text:
# EVIDENCE FOR PRESSURE DRIVEN FLOWS AND TURBULENT DISSIPATION IN THE SERPENS NW CLUSTER

## 1 Introduction

Stars form through the collapse of dense cores within molecular clouds. The detection and measurement of the motions associated with such star forming collapse appears to be secure (see reviews by Evans 2000; Myers, Evans, & Ohashi 2000). The focus has primarily been on isolated, individual star forming regions since these are the least complex cases to understand both observationally and theoretically. However, the majority of stars form in clusters (Zinnecker, McCaughrean, & Wilking 1993) so a broader understanding of star formation, including such fundamental issues as the origin of the IMF and the formation of massive stars, requires the study of how stars form in groups.

Relative to an individual star, the deeper potential well of a stellar cluster should imply faster, and possibly easier to measure, inward motions, but observations are complicated by the generally greater distance to clusters than to individual star forming regions studied so far, and by the overpowering luminosity of massive stars that limit the ability to image lower mass neighbors and thus to obtain a complete view of cluster birth. For example, observations of the massive cluster forming region, W49N, have produced evidence for a global collapse of material onto the cluster as a whole (Welch et al. 1987) and, at higher resolution, for infall onto bright individual protostars (Zhang & Ho 1997). However, it has not been possible to explore the formation of more moderate mass stars in these objects because of dynamic range limitations.

In this paper, we present millimeter line and continuum observations of a cluster forming region in the Serpens molecular cloud. This region is well suited for an exploration into the formation processes of stellar clusters because it is nearby (d=310 pc; de Lara, Chavarria-K, & Lopez-Molina 1991) and contains a moderately dense embedded cluster (stellar density $`450`$ pc-3; Eiroa & Casali 1992) with many highly embedded millimeter wavelength continuum sources (Testi & Sargent 1998) but no O or B stars. In addition, Williams & Myers (1997) and Mardones (1998) have found signatures of widespread infall motions in this region.

The combination of proximity and low mass makes it possible to identify individual star forming condensations and examine the structure and dynamics of the cluster on a core by core basis. With this goal, we mapped the cluster in the optically thick CS(2–1) and thin N2H+(1–0) lines with the FCRAO and BIMA telescopes. Their different optical depths allow us to probe cloud velocities from an outer envelope to the center (Leung & Brown 1977). The two species are also formed by different chemical pathways with abundances that depend on environment and time (Bergin et al. 1997) and thus their relative intensities offer information on the physical conditions and chemical age of the cores. In an earlier paper (Williams & Myers 1999a) we reported the discovery of a starless core that appears to be collapsing based on an analysis of a small part of the maps. Here, we report on the full dataset and investigate the dynamics of the dense gas across the whole cluster. We find a number of new cores, some starless, others with continuum sources, suggesting that new stars are continually being added to the group. There are spectroscopic signatures of outflow, infall, and localized dissipation of turbulence throughout the cloud which offer important clues about the physical processes involved in cluster formation. The observations are outlined in §2 and the data displayed in §3. An analysis of the data follows in §4, and we discuss our findings in §5, concluding in §6.

## 2 Observations

Singledish maps of N2H+(1–0) (93.1762650 GHz, F1F$`=0112`$) and CS(2–1) (97.980968 GHz) were made at the Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory111FCRAO is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant AST9420159 and is operated with permission of the Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FCRAO) 14 m telescope in December 1996 using the QUARRY 15 beam array receiver and the FAAS backend consisting of 15 autocorrelation spectrometers with 1024 channels set to an effective resolution of 24 kHz (0.06 km/s). The observations were taken in frequency switching mode and, after folding, 3rd order baselines were subtracted. The pointing and focus were checked every 3 hours on nearby SiO maser sources. The FWHM of the telescope beam is $`50^{\prime \prime }`$, and a map covering $`6^{}\times 8^{}`$ was made at Nyquist ($`25^{\prime \prime }`$) spacing. QUARRY was replaced with the SEQUOIA array in late 1997. This 16 element array is built with low noise MMIC based amplifiers and has much improved sensitivity. This enabled us to map the weak C34S(2–1) (96.412982 GHz) line using the same backends and observing technique in March 1998.

Observations were made with the 10 antenna Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland array222Operated by the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and the University of Maryland, with support from the National Science Foundation (BIMA) for two 8 hour tracks in each line during April 1997 (CS; C array) and October/November 1997 (N2H+; B and C array). A two field mosaic was made with phase center, $`\alpha (2000)=18^\mathrm{h}29^\mathrm{m}47.^\mathrm{s}5,\delta (2000)=01^{}16^{}51\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$, centered close to S68N, and a second slightly overlapping pointing at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =33\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0,\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =91\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, centered close to SMM1. Amplitude and phase were calibrated using 4 minute observations of 1751+096 (4.4 Jy) interleaved with each 22 minute integration on source. The correlator was configured with two sets of 256 channels at a bandwidth of 12.5 MHz (0.16 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ per channel) in each sideband and a total continuum bandwidth of 800 MHz.

The data were calibrated and maps produced using standard procedures in the MIRIAD package. The two pointings were calibrated together but inverted from the $`uv`$ plane individually to avoid aliasing since their centers are separated by more than one primary beam FWHM. The FCRAO data (after first scaling to common flux units using a gain of 43.7 Jy K-1) were then combined with the BIMA data using maximum entropy deconvolution. The final maps were produced by linearly mosaicking the two pointings in the $`xy`$ plane. The combination of the single dish and interferometer data results in maps that are fully sampled from the map size down to the resolution limit (i.e., there is no “missing flux”).

In addition, we obtained a map of continuum emission by summing over the line-free channels. This map showed a number of point sources corresponding to warm dusty envelopes around embedded protostars. A similar map was obtained, over the entire Serpens complex, using the OVRO interferometer by Testi & Sargent (1998). Our map was of lower sensitivity and in order to make a better comparison, we were awarded additional time from February to April 1999 to map the continuum at 110 GHz in a mosaic consisting of 3 fields overlapping at their primary beam FWHM over the same region.

The resolution of the final (naturally weighted) maps was $`8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1\times 5\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6`$ at p.a. $`+2^{}`$ for the continuum, $`10\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 7\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$ at p.a. $`72^{}`$ for CS, and $`8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5\times 4\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6`$ at p.a. $`+2^{}`$ for N2H+. Additional spectral line datasets were created by restoring to a common $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ (3100 AU) beam for analysis and comparison. The velocity resolution of these maps was 0.16 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Continuum and integrated line maps

Maps of the continuum emission and integrated CS and N2H+ line intensities are presented in Figure 1. The continuum map was obtained from the 3 field mosaic at 110 GHz (see above). The rms noise level was 1.0 mJy beam-1 at the center, increasing toward the map edges (all maps are corrected for primary beam attenuation). Seven sources are labeled; S68N, SMM1 (also known as S68 FIRS1), SMM5, and SMM10 were mapped by Casali, Eiroa, & Duncan (1993) and Davis et al. (1999) and we have labeled the three others S68Nb through S68Nd because of their proximity to S68N. These seven are also present in Testi & Sargent (1998) although we do not confirm several other sources in their map for which our data have sufficient coverage, sensitivity, and resolution to detect. Singledish observations with the 1.3 mm facility bolometer on the IRAM 30 m telescope should clarify the issue.

Source positions and fluxes are listed in Table 1. S68Nc may be a double or multiple source since it is highly elongated but we could not distinguish more than one significant peak, so it is listed in Table 1 as a single source. SMM1, with a peak flux of 165 mJy beam-1, is considerably brighter than the other sources, and it proved problematic to clean the map completely of its sidelobes. Wright et al. (1999) pointed out that systematic errors including incomplete $`uv`$ coverage, calibration uncertainties, and pointing errors, limit the fidelity of a mosaicked image to the true source brightness distribution to $`12`$% at best. Such errors would lie above the level of the noise and therefore may be misinterpreted as detections. Both clean and maximum entropy deconvolution methods (with varying parameters, and source modeling and replacement) produced maps that all contained the seven labeled sources but also created elongated features in the vicinity of SMM1 that varied in position and flux from map to map. Therefore we have a high confidence in the labeled sources in Figure 1 but we believe the unlabeled features to the southwest of SMM1 to be artifacts of the data acquisition and reduction process and we disregard them. The problems associated with this map illustrate the difficulties in obtaining a complete view of cluster formation in more massive and luminous star forming environments.

There are also some image artifacts present in the line maps. The near-zero declination of the source resulted in strong north-south sidelobes even with the 45 baselines of the BIMA interferometer. As with the continuum map, these proved difficult to clean away completely and thus there may be some small sidelobe contamination from the brighter sources in each map. Based on experimenting with different deconvolution procedures, we estimate this uncertainty in line strengths to be $`20\%`$ in addition to the thermal noise and flux calibration uncertainties.

The N2H+ and CS maps each show several condensations but present a very different appearance. The N2H+ map follows the distribution of the continuum sources much more closely than the CS map which features a prominent starless core to the west of S68N (Williams & Myers 1999a). These differences between the N2H+ and CS maps are probably due to a combination of differences in optical depth, protostellar outflows, and depletion. As we show below, the N2H+ emission is optically thin but most CS spectra are self-absorbed and have considerable optical depth. Moreover, outflow wings are prominent in the CS line profiles around SMM1 and S68N, but are almost entirely absent from the N2H+ spectra at the same positions. Finally, the time dependent chemical models of Bergin & Langer (1997) suggest that CS should deplete onto grains prior to star forming collapse but N2H+ should remain in the gas phase even at high densities during the collapse phase. For these reasons, in the following subsections we determine the physical properties of the cluster forming gas and individual star forming cores from the N2H+ data and measure motions between core envelopes and centers using the CS data.

### 3.2 N2H+(1–0)

The hyperfine structure of the $`J=10`$ transition of N2H+ spreads out the emission into seven components (Caselli, Myers, & Thaddeus 1995), each with considerably lower intensity than a single component line would have, but with the benefit of also spreading out the optical depth so that individual components can be optically thin even when the sum of optical depths over all components might exceed unity. By fitting the seven hyperfine components simultaneously, we maximize the information in the data while taking advantage of the individual low optical depths to determine the systemic velocity and linewidth of the gas.

We fit the spectra using a function of the form,

$$T_\mathrm{B}(v)=\left[J(T_{\mathrm{ex}})J(T_{\mathrm{bg}})\right]\left\{1\mathrm{exp}[\underset{i}{}g_i\tau (v;v_i)]\right\},$$
$`(1)`$
where the measured brightness temperature $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ is a function of velocity $`v`$, $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ is the excitation temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{bg}}=2.73`$ K is the cosmic background temperature, and the sum is over hyperfine components $`i=1,2,\mathrm{..7}`$. For each component, $`g_i`$ is the statistical weight (Womack, Ziurys, & Wyckoff 1992) normalized so $`_ig_i=1`$, and $`\tau (v;v_i)`$ is the total optical depth parameterized by $`v_i`$, the relative centroid velocity of each component (Caselli et al. 1995),

$$\tau (v;v_i)=\tau _0\mathrm{exp}[(vv_iv_0)^2/2\sigma ^2].$$
$`(2)`$
Here $`\tau _0`$ is the peak optical depth (summed over all components), $`v_0`$ is the systemic velocity of the gas, and $`\sigma `$ is the velocity dispersion.

Spectra were analyzed across the map after first restoring to a circular $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM beam and sampling on a regular $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ square grid. The fits to the spectra require four parameters, $`T_{\mathrm{ex}},\tau _0,v_0`$, and $`\sigma `$, but only the velocity and dispersion were tightly constrained by the data. The fitted excitation temperature and optical depth are determined from the intensities of the 7 hyperfine components but the two are inversely correlated resulting in a wide range of pairs that fit any given peak with only small changes in line shape that are indistinguishable given the moderate signal-to-noise ratios in the data. Moreover, there appear to be significant excitation anomalies analogous to the very low noise spectrum in Caselli et al. (1995). Because of the large uncertainties in $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ and $`\tau `$, we do not discuss them further.

We also made three component, optically thin, gaussian fits, $`T_\mathrm{B}(v)=T_0_ig_i\mathrm{exp}[(vv_iv_0)^2/2\sigma ^2]`$, to the data. In most cases, the residuals were not significantly greater than the four parameter fit demonstrating the degeneracy in $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ and $`\tau `$. We also checked our fits with the hyperfine structure fitting routine in the CLASS data reduction package. All 3 methods show good agreement in the velocity and dispersion.

By adding synthetic noise to very low noise N2H+ spectra we tested the effect of varying signal-to-noise ratios on the fits. The systemic velocity could be accurately determined even in very noisy spectra but the fitted linewidth systematically increased as the signal-to-noise ratio decreased. The effect was noticeable for peak ratios less than 10, and became severe for ratios less than 5. In the following analysis, only spectra with peak signal-to-noise ratios greater than 5 are fit. For these spectra, we derived $`v_0`$, and $`\sigma `$ using the method described by equations (1) and (2).

The systemic velocity varies from 7.9 to 9.3 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and away from the outflow around S68N (see §3.3) there are no strong gradients. The dispersion displayed a more interesting variation. Figure 2 plots the non-thermal velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}=[\sigma ^2\sigma _\mathrm{T}^2]^{1/2}`$, where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}=0.075`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the thermal velocity dispersion for N2H+ at $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=20`$ K (Wolf-Chase et al. 1998). The greatest values, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}>0.6`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ occur in the cores containing the S68N and SMM1 sources which both power strong outflows. The minimum $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}`$ is 0.16 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ which is more than twice $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ and shows that internal motions in the cores are predominantly turbulent. However, there are a number of regions where the turbulent velocity field drops to a local, confined, minimum. We identify eight such regions and label them Q1 through Q8 (for quiescent).

Three of the quiescent regions, Q1, Q2, and Q8, are coincident with peaks of integrated N2H+ intensity but the other five are not. Note that even in the low intensity regions, the signal-to-noise ratio is strong enough to determine the dispersion quite accurately and that any bias would tend to increase the dispersion. The quiescent regions are not prominent in the map of integrated intensity because their linewidth is small. Indeed, our analysis of the data suggests to us that these quiescent “cores” are of greater interest than the cores of high integrated intensity.

The eight quiescent cores tend to have higher peak temperatures than their immediate surroundings and are especially prominent in Figure 3 which plots the peak N2H+ temperature divided by the total velocity dispersion. This is a measure of the optical depth (which was not well determined from the hyperfine fitting) and it rises toward the quiescent cores which possess both relatively low dispersion and high peak temperatures.

The quiescent core Q2 is almost coincident with the continuum source S68Nb and Q5 extends to encompass S68Nd but the other quiescent cores are apparently starless. Q6 lies $`13^{\prime \prime }`$ southeast of the strong CS core S68NW that was discussed in Williams & Myers (1999a). Table 2 lists the quiescent core locations, non-thermal velocity dispersion and the ratio of (thermal plus non-thermal) velocity dispersion as the data are smoothed from $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`50^{\prime \prime }`$. This ratio is discussed later in §4 in the context of pressure gradients. Spectra toward the core centers at $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution are shown in Figure 4. The $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ spectra are slightly smoothed from the highest available resolution so as to achieve a higher signal-to-noise ratio and more clearly show fine features in the spectral profiles. The lines are narrower and brighter at higher resolution and resemble the “kernels” in cluster forming cores described in Myers (1998). We discuss this point further in §4. The red shoulders in Q1, Q5, and Q8 are also apparent in the other hyperfine components and may simply be velocity structure or possibly self-absorption. None of the quiescent core spectra show blue shoulders from high velocity infall.

The concomitant decrease in velocity dispersion and increase in optical depth as measured by the peak temperature divided by the dispersion suggests that the quiescent cores have condensed out of the larger scale cluster forming cloud through a localized reduction in turbulent pressure support. The dissipation of turbulence as a means of core formation has been alluded to previously but has only recently been discussed explicitly by Nakano (1998) and Myers & Lazarian (1998). A decrease in pressure support should result in an inward flow of material. The search for such a flow is the subject of the following subsection.

### 3.3 CS(2–1)

A map of CS and C34S(2–1) spectra from FCRAO observations is shown in Figure 5. Since these two species share very similar chemical pathways, the differences in profiles are primarily due to their different optical depths. The ratio of peak CS to C34S temperatures ranges from of 4–8 indicating moderate CS optical depths $`\tau 13`$ (Williams & Myers 1999b). Whereas the C34S spectra present a single peak and are approximately gaussian, the CS spectra have low-level line wing emission and are generally double-peaked. The line wings are due to outflows from several cluster members, as we show below, and the two peaks result from self-absorption since the C34S emission peaks at the dip of the CS spectra. Self-absorbed spectra from a static core would be symmetric but here they are clearly asymmetric. We use the asymmetries in the self-absorption to probe the velocity differences between outer and inner regions of the cores, and thereby search for inward motions (e.g. Zhou 1995). A blue (low velocity) peak that is brighter than the red (high velocity) indicates that the (outer) absorbing layer is relatively red-shifted, i.e., infalling, whereas the opposite asymmetry implies outward motions. The greater the blue-red difference, the greater the relative motions between the inner and outer regions of the core (Myers et al. 1996).

There is a preponderance of spectra with infall-type asymmetry and only a few spectra around S68N with the opposite symmetry in Figure 5. Moreover, the average spectrum over the cluster (not shown) is self-absorbed with a brighter blue than red peak. This suggests that there is large scale contraction of the gas around the cluster. The size of the contracting region is greater than 0.2 pc in diameter and extends well beyond the continuum sources. Extended asymmetrical self-absorption in this source in the $`2_{12}1_{10}`$ line of H2CO is also discussed in Mardones (1998). We have observed a similarly sized infalling region in CS(2–1) in the Cepheus A cluster forming region (Williams & Myers 1999b). At $`50^{\prime \prime }`$, the resolution of these data is too coarse to isolate the dynamics of individual cores but the addition of the interferometer maps allows us to follow infall and outflow motions down to the scale of the individual protostellar cores.

The Serpens cloud is known to contain a number of molecular outflows (White, Casali, & Eiroa 1995; Davis et al. 1999). Figure 6 maps the blue- and red-shifted emission for the BIMA data only. By analyzing the data prior to combining with the FCRAO data, the bulk of the mostly uniform cloud emission is resolved out and small scale features, such as outflows, stand out. The resulting map shows outflows around S68N, SMM1, SMM10, and possibly S68Nb. The existence of an outflow from S68Nb is uncertain because of confusion with the extensive red lobe around S68N.

CS spectra toward the quiescent cores and continuum sources are plotted in Figure 7. Here, we use the combined FCRAO/BIMA dataset since it is essential that all there be no missing flux if we are to interpret the spectra correctly. Spectra are centered on the position of minimum N2H+ linewidth for the quiescent cores or the continuum source otherwise, and are at a slightly smoothed $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution. There are approximately symmetric line wings from the S68N, SMM1, and SMM10 outflows, a blue line wing from the possible outflow around Q2/S68Nb, and weak one-sided wings from the red lobe of the S68N outflow around Q5/S68Nd and Q7. The N2H+ velocity and FWHM linewidth are indicated by the solid vertical line and shading respectively (spectra are shown in Figure 4). The N2H+ velocity lies at the dip of the double-peaked CS spectra as for the C34S spectra in Figure 5 except for Q8.

The Q8 core, with the narrowest N2H+ linewidth in the map, lies at the edge of the cluster and is uncontaminated by CS outflow wings. The CS spectra around the core all have the classic infall profile, but at the position of the linewidth minimum the N2H+ velocity lines up with the blue CS peak and not the dip as would be expected for self-absorption. Given that all the other double-peaked spectra in the map are self-absorbed it seems unlikely that the double-peaked spectra in this region are not also self-absorbed. However, the central N2H+ spectrum in Figure 4 shows a second, red, peak at $`15^{\prime \prime }`$ and a red shoulder at $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ and it may be that the N2H+ is also self-absorbed here. The low resolution C34S data in Figure 5 demonstrates that the CS spectra are self-absorbed in this region but to settle the issue in the Q8 core itself, sensitive higher resolution observations of C34S are necessary.

Aside from the uncertainty over the interpretation of the Q8 core, Figure 7 shows an overall trend for the CS infall asymmetry to be greatest in those cores with small N2H+ linewidths. That is, the CS spectra toward the quiescent cores all have a greater blue than red peak indicating a positive infall velocity, but cores S68Nc, SMM10, and SMM1 present a very symmetric appearance indicating near-zero infall. The extended red CS outflow lobe from S68N in Figure 6 makes it difficult to isolate the Q5/S68Nd and Q7 cores and study their dynamics individually in this line, even though they are well separated in the N2H+ map. It is particularly difficult to diagnose infall motions around S68N itself where the infall asymmetry abruptly reverses from one position to another $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ away. Nevertheless, Figure 7 suggests a connection between the level of core turbulence and the asymmetry of the CS profiles, in turn related to the infall speed. We explore this in more detail in the following section.

## 4 Pressure driven flows and turbulent dissipation

The singledish spectra in Figure 5 suggests a global infall onto the cluster but the addition of the interferometer data allows a higher resolution view that reveal a wide range of spectral asymmetries that present a patchwork of inward and outward flows. The size of the region over which infall motions are observed is large, $`0.2`$ pc in diameter, at least partly because the cluster contains a number of collapsing cores. The ($`3000`$ AU) resolution of the combined dataset separates out the individual protostars and protostellar cores from each other, and permits an analysis of how the small scale inward and outward motions are related to the local environment.

Detailed modeling of line profiles enable the infall speed to be determined (e.g., Zhou 1995; Williams et al. 1999) in isolated, low mass star forming cores but there is a much greater range of spectral shapes in the CS data here. For example, many are contaminated by outflows, either internal or overlapping from neighboring sources. Thus the modeling requires several additional parameters with the result that the uncertainty in the determination of the infall speed at each point is large. Therefore, rather than try to fit the spectra directly, we estimated the location of the main features in the CS spectra by eye using a simple cursor based routine. This resulted in a catalog of positions and velocities where the CS spectra have local peaks and dips.

The simplest estimate of the CS spectral asymmetry is the difference in blue and red peak temperatures, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}=T_{\mathrm{blue}}T_{\mathrm{red}}`$. We consider the difference, rather than the ratio of peak temperatures since it is determined with a smaller error. This is obviously only defined for double-peaked spectra and we therefore exclude spectra with possible infall “shoulders”. A second measure of asymmetry that has the advantage of being defined for all spectral shapes is the velocity difference between the peak CS and N2H+ velocities. This is the unnormalized $`\delta v`$ parameter introduced by Mardones et al. (1997). Based on simulations with simple two-layer infall models (Myers et al. 1996), we find that the blue-red temperature difference correlates linearly with the infall speed for a given optical depth and excitation temperature and that the scatter when a range of optical depths $`\tau =25`$ and excitation temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}=1525`$ K is considered is relatively small. The velocity difference also correlates linearly with infall speed but is more sensitive to optical depth variations. Consequently we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}`$ as a measure of infall speed and analyze its distribution across the cluster.

To test the hypothesis made in the previous section that the CS asymmetries are large where the N2H+ velocity dispersion is small, we simply plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}`$ against $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}(\text{N}\text{2}\text{H}\text{+})`$ in Figure 8. The points are very scattered and there is no significant correlation between the two quantities. However, when binned by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}`$, the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}`$ is greater than zero (implying a positive infall velocity). Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}>0`$ K for all spectra with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}<0.23`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The lack of direct correlation is because several different dynamical states have been grouped together. By selecting individual regions, we can isolate the different states.

Figure 9 plots the variation of CS asymmetry and N2H+ velocity dispersion against the distance from the center of a core for two quiescent cores and two continuum sources. A similar behavior is found in the other cores: the velocity dispersion tends to increase and the blue-red temperature difference generally decreases with increasing radius from the center of the quiescent cores and vice versa for the continuum sources. Moreover, the temperature difference is positive at the centers of the quiescent cores but is small or negative (i.e., outflow) at the centers of the continuum cores.

The slopes of the least squares fits, or the radial gradients, of the CS blue-red temperature difference and N2H+ non-thermal velocity dispersion are tabulated in Table 3 and plotted against each other in Figure 10. Generally, the quiescent cores lie toward the lower right section (increasing N2H+ dispersion and decreasing CS asymmetry with radius) and the continuum sources lie in the upper right section (decreasing N2H+ dispersion and increasing CS asymmetry with radius). For a constant density, a change in velocity dispersion implies a change in pressure which results in a flow toward the lower pressure (i.e., lower dispersion) regions. The conversion from CS asymmetry to infall speed depends not only on the blue-red temperature difference but also the excitation temperature and optical depth. If these do not vary greatly from core envelope to center then the observed increase in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}`$ as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}`$ decreases toward the centers of the quiescent cores implies an increase in infall speed.

Since the pressure depends linearly on the density and quadratically on the velocity dispersion, and since the infall speed is more sensitive to the blue-red temperature difference than the excitation temperature and optical depth, the inverse correlation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}`$ with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}`$ in Figure 10 is evidence for pressure driven, inward, flows in the quiescent cores. The correlation also extends to negative dispersion gradients and outflow motions around the continuum sources illustrating the disruptive effect of young protostars on their parent cloud. Finally, we note that a fit through the data points suggests a slightly negative CS asymmetry gradient at $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}/dr=0`$ which may indicate small, presumably gravitational, inward motions even when the pressure gradient is zero.

Using the two-layer model of Myers et al. (1996), we find that the infall speed corresponding to a typical value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{r}}=1`$ K, for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}=0.3`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is $`v_{\mathrm{in}}0.05`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is quite small and similar to that expected for the quasistatic contraction of a magnetically supported, isothermal core (Lizano & Shu 1989). However, the nature of the flow is very different from the predictions of such ambipolar diffusion models: all the cores, whether with or without continuum sources, have highly non-thermal linewidths and the infall speed is greatest in those cores with the smallest linewidths. This inverse correlation is not expected in a purely gravitational collapse and is more suggestive of a pressure driven flow. Nakano (1998) and Myers & Lazarian (1998) describe how inward flows onto a core can occur through the dissipation of turbulence and consequent loss of pressure support. As a core grows and its center becomes more opaque to ionizing radiation, its coupling to the magnetic field, and the range of MHD waves that propagate through it, decrease. Without replenishment, the waves decay within a free-fall time and the turbulent pressure, $`\rho \sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}^2`$, rapidly decreases (where $`\rho `$ is the mass density). Since wave support is maintained in the lower opacity, more highly ionized, core envelope, its pressure remains the same with the result that there is a pressure gradient, leading to a flow, from core envelope to center. The magnitude of the flow will be greatest where the pressure gradient is greatest, or equivalently where the central linewidths are smallest if the external pressure is approximately constant.

The magnitude of the inward speed depends on the pressure difference between core center and envelope. The observed inward motions are small, $`v_{\mathrm{in}}\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}`$, and therefore the pressure differences are small. Since the total (thermal plus non-thermal) velocity dispersion at $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ is a factor of $`0.360.75`$ less than at $`50^{\prime \prime }`$ (Table 2), the density contrast between core centers and envelopes is inferred to lie in the range $`28`$. This is comparable to the ratio of peak to average density for cores in the Ophiuchus cluster forming cloud (Motte, André, & Neri 1998).

As the core grows, the opacity increases further until the ionization is dominated by cosmic rays ($`A_V4`$; McKee 1989). In this case, Myers (1998) predicts the existence of “kernels”, $`6000`$ AU, in size that are completely cutoff from MHD waves. If the external pressure is sufficiently large, as in massive star forming regions, these kernels can be stable, supported by thermal pressure against their self-gravity. The criterion for stability (Myers 1998 equation 3) can be rewritten as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}/\sigma _\mathrm{T}=1.5`$ which is satisfied in all the cores here where we have found $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NT}}/\sigma _\mathrm{T}>2.1`$. The quiescent cores extend over $`10^{\prime \prime }20^{\prime \prime }`$, which is close to the expected size of a kernel, and their velocity FWHM are $`0.5`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ similar to Myers’ Figure 2, but there is insufficient signal-to-noise to discern the predicted thermal “spike”. There are possible examples in the residuals to the hyperfine fits to the spectra but they are not consistent across all the components and may be due to poorly cleaned sidelobes from other cores (the cleaning method is non-linear and varies in its effectiveness from channel to channel). High spatial and velocity resolution singledish observations of higher transition lines such as N2H+(3–2) offer an independent test for the presence of a thermal spike and may also be used to constrain the density contrast in the cores.

The maps in Figures 1,2 reveal a number of protostars and pre-protostellar collapsing cores. The cluster did not form in a single event, therefore, but continues to accrue members through an ongoing process of individual star formation. Hurt & Barsony (1996) analyzed the spectral energy distribution (SED) of several of the bright sources in this cluster and concluded that they were Class 0 protostars. The IRAS data does not have the resolution to resolve the emission (and therefore to define their SED in the far-infrared) from the seven continuum sources that we have identified here but if, following Hurt & Barsony, we divide up the IRAS fluxes evenly between all the objects, all seven would be classified as Class 0.

The discovery of the quiescent cores, and their association with high infall motions, suggests that they are the precursors to the Class 0 sources. Within the boundaries of the maps here, and at the sensitivity of the observations, we have found approximately equal numbers of continuum sources and quiescent cores (7 and 8 respectively, with 2 shared). If stars continue to form at a constant rate, then the lifetime of the quiescent cores must be approximately the same as the lifetime of the Class 0 phase of protostellar evolution, $`3\times 10^4`$ yr (André & Montmerle 1994). Such a short lifetime implies a dynamic evolution since the free-fall timescale, $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}=(G\rho )^{1/2}6\times 10^4`$ yr, for $`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}=10^6`$ $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$, approximately equal to the inferred volume density of the quiescent cores and a factor of two greater than the critical density of N2H+. This rapid evolution is consistent with core growth through the decay of turbulence since this should occur on a free-fall timescale (Nakano 1998).

## 5 Summary

This paper presents millimeter wavelength continuum and spectral line observations of a young, embedded, low mass cluster forming region in the Serpens molecular cloud. 7 continuum sources are found at the resolution and sensitivity of these data. The distribution of these sources corresponds well with the N2H+ emission but the CS data presents a different appearance, with high velocity emission from outflows around 4 continuum sources, and central dips in spectral profiles from self-absorption (as shown on the large scale from singledish C34S data and on the small scale from the N2H+). Away from the powerful outflow around S68N, the self-absorption is red-shifted which we interpret as indicating inward motions.

The N2H+ linewidth is dominated by non-thermal motions throughout the cluster. However, there are 8 regions where the non-thermal velocity dispersion reaches a local minimum. 6 are starless and 2 contain continuum sources. They do not all coincide with peaks of the integrated intensity but they all stand out in maps of the peak temperature divided by the dispersion, a measure of the optical depth. The CS spectra toward these “quiescent” cores are particularly asymmetric, indicating relatively high infall speeds. Generally, the N2H+ dispersion increases and the CS blue-red temperature difference decreases with increasing distance from the core centers, and vice versa for the continuum sources. The correlation of CS asymmetry, related to infall speed, with N2H+ dispersion, related to the local turbulent pressure, suggests that the inward flows are at least partly pressure driven and that the cores formed through the localized dissipation of turbulence as envisioned by Nakano (1998) and Myers & Lazarian (1998). Such a scenario is consistent with the observed numbers of quiescent cores and Class 0 sources.

The singledish data alone shows a net inward motion onto the cluster. Although there is clearly considerable smearing of the detailed dynamics, this suggests that it may be fruitful to search for infall signatures in more distant clusters at $`0.10.2`$ pc resolution. It will, of course, be important to observe other nearby cluster forming regions at higher resolution, $`3000`$ AU, to augment this study. Ultimately, the comparison of conditions in many clusters will give a clearer picture of their formation, show the effects of different environments, and, through an inventory of continuum sources and pre-protostellar cores, can be hoped to elucidate the origins of the stellar IMF (Motte et al. 1998; Testi & Sargent 1998).

JPW is supported by a Jansky fellowship. Partial support has also been provided by the NASA Origins of Solar Systems Program, grant NAGW-3401. We thank Leo Blitz and Dick Plambeck for generously assigning additional BIMA tracks to remap the continuum emission and Marc Pound and Tamara Helfer for advice concerning the data reduction.


format: text

text:
# 1 Minimal Superstring Standard Models

## 1 Minimal Superstring Standard Models

The most realistic string models found to date  have been constructed in the free fermionic formulation  of the heterotic–string. A large number of three generation models, which differ in their detailed phenomenological characteristics, have been built. All these models share an underlying $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ orbifold structure, which naturally gives rise to three generations with the $`SO(10)`$ embedding  of the Standard Model spectrum***Among the three generation orbifold models, constructed to date, only the free fermionic models possess the $`SO(10)`$ embedding of the Standard Model spectrum. Recently, it was further demonstrated that free fermionic heterotic–string models can also produce models with solely the spectrum of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) in the effective low energy field theory . This is achieved due to the decoupling of all non–MSSM, exotic, and not–exotic, string states, at or slightly below the string scale, by Standard Model singlet VEVs which cancel the anomalous $`U(1)`$ D–term. This provides, for the first time, an example of a Minimal Standard Heterotic–String Model (MSHSM).

The emergence of a MSHSM in the free fermionic formulation reinforces the motivation for an improved understanding of this class of string compactifications. One of the important advancements of the last few years has been the development of techniques for systematic analysis of the $`F`$– and $`D`$–flat directions of (string) models. Indeed, in demonstrating the existence of a free fermionic MSHSM we have utilized those improved techniques . However, one limitation of those systematic studies performed to date is that they have included only flat directions of non–Abelian singlet fields. That is, fields which are singlets of all the non–Abelian gauge groups of a given string model and which may carry only Abelian $`U(1)`$ charges, or are singlets of the entire four dimensional gauge group. On the other hand, it has been shown in the past that some of the phenomenological constraints, such as quark–mixing , may necessitate the use of non–Abelian VEVs. This was also suggested in our recent exploration of possible generational mass hierarchies and effective Higgs $`\mu `$ terms resulting from singlet VEVs in our MSHSM .

In this letter we therefore begin the task of extending the systematic analysis of flat directions for the cases which include non–Abelian VEVs. For our investigation we again start with the model we have denoted “FNY,” first introduced in . An important question that has been of some debate in previous studies, and is relevant for the question of supersymmetry breaking, is whether flat directions which include non–Abelian VEVs can be exact. Indeed, a particularly important result which we show here for the first time is the demonstration of a MSHSM solution which includes non–Abelian VEVs and is flat to all orders of nonrenormalizable terms. We further elaborate on the specific complications which arise in considering non–Abelian VEVs in the string models and briefly discuss some of the phenomenological implications of non–Abelian VEVs in the MSHSM. In a follow up to this letter  we will present a large collection of (systematically generated) non–Abelian MSHSM $`D`$–flat directions that retain $`F`$–flatness to at least seventh order, along with a study of the phenomenological features of these directions.

## 2 Non–Abelian Flat MSSM directions of the FNY model

As advertised above, the model that we choose to study in this paper is the FNY model , which produced the first example of a MSHSM. The boundary conditions and GSO projection coefficients which define the model are given in ref.  together with the cubic level and higher order terms in the superpotential. Here, we plunge directly to the analysis of the non–Abelian flat directions.

### 2.1 Generic $`D`$– and $`F`$–Flatness Constraints

Spacetime supersymmetry is broken in a model when the expectation value of the scalar potential,

$`V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}g_\alpha D_a^\alpha D_a^\alpha +{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|F_{\phi _i}|^2,`$ (2.1)
becomes non–zero. The $`D`$–term contributions in (2.1) have the form,

$`D_a^\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\phi _m^{}T_a^\alpha \phi _m,`$ (2.2)
with $`T_a^\alpha `$ a matrix generator of the gauge group $`g_\alpha `$ for the representation $`\phi _m`$, while the $`F`$–term contributions are,

$`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}}.`$ (2.3)
The $`\phi _m`$ are the scalar field superpartners of the chiral spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermions $`\psi _m`$, which together form a superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$. Since all of the $`D`$ and $`F`$ contributions to (2.1) are positive semidefinite, each must have a zero expectation value for supersymmetry to remain unbroken.

For an Abelian gauge group, the $`D`$–term (2.2) simplifies to

$`D^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}Q_m^{(i)}|\phi _m|^2`$ (2.4)
where $`Q_m^{(i)}`$ is the $`U(1)_i`$ charge of $`\phi _m`$. When an Abelian symmetry is anomalous, that is, the trace of its charge over the massless fields is non–zero,

$`\mathrm{Tr}Q^{(A)}0,`$ (2.5)
the associated $`D`$–term acquires a Fayet–Iliopoulos (FI) term, $`ϵ\frac{g_s^2M_P^2}{192\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}Q^{(A)}`$,

$`D^{(A)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}Q_m^{(A)}|\phi _m|^2+ϵ.`$ (2.6)
$`g_s`$ is the string coupling and $`M_P`$ is the reduced Planck mass, $`M_PM_{Planck}/\sqrt{8\pi }2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV.

The FI term breaks supersymmetry near the string scale,

$`Vg_s^2ϵ^2,`$ (2.7)
unless its can be cancelled by a set of scalar VEVs, $`\{\phi _m^{}\}`$, carrying anomalous charges $`Q_m^{}^{(A)}`$,

$$D^{(A)}=\underset{m^{}}{}Q_m^{}^{(A)}|\phi _m^{}|^2+ϵ=0.$$
(2.8)
To maintain supersymmetry, a set of anomaly–cancelling VEVs must simultaneously be $`D`$–flat for all additional Abelian and the non–Abelian gauge groups,

$$D^{i,\alpha }=0.$$
(2.9)
A non–trivial superpotential $`W`$ also imposes numerous constraints on allowed sets of anomaly–cancelling VEVs, through the $`F`$–terms in (2.1). $`F`$–flatness (and thereby supersymmetry) can be broken through an $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$–order $`W`$ term containing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ when all of the additional fields in the term acquire VEVs,

$`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}}\lambda _n\phi ^2({\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{M_{str}}})^{n3},`$ (2.10)
where $`\phi `$ denotes a generic scalar VEV. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ additionally has a VEV, then supersymmetry can be broken simply by $`W0`$. (The lower the order of an $`F`$–breaking term, the closer the supersymmetry breaking scale is to the string scale.)

### 2.2 Non–Abelian flat directions in the FNY Model

In  we classified the MSSM producing flat directions of the FNY model that are composed solely of singlet fields. Following this, in  we studied the phenomenological features of these singlet directions. We now consider here generalized MSSM–producing flat directions in the FNY model that contain non–Abelian VEVs. In our prior investigations we demanded stringent flatness. That is, we required $`F`$–flatness term by term in the superpotential, rather than allowing $`F`$–flatness to result from cancellation between terms. The absence of any non–zero terms from within $`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}`$ and $`W`$ is clearly sufficient to guarantee $`F`$–flatness along a given $`D`$–flat direction. However, such stringent demands are not necessary for $`F`$–flatness. Total absence of all individual non–zero VEV terms can be relaxed: collections of such terms appear without breaking $`F`$–flatness, so long as the terms separately cancel among themselves in each $`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}`$ and in $`W`$. However, even when supersymmetry is retained at a given order in the superpotential via cancellation between several terms in a specific $`F_{\mathrm{\Phi }_m}`$, supersymmetry could well be broken at a slightly higher order.

Non–Abelian VEVs offer one solution to the stringent $`F`$–flatness issue. Because non–Abelian fields contain more than one field component, self–cancellation of a dangerous $`F`$–term can sometimes occur along non–Abelian directions. That is, for some directions it may be possible to maintain “stringent” $`F`$–flatness even when dangerous $`F`$–breaking terms appear in the stringy superpotential. We will demonstrate self–cancellation of a non–Abelian direction using, as examples, the four non–Abelian flat directions, FDNA1 through FDNA4, presented in Table I. These four directions are the simplest MSSM $`D`$–flat non–Abelian directions that are also $`F`$–flat to at least seventh order. We will show that self–cancellation is not possible for FDNA1 and FDNA2, while it is for FDNA3 and FDNA4.

The singlet fields receiving VEVs, $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{12},\mathrm{\Phi }_{23},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56},\mathrm{\Phi }_4,\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4^{^{}},H_{31}^s,H_{38}^s\},`$ are the same for these four flat directions.For a list of the massless fields in the FNY model see . The distinguishing aspect of these four directions is their non–Abelian components. The non–Abelian set for each direction is formed from a subset of the $`SU(2)_H`$ doublet fields $`\{H_{23},H_{26},V_{40}\}`$ and/or the $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ doublet fields $`\{H_{25},H_{28},V_{37}\}`$. FDNA1 involves solely $`SU(2)_H`$ fields: $`H_{23}`$, $`H_{26}`$, and $`V_{40}`$, while FDNA2 is a $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ parallel involving the corresponding $`H_{25}`$, $`H_{28}`$, and $`V_{37}`$. In contrast, FDNA3 and FDNA4 contain both $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ doublets: the sets $`\{H_{23},V_{40},H_{28},V_{37}\}`$, and $`\{H_{26},V_{40},H_{25},V_{37}\}`$, respectively.

Our four non–Abelian flat directions can be separated into two sets, $`\{`$FDNA1, FDNA2$`\}`$ and $`\{`$FDNA3, FDNA4$`\}`$ due to a global $`Z_2`$ symmetry under which all $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ fields are exchanged: $`H_{23}H_{25}`$, $`H_{26}H_{28}`$, $`V_5H_9`$, $`V_7H_{10}`$, $`V_{15}H_{19}`$, $`V_{17}H_{20}`$, $`V_{25}H_{29}`$, $`V_{27}H_{30}`$, $`V_{39}H_{35}`$, and $`V_{40}H_{37}`$. This symmetry is maintained in the superpotential to very high (and probably all) order in the superpotential. This implies that our findings regarding FDNA1 (FNDA3) have parallels for FDNA2 (FDNA4). Therefore we will examine only FDNA1 and FDNA3, but our findings will similarly apply to FDNA2 and FDNA4 after the appropriate field exchanges.

Now let us focus on FDNA1. In this $`D`$–flat direction the ratio of norms of the VEVs is:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}|^2=2|\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}|^2=|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}|^2=|H_{31}^s|^2=|H_{38}^s|^2`$ (2.11)
$`=2|H_{23}|^2=2|H_{26}|^2=|V_{40}|^22|\alpha |^2;\mathrm{and}`$ (2.12)
$`(|\mathrm{\Phi }_4|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}|^2)(|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4|^2+|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4^{^{}}|^2)=|\alpha |^2,`$ (2.13)
where $`\alpha `$ is the overall VEV scale determined by eq. (2.8),

$`\alpha =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2M_P^21344/112}{192\pi ^2}}}1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (2.14)
This VEV ratio is fixed simply by the the Abelian $`D`$–terms (2.4,2.6) and the Cartan subalgebra (i.e., the diagonal) part of the $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ $`D`$–terms.

In generic non–Abelian flat directions, the signs of the VEV components of a non–Abelian field are fixed by non–diagonal mixing of the VEVs in the corresponding non–Abelian $`D`$-terms (2.2). Since FDNA1 contains $`SU(2)_H`$ doublets, we must require

$`D^{SU(2)_H}=H_{23}^{}T^{SU(2)}H_{23}+H_{26}^{}T^{SU(2)}H_{26}+V_{40}^{}T^{SU(2)}V_{40}=0,`$ (2.15)
where

$`T^{SU(2)}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}T_a^{SU(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1i\\ 1+i& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (2.18)
The only solutions to (2.15) consistent with $`|H_{23}|^2=|H_{26}|^2=|\alpha |^2`$ are (up to a $`\alpha \alpha `$ transformation)

$`H_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),H_{26}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right)V_{40}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{2}\alpha \\ \sqrt{2}\alpha \end{array}\right),`$ (2.25)
and

$`H_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),H_{26}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right)V_{40}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{2}\alpha \\ \sqrt{2}\alpha \end{array}\right).`$ (2.32)
A ninth–order superpotential term, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}H_{26}V_{40}V_{39}`$, jeopardizes the $`F`$–flatness of this non–Abelian $`D`$–flat direction via,

$`F_{V_{39}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{V_{39}}}`$ (2.33)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}H_{26}V_{40}+H_{23}H_{26}V_{40}+H_{26}H_{23}V_{40}.`$ (2.34)
Self–cancellation of this $`F`$–term could occur if the non–Abelian VEVs resulted in

$`H_{23}H_{26}V_{40}+H_{23}H_{26}V_{40}+H_{26}H_{23}V_{40}=0.`$ (2.35)
However, neither (2.25) nor (2.32) produce this zero value. Instead, they generate

$`F_{V_{39}}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _9{\displaystyle \frac{8\alpha ^8}{M_P^6}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\pm 1\\ +1\end{array}\right),`$ (2.38)
with $`+1`$ for (2.25) and $`1`$ for (2.32).

In contrast to FDNA1, we now show that self–cancellation of a dangerous $`F`$–term can occur for FDNA3. That is, non–Abelian $`F`$–term self–cancellation is consistent with $`D`$–term flatness for FDNA3. Along the FDNA3 direction, the ratio of the singlet VEVs is the same as for FDNA1 except for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ contribution. For FDNA3,

$`(|\mathrm{\Phi }_4|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}|^2)(|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4|^2+|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4^{^{}}|^2)=0.`$ (2.39)
The significant difference between FDNA3 and FDNA1 lies in FDNA3’s non–Abelian VEV ratio,

$`|H_{23}|^2=|V_{40}|^2=|H_{28}|^2=|V_{37}|^2=|\alpha |^2.`$ (2.40)
The $`SU(2)_H`$ $`D`$–term,

$`D^{SU(2)_H}=H_{23}^{}T^{SU(2)}H_{23}+V_{40}^{}T^{SU(2)}V_{40}=0`$ (2.41)
has the two solutions

$`H_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),V_{40}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),`$ (2.46)
and

$`H_{23}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right),V_{40}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \alpha \end{array}\right).`$ (2.51)
The $`SU(2)_H^{}`$ $`D`$–term solutions for $`H_{28}`$ and $`V_{37}`$ have parallel form.

FDNA3’s $`F`$–flatness is threatened by an eighth–order superpotential term,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}V_{40}H_{28}V_{35},`$ (2.52)
through

$`F_{V_{35}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{V_{35}}}`$ (2.53)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}V_{40}H_{28}.`$ (2.54)
Either set of $`SU(2)_H`$ VEVs (2.46) or (2.51) results in $`H_{23}V_{40}=0`$. Hence $`F_{V_{35}}=0`$ self–cancellation is consistent with $`D`$–flatness for FDNA3. Elimination of $`F_{V_{35}}`$ makes FDNA3 flat to all finite order in the superpotential.

One can show that generic self–cancellation of a dangerous $`F`$–term occurs when, for at least one non–Abelian gauge group under which some of the flat direction VEVs carry charge, the ratio of the powers of the corresponding fields in the $`F`$–term is equivalent to the ratio of the norms of the flat direction VEVs carrying the given non–Abelian charge.

## 3 Hidden Sector Condensates

Non–Abelian VEV directions such as FDNA3 or FDNA4 can yield a three generation MSSM model while maintaining supersymmetry at the string /FI scale. Supersymmetry must ultimately be broken slightly above the electroweak scale, though. Along either of these two directions, our FNY model shows qualitatively how supersymmetry may be broken dynamically by hidden sector field condensation after either of these two directions is invoked. Recall that each of the flat directions FDNA3 and FDNA4 break both of the hidden sector $`SU(2)_H`$ and $`SU(2)_H^{^{}}`$ gauge symmetries, but leave untouched the hidden sector $`SU(3)_H`$. Thus, condensates of $`SU(3)_H`$ fields can initiate supersymmetry breaking .

The set of nontrivial $`SU(3)_H`$ fields is composed of five triplets,

$`\{H_{42},V_4,V_{14},V_{24},V_{34}\},`$ (3.1)
and five corresponding anti–triplets,

$`\{H_{35},V_3,V_{13},V_{23},V_{24}\}.`$ (3.2)
In both FDNA3 and FDNA4, singlet VEVs give unsuppressed FI–scale mass to two triplets, $`V_{24}`$ and $`V_{34}`$, and two anti–triplets, $`V_{23}`$ and $`V_{33}`$, via trilinear superpotential terms,Note that these $`SU(3)_H`$ triplet mass terms also occur along the simplest MSSM singlet flat direction possible .

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}V_{23}V_{24}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}V_{33}V_{34}`$ (3.3)
a slightly suppressed mass to one triplet/anti-triplet pair, $`H_{42}`$, and $`H_{35}`$, via a fifth order term,

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{42}H_{35}.`$ (3.4)
and a significantly suppressed mass to the pair, $`V4`$ and $`V3`$, via a tenth order term,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}V_{40}H_{28}V_{37}V_4V_3.`$ (3.5)
Before supersymmetry breaking, the last triplet/anti–triplet pair, $`V_{14}`$ and $`V_{13}`$, remain massless to all finite order.

Consider a generic $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge group containing $`N_f`$ flavors of matter states in vector–like pairings $`T_i\overline{T}_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}N_f`$. When $`N_f<N_c`$, the gauge coupling $`g_s`$, though weak at the string scale $`M_{str}`$, becomes strong at a condensation scale defined by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_P\mathrm{e}^{8\pi ^2/\beta g_s^2},`$ (3.6)
where the $`\beta `$–function is given by,

$`\beta =3N_c+N_f.`$ (3.7)
The $`N_f`$ flavors counted are only those that ultimately receive masses $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, for our model $`N_c=3`$ and $`N_f=1`$ (counting only the vector–pair, $`V_{14}`$ and $`V_{13}`$), which corresponds to $`\beta =8`$ and results in an $`SU(3)_H`$ condensation scale

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{e}^{19.7}M_P7\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (3.8)
At this condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the matter degrees of freedom are best described in terms of the composite “meson” fields, $`T_i\overline{T}_i`$. (Here the meson field is $`V_{14}V_{13}`$.) Minimizing the scalar potential of our meson field induces a VEV of magnitude,

$`V_{14}V_{13}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{N_f/N_c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}.`$ (3.9)
This results in an expectation value of

$`W=N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{N_f/N_c}`$ (3.10)
for the non–perturbative superpotential.

Supergravity models are defined in terms of two functions, the Kähler function, $`G=K+\mathrm{ln}|W|^2`$, where $`K`$ is the Kähler potential and $`W`$ the superpotential, and the gauge kinetic function $`f`$. These functions determine the supergravity interactions and the soft–supersymmetry breaking parameters that arise after spontaneous breaking of supergravity, which is parameterized by the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$. The gravitino mass appears as a function of $`K`$ and $`W`$,

$`m_{3/2}=\mathrm{e}^{K/2}W.`$ (3.11)
Thus,

$`m_{3/2}\mathrm{e}^{K/2}W\mathrm{e}^{K/2}N_c\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{N_f/N_c}.`$ (3.12)
Restoring proper mass units explicitly gives,

$`m_{3/2}\mathrm{e}^{K/2}N_c({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_P}})^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)^{N_f/N_c}M_P.`$ (3.13)
Our meson field $`V_{14}V_{13}`$ will acquire a mass of at least the supersymmetry breaking scale, so let us assume $`m_{V_{14}V_{13}}1`$ TeV. The resulting gravitino mass is

$`m_{3/2}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{K/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}}{2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1000\mathrm{GeV}}{7\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{1/3}2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ (3.14)
$``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{K/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.3}\mathrm{eV}.`$
In standard supergravity scenarios, one generally obtains soft–supergravity–breaking parameters, such as scalar and gaugino masses and scalar interaction, that are comparable to the gravitino mass: $`m_o`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, $`A_om_{3/2}`$. A gravitino mass of the order of the supersymmetry breaking scale would require $`\mathrm{e}^{K/2}10^{12}`$ or $`K55`$. On the other hand, for a viable model, $`\mathrm{e}^{K/2}𝒪(1)`$ would necessitate a decoupling of local supersymmetry breaking (parametrized by $`m_{3/2}`$) from global supersymmetry breaking (parametrized by $`m_o`$, $`m_{1/2}`$). This is indeed possible in the context of no–scale supergravity , endemic to weakly coupled string models.

In specific types of no–scale supergravity, the scalar mass $`m_o`$ and the scalar coupling $`A_o`$ have null values thanks to the associated form of the Kähler potential. Furthermore, the gaugino mass can go as a power of the gravitino mass, $`m_{1/2}\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{M_P}\right)^{1\frac{2}{3}q}M_P`$, for the standard no–scale form of $`G`$ and a non–minimal gauge kinetic function $`f\mathrm{e}^{Az^q}`$, where $`z`$ is a hidden sector moduli field . A gravitino mass in the range $`10^5`$ eV $`\stackrel{<}{}m_{3/2}\stackrel{<}{}10^3`$ eV is consistent with the phenomenological requirement of $`m_{1/2}100`$ GeV for $`\frac{3}{4}\stackrel{>}{}q\stackrel{>}{}\frac{1}{2}`$. Note that decoupling between the local and global breaking of supersymmetry also appears to be realized in strongly coupled heterotic strings .

## 4 Discussion

In this letter we have presented the four simplest non–Abelian $`D`$–flat directions of the FNY model that (i) produce exactly the MSSM fields as the only MSSM–charged fields in the low energy effective field theory and (ii) are flat to at least seventh order. $`F`$–flatness for the first two directions is necessarily broken by ninth order superpotential terms. For the last two directions, eighth order terms also pose a threat to $`F`$–flatness. All of these eighth and ninth order terms contain non–Abelian fields. For each of the latter two directions, we showed that a set of non–Abelian VEVs exist that is consistent with $`D`$–flat constraints and by which “self–cancellation” of the respective eighth order term can occur. By this, we mean that for each specific set of non–Abelian VEVs imposed by $`D`$–flatness constraints, the expectation value of the dangerous $`F`$–term is zero. Hence, the “dangerous” superpotential terms pose no problem and our latter two directions become flat to all finite order.

In  we discussed reasons why non–Abelian VEVs are likely required for a phenomenologically viable low energy effective MSSM, at least for the FNY string model. Evidence has also been presented in the past suggesting this might be true as well for all MSHSM $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ models. This implies that there is significant worth in exploring the generic properties of non–Abelian flat directions in $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ models that contain exactly the MSSM three generations and two Higgs doublets as the only MSSM–charged fields in the low energy effective field theory. For the next step in our study, we will present in  a large set of systematically generated MSSM–producing non–Abelian flat directions for the FNY model. We will then analyze the phenomenological differences between our non–Abelian directions and our past singlet directions.

## 5 Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by DOE Grants No. DE–FG–0294ER40823 (AF) and DE–FG–0395ER40917 (GC,DVN,JW).

## Appendix A Example Non-Abelian $`D`$– and $`F`$–flat MSSM Directions

| FD$`\mathrm{\#}`$ | Q’ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}`$ | $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}`$ | ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$) | $`H_{31}^s`$ | $`H_{38}^s`$ | $`H_{23}`$ | $`H_{26}`$ | $`V_{40}`$ | $`H_{25}`$ | $`H_{28}`$ | $`V_{37}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FDNA1 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |  |  |  |
| FDNA2 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| FDNA3 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 |  | 1 |  | 1 | 1 |
| FDNA4 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |

Table I: Example FNY directions flat through at least seventh order that contain VEVs of Non-Abelian charged Hidden Sector Fields. All component VEVs in these directions are uncharged under the MSSM gauge group. Column one entries specify the class to which an example direction belongs. Column two entries give the anomalous charges $`Q^{}Q^{(A)}/112`$ of the flat directions. The next several column entries specify the ratios of the norms of the VEVs. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$–related component is the net value (in units of the square overall VEV scale) of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_4|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}|^2|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4|^2|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4^{^{}}|^2`$. E.g., a “1” in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_4`$ column for FDNA1 specifies that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_4|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}|^2|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4|^2|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4^{^{}}|^2=1\times |\alpha |^2`$.

| FD$`\mathrm{\#}`$ | Dangerous $`W`$ Terms | Self–Cancellation $`F`$–Flatness Solution ? |
| --- | --- | --- |
| FDNA1 | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}H_{26}V_{40}V_{39}`$ | No. |
| FDNA2 | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{^{}}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{25}H_{28}V_{37}V_{35}`$ | No. |
| FDNA3 | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{23}V_{40}H_{28}V_{35}`$ | Yes, via $`\{H_{23},V_{40}\}.`$ |
| FDNA4 | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{23}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{56}H_{31}^sH_{38}^sH_{26}V_{40}H_{25}V_{35}`$ | Yes, via $`\{H_{26},V_{40}\}.`$ |

Table II: Dangerous $`F`$-breaking superpotential terms for flat directions in Table I.

Column one entries specify the class of a flat direction. The entry in the next column specifies superpotential terms that can (possibly) break $`F`$–flatness and the last column entry indicates whether or not there is an allowed set of non–Abelian VEVs, consistent with $`D`$-flatness constraints, by which $`F`$–flatness may be maintained through self–cancellation.


text:
# Untitled Document

(revised August 2000)

Nuclear Spin Qubit Dephasing Time in the

Integer Quantum Hall Effect Regime

Dima Mozyrsky, Vladimir Privman and Israel D. Vagner

Department of Physics, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York 13699–5820, USA

also at Grenoble High Magnetic Field Lab, Max-Planck-Institut für Festkörperforschung, and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, BP 166, Grenoble 9, F-38042, France

ABSTRACT

We report the first theoretical estimate of the nuclear-spin dephasing time $`T_2`$ owing to the spin interaction with the two-dimensional electron gas, when the latter is in the integer quantum Hall state, in a two-dimensional heterojunction or quantum well at low temperature and in large applied magnetic field. We establish that the leading mechanism of dephasing is due to the impurity potentials that influence the dynamics of the spin via virtual magnetic spin-exciton scattering. Implications of our results for implementation of nuclear spins as quantum bits (qubits) for quantum computing are discussed.

PACS: 73.20.Dx, 71.70.Ej, 03.67.Lx, 76.60.-k

1. Introduction

Recent ideas \[1-3\] of utilizing nuclear spins in semiconductor quantum wells and heterojunctions as quantum bits (qubits) for quantum computation have generated new emphases in the studies of nuclear-spin relaxation and, especially, quantum decoherence, in such systems. In this work we consider the case of the integer $`\nu =1`$ quantum-Hall state . The two-dimensional electron gas is then in a nondissipative state. Since the electrons mediate the dominant interaction  between nuclear spins, it is reasonable to expect that relaxation times of the latter, as well as decoherence/dephasing effects, will occur on large time scales.

Solid-state proposals for quantum computation \[1-3\] with nuclear spins are all presently theoretical. Related proposals to utilize quantum dots \[7-15\] are also at present all in the theory stage. Usually, non-zero-nuclear-spin atoms will be considered placed  by modern “atomic engineering” techniques in a host material of zero nuclear spin isotope. In order to allow positioning with respect to other features of the system, such as gate electrodes , and making replicas , etc., the nuclear-spin separation will be larger than the atomic size, typically, of order 20 to 100Å. At these separations, the direct magnetic dipole-dipole interaction of the nuclear spins is negligible.

The dynamics of the nuclear spins is governed by their interactions with each other and with their environment. In the regime of interest, these interactions are mediated by the two-dimensional electron gas. Various time scales are associated with this dynamics. The relaxation time $`T_1`$ is related to energy exchange and thermalization of the spins. Quantum mechanical decoherence and dephasing will occur on the time scale $`T_2`$. The latter processes correspond to demolition of quantum-mechanical superposition of states and erasure of phase information, due to interactions with the environment. Generally, there are many dynamical processes in the system, so the times $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ may not be uniquely, separately defined . Theoretically and experimentally, it has been established that processes of energy exchange are slow at low temperatures, so $`T_1`$ is very large, but there still might be some decoherence owing to quantum fluctuations. Generally, for various systems, there are extreme examples of theoretical prediction, ranging from no decoherence to finite decoherence  at zero temperature, depending on the model assumptions.

In order to consider control (“programming”) of a quantum computer, we have to identify the time scale $`T_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ of the single-spin rotations owing to the interactions with an external NMR magnetic field. We also identify the time scale $`T_{\mathrm{int}}`$ associated with evolution owing to the pairwise spin-spin interactions. The preferred relation of the time scales is $`T_1,T_2T_{\mathrm{ext}},T_{\mathrm{int}}`$, which is obviously required for coherent quantum-mechanical dynamics.

The aim of this work has been to advance theoretical understanding of the time-scales of interest for the quantum computer proposal  based on nuclear spins in a two-dimensional electron gas, with the latter in the integer quantum Hall effect state obtained at low temperatures, of order 1K, and in high magnetic fields, of several Tesla, in two-dimensional semiconductor structures . This system is a promising candidate for quantum computing because the nuclear spin relaxation time $`T_1`$ can be as large as $`10^3`$sec. In the summarizing discussion, Section 5, we discuss and compare the values of all the relevant time scales.

Our main result, presented in Sections 2 through 4, is the first theoretical calculation of the nuclear-spin dephasing/decoherence time scale $`T_2`$ for such systems. We note that the recent study \[21-23\] of the nuclear-spin relaxation time $`T_1`$, has relied heavily on the accepted theoretical and experimental views of the properties and behavior of the electronic state of the two-dimensional electron gas in the quantum Hall regime. These electronic properties have been a subject of several studies \[4-6,21-29\]. We utilize these results in our calculation as well.

2. The Model

We consider a single nuclear spin coupled to a two-dimensional electron gas in a strong magnetic field, $`B`$, along the $`z`$ axis which is perpendicular to the two-dimensional structure. Assuming nuclear spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$, for simplicity, we write the Hamiltonian as

$$H=H_n+H_e+H_{ne}+H_{\mathrm{imp}}$$
$`(1)`$
Here the first term is the nuclear spin interaction with the external magnetic field, $`H_n=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _nB\sigma _z`$, where $`\gamma _n`$ includes $`\mathrm{}`$ and the nuclear $`g`$-factor, and $`\sigma _z`$ is a Pauli matrix.

The second term is the electronic component of the total Hamiltonian (1). Within the free-electron nomenclature, the Fermi level lies in between the two Zeeman sub-levels of the lowest Landau level. The spin-up sub-level is then completely occupied, so the filling factor is $`\nu =1`$, while the spin-down sub-level is completely empty; note that the relevant effective electronic $`g`$-factor in typically negative. In fact, the calculation need not be limited to the lowest Landau level. Here, however, to avoid unilluminating mathematical complications, we restrict our attention to the lowest level, as has been uniformly done in the literature \[24-27\].

The last two terms in (1) correspond to the nuclear-spin electron interactions and to the effects of impurities. These will be addressed shortly. The magnetic sub-levels are actually broadened by impurities. At low temperatures, the $`\nu =1`$ system is in the quantum Hall state. The interactions of the two-dimensional electron gas with the underlying material are not shown in (1). They are accounted for phenomenologically, as described later.

The electron-electron interactions are treated within an approximate quasiparticle theory which only retains transition amplitudes between Zeeman sub-levels. The elementary excitations of the electron gas are then well described as magnetic spin excitons, or spin waves, \[24-27\]. The spin excitons are quasiparticles arising as a result of the interplay between the Coulomb repulsion of the electrons and their exchange interaction. A creation operator of a spin exciton with a two dimensional wave vector $`𝐤`$ can be written in terms of the electronic creation operators $`a^{\mathrm{}}`$ in the spin-down Zeeman sub-level and annihilation operators $`b`$ in the spin-up sub-level as

$$A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{L_xL_y}}\underset{p}{}e^{i\mathrm{}^2k_xp}a_{p+\frac{k_y}{2}}^{\mathrm{}}b_{p\frac{k_y}{2}}$$
$`(2)`$
Here $`\mathrm{}=\sqrt{c\mathrm{}/eB}`$ is the magnetic length, and the $`p`$-summation is taken in such a way that the wave number subscripts are quantized in multiples of $`2\pi /L_y`$. Note that expression (2) assumes the Landau gauge, which is not symmetric under $`xy`$. For our purposes, the following expression for the dispersion relation of the excitons  provides an adequate approximation,

$$E_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }+\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{e^2}{ϵ\mathrm{}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2}$$
$`(3)`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }=|g|\mu _BB`$, where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, and $`g`$ is the electronic $`g`$-factor, and $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant of the material. It has been pointed out  that the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the excitonic spectrum suppresses nuclear spin relaxation at low temperatures. The electronic Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the spin exciton operators as

$$H_e=_0+\underset{𝐤}{}E_𝐤A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}A_𝐤$$
$`(4)`$
where the $`c`$-number $`_0`$ is the spin-independent ground state energy of the electron gas. This description of the electronic gas is appropriate only for low density of excitons, which is the case in our calculation, as will be seen later.

We now turn to the third term in (1), the interaction between the electrons and nuclear spins. It can be adequately approximated by the hyperfine Fermi contact term

$$H_{ne}=\frac{8\pi }{3}\gamma _ng\mu _B𝐈_n\underset{e}{}𝐒_e\delta ^{(3)}\left(𝐫_e𝐑_n\right)$$
$`(5)`$
Here $`\mathrm{}𝐈_n`$ and $`\mathrm{}𝐒_e`$ are nuclear and electronic spin operators, respectively, and $`𝐫_e`$ are the electron coordinates. The nuclear coordinate $`𝐑_n`$ can be put equal to zero. Such an interaction can be split into two parts

$$H_{ne}=H_{\mathrm{diag}}+H_{\mathrm{offdiag}}$$
$`(6)`$
where $`H_{\mathrm{diag}}`$ corresponds to the coupling of the electrons to the diagonal part of nuclear spin operator $`𝐈_n`$, and $`H_{\mathrm{offdiag}}`$ — to its off-diagonal part.

The diagonal and off-diagonal contributions can be rewritten in terms of electronic creation and annihilation operators as

$$H_{\mathrm{diag}}=\frac{(8\pi /3)\gamma _ng\mu _B|w_0(0)|^2}{\sqrt{\pi }L_y\mathrm{}d}\underset{k,q}{}e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\left(k^2+q^2\right)}\sigma _z\left(a_k^{\mathrm{}}a_qb_k^{\mathrm{}}b_q\right)$$
$`(7)`$
$$H_{\mathrm{offdiag}}=\frac{(8\pi /3)\gamma _ng\mu _B|w_0(0)|^2}{\sqrt{\pi }L_y\mathrm{}d}\underset{k,q}{}e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\left(k^2+q^2\right)}\left(\sigma ^+b_k^{\mathrm{}}a_q+\sigma ^{}a_k^{\mathrm{}}b_q\right)$$
$`(8)`$
Here $`\sigma ^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma _x\pm i\sigma _y\right)`$. The interactions of the electrons of the two-dimensional gas with the underlying material are incorporated phenomenologically through the dielectric constant and $`g`$-factor, see (3), et seq., and via $`|w_0(0)|^2`$ and $`d`$ in (8) above. The latter is the transverse dimension of the effectively two-dimensional region (heterojunction, quantum well) in which the electrons are confined. The quantity $`w_0(0)`$ represents phenomenologically the enhancement of the amplitude of the electron wave function at the nuclear position owing to the effective potential it experiences as it moves in the solid-state material. It is loosely related  to the zero-momentum lattice Bloch wavefunction at the origin.

For the purposes of the calculations performed here, with the relevant states being the ground state and the single-exciton states of the electron gas, one can show that the terms in (7) that correspond to different $`k`$ and $`q`$ do not contribute, while the remaining sum over $`k`$ becomes a $`c`$-number, representing the Knight shift of the polarized electrons. Thus $`H_{\mathrm{diag}}`$ can be incorporated into the nuclear-spin energy splitting, redefining the Hamiltonian of the nuclear spin as $`H_n=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma _z`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _n\left(B+B_{\mathrm{Knight}}\right)`$. Note that the Knight shift can be used to estimate the value of the phenomenological parameter $`|w_0(0)|`$ from experimental data. The off-diagonal coupling (8) can be expressed on terms of the excitonic operators (2) as follows ,

$$H_{\mathrm{offdiag}}=\frac{C}{\sqrt{L_xL_y}}\underset{𝐤}{}e^{\mathrm{}^2k^2/4}\left(A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{}+A_𝐤\sigma ^+\right)$$
$`(9)`$
where

$$C=\frac{(8\pi /3)\gamma _ng\mu _B|w_0(0)|^2}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}d}$$
$`(10)`$
The summations over $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ are taken over all the integer multiples of $`2\pi /L_x`$ and $`2\pi /L_y`$, respectively.

The last term in (1) describes the interaction of the electrons with impurities and plays a crucial role in nuclear relaxation in the systems of interest. This interaction can written in the spin-exciton representation as

$$H_{\mathrm{imp}}=\left(2i/L_xL_y\right)\underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}U\left(𝐪\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\mathrm{}^2\left(k_xq_yk_yq_x\right)/2\right]A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}A_{𝐤+𝐪}$$
$`(11)`$
where $`U\left(𝐪\right)=U_{\mathrm{imp}}\left(𝐫\right)e^{i𝐪𝐫}d^2𝐫`$ is the Fourier component of the impurity potential for electrons in the two-dimensional plane. We will assume  that the impurity potential has zero average and can be modeled by the Gaussian white noise completely described by its correlator, $`U_{\mathrm{imp}}\left(𝐫\right)U_{\mathrm{imp}}\left(𝐫^{}\right)=Q\delta ^{(2)}\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)`$.

In summary, the relevant terms in the full Hamiltonian (1) can be expressed solely in terms of the nuclear-spin operators and spin-excitation operators as

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma _z+\underset{𝐤}{}E_𝐤A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}A_𝐤+\underset{𝐤}{}g_𝐤\left(A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{}+A_𝐤\sigma ^+\right)+\underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}A_𝐤^{\mathrm{}}A_{𝐤+𝐪}$$
$`(12)`$
where the explicit expressions for $`E_𝐤`$, $`g_𝐤`$ and $`\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}`$ can be read off (3), (9) and (10), respectively, and the quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ was introduced in the text preceding Eq. (9).

3. Energy Relaxation

In order to set the stage for the calculation of $`T_2`$, let us first briefly summarize in this section aspects of the calculation of the nuclear-spin relaxation time $`T_1`$, along the lines of . The dominant mechanism for both processes at low temperatures is the interactions with impurities. Thus, both calculations are effectively zero-temperature, single-spin; these assumptions will be further discussed in Section 5.

We assume that initially, at time $`t=0`$, the nuclear spin is polarized, while the excitons are in the ground state, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)=||\mathrm{𝟎}`$, where $`|`$ is the polarized-down (excited) state of the nuclear spin and $`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the ground state of spin-excitons. Since the Hamiltonian (12) conserves the $`z`$-component of the total spin in the system, the most general wavefunction evolving from $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)`$ can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t\right)=\alpha \left(t\right)||\mathrm{𝟎}+\underset{𝐤}{}\beta _𝐤\left(t\right)|+|\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐤$$
$`(13)`$
with $`|+`$ corresponding to the nuclear spin in the ground state and $`|\mathrm{𝟏}_𝐤`$ describing the single-exciton state with the wave vector $`𝐤`$. Equations of motion for the coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta _𝐤`$ can be easily derived from the Schrödinger equation:

$$i\mathrm{}\dot{\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha +\underset{𝐤}{}g_𝐤\beta _𝐤$$
$`(14)`$
$$i\mathrm{}\dot{\beta }_𝐤=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta _𝐤+E_𝐤\beta _𝐤+\underset{𝐪}{}\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}\beta _𝐪+g_𝐤\alpha $$
$`(15)`$
In order to solve the system of equations (14)-(15), we introduce Laplace transforms, $`\stackrel{~}{f}\left(S\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}f(t)e^{St}𝑑t`$, which satisfy

$$iS\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }i\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\underset{𝐤}{}g_𝐤\stackrel{~}{\beta }_𝐤$$
$`(16)`$
$$iS\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_𝐤=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\beta }_𝐤+E_𝐤\stackrel{~}{\beta }_𝐤+\underset{𝐪}{}\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_𝐪+g_𝐤\stackrel{~}{\alpha }$$
$`(17)`$
Let us first solve (16)-(17) for the case when the interaction of spin-excitons with impurities is switched off, i.e., $`\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}=0`$. After some algebra we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(s)}=s+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{g_𝐤^2}{is\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤}$$
$`(18)`$
where we have shifted the variable: $`s=S+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/(2\mathrm{})`$, which only introduces an noninteresting phase factor.

In the absence of the hyperfine interaction, i.e., for $`g_𝐤=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(s)`$ in (18) has only the pole at $`s=0`$. When the interaction is switched on, the pole shifts from zero. This shift can be calculated in a standard way, within the leading order perturbative approach, by taking the limit $`s0`$, so that $`\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}s^++\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤}𝒫\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤}i\pi \delta \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤\right)`$, where $`𝒫`$ denotes the principal value. This type of approximation is encountered in quantum optics . The relaxation rate and the added phase shift of the nuclear-spin excited-state probability amplitude $`\alpha (t)`$ are given by the real and imaginary parts of the pole, $`\frac{1}{T_1}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}_𝐤g_𝐤^2\delta \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤\right)`$ and $`\omega =𝒫_𝐤\frac{g_𝐤^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤}`$ respectively, so that $`\alpha (t)e^{t/(2T_1)+i\omega t}`$. It is obvious that due to the large gap in the spin-exciton spectrum (3), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the energy conservation required by the delta function above can never be satisfied, and so in the absence of interaction with impurities, $`T_1=\mathrm{}`$. It also transpires that $`T_2`$ is infinite , as will become apparent later.

Interactions with impurities, described by the last term in (12), will modify the solution of (16)-(17), and, as a consequence, the energy conservation condition. In particular, if the impurity potential is strong enough, it can provide additional energy to spin-excitons, so that their energy can fluctuate on the scale of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ thus making nuclear-spin relaxation possible. This mechanism  corresponds to large fluctuations of the impurity potential $`U(𝐫)`$, which usually occur with a rather small probability, so $`T_1`$ is very large for such systems.

In order to carry out the above program quantitatively, one has to solve the system of equations (16)-(17) with nonzero $`\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}`$. Such a solution is only possible within an approximation. One can introduce the effective spin-exciton self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤`$ in (18), so that $`\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}s+\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤}\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}s+\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤+\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤}`$. An integral equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤`$ can then be derived, taking the continuum limit in (16)-(17). Solving this equation would allow one to calculate the relaxation rate from (18). However, in order to satisfy the energy conservation, we require $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_𝐤+\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤=0`$, so the self-energy should be rather large, of order $`E_𝐤`$. Therefore, as a result of the spectral gap of the excitons, the perturbative approach is inadequate as it automatically assumes that $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤||E_𝐤|`$. Instead, a certain variational approach  has been adapted to evaluate $`T_1`$, consistent with the experimental values  of order 10$`^3`$sec; for further discussed see Section 5.

4. Dephasing Mechanism

We argue that in order to calculate the phase shift due to the impurity potential, one can indeed use the perturbative solution of (16)-(17). Indeed, phase shifts result in virtual processes that do not require energy conservation and therefore are dominated by relatively small fluctuations of the impurity potential simply because large fluctuations are very rare. Moreover, the terms in the sum in (18) that contribute to the relaxation rate, do not contribute to the phase shift, see the discussion above. This consideration also applies when the self-energy is introduced.

One can show that the contribution to dephasing linear in $`\varphi _{𝐤,𝐩}`$ vanishes due to symmetry. Thus, let us solve (16)-(17) perturbatively up to the second order in $`\varphi _{𝐤,𝐩}`$ and perform the inverse Laplace transform of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(s)`$. Within this approximation, the pole of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(s)`$ in the complex-$`s`$ plane is imaginary, so that $`|\alpha (t)|=1`$. We conclude that $`\alpha (t)e^{i\omega _Ut}`$ and $`\beta _𝐤(t)=0`$, where the part of the phase-shift responsible for dephasing is

$$\omega _U=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{g_𝐤}{E_𝐤}\underset{𝐪}{}\frac{\varphi _{𝐤,𝐪}}{E_{𝐤𝐪}}\underset{𝐩}{}\frac{\varphi _{𝐤𝐪,𝐩}g_{𝐤𝐪𝐩}}{E_{𝐤𝐪𝐩}}$$
$`(19)`$
The zeroth-order term in (19) was dropped as irrelevant for our calculation of the dephasing time. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is much smaller than $`E_𝐤`$, it was also omitted.

As expected, the perturbative solution does not describe the energy relaxation ($`T_1`$), but it does yield the additional phase shift due to the impurity potential. We will see shortly that this phase shift, when averaged over configurations of the impurity potential, produces a finite dephasing time, $`T_2`$.

Let us consider the reduced density matrix of the nuclear spin, given by

$$\rho _n(t)=\left[\mathrm{Tr}_e|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t\right)|\right]_U$$
$`(20)`$
recall (13). Here the trace is partial, taken over the states of the spin-excitons, while the outer brackets denote averaging over the impurity potential. The trace over the spin-excitons can be carried out straightforwardly because within the leading-order perturbative approximation used here they remain in the ground state; all excitations are virtual and contribute only to the phase shift. The diagonal elements of $`\rho _n(t)`$ are not influenced by virtual excitations and remain constant.

The off-diagonal elements of $`\rho _n(t)`$ contain the factors $`e^{\pm i\omega _Ut}`$. It is the averaging of these quantities over the white-noise impurity potential $`U(𝐫)`$ that yields dephasing of the nuclear spin. In order to proceed, let us rewrite (19) more explicitly. From (9)-(11), after changing summation index ($`𝐤𝐤\frac{𝐪+𝐩}{2}`$) in the first sum in (19) we obtain

$$\omega _U=\frac{4C^2}{\mathrm{}(L_xL_y)^3}\underset{𝐪,𝐩}{}U(𝐪)U(𝐩)e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}\left(𝐩+𝐪\right)^2}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}𝐤^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}[𝐤+\frac{𝐩}{2},𝐪]_z\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}[𝐤\frac{𝐪}{2},𝐩]_z}{E_{𝐤+\frac{𝐪+𝐩}{2}}E_{𝐤+\frac{𝐪𝐩}{2}}E_{𝐤\frac{𝐪+𝐩}{2}}}$$
$`(21)`$
Here we use the following shorthand notation for the $`z`$ component of a vector product $`[𝐤,𝐪]_z=k_xq_yk_yq_x`$.

It is appropriate to assume that impurity potentials are short-range, i.e., $`a\mathrm{}`$, where $`a`$ is the scale of variation of $`U_{\mathrm{imp}}(𝐫)`$. This assumption and the white-noise property of the impurity potentials, are required to make the problem amenable to analytical calculation. Thus, the main contribution to the Fourier transform $`U(𝐩)`$, dominating the summation in (21), comes from large wavevectors $`𝐩`$ (and $`𝐪`$), of order $`a^1\mathrm{}^1`$. Therefore one can replace the exponent $`e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}\left(𝐩+𝐪\right)^2}`$ by the Kronecker symbol $`\delta _{𝐪,𝐩}`$, to obtain a simplified expression for $`\omega _U`$

$$\omega _U=\frac{4C^2}{\mathrm{}(L_xL_y)^3}\underset{𝐩}{}U(𝐩)U(𝐩)\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}𝐤^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}[𝐤,𝐩]_z}{E_𝐤^2E_{𝐤+𝐩}}$$
$`(22)`$
Now the sum over $`𝐤`$ can be carried out because for $`𝐩𝐤`$, we can assume that $`E_{𝐤+𝐩}E_𝐩E_c(\mathrm{}^2/2)𝐩^2`$, where $`E_c=\left(\pi /2\right)^{1/2}\left[e^2/(ϵ\mathrm{})\right]`$.

Moreover for large $`𝐩`$, the factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2\left\{(\mathrm{}^2/2)[𝐤,𝐩]_z\right\}`$ can be replaced by its average, $`1/2`$. Finally, we get

$$\frac{1}{L_xL_y}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}𝐤^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}[𝐤,𝐩]_z}{E_𝐤^2E_{𝐤+𝐩}}\frac{1}{E_c\mathrm{}^2𝐩^2}\frac{1}{2\pi }k𝑑k\frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}k^2}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+E_c\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}k^2\right)^2}$$
$`(23)`$
The integral can be evaluated explicitly; specifically, for $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E_c}1`$ we get

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}k𝑑k\frac{e^{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}k^2}}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+E_c\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}k^2\right)^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2E_c\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
$`(24)`$
so that

$$\omega _U=\frac{2C^2}{\mathrm{}\pi E_c^2\mathrm{}^4\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{(L_xL_y)^2}\underset{𝐩}{}\frac{U(𝐩)U(𝐩)}{𝐩^2}$$
$`(25)`$
Recall that we have assumed the white-noise distribution for the impurity potential, $`U_{\mathrm{imp}}\left(𝐫\right)U_{\mathrm{imp}}\left(𝐫^{}\right)=Q\delta ^{(2)}\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)`$. This corresponds to the following probability distribution functional for the Fourier-transformed potential,

$$P\left[U(p)\right]=N\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2QL_xL_y}\underset{𝐩}{}U(𝐩)U(𝐩)\right]$$
$`(26)`$
The latter expression, and other approximations assumed earlier, allow to reduce the averaging of $`e^{i\omega _Ut}`$ to a product of Gaussian integrations. The off-diagonal elements of the nuclear-pin density matrix are, thus,

$$\rho _{01}\underset{𝐩}{}\left(1\frac{i\tau }{L_xL_y𝐩^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{𝐩}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{i\tau }{L_xL_y𝐩^2}\right)\right]$$
$`(27)`$
where $`\tau =4QC^2t/(\mathrm{}\pi E_c^2\mathrm{}^4\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

We are interested in real part of the sum in (27), which represents decoherence/dephasing of the nuclear spin. The off-diagonal elements decay exponentially as

$$\rho _{01}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}\underset{𝐩}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\tau ^2}{(L_xL_y)^2𝐩^4}\right)\right]$$
$`(28)`$
The summation over $`𝐩`$ in (32) can be converted into integration

$$\underset{𝐩}{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\tau ^2}{(L_xL_y)^2𝐩^4}\right)=\frac{L_xL_y}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐩\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\tau ^2}{(L_xL_y)^2𝐩^4}\right)$$
$`(29)`$
Explicit calculation then yields the result that $`\rho _{01}e^{\tau /16}`$ or $`\rho _{01}e^{t/T_2}`$, where

$$T_2=\frac{2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{U_2C^2}$$
$`(30)`$
with $`U_2=Q/(2\pi \mathrm{}^2E_c^2)`$.

5. Results and Discussion

The quantity $`U_2`$ characterizes the strength of the impurity potential with respect to the Coulomb interactions . Let us summarize typical parameter values  for a GaAs heterojuction, which is the system best studied in the literature. For magnetic field value $`B=10`$T, we have the following values of parameters, $`\mathrm{}=0.8\times 10^8`$m, $`E_c=3\times 10^{21}`$J, $`C=2.5\times 10^{36}`$J m, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.6\times 10^{23}`$J. From experimental data for electronic mobility, one then estimates  $`U_20.0025`$, yielding $`T_240\mathrm{sec}`$. We emphasize that this is an order of magnitude estimate only, because of the uncertainty in various parameter values assumed and the fact that the parameters, especially the strength of the disorder, may vary significantly from sample to sample. For instance, there is another estimate of the disorder strength $`Q`$ available in the literature , obtained by fitting the value of $`T_1`$ to the experimentally measured $`10^3`$sec , as cited earlier. This yields an estimate for $`T_2`$ that is smaller, $`T_20.5`$sec. Generally, we expect that with typical-quality samples $`T_2`$ may be a fraciton of a second or somewhat larger.

Let us point out that to date there are no direct experimental probes of dephasing by the disorder-dominated mechanism identified here for dilute nuclear-spin positioning appropriate for quantum computing. Such systems where never engineered. For those materials whose atoms have nonzero nuclear-spin-isotope nuclei, specifically, for GaAs (spins $`3/2`$), we are aware only of one experiment  where indirect information on dephasing can be obtained from the linewidth. However, in that case the dipolar interactions cannot be neglected and likely provide the dominant dephasing mechanism. For quantum computing, the host material will have to be isotope-engineered with zero nuclear spins, e.g., Si .

Let us now compare various time scales relevant for quantum computing applications. The relaxation time $`T_1`$ is of order $`10^3`$sec . For the spin-spin interaction time scale $`T_{\mathrm{int}}`$, values as short as $`10^{11}`$sec have been proposed . These estimates are definitely overly optimistic and require further work. Since such calculations require considerations beyond the single-spin interactions, they are outside the scope of the present work. For $`T_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, modern experiments have used NMR field intensities corresponding to the spin-flip times of $`10^5`$sec. This can be reduced to $`10^7`$sec, and with substantial experimental effort, perhaps even shorter times, the main limitation being heating up of the sample by the radiation.

Thus, the present information on the relevant time scales does not show violation of the condition $`T_1,T_2T_{\mathrm{ext}},T_{\mathrm{int}}`$, stated in the introduction, required for quantum computing. To firmly establish the feasibility of quantum computing, reliable theoretical evaluation of $`T_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is needed, as well as experimental realizations of few-qubit systems engineered with nuclear spins positioned as separations of order 30 to 100 Å.

We also note that typical lab samples, for which the parameter values used were estimated, have been prepared to observe the quantum-Hall-effect plateaus in the resistance. The latter requires a finite density of impurities. However, for the quantum-computer applications, a much cleaner sample would suffice. Indeed, as suggested by our calculations, $`T_2`$ is mostly due to dephasing owing to virtual spin-exciton scattering from impurities. Therefore, the value of $`T_2`$ can be increased by using cleaner samples.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with Drs. S. E. Barrett, M. L. Glasser and R. Mani. This research was supported by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) under Army Research Office (ARO) contract number DAAD 19-99-1-0342.

REFERENCES

1. V. Privman, I.D. Vagner and G. Kventsel, Phys. Lett. A 239, 141 (1998).

2. B.E. Kane, Nature 393, 133 (1998).

3. C.M. Bowden and S.D. Pethel, Laser Phys. 10, 35 (2000).

4. The Quantum Hall Effect, R.E. Prange and S.M. Girvin, editors (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987).

5. Yu.A. Bychkov, T. Maniv and I.D. Vagner, Solid State Commun. 94, 61 (1995).

6. I.D. Vagner and T. Maniv, Physica B 204, 141 (1995).

7. D. Loss and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998).

8. M.S. Sherwin, A. Imamoglu and T. Montroy, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3508 (1999).

9. A. Imamoglu, D.D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D.P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin and A. Small, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4204 (1999).

10. R. Vrijen, E. Yablonovitch, K. Wang, H.W. Jiang, A. Balandin, V. Roychowdhury, T. Mor and D. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 62, 012306 (2000).

11. T. Tanamoto, Physica B 272, 45 (1999).

12. G.D. Sanders, K.W. Kim and W.C. Holton, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4146 (1999).

13. S. Bandyopadhyay, Phys. Rev. B 61, 13813 (2000).

14. X. Hu and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062301 (2000).

15. N.-J. Wu, M. Kamada, A. Natori and H. Yasunaga, Quantum Computer Using Coupled Quantum Dot Molecules, preprint quant-ph/9912036.

16. K. Blum, Density Matrix Theory and Applications (Plenum, New York, 1981).

17. C.P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance, Third Edition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990).

18. D. Mozyrsky and V. Privman, J. Statist. Phys. 91, 787 (1998).

19. Mesoscopic Phenomena in Solids, Modern Problems in Condensed Matter Sciences — Vol. 30, B.L. Altshuler, P.A. Lee and R.A. Webb, editors (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991).

20. A.J. Legget, S. Chakravarty, A.T. Dorsey, M.P.A. Fisher and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1 (1987) \[Erratum ibid. 67, 725 (1995)\].

21. I.D. Vagner and T. Maniv, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1400 (1988).

22. D. Antoniou and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 43, 11686 (1991).

23. S.V. Iordanskii, S.V. Meshkov and I.D. Vagner, Phys. Rev. B 44, 6554 (1991).

24. Yu.A. Bychkov, S.V. Iordanskii and G.M. Eliashberg, JETP Lett. 33, 143 (1981).

25. C. Kallin and B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 30, 5655 (1984).

26. C. Kallin and B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 31, 3635 (1985).

27. Quantum Hall Effect, A.H. MacDonald, Editor (Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 1989).

28. Quantum Hall Effect, M. Stone, Editor (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992).

29. Perspectives in Quantum Hall Effects: Novel Quantum Liquids in Low-Dimensional Semiconductor Structures, S. Das Sarma and A. Pinczuk, Editors (Wiley, New York, 1996).

30. W.H. Louisell, Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation (Wiley, New York, 1973).

31. B.I. Shklovskii and A.L. Efros, Electronic Properties of Doped Semiconductors (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984).

32. R. Kubo, M. Toda and N. Hashitsume, Statistical Physics, Vol. II (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985).

33. A. Berg, M. Dobers, R.R. Gerhardts and K. von Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2563 (1990).

34. M. Dobers, K. von Klitzing, G. Weiman and K. Ploog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1650 (1988).

35. S.E. Barrett, G. Dabbagh, L.N. Pfeiffer, K.W. West and R. Tycko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5112 (1995).