text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum Chromodynamics has emerged as the unique theory to describe hadronic physics. It is formulated in terms of gluonic and quark fields. The only free parameters are the scale of the coupling (usually called $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) and the quark masses defined at some conventional energy scale.

Where large momentum transfers occur, the effective coupling becomes weak and a perturbative treatment is valid: in this domain the theory has been tested directly by experiment. However, because the effective coupling is weak for these processes that can be described by perturbation theory, they are necessarily not the dominant hadronic processes. A typical hadronic process will involve small momentum transfers and so has to be treated non-perturbatively.

In this non-perturbative régime, the description of hadrons is quite far removed from the description of the gluonic and quark fields in the QCD Lagrangian. Because only colour-singlet states survive, the hadrons are all composites of quarks and gluons. One example emphasises this: the nucleon has a mass which is very much greater than the sum of the quark masses of the three valence quarks comprising it. This extra mass comes from the gluonic interactions of QCD. Another way to view this is that the naïve quark model is a useful phenomenological tool but has constituent quarks with masses much greater than the QCD masses (ie masses as defined in the Lagrangian). It is important to understand why this is approximately what QCD requires and to find where QCD departs from the naïve quark model.

One way to characterise the manner in which QCD goes beyond the naïve quark model is through the concept of exotic states. Here exotic is taken to mean ‘not included in the naïve quark model’. In order to discuss exotic states, we need to summarise what the naïve quark model contains. Basically the degrees of freedom are the valence quarks (ie quark-antiquark for a meson and 3 quarks for a baryon) with masses and interactions given by some effective interaction. The consequences of this are that only certain $`J^{PC}`$ values will exist and that the number of states with different quark flavours is specified. So, concentrating on mesons made of the three flavours of light quarks ($`u,d,s`$), one expects a nonet of mesons with the flavours ($`\overline{u}d,\overline{d}u,\overline{u}u\pm \overline{d}d,\overline{s}s,\overline{u}s,\overline{d}s,\overline{s}u,\overline{s}d`$). This is indeed what is found for vector mesons ($`\rho ,\omega ,\varphi ,K^{}`$). It is also possible within the quark model for the flavour-singlet states ($`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d,\overline{s}s`$) to mix, as found for the pseudoscalar mesons. What would be exotic is for a tenth state to exist. For mesons with orbital angular momentum $`L`$ between the quark and antiquark the allowed $`J^{PC}`$ values are shown below. Thus spin-parity combinations such as $`0^{},0^+,1^+,2^+`$ are termed spin-exotic since they cannot be made from a quark plus antiquark alone.

It has been a considerable challenge to build a machinery that allows non-perturbative calculations in QCD with all systematic errors determined. The most controlled approach to non-perturbative QCD is via lattice techniques in which space-time is discretized and time is taken as Euclidean. The functional integral is then evaluated numerically using Monte Carlo techniques.

Lattice QCD needs as input the quark masses and an overall scale (conventionally given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$). Then any Green function can be evaluated by taking an average of suitable combinations of the lattice fields in the vacuum samples. This allows masses to be studied easily and matrix elements (particularly those of weak or electromagnetic currents) can be extracted straightforwardly. Unlike experiment, lattice QCD can vary the quark masses and can also explore different boundary conditions and sources. This allows a wide range of studies which can be used to diagnose the health of phenomenological models as well as casting light on experimental data.

One limitation of the lattice approach to QCD is in exploring hadronic decays because the lattice, using Euclidean time, has no concept of asymptotic states. One feasible strategy is to evaluate the mixing between states of the same energy - so giving some information on on-shell hadronic decay amplitudes.

There is an interesting theoretical world in which the quark degrees of freedom are removed from QCD, leaving pure gluo-dynamics. This is also known as pure Yang-Mills theory. It is a self-consistent theory which has the full non-perturbative gluonic interaction. It turns out that this gluonic interaction does produce the salient features of QCD: asymptotic freedom, confinement, etc. It is of interest to explore the spectrum in this case: the states are called glueballs.

It is also of interest to consider the propagation of quarks in this gluonic theory. The quarks are treated as in the Dirac equation and they propagate through the gluonic ground state. This approach is known as the quenched approximation. Again this turns out to be a very useful approximation: chiral symmetry breaking occurs for example. This quenched approximation is in contrast to the full quantum field theory of QCD where there would be quark loop effects in the ground state also. Thus in the quenched approximation there will be inconsistencies: the theory is not unitary. However, for heavy quarks it will be a good approximation since heavy quark loops are suppressed and it may be adequate to describe some features of lighter quarks. Moreover, many phenomenological models are appropriate to the quenched case and so can be compared with quenched QCD.

## 2 Glueballs and scalar mesons

### 2.1 Glueballs in quenched QCD

Glueballs are defined to be hadronic states made primarily from gluons. The full non-perturbative gluonic interaction is included in quenched QCD. A study of the glueball spectrum in quenched QCD is thus of great value. This will allow experimental searches to be guided as well as providing calibration for models of glueballs. A non-zero glueball mass in quenched QCD is the “mass-gap” of QCD. To prove this rigourously is one of the major challenges of our times. Here we will explore the situation using computational techniques.

In lattice studies, dimensionless ratios of quantities are obtained. To explore the glueball masses $`m`$, it is appropriate to combine them with another very accurately measured quantity to have a dimensionless observable. Since the potential between static quarks is very accurately measured from the lattice, it is now conventional  to use $`r_0`$ for this comparison. Here $`r_0`$ is implicitly defined by $`r^2dV(r)/dr=1.65`$ at $`r=r_0`$ where $`V(r)`$ is the potential energy between static quarks which is easy to determine accurately on the lattice. Conventionally $`r_00.5`$ fm.

Theoretical analysis indicates that for Wilson’s discretisation of the gauge fields in the quenched approximation, the dimensionless ratio $`mr_0`$ will differ from the continuum limit value by corrections of order $`a^2`$. Thus in fig. 1 the mass of the $`J^{PC}`$=$`0^{++}`$ glueball is plotted versus the lattice spacing $`a^2`$. The straight line then shows the continuum limit obtained by extrapolating to $`a=0`$. As can be seen, there is essentially no need for data at even smaller $`a`$-values to further fix the continuum value. The value shown corresponds to $`m(0^{++})r_0=4.33(5)`$. Since several lattice groups  have measured these quantities, it is reassuring to see that the purely lattice observables are in excellent agreement. The publicised difference of quoted $`m(0^{++})`$ from UKQCD  and GF11  comes entirely from relating quenched lattice measurements to values in GeV.

In the quenched approximation, different hadronic observables differ from experiment by factors of up to 10%. Thus using one quantity or another to set the scale, gives an overall systematic error. Here the scale is set by taking the conventional value of the string tension (determined from potential models and from hadronic lattice studies), $`\sqrt{\sigma }=0.44`$ GeV, which then corresponds to $`r_0^1=373`$ MeV (or $`r_0=0.53`$ fm). An overall systematic error of 10% is then to be included to any extracted mass. This yields $`m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)`$ MeV where the second error is the systematic scale error. Note that this is the glueball mass in the quenched approximation - in the real world significant mixing with $`q\overline{q}`$ states etc may modify this value substantially, as we discuss below.

In the Wilson approach, the next lightest glueballs are  the tensor $`m(2^{++})r_0=6.0(6)`$ (resulting in $`m(2^{++})=2232(220)(220)`$ MeV) and the pseudoscalar $`m(0^+)r_0=6.0(1.0)`$. Although the Wilson discretisation provides a definitive study of the lightest ($`0^{++}`$) glueball in the continuum limit, other methods are competitive for the determination of the mass of heavier glueballs. Namely, using an improved gauge discretisation which has even smaller discretisation errors than the $`a^2`$ dependence of the Wilson discretisation, so allowing a relatively coarse lattice spacing $`a`$ to be used. To extract mass values, one has to explore the time dependence of correlators and for this reason, it is optimum to use a relatively small time lattice spacing. Thus an asymmetric lattice spacing is most appropriate. The results  are shown in fig. 2 and for low lying states are that $`m(0^{++})r_0=4.21(11)(4)`$, $`m(2^{++})r_0=5.85(2)(6)`$, $`m(0^+)r_0=6.33(7)(6)`$ and $`m(1^+)r_0=7.18(4)(7)`$. It will be very difficult to identify experimentally states corresponding to these heavier glueballs since the spectrum is rich in $`q\overline{q}`$ states of those quantum numbers at those mass values and there will thus be considerable mixing.

One signal of great interest would be a glueball with $`J^{PC}`$ not allowed for $`q\overline{q}`$ \- a spin-exotic glueball or oddball \- since it would not mix with $`q\overline{q}`$ states. These states are found  to be high lying: considerably above $`2m(0^{++})`$. Thus they are likely to be in a region around 4 GeV where it is very difficult to separate states unambiguously by experiment.

As well as the mass of a glueball, it is possible to study their physical size. In principle this is determined by measuring the matrix element $`G|J|G`$ where $`J`$ is some local current which couples to the glueball. Since glueballs have no flavour, the energy-momentum tensor is the most appropriate choice. A preliminary study has been made, albeit with large systematic errors  and finds a radius $`0.9\pm 0.3`$ fm. This approach should be contrasted with what has come to be called the Bethe-Saltpeter wavefunction which is obtained from $`G|L|0`$ where $`L`$ is the lattice operator used to create a glueball state from the vacuum. Within a lattice calculation, it is easy to measure the dependence of this overlap on the spatial extent of $`L`$ , but difficult to interpret the result.

Related information can be obtained from a study of the gluelump: the state with one static colour source in the octet representation with a gluonic field making it a colour singlet. This would be of physical relevance should a massive gluino exist: it would be the glueballino, a gluino-gluon bound state. The spectrum  and spatial distribution  have been studied.

Another topic which is of mainly theoretical interest is the glueball mass (as a dimensionless ratio to the string tension) as the number of colours $`N_c`$ is varied from 3. The SU(2) Yang-Mills theory has often been studied, especially as it is computationally simpler. Recently a study of SU(N) for N=4 and 5 has been made. The summary  is that N=$`\mathrm{}`$ is relatively close to N=3. This has theoretical implications since the N=$`\mathrm{}`$ theory is formally simpler. For a comparison of these lattice results with ADS supergravity see ref. .

### 2.2 Scalar mesons in quenched QCD

In quenched QCD the flavour singlet ($`f_0`$) and non-singlet ($`a_0`$) scalar mesons are degenerate. In full QCD this degeneracy is split by disconnected quark diagrams but these are omitted from the quenched approximation. This same feature of the quenched approximation implies that the $`\eta `$ meson is wrongly treated - it will be degenerate with the $`\pi `$. This implies that the scalar meson propagation can have the wrong sign  because the $`\eta \pi `$ intermediate state is mistreated (once quark loops are allowed in the vacuum then this anomaly is removed). For light quarks of mass corresponding to the strange quark or heavier, it is expected that this anomaly is relatively unimportant. Thus the measurement of the mass of the $`q\overline{q}`$ scalar meson can be particularly unreliable in the quenched approximation.

Even though the mixing of the glueball and $`q\overline{q}`$ states is not implemented in the quenched approximation, one can determine the mixing matrix element. This can then be used to estimate the result of the mixing by hand (by using a mass matrix for example). On a rather coarse lattice ($`a^11.2`$ GeV), two groups have attempted to measure this mixing . Their results expressed as the mixing for two degenerate quarks of mass around the strange quark mass are similar, namely $`E0.3`$ GeV  and 0.5 GeV . This is a relatively large mixing (if the glueball and scalar meson states were degenerate they would be split by $`\pm E`$).

An exploratory attempt to extrapolate this mixing to the continuum  gave a very small mixing of 61(45) MeV, while the other determination  uses clover improvement so order $`a`$ effects in the extrapolation to the continuum are suppressed and one would not expect a significant decrease in going to the continuum limit. What this discussion shows is that precision studies of the mixing on a quenched lattice have not yet been achieved. Furthermore the problems with the scalar meson propagation in the quenched approximation discussed above also limit progress.

As well as this mixing of the glueball with $`q\overline{q}`$ states, there will be mixing with $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ states which will be responsible for the hadronic decays. A first attempt to study this  at a coarse lattice spacing yields an estimated width for decay to two pseudoscalar mesons from the scalar glueball of order 100 MeV. A more realistic study would involve taking account of mixing with the $`n\overline{n}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ scalar mesons as well.

### 2.3 Scalar mesons in full QCD

It is now feasible to explore the flavour-singlet scalar meson spectrum including the quark loops in the vacuum, ie in full QCD. From dynamical fermion studies with $`N_f=2`$, one can determine the flavour singlet and non-singlet mass spectrum. What is found  is that the lightest flavour-singlet scalar meson ($`f_0`$) is lighter than the lightest flavour non-singlet ($`a_0`$).

The interpretation of this study is hampered by the same issue that hampers the interpretation of experimental data, namely, the mass eigenstates are not distinguished as ‘glueball’ or as ‘quark-antiquark’. What one can do is explore the output spectrum and deduce what mixing might have occurred. To give an example, where we restrict here to $`N_f=2`$ flavours of degenerate quarks, the $`f_0`$ masses will be $`m_0`$ and $`m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ where the latter is the first excited state and the flavour non-singlet $`a_0`$ mass will be $`m_1`$. Results for $`m_0`$ are given in fig. 1. Then one would expect in a simple $`2\times `$2 mixing scenario (ie glueball and $`q\overline{q}`$ meson) a mass matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_G& E\\ E& m_1\end{array}\right)`$

where $`m_G`$ is the glueball mass and $`E`$ the mixing matrix element. This will have two mass eigenstates which can be identified with $`m_0`$ and $`m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ so determining the two free parameters in the matrix. This approach explains what is going on but obtains two numbers with two parameters, so there is no cross-check.

One can directly address the issue of the mass of the lightest scalar singlet meson from the lattice with $`N_f=2`$. It is advantageous to use as full a basis of lattice operators as possible, including Wilson loops and quark-antiquark loops. Including the latter can in practice lead to a lower value the ground state scalar meson mass - see refs.. Most studies have shown no significant change of the scalar glueball mass as dynamical quarks are included . However the larger lattice spacing result  shows a significant reduction in the lightest scalar mass, as shown in fig. 1. Before concluding that this implies a lower scalar mass in the continuum limit, one needs to check whether an enhanced order $`a^2`$ correction might be present. The origin of the large coefficient of $`a^2`$ in quenched glueball studies is usually ascribed to the presence of a critical point in the fundamental-adjoint coupling plane which is close by in the usual Wilson approach with zero adjoint coupling. The extent to which this will be enhanced/reduced when dynamical quarks are introduced is not clear. Studies using the same approach at a finer lattice spacing  do suggest that this large order $`a^2`$ effect is significant for dynamical quarks, but studies even nearer to the continuum or with improved actions are needed to resolve this fully.

A further complication is that as the quark mass is reduced towards the physical light quark mass, the decay to $`\pi \pi `$ becomes energetically allowed. The study of unstable particles is a difficult problem in a Euclidean time formalism . We return to this topic later.

### 2.4 Experimental evidence for scalar mesons

In full QCD, for the favour-singlet states of any given $`J^{PC}`$, there will be mixing between the $`s\overline{s}`$ state, the $`u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}`$ state and the glueball as well as with multi-meson channels. It may indeed turn out that no scalar meson in the physical spectrum is primarily a glueball - all states are mixtures of glue, $`q\overline{q}`$, $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$, etc.

To help with understanding the experimental situation , we first discuss the flavour non-singlet states, the $`a_0`$ with isospin 1. The observed states are at 980 and 1450 MeV. The lighter state has dynamics which appears to be closely associated with the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. The heavier state is not yet very well established but seems to be a candidate for a state mostly comprised of $`q\overline{q}`$, while the lighter state would be $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$.

The flavour singlet states ($`f_0`$) are more numerous. There is a very broad enhancement in the $`\pi \pi `$ S-wave phase shift around 700 MeV (sometimes called the $`\sigma `$), there is a state near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold at 980 MeV and there are more states at 1370, 1500 and 1710 MeV. Again assuming that the state at 980 MeV is predominantly $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$, this suggests that the three states in the 1300-1750 MeV energy range are admixtures of the glueball, $`u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$. The fact that there are indeed three states in this energy region close to the quenched glueball mass of 1600 MeV is the strongest evidence for the presence of a glueball. This has led to several phenomenological attempts  to describe these three observed states in terms of the lattice input.

As we emphasised above, in full QCD on a lattice one just obtains values for the $`a_0`$ and $`f_0`$ masses. In the simplified case of $`N_f=2`$ flavours of degenerate quark, one does indeed find  two $`f_0`$ states, and they can be interpreted as mixtures of the $`q\overline{q}`$ and glueball states with the $`q\overline{q}`$ state having the properties found for the $`a_0`$.

One useful lattice input would be a determination of the $`a_0`$ mass as the quark mass is varied in full QCD, especially because of the problems of determining the $`a_0`$ mass in the quenched approximation. At present, the full QCD studies  are limited to relatively coarse lattice spacing, so the continuum limit is not close. Furthermore, as the quark mass is reduced the $`a_0`$ can decay (to $`\pi \eta `$) and this will influence the lattice analysis .

## 3 Hybrid Mesons

A hybrid meson is a meson in which the gluonic degrees of freedom are excited non-trivially. The most direct sign of this would be a spin-exotic meson, since that could not be created from a $`q\overline{q}`$ state with unexcited glue. A spin-exotic meson could, however, be a $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ or meson-meson state and that possibility will be discussed. We first discuss hybrid mesons with static heavy quarks where the description can be thought of as an excited colour string. The situation concerning light quark hybrid mesons is then summarised

### 3.1 Heavy quark hybrid mesons

Consider $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states with static quarks in which the gluonic contribution may be excited. We classify the gluonic fields according to the symmetries of the system. This discussion is very similar to the description of electron wave functions in diatomic molecules. The symmetries are (i) rotation around the separation axis $`z`$ with representations labelled by $`J_z`$ (ii) CP with representations labelled by $`g(+)`$ and $`u()`$ and (iii) C$``$. Here C interchanges $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$, P is parity and $``$ is a rotation of $`180^0`$ about the mid-point around the $`y`$ axis. The C$``$ operation is only relevant to classify states with $`J_z=0`$. The convention is to label states of $`J_z=0,1,2`$ by $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively. The ground state ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$) will have $`J_z=0`$ and $`CP=+`$.

The exploration of the energy levels of other representations has a long history in lattice studies . The first excited state is found to be the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$. This can be visualised as the symmetry of a string bowed out in the $`x`$ direction minus the same deflection in the $`x`$ direction (plus another component of the two-dimensional representation with the transverse direction $`x`$ replaced by $`y`$), corresponding to flux states from a lattice operator which is the difference of U-shaped paths from quark to antiquark of the form $``$.

The picture of the gluon flux between the static quarks suggests that the excited states of this string may approximate the excited potentials found from the lattice. In the simplest string theory, the first excited level has $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ symmetry and is at energy $`\pi /R`$ above the ground state. This is indeed approximately valid and a closer approximation is to use a relativistic version  (namely $`E_m(R)=(\sigma ^2R^2+2\pi \sigma (m1/12))^{1/2}`$ for the $`m`$-th level), see also ref.  for a recent comparison of this expression.

Recent lattice studies  have used an asymmetric space/time spacing which enables excited states to be determined comprehensively. These results confirm the finding that the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ excitation is the lowest lying and hence of most relevance to spectroscopy.

From the potential corresponding to these excited gluonic states, one can determine the spectrum of hybrid quarkonia using the Schrödinger equation in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. This approximation will be good if the heavy quarks move very little in the time it takes for the potential between them to become established. More quantitatively, we require that the potential energy of gluonic excitation is much larger than the typical energy of orbital or radial excitation. This is indeed the case , especially for $`b`$ quarks. Another nice feature of this approach is that the self energy of the static sources cancels in the energy difference between this hybrid state and the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states. Thus the lattice approach gives directly the excitation energy of each gluonic excitation.

The $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ symmetry state corresponds to excitations of the gluonic field in quarkonium called magnetic (with $`L^{PC}=1^+`$) and pseudo-electric (with $`1^+`$) in contrast to the usual P-wave orbital excitation which has $`L^{PC}=1^{}`$. Thus we expect different quantum number assignments from those of the gluonic ground state. Indeed combining with the heavy quark spins, we get a degenerate set of 8 states:

Note that of these, $`J^{PC}=1^+,0^+`$ and $`2^+`$ are spin-exotic and hence will not mix with $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states. They thus form a very attractive goal for experimental searches for hybrid mesons.

The eightfold degeneracy of the static approach will be broken by various corrections. As an example, one of the eight degenerate hybrid states is a pseudoscalar with the heavy quarks in a spin triplet. This has the same overall quantum numbers as the S-wave $`Q\overline{Q}`$ state ($`\eta _b`$) which, however, has the heavy quarks in a spin singlet. So any mixing between these states must be mediated by spin dependent interactions. These spin dependent interactions will be smaller for heavier quarks. It is of interest to establish the strength of these effects for $`b`$ and $`c`$ quarks. Another topic of interest is the splitting between the spin exotic hybrids which will come from the different energies of the magnetic and pseudo-electric gluonic excitations.

One way to go beyond the static approach is to use the NRQCD approximation which then enables the spin dependent effects to be explored. One study  finds that the $`L^{PC}=1^+`$ and $`1^+`$ excitations have no statistically significant splitting although the $`1^+`$ excitation does lie a little lighter. This would imply, after adding in heavy quark spin, that the $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ hybrid was the lightest spin exotic. Also a relatively large spin splitting was found  among the triplet states considering, however, only magnetic gluonic excitations. Another study  explores the mixing of non spin-exotic hybrids with regular quarkonium states via a spin-flip interaction using lattice NRQCD.

Confirmation of the ordering of the spin exotic states also comes from lattice studies with propagating quarks  which are able to measure masses for all 8 states. We discuss that evidence in more detail below.

Because of the similarity of the lightest hybrid wavefunction with that of the 2S state (which has $`L=1`$), it is convenient to quote mass differences between these states. Within the quenched approximation, the lattice evidence for $`b\overline{b}`$ quarks points to a lightest hybrid spin exotic with $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ at an energy given by $`(m_Hm_{2S})r_0`$ =1.8 (static potential ); 1.9 (static potential , NRQCD ); 2.0 (NRQCD ). These results can be summarised as $`(m_Hm_{2S})r_0=1.9\pm 0.1`$. Using the experimental mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$, this implies that the lightest spin exotic hybrid is at $`m_H=10.73(7)`$ GeV including a 10% scale error. Above this energy there will be many more hybrid states, many of which will be spin exotic.

The results from a study with $`N_f=2`$ flavours of sea-quarks show very little change in the static potential (see fig. 4) and relatively little change in NRQCD determinations  of mass ratios such as $`(m_Hm_{2S})/(m_{1P}m_{1S})`$. Expressed in terms of $`r_0`$ (using $`r_0=1.18/\sqrt{\sigma }`$) this gives $`(m_Hm_{2S})r_0=2.4(2)`$, however. This is significantly larger than the quenched result and, using the $`1P1S`$ mass difference to set the scale, yields a prediction  for the lightest hybrid mass of 11.02(18) GeV.

### 3.2 Hybrid meson decays

Within this static quark framework, one can explore the decay mechanisms. One special feature is that the symmetries of the quark and colour fields about the static quarks must be preserved exactly in decay. This has the consequence that the decay from a $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ hybrid state to the open-$`b`$ mesons ($`B\overline{B},B^{}\overline{B},B\overline{B^{}},B^{}\overline{B^{}}`$) will be forbidden  if the light quarks in the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ mesons are in an S-wave relative to the heavy quark (since the final state will have the light quarks in either a triplet with the wrong $`CP`$ or a singlet with the wrong $`J_z`$ where $`z`$ is the interquark axis). The decay to $`B^{}`$-mesons with light quarks in a P-wave is allowed by symmetry but not energetically.

The only allowed decays are when the hybrid state de-exites to a non-hybrid state with the emission of a light quark-antiquark pair. Since the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ hybrid state has the heavy quark-antiquark in a triplet P-wave state, the resulting non-hybrid state must also be in a triplet P-wave since the heavy quarks do not change their state in the limit of very heavy quarks. Thus the decay for $`b`$ quarks will be to $`\chi _b+M`$ where $`M`$ is a light quark-antiquark meson in a flavour singlet. This proceeds by a disconnected light quark diagram and it would be expected  that the scalar or pseudoscalar meson channels are the most important (ie they have the largest relative OZI-rule violating contributions). Lattice estimates  of these transitions have been made and the dominant mode (with a width of around 100 MeV) is found to be with $`M`$ as a scalar meson, namely $`H\chi _b+f_0`$.

These estimates are in the static quark limit, in which the spin-exotic and non spin-exotic hybrid mesons are degenerate. For the latter, however, the interpretation of any observed states is less clear cut, since they could be conventional quark antiquark states. Moreover, the non spin-exotic hybrid mesons can mix directly (ie without emission of any meson $`M`$) with conventional quark antiquark states once one takes into account corrections (of order $`1/M_Q`$) to the static approximation applicable for heavy quarks with physical masses.

It is encouraging that the decay width comes out as relatively small, so that the spin-exotic hybrid states should show up experimentally as sufficiently narrow resonances to be detectable. This decay analysis does not take into account heavy quark motion or spin-flip and these effects will be significantly more important for charm quarks than for $`b`$-quarks.

### 3.3 Light quark hybrid mesons

I now focus on lattice results for hybrid mesons made from light quarks using fully relativistic propagating quarks. There will be no mixing with $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons for spin-exotic hybrid mesons and these are of special interest. The first study of this area was by the UKQCD Collaboration  who used operators motivated by the heavy quark studies referred to above to study all 8 $`J^{PC}`$ values coming from $`L^{PC}=1^+`$ and $`1^+`$ excitations. The resulting mass spectrum gives the $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ state as the lightest spin-exotic state. Taking account of the systematic scale errors in the lattice determination, a mass of 2000(200) MeV is quoted for this hybrid meson with $`s\overline{s}`$ light quarks. Although not directly measured, the corresponding light quark hybrid meson would be expected to be around 120 MeV lighter.

A second lattice group has also evaluated hybrid meson spectra with propagating quarks from quenched lattices. They obtain  masses of the $`1^+`$ state with statistical and various different systematic errors of 1970(90)(300) MeV, 2170(80)(100)(100) MeV and 4390(80)(200) MeV for $`n\overline{n}`$, $`s\overline{s}`$ and $`c\overline{c}`$ quarks respectively. For the $`0^+`$ spin-exotic state they have a noisier signal but evidence that it is heavier. They also explore mixing matrix elements between spin-exotic hybrid states and 4 quark operators.

The first analysis  to determine the hybrid meson spectrum using full QCD used Wilson quarks. The sea quarks used had several different masses and an extrapolation was made to the limit of physical sea quark masses, yielding a mass of 1.9(2) GeV for the lightest spin-exotic hybrid meson, which again was found to be the $`1^+`$. In principle this calculation should take account of sea quark effects such as the mixing between such a hybrid meson and $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ states such as $`\eta \pi `$, although it is possible that the sea quark masses used are not light enough to explore these features.

A recent dynamical quark study from 2+1 flavours of improved staggered quarks has also produced results . They also compare their results with quenched calculations and find no significant difference, except that the ambiguity in fixing the lattice energy scale is better controlled in the dynamical simulation since different reference observables are closer to experiment. Their summary result for the $`1^+`$ hybrid with strange quarks is $`2100\pm 120`$ MeV, in agreement with earlier results. They note that the energies of two-meson states (such as $`\pi +b_1`$ or $`K+K(1^+)`$ ) with the hybrid meson quantum numbers are close to the energies they obtain. This suggests that these two-particle states, which are allowed to mix in a dynamical quark treatment, may be influencing the masses determined. A study of hybrid meson transitions to two particle states is needed to illuminate this area, using techniques such as those used for heavy quark hybrid decay  and decays of light quark vector mesons .

The lattice calculations  of the light hybrid spectrum are in good agreement with each other. They imply that the natural energy range for spin-exotic hybrid mesons is around 1.9 GeV. The $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ state is found to be lightest. It is not easy to reconcile these lattice results with experimental indications  for resonances at 1.4 GeV and 1.6 GeV, especially the lower mass value. Mixing with $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ states such as $`\eta \pi `$ is not included for realistic quark masses in the lattice calculations. Such effects of pion loops (both real and virtual) have been estimated in chiral perturbation theory based models  and they could potentially reconcile some of the discrepancy between lattice mass estimates (with light quarks which are too heavy) and those from experiment. This can be interpreted, dependent on one’s viewpoint, as either that the lattice calculations are incomplete or as an indication that the experimental states may have an important meson-meson component in them.

The light quark technique of using relativistic propagating quarks can also be extended to charm quarks, as was note above . Another group has explored the charm quark hybrid states also using a fully relativistic action, albeit with an anisotropic lattice formulation . Their quenched study is in agreement with the isotropic lattice result quoted above, finding a mass value of 4.428(41) GeV in the continuum limit for the $`1^+`$ hybrid where the scale is set by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1S`$ mass splitting (458.2 MeV experimentally) in charmonium. Their result is also consistent with that from NRQCD methods  applied to this case. These results all have the usual caveat that in quenched evaluations the overall mass scale of the energy difference from the $`1S`$ state at 3.067 GeV is uncertain to 10% or so (for example the $`(2S1S)/(^1P_11S)`$ is found to be 15% higher than experiment) which is a major source of systematic error (approximately $`\pm 140`$ MeV). They also produce estimates for other charmonium spin-exotic states: $`0^+`$ at 4.70(17) GeV and $`2^+`$ at 4.89(9) GeV. The $`0^{}`$ state is not resolved.

Thus masses near 4.4GeV are found for the charmonium $`1^+`$ state using relativistic quarks. The non-relativistic approach using NRQCD is expected to have big systematic errors for quarks as light as charm, but results  do agree with this value. The heavy quark effective theory approach has a leading term which corresponds to a static heavy quark, resulting in an estimate  of the spin-exotic charm state mass of 4.0 GeV. Here again the systematic error is potentially large for charm quarks.

## 4 Hadronic molecules

By exotic state we mean any state which is not dominantly a $`q\overline{q}`$ or $`qqq`$ state. For example, a state made from hadrons bound in a molecule would be exotic. Examples of hadronic molecules have been known for a long time: the deuteron is a proton-neutron molecule for example. It is very weakly bound (2 MeV) and is quite extended. It is more efficiently described in terms to a neutron and a proton than as six quarks.

The residual hadronic interaction, the force between two colour-singlet hadrons, is much weaker than the colour force between quarks. Although it is called a ‘strong interaction’, it is relatively weak. At large distance, it will be dominated by the exchange of the lightest hadrons allowed (typically one or two pions). For example, the scale of nuclear binding is around 8 MeV whereas the gluonic forces binding three quarks to make a nucleon contribute most of its mass of 938 MeV. For this reason lattice methods need to be developed specially to tackle this problem. Basically, one is interested in binding energies, so it is the energy difference between the two hadrons and the hadronic molecule that is of interest. This difference can sometimes be determined better than the total energy itself. Even so, the detailed dynamics of such molecular states will depend on the long range forces (typically one or two pion exchange) and this will be modified considerably in lattice studies with light quark masses which are too heavy (typically down to 50% of the strange quark mass only). So only qualitative input can be obtained from the lattice, but this can still be used to validate models.

Because of the small binding energy and the dominance of pion exchange in the binding, it is not feasible to obtain the deuteron binding direct from QCD using lattice methods at present. There has been speculation that other di-baryon systems might be more strongly bound: the H dibaryon (a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ state) being the best known. If it were strongly bound then it might be stable to weak decay which might have astrophysical consequences. The current status of lattice studies  is that finite box size effects are large but there is no convincing lattice evidence that this state is bound. At the largest volumes studied, with $`L4`$fm, in quenched simulations the ratio $`(m_H/2m_\mathrm{\Lambda })1`$ is found to be positive and in the range 5 to 15 %.

Other molecular states involving two hadrons have been conjectured. Several meson resonances are known which are closely connected with nearby thresholds: the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ which is just below the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold and the $`a_0(980)`$ and $`f_0(980)`$ which are close to the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. Another state close to a threshold is the $`N(1535)`$ which is just above the $`\eta N`$ threshold. Again lattice studies are not able to shed very much light directly on these states since the quark masses used in the lattice studies are unphysical. However, if they are not produced in a lattice study which explores $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`qqq`$ states, this may help to support the conclusion that they are primarily molecular in structure.

One case which is relatively easy to study is the $`BB`$ system, idealised as two static quarks and two light quarks. Then a potential as a function of the separation $`R`$ between the static quarks can be determined. Because the static quark spin is irrelevant, the states can be classified by the light quark spin and isospin. Lattice results  (using a light quark mass close to strange) have been obtained for the potential energy for $`I_q=0,1`$ and $`S_q=0,1`$. For very heavy quarks, a potential below $`2M_B`$ will imply binding of the $`BB`$ molecules with these quantum numbers and $`L=0`$. For the physically relevant case of $`b`$ quarks of around 5 GeV, the kinetic energy will not be negligible and the binding energy of the $`BB`$ molecular states is less clear cut. One way to estimate the kinetic energy for the $`BB`$ case with reduced mass circa 2.5 GeV is to use analytic approximations to the potentials found. For example the $`I_q,S_q`$=(0,0) case (see fig. 5) shows a deep binding at $`R=0`$ which can be approximated as a Coulomb potential of $`0.1/R`$ in GeV units. This will give a di-meson binding energy of only 10 MeV. For the other interesting case shown in fig. 6, $`(I_q,S_q)`$=(0,1), a harmonic oscillator potential in the radial coordinate of form $`0.04[1(r3)^2/4]`$ in GeV units leads to a kinetic energy which completely cancels the potential energy minimum, leaving zero binding. This harmonic oscillator approximation lies above the estimate of the potential, so again we expect weak binding of the di-meson system.

Because of these very small values for the di-meson binding energies, one needs to retain corrections to the heavy quark approximation to make more definite predictions, since these corrections are known to be of magnitude 46 MeV from the $`B`$, $`B^{}`$ splitting. It will also be necessary to extrapolate the light quark mass from strange to the lighter $`u,d`$ values to make more definite predictions about the binding of $`BB`$ molecules.

Models for the binding of two $`B`$ mesons involve, as in the case of the deuteron, pion exchange. The lattice study  is able to make a quantitative comparison of lattice pion exchange with the data described above using lattice determinations of the $`B^{}B\pi `$ coupling  and excellent agreement is obtained at larger $`R`$ values as shown in fig. 7, as expected.

## 5 Conclusions and Outlook

Quenched lattice QCD is well understood and accurate predictions in the continuum limit are increasingly becoming available. The lightest glueball is scalar with mass $`m(0^{++})=1611(30)(160)`$ MeV where the second error is an overall scale error. The excited glueball spectrum is known too. The quenched approximation also gives information on quark-antiquark scalar mesons and their mixing with glueballs. This determination of the mixing in the quenched approximation also sheds light on results for the spectrum directly in full QCD where the mixing will be enabled. In full QCD, the scalar meson masses are determined directly but there is no concept of a glueball as such, much as in the experimental case. Additional work is need to reduce the lattice spacing, or use improved actions, to explore the continuum limit for scalar mesons in full QCD. There is also some lattice information on the hadronic decay amplitudes of glueballs and this is an area where further study may be anticipated.

For hybrid mesons, there will be no mixing with $`q\overline{q}`$ for spin-exotic states and these are the most useful predictions. The $`J^{PC}=1^+`$ state is expected in the range 10.7 to 11.0 GeV for $`b`$ quarks, 2.0(2) GeV for $`s`$ quarks and 1.9(2) GeV for $`u,d`$ quarks. Mixing of spin-exotic hybrids with $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ or equivalently with meson-meson is allowed and will modify the predictions from the quenched approximation. A first lattice study has been made of hybrid meson decays. For heavy quarks, the dominant mode is string de-excitation to $`\chi +f_0`$ where $`f_0`$ is a flavour singlet scalar meson (or possibly two pions in this state). The magnitude of the decay rate is found to be of order 100 MeV, so this decay mode should still leave a detectably narrow resonance to be observed.

The topic of possible multi-quark bound states is difficult because the scale of the expected binding energies is a few MeV and this small value is a challenge for lattice studies. As an example, some evidence was presented for a possible $`B_sB_s`$ molecular state.


format: text

text:
# Preparing remotely two instances of quantum state

## I Introduction

Quantum entanglement and classical communication are two elementary resources in quantum information field. The trade-off relation between entanglement and classical communication is inspected in many quantum information processing. For example, in quantum teleportation  the utilization of quantum entanglement reduces greatly the cost of classical communication. Compared with quantum teleportation, remote state preparation (RSP) exhibits the stronger trade-off between the required entanglement and the classical communication cost . It is found that in the presence of a large amount of prior entanglement, the asymptotic classical communication cost of RSP for general states is 1 bit per qubit, half that of teleportation. On the other hand, the prior knowledge about quantum state in the process of quantum information reduces the communication cost including entanglement and classical communication. For instance in quantum remote control , for saving the communication requirement the teleportation of angles is divided into two cases of rotations by $`\pi `$ around any axis lying within the equatorial plane and arbitrary rotations around the $`z`$ axis . As a special case of quantum remote control, the RSP strongly displays the trade-off relation between the restriction and the communication requirement: if only 1 ebit of entanglement is supplied, for general states the classical communication cost in RSP is equivalent to that in standard teleportation ; however, for constrained ensemble of states, the one is less than that in quantum teleportation.

Here we devise a scheme to generalize the RSP to one receiver to the case of multiple receivers. And differently from the previous work , we investigat the connection between the entanglement and the achievable fidelity under the conditions of certain cost of classical communication and constrained state. For simplicity, we consider the case of two receivers, in which Alice, using prior entanglement pre-shared with Bob and Charlie and broadcasting 1bit of classical information to Bob and Charlie, helps Bob and Charlie to recreate simultaneously an equatorial state (or a polar state) in their respective lab. We derive the trade-off curve between the amount of entanglement and the achievable fidelity. The detail is elaborated in Section II, and the results are summarized in Section III.

## II Preparing two instances of quantum state remotely

The problem is that Alice, using prior entanglement shared with Bob and Charlie and broadcasting 1 bit classical information to Bob and Charlie, aims to prepare remotely in one-shot operation an instance of the equatorial state to Bob and Charlie in their respective lab. The state to be remotely prepared has the form of $`|\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e^{i\varphi }|1)`$, where $`\varphi (0,2\pi ]`$ is known to Alice, but unknown to Bob and Charlie.

According to the quantum cloning for equatorial qubit , a deliberate entangled state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_a|\varphi _1_{ABC}|1_a|\varphi _0_{ABC})$$
(1)
is distributed among Alice, Bob and Charlie to prepare remotely two instances of the equatorial state $`|\phi `$. The tripartite states $`|\varphi _0`$ and $`|\varphi _1`$ are defined as

$`|\varphi _0_{ABC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|0_A|0_B|0_C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|1_A|0_B|1_C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|1_A|1_B|0_C,`$ (2)
$`|\varphi _1_{ABC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|1_A|1_B|1_C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|0_A|0_B|1_C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|0_A|1_B|0_C.`$ (3)
Alice is in possession of the qubits A and $`a`$, the qubits B and C belong to Bob and Charlie, respectively. For RSP, Alice measures the qubit $`a`$ in the basis $`\{|\phi _a,|\phi ^{}_a\}`$ where $`|\phi ^{}_a`$ denotes the state orthogonal to $`|\phi _a`$. The basis $`\{|\phi _a,|\phi ^{}_a\}`$ is related to the old basis $`\{|0_a,|1_a\}`$ in the following manner

$`|0_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\phi _a+e^{i\varphi }|\phi ^{}_a),`$ (4)
$`|1_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(e^{i\varphi }|\phi _a|\phi ^{}_a).`$ (5)
Rewriting the entangled state $`|\psi `$ in the basis $`\{|\phi _a,|\phi ^{}_a\}`$ gives

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0_a|\varphi _1_{ABC}|1_a|\varphi _0_{ABC})`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\phi _a+e^{i\varphi }|\phi ^{}_a)|\varphi _1_{ABC}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(e^{i\varphi }|\phi _a|\phi ^{}_a)|\varphi _0_{ABC})`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\phi ^{}_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\varphi _0_{ABC}+e^{i\varphi }|\varphi _1_{ABC})e^{i\varphi }|\phi _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\varphi _0_{ABC}e^{i\varphi }|\varphi _1_{ABC})).`$ (8)
If the result of the measurement gives $`|\phi ^{}_a`$, three parties Alice, Bob and Charlie share a tripartite state $`|\xi _{ABC}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\varphi _0_{ABC}+e^{i\varphi }|\varphi _1_{ABC})`$ as expected. Thus the reduced density matrices on the qubits B and C are given as

$`\rho _B`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_{A,C}(|\xi _{ABC}\xi |)=\rho _C=Tr_{A,B}(|\xi _{ABC}\xi |)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|00|+|11|)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(e^{i\varphi }|01\left|+e^{i\varphi }\right|10|)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}})(|\phi \phi |)+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}})(|\phi ^{}\phi ^{}|).`$ (11)
In the view of the RSP of single-qubit state, this means that Alice assists Bob and Charlie in preparing an approximation to the equatorial qubit state $`|\phi `$, simultaneously and respectively. The fidelity of the approximation with respect to the equatorial state is $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}`$, which can be proved to be optimal in this scheme of preparing remotely two instances of the equatorial state. And the fidelity of $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}`$ is also the optimal one of $`12`$ cloning of the equatorial state .

Otherwise, if the result of the single-particle measurement is $`|\phi _a`$, we get an incorrect tripartite state, from which the correct state $`|\xi _{ABC}`$ can be recovered by performing Pauli operator $`\sigma _z`$ on each of the qubits A, B and C.

On the completion of the single-particle measurement, Alice broadcasts her result of the measurement through public channel to Bob and Charlie. Then depending on the result, the parties determine to rotate respective qubits or do nothing. Consequently, the scheme can be applied to prepare remotely and simultaneously two instances of an equatorial state to different receivers.

It is observed that in the cut of $`a:B`$ (or $`a:C`$) of the entangled state $`|\psi `$, the relative entropy of entanglement $`E_r=\mathrm{min}_{\sigma D}S(\rho //\sigma )0.6095`$ $`ebit<1`$ $`ebit`$, where $`S(\rho //\sigma )=Tr\{\rho (\mathrm{log}\rho \mathrm{log}\sigma )\}`$ is the quantum relative entropy, and the minimum is taken over D, the set of separable states. So the fidelity obtained in our scheme is less than 1 because of the limit of the lower bound to the necessary resources in the perfect RSP.

The scheme also succeeds in preparing remotely a polar state with the form of $`|\phi ^/=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )|0+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )|1,`$ where $`\theta (0,\pi ]`$ is known only to Alice. Now the deliberate entangled state shared among Alice, Bob and Charlie is previously proposed in . That is, the states $`|\varphi _0`$ and $`|\varphi _1`$ in Eq. (1) are defined as

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0_{ABC}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|0_A|0_B|0_C+\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}|1_A(|0_B|1_C+|1_B|0_C)$$
(12)
$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1_{ABC}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}|1_A|1_B|1_C+\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}|0_A(|0_B|1_C+|1_B|0_C).$$
(13)
Similarly, when the single-particle measurement gives $`|\phi ^{}_a`$, three parties do nothing to their qubit; or they apply a rotation operator $`i\sigma _y`$ on their respective qubit to retrieve the desired tripartite state. Resultantly, Bob and Charlie obtain an approximation of $`|\phi ^/`$ with the maximal fidelity $`\frac{5}{6}`$, respectively. In this case, the relative entropy of entanglement in the cut of $`a:B`$ (or $`a:C`$) of the entangled state $`|\psi `$, $`E_r0.4425`$.

We examine further in the RSP of a polar state the relation between the entanglement and the fidelity under 1 bit classical communication, and rewrite the Equations (6) and (7) in general form:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0_{ABC}=\alpha |0_A|0_B|0_C+\beta |1_A(|0_B|1_C+|1_B|0_C)$$
(14)
$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_1_{ABC}=\alpha |1_A|1_B|1_C+\beta |0_A(|0_B|1_C+|1_B|0_C),$$
(15)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are real numbers, and satisfy $`\alpha ^2+2\beta ^2=1`$. It can be deduced from the isotropy of the procedure that the fidelity $`F=\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{2}`$,and $`F_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{5}{6}`$. A simple calculation gives

$$E_r=\frac{3F1}{2}\mathrm{log}(\frac{3F1}{2})+\frac{1F}{2}\mathrm{log}(\frac{1F}{2})F\mathrm{log}(\frac{F}{2})$$
(16)
The analytic relation can be plotted in Fig.1. It is obvious that the required amount of entanglement increases with the fidelity in the limit of certain classical communication cost. And it is noticed that the trade-off relation ties in nicely with ideas concerning the relation between the amount of classical information on a quantum state and the available entanglement .

We consider another situation of preparing remotely two instances of quantum state at the same location, where Alice holds only qubit $`a`$ and the qubits A, B and C belong to Bob. It requires 1 bit classical communication from Alice to Bob and 1 ebit in the cut of $`a:ABC`$. Instead, the task can be achieved by the combination of the RSP of one instance of quantum state and the optimal cloning procedure. In the two schemes the required amount of entanglement is equal for the same optimal fidelity and the same 1 bit classical communication.

In addition, there is something interesting in the scheme if we continue to inspect the scheme in view of the RSP of a tripartite state. It is noticed that after the RSP, a one-parameter tripartite entangled state $`|\xi _{ABC}`$ is constructed among the three parties Alice, Bob and Charlie. The parameter $`\varphi (0,2\pi ]`$ (or $`\theta (0,\pi ]`$) is dependent on Alice’s choice. So the scheme can also be used to prepare remotely a one-parameter tripartite state by Alice broadcasting 1 bit to and pre-sharing entanglement with Bob and Charlie.

## III Conclusion

In this short note, we give a scheme in which two instances of an equatorial state (or a polar state) can be remotely prepared to Bob and Charlie by Alice broadcasting 1 bit to Bob and Charlie through public channel and sharing prior entanglement among three parties. The trade-off curve between the amount of entanglement and the achievable fidelity is derived under the conditions of certain classical communication and constrained state. And in view of the RSP of the tripartite state, the scheme can be used to prepare remotely a one-parameter tripartite entangled state by prior entanglement and 1 bit of broadcasting. It gives an example for the statement about the preparation of the tripartite state in . The scheme can be easily generalized to the case of multiple (more than two) receivers by employing more parties entangled state. More generally, it inspires us to study quantum remote control on multiple separate objects, for example, teleportation of unitary operations to several different receivers, and gives us an insight into the trade-offs between the communication requirement and the restrictions about operations and quantum states. We hope that it will shed some light on the understanding of the fundamental laws of quantum information processing and the research of quantum communication complexity.

Acknowledgments

This work has been financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No.10074072.


text:
# Theory of an Entanglement Laser

## Abstract

We consider the creation of polarization entangled light from parametric down-conversion driven by an intense pulsed pump inside a cavity. The multi-photon states produced are close approximations to singlet states of two very large spins. A criterion is derived to quantify the entanglement of such states. We study the dynamics of the system in the presence of losses and other imperfections, concluding that the creation of strongly entangled states with photon numbers up to a million seems achievable.

Entanglement of light has mainly been demonstrated at the few-photon level. It is a challenging goal to produce entangled states involving large numbers of photons, approaching the domain of macroscopic light. Here we propose a scheme that is based on the non-linear optical effect of parametric down-conversion driven by a strong pump pulse, where the interaction length is increased by cavities both for the pump and the down-converted light. Our work is thus related to experiments on squeezing squeezing  and twin beams twins ; smithey . Polarization entanglement between the quantum fluctuations around two macroscopic polarized beams has recently been created experimentally bowen .

Here we aim to create entangled pairs of light pulses such that the polarization of each pulse is completely undetermined, but the polarizations of the two pulses are always anti-correlated. Such a state is the polarization equivalent of an approximate singlet state of two very large spins. It is thus a dramatic manifestation of multi-photon entanglement. Starting from a spontaneous process, the proposed setup builds up entangled states which have very large photon populations per mode, corresponding to strong stimulated emission, and thus deserves the name of an ”entanglement laser”.

The basic principle of stimulated entanglement creation was experimentally demonstrated in the few-photon regime in Ref. lamas . To analyze whether the creation of large photon number entanglement is possible in practice, it is essential to understand how imperfections in the setup affect the entanglement. This requires a quantitative measure for the entanglement. We derive a simple inseparability criterion that is formulated in terms of the total spin $`𝐉`$ and the total photon number $`N`$: if $`𝐉^2/N`$ is smaller than $`1/2`$, then the state is entangled. Using this measure we show that strongly entangled states of very high photon numbers can be generated in the presence of losses and other imperfections.

Let us now study our system in more detail. The source of entangled light is described by a Hamiltonian kwiat

$`H=i\kappa (a_h^{}b_v^{}a_v^{}b_h^{})+h.c.,`$ (1)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ refer to the two conjugate directions along which the photon pairs are emitted, as shown in Fig. 1, $`h`$ and $`v`$ denote horizontal and vertical polarization, and $`\kappa `$ is a coupling constant whose magnitude depends on the nonlinear coefficient of the crystal and on the intensity of the pump pulse. The Hamiltonian describes two phase coherent twin beam sources, corresponding to the pairs of modes $`a_h,b_v`$ and $`a_v,b_h`$. In the absence of losses, it produces a state of the form

$`|\psi =e^{i\widehat{H}t}|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n+1}\mathrm{tanh}^n\tau |\psi _{}^n,`$ (2)
where $`\tau =\kappa t`$ is the effective interaction time and

$`|\psi _{}^n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}(a_h^{}b_v^{}a_v^{}b_h^{})^n|0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^m|nm_{a_h}|m_{a_v}|m_{b_h}|nm_{b_v}.`$ (3)
All terms in the expansion in Eq. (3) have the same magnitude, such that the observed polarization (the difference in the number of horizontal and vertical photons) will fluctuate strongly. However, there is a perfect anti-correlation between the $`a`$ and $`b`$ pulses. The state $`|\psi `$ looks the same if the axis of polarization analysis is rotated by the same amount for the $`a`$ and $`b`$ modes. It is the polarization equivalent of a spin singlet state durkin , where the spin components correspond to the Stokes parameters of polarization,

$`J_z^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_h^{}a_ha_v^{}a_v),J_x^A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_+^{}a_+a_{}^{}a_{})`$
$`J_y^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_l^{}a_la_r^{}a_r),`$ (4)
The spin components can thus be expressed as differences in photon numbers, where $`a_{+,}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_h\pm a_v)`$ correspond to linearly polarized light at $`\pm 45^{}`$, and $`a_{l,r}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_h\pm ia_v)`$ to left- and righthanded circularly polarized light. The label $`A`$ refers to the $`a`$ modes, cf. Fig. 1. Analogous relations express $`𝐉^B`$ in terms of the $`b`$ modes. The total spin satisfies $`(𝐉^A)^2=(J_x^A)^2+(J_y^A)^2+(J_z^A)^2=\frac{N_A}{2}\left(\frac{N_A}{2}+1\right)`$. Number states of the modes $`a_h`$ and $`a_v`$ are eigenstates of $`J_z^A`$ and of $`(𝐉^A)^2`$. The state $`|nk_{a_h}|k_{a_v}`$, has total spin $`j=n/2`$ and $`J_z^A`$ eigenvalue $`m=(n2k)/2`$.

The states $`|\psi _{}^n`$ of Eq. (3) are singlet states of the total angular momentum operator $`𝐉=𝐉^A+𝐉^B`$ for fixed $`j_A=j_B=n/2`$. As a consequence, $`\psi |𝐉^2|\psi =0`$ also for the state $`|\psi `$ of Eq. (2). Losses and imperfections lead to non-zero values for the total angular momentum, corresponding to non-perfect correlations between the Stokes parameters in the $`a`$ and $`b`$ pulses. Since the ideal state of Eq. (2) is highly entangled, one expects that states in its vicinity are still entangled. We now present a convenient criterion for entanglement: for separable states

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐉^2}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (5)
where $`𝐉=𝐉^A+𝐉^B`$ and $`N=N_A+N_B`$. To prove this, consider $`𝐉^2`$ for a separable state $`\rho =_ip_i\rho _i^A\sigma _i^B`$. One has

$`𝐉^2=(𝐉^A)^2+(𝐉^B)^2+2𝐉^A𝐉^B`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i(𝐉^A)^2_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i(𝐉^B)^2_i+2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i𝐉^A_i𝐉^B_i`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i[(𝐉^A)^2_i+(𝐉^B)^2_i2|𝐉^A_i||𝐉^B_i|]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i[(𝐉^A)^2_i+(𝐉^B)^2_i2\alpha _i\beta _i],`$ (6)
where $`𝐉^A_i=\text{Tr}\rho _i^A𝐉^A`$, $`𝐉^B_i=\text{Tr}\sigma _i^B𝐉^B`$ etc. Furthermore $`\alpha _i=\sqrt{(𝐉^A)^2_i+\frac{1}{4}}\frac{1}{2},\beta _i=\sqrt{(𝐉^B)^2_i+\frac{1}{4}}\frac{1}{2}`$, and we have used the fact inequality  that $`|𝐉|\sqrt{𝐉^2+\frac{1}{4}}\frac{1}{2}`$. The last line of Eq. (6) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i[\alpha _i^2+\alpha _i+\beta _i^2+\beta _i2\alpha _i\beta _i]={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i[(\alpha _i\beta _i)^2`$
$`+\alpha _i+\beta _i]{\displaystyle }_ip_i[\alpha _i+\beta _i]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(N_A+N_B),`$ (7)
where the last inequality follows from $`\sqrt{𝐉^2+\frac{1}{4}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}N`$, which is a direct consequence of the relation $`𝐉^2=\frac{N}{2}\left(\frac{N}{2}+1\right)`$. Since $`N=N_A+N_B`$, this concludes the proof of our criterion. Thus every state that has $`𝐉^2/N<\frac{1}{2}`$ is entangled. This is a tight bound. There are separable states that reach $`𝐉^2/N=\frac{1}{2}`$, for example the product state $`|2j_{a_h}|0_{a_v}|0_{b_h}|2j_{b_v}`$, which in spin notation corresponds to $`|j_A=j,m_A=j|j_B=j,m_B=j`$.

It should be emphasized that our criterion is sufficient, but not necessary. There are entangled states that are not approximate singlets. Our criterion is specifically designed for the class of states under consideration and for polarization observables. It has some similarity to the entanglement criterion for spin-squeezed states derived in Ref. sorensen . The quantities $`𝐉^2`$ and $`N`$ are simple to calculate, such that the effects of various imperfections can be studied with ease. We start by investigating the effect of loss.

Loss in a general mode $`c`$ corresponds to a transformation $`c\sqrt{\eta }c+\sqrt{1\eta }d`$, where $`d`$ is an empty mode and $`\eta `$ is the transmission coefficient. Let us start by assuming that the modes $`a_h`$ and $`a_h`$ suffer an equal amount of loss described by $`\eta _A`$, while the $`b`$ modes have a transmission $`\eta _B`$. Using Eq. (4) this leads to the following transformations:

$`(𝐉^{A,B})^2`$ $``$ $`\eta _{A,B}^2(𝐉^{A,B})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\eta _{A,B}(1\eta _{A,B})N_{A,B}`$
$`𝐉^A𝐉^B`$ $``$ $`\eta _A\eta _B𝐉^A𝐉^B.`$ (8)
The state before losses, Eq. (2), has $`(𝐉^A)^2=(𝐉^B)^2=𝐉^A𝐉^B`$, $`N_A^2=N_B^2=N_AN_B`$ and $`N_A=N_B=N/2`$, which leads to the following expression for the total angular momentum after losses:

$`𝐉^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2(𝐉^A)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}[\eta _A(1\eta _A)+\eta _B(1\eta _B)]N,`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =\eta _A\eta _B`$. Remembering that $`(𝐉^A)^2=\frac{N_A}{2}(\frac{N_A}{2}+1)`$ one sees that the first term in Eq. (9), which depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$, is of order $`N^2`$, while the second term is only $`O(N)`$. If one wants to observe entanglement for large photon numbers, it is therefore important for the losses (including detection efficiencies) in the $`a`$ and $`b`$ modes to be well balanced. More precisely, Eq. (9) together with our entanglement criterion implies the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{N}}`$. An equivalent requirement was met for $`N`$ of order $`10^6`$ in the experiment of Ref. smithey  that demonstrated the strong photon number correlations of pulsed twin beams by direct integrative detection. An analogous condition can be derived for a difference in losses between different polarization modes. If all modes suffer the same amount of loss, described by a transmission $`\eta `$, then only the second term in Eq. (9) remains, leading to a loss-induced correction to the ratio $`𝐉^2/N`$ of $`\frac{3(1\eta )}{4}`$, taking into account that the losses also transform $`N`$ into $`\eta N`$. This gives a critical transmission value $`\eta _c=1/3`$, above which entanglement is provable by our criterion. The entanglement is thus surprisingly robust under balanced losses.

So far we have considered a situation where first the ideal state of Eq. (2) is created, and then it is subjected to loss. However, in the cavity setup of Fig. 1, which is required to achieve high photon numbers, photon creation (in the non-linear crystal) and loss (in the crystal and all other optical elements) happen effectively simultaneously. It is convenient to transform to a new basis of modes given by $`c_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_h+b_v),c_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_hb_v),c_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_v+b_h),c_4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_vb_h)`$. In this basis the Hamiltonian (1) becomes that of four independent, but phase-coherent, squeezers, $`H=\frac{i\kappa }{2}((c_1^{})^2(c_2^{})^2(c_3^{})^2+(c_4^{})^2+h.c.)`$. Introducing the quadrature operators $`x_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_i+c_i^{}),p_i=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(c_ic_i^{})`$ gives

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\left(x_1p_1x_2p_2x_3p_3+x_4p_4\right)+h.c.`$ (10)
Writing down the Heisenberg equations for this Hamiltonian, $`\dot{x}_1=i[H,x_1]`$ etc., one sees that $`p_1^2,x_2^2,x_3^2`$ and $`p_4^2`$ become squeezed exponentially, while the fluctuations in the conjugate quadratures, $`x_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2,x_4^2`$ grow correspondingly. In the presence of losses, the Heisenberg equations have to be replaced by Langevin equations of the form

$`\dot{x}_1=\kappa (t)x_1\lambda x_1+f_{x1}(t)`$
$`\dot{p}_1=\kappa (t)p_1\lambda p_1+f_{p1}(t),`$ (11)
and corresponding equations for the other modes. Here the time dependence of $`\kappa (t)=\kappa _0e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t}`$ takes into account the loss of the pump beam while $`\lambda `$ is the loss rate of the down-converted light; $`f_{x1}(t)`$ and $`f_{p1}(t)`$ are the quantum noise operators associated with the losses scully , satisfying $`f_{x1}(t)f_{x1}(t^{})=f_{p1}(t)f_{p1}(t^{})=if_{x1}(t)f_{p1}(t^{})=\lambda \delta (tt^{})`$. Here we have assumed that the loss rate $`\lambda `$ is the same for all four down-conversion modes $`a_h,a_v,b_h,b_v`$. We will discuss the case of unbalanced loss rates below.

Eqs. (11) can be integrated explicitly, leading to

$`x_1(t)=e^{_0^tk(t^{})𝑑t^{}}x_1(0)+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}e^{_t^{}^tk(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }}f_{x_1}(t^{}),`$ (12)
where $`k(t)=\kappa (t)\lambda `$ and $`\underset{t^{}}{\overset{t}{}}\kappa (t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\kappa _0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t^{}}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t})`$. There is a corresponding expression for $`p_1(t)`$ where the sign of $`\kappa (t)`$ is flipped.

To understand what these results imply for the polarization entanglement, one can express the angular momentum in terms of the quadratures $`x_i,p_i`$. One finds

$`J_z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_1x_2+p_1p_2x_3x_4p_3p_4)`$
$`J_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_1x_3+p_1p_3+x_2x_4+p_2p_4)`$
$`J_y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x_1p_4+x_4p_1x_2p_3+x_3p_2).`$ (13)
Introducing the generic notation $`p`$ for the quadratures that are squeezed (which are $`p_1,x_2,x_3,p_4`$) and $`x`$ for those whose fluctuations grow exponentially (which are $`x_1,p_2,p_3,x_4`$), one sees that all terms in Eq. (13) have the generic form $`xp`$, and one finds $`𝐉^2=3(x^2p^2\frac{1}{4})`$. The total photon number $`N=\frac{1}{2}_i(x_i^2+p_i^21)`$, leading to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐉^2}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2p^2\frac{1}{4}}{x^2+p^21}}.`$ (14)
Fig. 2 shows the expected time development of the mean photon number $`N`$ and the ratio $`𝐉^2/N`$ as determined from Eqs. (14) and (12) for realistic parameter values. The experimentally achievable value for $`\kappa `$ can be estimated by extrapolating existing experimental results lamas  to higher pump laser intensities. A value of $`\tau =\kappa t=1`$ for a single pass through a 2mm BBO crystal is realistic with weakly focussed pump pulses of a few $`\mu `$J, which is still below the optical damage threshold. The cavity design of Fig. 1 including switching elements will have loss rates on the percent level. Fig. 2 shows that very high photon numbers can be achieved with just a few round-trips. If balanced losses are the only imperfection, then the entanglement is very strong even for large photon numbers, as long as the “laser” is far above threshold, i.e. as long as the rate of creation of entangled photon pairs is much larger than the loss rate ($`\kappa /\lambda 1`$). Note that we are interested in the onset regime, far from saturation (depletion of the pump).

The photon number $`N`$ is limited by the requirement of observing entanglement in the presence of other imperfections. In particular, Fig. 2 shows the effect of a difference in the loss rates between the $`a`$ and $`b`$ modes. Suppose that the modes $`a_h`$ and $`a_v`$ have one loss rate $`\lambda _A`$, while $`b_h`$ and $`b_v`$ have a different one $`\lambda _B`$. Then the quadratures $`x_i,p_i`$ no longer diagonalize the system. For example, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ satisfy the coupled equations

$`\dot{x}_1=\kappa (t)x_1\overline{\lambda }x_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{2}}x_2+f_{x_1}(t)`$
$`\dot{x}_2=\kappa (t)x_2\overline{\lambda }x_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{2}}x_1+f_{x_2}(t),`$ (15)
where $`\overline{\lambda }=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _A+\lambda _B),\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _A\lambda _B`$ and $`f_{x_1,x_2}`$ are the appropriate noise operators. There are analogous coupled equations for the pairs $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, $`x_3`$ and $`x_4`$, and $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$. These equations are diagonal for a new basis of modes $`\xi _i,\pi _i`$ that is related to the $`x_i,p_i`$ by a small rotation, which for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \kappa `$ takes the simple form: $`x_1=\xi _1+(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /4\kappa )\xi _2,x_2=(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /4\kappa )\xi _1+\xi _2,x_3=\xi _3(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /4\kappa )\xi _4,x_4=(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /4\kappa )\xi _3+\xi _4`$, and identical equations for the $`p_i`$ in terms of the $`\pi _i`$. In analogy to the case of balanced losses, the quadratures $`\xi _1,\pi _2,\pi _3`$ and $`\xi _4`$ grow exponentially, while the quadratures $`\pi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3`$ and $`\pi _4`$ become squeezed. Substituting the above expressions for the $`x_i,p_i`$ into Eq. (13) one finds that, due to the small rotation between the old and new diagonal modes, the $`J_i`$ contain terms that are quadratic in the new large quadratures $`(\xi _1,\pi _2,\pi _3,\xi _4)`$. This leads to an $`O(N^2)`$ contribution to $`𝐉^2`$. The dominating correction to the ratio $`𝐉^2/N`$ is $`\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )^2}{32\kappa ^2}N`$, leading to the condition $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{\kappa }\frac{4}{\sqrt{N}}`$ for observing entanglement. In the regime far above threshold, where $`\lambda \kappa `$, this is fairly easy to satisfy even for very large photon numbers.

The effects of other imperfections can be studied in similar ways. The most important one is a phase mismatch between the two twin beams, i.e. a Hamiltonian $`H=i\kappa (a_h^{}b_v^{}e^{i\varphi }a_v^{}b_h^{})+h.c.`$ instead of Eq. (1). This can be brought to the ideal form by a transformation $`a_v^{}e^{i\varphi /2}a_v^{}`$, $`b_h^{}e^{i\varphi /2}b_h^{}`$, which is equivalent to $`c_3e^{i\varphi /2}c_3`$, $`c_4e^{i\varphi /2}c_4`$. This corresponds to a rotation of the quadratures $`x_3\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}x_3\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}p_3`$, $`p_3\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}x_3+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}p_3`$, and analogously for $`x_4,p_4`$. Similarly to the case of unbalanced losses, this gives a correction to the ratio $`𝐉^2/N`$ whose dominant term is $`\frac{1}{16}\varphi ^2N`$, leading to a condition $`\varphi \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}N}`$ for observing entanglement. This means that strong entanglement of a million photons can be observed if $`\varphi `$ is of order $`\pi /1000`$. This level of precision of optical phases is challenging, but conceivable. Strong entanglement for smaller, but still considerable, photon numbers is correspondingly easier to achieve.

An amplitude mismatch in the Hamiltonian, $`H=i\kappa (a_h^{}b_v^{}fa_v^{}b_h^{})+h.c.`$ with $`f`$ real, leads to a different degree of squeezing for the modes $`c_1,c_2`$ compared to the modes $`c_3,c_4`$, but not to a rotation of the quadrature amplitudes, such that the effect on $`𝐉^2/N`$ does not grow with $`N`$.

Another relevant imperfection is a birefringence-related mode mismatch, corresponding to a Hamiltonian $`H=i\kappa (a_h^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_v^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_v^{}b_h^{})+h.c.`$, where the spatio-temporal modes $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ of the vertical light differ slightly from the modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the horizontal light. In analogy to the case of losses, one can show that a mode mismatch that affects the $`a`$ and $`b`$ modes in a symmetric way leads to a correction to $`𝐉^2/N`$ that does not grow with $`N`$, which implies that the birefringence-related walk-off, while important, does not have to be reduced by orders of magnitude with respect to experiments on the few-photon level. As before, an asymmetry leads to an $`O(N)`$ effect. Note that the other major errors that we have discussed, including the phase mismatch, are also related to symmetry breaking between the $`a`$ and $`b`$ modes. In general, geometric symmetry between the $`a`$ and $`b`$ modes should be implementable to very high accuracy for the setup of Fig. 1.

In conclusion, the goal of producing strongly entangled singlet-like states of very large photon numbers seems realistic with our proposed system. Besides extending the domain where quantum phenomena have been observed, such states would also have interesting applications, for example in quantum cryptography durkin . We would like to thank W. Irvine, A. Lamas-Linares and F. Sciarrino for useful comments. C.S. is supported by a Marie Curie fellowship of the European Union (HPMF-CT-2001-01205).