Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: liquid crystalline order is ubiquitous in biological materials @xcite and many properties of these systems can be analyzed in terms of the standard landau - de gennes approach @xcite , without particularly worrying about e.g. the polymer nature of the main - chain polymer nematogens . nevertheless , it was recognized a while ago , that the landau - de gennes approach needs to be modified specifically to take into account the polymer nature , i.e. the microscopic connectivity of the underlying mesogens @xcite . this connectivity leads to a coupling between the positional and orientational order of the polymer molecules . the ensuing  continuity equation " derived to take into account this specificity of the polymer mesophase materials was shown to matter fundamentally for a consistent description of macroscopic properties of these systems @xcite . in addition , recently we showed that depending on the nature and the symmetry of the mesophase order , this  continuity equation " might not be the only condition that the coarse grained description of polymer nematics needs to satisfy . in fact , its generalized form in terms of a vectorial conservation law @xcite suffices for polar nematic order , while in the more usual quadrupolar nematic order case a different , tensorial conservation law has to be included in the landau - de gennes description @xcite . discovering a new form of the conservation law , stemming from the microscopic connectivity of the constitutive nematogen molecules , naturally leads to questions , such as which form of the conservation law is the correct one , how are they related , when is the use of one preferred to the other one and how important is their implementation for the proper description of polymer nematics . in this note we address and resolve all these fundamental questions for future applications . in fact , we show that the two conservation laws are not equivalent , are irreducible and in general lead to different consequences specifically stemming from the presence of the backfolding configurations of the polymer chains , or in an extreme case , to the presence of localized hairpins and/or kinks which should be in particular relevant in the description of confined dna mesophases , where such local defects or elastic energy non - linearities have been implicated recently @xcite .    in what follows , extending our previous analysis @xcite , we thus propose a new , generalized conservation law for the main - chain polymer nematics that _ consistently incorporates _ both the vectorial as well as the tensorial conservation laws . moreover , and in particular , this includes also a well - grounded interpretation of the recently derived tensorial conservation law that has been so far elusive . we also indicate to what extent and in which cases applying the vectorial constraint to nematic director of the main - chain polymer is invalidated , even in the case of perfectly rigid chains , and leads to fundamentally wrong conclusions . in addition we show that the two constituent conservation laws are manifest in the two extreme cases of flexible and inflexible chains , respectively . the present analysis is also relevant to ascertain the detectability of the two constraints , whether to pinpoint the observable differences between them or the novel features of their joint implementation , for which a detailed simulation approach , on which we recently embarked , seems at present to be our best guide @xcite . on the macroscopic level , the microscopic connectivity of monomers into the chain of a main - chain polymer nematic shows up as a constraint linking director deformations and density variations . since its formulation , the accepted form of this constraint has been @xcite @xmath0 where @xmath1 is the surface density of polymer chains perforating the plane perpendicular to the nematic director @xmath2 , while @xmath3 and @xmath4 are volume densities of the beginnings and endings of chains , respectively . this constraint has been used in connection with the nematic director , i.e. , the principal axis of the nematic order tensor @xmath5 , describing quadrupolar orientational ordering @xcite .    including the modulus of the orientational ordering , it becomes apparent that the constraint eq . ( [ vectorial - n ] ) naturally augments to a vectorial law , i.e. , the conservation law for the polymer current density @xmath6 @xcite , @xmath7 where @xmath8 is the volume density of arbitrary polymer segments ( e.g. monomers ) of length @xmath9 and @xmath10 is the mesoscopic average of monomer tangents @xmath11 . in passing , by comparison of eqs . ( [ vectorial - n ] ) and ( [ vectorial ] ) we see that @xmath12 , which can be also straightforwardly inferred from geometry . a formal derivation @xcite of eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) leaves no doubt that this is indeed the exact conservation law for the polar orientational order @xmath13 of the chain tangents .    however , recently we derived a different , tensorial conservation law @xcite for main - chain polymer nematics , of the form @xmath14 =           \textstyle{3\over 2 } \partial_i \left(g_i^+ - g_i^-\right ) ,      \label{tensorial}\ ] ] where @xmath15 is the volume density of chain head / tail tangents . conforming to the quadrupolar symmetry , heads and tails are indistinguishable in @xmath16 , with the tangents always pointing away from the head / tail . this purely geometric ( kinematic ) continuity condition , just like the vectorial analogue eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) , is a consequence of the fact that in a system of unbreakable chains the orientation and the position of a monomer are not independent , and must be satisfied by any configuration @xmath17 .    for a configuration @xmath17 , the requirement eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) is however not the complete story  it is a necessary but , in general , not the only condition the tensorial configuration must satisfy . namely , since quadrupolar order is insensitive to chain backfolding , the tensorial constraint eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) is not at all affected by the flexibility of the chain . therefore , in order to describe the chain rigidity ( semi - flexibility ) , the tensorial constraint requires the backup of the tighter vectorial constraint eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) , as we will propose in what follows . indeed we will show that inflexible chains ( no chain backfolding ) should follow closely the vectorial conservation eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) for the nematic director ( which can be defined as a vector in this limit ) , and that flexible chains with strong backfolding , and therefore necessarily with a vanishing local mesoscopic polar order of chain tangents , should satisfy the tensorial conservation eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) . the aim here is thus to shed light on the connection between the vectorial and the tensorial conservation laws and to elaborate on the correct application of both conservation laws to the general case of semi - flexible chains , which should include the limits of inflexible and flexible chains as special cases . the vectorial conservation law has been standardly used for the nematic director , and vice versa , the constraint linking density variations and nematic director deformations has been implemented exclusively in terms of the vectorial conservation law . however , in principle , this is problematic . the vectorial conservation law is the continuity equation for the polymer current density , which is a vectorial quantity . as such , strictly speaking it can not be expressed in terms of a quantity with quadrupolar symmetry like the nematic director . in this section we present the underlying argument that nevertheless enables the use of the vectorial conservation law also for the nonpolar nematic director . the basis of this argument is the interpretation of chain hairpins ( point - like @xmath18 turns ) as effective chain ends . this viewpoint dates back to odijk @xcite and is also reflected in subsequent stat - mech results @xcite . here we articulate it for general backfoldings , in a way that rigorously connects with the macroscopic vectorial conservation law eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) .    in a system of chains that does not exhibit macroscopic polar order ( the chains themselves can be either apolar or polar ) , one can not define a vectorial order parameter . if a polar orientational order is nevertheless defined in a local mesoscopic volume by an arbitrary convention of the chain directions ( e.g. such as to maximize the so - defined local polar order ) , it will decay away from this point with a finite characteristic length ( represented by the global persistence length @xcite ) depending on the density of hairpins or the extent of chain backfolding in general . this decay length is not necessarily small and may be comparable to other length scales in the system including the system size . it distinguishes between ensembles of stiff vs. flexible chains and is therefore a physical reality  not in terms of orientational order ( which for apolar phases and , by definition , for apolar chains is insensitive to the extent of backfolding ) , but in terms of the chain backfolding configurational degrees of freedom .    following the arguments presented by odijk , the density of top and bottom hairpins @xcite should enter the vectorial conservation law as a source term , similar to the density of chain heads and tails in eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) . but how can one consistently apply the vectorial conservation law if the polar orientational order can not be defined ? one can circumvent the inherent destruction of polar orientational order due to chain backfolding , by introducing virtual ( imaginary ) cuts in every chain as soon and each time it gets _ backfolded _ with respect to the nematic director , fig . [ fig : cutting ] . let us assign , arbitrarily but globally , an arrow to the director ( in this context we are not worried by the resulting branch cuts in the case when topological disclinations are present ) to get a _ nematic vector _ @xmath19 , fig . [ fig : cutting]a . the virtual cut is made whenever @xmath20 changes sign , fig . [ fig : cutting]b , which is also the definition of the chain backfolding ( one should not confuse it with the hairpin ) . every cut generates a @xmath21 chain sink and a @xmath22 chain source that coincide and thus add to zero . such cuts are therefore purely imaginary and have no observable effect . however , now one can , without any physical change , reverse all the segments between those virtual cuts that have @xmath23 , thereby also swapping the sources and sinks of these segments , fig . [ fig : cutting]c . instead of the previous coinciding sources and sinks we now generated @xmath24 sources and @xmath25 sinks , separated in the directions upstream and downstream with respect to @xmath19 , respectively , and in particular , we created a nonvanishing macroscopic polar order @xmath26 of chain tangents  the _ recovered polar order _  , for which @xmath27 holds due to the head - tail symmetry of nematic ordering . note again that the system of chains was not modified physically in any way by this purely formal process . let us introduce a general source field @xmath28 in the vectorial conservation eq . ( [ vectorial ] ) , now reading @xmath29 for a uniform distribution of backfoldings that is expected in a nondeformed equilibrium configuration , the coarse - grained density of the new @xmath30 sources @xmath31 is still zero . what is different , however , is the susceptibility @xmath32 of the @xmath33 variations , given by the equilibrium densities of chain heads @xmath34 and tails @xmath35 in the noninteracting ideal gas model @xcite , @xmath36 . crucially , the recovered polar order _ does not _ depend on the density of backfoldings ( for a given shape of the monomer orientational distribution function , its value is rigidly connected to the degree of nematic quadrupolar order ) , whereas the densities @xmath34 and @xmath35 _ do _  they are equal to the densities of the corresponding backfoldings . this , however , has physical implications described by the vectorial conservation law eq . ( [ vectorial_rho_pms ] ) and the free energy of deviations of the source densities @xmath37 , @xmath38 , @xmath39 , @xmath40 from their equilibrium values @xmath41 , @xmath42 , @xmath35 , @xmath34 , @xmath43 in other words , the introduction of the backfolding cuts @xmath35 and @xmath34 makes the @xmath33 variations cheaper , thereby weakening the vectorial constraint for the recovered polar order . let us reduce the unnecessary complexity of the sources and their free energy cost eq . ( [ f_pms_general ] ) and show this explicitly . the number of chain heads equals the number of chain tails and therefore @xmath44 the apolar symmetry of the nematic phase furthermore requires @xmath45 to simplify life further , in a model we may describe both types of sources , i.e. , chain ends @xmath46 and chain backfoldings @xmath47 , on an equal basis , writing @xmath48 and therefore also @xmath49 , where @xmath50 is a parameter of the system . hence , both types of sources can be expressed in terms of the total strength of sources @xmath51 as @xmath52 while the free energy cost of the sources eq . ( [ f_pms_general ] ) , @xmath53 is expressed as a single quadratic term , @xmath54 in the absence of the backfolding cuts , @xmath55 and nelson s result @xcite for the susceptibility @xmath32 is recovered . as soon as the density of backfoldings increases , however , @xmath32 is lowered and eventually vanishes in the strong backfolding limit @xmath56 . to recapitulate , the recovered polar order is insensitive to the degree of chain backfolding and is thus a well - defined quantity . the strength of the vectorial constraint for the recovered polar order , however decreases with increasing degree of chain backfolding . moreover , in the limit of strong backfolding , this constraint vanishes completely . the strength of the vectorial constraint for the recovered polar order thus depends on the density of backfoldings ( besides the density of chain heads / tails ) and vice versa , in the continuum description the semi - flexibility of the polymer chain is controlled exactly and exclusively by the strength of this constraint .    in the light of this section , the vectorial conservation law can thus be , perfectly rigorously , applied also to apolar nematic ordering . however , this is the conservation law for the recovered polar order and not for the quadrupolar order . actually , this reasoning must have been more or less tacitly assumed every time the vectorial constraint was applied on the nematic director . at the end of section [ sec : s=1 ] it will become evident , why and when this simplistic standard application is incorrect . it is illuminating to study the tensorial conservation law in its integral form . being first order in gradients , the integrated constraint can be conveniently compared with the vectorial constraint . starting with the general tensorial conservation law eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) , we can integrate it once to obtain @xmath57 =           \textstyle{3\over 2 } \left(g_i^+ - g_i^-\right ) + { \textstyle{3\over 2}}\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_j \psi_k ,          \label{curvature_mac}\ ] ] where the second term on the right - hand side is divergence - free .    to recognize the meaning of the divergence - free component , along the lines of ref . @xcite we revert to the microscopic fields , writing @xmath58 +      { \textstyle{3\over 2 } } \int_{{\bf x}(s ) } ds ~{d^2 x_i(s)\over ds^2 } \delta({\bf x } - { \bf x}(s ) ) ,      \label{curvature_mic}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the chain curvature @xmath59 besides nonsingular ( @xmath60 ) may have also singular contributions ( in general these may be singular kinks of any angle , but here we restrict ourselves to hairpins only ) ; a sum over all hairpins is omitted for brevity . we thus have @xmath61 from here it is already clear that point - like hairpins are analogous to chain beginnings / endings . we can rewrite eq . ( [ curvature_mac ] ) by coarse graining eq . ( [ curvature_mic_nice ] ) : @xmath62 = { \textstyle{3\over 2 } }       \left(g_i^+ - g_i^- + 2 h_i + \rho\ell_0 k_i \right ) ,      \label{curvature_mac_nice}\ ] ] where @xmath63 is now the density of hairpin principal normals , while @xmath64 is the average nonsingular chain curvature field ; @xmath65 is the total length of the polymer within the coarse - graining volume @xmath66 centered at @xmath67 . hence , we learn that @xmath68 while the contribution of the curvature singularities ( point - like hairpins )  which is generally not divergence - free  has been exempt from @xmath69 and added to the sources of the tensorial conservation law eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) , now reading @xmath70 . we note that in the context of the tensorial conservation law point - like hairpins are only a formal abstraction  in reality they need not exist , i.e. , the chain tangent can be always regarded continuous , no matter how large the curvature ; therefore @xmath71 , and eq . ( [ curvature_mac_nice ] ) will serve merely to establish a link with the vectorial conservation ( see below ) . one might , however , have a specific physical reason to bring in also point - like hairpins and/or kinks : in some polymers such as dna discrete kinks of the polymer chain might be present as a chemical configurational entity alternative to large - scale loops of distributed curvature @xcite . in this case , eq . ( [ curvature_mac_nice ] ) tells us how to account for such kinks explicitly in the conservation law ( @xmath63 is then a new variable that enters also the energy functional ) . the presence of thermalized kinks or even better , their generation by the addition of certain dna binding proteins @xcite , might constitute an interesting new way to actually observe and control the role of the tensorial continuity constraint .      to establish the connection with the nematic director @xmath72 ( which is a natural reduction towards the vectorial order parameter ) , in eq . ( [ curvature_mac_nice ] ) we use the uniaxial ansatz @xmath73 to get @xmath74n_i + \textstyle{3\over 2}\rho s\left[n_i\partial_j n_j + n_j\partial_j n_i\right ] + \textstyle{1\over 2}\partial_i\left[\rho(1-s)\right]\right\ } =      \textstyle{3\over 2 } \left(g_i^+ - g_i^- + 2h_i + \rho\ell_0 k_i\right ) . \label{uniaxial_conservation}\ ] ]    in the case of a perfect _ local _ orientational order , @xmath75 , the chain end tangents @xmath76 and the hairpin principal normals @xmath77 are aligned with the director , whereas @xmath78 is perpendicular . in this case we have @xmath79n_i       + { \textstyle{3\over 2}}\rho\ , n_j\partial_j n_i \right\ } =      \textstyle{3\over 2 } \left(g_i^+ - g_i^- + 2h_i + \rho\ell_0 k_i\right)\ ] ] and hence in the directions parallel and perpendicular to @xmath72 , respectively : @xmath80 thus , in the limit @xmath75 the vectorial conservation law is recovered exactly , with the hairpins acting as @xmath30 sources or sinks , while the macroscopic director bending field is equal to the local chain curvature . we also see that in case chain backfoldings are present ( due to @xmath75 these must be point - like hairpins ) , eq . ( [ parallel ] ) is exactly the vectorial conservation law eqs . ( [ vectorial_rho_pms ] ) and ( [ sources_total ] ) for the recovered ( ! ) polar order in the limit @xmath81 ( the statement holds also in the absence of hairpins , obviously ) . as soon as @xmath82 , on the other hand , the directions @xmath83 and @xmath84 are not decoupled in the conservation law eq . ( [ uniaxial_conservation ] ) , since @xmath85 $ ] , @xmath86 , @xmath87 , and @xmath88 all point in general directions . in this case the integrated conservation law eq . ( [ curvature_mac_nice ] ) is not useful and the original tensorial conservation law eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) must be used . since @xmath82 in all real systems , the tensorial conservation law eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) can not be in general reduced to the vectorial one and thus represents a new , distinct constraint . only in the limit of perfect orientational order , @xmath75 , the tensorial conservation law and the vectorial conservation law for the recovered polar order are indeed completely equivalent . hence , it is only in this limit that the use of the vectorial conservation law for the nematic director ( provided that the hairpins are included in the sources , of course ) is correct . the stronger the deviation from perfect orientational order , the more inaccurate the vectorial conservation law description becomes , invalidating the results obtained from the assumption of its general validity .      in the context of no backfolding limit mentioned in sec . [ sec : intro ] , it is important to address the relation between the tensorial and the vectorial conservation laws for the general case @xmath82 . from what has been shown above , we understand that for @xmath82 the two conservation laws can not be equivalent . however , in the limit of weak chain backfolding , both tensorial and vectorial ( of the recovered polar order ) constraints are effective in principle ( the latter due to the small density of the backfolding cuts ) . therefore the compatibility of the two constraints must be inspected to ensure that they are not in an incurable conflict , in particular for long chains without backfoldings , when both constraints are rigid . this is certainly crucial for a consistent definition of a combined , generalized conservation law .    retaining the uniaxial ansatz eq . ( [ uniaxial ] ) , for @xmath89 , @xmath90 , and in the absence of sources the tensorial constraint eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) reads @xmath91 which is incompatible with the no - splay requirement ( @xmath92 ) of the vectorial constraint , as in the second term it includes also the director bend deformation . in the following we show that this peculiarity of the bend deformation is connected with the arbitrarily imposed uniaxiality of the @xmath5-tensor . let us now allow a general form of the @xmath5-tensor , @xmath93 where @xmath94 is the biaxiality and @xmath95 is an orthonormal triad . with this ansatz , the tensorial constraint eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) in the absence of sources reads @xmath96n_i+{\textstyle{3\over 2}}\rho s(\partial_j n_j)\,n_i + { \textstyle{3\over 2}}\rho s\ , n_j(\partial_j n_i )       + { \textstyle{1\over 2}}\delta_{ij}^\perp\partial_j\left[\rho(1-s)\right]\right . +      \label{biax1}\\      + \left.{\textstyle{1\over 2}}e_j^1\partial_j(\rho p)\,e_i^1-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}e_j^2\partial_j(\rho p)\,e_i^2      + { \textstyle{1\over 2}}\rho p\,\partial_j\left(e_i^1 e_j^1 - e_i^2 e_j^2\right )      \right\ } = 0 ,      \label{biax2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the gradients of @xmath97 and @xmath98 were split into longitudinal and transverse parts with respect to @xmath72 ; @xmath99 . consider a uniaxial configuration that undergoes a bend deformation at constant @xmath97 and @xmath98 , while at the same time the vectorial constraint rigidly requires @xmath100 and thus also @xmath101 . by inspecting the directions of the terms in eq . ( [ biax1])-([biax2 ] ) inside the @xmath102 bracket , one can verify that the bend term ( @xmath84 ) can be canceled by the first or second term in the line eq . ( [ biax2 ] ) , provided that the gradient of the biaxiality becomes nonzero and the biaxial director @xmath103 or @xmath104 is parallel to the principal normal defined by the bend deformation . that the bend deformation is connected with the biaxiality is not surprising  already in low - molecular - weight nematics the bend deformation , by asymmetry , induces a slight biaxiality . if the configuration is already biaxial , then also the last term of eq . ( [ biax2 ] ) is nonzero . in general , all three directions are involved , also @xmath97 and @xmath98 are varying , of course , and only @xmath102 must vanish rather than the expression inside the bracket , such that all degrees of freedom take their share in accommodating the tensorial constraint . it is thus indeed possible to satisfy both constraints simultaneously , even if they are rigid . moreover , it is possible that the no - splay requirement does not affect the bend deformation , as in the case of the vectorial constraint alone . to what extent the tensorial constraint will be accommodated by variations of @xmath105 , @xmath98 , @xmath94 , @xmath103 , and @xmath97 is controlled by the relative free energy cost of these variations . the same holds for variations of @xmath13 and @xmath97 connected by the vectorial constraint . finally , it is important to recognize the following point . consider the case where the biaxiality is initially zero and the terms in the transverse directions vanish inside the @xmath102 bracket of eq . ( [ biax1])-([biax2 ] ) as before . the tensorial condition eq . ( [ biax1])-([biax2 ] ) is met if the longitudinal terms inside the bracket satisfy @xmath106+{\textstyle{3\over 2}}\rho s(\partial_j n_j ) = 0 $ ] . this requirement is very similar to the vectorial constraint @xmath107 , where @xmath108 , but not identical . even for @xmath109 , unless @xmath75 , the connection between splay and variations of the moduli is slightly different . this can not be lifted  it is due to the inherent difference between polar and quadrupolar moments of orientational order . the reduction from the full @xmath5-tensor to the frequently used uniaxial director description is , in the context of the conservation laws , not an automatism as we have just seen . one can make various assumptions / models of how the omitted degrees of freedom entering the tensorial conservation behave when the reduction is made . for example , just using the uniaxial ansatz in eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) forbids any biaxiality and necessarily introduces the direct connection between splay and bend in eq . ( [ biax1 ] ) that is not present in the case of the vectorial conservation law . the quadrupolar order can be described as usually by the @xmath5-tensor and a corresponding landau - de gennes nematic free energy functional @xmath110 , which includes also the part that penalizes density variations . the conservation law is independent of the particular form of this functional , and we will hence not specify it further . the implementation of the full theory of the quadrupolar ordering thus assumes a concrete , non - universal form of this free energy functional and a universal implementation of the conservation law . we first write the tensorial conservation law eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) in terms of the @xmath5-tensor as , @xmath111 =           \textstyle{3\over 2 } \partial_i g_i ,      \label{tensorial_conservation_1}\ ] ] where @xmath112 is the density of chain end tangents pointing away from the end towards the chain . in general , @xmath112 is an additional variable of the system (= 1 vector variable , since chain heads and tails are indistinguishable ) . moreover , at the same time the vectorial conservation law eq . ( [ vectorial_rho_pms ] ) holds for the recovered polar order @xmath13 , @xmath113 where @xmath33 is the total density of sources ( chain ends and backfoldings ) given in eq . ( [ sources_total ] ) . as discussed in sec . [ sec : recovered_polar ] , the recovered polar order @xmath114 is assumed to be parallel to the nematic vector @xmath19 , while its magnitude @xmath115 is connected with the modulus of the quadrupolar nematic order @xmath116 , @xmath117 where @xmath118 depends only on the orientational distribution function of the monomers and is assumed to be fixed . thus , the vectorial conservation eq . ( [ vectorial_conservation_1 ] ) for the recovered polar order is in fact an * additional constraint for the director principal axis * of the @xmath119-tensor . in the case when the density of chain backfoldings @xmath120 of eq . ( [ rho0pm2 ] ) is high ( small global persistence length ) , the free energy cost eq . ( [ f_pms ] ) of the variation @xmath33 is small . in this limit the vectorial constraint eq . ( [ vectorial_conservation_1 ] ) becomes ineffective and we are left with the tensorial conservation eq . ( [ tensorial_conservation_1 ] ) only . if , on the other hand , the density of the backfoldings is low , the additional constraint eq . ( [ vectorial_conservation_1 ] ) is strong and in this way implements the increased stiffness of the chains , which can not be controlled by the tensorial conservation .    in general , the source fields @xmath121 , @xmath122 , and @xmath123 are additional variables of the apolar polymer nematic system besides the @xmath17-tensor and the polymer density @xmath124 , for which one should write down additional couplings in the free energy functional . in a first approach , they can be however treated in a minimal spirit  as a result of non - uniform distributions of the ideal gasses of chain ends and backfoldings with equilibrium densities @xmath125 and @xmath120 , respectively . in this model , the free energy cost of the sources is purely entropic and is expressed in a form of eq . ( [ f_pms ] ) or alike . a similar free energy contribution can be set up also for @xmath126 . within this simple model of the sources , the source densities do not appear explicitly as additional variables , since their quadratic free energy contributions can be expressed directly via the conservation laws eqs . ( [ tensorial_conservation_1 ] ) and ( [ vectorial_conservation_1 ] ) which now take the form of penalty potentials , @xmath127 ^ 2      + { \textstyle{1\over 2 } } h \left\{\partial_i\partial_j\left[\rho\ell_0(q_{ij}+{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\delta_{ij})\right]\right\}^2 . \label{f_full}\ ] ] in this case the only additional parameters of the system are the equilibrium densities of chain ends @xmath125 and chain backfoldings @xmath120 , which define the strengths @xmath32 and @xmath128 of the penalty potentials . finally , the system of equations is closed with two additional conditions and corresponding lagrange - multiplier terms to be added to eq . ( [ f_full ] ) , keeping @xmath13 parallel to the director principal axis of @xmath5 and its magnitude @xmath129 connected with the nematic modulus @xmath98 according to eq . ( [ moduli ] ) . such conditions can be cumbersome if expressed analytically ( in particular the former ) , but can be treated quite naturally in numerical approaches . the vectorial and tensorial conservation laws for main - chain polymer nematogens are not in general equivalent nor are they interchangeable . in fact , using the vectorial conservation law for the usual quadrupolar nematic order as described in section [ sec : recovered_polar ] is incomplete and generally inaccurate , except in the limit of perfect orientational ordering . there exist in general two major reasons why the tensorial conservation law must be taken into account in addition to the vectorial conservation law for the recovered polar order :    1 .   in the strong backfolding limit , the vectorial constraint for the recovered polar order vanishes as we have seen , thereby completely decoupling density variations and director deformations . due to the tensorial conservation law , however , another , although looser ( second order in the gradient ) constraint remains also in the strong backfolding limit ( vanishing global persistence length ) of ideally flexible chains . quadrupolar nematic order is described by the nematic @xmath5-tensor , i.e. , it is captured by averaging a tensorial quantity , not a vectorial one as in the case of the recovered polar order . the tensorial description comprises more degrees of freedom , which is reflected among others also in the fact that the sources of the tensorial conservation law ( the right - hand side of eq . ( [ tensorial ] ) ) besides the volume density of chain ends comprise also the direction of their tangents . as we have shown , only in the limit of perfect orientational order ( where the chains are perfectly aligned , all backfoldings are hairpins and there is no other directions involved ) both conservation laws are equivalent .    we propose that the generalized conservation law for semiflexible main - chain polymer nematics with usual quadrupolar ( tensorial ) nematic ordering should build on both , the vectorial as well as the tensorial conservation laws , implemented in the effective free energy via the penalty potentials . if the ordered phase is also polar , then the vectorial conservation law directly holds for its polar order . if , however , the quadrupolar order of this polar phase is included in the modeling ( e.g. if a measurement probes the quadrupolar order of the polar phase rather than its polar order ) , the generalized conservation law for the quadrupolar order applies to it in principle , notwithstanding the concurrent existence of the polar order . since in this case the backfolding is weak , there is little difference whether the actual or the recovered polar order enters the generalized conservation law for the quadrupolar order , but in principle it _ should be _ the recovered polar order .    the present analysis of the two continuity constraints , identifying the extent of polymer chain backfolding as the determinant of their relative importance , also suggests a possible method to detect and/or manipulate their strength . namely , in the case of dna , where sharp local kinks can be induced by the addition of certain dna binding proteins , an interesting new way to actually observe and control the role of the tensorial continuity constraint might be accessible by following the ordering of the chains in the solution and/or by monitoring the observable defects on adsorption of dna kinking proteins . this path is feasible and worth pursuing on the level of simulations as well as experiments . p. g. de gennes , mol . lett * 34 * , 177 ( 1977 ) . r. b. meyer , physica a * 176 * , 63 ( 1991 ) . j. v. selinger , r. f. bruinsma , phys . a * 43 * , 2910 ( 1991 ) . le doussal , d. r. nelson , europhys . lett . * 15 * , 161 ( 1991 ) . d. r. nelson , physica a * 177 * , 220 ( 1991 ) . j. v. selinger , r. f. bruinsma , j. phys . ii france * 2 * , 1215 ( 1992 ) . d. svenek , g. m. grason , r. podgornik , phys . e * 88 * , 052603 ( 2013 ) . d. svenek , g. veble , r. podgornik , phys . e * 82 * , 011708 ( 2010 ) . a factor of 3/2 is missing in ref . @xcite on the right - hand sides of eqs . ( 18 ) , ( 20 ) , ( 22 ) , ( 24 ) , ( 25 ) , ( 26 ) , and ( 27 ) . trinh x. hoang , hoa lan trinh , a. giacometti , r.podgornik , j. r. banavar , and a. maritan , phys . e * 92 * , 060701(r ) ( 2015 ) . d. svenek , r. podgornik , j. chem . 143 * , 114902 ( 2015 ) .
Abstract:

Answer: we explore the implications of the conservation law(s ) and the corresponding  continuity equation(s ) " , resulting from the coupling between the positional and the orientational order in main - chain polymer nematics , by showing that the vectorial and tensorial forms of these equations are in general _ not equivalent _ and can not be reduced to one another , but neither are they disjoint alternatives . we analyze the relation between them and elucidate the fundamental role that the chain backfolding plays in the determination of their relative strength and importance . finally , we show that the correct penalty potential in the effective free energy , implementing these conservation laws , should actually connect both the tensorial and the vectorial constraints . we show that the consequences of the polymer chains connectivity for their consistent mesoscopic description are thus not only highly non - trivial but that its proper implementation is absolutely crucial for a consistent coarse grained description of the main - chain polymer nematics .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the only known method to exchange secret information through a communication channel in a proven secure way , is to use the so - called one - time pad ( for a good review of both classical and quantum cryptography , see  @xcite ) . in this technique , the data , which is represented by a string of bits , is combined with a random string of bits of equal length called the key , and is then sent through the communication channel . the randomness of the key ensures that the encoded message is also completely random and as such totally unintelligible to a potential eavesdropper . the safety of the transmission is thus entirely dependent on the safety of the key , which has to be secret and shared just by both legitimate users . moreover , safety can be guaranteed only if the key is used once , and then discarded . the problem is therefore how to distribute the random key between users in a secure way . classically , the only possibility is either through personal meetings , or through a trusted courier , which makes the technique rather expensive , and not practical for many applications . therefore , most practical cryptographic systems nowadays rely on different principles  @xcite . however , these can not really _ guarantee _ the safety of the transmission , but rely on a weaker property of the system , namely that it is _ computationally _ safe . this means that the system can be broken in principle , but that the computation time required to do so is too long to pose a real threat . the main problem with this approach is that its safety could be destroyed by technological progress ( faster computers ) or mathematical advances ( faster algorithms or future theoretical progress in computation theory ) . another technique , whose safety does not rely on computing abilities , and which was only recently developed , is quantum cryptography ( for an introduction , see  @xcite ) .    in quantum cryptography , the two users , generally referred to as alice ( the sender ) and bob ( the receiver ) , have two kinds of communication channels at their disposal . one is a classical public channel , which can be overheard by anybody , but can not be modified ; and the second is a quantum channel , whose main characteristic is that any attempt at eavesdropping will create errors in the transmission . the quantum channel will be used to transmit the secret key , and the classical public channel will be used to exchange information and to send the encoded message . in principle , this is sufficient to ensure the safety of a transmission : alice and bob exchange a series of bits over the quantum channel , and then use part of the transmission to test for eavesdropping . if they find any discrepancy between their strings , they can infer that an eavesdropper , usually referred to as eve , was listening and that their transmission is not secret . if they detect no errors , they can assume that the key is safe . by testing a large proportion of their initial string , they can attain any safety level they wish . unfortunately , quantum channels are very sensitive devices , and due to the imperfections of the channels and of the detectors , some errors will always be unavoidable . the problem facing alice and bob is therefore , for a given error rate , to estimate the amount of information that may have leaked to eve , and decide on the safety of the transmission . this of course depends on both the particular system used by alice and bob , and on the eavesdropping strategy adopted by eve . a safer system is a system for which the amount of information that may have leaked to eve is lower . if the information leaked to eve is not too high , alice and bob can use classical information processing techniques to reduce it to approximately zero , at the expense of shortening their strings  @xcite .    at present , there exist three different quantum cryptographic systems . the first one relies on the transmission of single photons randomly polarized along four directions  @xcite . as single photons are difficult to produce experimentally , a slight modification of this system , using weak pulses instead of single photons , was the first one to be implemented in practice  @xcite . the second system , which is conceptually the simplest , uses only two non - orthogonal quantum states  @xcite . its implementation relies on weak coherent pulses , with a phase difference between them  @xcite . the third system is based on the creation of pairs of epr correlated photons  @xcite . one of its potential advantages is that the correlations are between single photons and not weak pulses , which can be a great advantage , as we shall emphasize later . however , creation and transmission over long distances of epr correlated pairs is technologically more difficult , and it is not clear yet whether this will prove practical  @xcite . in this work , we focus on quantum cryptographic schemes implemented with weak pulses of coherent light . we compare the safety of the first and the second of these quantum cryptographic systems , and present a new system , which is a symbiosis of both , and for which the safety can be significantly increased .    in section  [ 4 ] , we analyze the first system , referred to as 4-states system . in section [ 2 ] , we turn to the second one , named 2-states system , and present a new implementation . we introduce our new 4 + 2 system in section  [ 4 + 2 ] , and show that it is more sensitive to eavesdropping than the two previous ones . in section  [ lossy ] , we show the dangers associated with a lossy transmission line , and conclude in section  [ conclusion ] . this protocol was developed by bennett et al . the sender , alice , chooses at random one out of four states , e.g. for polarized photons : , , or , and sends it to the receiver , bob . the two states and stand for bit value ` 0 ' , while the other two , and , stand for ` 1 ' . bob chooses , also at random , a basis , or , in which he measures the polarization . when his basis corresponds to alice s , his bit should be perfectly correlated with hers , whereas when his basis is the conjugate , there is no correlation between his result and alice s original choice . by discussing over the public channel , alice and bob agree to discard all the instances where they did not use the same basis ( half of the total on average ) . the result is what we call the sifted key , which should be two perfectly correlated strings , but which may contain errors . the two fundamental properties of this protocol are :    * the choice of basis is completely hidden from the other protagonist ( the two bases correspond to the same density matrix ) , as well as from any mischievous eavesdropper , eve ; * when alice and bob use different bases , there is no correlation between their bits . the first one , ( i ) , ensures that , as the eavesdropper eve can not know which basis was used , she will unavoidably introduce errors . the second one , ( ii ) , is not really necessary , but is preferable , as it reduces the information available to eve to a minimum  @xcite ( 25 % for each photon on which she eavesdropped ) . there have been various works analyzing eavesdropping strategies , calculating the information available to eve as a function of the error rate and developing information processing techniques to reduce it to any required level  @xcite . one technical difficulty with this scheme is that in principle it should be implemented by means of single photons  @xcite . as these are difficult to generate experimentally , existing schemes rely on weak pulses of coherent or thermal light , with much less than one photon per pulse on average  @xcite . this ensures that the probability of having two or more photons in a pulse remains very small . this strategy reduces the transmission rate ( recent experiments use about one tenth of a photon per pulse ) , while providing no advantage to an honest participant . more precisely , if alice and bob use coherent pulses @xmath0 , the transmission rate @xmath1 is given by : @xmath2 where the factor @xmath3 comes from the fact that half of the transmissions had to be discarded ( when alice and bob used different bases ) . in fact , even for these weak pulses , the probability of having two or more photons per pulse may not always be neglected ( for the above pulses , one out of twenty non - zero pulses will have two photons ) . we shall show in section  [ lossy ] how to take this into account .      in order to get quantitative results , we shall assume that eve uses the intercept / resend strategy : she intercepts the pulses , attempts to gain as much information as possible , and sends to bob a new pulse , prepared according to the information she obtained . moreover , we shall assume that she eavesdrops in the bases used by alice and bob , or . this is the intercept / resend strategy which provides her with the most information on the sifted key  @xcite . however , it is not yet known whether this is the optimal strategy . it is easy to see that , when eve eavesdrops on a fraction @xmath4 of the transmissions , the error rate created is @xmath5 ( when eve uses the correct basis , she does not introduce any error , while she creates a 50% error rate when she uses the wrong basis ) , and that the information she obtained is @xmath6 ( she has total information when she used the correct basis , and none when she used the wrong one ) . moreover , the scheme is completely symmetric , so that eve shares the same information with alice and with bob . therefore , we can write the mutual information shared by alice and eve and shared by eve and bob as a function of the error rate @xmath7 : @xmath8 in this system , the intensity of the weak pulses , or equivalently the transmission rate @xmath1 defined in  ( [ t4 ] ) has no influence . in the following , we will compare  ( [ i4 ] ) to the information obtained by eve for the other two systems . in this protocol  @xcite , alice chooses between only two non - orthogonal states , and sends one to bob . as these are not orthogonal , there is no way for bob to decode them deterministically . however , by means of a generalized measurement , also known as _ positive operator valued measure _ or povm  @xcite , he can perform a test which will sometimes fail to give an answer , and at all other times give the correct one . in essence , instead of having a binary test ( with results 0 or 1 ) , which will unavoidably create errors when the two states are not orthogonal , bob has a ternary system , with possible results : 0 , 1 , or ? ( with ? corresponding to inconclusive results ) . for example , if alice sends a 0 , bob may get either a 0 or an inconclusive result , but he will never get a 1 . we present a practical implementation of such a povm in the next section ( for a theoretical description see  @xcite ) . as with the previous system , alice and bob use their public channel to discard all the inconclusive results . they should now have two perfectly correlated strings , except for possible errors . the safety of the protocol against eavesdropping is ensured by the fact that eve can not get deterministic results either . she may attempt to get as much information as possible by projecting the states onto an orthogonal basis . this is discussed in section  [ safety2 ] , where we show that this will unavoidably create errors . another possibility for eve is to mimic bob s measurement , and obtain deterministic results on a fraction of the bits . however , in this case , she will have to guess alice s choice on the remaining bits , and this will provide her with less information than the previous strategy . let us emphasize that , as we want eve s guesses to result in errors on bob s side , this scheme should not be implemented with weak pulses only . in this case , eve could simply intercept the transmission , resend a pulse to bob only when she managed to obtain the bit sent by alice ( i.e. 0 or 1 ) , and send nothing when she obtained an inconclusive result . the signature of eavesdropping would then just be a reduction in the transmission rate . in the original proposal , this is overcome by using phase encoding of a weak pulse ( the two states are @xmath9 , with overlap @xmath10 ) , which is sent together with a strong pulse , used also as a phase reference  @xcite . when eve fails to obtain information , she still has to send the strong pulse , which will create errors in the reception . ekert et al . @xcite recently analyzed various eavesdropping strategies related to this system . here , we shall restrict ourselves to the intercept / resend strategy and compare the safety of various schemes . let us now suggest a new implementation of the 2-states system , which will be later extended to our new 4 + 2 protocol . we shall call it _ parallel reference _ implementation , to distinguish it from the _ sequential reference _ implementation of  @xcite . alice uses weak coherent states , with phase encoding 0 or @xmath11 with respect to a strong coherent state . we denote the weak states by @xmath9 and the strong state by @xmath12 . the overlap between the two states is given by : @xmath13 instead of sending the two states one after the other , alice uses two orthogonal polarizations : @xmath14 , say , will have vertical polarization , and @xmath15 will have horizontal polarization . the decoding on bob s side is schematized in fig . [ detection ] . the two states are separated by a polarization beam splitter ( pbs ) . @xmath15 is rotated to vertical polarization and sent through a mainly transmitting beam splitter ( bs1 ) to detector d1 . a small fraction of @xmath12 , equal to @xmath0 , is sent to interfere with @xmath9 at bs2 , and towards two detectors d2 and d3 . a count in d2 , say , corresponds to phase zero , while a count in d3 corresponds to @xmath11 . no count in both d2 and d3 is of course an inconclusive result . it is easy to calculate the probability of such a result : @xmath16 which is equal to the overlap between the two states . it was shown that ( [ prob ? ] ) represents the optimum for separating deterministically two non - orthogonal states  @xcite . since all the cases corresponding to inconclusive results have to be discarded , the transmission rate of the channel is given by : @xmath17 detector d1 should always fire , and can therefore be used as a trigger for the other two , enabling them only for a short time corresponding to the length of the pulse ( this will reduce the dark counts ) . moreover , an eavesdropper with an inconclusive result would still have to send @xmath18 , which will result in random counts in d2 and d3 . a small modification of the above will be used for our 4 + 2 protocol . as in section  [ 4 ] , we assume that eve performs an intercept / resend strategy , and attempts to get as much information as possible on the state sent by alice . this is obtained by projecting it onto the orthogonal basis @xmath19 as shown in fig . [ projection ]  @xcite , and provides eve with probabilistic information only . another method for eve would be to use the same povm as bob . this would provide her with a smaller amount of deterministic information . the error rate introduced by eve is equal to the probability of making the wrong reading , e.g. the probability of obtaining @xmath20 when the input was in fact @xmath0 : @xmath21 where @xmath22 is defined in ( [ overlap ] ) and shown in fig . [ projection ] . with this particular eavesdropping strategy , the transmission channel alice - eve is known as a binary symmetric channel , and is fully characterized by the error rate @xmath23  @xcite . the mutual information shared by alice and eve is equal to the channel capacity and is given by  @xcite : @xmath24 ( @xmath25 is the maximum information that can be extracted from two states with overlap @xmath26 ) . on the other hand , after bob discards all his inconclusive results , the transmission channel eve - bob is perfect . therefore the mutual information eve - bob is : @xmath27 this strategy , where eve eavesdrops on all the transmitted photons , will create a high error rate . in order to reduce it , eve shall only eavesdrop on a fraction @xmath4 of the transmissions , thus creating an error rate @xmath28 it is now easy to obtain the mutual information between alice and eve , @xmath29 and between eve and bob , @xmath30 , as a function of the error rate @xmath7 and the angle @xmath22 between the states : @xmath31 using ( [ overlap ] ) and ( [ trans2 ] ) , we can also write the mutual information as a function of the transmission rate for each value of the error rate . these functions are plotted in fig  [ graph ] , where the information gained for the 4-states system is used as a reference . the basic idea behind this protocol is that the 4-states scheme does not require the two states in each basis to be orthogonal . the safety of this scheme relies entirely on the two points ( i ) and ( ii ) mentioned in section  [ 4 ] . any scheme using two pairs of states ( each pair corresponding to one non - orthonormal basis ) satisfying both ( i ) and ( ii ) is an equally good candidate for a 4-states protocol . moreover , by choosing non - orthogonal states in each pair , we will get the additional advantage of the 2-states protocol , namely that eve can not differentiate deterministically between the two states in each basis . as we show in the following , this will make the scheme more sensitive to eavesdropping . a second advantage , shared with the 2-states system , is that this scheme will be more resilient in the case of a lossy transmission line . this aspect will be discussed in section  [ lossy ] . a graphic comparison between the different systems is given in fig  [ poincare ] , where we plot the various states on the poincar sphere . let us apply this to our previous parallel reference phase encoding scheme . the first pair will correspond to 0 and @xmath11 phase shifts , while the second pair will correspond to @xmath32 and @xmath33 . explicitly , the four states are : @xmath34 , @xmath35 , @xmath36 and @xmath37 . let us emphasize that these states satisfy condition ( i ) only when the intensity is low enough , since pulses containing two or more photons do not satisfy it . indeed , if we take into account the two photon number state , it is easy to see that the two pairs : @xmath38 and @xmath39 are not even in the same 2d hilbert space , and therefore can not correspond to the same density matrix . in the following , we shall assume that this condition is verified . we shall however lift this restriction in section  [ lossy ] , where we present an analysis for a lossy transmission line . the detection system is similar to the one explained in section  [ 2 ] , with the addition of an optional @xmath32 phase shifter in one arm of the interferometer ( see fig . [ detection ] ) . when bob wants to measure in the first basis , he does not put the phase shift , and his detection scheme will therefore differentiate between @xmath40 and @xmath41 . when he wants to measure in the second basis , he puts the @xmath32 phase shift , so that his detection scheme will now differentiate between @xmath42 and @xmath43 . of course , when bob uses the wrong basis ( say alice sent state @xmath0 and bob puts the @xmath32 phase shift ) , bob s result is totally uncorrelated with alice s choice . in many instances bob wo nt get any count in his detectors d2 and d3 , which correspond to inconclusive results , and will be discarded . the problems facing eve are now twofold : she does nt know the basis used by alice ( as in the 4-states method ) , which means that even when she has a conclusive result , she can not be sure that it is relevant . moreover , as the states are not orthogonal , she is faced with two possibilities : either to try to get deterministic results , which means that in many instances she will get no information at all , but will still have to make a decision on which state to send to bob ; or try to get probabilistic information , in which case she will know very little on each bit . in both cases , she will introduce errors , before she even start to deal with the basis . this is the main difference with the usual 4-states scheme : alice and bob make use of the fact that they send weak pulses and not single photons to enhance the safety .    in order to compare the various schemes , we first need to calculate the transmission rate . since in half of the cases , alice and bob will use different bases , and therefore will have to discard the transmission , we easily get : @xmath44 as in section  [ 4 ] , we now assume that eve eavesdrops on a fraction @xmath4 of the transmissions , and uses the intercept / resend strategy in the bases used by alice and bob . when she uses the wrong basis , which happens on a fraction @xmath6 , she does not get any information , but still creates an error rate @xmath3 as in the 4-states system . when she uses the correct bases , again on a fraction @xmath6 , the system reduces to the 2-states system . following section [ 2 ] , we assume that eve attempts to get as much probabilistic information as possible . the error rate is thus given by ( [ ermax2 ] ) and the information gain by ( [ imax2 ] ) . the overall error rate is therefore @xmath45 and the information gained by eve @xmath46 the comparison between the three systems is given in fig  [ graph ] , where we plot the various information as functions of the transmission rate , and use the 4-states system as a reference . note that , as the transmission rate is different for the 2-states system and the 4 + 2 system , we compare systems with different values of @xmath47 ( or equivalently with different values of the overlap @xmath26 ) . with the type of eavesdropping strategy considered here , the information available to eve grows linearly with the error rate for all the systems . therefore , as the plot is normalized with respect to the 4-states system , there is no dependence on @xmath7 . fig  [ graph ] shows a clear advantage for the 2-states system with respect to the 4-states system at very low transmission rates . however , the information leaked to eve increases rapidly with the transmission rate . in contrast , the 4 + 2 system is always preferable to both other systems . let us emphasize that our analysis is in principle correct for any value of the overlap @xmath26 between the states , if the various states remain in a 2d hilbert space . however , this is not the case for the suggested implementation with weak coherent states . in this case , the analysis is only appropriate for very weak states , where the probability of having more than one photon is sufficiently small , and therefore where the overlap between the states is always close to one . this is likely to be correct in practical applications , but it is still important to present the corrections to the analysis when two - photon states become relevant . this is the task of section[lossy ] . in the above work , we have analyzed the relative sensitivity of various schemes to eavesdropping , under the assumption that there was at most one photon per pulse . however , when we use pulses of coherent or thermal light , there is a non - zero probability to have more than one photon in a pulse , even for very weak pulses . when the transmission line between alice and bob is approximately lossless , the fact that a few pulses may have more than one photon is not too damaging , but only gives some free information to an eavesdropper . however , when the transmission line is lossy , using weak pulses can prove disastrous for alice and bob . let us assume that the transmission line is a silica optical fiber , which is always slightly lossy ( about 0.2 db / km ) . if we want to use the cryptographic system over reasonable distances , say up to 50 km , transmission losses will be as high as 10 db , or about 90% . an eavesdropper with superior technology could replace the fiber by a perfectly transparent one , and use the excess power for her mischievous purposes .    for the 4-states system based on polarization ( section  [ 4 ] ) , this can be very damaging . indeed , as polarization and photon number are independent variables , there is no problem in principle to select the few pulses with two or more photons and separate them into two one - photon pulses , without changing the polarization . eve could then send one of the two pulses to bob , while keeping the other one . she would measure her signal only after alice and bob have disclosed their bases , which means that she will get complete information on these pulses . if the pulses sent by alice are coherent and contain on average 1/10 photon , eve would obtain about one such pulse out of 200 , and would send all of these to bob without attenuation . remembering that bob only expect to receive one photon out of 100 pulses sent by alice , we see that eve can know the polarization of half of the pulses received by bob , without creating any error . for thermal light , where the photon distribution is wider ( one pulse out of 100 would contain more than one photon ) , eve would actually know the polarization of all the pulses . this can of course be reduced by using even weaker pulses , but this in turn would lower the transmission rate and the signal to noise ratio ( mainly because of the dark counts of the detectors ) . this shows that a combination of weak pulses with high channel loss is a deadly combination for this cryptographic system . if the losses are high enough , eve can get full information on the transmission , and this without causing a single error . let us emphasize however that any system using only single photons would be insensitive to the above attack . in contrast to the 4-states system , both the 2-states systems based on phase encoding ( section  [ 2 ] ) , and our new protocol ( section  [ 4 + 2 ] ) will be more resilient against this attack . the main reason is that as phase and number are conjugate variables , any attempt by eve to select the two - photon pulses will unavoidably randomize the phase of the pulse . therefore , the best eve can do is to split the incoming pulses , and send to bob the weaker pulses through a lossless fiber . for the 90 % losses mentioned above , eve can therefore split 90 % of the pulses . bob of course has no way of discovering that the losses are now due to eve . the malicious eve can now keep her pulses , wait for alice and bob to disclose the basis they used , and then try to extract the maximum information > from them . in contrast to the 4-states system , her information is limited by the fact that the states are not orthogonal . in fact , the maximum information that she can extract is given by @xmath25 defined in ( [ imax2 ] ) . for the above example , with 1/10 photon per pulse on average and 90 % losses , eve has pulses with 0.09 photons at her disposal . the maximum information that she can extract is then about 0.23 bits . in a practical scheme , this would have to be added to the information available to eve as a function of the error rate . let us emphasize that eve can adopt this beam splitting strategy , even in the case of 4-states systems with weak pulses . however , as was shown in the previous paragraph , in this case she can also use the independence of polarization and photon number to get more information . the rule of the game in quantum cryptography is that the honest participants are limited by the available technology , while the mischievous eavesdropper is only confined by the laws of quantum mechanics . this is in order to ensure that the safety of the schemes does not depend on future technological advances , no matter how unlikely . at present , one of the main technological limitations is the difficulty of generating single photons . for this reason , most existing schemes rely on weak pulses , which are easy to generate . however , in practical implementations  @xcite , this fact was considered to be only a limitation . the fact that the pulses had a strong vacuum component , or equivalently the fact that the two pulses in the same basis were not orthogonal , was not utilized by the users . in this work , we presented a new system which made use of this vacuum component to enhance the safety of the transmission . the reason why the task of the eavesdropper is made more difficult with this system , is that it combines the strengths of the two systems it is built from : as in the 4-states system , eve does not know the basis used by alice and bob ; as in the 2-states system , she can not distinguish with certainty between the two non - orthogonal states . it is worth noting that the usual implementation of the 4-states system with weak pulses actually satisfies these two criteria . the weak pulses with orthogonal polarizations are _ not _ orthogonal in the hilbert space , due to their common vacuum component . the ingredient which is missing from these system is the use of a strong reference pulse in the detection , which ensures that eve has to send a signal to bob , even when she could not get any information on the signal sent by alice . when this is added to the system , the use of weak pulses becomes an advantage for the legitimate users . indeed , one experimental realisation of quantum cryptography based on an interferometric scheme  @xcite , is somewhat similar to our suggested implementation ( see fig  [ detection ] ) . the main difference between the two schemes is that  @xcite do not use a strong reference pulse ( in their set - up , @xmath48 , and the beam splitter bs1 is replaced by a mirror ) . therefore , as emphasized above , their scheme does not take advantage of the non - orthogonality of the weak pulses . whenever she obtains an unsatisfactory result in her attempt to eavesdrop , eve may simply block the transmission and send nothing to bob . a slight modification of the existing experiment could therefore provide a much safer scheme . unfortunately , even very weak pulses have a non - zero probability of having more than one photon . this creates the most acute problem when the two legitimate users have a lossy transmission line . in this case , we showed that the usual polarization - based scheme appears to be unpractical , as too much information may leak to an eavesdropper , without causing any error . the two other schemes , which combine non - orthogonal states , phase encoding and a reference pulse , appear to be less sensitive to this problem , as eve can not get total information , no matter what the losses are . however , following the results of section  [ lossy ] , it is clear that , when the transmission line between alice and bob is very lossy , single photon transmission would be preferable . g.  brassard , _ modern cryptology : a tutorial _ , lecture notes in computer science , vol .  325 ( springer , 1988 ) . bennett , g.  brassard , and a.k . ekert in _ scientific american _ , pp.50 - 57 , ( october 1992 ) . c.  h.  bennett , f.  bessette , g.  brassard , l.  salvail , and j.  smolin , _ journal of cryptology _ * 5 * , 3 ( 1992 ) . bennett , g.  brassard and j - m . siam j.  comput _ , * 17 * , 210 ( 1988 ) . b. huttner and a.  k.  ekert , _ j. mod . opt . _ ( to be published ) . c.  h.  bennett and g.  brassard , in _ proceedings of ieee international conference on computers , systems and signal processing , bangalore , india _ ( ieee , new york , 1984 ) p.  175 . d.  townsend , j.  g.  rarity , and p.  r.  tapster , _ electronics letters _ * 29*,1291 ( 1993 ) . a.  muller , j.  breguet , and n.  gisin , _ europhysics letters _ , * 23 * , 383 ( 1993 ) . c. h. bennett , _ phys . lett . _ * 68 * , 3121 ( 1992 ) . p.  d.  townsend , j.  g.  rarity , and p.  r.  tapster , _ electronics letters _ * 29 * , 634 ( 1993 ) . a. k. ekert , _ phys . _ * 67 * , 661 ( 1991 ) . a.  k.  ekert , j.  g.  rarity , p.  r.  tapster , and g.  m.  palma , _ phys . lett . _ * 69 * , 1293 ( 1992 ) . s.j.d . phoenix , _ phys . a _ * 48 * , 100 ( 1993 ) . s. m. barnett and s.  j.  d.  phoenix , _ phys . a _ * 48 * , r5 ( 1993 ) ; s.m . barnett , b. huttner and s.j.d . phoenix , _ j. mod _ * 40 * , 2501 ( 1993 ) . a. peres , _ quantum theory : concepts and methods _ , kluwer , dordrecht ( 1993 ) , chapt . ekert , b.  huttner , g.m . palma , and a.  peres , _ phys a _ * 50 * , 1047 ( 1994 ) . i.  d.  ivanovic , _ phys . a _ * 123 * , 257 ( 1987 ) ; a.  peres , _ phys . a _ * 128 * , 19 ( 1988 ) . r.  b.  ash , _ information theory _ , dover , new york ( 1990 ) ; t. m.  cover and j. a  thomas , _ elements of information theory _ , wiley , new york ( 1991 ) .
Abstract:

Answer: the safety of a quantum key distribution system relies on the fact that any eavesdropping attempt on the quantum channel creates errors in the transmission . for a given error rate , the amount of information that may have leaked to the eavesdropper depends on both the particular system and the eavesdropping strategy . in this work , we discuss quantum cryptographic protocols based on the transmission of weak coherent states and present a new system , based on a symbiosis of two existing ones , and for which the information available to the eavesdropper is significantly reduced . this system is therefore safer than the two previous ones . we also suggest a possible experimental implementation .