text:
# Gravitational waves in preheating

## 1. Introduction

Gravitational waves in inflationary cosmology are produced by sub-Hubble scale vacuum fluctuations. They are stretched to super-Hubble scales by inflationary expansion, and then they generate anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) (see, e.g., Grishchuk 1975, Mukhanov et al. 1992). Scales which re-enter before matter-radiation equality will rapidly redshift (and suffer small damping during recombination), having negligible effect on CMB temperature anisotropies, while scales which re-enter later can affect the temperature anisotropies at large angles. Roughly speaking, we can approximate the impact of gravitational waves upon CMB temperature anisotropies by neglecting all local causal dynamics and treating the large-scale fluctuations as frozen beyond the Hubble scale until re-entry, where their amplitude is conserved and determined by the inflationary Hubble rate at the time of Hubble-crossing. This picture is confirmed by the evolution equation (Lifshitz 1946)

$$f_{ij}^{\prime \prime }+2\frac{a^{}}{a}f_{ij}^{}+k^2f_{ij}=0$$
(1)
for the Fourier modes of the transverse traceless tensor perturbation $`f_{ij}`$, defined (on a flat background) by

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )\left[d\eta ^2+\left(\delta _{ij}+f_{ij}\right)dx^idx^j\right].$$
(2)
Equation (1) shows that on very large scales, $`k/aH1`$ (where $`H=a^{}/a^2`$),

$$f_{ij}A_{ij}+B_{ij}\frac{d\eta }{a^2},$$
(3)
where $`A_{ij}^{}=0=B_{ij}^{}`$. If $`a^{}>0`$ then the $`B`$-mode is decaying, and we have $`f_{ij}`$ constant, with the constant determined by the Hubble rate at inflationary Hubble-crossing, $`H(\eta _c)=k/a(\eta _c)`$.

This simple picture is modified by small corrections induced at preheating. At the end of slow-roll inflation, the inflaton oscillates and transfers its energy to fluctuations, initiating the reheating era, which ends when created particles thermalize as a radiative plasma. Reheating is often initiated by a preheating era, marked by coherent inflaton oscillations which drive parametric resonant amplification of scalar fluctuations (see, e.g., Traschen and Brandenberger 1990, Kofman et al. 1994, 1997). One crucial point about preheating is that, since the inflaton is coherent on scales well beyond the Hubble horizon, it is in principle possible for super-Hubble fluctuations to be amplified without violating causality (Bassett et al. 1999a,b).***It is also possible for small-scale gravitational waves to be generated by gravitational bremstrahlung via rescattering of scalar fluctuations during preheating (Khlebnikov and Tkachev 1997). This is a particular example of the generation of tensor perturbations by scalar perturbations at second order (Matarrese et al. 1998).  In the case of scalar fluctuations of the metric, this can in principle produce nonlinear amplification, depending on initial conditions and coupling strengths (Bassett et al. 1999a,b,c, 2000, Ivanov 2000, Jedamzik and Sigl 2000, Liddle et al. 2000). While tensor fluctuations will not be strongly amplified by scalar inflaton oscillations, these oscillations nevertheless could leave an imprint on the tensor spectrum on large scales. Such a possibility is usually ruled out on causality grounds, but no such causality constraint operates during coherent oscillations of the inflaton condensate.

These small corrections will be carried into Eq. (1) via the scale factor, which inherits an oscillatory addition to its average value. However, the nature of the effect is more clearly brought out via an alternative description of gravitational waves, based on the idea that a full characterization requires the curvature tensor, not the metric (Pirani 1957). Transverse traceless modes are given by the divergence-free electric and magnetic parts of the Weyl tensor

$`E_{\mu \nu }=C_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta ,H_{\mu \nu }=^{}C_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }u^\alpha u^\beta ,`$where $`u^\mu `$ is the background four-velocity (there are no velocity perturbations for tensor modes). This covariant description of gravitational waves was used by Hawking (1966), and is remarkably analogous to electromagnetic radiation theory (Dunsby et al. 1997, Maartens and Bassett 1998).

In this paper, we use the Maxwell-Weyl approach to gravitational waves to investigate the effects of inflaton oscillations in some simple preheating models, generalizing previous work in Minkowski spacetime (Bassett 1997). In Sections 2 and 3, we give the basic equations and their qualitative properties. In Section 4 we present the numerical calculations, and Section 5 contains concluding remarks and discussion.

## 2. Background dynamical equations

The background inflaton is governed by the Klein-Gordon equation

$$\ddot{\phi }+3H\dot{\phi }+V_\phi =0,$$
(4)
where $`V_\phi =V/\phi `$. We will consider the simple chaotic inflation potentials $`V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2`$ and $`V=\frac{1}{4}\lambda \phi ^4`$. Although the resonance in scalar fluctuations is dramatically increased when the inflaton is coupled to other fields, for example via the additional potential term $`\frac{1}{2}g^2\phi ^2\chi ^2`$, this does not seem to have an effect on tensor fluctuations (Tilley 2000). Thus we will confine ourselves to simplified single-field models of preheating. Preheating in more realistic models ends when backreaction effects of the fluctuations destroy the coherence of inflaton oscillations. In our simplified models, backreaction effects are not incorporated, but we can use the results from detailed investigations to estimate the time that preheating lasts (see, e.g., Kofman et al. 1997).

The Hubble rate is determined by the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{1}{3}\kappa ^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2+V(\phi )\right],$$
(5)
where $`\kappa ^2=8\pi /M_p^2`$. Equations (4) and (5) imply $`\dot{H}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2\dot{\phi }^2`$. The energy density and effective pressure of the inflaton are

$$\rho =\kappa ^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2+V\right),p=\kappa ^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2V\right).$$
(6)
During slow-roll inflation, the coupled equations (4) and (5) have approximate analytic solutions for the simple potentials. When the value of $`\phi `$ drops low enough, slow-roll ends and the oscillatory regime begins. The approximate analytic forms are (see, e.g., Kaiser 1997, Kofman et al. 1997)

$`\phi `$ $``$ $`\phi _{in}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\tau }{\tau }}\text{where}\tau =m(tt_{in})\text{and}V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2,`$ (7)
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{in}}{a}}\text{cn}(\tau ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})\text{where}\tau =\sqrt{\lambda }\phi _{in}(\eta \eta _{in})\text{and}V=\frac{1}{4}\lambda \phi ^4,`$ (8)
where $`a_{in}=1`$ and cn is a Jacobian elliptic function. The initial values of $`\phi _{in}`$ are $`0.3M_p`$ in the quadratic case, and $`0.6M_p`$ in the quartic case.

Time-averaging over oscillations shows that $`\overline{a}t^{2/3}`$ for the quadratic potential, and $`\overline{a}t^{1/2}`$ for the quartic potential. These are the asymptotic values of the scale factor, but in practice backreaction effects due to couplings will end the preheating oscillations. If one uses the average forms $`\overline{a}`$ for $`a`$, i.e., if one ignores oscillatory behaviour in the inflaton, then one regains the standard results for gravitational wave evolution in the dust and radiation eras. In particular, models with a smooth transition from inflation to radiation-domination, neglecting reheating dynamics, show that there is no super-Hubble amplification of gravitational waves (e.g. Caldwell 1996, Tilley and Maartens 1998) . Our numerical integrations show that this averaging loses interesting features in the gravitational waves (see Section 3). We do not use the approximate forms in Eqs. (7) and (8) for our numerical results—instead, we integrate the Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations numerically.

## 3. Maxwell-Weyl gravitational wave equations

Gravitational wave perturbations in the covariant approach are governed by the Maxwell-Weyl equations:

$`\left(\text{div}E\right)_\mu =0=\left(\text{div}H\right)_\mu ,`$
$`\dot{E}_{\mu \nu }+3HE_{\mu \nu }\text{curl}H_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +p)\sigma _{\mu \nu },`$
$`\dot{H}_{\mu \nu }+3HH_{\mu \nu }+\text{curl}E_{\mu \nu }=0,`$
where $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the shear, a dot denotes $`u^\mu _\mu `$, and div and curl are the covariant spatial divergence and curl for tensors (Maartens and Bassett 1998). These equations hold for perfect fluids and minimally coupled scalar fields (in which case $`\rho +p=\kappa ^2\dot{\phi }^2`$). The shear is a tensor potential for the electric and magnetic Weyl tensors (Maartens and Bassett 1998):

$`E_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }2H\sigma _{\mu \nu },`$ (9)
$`H_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\text{curl}\sigma _{\mu \nu },`$ (10)
in close analogy with the Maxwell relations $`\stackrel{}{E}=\dot{\stackrel{}{A}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}=\text{curl}\stackrel{}{A}`$. Taking the curl and dot of the Maxwell-Weyl propagation equations, and using the identity for the tensor curl of the curl, we find wave equations for the three tensors (Dunsby et al. 1997, Maartens and Bassett 1998, Challinor 2000). Using equations (4) and (5), these become

$`\ddot{E}_{\mu \nu }+7H\dot{E}_{\mu \nu }+4\kappa ^2V(\phi )E_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^2\dot{\phi }\left[5H\dot{\phi }+V^{}(\phi )\right]\sigma _{\mu \nu },`$ (11)
$`\ddot{H}_{\mu \nu }+7H\dot{H}_{\mu \nu }+4\kappa ^2V(\phi )H_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mu \nu },`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the covariant spatial Laplacian. One can also derive a wave equation for the shear:

$$\ddot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }+5H\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^2\left[2V(\phi )\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2\right]\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mu \nu }.$$
(13)
We decompose the tensors into modes (Challinor 2000)

$`E_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`a^2{\displaystyle k^2\left[_kQ_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}+\stackrel{~}{}_k\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}\right]},`$ (14)
$`H_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`a^2{\displaystyle k^2\left[_kQ_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}+\stackrel{~}{}_k\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}\right]},`$ (15)
$`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`a^1{\displaystyle k\left[𝒮_kQ_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}+\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_k\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}\right]},`$ (16)
where $``$ denotes a symbolic sum over harmonic modes, and $`Q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are tensor harmonics of electric and magnetic parity, which are time-independent, transverse traceless, and related by

$`\text{curl}Q_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{a}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\mu \nu }^{(k)},`$showing that the different polarization states are coupled. The mode functions $`_k`$ determine the tensor contribution to the CMB power spectrum. The magnetic Weyl mode functions are algebraically related to the shear mode functions by

$$_k=\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_k.$$
(17)
Specializing the results in Challinor (2000) to the scalar field case, we find the evolution equations

$`\dot{}_k+3H_k{\displaystyle \frac{a}{k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2\dot{\phi }^2\right)𝒮_k`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (18)
$`\dot{𝒮}_k+H𝒮_k+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a}}_k`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (19)
For comparison, in the time-averaged approximation, the $`\dot{\phi }^2`$ term in the coefficient of $`𝒮_k`$ in Eq. (18) is replaced by $`\gamma \rho `$, where $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{in}}a^{3\gamma }`$, with $`\gamma =1`$ for the averaged quadratic case (i.e. cold matter or ‘dust’), and $`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$ for the averaged quartic case (i.e. radiation).

## 4. Numerical results

Equations (17)–(19) for the gravitational wave perturbations, and (4)–(5) for the background are integrated numerically, and the results are compared with those for the time-averaged approximation. We investigated the evolution of COBE modes, which left the Hubble radius at about 50 to 60 e-folds before the end of inflation, so that $`k/aH10^{24}`$ at the start of preheating, $`t=t_{in}`$. We also integrated for a typical small scale mode, with $`k/aH10`$ at $`t=t_{in}`$. The initial values for $`\phi `$ were given in the previous section. We used the slow-roll relation to set the initial inflaton velocity, $`\dot{\phi }_{in}=M_pV_\phi /\sqrt{24\pi V}`$. For the tensor modes, we used the initial value $`10^5`$. The inflaton mass and self-coupling were chosen as $`m=10^6M_p`$ and $`\lambda =10^{12}`$. In order to take account of backreaction effects, which will end the coherent inflaton oscillations, we terminated the integrations after $`\tau =100`$.

The results are shown in Figs. 1–8.

## 5. Conclusions

Apart from specific features peculiar to the potential, these figures reflect two key properties: (1) Super-Hubble gravitational waves are not significantly amplified by coherent inflaton oscillations during preheating; (2) gravitational waves on all scales carry some imprint of the coherent oscillatory dynamics of the inflaton during preheating. The latter point is clearly brought out by a comparison with the evolution in the absence of oscillations, i.e. for the time-averaged scale factor.

In particular, one can see that the electric Weyl modes on super-Hubble scales, which determine the effect of gravitational waves on the CMB (Challinor 2000), inherit oscillations from the inflaton. In the early part of preheating, there is also some amplification on average of $`_k`$, so that if backreaction takes effect early, then this does produce a small amplification relative to the no-oscillation time-averaged model. However, one cannot expect these preheating imprints on $`_k`$ to lead to detectable differences in the CMB power spectrum. Firstly, the oscillations will effectively be averaged out, and secondly, any amplification is likely to be scale invariant for all measurable anisotropies, since the Hubble scale at preheating corresponds to about 1 metre today, so that all cosmologically significant scales at preheating effectively have $`k=0`$, and behave like the particular scale chosen in our numerical integrations (Bassett et al. 2000, Jedamzik and Sigl 2000).

Gravitational waves on sub-Hubble scales oscillate even in the case of time-averaged background, but Figs. 3, 4, 7 and 8 show that the frequency and amplitude of oscillation are significantly modulated by the inflaton oscillations. Thus preheating leaves an imprint on these scales. In principle, this could be detected, but in practice the signal will be far too weak, since there is no preheating amplification on these scales.

The absence of amplification is fundamentally due to the expansion of the universe, since there is strong amplification on a Minkowski background of gravitational waves during preheating (Bassett 1997, Tilley 2000).

Acknowledgement: We thank Bruce Bassett for valuable discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Relativistic flows in blazars

## 1. Introduction

We believe that the continuum radiation we see from blazars comes from the transformation of bulk kinetic energy, and possibly Poynting flux, into random energy of particles, which quickly produce beamed emission through the synchrotron and the inverse Compton process. This is analogous to what we believe is happening in gamma–ray bursts, although the bulk Lorentz factor of their flow is initially larger.

Evidences for bulk motion in blazars with Lorentz factors between 5 and 20 have been accumulated along the years, especially through the monitoring of superluminally moving blobs on the VLBI scale (Vermeulen & Cohen 1994), and, more recently, through the detection of very large variable powers emitted above 100 MeV (see the third EGRET catalogue, Hartman et al., 1999), which require beaming for the source to be transparent to photon–photon absorption (e.g. Dondi & Ghisellini, 1995).

The explanation of intraday variations of the radio flux, leading to brightness temperatures in excess of $`T_\mathrm{B}=10^{18}`$ K (much exceeding the Compton limit) are instead still controversial (Wagner & Witzel 1995). Interstellar scintillation is surely involved, but it can work only if the angular diameter of the variable sources is so small to nevertheless lead to $`T_\mathrm{B}=10^{15}`$ K, which requires either a coherent process to be at work (e.g. Benford & Lesch 1998) or a Doppler factor of the order of a thousand.

Another controversial issue is the matter content of jets. We still do not know if they are dominated by electron–positron pairs or by normal electron–proton plasma (see the reviews by Celotti, 1997, 1998).

Part of our ignorance comes from the difficulty of estimating intrinsic quantities, such as the magnetic field and the particle densities, using the observed flux, which is strongly modified by the effects of relativistic aberration, time contraction and blueshift, all dependent on the unknown plasma bulk velocity and viewing angle. Furthermore it is now clear (especially thanks to multiwavelength campaigns) that the blazar phenomenon is complex.

On the optimistic side, we have for the first time a complete information of the blazar energy output, after the discovery of their $`\gamma `$–ray emission, and some hints on the acceleration process, through the behaviour of flux variability detected simultaneously in different bands (see the review by Ulrich, Maraschi & Urry 1996). Also, blazar research can now take advantage of the explosion of studies regarding gamma–ray bursts, which face the same problem of how to transform ordered to random energy to produce beamed radiation (for reviews: Piran 1999; Meszaros 1999).

## 2. Accretion = Rotation?

Despite the prediction that jets carry plasma in relativistic motion dates back to 1966 (Rees, 1966), and intense studies over the last 20 years (Begelman, Blandford & Rees, 1984), quantitative estimates of the amount of power transported in jets have been done only relatively recently, following new observational results.

One important point is that the extended (or lobe) radio emission of radiogalaxies and quasars traces the energy content of the emitting region. Through minimum energy arguments and estimates of the lobe lifetime by spectral aging of the observed synchrotron emission and/or by dynamical arguments, Rawlings & Saunders (1991) found a nice correlation between the average power that must be supplied to the lobes and the power emitted by the narrow line region. Although one always expects some correlation between powers (they both scales with the square of the luminosity distance) it is the ratio of the two quantities to be interesting, being of order of 100. Since we also know that, on average, the total luminosity in narrow lines is of the order of one per cent of the ionizing luminosity, we have the remarkable indication that the power carried by the jet (supplying the extended regions of the radio–source) and the power produced by the accretion disk (illuminating the narrow line clouds) are of the same order.

Celotti, Padovani and Ghisellini (1997) later confirmed this by calculating the kinetic power of the jet at the VLBI scale (see Celotti & Fabian 1993) and the broad line luminosity (assumed to reprocess $`10\%`$ of the ionizing luminosity).

A possible explanation involves the magnetic field being responsible for both the extraction of spin energy of a rotating black hole and the extraction of gravitational energy of the accreting matter. Assume in fact that the main mechanism to power the jet is the Blandford–Znajek (1977) process:

$$L_{\mathrm{jet}}\left(\frac{a}{m}\right)^2U_\mathrm{B}(3R_\mathrm{s})^2c$$
(1)
where $`(a/m)`$ is the specific black hole angular momentum ($`1`$ for a maximally rotating Kerr hole), $`U_\mathrm{B}`$ is the magnetic energy density and $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ is the Schwarzchild radius. Note that Eq. 1 has the form of a Poynting flux. Assume now that most of the luminosity of the accretion disk is produced at $`3R_\mathrm{s}`$. The corresponding radiation energy density is then $`U_\mathrm{r}=L_{\mathrm{disk}}/(36\pi R_\mathrm{s}^2c)`$, leading to

$$L_{\mathrm{disk}}=U_\mathrm{r}(3R_\mathrm{s})^2c$$
(2)
Therefore a magnetic field in equipartion with the radiation energy density of the disk would lead to $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$.

## 3. Mass outflowing rate

We can estimate the ratio of the outflowing (in the jet) to the inflowing mass rate, since

$$L_{\mathrm{disk}}=\eta \dot{M}_{\mathrm{in}}c^2;L_{\mathrm{jet}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}c^2;\dot{M}_{\mathrm{out}}=\frac{\eta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{L_{\mathrm{disk}}}{L_{\mathrm{jet}}}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{in}}$$
(3)
If jets carry as much energy as the one produced by the accretion disk, we then obtain that the mass outflow rate is $`1\%`$ of the accreting mass rate (if $`\eta =10\%`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$).

## 4. The blazar diversity

BL Lac objects and Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars (FSRQ) are characterized by very rapid and large amplitude variability, power law spectra in restricted energy bands and strong $`\gamma `$–ray emission. These common properties justify their belonging to the same blazar class. However they differ in many other respects, such as the presence (in FSRQ) or absence (in BL Lacs) of broad emission lines, the radio to optical flux ratio, the relative importance of the $`\gamma `$–ray emission, the polarization degree, and the variability behavior. Within the BL Lac class, Giommi & Padovani (1994) have subdivided the objects according to where (i.e. at what frequency) the first broad (synchrotron) peak is located. Low energy peaked BL Lacs (LBL) show a peak in the IR–optical bands, while in High energy peaked BL Lacs (HBL) this is in the X–ray band (see, in this volume, the contributions of Costamante et al., Giommi et al., Pian et al.,Tagliaferri et al., Tavecchio & Maraschi, Wolter et al.).

As the emission of all blazars is beamed towards us, so there must be a parent population of objects pointing in other directions. The parent populations of BL Lacs and FSRQs are believed to be FR I and more powerful FR II radio galaxies, respectively (see the review by Urry & Padovani 1995). The absence of broad emission lines in BL Lacs is shared by FR I radio galaxies, whose nuclei are well visible by Hubble Space Telescope observations (Chiaberge, Capetti & Celotti 1999). This suggests that in FR I and BL Lac objects broad emission lines are intrinsically weaker than in more powerful objects.

## 5. The re–united blazars

Fossati et al. (1998) found that the SED of all blazars is related to their observed luminosity. There is a rather well defined trend: low luminosity objects are HBL–like, and furthermore their high energy peak is in the GeV–TeV band. As the bolometric luminosity increases, both peaks shift to lower frequencies, and the high energy emission is increasingly more dominating the total output. 111A note of caution: the limited sensitivity of EGRET (onboard CGRO) and ground based Cherenkov telescopes allows to detect sources which are in high states. Therefore the trend of more high energy dominated spectra as the total power increases strictly refers to high states. Ghisellini et al. (1998), fitted the SED of all blazars detected in the $`\gamma `$–ray band for which the distance and some spectral information of the high energy radiation were available. They found a correlation between the energy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{peak}}m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$ of the electrons emitting at the peaks of the spectrum and the amount of energy density $`U`$ (both in radiation and in magnetic field), as measured in the comoving frame: $`\gamma _{\mathrm{peak}}U^{0.6}`$. This indicates that, at $`\gamma _{\mathrm{peak}}`$, the radiative cooling rate $`\dot{\gamma }(\gamma _{\mathrm{peak}})\gamma _{\mathrm{peak}}^2U`$const. It also suggests that this may be due to a “universal” acceleration mechanism, which must be nearly independent of $`\gamma `$ and $`U`$: in less powerful sources with weak magnetic field and weak lines the radiative cooling is less severe and electrons can be accelerated up to very high energies, producing a SED typical of a HBL. The paucity of photons produced externally to the jet leaves synchrotron self–Compton as the only channel to produce high energy radiation. At the other extreme, in the most powerful sources with strong emission lines, electrons cannot be accelerated to high energies because of severe cooling. Their spectrum is therefore peaked in the far IR and in the MeV band. In these sources the inverse Compton scattering off externally produced photons is the dominant cooling mechanism, producing a dominant $`\gamma `$–ray luminosity.

### 5.1. Powers

For the same sample of blazars fitted in Ghisellini et al. (1998) we can estimate the powers radiated and transported by jets in the form of cold protons, magnetic field and hot electrons and/or electron–positron pairs. Since the model allows to determine the bulk Lorentz factor, the dimension of the emitting region, the value of the magnetic field and the particle density, we can then determine

$$L_\mathrm{p}=\pi R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta cn_\mathrm{p}^{}m_\mathrm{p}c^2;L_\mathrm{e}=\pi R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta cn_\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma m_\mathrm{e}c^2;L_\mathrm{B}=\pi R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta c\frac{B^2}{8\pi }$$
(4)
where $`n_\mathrm{p}^{}`$ and $`n_\mathrm{e}^{}`$ are the comoving proton and lepton densities, respectively, $`R`$ is the cross section radius of the jet, and $`\gamma m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$ is the average lepton energy. These powers can be compared with the radiated one estimated in the same frame (in which the emitting blob is seen moving). The power radiated in the entire solid angle is thus $`L_\mathrm{r}=L_\mathrm{r}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ (the same holds for the power $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ emitted by the synchrotron process). All these quantities are plotted in Fig. 2 (Celotti & Ghisellini 2000, in prep.). In this figure hatched areas correspond to BL Lac objects. Several facts are to be noted:

* If the jet is made by a pure electron–positron plasma, then the associated kinetic power is $`L_\mathrm{e}`$. However, we note that $`L_\mathrm{e}L_\mathrm{r}`$ posing a serious energy budget problem.
* If there is a proton for each electron, the bulk kinetic power $`L_\mathrm{p}10L_\mathrm{r}`$. This corresponds to an efficiency of $`10\%`$ in converting bulk into random energy. The remaining 90% is therefore available to power the radio lobes, as required.
* The power in the Poynting flux, $`L_\mathrm{B}`$, is of the same order of $`L_\mathrm{e}`$, indicating that the magnetic field is close to equipartition with the electron energy density. This suggests that, on these scales, the magnetic field is not a prime energy carrier, but is a sub–product of the process transforming bulk into random energy.

## 6. Internal shocks

The central engine may well inject energy into the jet in a discontinuous way, with individual shells or blobs having different masses, bulk Lorentz factors and energies. If this occurs there will be collisions between shells, with a faster shell catching up a slower one. This idea has become the leading model to explain the emission of gamma–ray bursts, but it was born in the AGN field, due to Rees (1978) (see also Sikora 1994).

* Location —  The $`\gamma `$–ray emission of blazars and its rapid variability imply that there must be a preferred location where dissipation of the bulk motion energy occurs. If it were at the base of the jet, and hence close to the accretion disk, the produced $`\gamma `$–rays would be inevitably absorbed by photon–photon collisions, with associated copious pair production, reprocessing the original power from the $`\gamma `$–ray to the X–ray part of the spectrum (contrary to observations). If it were far away, in a large region of the jet, it becomes difficult to explain the observed fast variability, even accounting for the time–shortening due to the Doppler effect. The region where the radiation is produced is then most likely located at a few hundreds of Schwarzchild radii ($`10^{17}`$ cm) from the base of the jet, within the broad line region (see Ghisellini & Madau 1996 for more details). The extra seed photons provided by emission lines enhance the efficiency of the Compton process responsible for the $`\gamma `$–ray emission. This is indeed the typical distance at which two shells, initially separated by $`R_010^{15}`$ cm (comparable to a few Schwarzschild radii) and moving with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }20`$ would collide.
* Variability timescales — In fact if the initial separation of the two shells is $`R_0`$ and if they have Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, they will collide at

$$R=\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2}{1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)^2}R_0$$
(5)
If the shell widths are of the same order of their initial separation the time needed to cross each other is of the order of $`R/c`$. The observer at a viewing angle $`\theta 1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will see this time Doppler contracted by the factor $`(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. The typical variability timescale is therefore of the same order of the initial shell separation. If the mechanism powering GRB and blazar emission is the same, we should expect a similar light curve from both systems, but with times appropriately scaled by the different $`R_0`$, i.e. the different masses of the involved black holes.
* Efficiencies — As most of the power transported by the jet must reach the radio lobes, only a small fraction can be radiatively dissipated. The efficiency $`\eta `$ of two blobs/shells for converting ordered into random energy depends on their masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and bulk Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, as

$$\eta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\frac{m_1+m_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1m_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2m_2}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=(1\beta _f^2)^{1/2}`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor after the interaction and is given by (see e.g. Lazzati, Ghisellini & Celotti 1999)

$$\beta _f=\frac{\beta _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1m_1+\beta _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2m_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1m_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2m_2}$$
(7)
The above relations imply, for shells of equal masses and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=20`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=14.15`$ and $`\eta =5.7\%`$.

Efficiencies $`\eta `$ around 5–10% are just what needed for blazar jets.
* Peak energies? — In the rest frame of the fast shell, the bulk kinetic energy of each proton of the slower shell is $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}1)m_pc^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}2`$. This is what can be transformed into random energy. Assume now that the electrons share this available energy (through an unspecified acceleration mechanism). In the comoving frame, the acceleration rate can be written as $`\dot{E}_{heat}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}1)m_pc^2/t_{heat}^{}`$. The typical heating timescale may correspond to the time needed for the two shells to cross, i.e. $`t_{heat}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }R^{}/cR/(c\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^{}`$ is the shell width (measured in the same frame). The heating and the radiative cooling rates will balance for some value of the random electron Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{peak}`$:

$$\dot{E}_{heat}=\dot{E}_{cool}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }m_pc^3}{R}=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _TcU\gamma _{peak}^2\gamma _{peak}=\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }m_pc^2}{4\sigma _TRU}\right)^{1/2}$$
(8)
The agreement of the above simple relation with what can be derived from model fitting the SED of blazars is surprisingly good (see Ghisellini 2000).
* Radio flares — Collisions between shells may (and should) happen in a hierarchical way. As an illustrative example, assume that one pair of shells after the collision moves with a final Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=14`$ (this number corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ and 20 for the two shells before the interaction). The collision produces a flare –say– in the optical and $`\gamma `$–ray bands. After some observed time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ two other shells collide and another flare is produced. Assume that the final Lorentz factor is now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=17`$ (corresponding to an initial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ and 30 before collision). Since the second pair is faster, it will catch up the first one after a distance (from eq. 5) $`R1200c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. A time separation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ a day between the two flares then corresponds to $`R`$ 1 pc, i.e. the region of the radio emission of the core. Due again to Doppler contraction, this radio flare will be observed ony a few days after the second optical flare. Since the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is small, the efficiency is also small (at least a factor 10 smaller than the firsts shocks). There is then the intriguing possibility of explaining the birth of radio blobs after intense activity (i.e. more than one flare) of the higher energy flux. Radio light–curves should have some memory of what has happened days–weeks earlier at higher frequencies.

## 7. Conclusions

Here I will dare to assemble different pieces of information gathered in recent years in a coherent, albeit still preliminary, picture.

There is a link between the extraction of gravitational energy in an accretion disk and the formation and acceleration of jets, since both have the same power. Objects of low luminosity accretion disks also lack strong emission lines, suggesting that it is the paucity of ionizing photons, not of gas, the reason for the lack of strong lines in BL Lacs. Correspondingly, this implies that, if FR I are the parents of BL Lacs, they also have intrinsically weak line emission (i.e. no need for an obscuring torus). Despite the fact that the jet power in blazars spans at least four orders of magnitude, the average bulk Lorentz factor is almost the same, suggesting a link between the power and the mass outflowing rate: their ratio is constant. In the region where most of the radiation is produced, the jet is heavy, in the sense that protons carry most of the bulk kinetic energy. There the jet dissipates $`10\%`$ of its power and produces beamed radiation. The power dissipated at larger distances is much less, and therefore the jet can transport $`90\%`$ of its original power to the radio extended regions. One way to achieve this is through internal shocks, which can explain why the major dissipation occurs at a few hundreds Schwarzchild radii, why the efficiency is of the order of 10%, and give clues on the observed variability timescales and even on why electrons are accelerated at a preferred energy. The spectral energy distribution of blazars depends on where shell–shell collisions take place, and on the amount of seed photons present there. Even in a single source it is possible that the separation of two consecutive shells is sometimes large, resulting in a collision occuring outside the broad line region. In this case the corresponding spectrum should be produced by the synchrotron self–Compton process only, without the contribution of external photons: we then expect a simultaneous optical–$`\gamma `$–ray flare of roughly equal powers (but with the self–Compton flux varying quadratically, see Ghisellini & Maraschi 1966). This is what should always happen in lineless BL Lac objects. On the other hand, if the initial separation of the two shells is small (or the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–factor of the slower one is small), the collision takes place close to the disk. X–rays produced by the disk would then absorb all the produced $`\gamma `$–rays and a pair cascade would develop, reprocessing the power originally in the $`\gamma `$–ray band mainly into the X–ray band. We should therefore see an X–ray flare without accompanying emission above $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m_\mathrm{e}c^2`$.

Pairs of shells which have already collided can interact again between themselves, at distances appropriate for the radio emission. This offers the interesting possibility to explain why the radio luminosity is related with the $`\gamma `$–ray one, and why radio flares are associated with flares at higher frequencies. Work is in progress in order to quantitatively test this idea against observations.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Annalisa Celotti for very insightful discussions.

## REFERENCES

Begelman M.C., Blandford R.D. & Rees M.J., 1984, Rev. Mod. Phys., 56, 255

Benford G. & Lesch H., 1998, MNRAS 301 414

Blandford R.D. & Znajek R.L., 1977, MNRAS, 176, 465

Celotti A., 1997, in Relativistic jets in AGNs, eds. M. Ostrowski, M. Sikora, G. Madejski & M. Begelman, p. 270

Celotti A., 1998, in Astrophysical jets: open problems, (Gordon & Breach Science publ.), eds. S. Massaglia & G. Bodo (Amsterdam), p. 79

Celotti A. & Fabian A.C. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 228

Celotti A., Padovani P. & Ghisellini G., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 415

Chiaberge, Capetti & Celotti, 1999, A&A, 349, 77

Dondi L. & Ghisellini G., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 583

Fossati G., Celotti A.,Comastri A., Maraschi L. & Ghisellini G., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433

Ghisellini G. & Madau P., 1996, MNRAS, 280, 67

Ghisellini G. & Maraschi L., 1996, in Blazar Continuum Variability, ASP Conference series, Vol. 110, 1996, eds. H.R. Miller & J.R. Webb, p. 436

Ghisellini G., Celotti A., Fossati G., Maraschi L. &Comastri A., 1998, MNRAS, 301, 451

Ghisellini G., 2000, in The Asca Symposium, Tokio, March 1999, in press

Giommi P. & Padovani P., 1994, ApJ, 444, 567

Hartman, R.C. et al., 1999, ApJS, 123, 79

Lazzati D., Ghisellini G. & Celotti A., 1999, MNRAS, 309, L13

Mészáros, P., 1999, Nuclear Phys. B, in press (astro–ph/9904038)

Piran, P., 1999, Phys. Rep., in press (astro–ph/9810256)

Rawlings S.G. & Saunders R.D.E., 1991, Nature, 349, 138

Rees M.J., 1966, Nature, 211, 468

Rees, M.J., 1978, MNRAS, 184, P61

Sikora M., 1994, ApJS, 90, 923

Ulrich M.–H., Maraschi L. & Urry C.M., 1996, ARA&A, 35, 445

Urry M.C. & Padovani P., 1995, PASP, 107, 803

Vermeulen R.C. & Cohen M.H., 1994, ApJ, 430, 467

Wagner S.J. & Witzel A., 1995, ARA&A, 33, 163


text:
# Nonlocal properties of two-qubit gates and mixed states and optimization of quantum computations

## Introduction.

Nonlocality is an important ingredient in quantum information processing, e.g. in quantum computation and quantum communication. Nonlocal correlations in quantum systems reflect entanglement between its parts. Genuine nonlocal properties should be described in a form invariant under local unitary operations. In this paper we discuss such locally invariant properties of (i) unitary transformations and (ii) mixed states of a two-qubit system.

Two unitary transformations (logic gates), $`M`$ and $`L`$, are called locally equivalent if they differ only by local operations: $`L=U_1MU_2`$, where $`U_1,U_2SU(2)^2`$ are combinations of single-bit gates on two qubits . A property of a two-qubit operation can be considered nonlocal only if it has the same value for locally equivalent gates. We present a complete set of local invariants of a two-qubit gate: two gates are equivalent if and only if they have equal values of all these invariants. The set contains three real polynomials of the entries of the gate’s matrix. This set is minimal: the group $`SU(4)`$ of two-qubit gates is 15-dimensional and local operations eliminate $`2dim[SU(2)^2]=12`$ degrees of freedom; hence any set should contain at least $`1512=3`$ invariants.

This result can be used to optimize quantum computations. Quantum algorithms are built out of elementary quantum logic gates. Any many-qubit quantum logic circuit can be constructed out of single-bit and two-bit operations . The ability to perform 1-bit and 2-bit operations is a requirement to any physical realization of quantum computers. Barenco et al.  showed that the controlled-not (CNOT) gate together with single-bit gates is sufficient for quantum computations. Furthermore, it is easy to prove that any two-qubit gate $`M`$ forms a universal set with single-bit gates, if $`M`$ itself is not a combination of single-bit operations and the SWAP-gate, which interchanges the states of two qubits. The efficiency of such a universal set, that is the number of operations from the set needed to build a certain quantum algorithm, depends on $`M`$.

For a particular realization of quantum computers, a certain two-qubit operation $`M`$ (or a set $`\mathrm{exp}[it]`$ of operations generated by a certain hamiltonian) is usually considered elementary. It can be performed by a basic physical manipulation (switching of one parameter or application of a pulse). Then the question of optimization arises: what is the most economical way to perform a particular computation, i.e. what is the minimal number of elementary steps? In many situations two-qubit gates are more costly than single-bit gates (e.g., they can take a longer time, involve complicated manipulations or stronger additional decoherence), and then only the number of two-bit gates counts.

The simplest and important version of this question is how a given two-bit gate $`L`$ can be performed using the minimal number of elementary two-bit gates $`M`$. In particular, when is it sufficient to employ $`M`$ only once ? This is the case when the two gates are locally equivalent, and computation of invariants gives an effective tool to verify this. Moreover, if $`M`$ and $`L`$ are equivalent, a procedure presented below allows to find efficiently single-bit gates $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$, which in combination with $`M`$ produce $`L`$. If one elementary two-bit step is not sufficient, one can ask how many are needed. Counting of dimensions suggests that two steps always suffice. However, this is not true for some gates $`M`$ (bad entanglers).

A related problem is that of local invariants of quantum states. A mixed state is described by a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$. Two states are called locally equivalent if one can be transformed into the other by local operations: $`\widehat{\rho }U^{}\widehat{\rho }U`$, where $`U`$ is a local gate. Apparently, the coefficients of the characteristic polynomials of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and of the reduced density matrices of two qubits are locally invariant. The method developed in Refs. , in principle, allows to compute all invariants. For a two-qubit system counting of dimensions shows that there should be 9 functionally independent invariants of density matrices with unit trace, but additional invariants may be needed to resolve a remaining finite number of states. A set of 20 invariants was presented in Ref. . However it was not clear if this set was complete, i.e. two states with the same invariants are always locally equivalent. Here we present a complete set of 18 polynomial invariants. We prove that two states are locally equivalent if and only if all 18 invariants have equal values in these states. Hence, any nonlocal characteristic of entanglement is a function of these invariants . We also show that no subset of this set is complete.

To demonstrate applications of our results, we discuss in the last section which 2-bit operations can be constructed out of only one elementary 2-bit gate for Josephson charge qubits  or for qubits based on spin degrees of freedom in quantum dots .

## Single-bit gates as orthogonal matrices.

The following result is used below to classify two-qubit gates.

Theorem 1. Single-qubit gates with unit determinant are represented by real orthogonal matrices in the Bell basis $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$, $`\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01|10)`$, $`\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(|00|11)`$.

The transformation of a matrix $`M`$ from the standard basis of states $`|00,|01,|10,|11`$ into the Bell basis is described as $`MM_B=Q^{}MQ`$, where

$$Q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& 1& 0\\ 0& i& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& i\end{array}\right).$$

Proof. We introduce a measure of entanglement in a pure 2-qubit state $`\psi _{\alpha \beta }`$, a quadratic form $`Ent\psi `$, which in the standard basis is defined as $`Ent\psi =det\widehat{\psi }=\psi _{00}\psi _{11}\psi _{01}\psi _{10}`$. This quantity is locally invariant. Indeed, a single-bit gate $`W_1W_2`$ transforms $`\widehat{\psi }`$ into $`W_1\widehat{\psi }W_2^T`$, preserving the determinant.

Under a unitary operation $`V`$ the matrix of this form transforms as $`\widehat{Ent}V^T\widehat{Ent}V`$. In the Bell basis it is proportional to the identity matrix. Since local gates preserve this form, they are given by orthogonal matrices in this basis. As unitary and orthogonal they are also real. Thus local operations form a subgroup of the group $`SO(4,𝐑)`$ of real orthogonal matrices. This subgroup is 6-dimensional, and hence coincides with the group. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Classification of two-qubit gates.

Our result for unitary gates is expressed in terms of $`M_B`$.

Theorem 2. The complete set of local invariants of a two-qubit gate $`M`$, with $`detM=1`$, is given by the set of eigenvalues of the matrix $`M_B^TM_B`$.

In other words, two 2-bit gates with unit determinants, $`M`$ and $`L`$, are equivalent up to single-bit operations iff the spectra of $`M_B^TM_B`$ and $`L_B^TL_B`$ coincide. Since $`mM_B^TM_B`$ is unitary, its eigenvalues have absolute value 1 and are bound by $`detm=1`$. For such matrices the spectrum is completely described by a complex number $`trm`$ and a real number $`tr^2mtrm^2`$.

The matrix $`m`$ is unitary and symmetric. The following statement is used in the proof of Theorem 2:

Lemma. Any unitary symmetric matrix $`m`$ has a real orthogonal eigenbasis.

Proof. Any eigenbasis of $`m`$ can be converted into a real orthogonal one, as seen from the following observation: If $`𝐯`$ is an eigenvector of $`m`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ then $`𝐯^{}`$ is also an eigenvector with the same eigenvalue (conjugation of $`m^{}𝐯=m^1𝐯=\lambda ^1𝐯=\lambda ^{}𝐯`$ gives this result). Hence, $`\mathrm{Re}𝐯`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}𝐯`$ are also eigenvectors. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 2. In the Bell basis local operations transform a unitary gate $`M_B`$ into $`O_1M_BO_2`$, where $`O_1,O_2SO(4,𝐑)`$ are orthogonal matrices. Therefore $`m=M_B^TM_B`$ is transformed to $`O_2^TmO_2`$. Obviously, the spectrum of $`m`$ is invariant under this transformation.

To prove completeness of the set of invariants, we notice that the lemma above implies that $`m`$ can be diagonalized by an orthogonal rotation $`O_M`$, i.e. $`m=O_M^Td_MO_M`$ where $`d_M`$ is a diagonal matrix. Suppose that another gate $`L`$ is given, and $`lL_B^TL_B`$ has the same spectrum as $`m`$. Then the entries of $`d_M`$ and $`d_L`$ are related by a permutation. Hence $`d_M=P^Td_LP`$, where $`P`$ is an orthogonal matrix, which permutes the basis vectors. Using the relation of $`m`$ to $`d_M`$ and of $`l`$ to $`d_L`$, we conclude that $`l=O^TmO`$ where $`OSO(4,𝐑)`$.

Single-bit operations $`O`$ and $`O^{}L_BO^TM_B^1`$ transform one gate into the other: $`L_B=O^{}M_BO`$. The gate $`O^{}`$ is a single-bit operation since it is real and orthogonal. Indeed, $`O^TO^{}=(M_B^1)^TOL_B^TL_BO^TM_B^1=(M_B^1)^TOlO^TM_B^1=(M_B^1)^TmM_B^1=\widehat{1}`$. On the other hand, $`O^{}`$ is unitary as a product of unitary matrices. This implicates its reality. $`\mathrm{}`$

So far we have discussed equivalence up to single-bit transformations with unit determinant. However, physically unitary gates are defined only up to an overall phase factor. The condition $`detM=1`$ fixes this phase factor but not completely: multiplication by $`\pm i`$ preserves the determinant. With this in mind, we describe a procedure to verify if two two-qubit unitary gates with arbitrary determinants are equivalent up to local transformations and an overall phase factor:

We calculate $`m=M_B^TM_B`$ for each of them and compare the pairs $`[tr^2mdetM^{};trm^2detM^{}]`$. If they coincide, the gates are equivalent and the proof of Theorem 2 allows to express explicitly one gate via the other and single-bit gates, $`O`$ and $`O^{}`$.

## Classification of two-qubit states.

In this section we discuss equivalence and invariants of two-qubit states up to local operations. Let us express a 2-bit density matrix in terms of Pauli matrices acting on the first and the second qubit: $`\widehat{\rho }=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{1}+\frac{1}{2}𝐬\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1+\frac{1}{2}𝐩\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2+\beta _{ij}\sigma _i^1\sigma _j^2`$. If the qubits are considered as spin-1/2 particles, then $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐩`$ are their average spins in the state $`\widehat{\rho }`$, while $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is the spin-spin correlator: $`\beta _{ij}=S_i^1S_j^2`$. Any single-bit operation is represented by two corresponding $`3\times 3`$ orthogonal real matrices of ‘spin rotations’, $`O,PSO(3,𝐑)`$. Such an operation, $`OP`$, transforms $`\widehat{\rho }`$ according to the rules: $`𝐬O𝐬`$, $`𝐩P𝐩`$, and $`\widehat{\beta }O\widehat{\beta }P^T`$. We find a set of invariants which completely characterize $`\widehat{\rho }`$ up to local gates.

The density matrix is specified by 15 real parameters, while local gates form a 6-dimensional group. Thus we expect $`156=9`$ functionally independent invariants ($`I_1`$$`I_9`$ in Table I). However, these invariants fix a state only up to a finite symmetry group, and additional invariants are needed . In Table I we present a set of 18 polynomial invariants and prove that the set is complete.

Theorem 3. Two states are locally equivalent exactly when the invariants $`I_1`$$`I_{18}`$ have equal values for these states. (Only signs of $`I_{10}`$, $`I_{11}`$, $`I_{1518}`$ are needed.)

None of the invariants can be removed from the set without affecting completeness, as demonstrated by examples in the table.

The proof below gives an explicit procedure to find single-bit gates which transform one of two equivalent states into the other.

Proof. It is clear that all $`I_i`$ in the table are invariant under independent orthogonal rotations $`O`$, $`P`$, i.e. under single-bit gates. To prove that they form a complete set, we show that for given values of the invariants one can by local operations transform any density matrix with these invariants to a specific form. In the course of the proof we fix more and more details of the density matrix by applying local gates (this preserves the invariants).

The first step is to diagonalize the matrix $`\widehat{\beta }`$, which can be achieved by proper rotations $`O`$, $`P`$ (singular value decomposition). The invariants $`I_1`$$`I_3`$ determine the diagonal entries of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ up to a simultaneous sign change for any two of them. Using single-bit operations $`R^i\widehat{1}`$ (where $`R^i`$ is the $`\pi `$-rotation about the axis $`i=1,2,3`$) we can fix these signs: all three eigenvalues, $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$, can be made nonnegative, if $`I_1=det\widehat{\beta }0`$, or negative, if $`det\widehat{\beta }<0`$. Further transformations, with $`O=P`$ representing permutations of basis vectors, place them in any needed order. From now on we consider only states with a fixed diagonal $`\widehat{\beta }`$. Hence, only such single-bit gates, $`OP`$, are allowed which preserve $`\widehat{\beta }`$. The group of such operations depends on $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$. We examine all possibilities below, showing that the invariants $`I_{418}`$ fix the state completely.

(A) $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is nondegenerate: all $`b_i`$ are different. Then the only $`\widehat{\beta }`$-preserving local gates are $`r^iR^iR^i`$.

The invariants $`I_{46}`$ and $`I_{79}`$ set absolute values of six components $`s_i`$, $`p_i`$, but not their signs. The signs are bound by other invariants. In particular, $`I_{10}`$ and $`I_{11}`$ fix the values of $`s_1s_2s_3`$ and $`p_1p_2p_3`$. Furthermore, $`I_{1214}`$ give three linear constraints on three quantities $`s_ip_i`$. When $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is not degenerate, one can solve them for $`s_ip_i`$. Let us consider several cases:

i) $`𝐬`$ has at least two nonzero components, say $`s_1,s_2`$. These two can be made positive by single-bit gates $`r^1`$, $`r^2`$. After that, the signs of $`p_{i=1,2}`$ are fixed by values of $`s_ip_i`$, while $`I_{10}`$ fixes the sign of $`s_3`$. The sign of $`p_3`$ can be determined from $`s_3p_3`$, if $`s_30`$; if $`s_3=0`$ then $`p_3`$ is fixed by $`I_{15}=p_3s_1s_2b_3(b_2^2b_1^2)`$ or $`I_{17}=p_3s_1s_2b_1b_2(b_2^2b_1^2)`$.

If $`𝐩`$ has at least two nonzero components, a similar argument applies, with $`I_{11,16,18}`$ instead of $`I_{10,15,17}`$. If both $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐩`$ have at most one nonzero component, $`s_i`$ and $`p_j`$, then either ii) $`i=j`$, and the signs are specified by $`s_ip_i`$ up to $`\widehat{\beta }`$-preserving gates $`r^k`$; or iii) $`ij`$, and one can use $`r^i,r^j`$ to make both components nonnegative.

(B) $`\widehat{\beta }`$ has two equal nonzero eigenvalues: $`b_3b_1=b_20`$. We define horizontal components $`𝐬_{}=(s_1,s_2,0)`$, $`𝐩_{}=(p_1,p_2,0)`$. Then $`\widehat{\beta }`$-preserving operations are generated by simultaneous, coinciding rotations of $`𝐬_{}`$ and $`𝐩_{}`$ \[i.e. $`𝐬_{}O𝐬_{}`$, $`𝐩_{}O𝐩_{}`$, where $`OSO_{1,2}(2)`$ is a 2D-rotation\], as well as $`r^i`$.

The invariants $`I_{49}`$ fix $`𝐬_{}^2`$, $`s_3^2`$, $`𝐩_{}^2`$ and $`p_3^2`$. To specify $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐩`$ completely the angle between $`𝐬_{}`$ and $`𝐩_{}`$, as well as the signs of $`s_3`$ and $`p_3`$ should be determined. These are bound by the remaining invariants. In particular, $`I_{1214}`$ fix $`s_3p_3`$ and $`𝐬_{}𝐩_{}`$. The latter sets the angle between $`𝐬_{}`$ and $`𝐩_{}`$ up to a sign.

There are two possibilities: i) $`s_3=p_3=0`$. The states with opposite angles are related by $`r^1`$ and hence equivalent. ii) $`s_30`$ (the case $`p_30`$ is analogous). Applying $`r^1`$, if needed, we can assume that $`s_3`$ is positive. Then, $`p_3`$ is specified by the value of $`s_3p_3`$. Apart from that, $`I_{15}`$ sets $`(𝐬_{}\times 𝐩_{})_3s_3`$, and hence the sign of the cross product $`𝐬_{}\times 𝐩_{}`$. This fixes the density matrix completely.

(C) $`b_1=b_2=0`$, $`b_30`$. In this case $`\widehat{\beta }`$-preserving operations are independent rotations of $`𝐬_{}`$ and $`𝐩_{}`$ \[which form $`SO_{1,2}(2)^2`$\] and $`r^i`$. The invariants $`I_{49}`$ fix $`𝐬_{}^2`$, $`s_3^2`$, $`𝐩_{}^2`$, and $`p_3^2`$, while $`I_{12}`$ (or $`I_{13}`$) sets $`s_3p_3`$. It is easy to see that they specify the state completely.

(D) $`b_1=b_2=b_30`$. All transformations $`OO`$, where $`OSO(3)`$, preserve $`\widehat{\beta }`$. The invariants $`I_4`$, $`I_7`$ and $`I_{12}`$ fix $`𝐬^2`$, $`𝐩^2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}`$, and this information is sufficient to determine $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐩`$ up to a rotation.

(E) $`\widehat{\beta }=0`$. In this case all local transformations preserve $`\widehat{\beta }`$; hence, $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐩`$ can rotate independently. The only nonzero invariants, $`I_4`$ and $`I_7`$, fix $`𝐬^2`$ and $`𝐩^2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Discussion.

In this section we demonstrate applications of our results. We calculate the invariants for several two-qubit gates to find out which of them are locally equivalent. These gates include CNOT, SWAP and its square root, as well as several gates $`\mathrm{exp}(it)`$ generated by hamiltonians $`\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }^2`$, $`\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}^2`$ \[here $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}=(\sigma _x;\sigma _y)`$\] and $`\frac{1}{4}\sigma _y^1\sigma _y^2`$ (cf. Refs. ) after evolution during time $`t`$.

Analyzing the invariants we see that to achieve CNOT one needs to perform a two-qubit gate at least twice if the latter is triggered by the Heisenberg hamiltonian $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$. At the same time SWAP and $`\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}`$ can be performed with one elementary two-bit gate . The interaction $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ allows to perform CNOT in one step, while $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}`$ requires at least two steps for all three gates.

In Josephson qubits  elementary two-bit gates are generated by the interaction $`=\frac{1}{2}E_\mathrm{J}(\widehat{\sigma }_x^1+\widehat{\sigma }_x^2)+(E_\mathrm{J}^2/E_L)\widehat{\sigma }_y^1\widehat{\sigma }_y^2`$. Investigation of the invariants shows that CNOT can be performed if $`E_\mathrm{J}`$ is tuned to $`\alpha E_L`$ for a finite time $`t=\alpha \pi (2n+1)/4E_L`$, where $`n`$ is an integer and $`\alpha `$ satisfies $`\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}[\pi (n+\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}]=1`$.

For creation of entanglement between qubits a useful property of a two-qubit gate is its ability to produce a maximally entangled state (with $`|Ent\psi |=1/2`$) from an unentangled one . This property is locally invariant and one can show that a gate $`M`$ is a perfect entangler exactly when the convex hull of the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix $`m`$ contains zero. In terms of the invariants, introduced in Table II, this condition reads: $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma 4|G_1|1`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma (\mathrm{cos}\gamma G_2)0`$, where $`G_1=|G_1|e^{i\gamma }`$. Among the gates in the table CNOT and $`\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}`$ are perfect entanglers. The Heisenberg hamiltonian can produce only two perfect entanglers ($`\sqrt{\mathrm{SWAP}}`$ or its inverse), while $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ \- only CNOT. At the same time, the interaction $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}`$ produces a set of perfect entanglers if the system evolves for time $`t`$ with $`\mathrm{cos}t0`$.

To conclude, we have presented complete sets of local polynomial invariants of two-qubit gates (3 real invariants) and two-qubit mixed states (18 invariants) and demonstrated how these results can be used to optimize quantum logic circuits and to study entangling properties of unitary operations.

I am grateful to G. Burkard, D.P. DiVincenzo, M. Grassl, G. Schön, and A. Shnirman for fruitful discussions.


text:
# On the universality of the spectrum of cosmic rays accelerated at highly relativistic shocks

## 1 Introduction

There is currently a growing interest in the acceleration of non–thermal particles at highly relativistic shocks. There are three classes of bona fide relativistic sources: beyond the well–established extra–Galactic (Blazars) and Galactic (superluminal) sources, both of which exhibit superluminal motions, it is now also well-established that Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) display highly relativistic expansions, with Lorentz factors well in excess of $`100`$. Other classes of relativistic sources may include Soft Gamma Ray Repeaters (SGRs), whose recurrent explosions are largely super–Eddington, and special SNe similar to SN 1998bw, which displayed marginally Newtonian expansion ($`6\times 10^4kms^1`$) when optical emission lines became detectable, about a month after the explosion.

With the discovery of GRBs’ afterglows, it has now become feasible to derive the energy spectral index $`k`$ of electrons accelerated at the forward shock, as a function of the varying (decreasing) shock Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$, provided simultaneous wide–band spectral coverage is available. With the launch of the USA/Italy/UK mission SWIFT, these data will become available for a statistically significant number of bursts, testing directly models for particle acceleration at relativistic shocks. Furthermore, since GRBs must also clearly accelerate protons, the same index $`k`$ may determine the spectrum of ultra high energy cosmic rays observed at Earth.

However, until recently, both the lack of astrophysical motivation and the difficulty inherent in treating highly anisotropic distribution functions have stiffened research on this topic. Early work, both semi–analytic and outright numerical, has concentrated on barely relativistic flows with Lorentz factors of a few, well suited to Blazars and Galactic superluminals, but clearly insufficent for GRBs, the only exception being the numerical simulations of Bednarz and Ostrowski (1998). It is the purpose of this Letter to perform an analytic investigation of the large $`\gamma `$ limit, to establish which (if any) of the properties of the particles’ distribution function depend upon the physical conditions of the fluid.

## 2 The analysis

I deal first with pure pitch angle scattering, and then (Subsection 2.3) I discuss oblique shocks. In the well–known equation for the particles’ distribution function, under the assumption of pure pitch angle scattering,

$$\gamma (u+\mu )\frac{f}{z}=\frac{}{\mu }\left(D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)\frac{f}{\mu }\right),$$
(1)
$`f`$ is computed in the shock frame, in which are also defined the distance from the shock $`z`$, the fluid speed in units of $`c`$, $`u`$, and fluid Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. Instead, the scattering coefficient $`D`$, particle momentum $`p`$ and particle pitch angle cosine, $`\mu `$, are all defined in the local fluid frame. I make no hypothesis whatsoever about $`D`$, except that it is positive definite and smooth. We place ourselves in the shock frame, and call $`z=0`$ the shock position; the upstream section is for $`z<0`$, so that the fluid speeds are both $`>0`$. The above equation admits of an integral: by integrating over $`\mu `$ and $`z`$ we see that

$$_1^1(u+\mu )f𝑑\mu =\text{const.},$$
(2)
independent of $`z`$. The required boundary condition for $`f`$, i.e., that $`f0`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$, implies that the constant, upstream, is $`0`$. Downstream, Eq. 2 is also a constant, but, because of Taub’s jump conditions, it is not the same constant as upstream. Since the required boundary condition for $`f`$ far downstream ($`f_{\mathrm{}}`$) is that it becomes isotropic and $`f`$ is a relativistic invariant, we see that, far downstream, $`_1^1\mu f_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu =0`$. We thus have

$$_1^1(u+\mu )f𝑑\mu =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & z<0\hfill \\ _1^1uf_{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu >0\hfill & z>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where the inequality in Eq. 3b (which will become necessary later on) derives from the obvious constraint $`f>0`$.

### 2.1 Upstream

I begin the analysis by considering Eq. 3a in the limit of very large shock Lorentz factors, in which case, upstream, $`u1`$. For $`u=1`$, this reduces to

$$_1^1(1+\mu )f𝑑\mu =0.$$
(4)
Since $`1+\mu >0`$ everywhere in the integration interval except of course at $`\mu =1`$, and since $`f0`$ we see that, for $`u=1`$ we must have $`f\delta (\mu +1)`$ where $`\delta (x)`$ is Dirac’s delta. Thus, in this limit, the angular dependence factors out. For reasons to be explained in the next Subsection, we shall also need $`f`$ for $`1u1`$, but still $`0`$. To search for such a solution, we let ourselves be guided by the solution at $`u=1`$: thus, we let the angular dependence factor out, and use the Ansatz $`f=g(z)w((\mu +1)/h(u))`$. Here $`h(u)`$ is an as yet undetermined function of the pre–shock fluid speed such that $`h(u)0`$ as $`u1`$. In this way, as the speed grows, the angular dependence becomes more and more concentrated toward $`\mu =1`$, as required by the previously found solution for $`u=1`$. Introducing our Ansatz into Eq. 1 I find

$$\frac{\gamma }{g}\frac{dg}{dz}=\frac{1}{(1+\mu )w}\frac{d}{d\mu }\left(D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)\frac{dw}{d\mu }\right)=\frac{2D_1\lambda ^2}{h^2(u)},$$
(5)
where I defined $`D_1D(\mu =1,p)`$, and I factored the eigenvalue for future convenience. Concentrating on the angular part, and defining $`(\mu +1)/h(u)y`$, and $`\dot{w}dw/dy`$, $`\ddot{w}d^2w/dy^2`$, I find

$$\frac{D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)}{h^2(u)}\ddot{w}+\frac{\dot{w}}{h(u)}\frac{d}{d\mu }\left(D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)\right)\frac{2\lambda ^2D_1(1+\mu )w}{h^2(u)}=0.$$
(6)
We are interested in a solution of the above equation only in the limit $`h(u)0`$, the only one in which our factored Ansatz is a good approximation to the true $`f`$. In this case, the term $`\dot{w}`$ is clearly subdominant, and can be neglected in a first approximation (this technique is called dominant balance, Bender and Orszag 1978). Furthermore, for $`h(u)0`$, we expect $`w(\mu )`$ to be more and more concentrated around $`\mu =1`$, so that in this range we can approximate the term $`D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)2D_1(1+\mu )`$, and I obtain $`\ddot{w}\lambda ^2w`$ with obvious solution $`ww_0\mathrm{exp}(\lambda (\mu +1)/h(u))`$. The factor $`\lambda /h(u)`$ can be determined by inserting this approximate expression for $`w`$ into Eq. 3a. A trivial computation yields $`\lambda /h(u)=1/(1u)`$.

Now, going back to the equation for $`g`$, the spatial part of $`f`$, we find, also using the above,

$$\frac{1}{g}\frac{dg}{dz}\frac{2D_1}{\gamma (1u)^2}8\gamma ^3D_1$$
(7)
from which, in the end, I find an approximate solution for the distribution function in the limit $`u1`$:

$$fA\mathrm{exp}(8\gamma ^3D_1z)\mathrm{exp}\left((\mu +1)/(1u)\right).$$
(8)
It is thus seen that the detailed shape of the pitch angle scattering function $`D(\mu ,p)`$ is irrelevant, and that what is left of it (its value $`D_1`$ at $`\mu =1`$) only enters the spatial part of the distribution function $`f`$, not the angular one.

### 2.2 Downstream

We make here the usual assumption, that the distribution function depends upon the particle momentum $`p`$ as $`fp^s`$ in either frame (but see the Discussion for further comments). From the condition of continuity of the distribution function at the shock, denoting as $`p_a`$ and $`\mu _a`$ the particle’s momentum and cosine of the pitch angle in the downstream frame, we have

$$\frac{1}{p_a^s}w_a(\mu _a)\frac{1}{p^s}\mathrm{exp}((\mu +1)/(1u))$$
(9)
where the irrelevant constant of proportionality does not depend on $`p,p_a,\mu ,\mu _a`$. Using the Lorentz transformations to relate $`p,p_a,\mu ,\mu _a`$ ($`\mu =(\mu _au_r)/(1u_r\mu _a)`$, $`p=p_a\gamma _r(1u_r\mu _a)`$, with $`u_r`$ and $`\gamma _r`$ the relative speed and corresponding Lorentz factor between the upstream and downstream fluids), I find

$$w_a(\mu _a)=\frac{1}{(1u_r\mu _a)^s}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(\mu _a+1)(1u_r)}{(1u)(1u_r\mu _a)}\right).$$
(10)
For $`u1`$, it is easy to derive from Taub’s conditions (Landau and Lifshitz 1987) that $`u_r1`$, and that $`(1u_r)/(1u)\gamma ^2/\gamma _r^22`$. This result does use a post–shock equation of state $`p=\rho /3`$, which is surely correct in the limit $`u1`$. In the end, I obtain

$$w_a(\mu _a)=\frac{1}{(1\mu _a)^s}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\frac{\mu _a+1}{1\mu _a}\right).$$
(11)
This equation shows why we needed to determine the pitch angle distribution, in the upstream frame, even for $`1u0`$: in fact, even though the angular distribution in the upstream frame (Eq. 8) tends to a singularity, the downstream distribution does not (because the factor $`(1u)/(1u_r)`$ has a finite, non–zero limit), and the concrete form to which it tends depends upon the departures of the upstream distribution from a Dirac’s delta.

From now on I will drop the subscript $`a`$ in $`\mu _a`$, since all quantities refer to downstream. In order to determine $`s`$, we now appeal to a necessary regularity condition which must be obeyed by the initial (i.e., for $`z=0`$) pitch angle distribution, Eq. 11. Looking at Eq. 1 specialized to the downstream case, where $`u=1/3`$ for very fast shocks, we see that this equation has a singularity at $`\mu =1/3`$. Passing through this singularity will fix the index $`s`$. It is not convenient to use $`f`$ directly; rather, I use its Laplace transform

$$\widehat{f}(r,\mu )_0^+\mathrm{}f(z,\mu )e^{rz}𝑑z.$$
(12)
Taking Laplace transforms of both sides of Eq. 1 I obtain

$$\frac{\gamma (1/3+\mu )w_a(\mu )}{r}+\gamma (1/3+\mu )\widehat{f}=\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{\mu }\left(D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)\frac{\widehat{f}}{\mu }\right).$$
(13)
I am interested in the limit $`r+\mathrm{}`$. In fact, here I can use two results. First, in this limit, it is well–known (Watson’s Lemma, Bender and Orszag 1978) that Eq. 12 reduces to

$$\widehat{f}(r,\mu )\frac{f(z=0,\mu )}{r}=\frac{w_a(\mu )}{r}.$$
(14)
Despite this wonderful result in all its generality, I will actually use it only in the neighborhood of $`\mu =1/3`$; here, Eq. 13 takes on a simple form: defining $`t\mu +1/3`$,

$$\frac{bt}{r}+at\widehat{f}=\frac{1}{r}\frac{^2\widehat{f}}{t^2}+\frac{c}{r}\frac{\widehat{f}}{t}$$
(15)
where I defined $`b(\gamma w_a(\mu )D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2))|_{\mu =1/3}`$, $`a(\gamma D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2))|_{\mu =1/3}`$, and $`c(/\mu D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2))/D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)|_{\mu =1/3}`$. Now I make the Ansatz (to be checked a posteriori) that the term $`\widehat{f}/t`$ is negligible compared to the second order derivative in the limit $`r+\mathrm{}`$. I am interested only in the most significant term in $`r`$, since Eq. 14 was only obtained to this order. Then, the equation 15 becomes

$$at\widehat{f}=\frac{1}{r}\frac{^2\widehat{f}}{t^2}.$$
(16)
The above equation is the prototype of the one–turning point problem. Its solution, strictly in the neighborhood of the point $`t=\mu +1/3=0`$, is (Bender and Orszag 1978, Sect. 10.4, Eq. 10.4.13b):

$$\widehat{f}(t)r^{1/12}CAi(r^{1/3}at)$$
(17)
where $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant, and $`Ai(x)`$ is one of Airy’s functions. From this it can easily be checked that our Ansatz was justified.

Clearly, close to the point $`t=\mu +1/3=0`$, Eq. 14 and Eq. 17 must give the same results. Thus I find that, close to $`\mu =1/3`$,

$$w_a(\mu )Ai(r^{1/3}a(\mu +1/3))$$
(18)
which solves our problem: from this in fact we see that, since $`d^2Ai(x)/dx^2=xAi(x)`$ by definition, and thus $`d^2Ai(x)/dx^2=0`$ in $`x=0`$, then we must have

$$\frac{^2w_a}{\mu ^2}|_{\mu =1/3}=0.$$
(19)
This is our sought for extra condition for $`s`$; we have seen that it comes directly from demanding that the boundary condition of the problem, Eq. 11, manages to pass through the singular point of Eq. 1, which I showed to be a conventional one–turning point problem familiar from elementary quantum mechanics.

By substituting into Eq. 11 I find

$$\left(\frac{^2w_a}{\mu ^2}\right)_{\mu =1/3}=2^{2(2+s)}3^{2+s}e^1(s^25s+3)=0$$
(20)
from which we obtain $`s=(5\pm \sqrt{13})/2`$. The solution with the minus sign is unacceptable: in fact, if we plug Eq. 11 into the conservation equation 2, we see (Fig. 1) that for $`s3`$ the integral is $`0`$. We remarked after Eq. 3b, however, that this integral had necessarily to be $`>0`$, so that we may conclude that $`3`$ is an absolute lower limit to $`s`$. Thus we discard the solution with the minus sign, and are left with the unique solution

$$s=\frac{5+\sqrt{13}}{2}4.30.$$
(21)
### 2.3 Oblique shocks

Let us call $`\varphi `$ the angle that the magnetic field makes with the shock normal, in the upstream fluid. Then shocks can be classified as either subluminal or superluminal, depending upon whether, upstream, $`u/\mathrm{cos}\varphi <1`$ or $`u/\mathrm{cos}\varphi >1`$, respectively (de Hoffmann and Teller 1950). We are interested in the limit $`u1`$, so that most shocks will be of the superluminal type. In this case, we could (but we won’t) move to a frame where the magnetic field is parallel to the shock surface, both upstream and downstream. However, downstream this extremely orderly field configuration appears more idealized than warranted by physical reality and observations. In fact, behind a relativistic shock, a large number of processes (compression, shearing, turbulent dynamo, Parker instability, two–stream instability) can generate magnetic fields; furthermore, there is no obvious reason why these fields should have large coherence lengths. In GRBs, a large number of observations of different afterglows supports this picture, the most detailed of all being those of GRB 970508, extending from a few hours to $`400d`$ after the burst (Waxman, Frail and Kulkarni 1998; Frail, Waxman and Kulkarni 2000, and references therein). Accurate and successful modeling fixes the post–shock ratio of magnetic to non–magnetic energy densities to $`ϵ_B0.1`$. Notice that here the protons’ rest mass is not even the largest contribution to the non–magnetic energy density! Polarization measurements also support, albeit less cogently, the idea of a small coherence length: of the four bursts observed so far, only one has a detected polarization, at the $`1.7\%`$ level (GRB 990510, Covino et al., 1999).

Thus the most plausible physical model downstream, is that particles move in a locally generated turbulent, dynamically negligible magnetic field; if then we call $`l`$ the average post–shock field coherence length, and restrict our attention to particles with sufficiently large energies (i.e., with gyroradii $`r_g>l`$), we see there can be no reflection as particles approach the shock from downstream. It follows that we expect the situation downstream to be identical to that of pure pitch angle scattering. Upstream, the parallel magnetic field is also irrelevant. In fact, backward deflection of a particle occurs on a length–scale $`r_g`$, but backward diffusion of the particle by magnetic irregularities only requires the sideways deflection by an angle $`\gamma ^2`$ ($`\gamma `$ being the shock Lorentz factor), for the shock to overrun the particle. This typically occurs on a length $`\eta r_g/\gamma ^2`$, with $`\eta `$ a few. So, as $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the length–scale for scattering upstream by the magnetic field increases, while that by magnetic irregularities decreases: the field is irrelevant. In the end, the same analysis as for pure pitch angle scattering applies, and the same index $`s`$ and pitch angle distributions at the shock follow.

In the case of subluminal shocks, a similar comment applies. Downstream, we expect on a physical basis the same situation as for superluminal shocks. Upstream, Eq. 1 is replaced by (Kirk and Heavens 1989)

$$\gamma \mathrm{cos}\varphi (u+\mu )\frac{f}{z}=\frac{}{\mu }\left(D(\mu ,p)(1\mu ^2)\frac{f}{\mu }\right).$$
(22)
to which the same analysis as in Subsection 2.1 can be applied. Thus we find the same $`s`$ and pitch angle distributions at the shock as above.

As a corollary, it may be noticed that the above argument also implies that the results above are independent of the ratio $`\kappa _{}/\kappa _{}`$, the cross–field and parallel diffusion coefficients.

## 3 Discussion

For ultrarelativistic particles the energy spectral index $`k`$ is related to $`s`$ by

$$k=s2=\frac{1+\sqrt{13}}{2}2.30,$$
(23)
which is our final result. Also, now that we know $`s`$, the final pitch angle distribution at the shock, but downstream, can be determined (Eq. 11), and is plotted in Fig. 2. None of these results depends upon the specific form of $`D(\mu ,p)`$, so that widely differing assumptions should yield precisely the same results.

How does this compare with numerical work? The near–constancy of the index $`s`$ (or $`k`$) explains moderately well the results of previous authors: Kirk and Schneider (1987) find $`s=4.3`$ for their computation with the highest speed, which is however a modest Lorentz factor of $`\gamma =5`$, and a single functional dependence of $`D`$ on $`\mu `$. Heavens and Drury (1988) find again a result of $`s=4.2`$ for equally modest Lorentz factors, but for two different recipes for $`D`$. Extensive numerical computations using a MonteCarlo technique (i.e., totally independent of the validity of Eq. 1) were performed by Bednarz and Ostrowski (1998), for a wide variety of assumptions about the scattering properties of the fluids. They remarked quite explicitly that the energy spectral index $`k`$ seemed to converge to a constant value, independent of shock Lorentz factor (provided $`\gamma 1`$), magnetic field orientation angle $`\varphi `$, and diffusion coefficient ratio, $`\kappa _{}/\kappa _{}`$. They found $`k2.2`$. The present work confirms (for all untried forms for $`D(\mu ,p)`$) and extends their simulations (by yielding the exact value, and explicit forms for the particle angular distributions). The upstream angular distributions also agree well: Fig.3a of Bednarz and Ostrowski clearly shows that this is (for the highest displayed value of $`\gamma =27`$) a Dirac’s delta, in agreement with the large–$`\gamma `$ limit in Section 2.1. However, the downstream pitch angle distributions (in their Fig. 3b) agree well with mine, but not perfectly. Gallant, Achterberg and Kirk (1998) have claimed that there is a small error in Bednarz and Ostrowksi’s distributions. As a matter of fact, my distribution (Fig. 2) agrees much better with Gallant et al.’s and Kirk and Schneider’s (1987) than Bednarz and Ostrowski’s, despite the very small shock Lorentz factors of these two papers ($`\gamma =2.3`$ and $`\gamma =5`$, respectively). Possibly, the small error in question may even explain the (small!) discrepancy between the two values of $`k`$.

A limitation applies to the claim of universality of Eqs. 8, 11 and 23: I neglected any process altering the particles’ energy during the scattering. Clearly, the results of this paper only apply in the limit $`\delta p/p1`$, where $`\delta p`$ is the typical momentum transfer in each scattering event. In the large momentum limit considered here, it seems unlikely that this constraint may be violated.

Lastly, a comment on the assumed dependence $`p^s`$ of the distribution function upon particle momenta is in order. It can be seen from Eq. 1 that such a dependence is not required by this equation. To see this, let us make the usual assumption that $`D`$ is homogeneous of degree $`r`$ in $`p`$, i.e., $`D(\mu ,p)=q(\mu )p^r`$. Then by defining a new variable $`\widehat{z}z/p^r`$, we see that the form assumed by Eq. 1 after this change of variable is identical to the original one, except that now $`p`$ has altogether disappeared. At large $`z`$ (i.e., far downstream), $`ff_{\mathrm{}}=`$ constant, and there is no $`p`$–dependence. This paradox is solved by noticing that the real problem to be solved involves both scattering (= Fermi acceleration) and injection. In this case, a typical injection momentum $`p_0`$ arises naturally, and the dimensional problem discussed above is naturally solved: we must have $`f=f(\mathrm{},p/p_0,\mathrm{})`$ where the dots indicate all other parameters. In the limit of $`p_00`$, $`f`$ does not tend to a constant independent of $`p_0`$ as is always assumed, but tends instead to zero as $`f(p_0/p)^s`$. Problems of this sort, though rare in astrophysics, are common in hydrodynamics, where they are called self–similar problems of the second kind (Zel’dovich 1956). They range from the deceptively simple laminar flow of an ideal fluid plast an infinite wedge (Landau and Lifshitz 1987) to the illuminating case of the filtration in an elasto–plastic porous medium (Barenblatt 1996). It is remarkable that, in the problem at hand, no such complication is necessary to fix the all–important index $`s`$, yet the powerful methods of intermediate asymptotics (Barenblatt 1996) and the renormalization group (Goldenfeld 1992) can be brought to bear on the intermediate $`\gamma `$ cases, where no easy limiting solution can be found.

In short, what I have done in this paper is to show that the spectrum of non–thermal particles accelerated at relativistic shocks is universal, in the sense that the energy spectral index $`k`$, and the angular distributions in both the upstream and downstream frames (Eqs. 8, 11, 23, and Fig. 2) do not depend upon the scattering function $`D(\mu ,p)`$, the shock Lorentz factor (provided of course $`\gamma 1`$), the magnetic field geometry, and the ratio of cross–field to parallel diffusion coefficients.Thus we have the result that the cosmic rays’ spectra are independent of flow details in both the Newtonian (Bell 1978) and the relativistic regimes.


text:
# Soft Phonon Anomalies in the Relaxor Ferroelectric Pb(Zn1/3Nb2/3)0.92Ti0.08O3

\[

## Abstract

Neutron inelastic scattering measurements of the polar TO phonon mode dispersion in the cubic relaxor Pb(Zn1/3Nb2/3)0.92Ti0.08O3 at 500 K reveal anomalous behavior in which the optic branch appears to drop precipitously into the acoustic branch at a finite value of the momentum transfer $`q=0.2`$ Å-1 measured from the zone center. We speculate this behavior is the result of nanometer-sized polar regions in the crystal.

\]

The discovery by Kuwata et al. in 1982 that it was possible to produce single crystals of the relaxor-ferroelectric material Pb(Zn1/3Nb2/3)1-xTixO3 represented an important achievement in the field of ferroelectrics . Because the parent compounds Pb(Zn1/3Nb2/3)O3 (PZN) and PbTiO3 (PT) form a solid solution, it was possible to tune the stoichiometry of the material to lie near the morphotropic phase boundary (MPB) that separates the rhombohedral and tetragonal regions of the phase diagram . Such MPB compositions in Pb(Zr1-xTix)O3 (PZT), the material of choice for the fabrication of high-performance electromechanical actuators, exhibit exceptional piezoelectric properties, and have generated much scientific study . However, in contrast to PZN-$`x`$PT, all attempts to date to grow large single crystals of PZT near the MPB have failed, and this has impeded progress in fully characterizing the PZT system.

The dielectric and piezoelectric properties of single crystals of both PZN-$`x`$PT and PMN-$`x`$PT (M = Mg) have since been examined by Park et al. who measured the strain as a function of applied electric field . These materials were found to exhibit remarkably large piezoelectric coefficients $`d_{33}>2500`$ pC/N and strain levels $`S`$ 1.7% for rhombohedral crystals oriented along the pseudo-cubic  direction. This level of strain represents an order of magnitude increase over that presently achievable by conventional piezoelectric and electrostrictive ceramics including PZT. That these ultrahigh strain levels can be achieved with nearly no dielectric loss ($`<1`$%) due to hysteresis suggests both PMN-$`x`$PT and PZN-$`x`$PT hold promise in establishing the next generation of solid state transducers . A very recent theoretical advance in our understanding of these materials occurred when it was shown using first principles calculations that the intrinsic piezoelectric coefficient $`e_{33}`$ of MPB PMN-40%PT was dramatically enhanced relative to that for PZT by a factor of 2.7 . Motivated by these experimental and theoretical results, we have studied the dynamics of the soft polar optic phonon mode in a high quality single crystal of PZN-8%PT, for which the measured value of $`d_{33}`$ is a maximum, using neutron inelastic scattering methods.

In prototypical ferroelectric systems such as PbTiO3 it is well known that the condensation or softening of a zone-center transverse optic (TO) phonon is responsible for the transformation from a cubic paraelectric phase to a tetragonal ferroelectric phase. This is readily seen in neutron inelastic scattering measurements made at several temperatures above the Curie temperature. In the top panel of Fig. 1 we show the dispersion of the lowest-energy TO branch in PbTiO3 where at 20 K above $`T_c`$ the zone center ($`\zeta =0`$) energy has fallen to 3 meV .

In relaxor compounds, however, there is a built-in disorder that produces a diffuse phase transition in which the dielectric permittivity $`ϵ`$ exhibits a broad maximum as a function of temperature at $`T_{max}`$. In the case of PMN and PZN, both of which have the simple $`ABO_3`$ perovskite structure, the disorder results from the $`B`$-site being occupied by ions of differing valence (either Mg2+ or Zn2+, and Nb5+). This breaks the translational symmetry of the crystal. Despite years of intensive research, the physics of the observed diffuse phase transition is still not well understood . Moreover, it is interesting to note that no definitive evidence for a soft mode has been found in these systems. The bottom panel of Fig. 1 shows neutron scattering data taken by Naberezhnov et al. on PMN  exactly analogous to that shown in the top panel for PbTiO3, except that the temperature is $`570`$ K higher than $`T_{max}`$.

A seminal model for the disorder inherent to relaxors was first proposed by Burns and Dacol in 1983 . Using measurements of the optic index of refraction on both ceramic samples of (Pb1-3x/2Lax)(ZryTi1-y)O3 (PLZT) and single crystals of PMN and PZN , they demonstrated that a randomly-oriented local polarization $`P_d`$ develops at a well-defined temperature $`T_d`$, frequently referred to as the Burns temperature, several hundred degrees above the apparent transition temperature $`T_{max}`$. Subsequent studies have provided additional evidence of the existence of $`T_d`$ . The spatial extent of these locally polarized regions was conjectured to be $``$ several unit cells, and has given rise to the term “polar micro-regions,” or PMR . For PZN-8%PT, the formation of PMR occurs at $`T_d`$ 700 K, well above the cubic-to-tetragonal phase transition at $`T_c`$ 450 K. We find striking anomalies in the TO phonon branch (the same branch that goes soft at the zone center at $`T_c`$ in PbTiO3) that we speculate are directly caused by these PMR.

Fig. 1. Top - Dispersion of the lowest energy TO mode and the TA mode in PbTiO3, measured just above $`T_c`$ (from Ref. ). Bottom - Dispersion curves of the equivalent modes in PMN measured far above $`T_g`$ (from Ref. ).

All of the neutron scattering experiments were performed on the BT2 and BT9 triple-axis spectrometers located at the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The (002) reflection of highly-oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) was used to monochromate and analyze the incident and scattered neutron beams. An HOPG transmission filter was used to eliminate higher-order neutron wavelengths. The majority of our data were taken holding the final neutron energy $`E_f`$ fixed at 14.7 meV ($`\lambda _f=2.36`$ Å) while varying the incident neutron energy $`E_i`$, and using horizontal beam collimations 60-40-S-40-40. The single crystal of PZN-8% PT used in this study weighs 2.8 grams and was grown using the high-temperature flux technique described elsewhere . The crystal was mounted onto an aluminum holder and oriented with the either the cubic \[$`\overline{1}`$10\] or  axis vertical. It was then placed inside a vacuum furnace capable of reaching temperatures up to 670 K.

Fig. 2. Solid dots represent positions of peak scattered neutron intensity taken from constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and constant-E scans at 500 K along both  and  symmetry directions. Vertical (horizontal) bars represent phonon FWHM linewidths in $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ ($`q`$). Solid lines are guides to the eye indicating the TA and TO phonon dispersions.

Two types of scans were used to collect data. Constant energy scans were performed by keeping the energy transfer $`\mathrm{}\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_fE_i`$ fixed while varying the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$. Constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ scans were performed by holding the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{Q}=\stackrel{}{k_f}\stackrel{}{k_i}`$ ($`k=2\pi /\lambda `$) fixed while varying the energy transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Using these scans, the dispersions of both the transverse acoustic (TA) and the lowest-energy transverse optic (TO) phonon modes were mapped out at a temperature of 500 K (still in the cubic phase, but well below the Burns temperature of $``$ 700 K). In Fig. 2 we plot where the peak in the scattered neutron intensity occurs as a function of $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{G}`$ is the momentum transfer measured relative to the $`\stackrel{}{G}=(2,2,0)`$ and $`(4,0,0)`$ Bragg reflections along the symmetry directions  and , respectively. The horizontal scales of the left and right halves of the figure have been adjusted so that each corresponds to the same $`q`$-1) per unit length. The sizes of the vertical and horizontal bars represent the phonon FWHM (full width at half maximum) linewidths in $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ (meV) and $`q`$-1), respectively, and were derived from Gaussian least-squares fits to the constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and constant-$`E`$ scans. The lowest energy data points trace out the TA phonon branch along  and . Solid lines have been drawn through these points as a guide to the eye, and are nearly identical to that shown for PMN in Fig. 1.

By far the most striking feature in Fig. 2 is the unexpected collapse of the TO mode near the zone center where the polar optic branch appears to drop precipitously, like a waterfall, into the acoustic branch. This anomalous behavior, shown by the shaded regions in Fig. 2, stands in stark contrast to that of PMN at high temperature where the same phonon branch intercepts the $`\mathrm{}\omega `$-axis at a finite energy (see bottom panel of Fig. 1). The strange drop in the TO phonon energy occurs for $`q0.13`$ r.l.u. measured along , and for $`q0.08`$ r.l.u. measured along  (1 r.l.u. = $`2\pi /a`$ = 1.54 Å-1). It is quite intriguing to note that these $`q`$-values are both approximately equal to 0.2 Å-1.

To clarify the nature of this unusual observation, we show an extended constant-$`E`$ scan taken at $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=6`$ meV in Fig. 3 along with a constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ scan in the insert. Both scans were taken at the same temperature of 500 K, near the (2,2,0) Bragg peak, and along the  direction. The small horizontal bar shown under the left peak of the constant-$`E`$ scan represents the instrumental FWHM $`q`$-resolution, and is clearly far smaller than the instrinsic peak linewidth. We see immediately that the constant-$`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ scan shows no evidence of any well-defined phonon peak, most likely because the phonons near the zone center are overdamped. However, the constant-$`E`$ scan indicates the presence of a ridge of scattering intensity at $`\zeta =q=0.13`$ r.l.u., or about 0.2 Å-1, that sits atop the scattering associated with the overdamped phonons. Thus the sharp drop in TO branch that appears to take place in Fig. 2 does not correspond to a real dispersion curve as such. Rather, it simply indicates a region of ($`\mathrm{}\omega ,q`$)-space in which the phonon scattering cross section is enhanced. The origin of this enhancement is unknown, however we speculate that it is a direct result of the PMR described by Burns and Dacol . If the length scale associated with this enhancement is of order $`2\pi /q`$, this corresponds to $`31`$ Å, or about 7 to 8 unit cells, consistent with Burns and Dacol’s conjecture.

Fig. 3. Single constant-E scan measured along  at 6 meV at 500 K near the (2,2,0) Bragg peak. Solid line is a fit to a double Gaussian function of $`\zeta `$. The inset shows no peak in the scattered intensity measured along the energy axis. The arrow indicates the position of the constant-E scan.

Limited data were also taken as a function of temperature to determine the effect on this anomalous ridge of scattering. In Fig. 4 we show two constant-$`E`$ scans, both measured at an energy transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=5`$ meV along the  direction, with one taken at 450 K, and the other at 600 K. The solid and dashed lines are fits to simple Gaussian functions of $`q`$. As is clearly seen, the ridge of scattering shifts to smaller $`q`$, i.e. towards the zone center, with increasing temperature. These data strongly suggest a picture, shown schematically in the inset to Fig. 4, in which the ridge of scattering evolves into the expected classic TO phonon branch behavior at higher temperature. A single data point, obtained briefly at 670 K to avoid damaging the crystal, is plotted in the inset to Fig. 4, and tentatively corroborates this picture.

We have discovered an anomalous enhancement of the polar TO phonon scattering cross section that occurs at a special value of $`q=0.2`$ Å-1, independent of whether we measure along the  or  direction. We believe this to be direct microscopic evidence of the PMR proposed by Burns and Dacol . The presence of such small polarized regions of the crystal above $`T_c`$ should effectively prevent the propagation of long-wavelength ($`q0`$) soft mode phonons. A similar conclusion was reached by Tsurumi et al. based on dielectric measurements of PMN . The observation that the phonon scattering cross section is enhanced 0.2 Å-1 from the zone center gives a measure of the size of the PMR consistent with the estimates of Burns and Dacol. If true, then this unusual behavior should be observed in other related relaxor systems. Indeed, tentative evidence for this has already been observed at room temperature in neutron scattering measurements on PMN . This enhancement should also be reflected in x-ray diffuse scattering intensities (), although it may be masked by the superposition of strong acoustic modes.

Fig. 4. Two constant-E scans measured along  at 5 meV at different temperatures. The peak shifts towards the zone center with increasing temperature. The inset suggests schematically how the TO branch dispersion recovers at higher temperatures.

Our picture is not yet complete. Whereas Fig. 3 demonstrates that these anomalies appear as ridges on top of a broad overdamped cross section, the complete nature of this cross section can only be revealed by an extensive contour map of the Brillouin zone, for which we lack sufficient data. Another important aspect which requires further study is exactly how the “waterfall” evolves, at much higher temperatures, into the standard optic mode dispersion as shown in Fig. 1 for PMN. We have not yet carried out this experiment because of the concern of possible crystal deterioration at these high temperatures under vacuum . We intend to do so only after all other key experiments have been completed .

Our current picture suggests that the TO phonon dispersion should change if one alters the state of the PMR. It is known that a macro ferroelectric phase can be created in these relaxor crystals by cooling the crystal in a field, or by application, at room temperature, of a sufficiently strong field. We are now planning neutron inelastic measurements on such a crystal, as well as on PZN.

We thank S. Vakhrushev, S. Wakimoto, as well as D. E. Cox, L. E. Cross, R. Guo, B. Noheda, N. Takesue, and G. Yong for stimulating discussions. Financial support by the U. S. Dept. of Energy under contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886, by ONR under project MURI (N00014-96-1-1173), and under resource for piezoelectric single crystals (N00014-98-1-0527) is acknowledged. We acknowledge the support of NIST, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, in providing the neutron facilities used in this work.


text:
# 1 a

Comment on “Triviality of the Ground State Structure in Ising Spin Glasses”

In a recent, very interesting paper, Palassini and Young  have shown that it is possible to get useful information about the nature of the low $`T`$ phase of $`3D`$ Ising spin glasses by studying the behavior of the ground state (GS) after changing the boundary conditions (BC) of an $`L^3`$ lattice system from periodic ($`P`$) to anti-periodic ($`AP`$). They analyze GS obtained with the same realization of the quenched disorder and different BC.

Let $`P(M,L)`$ be the probability that the spins in an $`M^3`$ cube remain in the same configuration (apart from a full reversal, due to the global $`Z_2`$ symmetry at zero magnetic field) when we change BC from $`P`$ to $`AP`$ . The behavior of $`P(M,L)`$ when $`L`$ goes to infinity is very important from the theoretical point of view. In the droplet model (DM)  $`P(M,L)L^\lambda `$, where $`\lambda DD_s`$, $`D`$ is the space dimension and $`D_s`$ is the fractal dimension of the interface, while in the usual form of the Replica Symmetry Breaking (RSB) approach  $`P(M,L)A(M)`$, where $`A(M)`$ is a non zero function (i.e. the interface is space filling). In  it is shown that the data for $`P(2,L)`$ can be well fitted by a power law with a non-zero $`\lambda `$ (as suggested by the DM), although they can also be fitted as $`a+bL^1+cL^2`$, with a non zero $`a`$. In this comment we point out that one can better discriminate among the DM and the RSB approach if one extends their analysis analyzing the value of additional quantities. At this end we have computed the GS in systems with side up to $`L=12`$ (with Gaussian disorder) and we have compared the GS obtained with $`P`$ and $`AP`$ BC.

If in the large volume limit the interface is a homogeneous fractal that can be characterized by a single fractal dimension (i.e. if it has not a multi-fractal behavior), and if the relation $`\lambda =DD_s`$ is correct, the probability that the interface does not intersect a region $``$, whose size is proportional to the system size, goes to a limit which is a non-trivial function of the shape of the region $``$. If the interface is space filling, such a probability always goes to zero. This argument implies that under the previous assumptions in the DM (for large $`L`$) $`P(M,L)g(ML^1)`$.

We plot in figure (1) our results for boxes of size $`M`$ $`=`$ $`2`$, $`3`$, $`4`$ versus $`ML^1`$. The data are very far from collapsing on a single universal curve (they are consistent with a smooth behavior in $`L^1`$, and are well fitted by a second order polynomial in $`L^1`$). Stronger hints are obtained if we consider the probability $`P_L`$ of finding that a full $`yz`$ plane of $`L^2`$ spins does not hit the interface when we go from $`P`$ to $`AP`$ in the $`x`$ direction. This corresponds in the previous argument to consider a region $``$ of size $`L\times L\times 1`$. In figure (2) we plot $`P_L`$ versus $`L`$. $`P_L`$ can be roughly fitted as $`L^\gamma `$, with a relative large value of $`\gamma `$ (i.e $`\gamma 1.52.0`$). In other words the probability that the interface hits $``$ goes to one (or to a value very close to one) when the volume goes to infinity.

We have shown that extending the innovative analysis of Palassini and Young to a larger set of observables, one finds serious problems with the usual DM interpretation: the most natural scenario is based on the fact that the interface is space filling as predicted by the RSB approach. Other possibilities like the presence of very strong corrections to the scaling, or that the relation $`\lambda =DD_s`$ is not valid and/or the interface is multi-fractal, are less plausible. We are grateful to M. Palassini and P. Young for pointing out an error in the interpretation of the data in a first version of this comment and for a very useful correspondence.

E. Marinari and G. Parisi, Università di Roma La Sapienza