathrm{log}Y+1.06\mathrm{log}^2Y5.14\mathrm{log}^3Y\right)`$
$`+`$ $`𝒪(Y^6),`$
with

$$Y\frac{4M_t^2}{M_H^2}.$$
(22)
The results in the on-shell definition of the top quark mass are shown in Fig. 6 and 6. Again, the solid line corresponds to the numerical values including all terms of our expansion. The left and right scales give the size of the coefficient and the full effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ respectively.

The $`\alpha _sX_t^2`$ contributions are sizeable and monotonously increasing over the full range of the Higgs mass suggesting a smoothly increasing behavior qualitatively similar to the well-known $`X_t^2`$ correction (displayed in Fig. 7). For $`M_H=0`$ the result seems to be accidentally small, but increases rapidly for larger Higgs mass values. The $`X_t^3`$ term exhibits a minimum in the range between $`M_H=2M_t`$ and $`M_H=3M_t`$ and appears to be very small or even negative in this region.

To compare the size of the three-loop contributions to the known one- and two-loop terms we display their individual effects on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in Fig. 7, including the corrections of order $`\alpha _s^2X_t`$ computed in . We start with the sum of the contributions of order $`X_t`$ and $`\alpha _sX_t`$ which are independent of the Higgs mass and proceed by adding the particular orders to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. To identify the individual contributions for $`M_H=0`$ we continued the value horizontally to the negative $`M_H/M_t`$ region.

Let us first consider the $`\alpha _sX_t^2`$ and $`X_t^3`$ terms for the case $`M_H=0`$, discussed already in . Inclusion of the $`\alpha _sX_t^2`$ term leads to a change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ of $`1.010^6`$, which is not visible in Fig. 7. The $`X_t^3`$ term increases $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ by roughly $`8.210^6`$, again an extremely small effect. The picture alters drastically for larger values of $`M_H`$. The order $`\alpha _sX_t^2`$ correction is sizeable in the region of $`M_HM_t`$ and above. It amounts to approximately $`1/3`$ of the two-loop contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(X_t^2)}`$, but appears with the opposite sign. In contrast, the pure electroweak three-loop contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{(X_t^3)}`$ yields an enhancement of about 1% compared to the order $`X_t^2`$ terms and is therefore negligible for $`M_H`$ values of present interest.

These corrections to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ can be used to examine the resulting shifts of observables like the $`W`$ mass and the effective weak mixing angle, predicted for fixed values of $`M_Z`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`G_F`$ through the equations

$$M_W^2=\frac{\rho M_Z^2}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}\rho G_FM_Z^2}\left(\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }+\mathrm{}\right)}\right)$$
(23)
and

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\text{eff}}=1\frac{M_W^2}{\rho M_Z^2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}\rho G_FM_Z^2}\left(\frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }+\mathrm{}\right)}\right),$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ is the shift of $`\alpha `$ due to photon vacuum polarization effects and the dots are nonleading remainder terms. In Fig. 8 the resulting shifts are shown for the different orders of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ in dependence of the Higgs mass (We do not display the shift of order $`\alpha _sX_t`$ which amounts to $`52.8`$ MeV). This shift should be compared to $`\delta M_W=6\text{ MeV}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.310^5`$ which is the precision anticipated for TESLA operating at the $`Z`$-resonance .

Alternatively we also present the shift in $`M_t`$ which would lead to a comparable shift in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$:

$$\frac{\delta M_t}{M_t}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{3X_t}.$$
(25)
For $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho =510^5`$ this leads to a shift of $`m_t`$ by about 500 MeV, which has to be compared to $`\delta m_t𝒪(100\text{MeV})`$ anticipated for measurements at a future linear collider.

For fixed $`M_t`$, $`M_W`$, and $`M_Z`$ our result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ has to be compensated by a shift in the prediction for $`M_H`$:

$$\frac{\delta M_H}{M_H}\frac{12\sqrt{2}}{11G_F}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho 670\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho $$
(26)
For $`M_H`$ between 120 GeV and 200 GeV the term $`\alpha _sX_t^2`$ leads to an upward shift between 4.5 and 7.5 GeV, the $`X_t^3`$ term to further positive shift of less than 0.5 GeV.

The $`X_t^2\alpha _s`$ term is, furthermore, comparable or larger than the non logarithmically enhanced light fermion electroweak two-loop corrections  and significantly larger than the purely bosonic two-loop contribution. The $`X_t^3`$ is comparable in size to the bosonic two-loop effects evaluated in .

Summary: Combining the results from the extreme regions $`M_H=0`$, $`M_HM_t`$, and $`M_HM_t`$ a prediction for the $`X_t^3`$ and $`\alpha _sX_t^2`$ contributions to the $`\rho `$ parameter has been obtained, which covers in a reliable way the full region of $`M_H`$. The magnitude of these terms is comparable to the non-enhanced two-loop corrections.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank M. Steinhauser who extended the program package MATAD to make this work possible. We are greatful to K.G. Chetyrkin and G. Weiglein for useful discussions. We thank M. Awramik and M. Czakon for tracing a misprint in an earlier version of this paper.

This work was supported by the Graduiertenkolleg “Hochenergiephysik und Teilchenastrophysik”, by BMBF under grant No. 05HT9VKB0, and the DFG-Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo-Simulation” (contract FOR 264/2-1).


text:
# Mutual first order coherence of phase-locked lasers

## I Introduction

Recently, several authors have pointed out that although it has been known for a long time that a laser does not generate a coherent state, it is still possible to use laser light to observe phenomena that are theoretically described in terms of optical (first order) coherence Molmer ; Rudolph ; Enk ; Wiseman .

Mølmer Molmer  argues that optical coherence, manifested, e.g., in a non-vanishing expectation value of the electric field operator, is a “convenient fiction” and he demonstrates that experiments that are usually interpreted in terms of optical coherence need not be described in those terms. Moreover, he argues that optical coherence is not easily generated, and in particular, that a laser does not generate coherent state. Rudolph and Sanders Rudolph  show that if Mølmer’s assertions are true, so that the output state of a laser is given by the density operator

$$\widehat{\rho }_L=_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }|\alpha e^{i\varphi }\alpha e^{i\varphi }|=e^{\alpha ^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^{2n}}{n!}|nn|,$$
(1)
then quantum teleportation is not possible under the conditions postulated for “unconditional quantum teleportation” Furusawa ; Braunstein . Rudolph and Sanders do not rule out the existence of sources of coherent states, but argue that lasers do not produce light with (first order) optical coherence. Van Enk and Fuchs Enk  claim that while a laser does not produce optical coherence in Mølmer’s sense, subsequent temporal modes of the laser output are phase correlated. That is, if the output from a laser is expanded in subsequent orthogonal temporal modes, the state of $`M`$ such modes is

$$_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }|\alpha e^{i\varphi }\alpha e^{i\varphi }|^M,$$
(2)
where the symbol <sup>⊗M</sup> denotes a $`M`$-fold tensor product. A requirement for this is that the laser’s coherence time is longer than $`M`$ times the time duration of a temporal mode. In such a state all the $`M`$ subsequent modes are first order coherent relative to each other, in contrast to the $`M`$-mode state $`\widehat{\rho }_L^M`$. Both states have a vanishing expectation value of the electric field operator for all modes. Van Enk and Fuchs claim that such “phase coherence” is sufficient to allow unconditional quantum teleportation. Wiseman Wiseman , finally, asserts that there are “no devices that can generate ‘true coherence’ any better than a laser.” The basis for his claim is that any oscillator, or oscillation, can only be described relative to some accepted “clock” standard. He goes on stating that nothing suggests that there exist any better “clock” at optical frequencies than a laser. We subscribe to this view, and it is compounded by the fact that at the National Institute of Standards i Boulder, Colorado, the next generation of an “atomic clock” in development is indeed an optical clock Diddams . That is, the clock oscillator operates at an optical-, rather than a microwave-transition of an atom.

The coherent state $`|e^{i\varphi }|\alpha |`$ of an oscillator with the angular center frequency $`\omega _0`$, can mathematically be generated from the vacuum state through the displacement operator. It is a minimum uncertainty state in the in-phase operator $`\widehat{a}_1=(\widehat{a}+\widehat{a}^{})/2`$ and the quadrature-phase operator $`\widehat{a}_2=(\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{})/2i`$, where $`\widehat{a}`$ ($`\widehat{a}^{}`$) is the bosonic annihilation (creation) operator. The quadrature amplitude fluctuation operators are defined $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_i=\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i`$, with $`i=1,2`$. In Table 1 we have computed the expectation values of the quadrature amplitudes, the photon number, and their variances for the two states $`\widehat{\rho }_L`$ and $`|e^{i\varphi }|\alpha |`$ (for the particular choice $`\varphi =0`$) in columns two and three. The table clearly shows that the observable statistics of the two states differ significantly. Hence, they cannot both describe the output of a laser, at least not if similar initial and boundary conditions for the laser and the detector are assumed. Wang et al. have also studied and quantified this difference Wang .

In the following we shall describe a simple model of phase locking of two independent lasers to a master laser. Phase-locking of two lasers has already been demonstrated using both CW Ye  and pulsed lasers Shelton . However, phase-locking of two independent lasers close to the quantum limit, that is such that the relative phase fluctuations are comparable to those of two ideal coherent states, has never been demonstrated. We shall see, that it is possible to stabilize two lasers so that they are relatively first-order coherent to that extent, although they are incoherent relative to any third, auxiliary laser, or other “clock standard”. A similar proposal has also been put forth by Fujii Fujii , but in Fujii , the analysis is geared towards a practical implementation of quantum teleportation, whereas we direct our interest towards the question whether first order coherence between two lasers can be established at all.

It will be convenient to work in the Heisenberg picture in the spectral domain. Since a CW laser output consists of a continuous photon flux, we shall work with the photon flux operator $`\widehat{r}`$. (See subsection A.1 in the Appendix for a detailed discussion of $`\widehat{r}`$.) For a coherent state, the spectral relations corresponding to equations three and four in the third column of Table 1 are Yamamoto

$`S_{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`1/4,`$ (3)
$`S_{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_2}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`1/4,`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \omega _0`$ so that, e.g., $`S_{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the double-sided power spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1`$ around the center frequency $`\omega _0`$. (Note that the laser external field spectra computed in Ref. Yamamoto  are single-sided spectra.) These relations demonstrate a particular feature of the coherent state, namely a frequency independent quadrature amplitude noise spectrum. Operationally, this means that the quadrature amplitude noise of a coherent state is stationary. Moreover, a field in a coherent state remains in a coherent state independent of the detector temporal response function (see the Appendix).

The corresponding spectra for the laser external field have also been computed in Yamamoto . While the model employed was specifically targeting a semiconductor laser, the general features are largely independent of the laser type. It was found that the corresponding relations for (a somewhat idealized) laser, pumped high above the threshold, are

$`S_{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`1/4\text{and}`$ (5)
$`S_{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_2}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\gamma ^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}},`$ (6)
where $`\gamma `$ is the inverse of the laser photon lifetime. We see that (6) radically differs from (4) in that Eq. (6) has a $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ behavior at low frequencies. This is characteristic of a Wiener process, leading to diffusion. Therefore, even if the phase of the external field amplitude was known (e.g., through a series of measurements) at some time $`t_0`$, the phase will be randomized through phase diffusion at times $`tt_0+1/\gamma `$. Therefore, unless the field of the laser has been measured relative to a reference within the laser’s coherence time $`1/\gamma `$, the state of a laser is well described by the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_L`$ irrespective of how relatively stable the reference oscillator is. The density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_L`$ also describes the state of a free-running laser, that is, a laser whose phase relative to our reference is unknown. This result is indeed expected from symmetry arguments, and Mølmer, in particular, emphasize that there is no mechanism in a free-running laser that breaks the in-phase, quadrature-phase symmetry. Hence, the expectation value of the electric field of an unmonitored, free-running laser vanishes.

## II Phase-locked lasers

Now consider the case when we stabilize the laser field with the help of a master oscillator. In the following we will consider feedforward stabilization, for simplicity. Later, we shall briefly discuss feedback stabilization. Fig. 1 shows a schematic drawing of two lasers locked to a master oscillator by feedforward. The notation we will use is defined by the figure. The master oscillator (laser) field $`\widehat{b}`$ is divided into two by beam splitter one (BS1) which is a 50/50 beam splitter. The field into the other port of the beam splitter is a vacuum field $`\widehat{u}`$, so that the beam splitter output modes $`\widehat{k}`$ and $`\widehat{k}^{^{}}`$ are given by $`\widehat{k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{b}+\widehat{u})`$ and $`\widehat{k}^{^{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{b}\widehat{u})`$.

Next, we look at beam splitter two (BS2), where part of the laser field $`\widehat{a}`$ is tapped to get a locking signal $`\widehat{d}`$. Again, a vacuum field, denoted $`\widehat{v}`$, is incident on the other input port. Hence, the two output fields $`\widehat{d}`$ and $`\widehat{c}`$ are given by

$$\widehat{d}=r\widehat{a}+t\widehat{v},\text{and}\widehat{c}=t\widehat{a}r\widehat{v},$$
(7)
where $`r=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ ($`t=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$) is the reflectivity (transmissivity) of the beam splitter. At beam splitter number three (BS3), which is also a 50/50 splitter, the fields $`\widehat{d}`$ and $`\widehat{k}`$ are mixed, and subsequently the outputs $`\widehat{g}`$ and $`\widehat{h}`$, which are given by

$$\widehat{g}=(\widehat{d}+\widehat{k})/\sqrt{2}=(r\widehat{a}+t\widehat{v})/\sqrt{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{b}+\widehat{u})$$
(8)
and

$$\widehat{h}=(\widehat{d}\widehat{k})/\sqrt{2}=(r\widehat{a}+t\widehat{v})/\sqrt{2}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{b}+\widehat{u})$$
(9)
are measured by photodetectors. The detector photocurrents will be proportional to $`\widehat{g}^{}\widehat{g}`$ and $`\widehat{h}^{}\widehat{h}`$, that can be expressed as

$$\widehat{g}^{}\widehat{g}=(\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}+\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{k}+\widehat{k}^{}\widehat{d}+\widehat{k}^{}\widehat{k})/2$$
(10)
and

$$\widehat{h}^{}\widehat{h}=(\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{k}\widehat{k}^{}\widehat{d}+\widehat{k}^{}\widehat{k})/2.$$
(11)
The difference between the measured photocurrents $`\widehat{g}^{}\widehat{g}\widehat{h}^{}\widehat{h}`$ will be the homodyne signal $`\widehat{e}`$, which we call the error signal. This signal is simply

$$\widehat{e}=\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{k}+\widehat{k}^{}\widehat{d}.$$
(12)
Now, expand the operators in quadrature components and assume that $`\widehat{d}`$ leads $`\widehat{k}`$ by the relative phase angle $`\pi /2`$. (this choice of relative phase will beat the excitation of one field with the quadrature amplitude of the other field.) That is, we multiply the operator $`\widehat{d}`$ with $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /2)=i`$ and remember that both fields are expressed relative to the same fiducial field. (Below, we shall see that the relative phase angle $`\pi /2`$ is the stable feedforward locking point.) This will yield the mean error signal zero, and the fluctuating part of the error signal will be

$`\widehat{e}`$ $`=`$ $`i(d_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_1i\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_2)(k_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_1+i\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_2)`$ (14)
$`+i(k_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_1i\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_2)(d_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_1+i\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_2)`$
$`=`$ $`2(d_0\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_2k_0\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_2)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2),`$ (15)
where $`𝒪(\mathrm{}^2)`$ denotes terms of second order in the quadrature flux fluctuation operators.

It is well worth examining Eq. (15) in some detail, since it is the generic noise equation for homodyne measurements. Assume, that each of the fields $`\widehat{k}`$ and $`\widehat{d}`$ is in a coherent state. Hence, it follows that the two fields are relatively coherent. Since the quadrature amplitude fluctuations of a coherent state are equal, and independent of the state’s excitation, the homodyne detection noise is dominated by the weaker field, since the weaker field’s quadrature amplitude noise beats against the stronger field’s in-phase amplitude. (It is customary to refer to the stronger field as the “local oscillator.”) If the two fields have unequal quadrature amplitude fluctuations, e.g., assume that $`S_{\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_2}(\mathrm{\Omega })>S_{\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_2}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, then the homodyne detection noise is still dominated by the quadrature amplitude fluctuations of $`\widehat{d}`$ provided that $`k_0^2>d_0^2S_{\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_2}(\mathrm{\Omega })/S_{\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_2}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Using the relations between incident and output fields above, we can re-express this equation in the (quadrature expansion of the) input fields $`\widehat{a}`$, $`\widehat{b}`$, $`\widehat{u}`$, and $`\widehat{v}`$. The result (to first order in the fluctuation operators) is

$$\widehat{e}=\frac{ra_0}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2+\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_2)\frac{b_0}{\sqrt{2}}(r\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2+t\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2).$$
(16)
This is almost what we desire. Remember that the objective is to reduce the large fluctuations of $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ at low frequencies. These are the fluctuations leading to phase diffusion. The error signal clearly contain the information about these fluctuations. By making the master oscillator flux amplitude sufficiently large, so that $`b_0`$ is much larger than $`a_0`$, this noise information will dominate the error signal at low frequencies. (Remember that the spectral density of $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2`$ increases as $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, whereas the spectral density of $`\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2`$ is 1/4, independent of frequency.) From the expression (16) we see that under this condition, if the relative phase between $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2`$ is larger than $`\pi /2`$, that is, either $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ is positive or $`\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2`$ is negative, then the error signal is negative. In order to compensate for the $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ fluctuations, the error signal should be feed forward, keeping the sign, to a phase shifter. Let us, therefore, see what happens when we apply some phase shift, say $`\varphi `$, to an output signal $`\widehat{c}=c_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_1+i\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_2`$. In this case we denote the phase shifted signal by $`\widehat{f}`$

$`\widehat{f}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )\widehat{c}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`(c_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_1)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{}\widehat{c}_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (19)
$`+i[\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +(c_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_1)\mathrm{sin}\varphi ]`$
$``$ $`c_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_1+i(\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_2+c_0\varphi ),`$ (20)
where we have linearized the equation to first order in $`\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_1`$, and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{c}_2`$. Assume now that the phase shift $`\varphi `$ is equal to the error signal $`\widehat{e}`$ times some feedforward gain $`𝒢`$. The output signal after phase correction by the error signal is given by

$`\widehat{f}t(a_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_1+i\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2)r(\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_1+i\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2)+ita_0𝒢\widehat{e}.`$ (21)
To cancel the noise term $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ in the expression above, we have to adjust the feedforward gain so that

$$𝒢=\sqrt{2}/ra_0b_0.$$
(22)
After doing so, the output signal becomes

$$\widehat{f}=ta_0+t\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_1r\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_1+i\left[\frac{ta_0}{b_0}(\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2+\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_2)\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2\right],$$
(23)
where we have used the relation $`t^2+r^2=1`$. From this equation we see that the noise term $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$, describing the phase-diffusion noise originating in the laser generating the $`\widehat{a}`$ field, is absent. Instead, a new diffusion noise term $`ta_0\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2/b_0`$ has appeared. Since the master oscillator is also a laser, this noise term will also have a spectral density proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ at low frequencies. Hence, one Wiener process, $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$ (relative to the fiducial reference), has simply been replaced by another, $`\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2`$.

Let us now see what happens with the output field $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ if we subject the laser field $`\widehat{a}^{^{}}`$ to the same sequence of measurement and feedforward as the field $`\widehat{a}`$. The calculation of $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ proceeds in a similar fashion as for $`\widehat{f}`$, except that the field $`\widehat{k}^{^{}}=(\widehat{b}\widehat{u})/\sqrt{2}`$. Hence, the only difference from the expression (23) above is that all fields should be primed, except for the master oscillator field $`\widehat{b}`$ and the vacuum field operator $`\widehat{u}`$. However, the sign in front of the operator $`\widehat{u}`$ should be reversed. Hence, the output $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ becomes

$$\widehat{f}^{^{}}=ta_0^{^{}}+t\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_1^{^{}}r\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_1^{^{}}+i\left[\frac{ta_0^{^{}}}{b_0}(\mathrm{}\widehat{b}_2\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_2)\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2^{^{}}\right].$$
(24)
Assume that the two field amplitudes $`ta_0`$ and $`ta_0^{^{}}`$ are equal and that the two fields $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ are detected by a balanced homodyne detector. The detector output, that is the beat-note between the two incident fields $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$, can then be deduced in a straightforward fashion by comparing with (15). The detector output fluctuations will be

$$f_0\mathrm{}\widehat{f}_2^{^{}}f_0^{^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{f}_2=2ta_0\left(\frac{2ta_0\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_2}{b_0}+\frac{\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2^{^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{v}}{r}\right).$$
(25)
From this equation we see that the relative-noise spectrum is no longer proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ at low frequencies, but is flat, since $`\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_2`$, $`\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_2^{^{}}`$ all emanate from vacuum fluctuations and hence have frequency independent spectra with the spectral density 1/4. Recalling that an earlier assumption was that $`b_0a_0`$, the first term on the right hand side of (25) can be neglected. Therefore, the spectral density of the detector fluctuations is, to a good approximation, $`2(ta_0/r)^2`$ at all frequencies (see the Appendix). In comparison, the homodyne detector spectra from two coherent states, with field amplitudes $`ta_0`$, would be $`2(ta_0)^2`$. Hence, as $`r1`$, the relative quadrature-phase noise of the two locked lasers will approach the noise level of two coherent state sources. At the same time, the mean in-phase amplitude of $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ would approach zero. Assume now that we use the relatively coherent fields $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ as local oscillators in two separate homodyne measurements. Using (15), it is not difficult to prove that in order to minimize the influence of the local oscillator quadrature amplitude noise, the choice $`t=r=2^{1/2}`$ should be made. Assume, for simplicity, that the field we want to measure is a coherent state with mean amplitude $`d_0`$. If so, the coherent state’s quadrature amplitude noise will dominate the measurement fluctuations if $`a_0>2d_0`$. That is, with this choice of mirror transmission $`t`$, the two fields $`\widehat{f}`$ and $`\widehat{f}^{^{}}`$ are relatively coherent, each with a noise spectral density twice of that of a coherent state. For a more detailed discussion of the connection between (25) and the first order coherence function between the locked lasers, the reader is referred to the Appendix, subsection A.3.

An additional consequence, discussed in more detail in subsection A.2 in the Appendix, is that within a time small compared to the inverse spectral linewidth of the locked lasers, the lasers will remain relatively coherent even if the feedforward locking loop is turned off. It will thus be possible to do, e.g., continuous variable teleportation without giving up the quantum teleportation criteria given in Braunstein

## III Feedforward v.s. feedback

Above, we have analyzed the situation where two lasers are phase locked to a third laser by feedforward. While such a scheme lends itself to a simple analysis, the scheme has obvious practical shortcomings. One is the need of a precise control of the feedforward gain. In order to completely suppress the phase diffusion of each laser, relative to the master laser, the feedforward gain must be precisely set according to (22). This will be impossible in reality. In addition, the mean absolute value of the error signal (16) will be grow with time as $`t^{1/2}`$, there $`t`$ is the time since the main information the error signal contains, $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2`$, is a non-stationary term. The error signal is used to drive a phase-compensating device, e.g., an electrooptical crystal or an adjustable piezoelectrically controlled delay line. However, due to the fact that with time, the error signal will increase without limit, any phase-compensating device will eventually run out of range and will have to be reset.

In reality, it would be wiser to lock the lasers by feedback, and the feedback should act on the laser frequency (e.g., translating one of the laser’s mirrors) after appropriate filtering. In a feedback loop, the relative fluctuations will initially become smaller and smaller with increasing feedback gain. If the feedback measurement and feedback loop is carefully designed, it is possible to reach the limit set by quantum noise manifested in (25) before (non-fundamental) feedback loop fluctuations are sufficiently amplified to dominate the locked lasers’ output. In addition, since the accumulated relative phase equals the time integrated frequency difference between the master and slave laser, the phase-compensating device will not run out of range. Differently stated, the lasers frequency difference is the time derivative of the lasers’ relative phase. Therefore, if the latter noise process has a spectrum proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, the former noise has a flat spectrum at low frequencies. The frequency error signal is hence a stationary process. Hence, if the feedback is implemented by moving one of the laser’s mirrors, its position needs only to be adjusted within a fixed range and the actuator moving the mirror need not run out of range.

The disadvantage with feedback locking is that it is more difficult to analyze, and that one risks self oscillation at baseband frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _f=\pi `$. Here, $`\tau _f`$ is the feedback loop time delay. At this frequency the feedback loop does no longer suppress the fluctuation but instead enhances them. If the feedback loop gain is too high, one induces self oscillation. Hence, one needs to make a compromise between the feedback loop stability and the feedback gain, all while maximizing the feedback loop bandwidth. Since our analysis essentially only had the purpose to point out that coherence of a harmonic oscillator must always be relative to some reference oscillator, we will not delve deeper into these issues here.

## IV Conclusions

We have argued that first order coherence is a relative property, and that if one accepts this view, the light emanating from a laser can be first-order coherent relative to itself at an earlier time, or to a different laser. Due to phase diffusion, two lasers will only stay relatively coherent for a time smaller than the smallest of inverses the lasers’ respective linewidth unless they are actively phase-locked. Since, in principle, the laser linewidth can be as small as one wishes, this fact does not prevent lasers to be used to demonstrate, e.g., unconditional quantum teleportation. It could in principle be done by locking Alice’s and Bob’s homodyning lasers to a master laser before the unknown state and the shared entangled are measured with the help of the laser. The locking is then turned off, and Alice’s and Bob’s respective laser become free running. The two experimentalists now have roughly the lasers’ coherence time to perform the teleportation, including the Alice’s homodyne measurements, the classical communication, and the final unitary evolution by Bob. A typical laser’s coherence time may seem short on the human time-scale ($``$1 s). However, on an electronics time-scale ($``$1 ns), a two good lasers stay relatively coherent for a long time.

In the Appendix, we have included a discussion why the popular model of laser fluctuations using Langevin noise sources fail to describe the laser’s behavior for times long compared to the laser’s inverse linewidth. The linearization customarily employed in the solution of these equations neglect to take the restoring force of the quadrature-phase amplitude fluctuations in account, and hence these equations erroneously predicts that it is only the quadrature-phase amplitude, relative to some fix fiducial reference, that diffuses. Unfortunately, if the equations are not linearized, they are difficult to solve analytically.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Dr. Jonas Söderholm and Professor Shuichiro Inoue for valuable discussions. The work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR) and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF).

## Appendix A Expectation values from flux spectra

### A.1 Expectation values of a coherent state

Here we derive the relation between the external field operator $`\widehat{r}`$ and the mean photon number and the photon number variance of a specific mode. The external field operator $`\widehat{r}`$ correspond to a photon flux amplitude. The photon flux operator is hence given by $`\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r}`$, and has the unit Hz. The expectation value of $`\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r}`$ gives the mean photon flux, in photons per second. Let us expand $`\widehat{r}`$ relative some fiducial reference as $`\widehat{r}(t)=r_0+\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1(t)+i\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_2(t)`$. Here, the field amplitude $`r_0`$ has been assumed to be in phase with a fiducial reference. Expanding to first order in the fluctuation operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_2(t)`$ we get

$$\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r}r_0^2+2r_0\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1(t).$$
(26)
Assume now that a photodetector temporal mode-function $`h`$ is a rectangle function of duration $`T`$, see Fig. 2. The detector output, as a function of time, will be the convolution between the flux and the detector response function

$$R(t)=(\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r})h[r_0^2+2r_0\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1(t)]h.$$
(27)
Sampling this function every $`T`$ seconds, yields the photon number in subsequent orthogonal temporal modes. The detected mean photon number per mode hence becomes

$$\widehat{n}=r_0^2T.$$
(28)
We would now like to compute the photon number variance of such a mode. Since the coherent field flux fluctuations are ergodic we can proceed as follows: Define $`y(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1(t)h`$. The spectral density of this signal is

$$S_{y(t)}(\mathrm{\Omega })=S_{\widehat{r}_1(t)}|H(\mathrm{\Omega })|^2=\frac{1}{4}|H(\mathrm{\Omega })|^2,$$
(29)
where the spectral filter function $`H(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the Fourier transform of $`h`$ and we have used the fact that the spectral density of the quadrature amplitude fluctuations of a coherent state flux is 1/4 according to (3). The first order correlation function $`G(\tau )`$ of $`y(t)`$ is the (inverse) Fourier transform of its power spectrum, so that

$$G_{y(t)}(\tau )=^1S_{y(t)}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{4}hh,$$
(30)
where we have used the fact that the Fourier transform of a product of functions is the convolution of their respective inverses. Finally, the variance of $`y(t)`$ is $`G_{y(t)}(0)`$. Looking at figure 3, we find that $`G_{y(t)}(0)=T/4`$. This means that the photon number variance can be expressed

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{n}^2=4r_0^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_1(t))h)^2=4r_0^2T/4=Tr_0^2.$$
(31)
Comparing with (28) we see that we arrive at the expected result for a coherent state.

To derive the mean quadrature amplitudes and their variances we proceed in a similar way. Suppose two fields, characterized by the photon flux amplitudes $`\widehat{r}`$ and $`\widehat{r}^{^{}}`$ are incident on a homodyne detector. If the two fields are relatively coherent and have the same phase, we can use (12) and insert the expansion of the fields in quadrature amplitude components (e.g., $`\widehat{r}=r_0+\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_1+i\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2`$). To the first order in the fluctuation operators the detector output becomes:

$$2r_0r_0^{^{}}+r_0\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_1^{^{}}+r_0^{^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_1+O(\mathrm{}^2).$$
(32)
Passing this signal trough appropriate detector filter, (integrate for $`T`$ seconds and then dump), the mean detection signal becomes

$$2r_0r_0^{^{}}T.$$
(33)
The prefactor 2 in the equation above is simply a scaling factor. Since the signal emanates from the projection of one in-phase amplitude on another, we conclude from the symmetry of the problem that, for the field $`\widehat{r}`$,

$$\widehat{a}_1=\sqrt{T}r_0$$
(34)
(Remember that, e.g., $`\widehat{a}_1`$ is the in-phase amplitude of the field in a specific temporal mode, while $`\widehat{r}_1`$ is the in-phase amplitude operator of a continuous flux.) Assume now that $`\widehat{r}^{^{}}`$ has a much larger mean in-phase amplitude than $`\widehat{r}`$. Filtering away the DC-component of the signal (32), and measuring the variance of the detector signal after filtering the temporal mode, the detector signal approximately becomes

$$r_0^{^{}}\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_1h(t)$$
(35)
Using the same procedure as we used to compute the mean photon flux above, we see that the variance of this signal is $`(r_0^{^{}})^2T/4`$. From this we can conclude that $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_1^2=1/4`$, since $`T(r_0^{^{}})^2`$ is the square of the mean local oscillator in-phase amplitude (the amplitude we beat the fluctuations against).

If we phase rotate $`\widehat{r}`$ with $`\pi /2`$ with the respect to $`\widehat{r}^{^{}}`$, and follow the same procedure to calculate $`\widehat{a}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2^2`$, we will find that $`\widehat{a}_2=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_1^2=1/4`$. Hence, the results in the third column of Table 1 are reproduced if Eq. (3) and (4) are used.

### A.2 Expectation values of the laser output field

If we now use (5) and (6), modelling the noise properties of the output field from a laser, we will get identical results as those in the previous subsection for $`\widehat{n}`$, $`(\mathrm{}\widehat{n})^2`$, $`\widehat{a}_1`$, $`\widehat{a}_2`$, and $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_1^2`$. However, due to the spectrum (6) of $`\widehat{r}_2`$, the expectation value of $`\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_2^2=\mathrm{}`$ independent of $`T`$.

To study this divergence, due to the diffusion of $`\widehat{r}_2`$, assume that we homodyne the field $`\widehat{r}`$ in two orthogonal temporal modes defined by two rectangle functions with durations from $`t`$ to $`t+T`$, and $`t+\tau `$ to $`t+\tau +T`$, respectively, where $`\tau T`$. A schematic procedure to make such a measurement with the aid of a flip mirror is depicted in Fig. 4. From (15) we find that the measurement output will become $`2r_0[\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2(t)\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2(t+\tau )]h(t)`$. With the help of (6), the spectrum of the output fluctuations can be computed to be

$$S_{Hom}(\mathrm{\Omega })=4^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\gamma ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau /2)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{T}/2)}{\mathrm{\Omega }/2}\right]^2$$
(36)
Transforming this function back to the time domain gives the correlation function, and its value at the origin, the variance, can be computed to be:

$$r_0^2T\left[2T\tau \gamma ^2(1\frac{T}{6\tau })\right].$$
(37)
We see that since $`\tau T`$, the variance will approximately be $`2r_0^2T`$ (the shot noise associated with the total detected photon number $`2r_0^2T`$) when $`T\tau <\gamma ^2`$. That is, for measurements, even relative measurements, within the laser coherence time $`\gamma ^1`$, the laser output field in a succession of temporal modes will, each one, approximately be in a coherent state if the first mode in the succession is used as the reference. Note that this conclusion holds irrespective of the numerical values of $`T`$, $`\tau `$, and $`\gamma ^1`$ as long as $`T<\tau <\gamma ^1`$. This result agrees with the analysis of van Enk and Fuchs Enk .

### A.3 First order coherence of phase-locked lasers

The first order correlation function between two classical electromagnetic fields is defined

$$E(\overline{𝐫},t)E^{}(\overline{𝐫}^{},t^{}),$$
(38)
where $`\overline{𝐫}`$ and $`\overline{𝐫}^{}`$ denote two spatial locations, and $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ denote two times. In the following we will restrict ourselves to single mode fields, and therefore, we can suppress the spatial coordinates. Expressing the fields in terms of amplitude and phase, and expanding the amplitude in its (real and positive) mean $`E_0`$, and its fluctuation around this mean $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)`$, one gets

$$E(t)E^{}(t^{})E_0E_0^{}e^{i\omega _0(tt^{})}e^{i[\varphi (t)\varphi ^{}(t^{})]},$$
(39)
where we have dropped the term quadratic in the the fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and where we have assumed that the amplitude- and the phase-fluctuations are uncorrelated. (The latter assumption is not true in semiconductor lasers, where the so-called $`\alpha `$-parameter characterizes the inverted-media meditated correlations between amplitude and phase. For small fluctuations this fact is inconsequential for what follows.) From Eq. (39) we see that as long as $`|\varphi (t)\varphi ^{}(t^{})|1`$ rad, then the correlation function has the modulus $`|E_0E_0^{}|`$, indicating that the two fields are first order coherent. Assume that the difference $`|\varphi (t)\varphi ^{}(t^{})|`$ is small. We can then take either field and make it our fiducial reference, so that we work in a frame rotating with the angular frequency $`\omega _0`$. We find that in this rotating frame, $`E_0r_0`$, $`\mathrm{}E(t)\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_1`$, and for small angles we have $`\varphi (t)\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2/r_0`$. Similar relations hold for the primed field. Hence, if we can show that for two locked lasers the relation

$$|\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2/r_0\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2^{}/r_0^{}|1$$
(40)
holds, then our assumptions above hold, and the laser fields will be first order coherent. For two lasers with equal fields, $`r_0=r_0^{}`$, the condition can be reformulated

$$|\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2^{}|r_0.$$
(41)
Hence, the homodyne measurement beat signal is directly relevant to the two fields’ relative first order coherence.

From (25) we can deduce that the noise spectrum of $`\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2\mathrm{}\widehat{r}_2^{}`$ equals $`4`$, where we have assumed a mirror reflectivity of 1/2 for the beam splitters $`BS2`$ and $`BS2^{}`$. This corresponds to an equivalent photon flux amplitude of the order 1 Hz<sup>1/2</sup>, very much below a typical laser. E.g., a single (transverse) mode laser emitting 1 mW optical power at a wavelength of 500 nm has a photon flux amplitude of $`510^7`$ Hz<sup>1/2</sup> demonstrating that (41) is easily met. This proves the validity of our approach.

### A.4 Laser potentials and the linearized approximation

To see why the noise spectra (5), (6) correctly predicts the short-time ($`T`$, $`\tau <\gamma ^1`$) relative-coherence properties of a laser, but fails to reproduce the long term quadrature phase properties (popularly speaking, these are called the coherence properties) manifested in the first column in Table 1, it is instructive to look at the laser potential models that underlies the various theories.

The internal field of a laser, under certain approximations can be modelled as a particle in a particular potential subjected to Langevin noise forces. The simplest standard model for the potential, derived from the equation of motion of the field is

$$V(\widehat{a})=(\frac{\alpha \gamma _0}{4})|\widehat{a}|^2+\frac{C}{4}|\widehat{a}|^4,$$
(42)
where $`\alpha `$ is the overall gain per unit time in the laser, $`\gamma _0`$ the cavity decay rate (the inverse of the (cold) laser cavity photon lifetime), and $`C`$ is the gain saturation parameter. In Fig. 5 we see how the potential goes from a parabolic potential to a “Mexican hat” potential as the gain goes from subthreshold to above threshold. In both cases the potential has circular symmetry around the origin. Since lasing is triggered by spontaneous emission (that is one of the origins of the Langevin noise sources in the model), the laser field will not have any preferred phase (relative to the fiducial reference defining the coordinate system orientation). Therefore, a free-running laser where only the intensity is known (supposedly through a photon number measurement or by knowledge of the relation between the pumping and the output intensity) must be described by the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_L`$ of Eq. (1). As Mølmer Molmer , and other’s before him, have pointed out, a laser does not induce any symmetry breaking, and therefore it does not induce coherence relative to any other oscillator.

However, as the analysis above indicate, by measuring and influencing the field of a laser, either with feedforward control, or feedback control, the relative phase of two lasers can be locked so that the lasers become relatively coherent. However, if the locking servo is turned off, the Langevin fluctuations of each laser will make the relative phase between the two lasers diffuse, since the potential offers only a restoring force in the radial direction, but not in the azimuthal direction. After a time approximately equal to the inverse of the laser emission spectral linewidth, the two lasers are no longer relatively coherent.

This situation is not well described by Eqs. (5) and (6), because these equations predict that it is only the $`\widehat{a}_2`$ quadrature that diffuses. If that were the case, then the relative phase of the two lasers with the initial relative phase zero, would remain zero, on average, for all subsequent times. If so, the quadrature-phase amplitude fluctuation would eventually become larger than the mean in-phase component. However, this is not what happens in a laser. The reason for the erroneous prediction of (6) is that in the analysis leading to the equation, the laser potential (or rather the Langevin noise operators) have been linearized about the operating point. The corresponding linearized potential is illustrated in Fig. 6. One can see that in the linearized potential, the gain saturation will only act in the direction parallel to the field expectation value. In contrast, the better model of the potential will act in the direction parallel to the instantaneous field, i.e., in the radial direction. The linearized potential correctly predicts the laser behavior for times up to the laser’s relative decoherence time, but fails for long time scales, where it is actually the relative phase, and not the quadrature field amplitude that diffuses.