text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Sound propagation in rotationless fluid can be identified with the propagation of scalar field in some pseudo-Riemannian space. The geometry of this space is called the acoustic geometry. In the particular case of steady flows one obtains Unruh metric, which mimics Schwarzschild space-time . Potentially, some basic properties of black holes can be examined in the laboratory by investigating their hydrodynamic analogues. On the other hand, several theoretical problems with moving fluids (for instance the acoustic energy problem in the expanding medium) can find their natural description in geometrical language .

Similar geometrization can be performed for the density perturbations in the expanding universe. This fact was noted for the radiation-dominated and spatially flat Friedman universe by Sachs, Wolfe , Field and Shepley . The purpose of this paper is to point out that the theorem proved by Sachs-Wolfe (, p. 76 ) can be extended to all adiabatic perturbations, and to the universe of arbitrary space curvature. We demonstrate this in synchronous Lifshitz formalism. We show (in the Appendix) that all major gauge-invariant formalisms admit variables similar to the Field-Shepley $`H`$-variable, or the Sachs-Wolfe $`E`$-variable, i.e. the quantities, which propagate like the scalar field or gravitational waves on some effective Robertson-Walker background.

Throughout this paper Greek indices run from 0 to 3, while the convection $`c=1`$ and $`8\pi G=1`$ is used.

## 2 Synchronous system of reference

Consider Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe with the metric form

$$g_{\mu \nu }=a^2(\eta )diag[1,1,\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{K}\chi )}{K},\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{K}\chi )}{K}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta ],$$
(1)
and the perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\left[ϵ+p(ϵ)\right]u^\mu u^\nu +p(ϵ)g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2)
The equation of state $`p=p(ϵ)`$, assumed here, limits investigations to the adiabatic density perturbations (see  section V.A). In particular dissipative processes are excluded. When the synchronous reference system is used the metric corrections caused by the scalar perturbations are determined by two scalar functions $`\lambda (\eta )`$ and $`\mu (\eta )`$. Both $`\lambda (\eta )`$ and $`\mu (\eta )`$ solve the system of two second order differential equations

$`\lambda {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(\eta )+2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}(\eta )}{a(\eta )}}\lambda {}_{}{}^{}(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{k^2K}{3}}[\lambda (\eta )+\mu (\eta )]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
$`\mu {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(\eta )+[2+3{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}(\eta )}{ϵ^{}(\eta )}}]{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}(\eta )}{a(\eta )}}\mu {}_{}{}^{}(\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{k^24K}{3}}[1+3{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}(\eta )}{ϵ^{}(\eta )}}][\lambda (\eta )+\mu (\eta )]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4)
The density contrast $`\delta (\eta ,𝐱)`$ can be found in the form of Fourier integral

$`\delta (\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \delta _kQ(𝐤𝐱)\mathrm{d}^3k}+c.c.`$ (5)
with the Fourier coefficients

$`\delta _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3ϵ(\eta )a^2(\eta )}}[(k^24K)[\lambda (\eta )+\mu (\eta )]+3{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}(\eta )}{a(\eta )}}\mu {}_{}{}^{}(\eta )].`$ (6)
$`k`$ stands for the wave number $`k|𝐤|`$, while $`Q(𝐤𝐱)`$ are scalar harmonics.

We introduce a new perturbation variable $`\psi (\eta ,𝐱)`$ by employing the Darboux transformation of the density contrast

$`\psi (\eta ,𝐱)=a(\eta )H^2(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (\eta ,𝐱)}{H(\eta )\left[1+\frac{p(\eta )}{ϵ(\eta )}\right]}}.`$ (7)
With system (34) satisfied, the propagation equation for the variable $`\psi (\eta ,𝐱)`$ takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\eta ^2}}\psi (\eta ,𝐱)+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{𝖺^{}(\eta )}{𝖺(\eta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\eta )}{c_\mathrm{s}(\eta )}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\psi (\eta ,𝐱)c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\mathrm{}\psi (\eta ,𝐱)=0,`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is Laplacian operating in the constant time hypersurface,

$`c_\mathrm{s}(\eta )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}(\eta )}{ϵ^{}(\eta )}}}\text{and}𝖺(\eta )=a(\eta )\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_\mathrm{s}(\eta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )}{3H^2(\eta )}}}.`$ (9)
$`c_\mathrm{s}(\eta )`$ stands for the sound velocity, which is assumed to be strongly positive. $`H(\eta )=a^{}(\eta )/a^2(\eta )`$ stands for the Hubble parameter. Although the gauge modes may contribute to the density contrast $`\delta (\eta ,𝐱)`$, the new variable $`\psi `$ is gauge invariant111The construction of the gauge invariant variables by means of Darboux transformations in a radiation dominated universe has been discussed in detail in , and independently employed in .. The equation (8) has the same structure as the Lukash  equation (1.10) and can be independently derived on the ground of the Lagrangian formalism.

Let us introduce a new time variable $`\zeta `$ defined by the integral

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle c_\mathrm{s}(\eta )d\eta }.`$ (10)
The change of the time variable allows one to reduce the propagation equation for $`\psi `$ to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\zeta ^2}}\psi (\zeta ,𝐱)+2{\displaystyle \frac{𝖺^{}(\zeta )}{𝖺(\zeta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta }}\psi (\zeta ,𝐱)\mathrm{}\psi (\zeta ,𝐱)=0,`$ (11)
which is an explicit form of the d’Alambert equation

$`\psi (\zeta ,𝐱)^\mu _\mu \psi (\zeta ,𝐱)=0`$ (12)
for scalar field $`\psi `$ propagating in Robertson-Walker space-time

$$𝗀_{\mu \nu }=𝖺^2(\zeta )diag[1,1,\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{K}\chi )}{K},\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{K}\chi )}{K}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta ]$$
(13)
with a scale factor $`𝖺(\zeta )`$

$$𝖺(\zeta )=a(\zeta )\sqrt{\frac{1}{c_\mathrm{s}(\zeta )}\frac{ϵ(\zeta )+p(\zeta )}{3H^2(\zeta )}}.$$
(14)
The equation (12) with the metric tensor (13) build the acoustic geometry, we looked for. In consequence, the adiabatic perturbations propagate as massless scalar field in the expanding universe. The new time variable $`\zeta `$ plays a similar role in the acoustic geometry as does the conformal time $`\eta `$ in the original universe. This particularly concerns the shape of null cones and the sound horizons, therefore, $`\zeta `$ may be considered as the acoustic conformal time. Although the d’Alambert operator is Lorentz-invariant the propagation equation (12) is not, because of non-invariance of the field variable $`\psi `$. This limitation is characteristic of quasi-particles (phonons — in cosmological context see ) and well-known in the acoustic geometrical descriptions .

The reduction of the density perturbation equation to the d’Alambert equation, presented above, may also be understood as a generalized Sachs-Wolfe theorem (, p 76 ). Equation (12) (and in consequence (11)) is identical (up to some constant tensor factor) with the equation for gravitational wave propagating in the pressureless environment . Similar equations for the density perturbations can be obtained in all major gauge invariant formalisms. Appropriate Darboux transformations for gauge-invariant equations are given in Appendix.

## 3 Summary

For adiabatic perturbations we constructed the perturbation variables ($`\psi `$ in the synchronous system, and its analogues in gauge-invariant formalisms), which propagate like massless scalar fields (12) in some Robertson-Walker space-time. The construction of these fields and the background geometry is unique and similar in the most frequently used gauge-invariant descriptions. Since the propagation equation has been reduced to d’Alambert equation, the field theory in the curved space-time  become an suitable language to describe density perturbations and to determine their visual effects on the cosmic microwave background.

## Acknowledgements

This paper was inspired by lectures on the black-hole acoustic geometry given by M. Visser on ERE-2001 (Universidad Complutense, Madrid 2001) and by W. Unruh on COSLAB School (Jagellonian University, Kraków 2002). The authors thank Marek Demiański for fruitful discussions and critical remarks. This work was partially supported by State Committee for Scientific Research, project No. 2 P03D 014 17.

## Appendix

In this section we list transformations of gauge-invariant propagation equations to the form of equation (8). We limit ourselves to the transformations of perturbation variables — the time transformation in all cases is identical and equal to (10). We hold the original authors’ notation where possible, yet to reach the consistency of this paper we always denote the metric scale factor by $`a(t)`$, the energy density by $`ϵ`$, the sound velocity by $`c_\mathrm{s}`$, the expansion rate by Hubble $`H=a^{}(t)/a(t)=a^{}(\eta )/a^2(\eta )`$ or the expansion scalar $`\theta =3H`$. Capital $`K`$ stands for the curvature index $`K=0,1,1`$, while small $`k`$ denotes the wave number.

It should be emphasized that although the quantities $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}}`$, $`\widehat{ϵ_\mathrm{m}}`$, $`\widehat{\delta ϵ}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, below, obey the same propagation equation, they should not be identified. Geometrical differences between them are clear from how the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}`$, $`ϵ_\mathrm{m}`$, $`\delta ϵ`$, $`\varphi `$ are defined in the original papers.

Author: Olson  (generalized to arbitrary $`K`$ in )
Propagation equation ( system (21a–21b)):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(\eta ,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`a(\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\theta (\eta )\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(\eta ,𝐱)\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\eta ,𝐱)\right],`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\eta ,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`a(\eta )[{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]}}[\mathrm{}+3K]\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(\eta ,𝐱){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(\eta ,𝐱)`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta (\eta )\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\eta ,𝐱)].`$
Variables:
$`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ — the spatial density Laplacian,
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ — the spatial Laplacian of the expansion rate.
The wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}(\eta ,𝐱)=0`$, given explicitly by eq. (8), (equivalently the equation (12) expressed in the acoustic conformal time) is satisfied by:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}(\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{H^2(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^5(\eta )}{H(\eta )}}\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(\eta ,𝐱)\right].`$ (17)
Authors: Bruni, Dunsby and Ellis ( and references given there)
Propagation equation ( equation (73)):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(t,𝐱)+(2+3c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}6w)H{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{\Delta }(t,𝐱)[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+4w{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}w^23c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\kappa ϵ`$
$`+12(c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}w){\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}}]\mathrm{\Delta }(t,𝐱)c_\mathrm{s}^2^{(3)}^2\mathrm{\Delta }(t,𝐱)=0.`$ (18)
Variables:
$`w=p/ϵ`$ — pressure to energy ratio,
perturbation variable capital delta: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\eta ,𝐱)=a^2(\eta )\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(\eta ,𝐱)}{ϵ(\eta )}`$.
The wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\eta ,𝐱)=0`$ satisfied by:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{H^2(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^3(\eta )ϵ(\eta )}{H(\eta )}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\eta ,𝐱)\right].`$ (19)
Author: Bardeen
Propagation equation (not given explicitly in the cited paper):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\eta ^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}(\eta ,𝐱)+\left[1+c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\right]a(\eta )\theta (\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}(\eta ,𝐱)`$
$`\left[2K\left[1+3c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\right]+a^2(\eta )ϵ(\eta )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p(\eta )}{ϵ(\eta )}}c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\right]+c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\mathrm{}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}(\eta ,𝐱)=0.`$ (20)
Variables:
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}`$ — gauge invariant potential.
The wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}}(\eta ,𝐱)=0`$ satisfied by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}}(\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{H^2(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a(\eta )}{H(\eta )}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{H}(\eta ,𝐱)\right].`$ (21)
Author: Bardeen
Propagation equation ( equation (4.9))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\eta ^2}}\left[ϵ(\eta )a^3(\eta )ϵ_\mathrm{m}(\eta ,𝐱)\right]+\left[1+3c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\right]{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}(\eta )}{a(\eta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[ϵ(\eta )a^3(\eta )ϵ_\mathrm{m}(\eta ,𝐱)\right]`$
$`+\left[c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\left[\mathrm{}+3K\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]a^2(\eta )\right]\left[ϵ(\eta )a^3(\eta )ϵ_\mathrm{m}(\eta ,𝐱)\right]=0.`$ (22)
Variables:
$`ϵ_\mathrm{m}`$ — the density contrast measured on the flow-orthogonal surfaces.
The wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{ϵ_\mathrm{m}}(\eta ,𝐱)=0`$ satisfied by:

$`\widehat{ϵ_\mathrm{m}}(\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{H^2(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^3(\eta )ϵ(\eta )}{H(\eta )}}ϵ_\mathrm{m}(\eta ,𝐱)\right].`$ (23)
Authors: Lyth and Stewart ( and references given there)
Propagation equation (, equations (35–36))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\delta ϵ(t,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (t)\delta ϵ(t,𝐱)\left[ϵ(t)+p(t)\right]\delta \theta (t,𝐱),`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\delta \theta (t,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\left[3ϵ(t)\theta ^2(t)\right]}{3\left[ϵ(t)+p(t)\right]}}\right]\delta ϵ(t,𝐱){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta (t)\delta \theta (t,𝐱)`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )}{ϵ(t)+p(t)}}\mathrm{}\delta ϵ(t,𝐱).`$
Variables:
$`\delta ϵ`$, $`\delta \theta `$ — variations of density and the expansion rate on the flow-orthogonal hypersurfaces.
The wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{\delta ϵ}(\eta ,𝐱)=0`$ satisfied by:

$`\widehat{\delta ϵ}(\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{H^2(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )\left[ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^3(\eta )ϵ(\eta )}{H(\eta )}}\delta ϵ(\eta ,𝐱)\right].`$ (26)
Authors: Brandenberger, Kahn and Press  (generalized to arbitrary $`K`$ in )
Propagation equation (longitudinal gauge,  equation (5.3) for $`\delta S=0`$.)

$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(\eta ,𝐱)`$ $`+`$ $`3(1+c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta ))(\eta )\varphi ^{}(\eta ,𝐱)c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta )\mathrm{}\varphi (\eta ,𝐱)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`\left[2^{}(\eta )+(1+3c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\eta ))(^2(\eta )K)\right]\varphi (\eta ,𝐱)=0.`$
Variables:
$`(\eta )=a^{}(\eta )/a(\eta )`$,
$`\varphi (\eta ,𝐱)`$ — gauge-invariant potential.
The wave equation $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{\varphi }(\eta ,𝐱)=0`$ satisfied by:

$`\widehat{\varphi }(\eta ,𝐱)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ(\eta )+p(\eta )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta )}{a^2(\eta )}}\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^2(\eta )}{(\eta )}}\varphi (\eta ,𝐱)\right].`$ (28)


format: text

text:
# The Space-time Transformations Between Accelerated Systems

## 1 Introduction

The problem of acceleration of charged particles or systems of particles is the permanent and the most prestige problem in the accelerator physics. Particles can be accelerated by different ways. Usually by the classical electromagnetic fields, or, by light pressure of the laser fields (Ashkin, 1970, 1972; Baranova et al. 1994; Pardy, 1998, 2001, 2002). The latter method is the permanent problem of the laser physics for many years.

However, the theoretical problem is not only to find the mechanisms of acceleration bat also the space-time relations between systems which are mutually in the accelerated motion. The uniformly accelerated systems are well known, also the rotating systems represented for instance by the centrifuges are also known and theoretically investigated by many authors.

Here, we determine transformations between coordinate systems which moves mutually with acceleration. We determine transformations between nonrelativistic and relativistic uniformly accelerated systems and rotating systems. We derive also some consequences following from the nonlinearity of motion of these systems.

We show that the transformation laws between accelerated systems can be derived from the infinitesimal Lorentz transformation on the one hand, or, by postulation some kinematical symmetries between these systems on the other hand. These two approaches gives different results. In the case of the first approach which is based on the original Lorentz transformation, the derived results can be taken for sure-footed.

We do not consider in this article the problem of accelerated strings, which is solved for instance by Bachas (2002), because string theory is under the permanent reconstruction and according to Witten (Witten, 2002) it is not clear that the present form of the string theory is correct.

## 2 The infinitesimal form of the Lorentz transformation

We know, that the Lorentz transformation between two inertial coordinate systems $`S(0,x,y,z)`$ and $`S^{}(0,x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ (where system $`S^{}`$ moves in such a way that $`x`$-axes converge, while $`y`$ and $`z`$-axes run parallel and at time $`t=t^{}=0`$ for the beginning of the systems $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ it is $`OO^{}`$) is as follows:

$$x^{}=\gamma (v)(xvt),y^{}=y,z^{}=z^{},t^{}=\gamma (v)\left(t\frac{v}{c^2}x\right),$$
$`(1)`$
where

$$\gamma (v)=\left(1\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
$`(2)`$
The infinitesimal form of this transformation is evidently given by differentiation of the every equation. Or,

$$dx^{}=\gamma (v)(dxvdt),dy^{}=dy,dz^{}=dz,dt^{}=\gamma (v)\left(dt\frac{v}{c^2}dx\right).$$
$`(3)`$
If we put $`dt=0`$ in the first equation of system (3), then the Lorentz length contraction follows in the infinitesimal form $`dx^{}=\gamma (v)dx`$. Or, in other words, if in the system $`S^{}`$ the infinitesimal length is $`dx^{}`$, then the relative length with regard to the system $`S`$ is $`\gamma ^1dx^{}`$. Similarly, from the last equation of (3) it follows the time dilatation for $`dx=0`$. Historical view on this effect is in the Selleri (1997) article.

If the velocity depends on time, which is for instance in the case of the nonlinear motion, then we write

$$dx^{}=\gamma (v(t))(dxv(t)dt),dy^{}=dy,dz^{}=dz,dt^{}=\gamma (v(t))\left(dt\frac{v(t)}{c^2}dx\right).$$
$`(4)`$
This infinitesimal form enables the integration and if we know the dependence of $`v`$ on time, then there is no obstacles to get the Lorentz-like transformation between two nonlinear systems. At the same time the transformations (4) does not change the so called Minkowski metric element, the square of which is

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2dx^2dy^2dz^2.$$
$`(5)`$
The Lorentz transformation for coordinates and time referring to two inertial systems harbours the assumption that the following expression holds good: $`(x=ct)(x^{}=ct^{})`$, where the invariant function $`x=ct`$ being considered in the special theory of relativity as the mathematical expression of the principle of constant light velocity. From the mathematical point of view the relation is the formal mathematical requirement for unambiguous determination of the Lorentz transformation and it follows from the theory of the continuous group of transformations (Eisenhart, 1943). The physical meaning of $`ds`$ is usually defined as a distance between two infinitesimal events, however, some authors consider $`ds`$ as a formal mathematical object with no physical meaning (Brillouin, 1970).

## 3 Uniformly accelerated systems

According to Einstein (1965), Fok (1961) and Logunov (1987), space and time, or, space-time is a form of the existence of matter. To study space-time means to study form of the existence of matter. Special theory of relativity investigates behavior of matter and fields in case of the inertial systems in the inertial motion. The behavior of space-time in case that the systems are mutually or individually accelerated is investigated here.

Let us suppose that in the finite time interval the system $`S^{}`$ is accelerated by the constant acceleration in such a way that the motion is nonrelativistic one. So, for the velocity of the system $`S^{}`$ we have $`v=at`$ and from the equations (4) we have for the infinitesimal Lorentz transformation:

$$dx^{}=\gamma (at)(dxatdt),dy^{}=dy,dz^{}=dz,dt^{}=\gamma (at)\left(dt\frac{at}{c^2}dx\right),$$
$`(6)`$
where

$$\gamma (at)=\left(1\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
$`(7)`$
After integration of equation (6) we get for the coordinate and time components:

$$x^{}=x\left(1\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}at𝑑t\left(1\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}=$$

$$x\left(1\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}+\frac{c^2}{a}\left(1\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}$$
$`(8)`$
and

$$t^{}=\frac{c}{a}\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)x\frac{at}{c^2}\left(1\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
$`(9)`$
In case of the relativistic motion of a body with mass $`m`$ which is caused by the action of the constant force $`F`$ on this body, the dependence of velocity on time is (Landau et al. 1962)

$$v=\frac{at}{\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)^2}}.$$
$`(10)`$
Then, the relativistic coefficient $`\gamma (v)`$ is given by the relation

$$\gamma (v)=\left(1+\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
$`(11)`$
In this situation we get for the coordinate and time transformation:

$$x^{}=x\left(1+\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}at𝑑t=x\left(1+\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{a}{2}t^2$$
$`(12)`$
and

$$t^{}=\frac{1}{2ac}\left[at\sqrt{a^2t^2+c^2}+c^2\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)\right]x\frac{at}{c^2},$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{sinh}(at/c)`$ can be expressed in the logarithmic form according to he following formula:

$$\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)+\sqrt{\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)^2+1}\right].$$
$`(14)`$
Let us remark, that the problem of transformations between nonlinear systems was also discussed by Møller (1943) and Fok (1961). The transformations derived by Møller are not identical with ones derived by us. According to Fok, the nonlinear transformation of space-time is as follows:

$$x^{}=x\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)\frac{c^2}{a}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)1\right)$$
$`(15a)`$
and

$$t^{}=\frac{c}{a}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right)\frac{x}{c}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{at}{c}\right).$$
$`(15b)`$
The trasnformations between system $`S`$ and uniformly accelerated system $`S^{}`$ was also derived by Logunov (1987), but in the substantially different form:

$$x^{}=x\frac{c^2}{a}\left[\sqrt{1+\frac{a^2t^2}{c^2}}1\right];t^{}=t.$$
$`(16)`$
where equation $`t^{}=t`$ can be chosen according to Logunov as the free decision of a physicist. The Logunov approach is not in the final form.

The transformations derived reduces for

$$\frac{at}{c}1$$
$`(17)`$
to the Galilean transformation in the form

$$x^{}=x\frac{1}{2}at^2;t^{}=t.$$
$`(18)`$
After insertion of transformation (15) into space-time element (4), we get:

$$ds^2=\left(c\frac{ax}{c}\right)^2dt^2dx^2dy^2dz^2$$
$`(19)`$
which is approximately (for $`|ax|c^2`$) the same as the square of the space-time element in the homogenous gravitational potential $`U=ax`$. It means that the uniformly accelerated system form some analogue with the homogenous gravitational field. The analogy is usually defined as the principle of equivalence.

However, the principle of equivalence can be easily derived from the special theory relativity from the well known relation $`E=mc^2`$. This relation means that to every mass corresponds energy. And the energy has the same inertion in the arbitrary acceleration field. It means, there is no difference between gravitational and inertional mass. So, the principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass follows from the Einstein relation $`E=mc^2`$. From this proof it follows, that no future experiment will reveal the difference between inertial and gravitational mass. To our knowledge, this elementary theorem was not published in any journal.

We can say, that there is some different nonequivalent possibilities in the derivation of the transformations for nonlinearly moving systems. It signalizes that the theory of the space-time transformation between nonlinear systems is not in the definite form.

The inverse transformations to the derived ones are evidently of the different form (excepting the Logunov transformation) than the original transformations. We show, In the following section that it is possible to find such transformations between coordinates and time, that they are symmetrical. The physical meaning of such transformation is open.

## 4 Uniformly accelerated frames with space-time symmetry

Let us take two systems $`S(0,x,y,z)`$ and $`S^{}(0,x^{},y^{},z^{})`$, where system $`S^{}`$ moves in such a way that $`x`$-axes converge, while $`y`$ and $`z`$-axes run parallel and at time $`t=t^{}=0`$ for the beginning of the systems $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$ it is $`OO^{}`$. Let us suppose that system $`S^{}`$ moves relative to some basic system $`B`$ with acceleration $`a/2`$ and system $`S^{}`$ moves relative to system $`B`$ with acceleration $`a/2`$. It means that both systems moves one another with acceleration $`a`$ and are equivalent because in every system it is possibly to observe the force caused by the acceleration $`a/2`$. In other word no system is inertial.

Now, let us consider the formal transformation equations between two systems. At this moment we give to this transform only formal meaning because at this time, the physical meaning of such transformation is not known. On the other hand, the consequences of the transformation will be shown very interesting.

We write the transformation equations in the form:

$$x^{}=a_1x+a_2t^2,y^{}=y,z^{}=z,t^{}=\sqrt{b_1x+b_2t^2},$$
$`(20)`$
where constants involved in the equations will be determined from the viewpoint of kinematics. Since from the viewpoint of kinematics, both systems are equivalent, for the inverse transformation to the transformation (20) it must hold:

$$x=a_1x^{}a_2t^2,y^{}=y,z^{}=z,t=\sqrt{b_1x^{}+b_2t^2}.$$
$`(21)`$
The minus sign with coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`b_1`$ appearing for the reason that constant $`a_2`$ has the rate of acceleration while constant $`b_1`$ the rate of inverse value of acceleration.

Similarly as in inertial systems, the hypothetical requirement can be now expressed that the transformation equations for system moving relative to themselves with acceleration include a suitable invariant function. Let us now define such transformations as follows:

$$x=\frac{1}{2}\alpha t^2,$$
$`(22a)`$
$$x^{}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha t^2,$$
$`(22b)`$
where $`\alpha `$ is the constant having the rate of acceleration.

If we now substitute (21) into (20) we obtain

$$x^{}=x^{}(a_1^2a_2b_1)+t^2(a_2b_2a_1a_2),$$
$`(23)`$
$$t^2=x^{}(a_1b_1b_1b_2)+t^2(b_2^2b_1a_2).$$
$`(24)`$
After comparing the left and right sides in the relations (23), we get

$$a_1=b_2,a_1^2b_1a_2=1.$$
$`(25)`$
If we put in the relation (20) $`x^{}`$ = 0, we obtain $`x=(a_2/a_1)t^2`$. In accordance with the assumption the motion of the beginning of the system $`S^{}`$ relative to system $`S`$ is described by the $`x=\frac{1}{2}at^2`$, we thus obtain

$$a_2=\frac{1}{2}a_1a.$$
$`(26).`$
From $`[x^{}=(1/2)\alpha t^2][x=(1/2)\alpha t^2`$\], we get

$$\frac{\frac{1}{2}\alpha b_2a_2}{a_1\frac{1}{2}\alpha b_1}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha .$$
$`(27)`$
Through solving the equations (26) and (27), we obtain

$$a_1=b_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}},a_2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{a}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}},b_1=\frac{2}{\alpha ^2}\frac{a}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}}.$$
$`(28)`$
Using (28), we can rewrite the transformation (20) in the definite form:

$$x^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)(x\frac{1}{2}at^2),y^{}=y,z^{}=z,t^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\left(t^2\frac{2a}{\alpha ^2}x\right)$$
$`(29)`$
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}}.$$
$`(30)`$
Let us remark that the more simple derivation of the last transformation can be obtained if we perform in the Lorentz transformation the elementary change of variables as follows: $`tt^2,t^{}t^2,v\frac{1}{2}a,c\frac{1}{2}\alpha `$.

After performing such elementary transition which is practically redenotation of variables, we really get the Lorentz-like transformation (29) between accelerated systems.

The physical interpretation of this nonlinear transformations is the same as in the case of the Lorentz transformation only the physical interpretation of the invariant function $`x=(1/2)\alpha t^2`$ is open.

However, we know from history, that Lorentz transformation was taken first as physically meaningless by Lorentz himself and later only Einstein decided to put the physical meaning to this transformation and to the invariant function $`x=ct`$. We hope that the derived transformation will appear as physically meaningful.

Now, let us prove the following assumption. The transformation (29) forms one-parametric group with parameter $`a`$. To prove it we must prove by the direct calculations the four requirements involving in the definition of group. However, we know, that using relations $`tt^2,t^{}t^2,v\frac{1}{2}a,c\frac{1}{2}\alpha `$, the nonlinear transformation is expressed as the Lorentz transformation forming the one-parametric group. And this is a proof. Such proof is equivalent to the proof by direct calculation. The integral part of the group properties is the so called addition theorem for acceleration.

$$w_3=\frac{w_1+w_2}{1+\frac{w_1w_2}{\alpha ^2}}.$$
$`(31)`$
where $`w_1`$ is the acceleration of the $`S^{}`$ with regard to the system $`S`$, $`w_2`$ is the acceleration of the system $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ with regard to the system $`S^{}`$ and $`w_3`$ is the acceleration of the system $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ with regard to the system $`S`$.

The relation (31), expresses the law of acceleration addition theorem on the understanding that the events are marked according to the relation (29). In this formula as well as in the transformation equation (29) appears constant $`\alpha `$ which cannot be calculated from the theoretical considerations, or, from the theory. What is its magnitude and whether there exists such a physical field that is consistent with the designation of the events given by the relations (29) can be established only by experiments. On the other hand the constant $`\alpha `$ has physical meaning of the maximal acceleration and its meaning is similar to the maximal velocity $`c`$ in special relativity. The notion maximal acceleration is not new physics, because Caianiello (1981, 1992) introduced it as some consequence of quantum mechanics and Landau theory of fluctuations. Revisiting view on the maximal acceleration was given by Papini (2003). At resent time it was argued by Lambiase et al. (1998, 1999) that maximal acceleration determines the upper limit of the Higgs boson and that it gives also the relation which links the mass of $`W`$ boson with the mass of the Higgs boson. The LHC Experiments probably give the answer to this problem.

## 5 Dependence of mass on acceleration

If the maximal acceleration is the physical reality, then it should have the similar consequences in a dynamics as the maximal velocity of motion has consequences in the dependence of mass on velocity. We can suppose in analogy with the special relativity that mass depends on the acceleration for small velocities, in the similar way as it depends on velocity in case of uniform motion. Of course such assumption must be experimentally verified and in no case it follows from special theory of relativity, or, general theory of relativity (Okun, 2001). So, we postulate ad hoc, in analogy with special theory of relativity:

$$m(a)=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}};vc,a=\frac{dv}{dt}.$$
$`(32)`$
Let us derive as an example the law of motion when the constant force $`F`$ acts on the body with the rest mass $`m_0`$. Then, the Newton law reads (Landau et al., 1962):

$$F=\frac{dp}{dt}=m_0\frac{d}{dt}\frac{v}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}}.$$
$`(33)`$
The first integral of this equation can be written in the form:

$$\frac{Ft}{m_0}=\frac{v}{\sqrt{1\frac{a^2}{\alpha ^2}}};a=\frac{dv}{dt},F=const..$$
$`(34)`$
Let us introduce quantities

$$v=y,a=y^{},A(t)=\frac{F^2t^2}{m_0^2\alpha ^2}.$$
$`(35)`$
Then, the quadratic form of the equation (34) can be written as the following differential equation:

$$A(t)y^2+y^2A(t)\alpha ^2=0,$$
$`(36)`$
which is nonlinear differential equation of the first order. The solution of it is of the form $`y=Dt`$, where $`D`$ is some constant, which can be easily determined. Then, we have the solution in the form:

$$y=v=\frac{t}{\sqrt{\frac{m_0^2}{F^2}+\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}}.$$
$`(37)`$
For F $`\mathrm{}`$, we get $`v=\alpha ^2t`$. This relation can play substantial role at the beginning of the big-bang, where the accelerating forces can be considered as infinite, however the law of acceleration has finite nonsingular form. At this moment it is not clear if the dependence of the mass on acceleration can be related to the energy dependence on acceleration similarly to the Einstein relation uniting energy, mass and velocity (Sachs, 1973; Okun, 2001).

## 6 The rotating systems

According to Einstein, there is an analogy between gravitational fields and noninertial reference system. Therefore, when studying properties of gravitational fields in relativistic mechanics, we can start from this analogy.

The description of the rotation system can be described in the Cartesian coordinate system (Landau et al., 1962), or, in the more appropriate form using the polar coordinate $`r,\phi `$ (Goy and Selleri, 1997). Then, we write

$$x=r\mathrm{cos}(\phi +\omega t),y=r\mathrm{sin}(\phi +\omega t).$$
$`(38)`$
The corresponding space-time element is as follows:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{\omega ^2r^2}{c^2}\right)\left(cdt\right)^2\frac{2\omega r^2}{c}d\phi (cdt)dz^2dr^2r^2d\phi ^2.$$
$`(39)`$
We see from the time term in (39) that if we suppose that the velocity of light in the rotating system is constant, then the elapsing of time depends on acceleration.

The equations (38) does not involve the transformation between $`t^{}`$ and $`t`$, so we have motivation for find such transformation.

Such transformation between inertial and rotating system can be expressed in the Lorentz form if we insert into the original Lorentz transformation the following formulae $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Delta }\phi r,v=\omega r`$. Then we have for $`0\phi 2\pi `$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \omega \mathrm{\Delta }t}{\sqrt{1\frac{\omega ^2r^2}{c^2}}},\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{\omega r^2}{c^2}}{\sqrt{1\frac{\omega ^2r^2}{c^2}}}.$$
$`(40))`$
It follows from this transformation that for every $`r>c/\omega `$ and given $`\omega `$, it has no physical meaning. It also means that the infinite rotating system as a whole has no relativistic meaning and it is not clear how to solve this problem. We also see that from equation (40) the time dilatation follows and it is the same as in equation (39).

Although the rotating system cannot be considered as equivalent to the linear accelerated system, nevertheless, the radial component of every part of this system is in the permanent acceleration.

If the element 1 of the rotating plane at the radial coordinate $`r_1`$ has acceleration $`w_1`$ and if the element of the rotating plane at the radial coordinate $`r_2`$ has acceleration $`w_2`$, then the relative acceleration $`w_r`$ of the element 2 with regard to the element 1 is not $`w_2w_1`$, but must be determined according to the formula

$$w_r=\frac{w_2w_1}{1\frac{w_1w_2}{\alpha ^2}}.$$
$`(41)`$
The last formula is an analogue of the formula which determines the relative velocities in case of the inertial motion in the special theory of relativity. The last formula is true only if the transversal effect do not influence the radial effects. It can be verified optically, because we know that the optical frequency of the emission source is influenced by acceleration, or, equivalently by the gravitational field.

Similarly, it is possible to verify the dependence of mass on acceleration, also by the ultracentrifuge.

## 7 Discussion

We have derived transformations between accelerated systems moving mutually uniformly. We have discussed also the rotating systems. We have derived some consequences following from the nonlinearity of motion of these systems. In case, when we used the symmetry principle in derivation of the space-time transformation, we derived by the formal way so called maximal acceleration which was derived using quantum mechanics by Caianiello (1981, 1992). Our derivation of the maximal acceleration is not equivalent to the Caianiello derivation and at the same time it is not in the contradiction with his approach because the heuristical ways to the maximal acceleration were substantially different.

If some experiment will confirm the existence of maximal acceleration $`\alpha `$, then it will have certainly crucial consequences for Einstein theory of gravity because this theory does not involve this factor. Also the cosmological theories constructed on the basis of the original Einstein equations will require modifications. In such a way, Einstein equations can play a role only in the specific conditions where the maximal acceleration can be neglected. Maximal acceleration does not allow the existence of black holes with arbitrary big mas. Also standard model in particle physics will require generalization because it does not involve the maximal acceleration.

We did not consider the problem of accelerated strings, because string theory is under permanent reconstruction and according to Witten (2002) it is not sure that the present form of this theory is correct. It also does not involve the Penrose nonlinear graviton (Penrose, 1976) and it does not involve the Gassendi string model of gravity (Fraser et al. 1998).

One of the prestige problem in the modern theoretical physics is the Unruh effect, or, the existence of thermal radiation detected by accelerated observer. The theory of the Unruh effect is unfortunately under the reconstruction (Fedotov et al., 2002) and to say serious statement or comment to the relation of this effect to the maximal acceleration is premature.

So, at this moment, we study only the accelerated classical systems, and after some time, when string theory will be in the perfect form we will study the situation where the string is accelerated by quantized laser field, following the author articles concerning laser acceleration (Pardy, 1998, 2001, 2002).

REFERENCES

Ashkin, A. (1970). Acceleration and trapping of particles by radiation pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 156.
Ashkin, A. (1972). The pressure of laser light, Scientific American 226 (2), 63.
Bachas, C. (2002). Relativistic string in a pulse, e-print LPTENS 02/63 and hep-th/0212217.
Baranova, N. B. and Zel’dovich, B. Ya. (1994). Acceleration of charged particles by laser beams, JETP 78, (3), 249.
Brillouin, L. (1970). Relativity Reexamined, Academic Press, New York and London.
Caianiello, E. R. (1981). Is there a maximal acceleration ?, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 32, 65; ibid. (1992). Revista del Nuovo Cimento, No. 4.
Einstein, A. (1965). Collective Scientific Works, Vol I, Moscow, (in Russian).
Eisenhart, L. P. (1943). Continuous Groups of Transformations, Princeton.
Fedotov, A. M., Narozhny, N. B., Mur, V. D. and Belinski, V. A. (2002). An example of a uniformly accelerated particle detector with non-Unruh response, e-print hep-th/0208061.
Fok, V. A. (1961). The theory of Space, Time and Gravity, second edition, GIFML, Moscow, (in Russian).
Fraser,G., Lillestøl, E. and Sellavåg, I. (1998). The Search for Infinity George Philip Limited, second ed..
Goy, F. and Selleri, F. (1997). Time on a rotating platform, e-print gr-qc/9702055.
Lambiase, G, Papini, G. and Scarpetta, G. (1998). Maximal acceleration limits on the mass of the Higgs boson, e-print hep-ph/9808460 and ibid. (1999). Nuovo Cimento B, Vol. 114, 189.
Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1962). The Classical Theory of Fields, 2nd ed. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Logunov, A. A. (1987). Lectures on the Theory of Relativity and Gravitation, Nauka, Moscow, (in Russian).
Møller, C. (1943). On homogenous gravitational fields in the general theory of relativity and the clock paradox, Works of Denmark Academy of Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 19. Kobenhavn.
Okun, L. B. (2001). Photons, clocks, gravity and concept of mass, e-print physics/0111134.
Papini, G., (2003). Revisiting Caianiello’s maximal acceleration, e-print quant-ph/0301142.
Pardy, M. (1998). The quantum field theory of laser acceleration, Phys. Lett. A 243, 223.
Pardy, M. (2001). The quantum electrodynamics of laser acceleration, Radiation Physics and Chemistry 61, 391.
Pardy, M. (2002). Electron in the ultrashort laser pulse, e-print hep-ph/0207274.
Penrose, R. (1976). The nonlinear graviton, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 7, No. 1., 171.
Sachs, M. (1973). On the meaning of $`E=mc^2`$, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 8, No. 5, 377.
Selleri, F. (1997). The relativity principle and the nature of time, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 27, No. 11, 1527.
Witten, E. (2002). Comments on string theory, eprint hep-th/0212247.


text:
# Unified criterion for security of secret sharing in terms of violation of Bell inequalities

## I Introduction

Violation of Bell inequalities seem to be a signature of what has been called “useful entanglement” GS1 ; ASW . It was shown in Ref. GS1  that violation of local realism can be seen as a criterion for security of secret sharing protocols Zukowski ; Hillery . It was argued that a strong violation of multi-qubit Bell inequalities WWWZB ; ZB  by the state that acts as the vehicle in secret sharing can be a criterion for security of the secret sharing. Violation of local realism was also shown to be connected with distillability ASW  and super-classical communication complexity complexity .

In a secret sharing protocol, the holder of a secret (call her Alice) wants to distribute her secret among $`N1`$ separated parties (call them Bobs, $`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_{N1}`$) such that leaving out any (non-zero) number of the Bobs, the other Bobs would have no information about Alice’s secret. Such protocols were shown to be possible in Refs. Zukowski ; Hillery , if Alice and the $`N1`$ Bobs share a large number of certain entangled states quantumsecret ; quantumsecretreferences .

Such a protocol could suffer from the onslaught of a possible eavesdropper Evan. Evan could spy (quantum mechanically) on the channels that carry the states from Alice to the Bobs and obtain information about Alice’s secret. In Ref. GS1 , it was shown that if the secret sharing is carried out by using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states, the secret of Alice is secure from eavesdropping as long as the state between Alice and Evan (after eavesdropping) does not violate any Bell inequality while the state between Alice and the Bobs (after eavesdropping) violates the $`N`$-qubit Bell inequalities WWWZB ; ZB  very strongly.

In this paper, we show that security of secret sharing in the multi-qubit scenario can be possible even when the state between Alice and the Bobs of the secret sharing protocol contains weak multi-qubit correlations. We argue that the criterion for security of secret sharing is of a different type.

1. The state shared between Alice and the Bobs (after eavesdropping), if suitably projected into certain states by all but one Bobs, the remaining Bob would share a state with Alice, which violates a two-qubit Bell inequality.
2. At the same time, the state between Alice and Evan must satisfy such inequalities.

We show that both for the GHZ state, which contains *strong* multi-qubit correlations (in the sense of strong violation of multi-qubit Bell inequalities), as well as for another state (we call it the $`G`$ state), which in several ways (as indicated below) contains *weak* multi-qubit correlations, the security of secret sharing is exactly in the same range in which both the above conditions, (i) and (ii), are met. This criterion can therefore be seen as a *unified* criterion for security of secret sharing. We subsequently show, that the $`N`$-qubit $`G`$ state cannot have strong $`N`$-qubit correlations. This is in the sense that

1. the $`N`$-qubit correlation functions of the $`G`$-state only weakly violate the multi-qubit Bell inequalities WWWZB ; ZB  as compared to the GHZ state.
2. The $`N`$-qubit correlations of this state are determined by lower-order correlations of the state in contrast to the GHZ state LPW .

## II New states for secret sharing

The state

$$|G_N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|W_N+|\overline{W}_N)$$
(1)
can be used for secret sharing, where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|W_N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}|10^{N1},\hfill & & \\ |\overline{W}_N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}|01^{N1},\hfill & & \end{array}$$

with $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ being the eigenvectors of $`\sigma _z`$, and e.g., $`|10^{N1}`$ denotes the unnormalised superposition of all $`N`$ arrays of $`(N1)`$ $`|0`$s and a single $`|1`$. Note that

$$|G_4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+x^4|x^4)$$

where

$$|\pm x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\pm |1).$$

However, for more qubits, this family is different than the GHZ family, as we would show later.

The property of the $`G`$ state that would help us to use it for secret sharing is the following:

$$\sigma _x^N_{G_N}=1,\sigma _y^N_{G_N}=(1)^{M+1},$$
(2)
*whenever* $`N=2M`$. The first equation follows from the fact that

$$\sigma _x^N|W_N=|\overline{W}_N,\sigma _x^N|\overline{W}_N=|W_N.$$

To derive the second equation in eq. (2), note that

$$\sigma _y^N|G_N=i^N\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\overline{W}_N+(1)^{N1}|W_N).$$

The state on the right-hand-side is orthogonal to $`|G_N`$ for odd $`N`$. But for even $`N(=2M)`$, the right-hand-side is $`i^{2M}|G_N`$.

Suppose that Alice (A) has some information which she wishes to secretly distribute among $`2M1`$ Bobs ($`B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_{2M1}`$). But she wishes to distribute it in such a way that *all* the Bobs must cooperate to obtain the message. Leaving out any nonzero number of Bobs, the remaining Bobs would not be able to gather the complete information about Alice’s bit. This is equivalent to the situation when Alice is able to secretly distribute a random sequence of binary digits (bits) to the Bobs with the same property. Let us now show that this is possible by using the $`G_{2M}`$-state, shared between Alice and the $`2M1`$ Bobs. Suppose that Alice and the Bobs share a large number of the $`G_{2M}`$-state and they randomly choose between the $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ observables to make a measurement on their respective parts of the shared states Ekert . Subsequently they publicly share information about the *bases* in which they have made their measurements. (They obviously do not share information about the *results* of the measurements.) They keep only those results in which *all* of them measured in the same basis, that is when either all of them measured in the $`\sigma _x`$-basis or all of them measured in the $`\sigma _y`$-basis. In any run of such a Bell type experiment, if *all* the parties happen to choose $`\sigma _x`$ as their observable, then the $`2M`$ results at Alice and the $`2M1`$ Bobs are related by (see eq.(2))

$$r_Ar_{B_1}\mathrm{}r_{B_{2M1}}=1.$$

If all the Bobs cooperate, then they know that

$$r_A=r_{B_1}\mathrm{}r_{B_{2M1}}.$$

If any nonzero number of Bobs refuse to cooperate or are left out, the remaining Bobs cannot gather the complete information about $`r_A`$. This is because irrespective of what results that any $`2M2`$ Bobs happen to obtain in their $`\sigma _x`$ basis measurements, the state of remaining two qubits is such that the single-qubit density matrix at Alice is mixed. Similarly, if *all* the parties happen to choose $`\sigma _y`$ as their observable, then the result of Alice is related to those of the Bobs by

$$s_A=(1)^{M+1}s_{B_1}\mathrm{}s_{B_{2M1}}.$$

In this way, a sequence of random bits is created at Alice and if there is no eavesdropping, the Bobs (if all of them cooperate) would be able to reproduce the same random sequence.

## III Security

We now consider the security of the distributed sequence of random bits against a possible eavesdropper, Evan. We work with the assumption that Evan would only be able to make coherent but individual attacks. Thus although Evan may attack coherently on all the qubits sent to the Bobs (from Alice) in a single run of the experiment, he is not able to perform joint operations on qubits from different runs. As has been stressed in a recent review rmp , at present, even individual attacks by an eavesdropper would be very challenging in reality.

The states that are shared by the Bobs after the measurements by Alice are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\pm x& :& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\xi \pm |\overline{\xi })\hfill \\ \hfill |\pm y& :& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\xi \pm i|\overline{\xi }),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
the left hand column in eq.(3) being the outcome obtained at Alice, while the right hand side gives the corresponding state that is shared by the Bobs. Here $`|\pm x`$ and $`|\pm y`$ are the eigenvectors of $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$, and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |\xi & =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M}}(|10^{2M2}+|1^{2M1})\hfill \\ \hfill |\overline{\xi }& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M}}(|01^{2M2}+|0^{2M1}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Note that the protocol for secret sharing is exactly equivalent to the BB84 key distribution protocol BB84 , when we consider the problem of eavesdropping and the eavesdropping is coherent. Consequently the optimal coherent individual attack that Evan ($`E`$) can perform, is given by the unitary transformation Fuchs

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill U_{BE}|\xi |0& =& |\xi |0\hfill \\ \hfill U_{BE}|\overline{\xi }|0& =& \mathrm{cos}\varphi |\overline{\xi }|0+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |\xi |1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`B`$ denotes $`B_1B_2\mathrm{}B_{2M1}`$ and $`\varphi [0,\pi /2]`$. After Evan implements his attack, i.e., after he applies the unitary operation $`U_{BE}`$ given by eq.(5), the state $`G_N`$ of Alice and the Bobs coupled with the probe $`|0`$ of Evan transforms as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |G_N_{AB}|0_E|\psi _{ABE}& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|\xi _B|0_E\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{cos}\varphi |1_A|\overline{\xi }_B|0_E& +& \mathrm{sin}\varphi |1_A|\xi _B|1_E).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The condition that is needed for security is security

$$I(A:B)>I(A:E),$$
(7)
where again $`B`$ denotes the aggregate of all the Bobs. This security implies that Alice and the Bobs can run a one-way protocol (privacy amplification) if and only if the condition (7) is satisfied. Here the mutual information $`I(X:Y)`$ is defined as

$$I(X:Y)=H(X)H(X|Y),$$

where

$$H(\{p_i\})=\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{log}_2p_i$$

is the Shannon entropy of a probability distribution $`\{p_i\}`$.

We would now calculate the mutual information (after Evan’s attack), when Alice and the Bobs measure either all of them in the $`\sigma _x`$ basis or all of them in the $`\sigma _y`$ basis. This happens with equal probability. Therefore in our case,

$$I(A:B)=1\frac{1}{2}(H_x(A|B)+H_y(A|B)).$$

(As Alice chooses her measurements randomly, $`H(A)=1`$.) The state shared between Alice and the $`2M1`$ Bobs (after Evan’s attack) is (see eq.(6))

$$\rho _{AB}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{2}|\alpha \alpha \left|+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{2}\right|1|\xi 1|\xi |,$$
(8)
where

$$|\alpha =\frac{|0|\xi +\mathrm{cos}\varphi |1|\overline{\xi }}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }}.$$

Let us first evaluate

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H_x(A|B)& & p_x(B=1)H_x(A|B=1)\hfill \\ & +& p_x(B=1)H_x(A|B=1),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where for example, $`p_x(B=1)`$ is the probability of the event “B = 1”, when all the Bobs measure in the $`\sigma _x`$ basis.

Tracing out $`A`$ from $`\rho _{AB}`$, the state $`\rho _B`$ shared between the $`2M1`$ Bobs is (see eq.(8))

$$\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{2}|\xi \xi \left|+\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{2}\right|\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }|.$$

Consequently,

$$p_x(B=\pm 1)=\frac{1}{2}$$

and from eq.(8),

$$p_x(A=1,B=\pm 1)=p_x(A=1,B=1)=\frac{1\pm \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{4}$$

Therefore

$$H_x(A|B=1)=H(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{2}),$$

where $`H(p)=p\mathrm{log}_2p(1p)\mathrm{log}_2(1p)`$ is the binary entropy function. By symmetry, the expression for $`H_x(A|B=1)`$ is exactly the same. So from eq.(9), one obtains

$$H_x(A|B)=H(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{2})$$

By symmetry, the expression for $`H_y(A|B)`$ is exactly the same as that for $`H_x(A|B)`$. So finally,

$$I(A:B)=1H(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{2}).$$
(10)
$`I(A:E)`$ is obtained by replacing $`\varphi `$ by $`\pi /2\varphi `$ in $`I(A:B)`$. With these expressions, one can see that the security condition (7) holds if and only if $`\varphi <\pi /4`$.

Consider now the state $`\rho _{AB}`$ (given by eq.(8)), obtained by tracing out the eavesdropper $`E`$, after the eavesdropping. If any $`2M2`$ of the $`2M1`$ Bobs perform measurements in the $`\sigma _z`$ basis and obtains either $`|0^{2M2}`$ or $`|1^{2M2}`$ (cf. Popescu ; ZHG ), then the remaining Bob (say $`B_k`$) shares with Alice the (two-qubit) state

$$\rho _{AB_k}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{2}|\beta \beta \left|+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{2}\right|1111|,$$

where

$$|\beta =\frac{|01+\mathrm{cos}\varphi |10}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }}.$$

The two-qubit state $`\rho _{AB_k}`$ violates local realism if and only if $`\varphi <\pi /4`$ HHH . Note that there are no sequential measurements involved. The parties follow the ordinary Bell-type experiment and classical communication is needed only to share this data. We consider violation of local realism exhibited by a subset of this data. Measurements at the parties do not depend on results of measurements at the other parties.

On the other hand, the state obtained after we trace out the Bobs (from the state $`|\psi _{ABE}`$, given by eq. (6)), is

$$\rho _{AE}=\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{2}|\gamma \gamma \left|+\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{2}\right|1010|,$$

where

$$|\gamma =\frac{|00+\mathrm{sin}\varphi |11}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }}.$$

The state $`\rho _{AE}`$ violates local realism if and only if $`\varphi >\pi /4`$ HHH .

Therefore for $`\varphi [0,\pi /4)`$, the state shared (after eavesdropping by Evan) between Alice and the Bobs violate local realism in the sense described above, while the Alice-Evan state does not violate local realism. And the secret sharing is secure in exactly the same range.

## IV Comparison with the GHZ state

A related feature was obtained in GS1 , where secret sharing was investigated by using the GHZ state robust

$$|\text{GHZ}_N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0^N+|1^N).$$

However in this case, it was shown that the secret sharing protocol is secure as long as after eavesdropping by Evan, strong $`N=2M`$ qubits correlations are still present in the state shared by Alice and Bobs. If secret sharing is carried out by a shared GHZ state, as has been considered in GS1 , the shared state (after optimal eavesdropping by Evan) between Alice, the $`2M1`$ Bobs and Evan is just the same as displayed on the right hand side of eq.(6) with the replacement

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\xi \hfill & & |0^{2M1}\hfill \\ |\overline{\xi }\hfill & & |1^{2M1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Consider the state between Alice and any one of the Bobs, after measurements in the $`\sigma _x`$-basis at the other Bobs, and suppose that either $`|+x`$ clicks at all those $`2M2`$ Bobs, or $`|x`$ clicks at all of them. As can be checked, this state again violates local realism if and only if $`\varphi <\pi /4`$. The state shared by Alice and Evan does not violate local realism in that range. This is the range in which secret sharing is secure.

In GS1 , it was numerically shown that the complete set of Bell inequalities in multi-qubit systems WWWZB ; ZB  is violated by the state shared between Alice and the $`2M1`$ Bobs (after eavesdropping by Evan) by a magnitude of more than $`2^{\frac{2M1}{2}}`$ if and only if $`\varphi [0,\pi /4)`$. In this range, the Alice and Evan state does not violate any Bell inequality. It was therefore proposed that this form of strong violation of local realism for the $`2M`$-qubit correlations is a criterion for security in secret sharing.

However we have shown that the range in which security of secret sharing by a GHZ state is obtained, is also concurrent with violation of local realism in another form; that of satisfying items (i) and (ii) in the Introduction. This feature is also shared by our $`G`$ states. The proposed criterion is therefore a unified criterion for security of secret sharing.

## V Strength of multiqubit correlations

The GHZ states have strong multiqubit correlations. In contrast, the family $`|G_{2M}`$, which can also be considered as the vehicle of the secret sharing, is unlikely to produce a strong violation of local realism for $`2M`$-qubit correlations. On the contrary, we will show that it has a large amount of its entanglement concentrated in correlations of lower number of parties. In the following, we drop the restriction that the number of parties is even.

### V.1 Violation of local realism

Consider the white noise admixed $`N`$-qubit state $`G_N`$,

$$\rho ^{G_N}=p_N|G_NG_N|+(1p_N)\rho _{noise}^N$$
(11)
where $`\rho _{noise}^N=\frac{1}{2^N}I`$ is the maximally mixed state of $`N`$ qubits. If $`N2`$ parties make measurements in the $`\sigma _z`$ basis, and if either $`|0`$ clicks at all the parties, or $`|1`$ clicks at all the parties, the collapsed state is given respectively by

$$\rho ^{G_2}(_{i=3}^N|0_{ii}0|)$$

or

$$\rho ^{G_2}(_{i=3}^N|1_{ii}1|),$$

where $`\rho ^{G_2}`$ is the Werner state

$$\rho ^{G_2}=p_{(N2)}|G_2G_2|+(1p_{(N2)})\rho _{noise}^2$$

with

$$p_{(N2)}=\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1p_N)N}{p_N2^{N2}}},$$

and

$$|G_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10).$$

The state $`\rho ^{G_2}`$ has no local realistic description for $`p_{(N2)}>1/\sqrt{2}`$. This would imply that the state $`\rho ^{G_N}`$ cannot have a local realistic model for

$$p_N>p_{G_N}^{crit}\frac{N}{N+(\sqrt{2}1)2^{N2}}.$$

A GHZ state of $`N`$ qubits maximally violates the multiqubit Bell inequalities WWWZB ; ZB  and the amount of violation is $`\sqrt{2^{N+1}}`$. Consequently the noisy GHZ state

$$\rho ^{GHZ_N}=q_NP_{|GHZ_N}+(1q_N)\rho _{noise}^N$$
(12)
violates local realism for

$$q_N>q_{GHZ_N}^{crit}1/\sqrt{2^{N1}}.$$

But for $`N13`$,

$$p_{G_N}^{crit}>q_{GHZ_N}^{crit}.$$

Thus for $`N13`$, the nonclassicality of the correlations in $`G_N`$ is more robust to “white noise” admixture than the one for the corresponding GHZ state. A similar method was used in Ref. ZHG  (cf. Popescu ) to show that the nonclassical behavior of the $`W`$ states is stronger than that of the GHZ state for sufficiently large number of parties. Note here that the robustness to white noise admixture of the nonclassicality of correlations in the $`G_N`$ states obtained by the above method is weaker than the one that is obtained for the corresponding $`W`$ state.

Therefore strong nonclassical properties of the $`G_N`$ states emerge after local projection measurements in some parties. This strong nonclassicality for lower number of parties seems to imply that the $`N`$-party correlations are weak. One can see this more directly in the following considerations for the $`6`$-qubit $`G`$ state, the lowest number of qubits in which secret sharing is possible with a $`G`$ state and which is not simply a GHZ state. Consider the correlation tensor $`\widehat{T}^{G_6}`$ of the state $`G_6`$, the elements of which are given by

$$T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_6}=\mathrm{tr}(P_{|G_6}\sigma _{x_1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}\sigma _{x_6}^{(6)}),(x_i=x,y,z).$$

Explicit calculation reveals the following structure of the tensor:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{T}^{G_6}=_{i=1}^6\stackrel{}{x_i}+_{i=1}^6\stackrel{}{y_i}_{i=1}^6\stackrel{}{z_i}\hfill & & \\ +\frac{1}{3}\{(_{i=1}^2\stackrel{}{x_i})(_{j=3}^6\stackrel{}{z_j})(_{i=1}^4\stackrel{}{x_i})(_{j=5}^6\stackrel{}{z_j})\hfill & & \\ (_{i=1}^4\stackrel{}{y_i})(_{j=5}^6\stackrel{}{z_j})+(_{i=1}^2\stackrel{}{y_i})(_{j=3}^6\stackrel{}{z_j})\hfill & & \\ (_{i=1}^2\stackrel{}{x_i})(_{j=3}^6\stackrel{}{y_j})(_{i=1}^4\stackrel{}{x_i})(_{j=5}^6\stackrel{}{y_j})\hfill & & \\ +(_{i=1}^2\stackrel{}{x_i})(_{j=3}^4\stackrel{}{y_j})(_{k=5}^6\stackrel{}{z_k})\},\hfill & & \end{array}$$

where for example $`\stackrel{}{x_1}\stackrel{}{x_2}\stackrel{}{z_3}\stackrel{}{z_4}\stackrel{}{z_5}\stackrel{}{z_6}`$ contains all the $`15`$ combinations of two $`\stackrel{}{x}`$s and four $`\stackrel{}{z}`$s.

A sufficient condition for an $`N`$-qubit state $`\rho `$ to have a local realistic model for $`N`$-qubit correlations (of two-settings Bell experiments) is that

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N=x,y}{}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_N}^21$$

for *any* set of local coordinate systems ZB . Here $`x`$ and $`y`$ denote any two arbitrary orthogonal directions, which can be separately defined for each observer.

For the noisy $`G_6`$ state $`\rho ^{G_6}`$ given by the eq.(11),

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_6=x,y}{}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_6}^2=\frac{16p_6^2}{3},$$

for the *fixed* local coordinate system in which the secret sharing is considered. Thus an explicit local realistic description for the $`(x,y)`$ correlations for the state $`\rho ^{G_6}`$ exists for

$$p_6\sqrt{3/16}0.433012$$

whereas (for the correlations in the same sector) the noisy $`6`$-qubit GHZ state (eq.(12)) has no local realistic description for

$$q_6>1/\sqrt{32}0.176777.$$

The latter follows from the fact that the $`6`$-qubit GHZ state violates the multiqubit Bell inequalities maximally, and the amount of violation is $`\sqrt{2^5}`$. This shows that the $`N`$-qubit correlations of the GHZ state are stronger in comparison to that of the $`G`$-state. Since the scheme of the secret sharing protocol is for $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ measurements in a fixed local coordinate system, it is probably enough to check the sufficiency for local realism in the $`(x,y)`$ sector. However we show below that the stronger $`N`$-qubit correlations of the GHZ state as compared to the $`G`$ state persists even when *any* local coordinate systems are considered.

For *any* set of local coordinate systems,

$$\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_6=x,y}{}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_6}^2\underset{x_1,\mathrm{},x_6=x,y,z}{}T_{x_1\mathrm{}x_6}^2=23,$$

for the state $`G_6`$. So the noisy $`G_6`$-state has for sure a local realistic description for $`6`$-qubit correlations, for

$$p_61/\sqrt{23}0.208514.$$

Therefore the $`6`$-qubit GHZ state is definitely more robust to white noise admixture than the state $`G_6`$ *when $`6`$-qubit correlations are considered*.

### V.2 Higher order correlations are determined by lower order ones for the $`|G_N`$ state

We would now give yet another argument to show that the $`N`$-qubit state $`|G_N`$ has weaker $`N`$-qubit correlations than the $`N`$-qubit GHZ state. Note that for the GHZ state, information regarding the reduced density matrices of lower number of parties is insufficient to describe the whole $`N`$-party state. Indeed the state

$$\frac{1}{2}(|0^N0^N|+|1^N1^N|),$$

has the same single-party, $`2`$-party, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`(N1)`$-party reduced density matrices as the state $`|\text{GHZ}_N`$. Consequently, high order correlations of the GHZ states are not determined by lower order correlations. However, as shown in LPW , this feature is rare. For almost all states, actually the opposite is true.

On the lines of LPW , we will now show that for the states $`|G_N`$, for $`N5`$, there is no other state (pure or mixed) whose $`(N1)`$-party reduced density matrices match those of the $`G_N`$ state.

For convenience of notation, let us call the parties sharing the $`N`$-qubit $`G_N`$ state as $`1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. A state whose $`(N1)`$-party reduced density matrices agree with those of $`G_N`$, may be a mixed state. We therefore allow for an environment $`E`$. Any such state, whose $`(N1)`$-party reduced density matrix of the parties $`1,2,\mathrm{},(N1)`$ agree with the state $`G_N`$, can be written as

$$|\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|v_0_{12\mathrm{}(N1)}|E_0_{NE}+|v_1_{12\mathrm{}(N1)}|E_1_{NE}),$$
(13)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |v_0& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(|10^{N2}+|1^{N1})\hfill \\ \hfill |v_1& =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(|01^{N2}+|0^{N1})\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
and $`|E_0`$ and $`|E_1`$ are orthonormal. Note that $`|v_0`$ and $`|v_1`$ are just the states $`|\xi `$ and $`|\overline{\xi }`$ extended also to the case of even $`N`$ (see eq. (4)). Since $`|E_0`$ and $`|E_1`$ are orthonormal, they can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |E_0& =& |0_N|e_{00}_E+|1_N|e_{01}_E\hfill \\ \hfill |E_1& =& |0_N|e_{10}_E+|1_N|e_{11}_E.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Let us now try to match the $`(N1)`$-party reduced density matrix of the parties $`2,3,\mathrm{},N`$ of the state $`G_N`$ with that of $`|\chi `$. Consequently, it should be possible to write $`|\chi `$ as

$$|\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|v_0_{23\mathrm{}N}|F_0_{1E}+|v_1_{23\mathrm{}N}|F_1_{1E}),$$
(16)
where the states $`|v_0`$ and $`|v_1`$ are given by eq. (14), and the orthonormal environment states $`|F_0`$ and $`|F_1`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |F_0& =& |0_1|f_{00}_E+|1_1|f_{01}_E\hfill \\ \hfill |F_1& =& |0_1|f_{10}_E+|1_1|f_{11}_E.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The states on the right hand sides of the equations (13) and (16) are actually the same states. Comparing the different terms, it is not hard to see that for $`N5`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|e_{00}=|e_{11}\hfill & & \\ |e_{01}=|e_{10}=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(18)
Therefore the state $`|\chi `$, for $`N5`$, is a product state of $`|G_N`$ with a state of the environment, if $`|\chi `$ has its $`(N1)`$-party reduced density matrices equal to the corresponding ones for $`|G_N`$. Thus for $`N5`$, there are no other $`N`$-qubit states whose $`(N1)`$-qubit reduced density matrices are equal to those of $`|G_N`$. Therefore, contrary to the GHZ states, given the $`(N1)`$-qubit reduced density matrices, the state $`|G_N`$ is already completely specified. This again underlines the fact that the state $`|G_N`$ does not possess strong $`N`$-qubit correlations. This also explicitly shows that the states $`|G_N`$, for $`N5`$, are not from the GHZ family.

## VI Summary

We have given a criterion on security of secret sharing protocols. The criterion is based on violation in a specific way, of Bell inequalities (as given by items (i) and (ii) in the Introduction). A criterion for security of secret sharing based on violation of Bell inequalities was provided in GS1 . Let us mention here that we do not simply extend this previously known criterion of Ref. GS1 . The criterion mentioned in Ref. GS1  (call it C1), is not satisfied by the G-states considered in our paper. And yet secret sharing is possible by using the G-states. We have put forward an independent criterion. Our criterion (call it C2), although again based on violation of Bell inequalities, is drastically different from the criterion mentioned in Ref. GS1 . And we find that both the GHZ state (which was shown in Ref. GS1  to satisfy C1 and useful for secret sharing) and the G-state (which is shown in this paper to violate C1 and still useful for secret sharing) are satisfying our criterion C2.

We believe that these considerations would be useful in the general discussions as well as as for applications of quantum cryptography rmp .

###### Acknowledgements.

AS and US acknowledges the University of Gdańsk, Grant No. BW/5400-5-0236-2 and BW/5400-5-0256-3. MZ is supported by Professorial Subsidy of Foundation for Polish Science.