text:
# References

Dynamical mass scales

The recent confirmation of dark energy by the high precision KMAP data  challenges for an answer to the question if dark energy is constituted by a static cosmological constant or by dynamical quintessence . A dynamical dark energy may shed light on the profound question of the role and origin of mass scales in physics. It may also lead to a cosmological time variation of dimensionless fundamental parameters like the electromagnetic fine structure constant.

In quantum field theory or statistical physics the dimensionless couplings depend on length scales . This effect is perhaps most striking in QCD where the running gauge coupling generates the mass scale for the hadrons. The modern view of the renormalization group  associates this running with an “integrating out” of fluctuations as one looks at the effective physics on larger and larger length scales. The fluctuation effects can be treated in a conceptual simple and elegant form in the context of an exact functional renormalization group equation for the effective average action . It describes for both renormalizable and nonrenormalizable theories the dependence of the fluctuation effects on an effective infrared cutoff. The physical length scale which cuts off the fluctuations in the infrared may correspond to the expectation value of a scalar field  and therefore become dynamical. We explore here the hypothesis that the time evolution of scales persists until the present epoch in the universe . This would have striking effects for cosmology, the time variation of fundamental “constants” and tests of the equivalence principle.

For the renormalization of the standard model of particle physics one usually assumes implicitely the existence of an ultraviolet scale - typically the Planck scale or a grand unification scale. Similarly, for solids the ultraviolet scale is given by the lattice distance or for gases and liquids by the molecular size. In contrast, we explore here the concept of a unified theory where the action does not involve any explicit fundamental mass scale 222In string theories the apparent mass scale corresponding to the string tension can be replaced by the expectation value of the dilaton, thereby making this scale dynamical as well.. Even without knowing the fundamental unified theory the experience with quantum physics lets us expect two types of possible mass scales in such a scenario. First, some intrinsic mass scales may be generated by the running of dimensionless couplings, similar to the hadron masses in QCD. Second, the expectation values of scalar fields induce dynamical mass scales. This second type of scales can change in the course of the cosmological evolution.

We explore here the scenario that the Planck mass or Newtons constant is dynamical. In contrast to the early formulation of this idea by Dirac and Jordan ,  we postulate ,  that the particle masses are dynamical as well, such that in a first approximation the ratio between the nucleon mass and the Planck mass, $`m_n/\overline{M}_p`$, remains fixed, and similar for the weak scale $`M_W/\overline{M}_p`$, the electron mass $`m_e/\overline{M}_p`$ etc. In this first approximation all mass scales are proportional to a scalar field $`\chi `$, i.e. $`\overline{M}_p=\chi ,m_n=h_n\chi `$ or $`m_e=h_e\chi `$. This changes profoundly both the conceptual status and the observational consequences as compared to scenarios with fixed particle masses .

In fact, in absence of intrinsic mass scales generated by the running dimensionless couplings the effective action (after integrating out all quantum fluctuations) would exhibit an exact dilatation symmetry, corresponding to a multiplicative rescaling $`\chi \alpha \chi `$. If we neglect in a first approximation the intrinsic mass scales, any nonzero value of the scalar field $`\chi `$ would break the exact global dilatation symmetry. In consequence of the spontaneous breaking of scale symmetry most particles would acquire a mass $`\chi `$. Another consequence would be a Goldstone boson $`\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ which has only derivative interactions - the dilaton. In this approximation of an exact spontaneously broken dilatation symmetry no interesting consequences for late cosmology are expected . However, the impact of the dilaton on cosmology changes dramatically if the effect of the possible intrinsic mass scales is taken into account. In terms of the dilatation symmetry the intrinsic mass scales reflect an “anomaly” induced by the quantum fluctuations. The scalar field $`\chi `$ can now constitute a dynamical dark energy or quintessence  which is relevant for the present universe. Because of its important cosmological consequences the “pseudo-dilaton” $`\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ has been named the cosmon.

We present here a particular version of crossover quintessence  with two intrinsic mass scales generated by running dimensionless couplings. The first mass scale $`\chi _c`$ indicates a crossover behavior in the derivative interactions of the pseudo Goldstone boson, without introducing a potential. More concretely, it affects the kinetic term of the cosmon and indirectly the location of an ultraviolet fixed point for the running grand unified gauge coupling. The second scale $`m`$ is analogous to the hadron scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ in QCD. It is an infrared scale where the running grand unified gauge coupling grows large. This scale $`m`$ induces a mass term for the cosmon field $`m^2\chi ^2`$. Similar to the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/\overline{M}_p`$ the ratio $`m/\chi _c`$ can be exponentially small. We will see that for $`\mathrm{ln}(m/\chi _c)1/138`$ a realistic cosmology arises, with quintessence responsible for about $`70\%`$ of the present energy density of the universe. Our model turns out to be compatible with all present cosmological tests.

Furthermore, this model predicts that the fundamental “constants” depend on time . In fact, the running of a typical dimensionless coupling like the fine structure constant $`\alpha _{em}`$ can be written in the functional form $`\alpha _{em}(q^2/\chi ^2,\chi ^2/\mu ^2)`$ where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary renormalization scale. For fixed $`\chi `$ the dependence on the squared momentum $`q^2`$ is governed by the usual $`\beta `$-function of the standard model. On the other hand, for fixed $`q^2/\chi ^2`$ the variation of $`\chi `$ is governed by the running of the grand unified gauge coupling $`\alpha _X`$. The cosmological time dependence of $`\chi `$ results in a time dependence of the fine structure costant! We show that for reasonable $`\beta `$-functions for the running grand unified gauge coupling our model can reconcile the claimed time variation from the observation of quasar absorption lines  with severe bounds from archeo-nuclear physics  and tests of the equivalence principle .

Crossover Quintessence

Crossover quintessence (CQ) can be characterized by a recent increase of the fraction in homogeneous dark energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h=\rho _h/\rho _{cr}`$ from a small but not negligible value for early cosmology to a value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h0.7`$ today. A small early value (say $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h=0.01)`$ typically results from a cosmic attractor solution  (“tracker solution”) independently of the detailed initial conditions. For such models of “early quintessence” the dark energy decreases in early cosmology at the same pace as radiation. Dark energy and radiation have therefore always been of a comparable magnitude and excessive “fine tuning” can be avoided . The amount of early quintessence is accessible to observation by nucleosynthesis , the cosmic microwave background (CMB)  or structure formation . The recent crossover to a domination of the universe by dark energy ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_h0.7`$) may be related to properties of the underlying model 333This typically requires a modest “tuning” of parameters at the level somewhat below 1%. or triggered by matter domination  or structure formation . On the level of the equation of state CQ corresponds to a crossover from a value $`w_h1/3`$ during the radiation dominated universe to a substantially negative value for $`z<0.5`$.

In this note we elaborate on a recent proposal  that CQ is connected to the existence of a conformal fixed point in a fundamental theory. This will serve as a natural starting point for a discussion of the variation of couplings. We assume that for low momenta $`(q^2\chi ^2)`$ the yet unknown unified theory results in an effective grand unified model in four dimensions. There the coupling of the cosmon field $`\chi `$ to gravity and the gauge fields is described by an effective action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^2R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta (\chi )6)^\mu \chi _\mu \chi `$ (1)
$`+m^2\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_F(\chi )}{4}}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\}.`$
The running of the effective grand unified gauge coupling $`g_X^2=\overline{g}^2/Z_F`$ is determined by the $`\chi `$-dependence of $`Z_F`$ and we assume a fixed point behavior for $`\alpha _X=g_X^2/4\pi `$

$$\frac{\alpha _X}{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=b_2\alpha _Xb_4\alpha _X^2b_6\alpha _X^3S(\delta ).$$
(2)
We take here a small value of $`|b_6|`$ such that the last term only leads to a small shift in the fixed point value

$$\alpha _{X,}\frac{b_2}{b_4}\frac{1}{40}.$$
(3)
(We choose positive $`b_2`$ and $`b_4`$ and $`S(\delta )`$ will be specified below.) For $`\alpha _X(\chi )>\alpha _{X,}`$ the grand unified gauge coupling increases with decreasing $`\chi `$. Similar to QCD it grows large at some nonperturbative scale (“confinement scale”) that we associate with $`m`$. Our model therefore has an “infrared scale” $`m`$ which is generated by dimensional transmutation from the running of the gauge coupling. We assume that $`m`$ determines the mass of the cosmon. Neglecting the effects of the dilatation anomaly reflected by $`m`$ the cosmon potential would vanish.

For $`\chi m`$ the gauge coupling runs towards its fixed point (3) as $`\chi `$ increases. At the fixed point the effective action would have an effective dilatation symmetry if the running of $`\delta (\chi )`$ could be neglected. We will assume, however, that the running of $`\delta `$ is instable towards large $`\chi (E>0)`$ and postulate

$$\frac{\delta }{\mathrm{ln}\chi }=\beta _\delta (\delta )=E\delta ^2.$$
(4)
For small enough $`\delta _i=\delta (\chi =m)`$ the dimensionless coupling $`\delta `$ stays small for a large range $`m<\chi \chi _c`$. For $`\chi m`$ we may neglect the small mass $`m`$ for the evolution of the dimensionless couplings. The evolution in this range is then governed by the vicinity to a conformal fixed point  at $`\delta =\delta _{}=0,\alpha _X=\alpha _{X,}`$. In the same approximation our model corresponds to a flat direction 444In string theories such flat directions are often called “moduli”. In presence of additional matter fields, e. g. scalar and fermions, the flat direction in the space of scalar fields corresponds to constant ratios of all masses . in the effective potential, consistent with conformal symmetry. All cosmon interactions are therefore given by its derivative coupling to the graviton and gauge fields. We note that the fixed point behavior bears a certain resemblance with the “runaway dilaton”.

Nevertheless, as $`\chi `$ increases further an effective “ultraviolet scale” $`\chi _c`$ characterizes the region where $`\delta `$ grows large according to the solution

$$\delta (\chi )=\frac{1}{E\mathrm{ln}(\chi _c/\chi )}.$$
(5)
The ratio between the ultraviolet and infrared scales turns out exponentially huge

$$\frac{\chi _c}{m}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{E\delta _i}\right).$$
(6)
At the crossover scale $`\chi _c`$ the flow of the couplings witnesses a crossover from the vicinity of the conformal fixed point (small $`\delta `$) to another regime (perhaps a different fixed point) for large $`\delta `$. We will see that the crossover behavior in the present epoch of the cosmological evolution precisely corresponds to the crossover from small to large $`\delta `$ for $`\chi `$ in the vicinity of $`\chi _c`$. Realistic cosmology obtains for $`E\delta _i1/138`$.

The precise behavior of $`\beta _\delta `$ in the region of large $`\delta `$ will only be of secondary relevance for past and present cosmology provided $`\delta `$ grows large enough near $`\chi _c`$. For the present note we investigate first a scenario where the increase of $`\delta `$ with $`\chi `$ is unbounded while $`\delta (\chi )`$ is defined for all $`\chi `$, namely

$$\beta _\delta =\frac{E\delta ^2}{1+J_\delta \delta }.$$
(7)
(We take $`J_\delta =0.05`$ and observe that cosmology shows no strong dependence on the value of $`J_\delta `$. This holds provided that $`J_\delta `$ is small enough such that the difference between eqs. (4) and (7) matters only in the region of large $`\delta `$. At the end of this note we will compare this scenario with an alternative where $`\beta _\delta `$ exhibits a fixed point for large $`\delta `$.) For very large $`\delta `$ in the region $`\chi \chi _c`$ the solution obeys now $`\delta (\chi )/\delta (\chi _c)(\chi /\chi _c)^{E/J_\delta }`$. We observe that for large $`\delta `$ a standard scalar kinetic term obtains for a rescaled scalar field $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\chi \delta ^{1/2}(\chi )\chi ^{1+E/(2J_\delta )}`$. In this language the coupling to gravity vanishes for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{}`$ according to $`\chi ^2R\delta ^1\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2R`$. Our first scenario for the behavior at large $`\delta `$ can therefore also be viewed as a fixed point in the cosmon-gravity coupling $`\delta ^1`$ at $`\delta _{}^1=0`$.

In the sense of a renormalization group running our first scenario describes a crossover between two fixed points at $`1/\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =0`$. The scale $`\chi `$ corresponds to a dynamical infrared scale of the unknown fundamental theory. As it is lowered the flow of the couplings switches from the fixed point at $`\delta _{}^1=0`$ to the range of attraction of the conformal fixed point at $`\delta _{}=0`$. However, this latter fixed point is not stable with respect to the running of the gauge coupling which finally grows large and produces a new infrared scale $`m`$. This non-perturbative scale lifts the degeneracy in the flat cosmon direction. This type of behavior is common in statistical physics when the crossover between two fixed points plays a role.

Dark energy

The cosmological dynamics of CQ is described in  and best expressed after Weyl scaling with a constant reduced Planck mass $`\overline{M}^2=M_p^2/8\pi `$ and a rescaled dimensionless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi /\overline{M}=2\mathrm{ln}(\chi /m)`$. In terms of the rescaled metric and cosmon field the effective action (20) reads

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{\overline{M}^2}{2}\left[k^2(\varphi )^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi R\right]+\overline{M}^4\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )+\frac{Z_F(\varphi )}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right\}$$
(8)
with 555Eq. (4) corresponds to $`k^2=2E(\varphi _c\varphi )`$. Similar to eq. (7) this is a form of “leaping kinetic term quintessence” . $`k^2(\varphi )=\delta /4`$. The cosmon potential $`V=\overline{M}^4\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )`$ vanishes for $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$. In this language it is easy to see that the asymptotic behavior for increasing time corresponds to increasing $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$.

The cosmological evolution equations are best expressed in terms of the logarithm of the scale factor

$$x=\mathrm{ln}a=\mathrm{ln}(1+z),\dot{x}=H.$$
(9)
The first equation expresses 666We have neglected the effects of the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation which are assumed to be very small in the present model. the change of the energy density of homogeneous quintessence, $`\rho _h`$, in terms of its equation of state $`w_h=p_h/\rho _h`$,

$$\dot{\rho }_h+3(1+w_h)H\rho _h=0,\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho _h}{dx}=3(1+w_h).$$
(10)
Using $`\rho _{cr}=3\overline{M}^2H^2=\rho _h+\rho _m+\rho _r,d\mathrm{ln}\rho _m/dx=3,d\mathrm{ln}\rho _r/dx=4,\rho _r=(a_{eq}/a)\rho _m`$, eq. (10) can be translated into an evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h=\rho _h/\rho _{cr}`$, namely

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_h}{dx}=\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1\mathrm{\Omega }_h)\{3w_h\left((1+\frac{e^x}{a_{eq}})^1\right\}.$$
(11)
We recover the fixed points for $`w_h1/3`$ if $`a=e^xa_{eq}`$, and $`w_h0`$ if $`e^xa_{eq}`$. They are relevant for the cosmic attractors in the radiation and matter dominated epochs.

As a second equation we need the time evolution of $`w_h`$ for which we find 777 We use $`d\varphi /dx=k^1\left(6\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1V/\rho _h)\right)^{1/2}`$ and $`V/\rho _h=(1w_h)/2`$.

$$\frac{dw_h}{dx}=(1w_h)\left\{k^1(\varphi )\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)}3(1+w_h)\right\}.$$
(12)
The dynamics of the particular model enters through $`k^1(\varphi )=2/\sqrt{\delta }`$. Our scaling of $`\varphi `$ is chosen such that at all times the value of $`\varphi `$ is directly connected with the value of the cosmon potential and therefore also with $`H^2`$,

$$\frac{H^2}{\overline{M}^2}=\frac{2}{3}e^\varphi [\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1w_h)]^1.$$
(13)
For given present values of the Hubble parameter $`H_0`$ and the energy fractions in matter, radiation, and quintessence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)},\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{(0)}=a_{eq}\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)},\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)}\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{(0)}`$ this expresses $`\varphi `$ in terms of $`x,\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ and $`w_h`$

$$\varphi =4x2\mathrm{ln}(H_0/\overline{M})\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{3}{2}(a_{eq}+e^x)\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)}\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{(1w_h)\mathrm{\Omega }_h}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_h}.$$
(14)
The system of the two differential equations (11)(12) is therefore closed and can easily be solved numerically.

For given $`E`$ and $`J_\delta =0.05`$ we solve the flow equation (7). The “initial value” $`\delta _i=\delta (\chi =m)`$ is tuned such that at present $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}=0.73`$. We start for $`\chi (t=0)=m`$ with rather arbitrary values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ and $`w_h`$. The late time behavior will not depend on this. In table 1 we present a few characteristic cosmological quantities, namely the present equation of state, $`w_h^{(0)}`$, the age of the universe, $`t^{(0)}`$, the fraction of dark energy at last scattering, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(ls)}`$, the location of the third peak in the CMB unisotropies in angular momentum space, $`l_3`$, as well as the normalization of the spectrum of density fluctuations, $`\sigma _8`$, divided by the value which would obtain for a cosmological constant with the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}=0.73`$. Here the “present” values are characterized by the Hubble parameter reaching its present value with $`h=0.71`$. We recall that smaller $`h`$ and larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}`$ shift $`l_3`$ to larger values.

| $`E`$ | $`w_h^{(0)}`$ | $`t^{(0)}/10^{10}yr`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(ls)}`$ | $`l_3`$ | $`\sigma _8/\sigma _8^{()}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`5`$ | $`0.94`$ | $`1.31`$ | $`0.019`$ | $`779`$ | $`0.70`$ |
| $`12`$ | $`0.99`$ | $`1.35`$ | $`0.0083`$ | $`794`$ | $`0.85`$ |

Table 1: Characteristic cosmological quantities for two CQ models.

We have chosen the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}`$ and $`h`$ in accordance with the best fit of the KMAP-data  for the case of a cosmological constant $`(w_h^{(0)}=1)`$. For $`E=12`$ the values $`w_h^{(0)}=0.99`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(ls)}=0.008`$ imply that for the CMB spectrum there is barely any difference as compared to the case of a cosmological constant with the same amount of dark energy . We emphasize, however, that the value $`\sigma _8/\sigma _8^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}<1`$ indicates that more power on large scales can be tolerated in order to achieve consistency with the galaxy surveys. This may make the KMAP data more compatible with a $`k`$-independent spectral index. We have not tried to optimize the choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0}`$ and $`h`$. For $`E=5`$ a better agreement with the KMAP-data may be achieved by varying these parameters. We conclude that for large enough $`E`$ our model is consistent with present cosmological observations 888Adding to $`\beta _\delta `$ a term linear in $`\delta `$ would further suppress $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ at early time and bring the phenomenology even closer to the one for a cosmological constant (for given E). The prize to pay are unnaturally small values of $`\delta _i`$, similar to quintessence with an inverse power law potential ..

Cosmological phenomenology of crossover quintessence

For a detailed comparison with cosmological observation one is interested in the dependence of the Hubble parameter on redshift, $`H(z)`$, and related quantities. Rather than testing each particular model - as characterized here by the function $`k(\varphi )`$ \- one wants to describe the function $`H(z)`$ by a few parameters whose values may be fixed by future cosmological precision tests. We propose to concentrate for this purpose on the average equation of state $`\left(x=\mathrm{ln}(1+z)\right)`$

$$\overline{w}_h(x)=\frac{1}{x}_x^0𝑑x^{}w_h(x^{}).$$
(15)
This function is linked very directly with cosmological observables and admits a simple parameterization. We believe that for the next generation of observations a quadratic formula will be sufficient (for $`z<10^4`$)

$$\overline{w}_h(x)=w_h^{(0)}+(\overline{w}_h^{(ls)}w_h^{(0)})\frac{x}{x_{ls}}+Ax(xx_{ls}).$$
(16)
Here the three parameters are the equation of state today, $`w_h^{(0)}`$, the averaged equation of state at last scattering, $`\overline{w}_h^{(ls)}`$ with $`x_{ls}=\mathrm{ln}(1100)`$, and $`A`$. (In the future, one wants to measure the whole function $`\overline{w}_h(x)`$ as precisely as possible - it contains the complete information about the dynamics of dark energy.)

Indeed, from $`\overline{w}_h(x)`$ one can easily construct the time history of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ according to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_h(x)}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_h(x)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}(1+a_{eq})}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(3x\overline{w}_h(x)\right)}{1+a_{eq}\mathrm{exp}(x)}$$
(17)
with $`a_{eq}`$ the scale factor at matter-radiation equality. We can also obtain the equation of state at any time

$$w_h(x)=\frac{d}{dx}\left(x\overline{w}_h(x)\right).$$
(18)
The function $`H(z)`$ is related to $`\overline{w}_h(x)`$ by

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}(1+z)^{3\left(1+\overline{w}_h(x)\right)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)}[(1+z)^3+a_{eq}(1+z)^4]$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{(0)}=(1\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)})/(1+a_{eq})`$. We note that $`\overline{w}_h^{(ls)}`$ in eq. (16) is directly related to the fraction of dark energy at last scattering, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(ls)}`$, via eq. (17). This quantity can be tested by the CMB-unisotropies . For a given model of quintessence we determine A be equating the fit formula (16) with the model-computation of $`\overline{w}_h`$ at $`x=x_{ls}/2`$. For the models displayed in table 1 this yields reasonable fits for the range $`x_{ls}x0`$, with $`\overline{w}_h^{(ls)}=0.221,A=0.016`$ for $`E=5`$ and $`\overline{w}_h^{(ls)}=0.261,A=0.013`$ for $`E=12`$. We emphasize that the polynomial fit should not be used too far outside this range (e.g. for nucleosynthesis) since CQ typically results in a crossover from $`\overline{w}_h`$ near $`1/3`$ for large negative $`x`$ to a constant negative value of $`\overline{w}_h`$ for large positive $`x`$. However, for all observations of recent cosmology from the time of last scattering until now the proposed fit will do reasonably well. The fact that we choose $`\overline{w}_h`$ and a polynomial in $`\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$ permits us to cover the whole range between last scattering and now. Supernovae observations at $`z1`$ can therefore be linked to structure formation and CMB within a simple parameterization. This would be impossible with a Taylor expansion of $`w_h(z)`$ in $`z`$ around $`z=0`$.

Cosmological history of fundamental couplings

Under quite general circumstances quintessence or a time varying dark energy can be associated with a scalar field whose cosmological expectation value varies during the recent history of the universe . Generically, this scalar field - the cosmon - may also couple to matter and radiation. As a consequence, the values of “fundamental constants” like the fine structure constant or the ratio between the nucleon mass and the Planck mass depend on the value of the cosmon field and therefore on cosmological time . Recently, a time variation of the fine structure constant has been reported  from the observation of quasar absorption lines (QSO) at redshift $`z2`$. A typical value corresponds to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)}{\alpha _{em}}=710^6.$$
(20)
Similar observations infer 999A recent collection of results on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ as well as the time variation of other fundamental constants can be found in . a substantially smaller value of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}|`$ at lower redshift $`z0.7`$. From the Oklo natural nuclear reactor one obtains a typical bound ,

$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)|}{\alpha _{em}}<10^7$$
(21)
and analysis of the decay rate $`Re^{187}Os^{187}`$ restricts

$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.45)|}{\alpha _{em}}<310^7.$$
(22)
As an obvious question one may ask if an increase of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}|`$ by almost two orders of magnitude between $`z=0.13`$ and $`z=2`$ can be reasonably explained by quintessence models. In this note we demonstrate that this can indeed be the case in a class of models of “crossover quintessence” proposed recently . This contrasts to constant rates $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/z=const`$. or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/t=const.`$ for which the values and bounds (20)-(22) clearly are in discrepancy. The deviation from constant rates also affects strongly the comparison of eq. (20) with bounds from nuclear synthesis , and CBM .

We are aware that the bound from the Oklo natural reactor is subject to substantial uncertainties due to possible cancellations between effects from the variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$ and other “fundamental constants” like the mass ratio between pion and nucleon mass $`m_\pi /m_n`$ or the weak interaction rates. Also the QSO observations need further verification and investigation of systematics. Nevertheless, it is well conceivable that we can get a reasonable “measurement” of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ in a not too distant future. Furthermore, the derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)/z`$ at $`z=0`$ can be related 101010See ,  for a different relation which gives a much smaller violation of the equivalence principle.  to precision tests of the equivalence principle . The aim of this note is to present a sample computation how the knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ can be used to constrain models of quintessence. For this purpose we will use the value (20) as a “benchmark value” which fixes the strength of the cosmon coupling to matter and radiation. The time history $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ can then be related to the time history of quintessence.

In particular, we may investigate the ratio

$$R=\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)/\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)$$
(23)
A bound $`R<1/70`$ strongly favors  quintessence with a time varying equation of state $`w_h=p_h/\rho _h`$, where the value of $`(1+w_h)`$ at present is substantially smaller than for $`z=2`$. A logarithmic dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ on the cosmon field $`\chi `$ leads to a bound for the present equation of state

$$w_h^{(0)}<0.9.$$
(24)
In this note we investigate how the detailed dependence of $`\alpha _{em}`$ on $`\chi `$ influences the time history of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$. We argue that reasonable $`\beta `$-functions for the “running” of a grand unified coupling with $`\mathrm{ln}\chi `$ may lead to nonlinearities in $`\alpha _{em}(\mathrm{ln}\chi )`$. Those are quantitatively important, influencing $`R`$ within a factor two. The overall picture remains rather solid, however: a small value of $`|R|`$ requires a quintessence model where the evolution of the cosmon field has considerably slowed down in the recent history as compared to a redshift $`z2`$. This feature is characteristic for crossover quintessence and will not be shared by arbitrary quintessence models. In particular, a constant equation of state with $`w_h`$ independent of $`z`$ over a range $`0<z<3`$ will have severe difficulties to explain $`R<0.1`$. This demonstrates how a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ could become an important ingredient for the determination of the nature of dark energy.

Running couplings

In a grand unified theory the value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant depends on the gauge coupling at the unification scale, $`\alpha _X`$, the ratio between the weak scale and the unification scale, $`M_W/M_X`$, and particular particle mass ratios like $`m_n/M_W`$ or $`m_e/M_W`$ for the nucleons and electrons. Since the nucleon mass is determined by the running of the strong gauge coupling similar dependencies arise for the ratio $`m_n/M_X`$. Combining the relevant one loop formula and assuming for simplicity $`\chi `$-independent ratios $`m_b/M_W`$ etc. for the heavy quarks and $`m_\mu /m_e`$ etc. for the leptons one finds 111111We have eliminated the dependence of $`\alpha _{em}`$ on $`M_X/M_W`$ in favor of $`M_W/m_n`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{em}(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{em}(0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _X(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _X(0)}}\right)`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{17}{21\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_W/m_n)(z)}{(M_W/m_n)(0)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_W/m_e)(z)}{(M_W/m_e)(0)}}`$
and

$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_n/\overline{M})(z)}{(m_n/\overline{M})(0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{11}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{em}(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{em}(0)}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{33}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_W/m_n)(z)}{(M_W/m_n)(0)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{11}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_W/m_e)(z)}{(M_W/m_e)(0)}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_X/\overline{M)}(z)}{(M_X/\overline{M})(0)}}.`$
We will make here the simplifying assumptions that the effects due to the variation of $`M_W/m_n`$ and $`M_W/m_e`$ are subleading, as suggested by the more complete investigations in  (in the linear approximation).

In the approximation of time-independent $`M_W/m_n`$ and $`M_W/m_e`$ the dependence of the fine structure constant on redshift can be related directly to the $`\beta `$-function for the grand unified gauge coupling (2). For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)=\alpha _{em}(z)\alpha _{em}(0)`$ one finds $`\left(x=\mathrm{ln}(1+z)\right)`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)}{\alpha _{em}}=\frac{22\alpha _{em}}{7\alpha _X^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _X(x)$$
(27)
where $`\alpha _X(x)`$ obtains as a solution of

$$\frac{\alpha _X}{x}=\beta _\alpha \frac{\mathrm{ln}\chi }{x}=\frac{\beta _\alpha (\alpha _X,\delta )}{\sqrt{\delta }}\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)}.$$
(28)
One observes that the $`z`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ is particularly weak in the region of large $`\delta `$ and $`w_h`$ close to $`1`$. This will be our explanation why $`R=\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)/\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)`$ is considerably smaller than expected from a simple extrapolation linear in $`z`$. Crossover quintessence is precisely characterized by large $`\delta `$ and $`w_h1`$ in the region of small $`z`$, whereas $`\sqrt{1+w_h}/\sqrt{\delta }`$ is considerably larger for intermediate $`z1.53`$. One also observes that for constant $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)/\delta )^{1/2}`$ and $`\eta =\beta _\alpha /\alpha `$ the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ is logarithmic in $`1+z`$. This is crucial for large $`z`$ as for nucleosynthesis, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ turns always out to be much smaller than expected from a linear extrapolation in redshift or time.

A quantitative estimate needs information about $`\beta _\alpha `$ \- the form of the latter may induce further nonlinearities. From our association of the scale $`m`$ with the scale where $`\alpha _X`$ grows large the $`\beta `$-function (2) would lead to a decrease of $`\alpha _X`$ for decreasing $`z`$ if the last term $`S(\delta )`$ is neglected. This would result in a positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)`$, in contrast to the negative QSO value (20). Starting with large $`\alpha _X(\chi =m)`$ (we take $`\alpha _X(\chi =m)=100`$ for definiteness) one would actually find values of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)|`$ much smaller than the QSO value if $`b_2`$ exceeds $`0.1`$. This demonstrates that a fixed point behavior for the running of $`\alpha _X`$ (and similar for other couplings) provides a powerful explanation why the time variation of “fundamental constants” is actually a small effect!

There is, however, no reason why the fixed point value $`\alpha _{}`$ should be precisley independent of $`\delta `$. We parameterize a possible $`\delta `$-dependence by adding the last term in eq. (2) with

$$S(\delta )=\frac{\delta }{1+J_\alpha \delta }+6.$$
(29)
This leads 121212We choose $`S(\delta =0)>0`$ such that for $`b_6>0`$ no new fixed point for $`\alpha _X`$ is produced in the region of large $`\alpha _X`$. The value $`S(\delta =0)=6`$ is unimportant. to a crossover of the effective fixed point $`\alpha _{}(\delta )`$ between two values for small and large $`\delta `$. For $`b_6>0,J_\alpha >0`$ the value of $`\alpha _{}(\delta )`$ increases with increasing $`\delta `$ and this will induce $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)<0`$. At this stage the form of $`\beta _\alpha `$ is parameterized by four parameters $`b_2,b_4,B_6,J_\alpha `$. Since the influence of the term $`S(\delta )`$ on the location of the fixed point is small the ratio $`b_2/b_4`$ is fixed by eq. (3).

Time variation of the fine structure constant

At this point our model is fixed and we can now compute the detailed cosmological evolution of the fine structure constant. The overall normalization of the time variation strongly depends on $`b_6`$. As a benchmark we use eq. (20). Therefore, for given $`b_2`$ and $`J_\alpha `$ we fix $`b_6`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)=710^6`$. The shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ depends 131313In our case an increase of $`|\beta _\alpha |`$ for small $`z`$ partially cancels the decrease of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_h(1+w_h)/\delta )^{1/2}`$. now on $`b_2`$ and $`J_\alpha `$ as well as on on $`E`$. In table 2 we show the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ at $`z=0.13,0.45,1100`$ and $`10^{10}`$ for several values of $`(b_2,J_\alpha ,E)`$.

| model | $`z=0.13`$ | $`z=0.45`$ | $`z=1100`$ | $`z=10^{10}`$ | $`R`$ | $`\eta `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A | $`610^8`$ | $`2.610^7`$ | $`6.510^5`$ | $`7.810^5`$ | $`0.0085`$ | $`5.110^{14}`$ |
| B | $`6.210^8`$ | $`2.710^7`$ | $`1.310^4`$ | $`3.110^3`$ | $`0.0088`$ | $`4.910^{14}`$ |
| C | $`7.810^8`$ | $`3.510^7`$ | $`2.510^5`$ | $`2.810^5`$ | $`0.011`$ | $`8.910^{14}`$ |

Table 2a: Time variation of the fine structure constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)/\alpha _{em}`$ for various redshifts $`z`$, for $`E=12`$. The models for $`\beta _\alpha `$ are $`(A):J_\alpha =6,b_2=0.2,b_6=0.84,(B):J_\alpha =6,b_2=0.05,b_6=1.12,(C):J_\alpha =1,b_2=0.2,b_6=0.15`$. For all models $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)/\alpha _{em}=710^6`$. We also show the differential acceleration $`\eta `$.

| model | $`z=0.13`$ | $`z=0.45`$ | $`z=1100`$ | $`z=10^{10}`$ | $`R`$ | $`\eta `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A | $`1.410^7`$ | $`7.110^7`$ | $`4.410^5`$ | $`5.710^5`$ | $`0.020`$ | $`4.310^{14}`$ |
| B | $`210^7`$ | $`9.310^7`$ | $`1.710^4`$ | $`3.610^3`$ | $`0.028`$ | $`6.210^{14}`$ |
| C | $`210^7`$ | $`9.910^7`$ | $`2.110^5`$ | $`2.310^5`$ | $`0.029`$ | $`8.710^{14}`$ |

Table 2b: Same as table 2a, for $`E=5`$. The models for $`\beta _\alpha `$ are (A): $`J_\alpha =6,b_2=0.2,b_6=0.385,`$ (B): $`J_\alpha =6,b_2=0.05,b_6=0.783`$, (C): $`J_\alpha =1,b_2=0.2,b_6=0.068`$.

Consistency with the Oklo bound (21) and the Re-decay bound (22) is found for large $`E`$, in particular for large $`J_\alpha `$. It becomes clear that a precise knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ could be used as a probe for the dynamics of quintessence. For example, it seems very difficult to achieve $`R=|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _m(z=0.13)/\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)|1/70`$ for small values of $`E`$, quite independently of the precise form of $`\beta _\alpha `$. The present investigation confirms that a small value of $`R`$ requires $`(1+w_h^{(0)})1`$. This property of the equation of state seems to be favored by the cosmological tests (cf. table 1). We conclude that the bound (24) can be justified by our nonlinear analysis for CQ. The generic result that $`w_h^{(0)}`$ should be close to $`1`$ does not depend on the precise values of $`b_2`$ and $`J_\alpha `$. Increasing $`b_2`$ beyond $`b_2=0.2`$ (say $`b_2=1`$) induces almost no change. On the other hand, for $`b_2`$ substantially smaller than $`0.05`$ we come to a region where the fixed point $`\alpha _{X,}`$ has not yet been reached with high precision and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)`$ is positive. For $`b_2=0.05`$ we have the interesting effect that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ reaches a minimum near $`z=2`$, changing sign at somewhat higher redshift. Only for the large value $`E=12`$ the functional dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z)`$ deviates substantially from a linear behavior in $`z`$ in the range $`0.5<z<2`$, as seems to be required by observation. For the models (A) (B) (cf. table 2) one finds a strong “jump” of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ by a factor of $`5`$ between $`z=1`$ and $`z=2`$.

Let us next turn to the high values $`z10^{10}`$ characteristic for nucleosynthesis and ask if the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ quoted in table 2 are consistent with observation. For nucleosynthesis, a change in $`m_n/\overline{M}`$ modifies the clock, i.e. the rate of decrease of temperature in time units $`m_n^1`$. Furthermore, a change in $`\alpha _{em}`$ affects the proton to neutron mass difference. Let us assume that the time-variation of $`m_n/\overline{M}`$ is dominated by $`\beta _\alpha `$ via the change of the strong gauge coupling (and therefore the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/M_X`$). Including only the first term in eq. (S0.Ex3) yields 141414This relation differs from  where $`M_W/M_X`$ is kept fixed instead of fixed $`m_n/M_W`$ in the present work. The quantitative difference is not very important, however.

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(m_n/\overline{M})}{(m_n/\overline{M})}=\frac{\pi }{11\alpha _{em}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}}{\alpha _{em}}=39.1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}}{\alpha _{em}}.$$
(30)
A decrease of $`m_n`$ relative to $`\overline{M}`$ is equivalent to an increase of $`\overline{M}`$ at fixed $`m_n`$ (and thereby to a decrease of Newton’s constant). In turn, this decreases the Hubble parameter for a fixed temperature $`T`$ (measured in units of $`m_n`$). The net effect is equivalent to the substraction of a (fractional) number of neutrino species. We can thereby turn the limits on the effective number of neutrino species $`\overline{N}_\nu `$ into a limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/\alpha _{em}`$ at $`z10^{10}`$. Assuming that the primordial helium abundance $`Y_p`$ is in agreement with the value for time independent couplings within an uncertainty $`|\mathrm{\Delta }Y_p/Y_p|<810^3`$ and using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}Y_p=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M})`$, yields the bounds

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M})|`$ $`<`$ $`0.025`$ (31)
and

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=10^{10})}{\alpha _{em}}}|`$ $`<`$ $`6.410^4.`$ (32)
We emphasize that an effective neutrino number $`\overline{N}_\nu <3`$ would be a clear signal for a time variation of couplings! We also observe that bounds on $`m_n/\overline{M}`$ as (31) can be interpreted equivalently as bounds on the time variation of Newton’s constant (with $`m_n`$ fixed).

We may compare the effect of the change of $`m_n/\overline{M}`$ with the effect of the change in the proton-neutron mass difference $`\delta m=m_nm_p`$ which contributes $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}Y_p\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M})\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\delta m`$. Keeping the ratios of up-and down quark masses to $`m_n`$ fixed one has  $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\delta m0.6\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}`$. The contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}Y_p`$ is far less than the contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M})`$. This explains why the bound (32) is more restrictive than several previous bounds ,  concentrating on the effect from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\delta m`$. We are aware that the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_n/\overline{M})`$ may be affected by the neglected terms in eq. (S0.Ex3). If there are no particular cancellations, however, the bound (32) should remain of the same order of magnitude.

The size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ at nucleosynthesis and even the sign depend critically on $`b_2`$ (cf. table 2). If we adopt the bound

$$|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=10^{10})}{\alpha _{em}}|<10^3$$
(33)
we infer that $`b_2`$ should be larger than $`0.05`$. It is striking that the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/\alpha _{em}`$ at nucleosynthesis are very far from an extrapolation with $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}/t=const.`$ or even from $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}/\mathrm{ln}a=const.`$. The nonlinearity in $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}/\mathrm{ln}a`$ is mainly due to the attraction of $`\alpha _X`$ to a $`\delta `$-dependent fixed point. Both for $`E=5,12`$ the models with sufficiently large $`b_2`$ meet the bounds (32) or (33) (model A). They are also consistent with bounds from the CMB unisotropies .

Precision experiments with atomic clocks measure the variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}/\alpha _{em}`$ per year

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\alpha }_{em}}{\alpha _{em}}}[yr^1]`$ $`=`$ $`H[yr^1]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}}{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`5.4410^{10}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)}{\alpha _{em}}}yr^1.`$
Here the Hubble parameter is expressed in units of $`yr^1`$ and we use the observation that for our models $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}/x`$ is essentially constant in the range $`0<z<0.13`$. Measuring the values quoted in table 2 would need a considerable improvement of the present accuracy  $`\dot{\alpha }_{em}/\alpha _{em}=(4.2\pm 6.9)10^{15}yr^1`$. Using eq. (30) we obtain a similar formula for the variation of Newton’s constant in the range of low redshift,

$$\frac{\dot{G}}{G}=78.2\frac{\dot{\alpha }_{em}}{\alpha _{em}}=4.2510^8\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)}{\alpha _{em}},$$
(35)
safely below the present bounds.

In our approximation where the dominant field dependence of the various couplings arises from $`\beta _\alpha `$ we can also estimate the size of the differential acceleration $`\eta `$ between two test bodies with equal mass but different composition. One finds

$$\eta =510^2\left(\frac{\beta _\alpha }{\alpha _X}\right)^2\delta ^1\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z$$
(36)
where for typical experimental tests of the equivalence principle $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_Z=\mathrm{\Delta }Z/(Z+N)0.1`$. Here $`\beta _\alpha /\alpha _X`$ and $`\delta `$ have to be evaluated at $`z=0`$. Results for $`\eta `$ are also displayed in table 2. We conclude that our CQ-model is compatible with the present experimental bounds  $`|\eta |<310^{13}`$ for most choices of $`\beta _\alpha `$. Nevertheless, the models with $`J_\alpha =1`$ show that already now the tests of the equivalence principle can help to discriminate between different models! It is obvious that further improvements of the accuracy of tests of the equivalence principle should either confirm or reject the interpretation of the QSO-results within our CQ-model.

In summary, we have found models of crossover quintessence that can explain the QSO value for the time dependence of the fine structure constant and are nevertheless compatible with all observational bounds on the time variation of couplings and tests of the equivalence principle. This explanation does not involve any particular cancellation of effects from the variation of different couplings. The parameter set $`E=12,b_2=0.2,J_\alpha =6`$ may serve as an illustration. The same models do also very well with all present cosmological tests!

Variation of electron-proton mass ratio

Let us finally ask if our assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ is dominated by the change of $`\alpha _X`$ can be justified. In addition to the arguments presented in  we may also have a look at the recently reported result  on the variation of $`m_e/m_p`$ in the range $`z=2.33`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)/\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)=(5.7\pm 3.8)10^5.$$
(37)
The deviation from zero is statistically not very significant. Nevertheless, it is interesting to know if such an effect would influence the time history of the fine structure constant and the tests of the equivalence principle. We therefore investigate what would be the effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$ of a variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_e/m_n)(z=2)=610^5`$. Keeping $`M_W/m_n`$ fixed would yield a contribution (cf. eq. (25))

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)}{\alpha _{em}}=\frac{2\alpha _{em}}{\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_n}\right)2.810^7.$$
(38)
This amounts only to $`4\%`$ of the QSO value (20). Similarly, the contribution (cf. eq. (S0.Ex3)) to

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{(m_n/\overline{M})(z=2)}{(m_n/\overline{M})(z=0)}\frac{2}{11}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_n}\right)1.110^5$$
(39)
is only $`4\%`$ of the effect due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{(m_n/\overline{M})(z=2)}{(m_n/\overline{M})(z=0)}=\frac{\pi }{11\alpha _{em}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)}{\alpha _{em}}2.710^4.$$
(40)
Neglecting those contributions seems therefore well justified. Comparison of eqs. (40) and (37) incidentally shows that the value (37) corresponds roughly to the size of the effect that would be expected in absence of particular cancellations - with $`\mathrm{ln}(m_e/\overline{M})(z=2)/\mathrm{ln}(m_e/\overline{M})(z=0)3.310^4`$. The effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_e/m_n)`$ on the tests of the equivalence principle is more sizeable. Adding this effect to the differential acceleration multiplies $`\eta `$ in eq. (36) by a factor $`1+\stackrel{~}{Q}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}10\frac{d(m_e/m_n)}{d\alpha _{em}}_{|z=0}10\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(m_e/m_n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}}(z=2)6,$$
(41)
where the quantitative estimate neglects a possible $`z`$-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Multiplication of the $`\eta `$-values in table 2 by a factor 7 shows that for part of the models a value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}(m_e/m_p)(z=2)=610^5`$ enters in conflict with the tests of the equivalence principle. The models with $`E=12`$ and $`J_\alpha =6`$ may be considered as borderline in view of the possibility of partial cancellations with effects from the variation of other mass ratios.

The future universe

If we live today a crossover period of our universe, to which future will the transition lead? In our model, the answer depends in important aspects on the behavior of $`\beta _\delta `$ for large $`\delta `$. The scenario that we have discussed first is characterized by ever increasing $`\delta `$ (or the approach to a fixed point ($`1/\delta )_{}=0)`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ will grow towards one and $`w_h`$ approaches $`1`$ in future times. In these respects the universe will resemble asymptotically a universe characterized by a cosmological constant. Nevertheless, if $`k(\varphi )`$ remains finite for all finite $`\varphi `$, the dark energy density $`\rho _h`$ will not approach a constant since $`w_h+1`$ will always remain positive, approaching zero only for $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$. An asymptotic behavior $`\beta _\delta =D\delta `$ for large $`\delta `$ corresponds to $`k(\varphi )=k_C\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{D}{4}(\varphi \varphi _c)\right\}`$. This is the asymptotic behavior of inverse power law quintessence : rescaling the cosmon kinetic term leads 151515 For our ansatz (7) with $`D=E/J_\delta `$ we find very small $`\alpha `$, i.e. for $`E=5,J_\delta =0.05`$ follows $`\alpha =0.04`$. to a potential $`V(\stackrel{~}{\phi })\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\alpha ,\alpha =4/D`$. In leading order one finds $`1+w_h=1/(3k^2)`$. The potential energy decreases logarithmically with $`a,V(\mathrm{ln}a)^{2/D}`$ and we infer the asymptotic behavior $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m(\mathrm{ln}a)^{2/D}/a^3,\mathrm{\Omega }_h=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$.

As a second scenario we discuss the alternative that $`\beta _\delta `$ has a zero at some finite value $`\delta _{}`$. As a natural choice we take $`\delta _{}=6`$, noting that for $`\delta =6`$ the kinetic term for $`\chi `$ in eq. (1) vanishes, and consider

$$\beta _\delta =E\delta ^2\left(1\frac{\delta }{6}\right).$$
(42)
Our cosmological model describes now a crossover between the two fixed points $`\delta _{}=0`$ and $`\delta _{}=6`$, being relevant for the early and late universe, respectively. The solution $`\delta (\chi )`$ to eq. (42) obeys

$$\frac{\delta }{1+\frac{\delta }{6}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{\delta }\frac{1}{6}\right)}=\frac{1}{E\mathrm{ln}(\chi _c/\chi )}$$
(43)
and approaches the solutions of eqs. (4) or (7) for small $`\delta `$. The asymptotic cosmology for large $`t`$ is different, however. It corresponds to “power law inflation” where the equation of state approaches the asymptotic value $`w_h^{\mathrm{}}=7/9`$, with

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24\overline{M}^2}{t^2}},T={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{M}^2}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2={\displaystyle \frac{3\overline{M}^2}{t^2}},H={\displaystyle \frac{3}{t}}`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{36}{e}}\mathrm{exp}[3E(\varphi \varphi _c)].`$ (44)
The Hubble parameter decreases $`t^1`$, with $`at^3`$. Comparing $`\rho _ha^{2/3},\rho _ma^3`$ we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h1,\mathrm{\Omega }_ma^{7/3}`$. As for the first scenario, the future universe will be completely dominated by dark energy. However, the dynamics of the dominant quintessence component differs between the two scenarios.

We have displayed the characteristic cosmological observables in table 3. In order to demonstrate the spread in this type of models we have chosen $`h=0.65`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(0)}=0.7`$ and also display smaller values of $`E`$ as compared to table 1.

| E | $`w_h^{(0)}`$ | $`t^{(0)}/10^{10}yr`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(ls)}`$ | $`l_3`$ | $`\sigma _8/\sigma _8^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`2`$ | $`0.65`$ | $`1.31`$ | $`0.045`$ | $`768`$ | $`0.46`$ |
| $`5`$ | $`0.81`$ | $`1.37`$ | $`0.019`$ | $`795`$ | $`0.69`$ |

Table 3: Characteristic cosmological quantities for CQ-models with fixed point at $`\delta _{}=6`$.

We also show in table 4 the time variation of $`\alpha _{em}`$, using in eqs. (2)(29) $`J_\alpha =0`$ and tuning $`b_6`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)/\alpha _{em}=710^6`$.

| E | $`b_2`$ | $`b_6`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`2`$ | $`0.2`$ | $`0.011`$ | $`1.110^6`$ |
| $`5`$ | $`0.06`$ | $`0.022`$ | $`1.810^6`$ |
| $`5`$ | $`0.2`$ | $`0.01`$ | $`9.510^7`$ |

Table 4: Variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=0.13)/\alpha _{em}`$ for fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{em}(z=2)/\alpha _{em}=710^6`$. The models for $`\beta _\alpha `$ use $`J_\alpha =0`$.

It becomes obvious that the bound (21) is not obeyed. Consistency with the Oklo-natural reactor results would therefore require a substantial cancellation between effects from the time variation of different couplings.

Testing the model

Within a rather wide class of quintessence models we have seen how a combination of the QSO-result (20) with the bounds on $`\dot{\alpha }_{em}`$ at lower redshift (21) (22) restricts the allowed parameter space. The present status of observations favors a rather sharp crossover for quintessence, where the equation of state has shifted from a moderately negative value at $`z2`$ to a value very close to $`1`$ for the recent cosmological epoch. An example is given by the effective action (1) with running couplings determined by the $`\beta `$-functions (7)(2)(29), and parameters $`E=12,J_\delta =0.05,b_2=0.2,b_4=8,b_6=0.84,J_\alpha =6`$ (first line in table 1, model A in table 2a). Without the need of excessive tuning of parameters or invoking cancellation effects from the time variation of different couplings, this demonstrates the existence of a field theoretical model that is consistent with all data on the cosmological evolution and the time variation of couplings.

What will be the tests of this model? First of all, the QSO result should be confirmed by new independent data. Hopefully this will allow for more precise restrictions on the shape of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\alpha _{em}(z)`$ which can be directly compared with the prediction of this model. Second, an improvement of the accuracy of the tests of the equivalence principle by an order of magnitude should lead to a direct detection of the new interaction mediated by the cosmon field. In view of its important role in present cosmology we may call this fifth force (besides gravity electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions) “cosmo-dynamics”. Third, cosmological tests should distinguish crossover quintessence from a cosmological constant. The main signature in this respect is probably not the equation of state of dark energy in the most recent epoch (say for $`0<z<0.5)`$. The value of $`w_h^{(0)}`$ in table 1 shows that this quantity may be quite near to the value for a cosmological constant (i.e. $`w_h^{(0)}=1`$). If the QSO-results on the time variation of the fine structure constant are to be explained by quintessence this requires a substantial evolution of the cosmon field in the epoch near $`z=2`$ (as compared to the rate of evolution today). We therefore expect that $`w_h(z)`$ increases with increasing $`z`$, leading to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h(z)`$ substantially larger than for a cosmological constant during structure formation and last scattering. Test of structure formation and precision tests on the CMB may be able to measure the value of $`\sigma _8/\sigma _8^{(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h^{(ls)}`$ in table 1. Finally, an improvement of the accuracy of atomic clocks by three orders of magnitude would replace the bounds (21)(22) within an experimentally well controlled setting.


format: text

text:
# Topological Quantum Gates with Quantum Dots

## 1 Introduction

A very promising scenario for the implementation of quantum computation is considered to be the solid state realization of quantum dots . The solid state arena is attractive because there is a great deal of technological knowledge already accumulated from the domain of classical computation. However, if we are to use solid state devices for quantum computation, we need to manipulate individual quantum systems, like electrons in quantum dots, that demand a much higher degree of control accuracy than currently available. There has been a number of recent proposals to address the issue of controlability by using geometrical and topological effects . The key advantage of these methods is that the resulting geometrical and topological gates do not depend on the overall time of the evolution, nor on small deformations in the control parameters. Possible manifestations of geometrical phases are the Berry phases obtained, for example, through a cyclic adiabatic evolution of a system  or through the Aharonov-Bohm effect . Within solid state physics, there have even been proposals to implement Berry phases with Josephson Junctions  as well as Aharonov-Bohm phases encoded in the different spin states of electrons manipulated in quantum dot structures .

In this paper we present a simple solid state implementation of a charge based structure that is capable of supporting both dynamical and geometrical quantum computation. Consider quantum dots that can either be empty or can accommodate an electron. In an array of quantum dots we assume that we are able to lower the potential between any two dots and facilitate the quantum tunneling between them. Intrinsically, the Hamiltonian of this system is governed mainly by three parts, namely the potential wall of height $`V_W`$ separating two successive dots, the Coulomb interaction $`V_C=e^2/r`$ between two electrons which is active when they are occupying the same dot or adjacent dots in a close proximity and the external laser fields which, in principle, can facilitate to move an electron along specific paths.

Imagine that we have an array of paired dots and that to each pair corresponds an electron as in Fig. 1. We can interpret the qubit $`i`$ to be encoded by the pair of dots $`i`$; if the electron is in the left dot ($`l_i`$) it corresponds to the logical state $`|0`$, while when it is in the right dot ($`r_i`$) this corresponds to the state $`|1`$. Preparation of the initial qubit state as well as the final read out are technically easy tasks. The performance of one qubit gates is achieved by lowering the potential wall $`V_W`$ between the pair of the dots and, hence, quantum tunneling between the two dots will create superpositions of the logical states  giving, for example, the state $`|\psi =c_0|0+c_1|1`$. Thus, any possible one qubit rotation can in principle be performed.

For a two-qubit phase-gate we need to perform a controlled transition where the state of one of the qubits is changed conditional on the state of the second qubit. We shall present in Section 2 three different ways of performing such a gate in a dynamical, geometrical and topological fashion. A controlled phase-gate can then allow us to execute any arbitrary quantum computation providing that we can also implement single qubit gates. Finally, in Section 3, a set of different potential implementations are presented based on current solid state technology.

## 2 Two qubit phase-gates

As we have seen the charge based quantum computation model consists of two dots $`l`$ and $`r`$ and an electron which can be in a state that is a superposition of occupying both of them. Indeed, if the electron is in the left dot then the state of the system can be represented as $`|n_l=1,n_r=0`$, where $`n_k`$ is the occupation number of dot $`k`$, while if the electron is in the right dot then the state is written as $`|n_l=0,n_r=1`$. These states correspond to the logical $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ qubit states. How such a system can support entangling gates between the qubits is described in the following.

### 2.1 Dynamical phase-gate

In the purely dynamical implementation of the controlled phase-gate we rely on the fact that when two electrons are trapped in the neighboring wells, then their dynamical phase due to the Coulomb interaction is larger than when the electrons are far apart. Hence, when the dots are in the state $`|01`$, their extra phase with respect to all the other states is equal to $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }Et}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the increase in the electron energy due to the Coulomb repulsion and $`t`$ is the time during which the electrons are close enough to exhibit a non-negligible interaction. The evolution of the system of the two qubits in the basis $`|00`$, $`|01`$, $`|10`$ and $`|11`$ is then given by

$$U_{dyn}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }Et}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

After time $`t=\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ we obtain a dynamical version of the two-qubit phase-gate. This gate is, in fact, algorithmically equivalent to the controlled-not gate and is capable of generating entanglement between two initially disentangled qubits. Most of the current proposals for implementation of quantum computation are based on dynamical gates.

### 2.2 Geometrical phase-gate

Now we would like to show how to implement the same gate in the same setting, but using the geometrical instead of the dynamical phase. Consider a homogeneous magnetic field $`B`$ in the neighborhood of the dots that comprise the logical array of qubits. An electron which spans a closed trajectory (loop) inside the magnetic field will acquire a phase factor proportional to the flux of the magnetic field encircled by the loop . The electron can be moved around by applying an additional external time dependent laser field that guides the electron along the desired trajectory on a plane perpendicular to the magnetic field $`B`$.

In the case of the controlled interaction we want to achieve, we can imagine that we encourage a cyclic evolution of an electron from the dot $`r_1`$ towards the dot $`l_2`$ of the second pair of dots as seen in Fig. 2. If there is no electron in the dot $`l_2`$, then the loop $`C_1`$ of the first electron spans a surface given by $`S_1`$ and it is determined only by our controlled procedure since the electrons are non-interacting. As a result, after the first electron has returned to dot $`r_1`$, it has acquired a phase given by $`\varphi _1=_{S_1}B`$. On the other hand, if there is an electron in dot $`l_2`$ then the trajectory of the first electron will be influenced by the additional Coulomb interaction (repulsion) and it will span a loop $`C_2`$ that encloses a smaller surface area $`S_2`$. Hence, when the electron has returned to dot $`r_1`$, then it has acquired a phase given by $`\varphi _2=_{S_2}B\varphi _1`$. It is clear that no non-trivial evolution will occur if the electron of the first qubit is in dot $`l_1`$. The unitary evolution that is finally implemented in this way is of the form

$$U_{geom}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{i\varphi _1}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi _2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

which, up to a local phase rotation of qubit $`2`$, is equivalent to a controlled phase-gate that changes only the state $`|00`$ to the state $`e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}|00`$. This is the geometrical version of a two qubit gate which was previously implemented dynamically.

### 2.3 Topological phase-gate

We notice that if there is a small change in the geometry of the loop in the previous evolution, then the form of the phase-gate will also change. This is a drawback of the previous model as, in general, the external field guiding the electron will fluctuate and therefore the acquired phase, which is proportional to the encircled magnetic flux due to the motion of the electron, will also suffer from this error in our control. We can remedy this problem by spatially restricting the magnetic field in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The gate we now describe will be independent of the actual shape of the electron trajectory to a high degree. To achieve this, we need to place between each pair of dots a small solenoid with a large density magnetic field confined inside it  as depicted in Fig. 2. The control procedure of the gate is the same as the one presented in the geometrical case, only that now the solenoid is positioned inside the surface area $`S_1S_2`$. This is the surface which is not covered by the electron of qubit $`1`$ if and only if the electron of qubit $`2`$ is in the dot $`l_2`$. The net effect resulting from this procedure is an evolution in the computational basis of the two qubits given by

$$U_{top}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to the magnetic flux confined by the solenoid. In other words, by employing the Coulomb interaction it is possible for electron $`1`$ to acquire a fixed phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ if it circulates around the solenoid, while no phase is obtained if the electron does not circulate around it. The phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is independent of the exact shape of the electron’s trajectory. This is, therefore, the topological version of the quantum phase-gate discussed before. Unlike the previous gates, it has the advantage that any deformation of the trajectory of the electron that does not alter its winding number around the solenoid has no effect whatsoever on the gate. Consequently, this offers us a high degree of independence from control errors.

## 3 Solid state implementation

The realization of the topological gate requires the confinement of the magnetic field to the very small area of the solenoid which is placed in-between the dots. We would like now to estimate how small the radius of the solenoid should be in order to compare it with the experimental state of the art. For simplicity we assume that the electron is confined in a one dimensional harmonic potential $`V_h=m_e\omega ^2x^2/2`$, where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, $`\omega `$ is the trapping frequency and $`x`$ is the displacement of the electron. Consider the case where we want to move an electron from dot $`r_1`$ (see Fig. 2) towards dot $`l_2`$ positioned at $`x=0`$, by displacing the trapping potential. If there is no electron in $`l_2`$ then the trapping potential carrying the electron from dot $`r_1`$ moves so that its final minimum is positioned at $`x=0`$. If the electron exists at $`x=0`$, then the final position of the traveling electron is determined by the minimum of the combined trapping potential and the Coulomb repulsion. An approximate estimate of the displacement of the new minimum is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{10}{\omega ^{2/3}}.$$
(1)
Typical trapping frequencies are in-between $`10^6Hz`$ and $`10^9Hz`$ which results in $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ in-between $`1mm`$ and $`100\mu m`$. This distance is roughly the size of the region in which the magnetic field has to be confined in order to implement the topological evolution. The present technology  allows us to construct a solenoid with the dimensions smaller than $`1\mu m`$, which is more than sufficient for the implementation of our proposal.

So far in our proposal the electron from dot $`r_1`$ has to continuously move from its original position to $`l_2`$ close to the other electron and then back to $`r_1`$. However this does not need to be continuous as the electron can, in fact, perform the same looping trajectory by discrete tunneling between, for example three different dots.

Towards that direction, let us consider the implementation of the two qubit phase-gate as presented in the previous analysis, but with the configuration of four dots arranged as in Fig. 3. Consider a magnetic field $`B`$, that is large enough so that the spins in the dots are aligned along the magnetic field, and henceforth play no role in the subsequent evolution. Assume a double dot system where $`U`$ is the Coulomb repulsion with single occupancy of each dot in the double dot system while at the same time no tunneling occurs between them. Allowing in addition the tunneling process to take place between neighboring dots, the resulting Hamiltonian of the system is given by

$$H=H_d+H_C+H_t$$
(2)
where

$$H_d=\underset{i}{}E_id_i^{}d_i,H_C=Ud_3^{}d_3d_4^{}d_4,H_t=\underset{i,j}{}(t_{ij}d_i^{}d_j+H.c.)$$
(3)
where $`d_i`$ is the annihilation operator of the electrons in the dot $`i`$, $`E_i`$ is its free energy, $`t_{ij}`$ is the tunneling coupling between the neighboring dots $`i`$ and $`j`$ and $`i,j`$ indicates nearest neighbors. Assume that the tunneling couplings $`t_{ij}`$ can be turned on and off at will, obtaining the maximum value $`t_{12}=t_{23}=t_{31}=J`$, and we shall assume for simplicity that $`U`$ is also the Coulomb potential for two electrons within the same dot. If dot $`4`$ is occupied, then the effective tunneling between $`2`$ and $`3`$ or $`1`$ and $`3`$ is $`I=2J^2/U`$. We shall consider the limit of large $`U`$ where we are in the Coulomb blockade regime, i.e. $`IJ`$ and hence, in that case, actual tunneling does not occur. In that case it is impossible to circulate an electron initially in the dot $`1`$ around the dots $`1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$ and back to $`1`$ if there is an electron in the dot $`4`$, by turning on successively the couplings $`t_{12}`$, $`t_{23}`$ and $`t_{31}`$ for time $`T=\pi /(2J)`$ to transit the electrons from one dot to the other. On the other hand, if the dot is empty, an electron can go around the closed path acquiring a phase due to the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The latter is given by $`AB`$ where $`A`$ is the area of the triangle spanned by the dots $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$. In order to guarantee that the electron initially in $`1`$ will return back to its initial position if there is an electron in $`4`$ we have to activate $`t_{12}`$, $`t_{23}`$ then again $`t_{12}`$ (the electron returns back in the case it is still in $`2`$ due to Coulomb blockade) and then $`t_{31}`$. While $`t_{31}`$ is activated, the electron in $`1`$ does not move again due to the Coulomb blockade. Hence, at the end of this evolution the system returns back to the qubit states where there is no occupancy in the dots $`2`$ or $`3`$. The resulting two-qubit gate is exactly the same as given in the previous section with the phase given by $`\varphi =ABe/h`$. Alternatively, the magnetic field can be confined in a solenoid imbedded in-between the dots $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$. Therefore, this simple and realistic systems offers a possibility to implement the topological based quantum computation discussed at a more abstract level in Section $`2`$.

## Discussion and Conclusions

We have presented here three possible implementation of quantum gates. Every subsequent implementation, although more difficult to implement, offers a higher degree of reliability with respect to control errors. In the topological implementation, if the magnetic field is confined to a very small region of space between the quantum dots, we can achieve an arbitrary high fidelity of gate implementation. We even saw from a very simple analysis in the previous section that this is, in principle, possible with current technology. However, our analysis does not take into account other possible sources of errors, such as decoherence due to the coupling of the electron with the environment. The environment can, for example, act as a projective measurement determining the position of the electron thereby destroying any superposition of the electron occupancy states of different dots. Alternatively, the environment can destroy the phase coherence between different element of the superposition. For the particular analysis of the behaviour of geometric phases under classical and quantum noises see, for example, . To successfully compensate this kind of errors, in parallel to the methods presented here, we will, most likely, have to resort to other existing methods like quantum error correcting codes  or error avoiding methods like in decoherence-free subspaces . Note finally that we can interpret our structure as generating a single electron circulating current (vortex) by the electron in dot $`r_1`$ conditional on the presence of an electron in $`l_2`$. This is a very interesting physical system in its own right that could be potentially used for other applications of quantum circuits, for example in measuring the flux of the magnetic field by the resulting relative phase between the two distinct possible evolutions. A similar model with three potential wells has also been used to describe generation of vortices in trapped Bose-condensates . An elaborated analysis of our proposal including various decoherence mechanisms is therefore very much worthwhile and will be presented elsewhere.

The authors would like to thank A. Briggs for pointing out reference . This work was supported in part by the European Union, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Elsag Spa.

## References


text:
# The Area of Polynomial Images and Preimages

## 1 Introduction and Statement of Results

When $`p`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n`$ over $``$, the set

$$E(p,r)=\{z:|p(z)|=r^n\}$$

is called a lemniscate, after Bernoulli’s lemniscate $`\{z:|z^21|=1\}`$. It is natural to ask how large the set enclosed by a lemniscate can be. We need to make some normalisation for this to be meaningful; the simplest is to ask for $`p`$ to be monic. Perhaps surprisingly, the area of the lemniscate $`E(p,1)`$ is then bounded independently of $`p`$. In fact the following sharp inequality was proved by Pólya in 1928, .

###### Theorem 1 (Pólya’s inequality).

Let $`p`$ be a monic polynomial of degree $`n`$ over $``$ and let $`D`$ be a disc in $``$. Then the Euclidean area of $`p^1(D)`$ is at most $`\pi \left(\frac{\text{Area}(D)}{\pi }\right)^{1/n}`$, with equality only when $`p:za(zb)^n+c`$ and the center of $`D`$ is $`c`$, the unique critical value of $`p`$.

It is natural to ask whether we can get a larger preimage by fixing the area of $`D`$ but allowing its shape to vary. The main theorem of this paper is that we cannot.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`p`$ be a monic polynomial of degree $`n`$ over $``$. Let $`K`$ be any measurable subset of the plane. Then

$$\text{Area}(p^1(K))\pi \left(\frac{\text{Area}(K)}{\pi }\right)^{1/n},$$

with equality if and only if $`K`$ is (up to sets of measure zero) a disc and $`p`$ has a unique critical value at the center of that disc.

Theorem 2 is a simple consequence of the following stronger theorem:

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`p`$ be a monic polynomial of degree $`n`$ over $``$, and $`K`$ be any measurable subset of the plane. Define the multiplicity $`n(z,p,K)`$ to be the number of $`p`$–preimages of $`z`$ in $`K`$, counted according to their valency. Then the area of $`p(K)`$ counted with multiplicity satisfies

$$_{}n(z,p,K)𝑑\text{A}(z)=_K|p^{}(z)|^2𝑑\text{A}n\pi \left(\frac{\text{Area}(K)}{\pi }\right)^n,$$

with equality if and only if $`K`$ is (up to sets of measure zero) a disc and $`p`$ has a unique critical value at the center of that disc.

For a compact set $`K`$, define

$$\rho (K)=\frac{\text{Area}(K)}{\pi \text{cap}(K)^2},$$

where $`\text{cap}(K)`$ is the logarithmic capacity of $`K`$. Then $`\rho (K)`$ is a measure of the *roundness* of $`K`$: we will see that $`\rho (K)[0,1]`$, and $`\rho (K)=1`$ if and only if $`K`$ is a full–measure subset of a disc. We use $`\rho `$ to formulate the following scale-invariant version of theorem 2.

###### Theorem 4.

If $`p`$ is any complex polynomial of degree $`n`$, not necessarily monic, and $`K`$ is any compact subset of the plane, then

$$\rho (p^1(K))\rho (K)^{1/n}.$$

This corollary is sharp for each value of $`\rho `$. To see this we can take $`K`$ to be the union of the unit disc with a radial line segment, and $`p:zz^n`$, so that we still get equality in theorem 2.

In section 2 we give a quick introduction to the potential theory that we will need. In section 3 we discuss some isoperimetric inequalities and their relationship with Pólya’s inequality (theorem 1), which we prove since it is an important ingredient in the proof of theorem 2. Theorems 2, 3 and 4 are proved in section 4.

A survey of area estimates for lemniscates has recently been given by Lubinsky , with a view towards applications in the convergence theory of Padé approximation. In , Eremenko and Hayman made progress on the related problem of bounding the length of $`E(p,r)`$. Fryntov and Rossi  have obtained the sharp analogue of Pólya’s inequality (theorem 1) bounding the hyperbolic area of the preimage of a hyperbolic disc under a finite Blaschke product. This raises the question of finding the sharp Blaschke product analogues of theorems 2 and 3.

The author thanks Assaf Naor and Ben Green for posing the question that led to this paper, and his PhD supervisor Keith Carne for useful conversations.

## 2 Capacity of plane subsets and condensers

###### Definition 1.

: A *plane condenser* is a pair $`(E,B)`$ of subsets of $``$, where $`E`$ is open and $`B`$ is a non-empty closed subset of $`E`$.

The terminology arises from the fact that a pair of conducting cylinders with cross-section $`E`$ and $`B`$ respectively could be used as a condenser (or capacitor). The *capacity* of the condenser $`(E,B)`$ is physically the capacitance per unit length of an infinitely long pair of such cylinders. The same quantity describes the *conductance* between $`E`$ and $`B`$ of an isotropic resistor consisting of a plate in the shape of $`EB`$. We compute this conductance by considering the electrical potential $`f`$ that would be induced in $`U`$ if we were to connect $`E`$ to an electrical potential $`0`$ and $`B`$ to potential $`+1`$. Given $`f`$, we can compute the current $`f`$ that would flow in response to the potential $`f`$, and the power consumed is proportional to

$$L(f)=_{EB}|f|^2𝑑\text{A},$$

We expect a physical potential $`f`$ to minimise $`L(f)`$ over all possible potential functions satisfying the given boundary conditions. Calculus of variations tells us that if there is an extremal $`f`$, it must be harmonic on $`EB`$. We call such an $`f`$ a Green’s function for the condenser. A Green’s function only exists if the boundary $`EB`$ is regular for the Dirichlet problem, but we avoid this difficulty by defining

$$\text{cap}(E,B)=\frac{1}{4\pi }infL(f),$$

where the infimum is taken over all continuously differentiable $`f:`$ such that $`f=0`$ on $`E`$ and $`f=1`$ on $`B`$. We call such functions *admissible* for the condenser $`(E,B)`$. Note that $`\text{cap}(E,B)`$ may be zero, as it is when $`B`$ is a finite set. From the definition it is immediate that capacity is monotonic, i.e.

$$EF\text{ and }BC\text{cap}(E,B)\text{cap}(F,C).$$

###### Lemma 1.

Suppose that on some open set $`U`$ we have an analytic function $`\psi `$ such that each point of $`E`$ has exactly $`n`$ preimages in $`U`$, counted according to valency. Then

$$\text{cap}(\psi ^1(E),\psi ^1(B))=n\text{cap}(E,B).$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`f:`$ is any admissible function for $`(E,B)`$ . The hypothesis implies that the restriction of $`\psi `$ to $`\psi ^1(E)`$ is a proper map, so we can extend $`f\psi `$ to get an admissible function for $`(\psi ^1(E),\psi ^1(B))`$ by giving it the value $`0`$ outside $`U`$. Since $`\psi `$ is almost everywhere conformal,

$`L(f\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\psi ^1(EB)}}|(f\psi )(z)|^2𝑑\text{Area}(z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\psi ^1(EB)}}|(f)(\psi (z))|.|\psi ^{}(z)|^2d\text{Area}(z)`$
$`=`$ $`n{\displaystyle _{EB}}|f(w)|^2𝑑\text{Area}(w)=nL(f).`$
In particular the capacity is a *conformal invariant* of condensers: if $`\phi :E`$ is a univalent function then

$$\text{cap}(E,B)=\text{cap}(\phi (E),\phi (B)).$$

For example, if $`(EB)`$ is a ring domain then its modulus is $`1/(4\pi \text{cap}(E,B)`$.

Let $`K`$ be a compact set in the plane. A Green’s function for $`K`$ is a continuous function $`f:`$, zero on $`K`$ and harmonic on $`K`$, with $`f(z)=\mathrm{log}|z|\mathrm{log}t+o(1)`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$. If $`K`$ has a Green’s function then the logarithmic capacity of $`K`$ is defined to be $`\text{cap}(K)=t`$. for general $`K`$ we define $`\text{cap}(K)=inf\text{cap}(J)`$ over all compact sets $`JK`$ with regular boundary for the Dirichlet problem on $`J`$. By pulling back Green’s functions, it is easy to verify that if $`p`$ is a monic polynomial of degree $`n`$ then

$$\text{cap}(p^1(B))=\text{cap}(B)^{1/n}.$$

## 3 Isoperimetric Inequalities

A relationship between capacity and 2-dimensional Lebsegue measure is given by the following ‘isoperimetric’ inequality:

###### Theorem 5.

(Carleman, 1918)

$$\frac{1}{\text{cap}(E,B)}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\text{Area}(E)}{\text{Area}(B)}\right),$$

with equality iff $`E`$ and $`B`$ are concentric discs.

The proof of Carleman’s inequality uses the fact that the Dirichlet integral $`L(f)`$ does not increase when $`f`$ is replaced by its Schwarz symmetrization, the function $`S(f)`$ whose superlevel sets are concentric discs with the same area as the corresponding level sets of $`f`$. For details, see the classic book of Pólya and Szegö, , or  for a more modern account.

Taking $`E=B(0,R)`$ and then letting $`R\mathrm{}`$ in Carleman’s isoperimetric inequality yields the following well-known isoperimetric theorem for logarithmic capacity. For a simple proof, including the equality case, see theorem 5.3.5 in .

###### Theorem 6.

For any compact set $`K`$,

$$\text{Area}(K)\pi \text{cap}(K)^2,$$

with equality if and only if $`K`$ is a disc.

We have now collected everything we need to prove Pólya’s inequality, theorem 1. The capacity of the disc $`D`$ is precisely the radius of $`D`$, so

$$\text{cap}(D)=\left(\frac{\text{Area}(D)}{\pi }\right)^{1/2},$$

$$\text{cap}(p^1(D))=\left(\frac{\text{Area}(D)}{\pi }\right)^{1/2n},$$

and, applying theorem 6,

$$\text{Area}(p^1(D))\pi \left(\frac{\text{Area}(D)}{\pi }\right)^{1/n},$$

as required. In view of the strong link between logarithmic capacity and polynomials, theorems 1 and 6 are virtually equivalent. In , Pólya’s inequality is proved using Gronwall’s area formula, and used to deduce the isoperimetric inequality for logarithmic capacity.

## 4 Proof of theorems 2 and 3

###### Lemma 2.

For any complex polynomial $`g`$ of degree $`d`$,

$$_{}|g(w)|\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{|g(w)|x}d\text{A}\frac{2x}{d+2}\text{Area}(\{w:|g(w)x\}).$$

###### Proof.

By lemma 1, we have

$$\text{cap}(g^1(B(0,x)),g^1(B(0,s)))=\frac{d}{2(\mathrm{log}x\mathrm{log}s)}.$$

Theorem 5 gives

$$\frac{\text{Area}(\{w:s|g(w)|x\})}{\text{Area}\left(\{w:|g(w)x\}\right)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\left(\frac{s}{x}\right)^{2/d},$$

so

$`{\displaystyle _{}}|g(w)|\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{|g(w)|x}𝑑\text{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^x}\text{Area}(\{w:s|g(w)|x\})𝑑s`$
$``$ $`\text{Area}\left(\{w:|g(w)x\}\right){\displaystyle _0^x}1\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{x}}\right)^{2/d}ds`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{d+2}}\text{Area}(\{w:|g(w)x\}).`$
Now fix a monic polynomial $`p`$ and $`A>0`$. Among all measurable sets $`K`$ with $`\text{Area}(K)=A`$, the Dirichlet integral

$$_K|p^{}(w)|^2𝑑\text{Area}(w)$$

is minimised when $`K`$ is the sublevel set

$$K_t=\{w:|p^{}(w)|^2t\}.$$

Here $`t`$ is determined uniquely by the condition $`\text{Area}(K_t)=A`$. The polynomial $`z(p^{}(z)/n)^2`$ is monic, with degree $`2n2`$, so theorem 1 gives

$$A=\text{Area}(K_t)\pi \left(\frac{\pi (t/n^2)^2}{\pi }\right)^{1/(2n2)}.$$

Rearranging this we have

$$tn^2\left(\frac{A}{\pi }\right)^{n1}.$$

Now we apply lemma 2 to the polynomial $`g=(p^{})^2`$ to obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{K_t}}|p^{}(w)|^2𝑑\text{A}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}|p^{}(w)|^2\mathrm{𝟏}_{|p^{}(w)|^2t}𝑑\text{A}(z)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2t}{2n}}\text{Area}(K_t)={\displaystyle \frac{tA}{n}}`$
$``$ $`n\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{\pi }}\right)^n.`$
For equality, we must have equality in our application of Pólya’s inequality, so $`p`$ must be $`p:z(zb)^n+c`$, and $`K`$ can differ from disc $`K_t`$ at most by a set of 2–dimensional Lebesgue measure zero. This completes the proof of theorem 3.

To obtain theorem 2, observe that a monic polynomial $`p`$ maps $`p^1(K)`$ onto $`K`$ with multiplicity $`n`$ everywhere, so

$$\text{Area}(K)=\frac{1}{n}_{p^1(K)}|p^{}(w)|^2𝑑\text{A}(w).$$

Finally, theorem 4 is obtained by dividing both sides of the inequality of theorem 2 by $`\text{cap}(K)^2=\text{cap}(p^1(K))^2`$.