text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Particle accelerators are designed and built, based essentially upon the classical theory of point charges interacting with electromagnetism. Nevertheless, particles are described by wave-functions, and diffractive limits must exist as to how well they can be localized in a given optical apparatus. The first quantum mechanical effects to arise in a potentially limiting way might be expected to be diffractive in nature. In this paper we take a first look at the problem of estimating the quantum diffractive limits of accelerators. We begin with an important system, an NLC-class machine. We are inspired to consider this because the desired goals for the NLC beam spot size are ambitious. To achieve the desired luminosity requires a $`5`$ nm beam spot in one transverse dimension, (the vertical or $`y`$ direction in the NLC reports ). We will find that this criterion is about two orders of magnitude above the quantum limit. Indeed, we will describe how to estimate the classical design result for the beam spot size itself from quantum mechanics, obtaining rough agreement with the NLC specifications.

We obtain a conceptually simple result. The diffractive limit on the beam spot size in the $`x_{}`$ direction is given by the Rayleigh formula for a (massless) wave of energy $`E`$ which has passed through an effective “aperature” $`\delta _0`$ and focused over a focal length $`f`$. That is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}cf}{E\delta _0}$$
(1.1)
where $`f`$ is the final focal length, $`E`$ the beam energy (the result varies somewhat in a compound lens system, see Section 3). We emphasize that the “aperature” $`\delta _0`$ is not a mechanical aperature, e.g., it is not the beam pipe size. $`\delta _0`$ is actually the initial state Gaussian width of the transverse quantum wave-function as it enters the linac upstream from the damping rings, where the wave-function has been prepared (we assume an “ideal linac,” in which there is negligible further synchrotron radiation downstream; this is not necessarily a good approximation, and corrections to the effective $`\delta _0`$ are expected). The initial state can be considered to be an ensemble of particles, each in simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) transverse wave-functions, where the Gaussian envelope (groundstate) width is determined by the damping ring wiggler system. This is given by:

$$\delta _0=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}}$$
(1.2)
where $`B`$ is the typical magnetic field in the damping system, of order $`1`$ Tesla. Taking $`f=2`$m, $`E=250`$ GeV, $`B=1`$ Tesla, yields $`\delta _025.7`$ nm, and thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x>0.062`$ nm as a diffracive limit. Hence, the NLC would appear to be safely above the quantum limit by about two orders of magnitude. We remark, however, that this is the extremal lower limit which saturates the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship, and holds in our idealized limit.

In general the individual particle initial state is an excited SHO transverse wave-function of average principle quantum number $`\overline{n}`$. This increases the expected diffractive spot size to $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\sqrt{\overline{n}}f/E\delta _0`$. In fact, since $`\overline{n}1/\mathrm{}`$ it is easily seen that this result is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, and therefore should be equivalent to a classical derivation of the beam spot size. $`\overline{n}`$ can be crudely estimated from radiation relaxation following the original arguments of Sands , and others. This yields a result of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x2`$ nm, roughly consistent with the NLC design report calculations for the vertical beam spot .

The subject of quantum beam dynamics for particle accelerators is fairly novel . Gaussian optics is a preferred formalism for tackling the problem considered here. Presently we construct a transverse Gaussian wave-packet, with a longitudinal plane wave structure, and propagate it through an optical system. Gaussians extremalize the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, and they are also the groundstate solutions in continuous linear focusing channels, and e.g., magnetic lenses, wigglers, to a reasonable approximation, etc., and can be approached by synchrotron radiation relaxation , , , . Remarkably, Gaussian transverse wave-functions, which solve the quantum Schroedinger equation for propagation through the optical system, (neglecting synchrotron radiation), are controlled entirely by the classical lens matrices of the system. While Gaussian optics is a standard formalism in treating electron microscopy , , , to our knowledge, the behavior of a quantum Gaussian beam in a synchrotron has not been previously formulated, and we will indicate the self-replicating solution to a synchrotron by an application of lens matrix methods.

First consider the problem of a relativistic electron wave-function passing though a lens. Spin is an inessential complication , , so we can use the Klein-Gordon (KG) equation. Assume for simplicity that there is only one spatial transverse dimension, $`x_{}`$, and let $`z`$ be the longitudinal spatial dimension. In the KG equation we include a transverse simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) potential term which is dependent upon $`z`$ (For the analysis, we set $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$):

$$^2\varphi +m^2\varphi +\stackrel{~}{K}(z)x_{}^2\varphi =0$$
(1.3)
Then, with $`\varphi =\mathrm{exp}[i(Etp_zz)]\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`E^2=p_z^2+m^2`$, the KG equation becomes the transverse Schoedinger equation:

$$i\frac{}{z}\widehat{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2E}(\stackrel{}{}_{})^2\widehat{\varphi }\frac{K(z)x^2}{2}\widehat{\varphi }=0$$
(1.4)
where:

$$K\stackrel{~}{K}/E.$$
(1.5)
This is a standard construction in optics , and $`\widehat{\varphi }(z)`$ has the conventional interpretation with $`z`$ replacing time. The parameter $`K(z)`$ is $`z`$-dependent, corresponding to the finite longitudinal structure of the lens system. For a single thin lens we take $`K(0)=0`$ for $`z<\delta z`$ and $`z>0`$, and $`K=K_0`$ for $`\delta zz0`$.

Let us now postulate a Gaussian form for the wave-function centered at the transverse position $`x_{}`$, carrying a transverse momentum $`p_{}`$:

$$\widehat{\varphi }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}A(z)(xx_{})^2+ip_{}x+C\right)$$
(1.6)
In this expression, $`A(z)`$ is the complex Gaussian kernel, $`x_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$ are real, and $`C`$ simply parameterizes the overall normalization. Hence, the Gaussian wave-function has four real parameters. After substituting this anzatz, the Schroedinger equation, eq.(1.4), yields the following equations of motion for the width:

$$i\frac{A}{z}=\frac{A^2}{E}K(z)$$
(1.7)
and for $`x_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$ we obtain the classical Hamilton equations:

$$\frac{p_{}}{z}=Kx_{};\frac{x_{}}{z}=\frac{p_{}}{E};$$
(1.8)
Note that the centroid $`x_{}`$ and centroid momentum $`p_{}`$ motions are decoupled from that of the Gaussian kernel $`A(z)`$ and vice versa. (anharmonic effects would generally couple these quantities). Moreover, the boundary conditions on $`A(z)`$ and of the centroid $`x_{}`$ and centroid momentum $`p_{}`$ are independent . Note that the last equation is just the “$`z`$-velocity” expressed in terms of the momentum for a particle of “mass” $`E`$. Remarkably, eq.(1.7) can be seen to be equivalent to the classical Hamilton equations  by identifying $`A(z)iP(z)/X(z)`$ where $`P(z)`$ and $`X(z)`$ are generalized (complex) momenta and positions which satisfy the eqs.(1.8).

Now, we impose an initial condition at $`z=L`$ that the particle has been prepared into a transverse Gaussian wave-packet, specified to have a pure real width $`\delta _0`$ given by:

$$A_0=Re[A(L)]=1/(\delta _0)^2;Im[A(L)]=0$$
(1.9)
We assume that the centroid of the initial wave-packet is moving parallel to the $`z`$-axis, thus $`p_{}=0`$, and $`x_{}=x_0`$ is initially arbitrary at $`z=L`$.

The wave-packet enters the lens at $`z=\delta z`$ and exits at $`z=0`$. Upon entry of the lens $`A(\delta z)`$ is given by the free drift solution of eq.(1.7) from $`z=L`$ to the lens, over the drift distance $`L`$:

$$A(\delta z)=\frac{A_0}{(1+iA_0L/E)}$$
(1.10)
where we assume a thin lens, $`\delta z/L<<1`$.

In the thin lens, to a good approximation for small $`\delta z`$, we have from eq.(1.7):

$$A(0)=A(\delta z)+i\delta zK_0$$
(1.11)
Here we neglected the term $`i\delta zA^2/E`$ in the differential equation for $`A(z)`$ which only gives negligible free particle spreading in the lens. Moreover, the classical centroid motion of the wave-packet is found from eq.(1.8):

$$p_{}(0)=K_0x_0\delta z;x_{}(0)=x_0.$$
(1.12)
Upon exiting the lens the particle propagates again in free space a distance $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`K=0`$. Hence we find:

$$A(\mathrm{})=\frac{A(0)}{1+iA(0)\mathrm{}/E}$$
(1.13)
and:

$$p_{}(\mathrm{})=K_0x_0\delta z;x_{}(\mathrm{})=x_0p_{}\mathrm{}/E.$$
(1.14)
Note that the classical trajectory of the off-axis particle is deflected back toward the lens axis, $`x_{}=0`$.

The focal length, $`f`$ is defined such that $`x_{}(f)=0`$, hence:

$$f=\frac{E}{K_0\delta z}$$
(1.15)
The kernel of the wave-packet can now be obtained by solving eqs.(1.9,1.10,1.11,1.13) recursively to obtain:

$$A(\mathrm{})=\left[\frac{1i[L/(E(\delta _0)^2)(\delta _0)^2E/f]}{(\delta _0)^2(1\mathrm{}/f)+i(\mathrm{}/E+L/EL\mathrm{}/Ef)}\right]$$
(1.16)
Note that the Gaussian kernel has an imaginary part which changes from positive (focusing) to negative (defocusing) upon passage of the geometrical focal length, $`L>f`$. Thus, the transverse probability distribution becomes:

$$|\widehat{\varphi }|^2=𝒩(z)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{(xx_{})^2}{(\delta _0)^2(1\mathrm{}/f)^2+(\mathrm{}/E\delta _0)^2[1L(\mathrm{}f)/f\mathrm{}]^2}\right)\right\}$$
(1.17)
and, the transverse size of the wave-packet is given by:

$$\delta ^2(\mathrm{})=(\delta _0)^2(1\mathrm{}/f)^2+(\mathrm{}/E\delta _0)^2[1L(\mathrm{}f)/f\mathrm{}]^2$$
(1.18)
In Figure 1 we give a numerical integration of the Schroedinger equation in the preceding discussion, which confirms the validity of our solution. Note that for finite $`L`$ the Gaussian width is focused to a minimum at $`z=f+f^2/L+\mathrm{}`$. In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ the transverse size of the wave-packet reaches a minimum at the focal point $`\mathrm{}=f`$, where the new effective transverse size is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{f}{E\delta _0}$$
(1.19)
This is the usual Rayleigh diffractive minimum, $`f\lambda /a`$ if we regard $`a\delta _0`$ as an “effective aperture size” through which the beam has passed, and $`E=p_zc=\mathrm{}c/\lambda `$, the usual quantum wavelength of the particle.

What if the initial prepared wave-function is not the groundstate of a SHO (pure Gaussian), but is rather an excited eigenstate of principle quantum number $`n`$? Hence, at $`z=L`$, neglecting $`x_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$, we assume:

$$\widehat{\psi }(L)=H_n(x/\sqrt{2}\delta _0)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(x/\delta _0)^2+C\right)$$
(1.20)
where $`H_n(\xi )`$ is the $`n`$th Hermite polynomial.

First, we note that the Gaussian solution eq.(1.6) contains the generating function for Hermite polynomials :

$$\widehat{\varphi }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}A(z)(x)^2+ip_{}(z)x+C\right)\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{H_n(\sqrt{(A(z)/2)}x)}{n!}[\sqrt{(A(z)/2)}x_{}(z)]^n\right)$$
(1.21)
For a freely drifting particle, if we choose $`p_{}(L)=0`$, and initial $`x_{}(L)=x_0`$, in $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, then we see that our solution $`\widehat{\psi }(z)`$ is determined for any $`z`$:

$$\widehat{\psi }(z)=\frac{^n}{x_0^n}\varphi (z)|_{x_0=0}$$
(1.22)
After passing through an arbitrary lens system, the solution for $`\widehat{\psi }(z)`$ becomes messy, and in general $`x_{}(z)`$ and $`p_{}(z)`$ are arbitrary, and we cannot so easily differentiate with respect to $`x_0`$ to pull out our solution. However, both $`x_{}(z)`$ and $`p_{}(z)`$ are proportional to $`x_0`$ by the linearity of the Hamilton equations. At a focal point we have $`x_{}(f)=0`$ (for any $`x_0`$, owing to linearity), and $`p_{}(f)x_0`$. Hence, the solution at a focal point simplifies:

$`\widehat{\psi }(f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{x_0^n}}\varphi (f)|_{x_0=0}`$ (1.23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^n}{x_0^n}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(z)(x)^2+ip_{}(z)x+C\right)|_{x_0=0}`$
$``$ $`x^n\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(z)(x)^2\right)`$
and thus, the arbitrary solution is focused to a Gaussian times a power of $`x`$. This gives a focal spot size:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{\sqrt{n}f}{E\delta _0}$$
(1.24)
Now this result may seem counterintuitive; we are starting with a broader initial distribution by the factor $`\sqrt{n}`$, and we might guess that this would produce a smaller focal point by an amout $`1/\sqrt{n}`$. The wave-function, however, is not smooth in $`x`$, i.e., the Hermite polynomial yields a distribution of transverse momentum, and the initial state has “ears”, each of typical Gaussian width $`\delta _0`$, but displaced off the optical axis by $`\sqrt{n}`$ . These produce the $`\sqrt{n}`$ enhancement of the focal spot. Yet another way to see this is to note that one can make a classical off–axis centroid motion of the groundstate Gaussian by superimposing large $`n`$ states, and the Gaussian width will yield the minimal $`f/\delta _0E`$ result. Of course, the quantum state of interest to us will typically have a large value of $`n`$ determined by radiative relaxation. We consider this in the next section.

The actual linear acceleration phase is inconsequential to this result. The above discussion assumed a uniform drift in the longitudinal $`z`$-direction, i.e., constant energy $`E`$. If the particle is accelerating linearly, then $`E`$ becomes z-dependent, $`E(z)=(E_fE_0)z/L+E_0`$. It is easily seen that the only effect on our solution is to replace $`L`$ by $`L\mathrm{ln}((E_fE_0)/E_0)`$, where $`E_0`$ is the initial energy, $`E_f`$ the final energy, and $`E`$ in the above expressions is everywhere replaced by $`E_f`$. For the first NLC, we have $`E_f250`$ GeV $`>>E_02`$ GeV. The linear acceleration phase is thus equivalent to free drift through an effective distance of $`L\mathrm{ln}(E_f/E_0)45`$ km where $`L=10`$ km. The amount by which a wave-packet of initial size of $`25`$ nm spreads throughout the NLC acceleration phase is about a factor of $`6`$. However, this spreading is irrelevant to computing the final diffractive limit as seen in eq.(1.19) where the free drift length $`L`$ has completely cancelled from the expression at the classical focal point, and only the initial quantity $`\delta _0`$ (together with the local quantities $`f`$ and $`E`$) controls the diffractive limit.111We remark that the proper way to view the quantum spreading in the transverse phase-space is to use Wigner functions, which depend upon both $`x`$ and a quantum momentum $`p`$. The Wigner function isocontours deform in a manner that is conformal to the classical emittance envelope, so while the wave-functions spread in $`x`$ the Wigner envelopes actually shear in $`x`$ and $`p`$ and remain contained in the transverse phase-space.

Thus, the ultimate diffractive limit is controlled by the initial boundary conditions on the wave-function size, i.e. by $`\delta _0`$, and not by the intervening unitary lens system. What in general determines $`\delta _0`$? For the NLC the initial wave-function, as well as the initial classical distribution, is prepared in the “damping rings.” Damping rings are essentially a system of magnets arranged as wigglers which induce synchrotron radiation and cool the classical beam bunches of electrons. They are designed to produce roughly a four order of magnitude reduction in one of the transverse dimension phase space volumes, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p_x`$ (the transverse emittance). As the system cools classically, it is also relaxing quantum mechanically. This occurs because the particles in the wiggler chain experience a transverse SHO potential, and synchrotron radiation pushes highly excited wave-functions toward the Gaussian groundstate in this potential . However, there are also re-excitation transitions which eventually come into equilibrium, and a typical average SHO principle quantum number is established. While this is certainly an oversimplified view of the actual system, we will use it as a starting point to estimate $`\delta _0`$.

## 2 Magnetic Focusing and Damping

We now sumarize the details of the motion of a transverse wave-packet in a magnetic field. This is discussed in detail in the classic work of Sokolov and Ternov . We will use the more transparent WKB approximation, expanding about the classical radius of motion. Hence, one should use caution in comparing solutions, e.g., principle quantum numbers refer to different things. For example, large $`n`$ in the usual framework  corresponds to small $`n`$, but large classical radius $`j_z`$ presently.

Consider a particle moving in a planar orbit in a uniform magnetic field, aligned in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction, $`\stackrel{}{B}=\widehat{z}B_0`$ in a cylindrical coordinate system $`(r,\varphi ,z)`$. The vector potential can be chosen as $`A_\varphi =rB_0/2`$ with $`A_r=0`$ and $`A_z=0`$. We examine the transverse motion of a relativistic electron in the plane $`z=0`$. For an anzatz of the form $`e^{iEt/\mathrm{}}\psi (r,\varphi )`$, the KG equation becomes:

$$\left[E^2+m^2\frac{^2}{r^2}\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}+\left(\frac{i}{r}\frac{}{\varphi }eA_\varphi \right)^2\right]\psi =0$$
(2.25)
where a possible momentum component $`p_z`$ has been set to zero. Consider a state of with a large “pseudo-angular momentum,” $`\mathrm{}`$, and scale out a factor of $`1/\sqrt{r}`$:

$$\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }\widehat{\chi }(r,t).$$
(2.26)
($`\mathrm{}`$ is not the physical angular momentum because it is gauge dependent due to presence of the vector potential; the physical angular momentum in the present case is $`2\mathrm{}`$, as we will see below). Hence:

$$\left[E^2+m^2\frac{^2}{r^2}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{r}\frac{1}{2}erB_0\right)^2+\frac{1}{4r^2}\right]\widehat{\chi }=0$$
(2.27)
This now has the apparent form of a one-dimensional Schroedinger equation with an effective potential:

$$V(r)=\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{r}+\frac{1}{2}erB_0\right)^2+\frac{1}{4r^2}\right]$$
(2.28)
The potential has a minimum at:

$$r=R_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{4\mathrm{}^2+1}}{eB_0}\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{}}{eB_0}}$$
(2.29)
where the latter expression corresponds to $`\mathrm{}>>1`$. Consider henceforth $`\mathrm{}>>1.`$ We consider small radial fluctuations around the large orbital radius $`R_0`$ as $`r=R_0+x`$ and expand:

$$\left[E^2+m^2\frac{^2}{x^2}+V(R_0)+\frac{1}{2}x^2V^{\prime \prime }(R_0)\right]\widehat{\chi }=0$$
(2.30)
and:

$$V(R_0)=2eB_0\mathrm{}V^{\prime \prime }(R_0)=2e^2B_0^2$$
(2.31)
Thus the high orbital angular momentum Landau levels are approximate eigenstates of the SHO potential defined by $`\widehat{V}(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^2V^{\prime \prime }(R_0)`$, or $`K=e^2B_0^2/2E`$. The states are labelled by $`(n,\mathrm{})`$ where $`n`$ is a principle SHO quantum number; the energy eigenvalues of these levels are given by:

$$E^2=m^2+eB_0(2\mathrm{}+n+\frac{1}{2})$$
(2.32)
In the presence of the gauge interaction the physical angular momentum is $`L_z=i/\varphi +eR_0A_\varphi (R_0)`$. Hence, the physical angular momentum is:

$$j_z=\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}eB_0R_0^2=2\mathrm{}$$
(2.33)
where we use the explicit solution for $`R_0`$ from eq.(2.29) in the latter expression. Therefore, to make the classical correspondence, we identify the angular momentum with that of an entering beam particle of momentum $`p_\varphi `$, to obtain $`R_0p_\varphi =j=2\mathrm{}`$. This yields consistency with the familiar expression for the classical orbital radius and the total energy:

$$R_0=\frac{p_\varphi }{eB_0}E^2=m^2+eB_0(j_z+n+\frac{1}{2})$$
(2.34)
Transitions that increase $`n`$, but decrease $`j_z`$ are allowed; hence synchrotron radiation can be excitatory as well as relaxational. The fact that the energy is degenerate, depending upon the combination $`j_z+n`$ is a consequence of the symmetry in the choice of the classical orbital center. (Note that the solution formed with the anzatz $`e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }`$ for large $`\mathrm{}`$ is actually a solution of vanishing physical momentum; it is a zero-mode associated with the translational invariance of the center of the particle’s orbit).

The groundstate in the transverse dimension is a Gaussian with $`A=|eB_0|`$, given by:

$$\delta _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{Re(A)}}=(eB_0/\mathrm{}c)^{1/2}.$$
(2.35)
For a typical field strenth of $`1`$ Tesla we obtain $`\delta _025`$ nm. The “spring constant” is $`O(e^2)`$, hence we say that the dipole magnet is weakly focusing (for quadrupoles $`V^{\prime \prime }(R_0)eB_0E/a`$, where $`a`$ defines a gradient, hence “strong focusing”). This description applies to wigglers, even though the dipole magnet field is alternating in $`z`$, if the magnitude of the $`B`$ field is roughly constant.

It has been known for a long time that an equilibrium between deexcitatory and excitatory transitions for a particle in a damping system (or synchrotron) will be established , and there will be an equilibrium value of $`n`$. This value is roughly estimated as follows. The typical energy of synchrotron radiated photons is , :

$$E_\gamma \frac{1}{R_0}\left(\frac{E}{m_e}\right)^3$$
(2.36)
A unit step in a quantum number $`n`$ or $`j_z`$ produces only a small energy change, $`eB_0/E1/R_0`$. The dipole approximation selection rules imply large allowed changes in $`j_z`$, but only unit steps in $`n`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }j_z\frac{E}{R_0eB_0}\left(\frac{E}{m_e}\right)^3\left(\frac{E}{m_e}\right)^3\mathrm{\Delta }n\pm 1$$
(2.37)
Bear in mind that we are treating $`n`$ as the principle quantum number in the WKB focusing channel defined by expanding about $`R_0`$, and dipole transitions involving the operator $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ will change $`n`$ by a unit (these can be excitatory). Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }j_z/R_0`$ is essentially the change in longitudinal electron momentum, imparted to the photon. In transitions, though $`R_0`$ changes, there is no sudden translation in the transverse position of the electron wave-function, only a transition in motion, i.e., the virtual center of the orbit changes .

Over a radiative energy loss time interval the number of emitted photons is:

$$n_\gamma \frac{E}{E_\gamma }\frac{m_e^3}{eB_0E}R_0\left(\frac{m_e^3}{E^2}\right)$$
(2.38)
The principle quantum number $`n`$ undergoes a random walk by roughly $`\sqrt{n_\gamma }`$, hence the equilibrium $`\overline{n}`$ is of order $`\sqrt{n_\gamma }`$. Using $`E2`$ GeV, and $`B_01`$ Tesla, whence $`R_06.6`$ m, we find $`n_\gamma =1.12\times 10^6`$ and $`\overline{n}1.06\times 10^3`$.

Hence, our diffractive limit is now increased by $`\sqrt{\overline{n}}0.33\times 10^2`$, and we thus have a beam spot size $`\sqrt{\overline{n}}\times 0.062.0`$ nm. Why is this result so close to the design goals of the NLC that are obtained by classical physics? Indeed, we believe that this result is a quantum derivation of the classical result! The quantum number $`n`$ scales as $`1/\mathrm{}`$, while our diffractive limit scales as $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\sqrt{\mathrm{}}`$, hence the product $`\sqrt{n}\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$. This, moreover, assures us that the ultimate quantum limit is of order $`1/\sqrt{\overline{n}}`$ smaller than the minimal classical analysis. (We note that the Oide effect  may be understood as a blowing up of $`\overline{n}`$ in intense final focus magnets, where large transverse energy photons are radiated).

A more detailed discussion of synchrotron radiation relaxation is beyond the scope of the present paper. Excellent treatments can be found in , , and the pioneering work of .

## 3 Quantum Particle in a Synchrotron

The solution to the Schroedinger equation for passage of a free particle through a lens, eq.(1.4), can be completely described by the simple classical optical matrix methods. If one passes a classical ray moving in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction through a lens system, the outgoing state of the transverse $`\widehat{x}`$ canonical variables may be written as :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x(\mathrm{})\\ p(\mathrm{})/E\end{array}\right)_{out}=\left(\begin{array}{c}x(\delta z)\\ p(\delta z)/E\end{array}\right)_{in}\text{where:}det=1.$$
(3.39)
The unimodular matrix $``$ for a compound sequence of lens elements is the corresponding sequential product of the individual matrices of the elements. For example, a sequence of free propagation (distance $`L`$), followed by defocusing lens (focal length $`f`$), followed by a space $`a`$, followed by a focusing lens (focal length $`f`$), followed by free propagation (distance $`\mathrm{}`$) yields the result:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x(\mathrm{})\\ p(\mathrm{})/E\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{a}{f}\frac{a\mathrm{}}{f^2}& (L+a+\mathrm{})+\frac{aL}{f}\frac{a\mathrm{}}{f}\frac{aL\mathrm{}}{f^2}\\ \frac{a}{f^2}& 1\frac{a}{f}\frac{aL}{f^2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x(\delta z)\\ p(\delta z)/E\end{array}\right)$$
(3.40)
The zero of the $`(11)`$ matrix element in $`\mathrm{}=Ff+f^2/a`$ implies the system is net focusing with composite focal length $`F`$ (e.g., see ref. ).

The effect of this particular lens system in quantum mechanics, e.g., on the Gaussian kernel $`A`$ as defined in eq.(1.6), can be easily derived from the Schroedinger equation:

$$A(\mathrm{})=\frac{A_0(1a/faL/f^2)+iEa/f^2}{1+a/fa\mathrm{}/f^2+iA_0/E[L+a+\mathrm{}+aL/fa\mathrm{}/f(a\mathrm{}L/f^2)]}$$
(3.41)
The focal length, $`F`$, is where $`_{11}=0`$, and, at the focal length we obtain the width:

$$\delta (F)=\frac{f^2}{aE\delta _0}\text{where:}Re(A(0))=\frac{1}{\delta _0^2}$$
(3.42)
This result is the minimal diffractive quantum limit for the composite lens system, and it is again determined by the initial width of the quantum state.222Here we might imagine taking $`a\mathrm{}`$ holding $`f`$ fixed to cause $`\delta (F)0`$; however, for $`a>>f`$ the longitudinal dimension ($`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$) of the focal point becomes small as $`f/a`$ owing to the $`aL/f`$ and $`a\mathrm{}L/f^2`$ terms in $`_{12}`$, and the finite longitudinal distribution of the beams becomes problematic; we have not looked in detail at optimization of this.

Of course, beyond $`\delta _0`$, there is actually no new information in the above formula for $`A`$ than is already present in the lens matrix for the classical ray optics. If the lens matrix is $`_{ij}`$, then we see by comparison with eq.(3.41) the general result for the Gaussian kernel (, ):

$$\text{Theorem I:}A_{out}=\frac{_{22}A_{in}i_{21}E}{_{11}+i_{12}A_{in}/E}$$
(3.43)
That is, if we write the out-amplitude as:

$$A_{out}=iE\left(\frac{𝒩}{𝒟}\right)$$
(3.44)
then:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒟\\ 𝒩\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{11}& _{12}\\ _{21}& _{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}iE\\ A_{in}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.45)
From this result we can easily derive the quantum limit on beam size at the classical focal length. The classical focal length occurs where $`_{11}=0`$. At this point we have $`_{12}=_{21}^1`$. Hence we readily find:

$$\text{Theorem II:}ReA_f=\frac{E^2ReA_0}{_{12}^2[(ReA_0)^2+(ImA_0)^2]}=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2}.$$
(3.46)
If $`A_0=\mathrm{}/\delta _0^2`$ is pure real, then:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{_{12}}{E\delta _0}\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}}{E\delta _0}$$
(3.47)
noting that $`_{12}\stackrel{~}{F}f`$ is a length scale comparable to the focal length at the classical focal length, e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{F}=f^2/a`$ in our previous compound lens example (see previous footnote).

Now, if the magnet system is periodic, as in a synchrotron, we expect quantum states that are approximately periodic solutions in the matrix. Periodic solutions must be eigenstates of the matrix $``$. Consider first the motion within a very thick lens, i.e., a continuous transverse SHO potential. For an infinitesimal displacement in the $`z`$-direction, the lens matrix is:

$$_{SHO}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \delta z\\ \frac{K\delta z}{E}& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3.48)
which is unimodular to $`𝒪((\delta z)^2)`$. The eigenvalues of $`_h`$ are $`\lambda _\pm =1\pm i\delta z\sqrt{K/E}`$. The stable, quantum solutions in the lens are therefore the eigenvectors:

$$\lambda _\pm \left(\begin{array}{c}iE\\ A_0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{11}& _{12}\\ _{21}& _{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}iE\\ A_0\end{array}\right)$$
(3.49)
hence we find:

$$A_0=\pm \sqrt{KE}$$
(3.50)
Hence, the stable solution in the linear focusing channel is, indeed, the Gaussian groundstate solution in the SHO potential. We have simply recovered the usual Gaussian groundstate in this limit.

Consider now a “synchrotron,” i.e., periodic magnet lens lattice based upon the above lens configuration. We assume an infinite series of alternating dipoles with spacing $`a`$ and focal lengths $`\pm f`$. Replacing $`L=a\mathrm{}`$ in the matrix elements $`_{ij}`$ of eq.(3.40) gives the lens matrix for the synchrotron:

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{a}{f}\frac{a\mathrm{}}{f^2}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}a+\frac{a^2}{f}2\frac{a\mathrm{}}{f}\frac{a^2\mathrm{}}{f^2}+\frac{a\mathrm{}^2}{f^2}\\ \frac{a}{f^2}& 1\frac{a}{f}\frac{a^2}{f^2}+\frac{a\mathrm{}}{f^2}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.51)
The condition that we have a periodic solution is:

$$A_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{_{22}A_{\mathrm{}}i_{21}E}{_{11}+i_{12}A_{\mathrm{}}/E}$$
(3.52)
Using $`det=1`$ we find:

$$A_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{iE}{2_{12}}\left[_{22}_{11}\pm \left((_{22}+_{11})^24\right)^{1/2}\right]$$
(3.53)
Stable quantum solutions (solutions that are normalizeable Gaussians for all $`\mathrm{}`$) therefore require:

$$1\frac{1}{2}Tr()1$$
(3.54)
This is, of course, the familiar stability condition for the classical motion. Note that $`Tr()=2a^2/f^2`$, which is $`\mathrm{}`$ independent, thus when the condition is met for particular choices of $`f`$ and $`a`$ it holds everywhere. The stability condition is the usual one, $`fa/2`$.

The solution for $`A(\mathrm{})`$ is:

$$A(\mathrm{})=\frac{E}{[(2f+a)(1\mathrm{}/f)+\mathrm{}^2/f]}\left[\left(1\frac{a^2}{4f^2}\right)^{1/2}+i\left(1+\frac{a}{2f}\frac{\mathrm{}}{f}\right)\right]$$
(3.55)
where $`fa/2`$ and $`0\mathrm{}a`$.

Consider the special case of a system in which $`f=a`$. We see that the minimum Gaussian width occurs at $`\mathrm{}=a`$, given by:

$$min(1/ReA(\mathrm{}))=\frac{2f}{\sqrt{3}E}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2$$
(3.56)
This implies that the minimum achievable beam spot size in a synchrotron is $`\sqrt{f/E}`$. If a focusing magnet of focal length $`f^{}`$ is inserted into the synchrotron magnet lattice and, then we obtain the minimum spot size $`f^{}/E\mathrm{\Delta }xf^{}/\sqrt{Ef}`$. There is no initial parameter $`\delta _0`$ since we have assumed that synchrotron radiation relaxes the quantum state into the stable, periodic solution. Here we see a potential advantage of a linear collider over a synchrotron, in that the linear collider has a much larger $`\delta _0\sqrt{f/E_0}`$ prepared in the low energy damping ring, which makes the quantum diffractive limit smaller, $`f/E\delta _0`$, while in the synchrotron $`\delta _0\sqrt{f/E}`$, where $`E`$ is the larger beam energy, thus giving a larger diffractive limit $`\sqrt{f/E}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion, we estimate the minimal quantum beam spot size achievable in a linear collider to be given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}cf}{E\delta _0}$$
(4.57)
where $`f`$ is the final focal length, $`E`$ the beam energy, and $`\delta _0`$ is the initial transverse size of the wave-functions prior to acceleration. This may be viewed as a direct transcription of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. $`\delta _0`$ is prepared in the synchronous damping rings, typically wigglers, and $`\delta _01/\sqrt{eB/\mathrm{}c}`$ where $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength. We have for an NLC-class machine, $`B1`$ Tesla, $`f2`$ m, $`E250`$ GeV hence $`\delta _025`$ nm, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x𝒪(0.06)`$ nm.

Radiation damping implies that the initial state wave-function is not a groundstate, and has an average equilibrium principle quantum number $`\overline{n}`$. Then our result is modified:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\sqrt{\overline{n}}\frac{\mathrm{}cf}{E\delta _0}$$
(4.58)
$`\overline{n}`$ is estimated to be

$$\overline{n}\left(\frac{m_e^3}{eB_0E}\right)^{1/2}$$
(4.59)
or, for the above parameters, $`\overline{n}0.11\times 10^4`$. Eq.(4.59) is essentially classical, and yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }x2`$ nm, roughly consistent with the classical vertical final focus beam spot size of the NLC, $`5`$ nm. A more precise analysis of this latter effect is, however, certainly required. This may be a useful way to approach other phenomena, such as the Oide effect, in which large fluctuation in $`\overline{n}`$ in strong final focus magnets can occur, broadening the beam spot size.

We have examined the quantum solution in a simple FODO synchrotron model. In a synchrotron information about the initial $`\delta _0`$ is lost, and the minimal transverse beam spot size is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}cf}{E}}$$
(4.60)
which is $`𝒪(1)`$ nm for most high energy synchrotrons, e.g., LEP and Tevatron, in operation at present. Again, a factor of $`\overline{n}`$ would yiedl the classical result. Presumably proton synchrotrons are far from the equilibrium, with $`n>>\overline{n}`$.

A tantalizing question is: can quantum diffractive effects be observed? More generally, our discussion has been motivated by the belief that quantum optics may be the preferred way to analyze futuristic machines. A more general formalism more symmetrical in $`p_{}`$ and $`x_{}`$ for the study of the quantum phase space, perhaps based upon Wigner’s formulation of quantum mechanics, is desired .

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank W. Bardeen, D. Burke, J. D. Jackson, R. Noble, C.Quigg, A. Tollestrup, and especially P. Chen, D. Finley, L. Michelotti, and R. Raja for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Keck Speckle Imaging of the White Dwarf G29-38: No Brown Dwarf Companion Detected

## 1 Introduction

Zuckerman and Becklin (1987) discovered that the white dwarf Giclas 29-38 has a large infrared excess and proposed that the excess could be due to a brown dwarf companion. This suggestion inspired discussion of brown dwarfs as white dwarf companions (Stringfellow, Black & Bodenheimer 1990), oscillating brown dwarfs (Marley, Lunine & Hubbard 1990), and other possible cool companions that could explain the excess (Greenstein 1988). Later photometry by Tokunaga et al. (1990) and Telesco, Joy & Sisk (1990) suggested that the 10 micron excess greatly exceeds that expected from a brown dwarf companion, leading to the interpretation that the mid-infrared excess originates from a cloud of circumstellar dust. However, new data from ISOCAM (Chary, Zuckerman & Becklin 1998) show that the 7 and 15 micron excesses are in agreement with a 1000 K blackbody fit to the excess at other wavelengths. The source of the infrared excess of G29-38 remains uncertain.

Direct searches for a companion have produced mixed results. Tokunaga et al. (1988) imaged G29-38 at H and K bands and limited the extent of the source to a diameter of 400 milliarcseconds (mas) or 5.64 AU. Tokunaga et al. (1988) and Tokunaga et al. (1990) took near-infrared spectra of the object and found no evidence for absorption features due to a brown dwarf. Haas and Leinert (1990) took slit scans of G29-38 in 1988, and found a North-South extension at K-band that was well fit by a binary model with a flux ratio of 1:1 and a separation of $`230\pm 40`$ mas ($`3.24\pm 0.56`$ AU). However, when Haas and Lienert repeated their observations the following year under better seeing conditions, the object appeared unextended. Shelton, Becklin and Zuckerman (1998) took slit scans of G29-38 in the J and K bands at the Lick 3-meter telescope in October of 1989 to look for the centroid shift that would arise if, as the photometry suggests, the hypothetical cool companion is brighter in K and the white dwarf is brighter in J. They did not see this effect. They place an upper limit of $`40`$ mas (0.56 AU) on the North-South binary separation, and an upper limit of $`120`$ mas (1.69 AU) on the East-West separation.

Attempts to find the radial velocity signature of a companion to G29-38 have also proven frustrating. Barnbaum & Zuckerman (1992) combined their own spectroscopy with radial velocity data by Graham et al. (1990), Graham, Reid, & Rich (1991, personal communication reported in Graham et al. 1990), Liebert & Saffer (1989, personal communication reported in Graham et al. 1990) and Liebert, Saffer, & Pilachowski (1989), and reported a probable radial velocity variation with a period of 11.2 months and an amplitude of $`10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Kleinman et al. (1994), however, argued based on extensive astroseismological observations that the radial velocity variation due to a binary companion must be less than $`\pm 0.65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ assuming a $``$1 year period.

Hoping to find another clue to the mystery of the infrared excess, we imaged G29-38 at K band on the 10-m W. M. Keck telescope using speckle interferometry to search for a resolved companion at the diffraction limit.

## 2 Observations

We imaged G29-38 at K band with NIRC (the Near-Infrared Camera; Matthews & Soifer 1994) on the W. M. Keck telescope on December 15, 1997. The seeing was extraordinary; we used 0.5 second integrations and saw about 5 speckles and a diffraction-limited core. We took 12 sets of 100 frames of G29-38. Among observations of G29-38 we interspersed observations of two nearby, presumably unresolved calibrator stars, S23291+0515 and S23292+0521, which we observed in the same manner as G29-38, for a total of 6 sets of calibrator frames. We used a version of the speckle reduction software described in Koresko et al. (1991) adapted for use with NIRC. We chose a $`128\times 128`$ pixel subframe centered on the object, and constructed $`128\times 128`$ pixel sky frames from the corners of the $`256\times 256`$ pixel NIRC images. From each set of object and sky frames we computed a power spectrum, and a bi-spectrum, and re-constructed Fourier phases and amplitudes. We divided the Fourier components from each target set by the Fourier components from a few different calibrator sets to correct for the telescope-aperture transfer function, and in this way assembled 18 calibrated images and 18 calibrated power spectra.

Figure 1 shows the mean of the images, compared to a simulated image of a point source—the Fourier transform of the Gaussian$`\times `$Hanning apodizing function used to synthesize the speckle images. The plate scale is 20.57 mas per pixel. Figure 2 shows the azimuthal average of the arithmetic mean of the calibrated power spectra, where we normalized each power spectrum by dividing it by the geometric mean of the first 15 data points after the zero-frequency component. The error bars represent the 1-$`\sigma `$ variations among the 18 power spectra. The $`\lambda /D`$ diffraction limit of Keck at K-band is 55 mas. The noise increases at high frequencies because the power in the images decreases near the diffraction limit. The low frequency spike probably occurs because of seeing noise, the change in seeing between observations of G29-38 and observations of the calibrators. Because the final image closely resembles a point source and the power spectrum is consistent with a constant, the power spectrum of a $`\delta `$-function, we conclude that we did not resolve G29-38.

## 3 Discussion

The K-band flux of G29-38 is $`5.46\pm 0.15`$ mJy; 2.05 mJy of this is in excess of Greenstein’s (1988) white dwarf model (Tokunaga, Becklin & Zuckerman 1990). We computed the power spectrum of a binary system consisting of a Greenstein white dwarf and a point-like companion which supplies all the excess flux. The only free parameter for this binary model is the angular separation of the components. We fit the model to the observed power spectrum, and derive a best fit binary separation of 20 mas. The maximum deviation of the power spectrum from a straight line, however, is consistent with typical deviations due to time variations of the atmosphere-telescope point-spread function. In figure 2, we compare the 20 mas model with the observed power spectrum and a model with the same flux ratio but a 30 mas separation. The latter model is marginally inconsistent with our observations, so we report 30 mas as an upper limit to the binary separation.

At G29-38’s distance of 14.1 pc (Tokunaga et al. 1990), 30 mas corresponds to a transverse separation of 0.42 AU. Assuming that G29-38 is 0.61 $`M_{}`$ (Bergeron et al. 1995), an 0.06 $`M_{}`$ brown dwarf orbiting the star at 0.42 AU would have a period of about 0.33 years and would create a reflex motion in G29-38 that would have been detectable to Kleinman et al. (1994) if the orbit were inclined more than 10 degrees from face-on. The statistical likelyhood of an inclination $`10`$ degrees is 1.5%. Closer orbits would be easier to detect from reflex motion.

Perhaps a brown dwarf orbits G29-38 with a long period that would be hard to identify in reflex motion and the brown dwarf happened to pass in front of the star or behind it when we observed it on December 15, 1997. For instance, Kleinman et al. (1994) saw a long-term trend in their radial velocity data which could be interpreted as a companion with an $`8`$ year period causing radial velocity variations on the order of 0.8 km/s. Such a companion would have a semimajor axis of $`3.4`$ AU. If the orbit had a semi-major axis $`a`$, and were edge-on, the fraction of the time the brown dwarf would spend in the region where we couldn’t resolve it is $`\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^1\frac{0.42AU}{a}`$; for $`a=3.4`$ AU, there is a $`<8`$% chance that the brown dwarf would have been hidden from us. Since Shelton et al. (1998) also missed the hypothetical edge-on brown dwarf in 1989 as it passed close to the star, we find this scenario unlikely.

A companion in an eccentric orbit is easier to detect from reflex motion than a companion in a circular orbit with the same semi-major axis. Therefore such a companion would have to be farther away from the star on average for Kleinman et al. (1994) to have missed it, making it even more unlikely that it would have been hidden from us, Haas & Lienert (1990), and Shelton et al. (1998). A companion in an eccentric, face-on orbit would spend relatively little time close to the star, and probably would not have been missed by both us and Shelton et al. (1998).

The infrared excess may represent thermal radiation from a cloud of dust rather than a cool companion (Zuckerman & Becklin 1987). We can place no constraints on the concentration or geometry of such a cloud. Dust radiating thermally at 1–15 microns heated by radiation from the white dwarf alone would be far too close to the star ($`<10^3`$ AU) for us to resolve.

## 4 Conclusions

We conclude that the infrared excess of G29-38 is not due to a single orbiting companion. If there were a single companion producing the excess, it would have to orbit almost face-on and closer than 0.4 AU; or it could orbit roughly edge on, with a period of several years, in such a way that it happened to appear at a minimum angular separation from the star in December, 1997 when we observed it and in the fall of 1989 when Haas & Lienert (1990) and Shelton et al. (1998) observed it. Either case is highly improbable. This result supports the hypothesis that source of the near-infrared excess is not a cool companion but a dust cloud (Zuckerman & Becklin 1987; Wickramasinghe et al. 1987; Graham et al. 1990; Koester et al. 1997).

We thank Eugene Chiang, Chris Clemens, Peter Goldreich, and Ben Zuckerman for inspiration and helpful discussions. The observations reported here were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated by the California Association for Research in Astronomy, a scientific partnership among California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation.


text:
# Discreteness effects on soliton dynamics: a simple experiment.

## I  A brief tutorial on collective diffusion.

Before describing the apparatus and experimental results, let us recall some basic ideas on the diffusion of particles over a periodic potential under the effect of an applied force. The motion of a single particle can be easily analyzed if one considers only the low temperature situation where the thermal fluctuations can be neglected. In the absence of a driving force, the particle is trapped into a potential well. Applying a driving force is equivalent to tilting the potential and, above a critical angle $`\alpha _0`$, the minimum disappears and the particle starts to slide on the washboard potential .

Instead of a single particle let us now consider a chain of particles coupled by harmonic springs with an equilibrium length equal to the distance between the potential minima: this state is called a commensurate state. Its ground state is reached when all the particles are in the potential minima (fig. 1.a) and the situation is comparable to the case of a single particle: the motion induced by an external force will only start when the minima of the total potential (including the force term) have disappeared. If a defect is introduced in the chain, the situation becomes very interesting and is equivalent to creating a dislocation in a crystal. Consider for instance the case of a missing particle obtained by moving one half of the chain by one unit, i.e. a kink in the particle positions. In the vicinity of the defect, the competition between the elastic energy of the springs and the substrate potential energy displace the particles with respect to the minima of the potential (fig. 1.b). As a result the particles next to the defect are easier to move with an external force than a particle sitting at the bottom of the well. For a sinusoidal potential of period $`a`$, $`V(x)=V_0[1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x/a)]`$, when the coupling between the particles is strong, the position of the nth particle is $`x_n=a[n+\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{exp}(n/\mathrm{})]`$, with $`\mathrm{}=\frac{a}{2\pi }\sqrt{k/V_0}`$ where $`k`$ is the spring elastic constant . No analytical solution for the structure of the defect is known in the case of weak coupling.

When the coupling between the particles is very strong, the defect is extended. The displacements of the particles vary progressively from zero to one lattice spacing across the defect. Consequently, there are particles at any level of the substrate potential, including on the maximum. This is the situation that is realized in the chain of strongly coupled pendula described by Scott . In this quasi-continuum situation, it is easy to understand why the defect (or soliton in the terminology of nonlinear science) can move freely. When it is translated some particles have to climb over the substrate potential barriers but simultaneously others move downward in the potential and the overall translation does not require any energy. In a continuum model, the system is invariant by any translation and the free motion of the soliton is simply a manifestation of this translational symmetry (Goldstone mode).

In the weakly coupled situation that we consider here, the situation is different. The defect is highly localized and even though some particles are slightly displaced from the potential minima as in Fig. 1(c), the springs are not strong enough to maintain particles at the top of the substrate potential barriers. Now, in order to translate the defect, one has to move particles up on the substrate potential: there is a barrier to the free translation of the defect, which is well known in dislocation theory as the Peierls-Nabarro (PN) barrier. The weak coupling case appears therefore as a natural intermediate case between the case of individual particles which must overcome the full potential barrier of the substrate potential and the continuum case where the soliton is completely free to move. In this intermediate case, the defect moves as a collective excitation over an effective potential, the PN potential, which has the period of the lattice and an amplitude which is much lower than the individual potential barrier of the substrate. This analysis in terms of a collective object explains why the critical stress for the plastic deformation of a crystal is several orders of magnitude lower than the stress that would translate a full atomic plane above another .

The case of atoms adsorbed over an atomic surface is even more interesting because usually the equilibrium distance $`b`$ that the atoms would select if they were free is not commensurate with the period $`a`$ of the crystalline substrate. As a result the interaction forces compete with the substrate potential to determine the particle positions. The atomic layer minimizes the energy by letting the particles drop near the bottom of the substrate potential wells almost everywhere and compensating for the mismatch between $`a`$ and $`b`$ by creating local discommensurations which are very similar to the isolated defect described above for the commensurate case. The only difference is that, depending on the commensurability ratio, there is a hierarchy of defects with different shapes and different barriers. In the case of an irrational ratio, this hierarchy is complete and some defects have a vanishingly small PN barrier: in the discrete lattice (provided the coupling is not too weak ), a vanishingly small external force can cause mass transport in the system. The application of an external driving force to an interacting chain of atoms exhibits this hierarchy of depinning transitions . For very low force, no motion can be detected. Then, the geometrical kinks (the discommensurations due to the concentration of particles related to the number of minima of the potential) start to move whereas the atoms stay static. For larger external forces, additional defects (kink-antikinks pairs) are created giving rise to an increase of the mobility. Finally, for high enough forces, all atoms are moving with the mobility of single Brownian particles.

## II Experiment

Let us now describe the experimental apparatus sketched in Figs. (2). The system under study is a chain of steel cylinders, each one 60 mm in length and 8 mm in diameter. The cylinders sit on a washboard potential cut in a block of plastic (approximate sine-shape potential). The height of the valleys is 10 mm and the lattice spacing is 20 mm. The cylinders are coupled one to an other with an elastic string; the first cylinder is fixed whereas the other ones are free to move. In the example shown in Figs. (2), a 3 mm slot was made along the center of the plastic support (represented by the two dotted lines in Fig. (2b)) in order to let the elastic move freely.

The concentration of cylinders, which determines the presence and structure of the discommensurations, is defined as $`\theta =M/N`$ where $`M`$ is the number of cylinders and $`N`$ the numbers of lattice spacing. The defects shown in Fig. 1.b and 1.c correspond to $`\theta =15/16`$ while figure 2 shows schematically the case $`\theta =2/3`$. In the experiment the length $`b`$ of the elastic strings is adjusted for each concentration by imposing the condition $`\theta =a/b`$ which means that, in the absence of the substrate potential the cylinders would be equally spaced in such a way that $`M`$ cylinders would cover $`N`$ lattice spacings, achieving the desired concentration.

The apparatus can be used to test the static and dynamical properties of this model system. First one can measure the depinning force which is required to move a lattice with a given concentration above the substrate. This is done by progressively inclining the system, i.e. increasing very slowly the angle $`\alpha `$ and determining the critical angle $`\alpha _c`$ above which the initial distribution of cylinders is unstable, i.e. above which at least one cylinder begins to slide. The results of this experiment are shown on Fig 3. For $`\theta =1/q`$ (with $`q`$=1,2,..), the system has a trivial ground state with one cylinder at the bottom of the substrate potential wells every $`q`$ wells. In these cases, all cylinders start to move simultaneously. As discussed above these commensurate cases should be the hardest to depin and this is confirmed by the experiment. Moreover the behavior should not depend on the number of empty wells that might separate two cylinders, i.e. we expect the same critical angle for $`q=1`$ or $`q=2`$.. This is confirmed by the results shown on Fig 3. When $`\theta =p/q`$ is a rational number with $`q>p`$, $`q1`$, such as $`\theta =2/3`$ shown in Figs. (2), the ground state involves defects and Fig 3 shows that their cooperative motion (cases $`\theta =2/3`$, $`\theta =3/4`$) occurs for lower angles than the individual motion. This illustrates therefore the depinning hierarchy, the Peierls Nabarro barrier being lower than the substrate barrier. Figure 3 also shows that the PN barrier depends on the commensurability ratio which governs the structure of the kink-defects ; higher order rational numbers result in a lower PN barrier: $`\alpha _c(2/3)>\alpha _c(3/4)E_{\text{PN}}(2/3)>E_{\text{PN}}(3/4)`$. With a system as small as the one we are using we cannot study other rationals such as 3/5, 5/8, 8/13 that should lead to lower barriers. A truly incommensurate case, leading to a vanishing PN barrier , corresponds to an irrational ratio and therefore it cannot be obtained in an experiment since $`M`$ and $`N`$ are necessarily integers. This case can however be approached by rational numbers with numerators and denominators chosen in a Fibbonacci sequence , but it would require a model much longer than the one we have built.

The second class of experiments that can be performed tests the dynamical properties of the system by measuring the mobility of the defect as a function of the applied force. This is done by artificially holding the defect above the critical angle $`\alpha _c`$ while the potential is tilted, and then letting it go. When the constraint is released, the defect slides on the washboard potential. Using a high speed CCD camera to record the fast motion, we measure the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ for the propagation of the defect over $`n`$ lattice-spacings.

Since the velocity is $`v=na/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the external force is due to gravity, $`F=mg\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )`$, the mobility is by definition

$$B(\alpha )=v/F=\frac{na/\mathrm{\Delta }t}{mg\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )}.$$
(1)
The results, obtained for the concentration $`\theta =2/3`$ sketched in Fig. 2, are plotted in Fig. 4: they clearly show a plateau corresponding to the kink-running state, obtained when only the defect moves, leading to the first contribution to mass transport. The final transition to the sliding state, where all cylinders slide on the washboard potential, is reached for higher external forces.

## III Conclusion.

In this brief report, we have presented a simple teaching experiment stressing the kink-concept in a discrete system. One is able to illustrate different theoretical ideas in a simple way using this experiment. The Peierls-Nabarro potential, usually presented in the context of dislocation theory, and its role are not only clearly emphasized but one shows that it is a function of the concentration , i.e. for atoms adsorbed on a crystal, it varies with the coverage. Moreover, this experiment explains the recently developed idea about two-dimensional diffusion of atoms . One easily detects a hierarchy of depinnings: first the defects (kinks or antikinks) are moving, then for higher forces, we have the individual motion. The present apparatus is too short to illustrate experimentally the existence of an hysteresis phenomenon in the force driving the diffusion : the chain starts to slide for a force $`F_1`$ but stops only when the force has been lowered below $`F_2<F_1`$ because, once the motion has been initiated, the kinetic energy allows the particles, or the defect, to overcome a small potential barrier. It would be very interesting to build a much longer chain, so that few defects could coexist and of course interact. The critical angle of the different concentration regions would also be different.

This experiment has however some important differences with the physical problem of atomic diffusion. The elastic strings apply a force to the cylinders only when they are extended (not in compression) and the unavoidable solid friction has no simple equivalent at the microscopic level. It is therefore important not to overemphasize these results. Nevertheless, as recent very nice experiments in Josephson junction arrays  have confirmed discreteness effects on soliton-like structures (see review by Peyrard in Ref. ), we think that the present experiment, conceptually and materially more appropriate for teaching purpose, could be an excellent tool to present the soliton concept in the framework of discreteness to non-specialists.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4


text:
# 1 Young radio-loud AGN

## 1 Young radio-loud AGN

Although radio-loud Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) have been studied for several decades, still not much is known about their birth and subsequent evolution. The recent identification of a class of very young radio sources can be considered as a major breakthrough in this respect, since it has opened many unique opportunities for radio source evolution studies.

Unfortunately, the nomenclature and use of acronyms in this field of research is rather confusing. This is mainly caused by the different ways in which young radio sources are selected. Selection of young sources is made in two ways, the first based on their broadband radio spectra, and the second based on their compact morphology. A convex shaped spectrum, peaking at about 1 GHz distinguishes young radio sources from other classes of compact radio sources. In this case they are called Gigahertz Peaked Spectrum (GPS) radio sources (eg. O’Dea etal. 1991, O’Dea 1998). Similar objects, which are typically an order of magnitude larger in size, have their spectral turnovers shifted to the $`10100`$ MHz regime, causing them to be dominated at cm wavelengths by the optically thin parts of their spectra. These are called Compact Steep Spectrum (CSS) radio sources to distinguish them from the general population of extended steep spectrum sources (eg. Fanti et al. 1991).

On the other hand, young radio sources are found in multi-frequency VLBI surveys, in which they can be recognised by compact jet/lobe-like structures on both sides of their central core. They are called Compact Symmetric Objects (CSO, Wilkinson et al. 1994). Their double sided structures clearly distinguish them from the large majority of compact sources showing one-sided core-jet morphologies. This implies that the luminosities of CSO are unlikely to be substantially enhanced by Doppler boosting. Larger versions of CSOs are subsequently called Medium Symmetric Objects (MSO) and Large Symmetric Objects (LSO).

The overlap between the classes of CSO and GPS galaxies is large and we believe that they can be considered to be identical objects. However, note that a substantial fraction of GPS sources are optically identified with high redshift quasars, which in general show core-jet structures (Stanghellini et al. 1997). The relationship between GPS quasars and GPS galaxies/CSO is not clear and under debate (Snellen et al. 1999). We therefore believe it is wise to restrict evolution studies to GPS galaxies and CSOs.

### Evidence for youth

Although it was always speculated that GPS sources were young objects, only recently has strong evidence been found to support this hypothesis. Monitoring several GPS sources over a decade or more using VLBI, allowed Owsianik & Conway (1998) and Owsianik, Conway & Polatidis (1998) to measure the hotspot advance speeds of several prototype GPS sources to be $`0.1h^1c`$. These imply dynamical ages of typically $`10^{23}`$ years.

Additional proof for youth comes from analysis of the overall radio spectra of the somewhat larger CSS sources. Murgia et al (1999) show that their spectra can be fitted with synchrotron aging models, implying ages of typically $`10^{35}`$ years.

The work of these authors shows that GPS/CSO sources are very young and most likely the progenitors of large, extended radio sources. This makes them key objects for radio source evolution studies.

### Tools for radio source evolution studies

Several authors have used number count statistics and linear size distributions to constrain the luminosity evolution of radio sources (Fanti et al. 1995; Readhead et al. 1996, O’Dea & Baum 1997). All these studies find an excess of young objects in relation to the number of old, extended radio sources. This over-abundance of GPS and CSS sources has generally been explained by assuming that a radio source significantly decreases in luminosity over its lifetime. In this way, sources are more likely to contribute to flux density limited samples at young than at old age, causing the apparent excess.

However, in addition to their over-abundance, GPS galaxies are found to be significantly more biased towards high redshift than large extended radio galaxies (Snellen & Schilizzi, 2000). This is puzzling since classes of sources representing similar objects at different stages of their evolution are expected to have similar birth functions and redshift distributions. Furthermore, it suggests that the interpretation of their number count statistics, which are averaged over a large redshift range, is not so straightforward. We have postulated a simple evolution scenario which can resolve these puzzles. We argue that the luminosity evolution of a radio-loud AGN during its first $`10^5`$ years is qualitatively very different from that during the rest of its lifetime. This may be caused by a turnover in the density profile of the interstellar/intergalactic medium at the core-radius of the host galaxy, resulting in an increase in luminosity for young, and a decrease in luminosity for old radio-loud AGN with time. Such a luminosity evolution results in a flatter collective luminosity function for the young objects, causing their bias towards higher redshifts, and their over-abundance at bright flux density levels (Snellen et al. 2000).

An alternative explanation is that GPS sources are indeed young AGN, but mainly short-lived objects, which will never evolve into extended radio sources (Readhead et al. 1994). In that case, the two populations are not directly connected, and no similar cosmological evolution or redshift distribution is necessary.

## 2 Space-VLBI observations of GPS sources

In general, the angular resolution of VLBI observations at a certain observing frequency is limited by the size of the earth. The combination of ground VLBI stations with the Japanese satellite HALCA (part of the VLBI Space Observatory Programme VSOP), achieves a resolution typically 3 times higher than this ($`1.5`$ mas and $`0.5`$ mas at 1.6 and 5 GHz respectively). In particular, the study of GPS sources benefits from VSOP, since observing at a higher frequency to achieve a similar resolution is often not an option, because of their steep fall-off in flux density towards high frequency. Furthermore, their physical properties are most interesting around their spectral turnover, where differences in spectral indices within the source are more prominent than at high frequency.

We have been awarded VSOP observing time for 11 and 8 of the brightest and most compact GPS sources at 5.0 and 1.6 GHz respectively. Details and status of the observations are listed in Table 1. At the time of writing, all targets at 5 GHz, and 6 of the 8 sources at 1.6 GHz have been observed.

### First results and discussion

A large fraction of the sources have now been imaged. Some examples are shown in figures 1 and 2. Additional observations have been taken at 15 GHz with the VLBA to match the 5 GHz VSOP data in resolution, which will allow detailed spectral decompositions of the objects. In particular, this may sched new light on the nature of the GPS quasars and the role of Doppler boosting in these sources.

One of the first results of these observations are the high brightness temperatures observed of typically $`10^{10.511}`$ Kelvin. This indicates that these objects must be near their synchrotron self absorption (SSA) turnover at the observed frequency, making it very likely that indeed SSA is the cause of their spectral peaks. This is in agreement with the statistical arguments of Snellen et al. (2000), who found that among samples of GPS and CSS sources, the ratio of component size, as derived from the spectral peak assuming SSA, and overall angular size, are constant and very similar to those found for large extended radio sources. This not only implies self-similar evolution, but also provides strong evidence for SSA. Note however, that several authors argue that free-free absorption can not be ruled out for the smallest GPS galaxies (Kameno et al., this volume; Marr et al., this volume)

A valuable spin-off from these high angular resolution VSOP observations come from their comparison with ground-based VLBI images taken at an earlier epoch. Following the method of Owsianik & Conway (1998), we use these to derive dynamical ages for GPS sources. In this way, we find that the two dominant components at 5 GHz of 2021+614 (fig 2), have a larger separation at the epoch of the VSOP observations, compared to data from Conway et al. (1994) taken in 1982 and 1987. The increase in separation indicates a hotspot advance speed of $`0.1`$c, which implies an age of $`400`$ years for these components (Tschager et al. 2000). Preliminary analysis of 0108+388 (fig 1) shows an advance speed of 15 $`\mu as`$/yr, consistent with what is found by Owsianik, Conway & Polatidis (1998; 9 $`\mu as/yr`$). These observations confirm the young ages of a few hundred years for the most compact GPS galaxies.

## 3 Summary

GPS galaxies and CSO are now identified as classes of young radio sources. They form a key element in the investigation of the evolution of radio-loud AGN. We report on VSOP observations of 11 and 8 bright GPS sources at 5.0 and 1.6 GHz frequency respectively. First analysis indicates high brightness temperatures consistent with synchrotron self absorption as the cause of their spectral turnover. Comparison with ground-based VLBI datasets taken at earlier epochs confirm the very young ages for the most compact GPS galaxies of a few hundred years.

#### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge the VSOP Project, which is led by the Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science in cooperation with many organizations and radio telescopes around the world.

## References

Conway J.E., Myers S.T., Pearson T.J., Readhead C.S., Unwin S.C., & Xu W., 1994, ApJ, 425, 568

Fanti R., Fanti C., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., Nan Rendong, Parma P., Van Breugel W.J.M., Venturi T., 1990, A&A, 231, 333

Fanti C., Fanti R., Dallacasa D., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., Stanghellini C., 1995, A&A, 302, 317

Kameno et al., this volume

Marr et al., this volume

Murgia M., Fanti C., Fanti R., Gregorini L., Klein U., Mack K-H., Vigotti M., 1999, A&A, 345, 769

O’Dea C.P., Baum S.A., Stanghellini C., 1991, ApJ, 380, 66

O’Dea C.P., Baum S.A., 1997, AJ, 113, 148

O’Dea C.P., 1998, PASP, 110, 493

Owsianik I., Conway J.E., 1998, A&A, 337, 69

Owsianik I., Conway, J.E., Polatidis, A.G., 1998, A&A, 336, L37

Readhead A.C.S, Xu W., Pearson T.J., 1994, in Compact Extragalactic Radio Sources, eds Zensus & Kellerman, p19

Readhead A.C.S., Taylor G.B., Xu W., Pearson T.J., Wilkinson P.N., 1996, ApJ, 460, 634

Snellen I.A.G., Schilizzi R.T., Bremer M.N, Miley G.K., de Bruyn A.G., Röttgering H.J.A., 1999a, MNRAS, 307, 149

Snellen I.A.G., & Schilizzi R.T., proc. of ‘Lifecycles of Radio Galaxies’ workshop, ed J. Biretta et al., to appear in New Astronomy Reviews.

Snellen I.A.G., Schilizzi R.T., Miley G.K., de Bruyn A.G., Bremer, M.N. & Röttgering H.J.A., 2000, MNRAS, submitted

Stanghellini C., O’Dea C.P., Baum S.A., Dallacasa D., Fanti R., Fanti C., 1997a, A&A, 325, 943

Tschager W., Schilizzi R.T., Röttgering, H.J.A., Snellen I.A.G., Miley, G.K., 2000, submitted to A&A

Wilkinson P.N., Polatidis A.G., Readhead A.C.S., Xu W., Pearson T.J., 1994, ApJ, 432, L87


text:
# Continuous time evolution from iterated maps and Carleman linearization

## I Introduction

There are well known examples of how to relate a continuous time differential system

$$\dot{x}(t)=F(x(t)),$$

where $`F:𝐑^k𝐑^k`$, to an iteration of a map of $`𝐑^s`$ into itself. We only recall the Euler’s broken line method and the Poincaré map. An example of the inverse procedure to the discretization has been recently discussed in . Namely, a precise meaning has been given therein to the notion of a “continuous iteration” of a mapping, that is a continuous counterpart of the iterates

$$f^n(x)=f(f^{n1}(x)).$$

The purpose of this work is to introduce an alternative formalism for the study of the continuous iterations based on the classical Carleman linearization technique which is more general than the approach taken up in . In section II we briefly introduce the Carleman linearization technique. Section III is devoted to the detailed analysis of the properties of the Carleman embedding matrix which are crucial for the actual treatment. Based on the observations of section III we find in section IV an explicit formula on continuous iterations of a mapping and show its connection with a linearization transformation for a corresponding recurrence. The theory is illustrated by an example of the logistic equation. In section V we introduce the ordinary differential equation referring to the continuous iteration and find a simple relation between the Carleman embedding matrices corresponding to the continuous and discrete time cases.

## II The Carleman linearization

We begin by recalling the Carleman linearization technique . Consider the system

$$\dot{x}=F(x),$$
(2.1)
where $`F:𝐑^k𝐑^k`$ and $`F`$ is analytic in $`x`$. Having in mind the applications of the Carleman technique in the study of the iterated one-dimensional maps discussed in this work we restrict for brevity to the case with $`k=1`$, i.e. the ordinary differential equation (2.1). On making the ansatz

$$x_j:=x^j,j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},$$
(2.2)
where $`x`$ fulfils (2.1) we arrive at the infinite linear system

$$\dot{x}_j=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}L_{jk}x_k,$$
(2.3)
with the constant coefficient matrix $`L_{jk}`$. Clearly, in view of (2.2) the finite system (2.1) is embedded into the infinite system (2.3). Therefore, the Carleman linearization is also referred to as the Carleman embedding technique. Recently, the Carleman approach has been succesfully applied to the solution of numerous nonlinear problems (see  and references therein). We only recall the application of the Carleman linearization technique for calculating Lyapunov exponents  and finding first integrals for the Lorenz system .

As shown by Steeb  the Carleman embedding can be easily generalized to the case with nonlinear recurrences of the form

$$x_{n+1}=f(x_n),$$
(2.4)
where $`f`$ is analytic in $`x_n`$. Indeed, in analogy with (2.2) we set

$$x_{jn}:=x_n^j,$$
(2.5)
where $`x_n`$ fulfils (2.4), which leads to the infinite-dimensional linear system of difference equations such that

$$x_{jn+1}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M_{jk}x_{kn}.$$
(2.6)
As with the case of the ordinary differential equations the finite-dimensional recurrence (2.4) is embedded into the infinite linear system (2.5).

## III The Carleman embedding matrix for nonlinear recurrences

In this section we study the properties of the Carleman embedding matrix for nonlinear recurrences specified by (2.6) which are utilized in the actual formalism. We now return to (2.6). Let $`M(f)`$ designate the Carleman matrix referring to the recurrence (2.4). Equations (2.4), (2.5) and (2.6) taken together yield

$$(f(x))^j=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M_{jk}(f)x^k,$$
(3.7)
so

$$M_{jk}(f)=\frac{1}{k!}\frac{d^k(f(x))^j}{dx^k}|_{x=0}.$$
(3.8)
Let

$$f(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_kx^k.$$
(3.9)
The matrix $`M(f)`$ can be alternatively defined with the help of the coefficients of the expansion (3.3) as

$$M_{jk}(f)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{0k}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j=0,\hfill \\ \underset{m_1+m_2+\mathrm{}+m_j=k}{}f_{m_1}f_{m_2}\mathrm{}f_{m_j}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
The first few elements of the matrix $`M(f)`$ are

$$M(f)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ f_0\hfill & f_1\hfill & f_2\hfill & f_3\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ f_0^2\hfill & 2f_0f_1\hfill & 2f_0f_2+f_1^2\hfill & 2(f_0f_3+f_1f_2)\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ f_0^3\hfill & 3f_0^2f_1\hfill & 3(f_0^2f_2+f_0f_1^2)\hfill & 3f_0^2f_3+6f_0f_1f_2+f_1^3\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \end{array}\right).$$
(3.11)
We remark that usage of the formula (3.2) or (3.4) is not the most effective way of calculating the elements of the matrix $`M(f)`$. The simpler possibility is to apply the relation

$$M_{jk}(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}e^{\mathrm{i}k\phi }(f(e^{\mathrm{i}\phi }))^j𝑑\phi ,$$
(3.12)
following directly from (3.1) and the well-known fact that the functions of the form $`e^{\mathrm{i}n\phi }`$, where $`n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$$`\mathrm{}`$, form the orthonormal basis of the space of the square integrable functions on a unit circle.
Example: Consider the logistic equation

$$x_{n+1}=\mu x_n(1x_n).$$
(3.13)
Using the relation (3.6) we easily obtain the following formula on the elements of the corresponding Carleman matrix $`M`$:

$$M_{jk}=(1)^{kj}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{kj}\right)\mu ^j$$
(3.14)
(the vanishing of $`M_{jk}`$ in the case with $`2j<k`$ is understood).

We now focus our attention on the mapping

$$fM(f).$$
(3.15)
A remarkable property of (3.9) is that it provides a representation of a semigroup of analytic functions with multiplication defined as the composition operation, that is

$$M(fg)=M(f)M(g).$$
(3.16)
The relation (3.10) is an immediate consequence of (3.1). Clearly,

$$M(\mathrm{id})=I,$$
(3.17)
where $`\mathrm{id}(x)x`$ is an identity function playing the role of a neutral element for the semigroup of the analytic functions, $`I`$ is the identity matrix, and whenever exists the inverse $`f^1`$ of $`f`$, then

$$M(f^1)=M^1(f).$$
(3.18)
Finally, it is clear in view of (3.10) that iterations $`f^n`$ of a function $`f`$ are represented by matrix powers, i.e.

$$M(f^n)=M^n(f).$$
(3.19)
Having in mind the form of the relation (3.13) it is plausible to define the continuous iterations $`f^t`$ of $`f`$, where $`t`$ is a real parameter, by

$$M(f^t)=M^t(f).$$
(3.20)
Thus, the problem of the precise definition of continuous iterations can be reduced to finding the powers $`M^t`$ of the matrix $`M`$ for a non-integer $`t`$.

We recall that the infinite-dimensional (anti)representations of the formal power series were originally studied in . The counterpart of the formula (3.10) introduced therein describing the anti-representation is of the form

$$B(fg)=B(g)B(f),$$
(3.21)
where $`B(f)`$ are the Bell matrices specified by

$$B_{jk}(f)=\frac{1}{k!}\frac{d^j(f(x))^k}{dx^k}|_{x=0},j,k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},$$
(3.22)
and it is assumed that the function $`f`$ given by the formal power series satisfies $`f(0)=0`$. We point out that such assumption is rather restrictive one and it is not satisfied in such important cases as for example $`f(z)=z^2+c`$, related to the celebrated Mandelbrot fractal. Evidently, we have

$$B(f^n)=B^n(f).$$
(3.23)
As with (3.13) the relation (3.17) was the point of departure in  to define the continuous iterations. Nevertheless, the approach taken up therein is less general and it seems to be more complicated than that introduced in the next section of this work. We finally remark that in opposition to the actual treatment there is no interpretation of the Bell matrices $`B(f)`$ provided in  connected with an infinite-dimensional linearization of the original nonlinear recurrence (2.4).

## IV Powers of the Carleman embedding matrices and continuous iterations

As mentioned in the previous section (see formula (3.14)) the problem of the precise definition of continuous iterations reduces to finding the non-integer powers $`M^t`$ of the matrix $`M(f)`$. Our purpose now is to discuss this point in a more detail. We first observe that the problem under investigation can be furthermore cast into determining the transformation diagonalizing $`M`$ such that

$$M(f)=U^1\mathrm{\Lambda }U,$$
(4.24)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is diagonal, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jk}=\lambda _j\delta _{jk}`$. In fact, (4.1) leads to the following formula on the powers of the matrix $`M`$:

$$M^t(f)=U^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^tU,$$
(4.25)
where $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^t)_{jk}=\lambda _j^t\delta _{jk}`$.

In order to diagonalize the matrix $`M`$ we first bring it down to the triangular form. Consider (2.4). Let us assume that $`x_n=x_{}`$ is a stationary solution to (2.4), that is $`x_{}`$ is a fixed point of $`f`$ such that

$$f(x_{})=x_{}.$$
(4.26)
As with ordinary differential equations we can switch over to new variables

$$x_n^{}=x_nx_{},$$
(4.27)
so that the resulting nonlinear recurrence

$$x_{n+1}^{}=g(x_n^{}),$$
(4.28)
where $`g(x_n^{})=f(x_n^{}+x_{})x_{}`$, obeys

$$g(0)=0.$$
(4.29)
Using the definition (3.4) one can easily check that the condition (4.6) leads to the upper triangular Carleman embedding matrix $`M(g)`$. Further, we have

$$g=hfh^1,$$
(4.30)
where

$$h(x)=xx_{}.$$
(4.31)
Using (3.10), (4.7) and (3.2) we arrive at the matrix relation of the form

$$M(g)=T_x_{}M(f)T_x_{}^1,$$
(4.32)
where $`T_x_{}=M(h)`$, and

$$(T_x_{})_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{k}\right)(x_{})^{jk}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }jk,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j<k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.33)
Evidently,

$$(T_x_{}^1)_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{k}\right)x_{}^{jk}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }jk,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j<k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.34)
We have thus shown that the Carleman embedding matrix $`M(f)`$ corresponding to (2.4), where $`f`$ fulfils (4.3) can be reduced by means of the transformation (4.4) to the upper triangular form $`M(g)`$.

Now let

$$g(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_kx^k.$$
(4.35)
Taking into account (3.4) and (4.12) we find that the diagonal elements of the matrix $`M(g)`$ are

$$M_{ii}(g)=g_1^i=\left(\frac{dg(0)}{dx}\right)^i=\left(\frac{df(x_{})}{dx}\right)^i,i=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{}.$$
(4.36)
These elements coincide with the eigenvalues of the matrix $`M(g)`$ specified by

$$\psi M(g)=\lambda \psi ,$$
(4.37)
where $`\psi `$ is an infinite row-vector. Suppose now that the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i=M_{ii}(g)`$ of the matrix $`M(g)`$ are mutually different. Since $`\lambda _i=g_1^i\lambda ^i`$, therefore we then have the restrictive conditions $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\lambda \sqrt[n]{1}`$. It is easy to verify that the transformation diagonalizing $`M(g)`$ of the form

$$M(g)=V^1\mathrm{\Lambda }V,$$
(4.38)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is diagonal, is given by the following recursive relations:

$`V_{jk}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\lambda ^j\lambda ^k)^1{\displaystyle \underset{l=j}{\overset{k1}{}}}V_{jl}M_{lk}(g)\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j<k,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j=k,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j>k,\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.42)
$`V_{jk}^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\lambda ^j\lambda ^k)^1{\displaystyle \underset{l=j+1}{\overset{k}{}}}V_{lk}^1M_{jl}(g)\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j<k,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j=k,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }j>k,\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.46)
and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jk}=\lambda ^j\delta _{jk}.$$
(4.47)
Finally, combining (4.15) and (4.9) we find that the transformation diagonalizing $`M(f)`$ can be expressed by (4.1), with

$$U=VT_x_{}.$$
(4.48)
We are now in a position to define the desired continuous iteration $`f^t`$. Indeed, eqs. (3.14), (3.1) and (4.1) taken together yield the following formula on $`f^t`$:

$`f^t(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(M^t)_{1k}(f)x^k={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(U^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^tU)_{1k}x^k`$ (4.49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jklm}{}}(T_x_{}^1)_{1j}V_{jk}^1\lambda ^{kt}V_{kl}(T_x_{})_{lm}x^m.`$ (4.50)
On introducing the functions $`\phi _k(x)`$ such that

$$\phi _k(x):=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}V_{1k}^1V_{kl}(xx_{})^l\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }k>0,\hfill \\ x_{}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }k=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.51)
we can write (4.20) in a more compact form. It follows that

$$f^t(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{kt}\phi _k(x).$$
(4.52)
Thus it turns out that the problem of the definition of continuous iterations can be brought down to the solution of the eigenvalue equation (4.14). Further, it is straightforward to show that the matrix $`V`$ satisfying (4.15) satisfies the relation (3.4). Using this we find that the matrix $`V`$ can be expressed by the solution to the eigenvalue equation (4.14) with the help of the following relation:

$$V_{jk}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}V_{j1l}\psi _{kl},$$
(4.53)
where $`\psi _k`$ are the coordinates of the vector $`\psi `$ . Now it is not difficult to check that besides of the matrix $`V`$ also the diagonal matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ specified by (4.18) fulfils the relation (3.4). On passing with the use of (4.1) and (4.19) from matrices to functions we arrive at the following functional equation:

$$f(x)=u^1(\lambda u(x)).$$
(4.54)
where $`u=vh`$, and $`V=M(v)`$. Clearly, the functional equivalent of (4.2) is of the form

$$f^t(x)=u^1(\lambda ^tu(x)).$$
(4.55)
It thus appears that the problem of the definition of the continuous iterations can be alternatively cast into the solution of the functional equation

$$u(f(x))=\lambda u(x).$$
(4.56)
The equation (4.26) is known in the literature. For example in  it was used for finding explicit solutions to nonlinear recurrences (2.4). We recall that the solution $`u(x)`$ of (4.26) is simply the linearization transformation

$$x_n^{}=u(x_n),$$
(4.57)
reducing the solution of the nonlinear recurrence (2.4) to the linear one

$$x_{n+1}^{}=\lambda x_n^{}.$$
(4.58)
We point out that the connection of the functional equation (4.26) with an infinite-dimensional eigenvalue problem was found for the first time by the second author  in the context of the Hilbert space description of nonlinear recurrences (2.4). The formula on continuous iterations analogous to (4.22) in the particular case of $`f(0)=0`$ was originally obtained in  with the use of the finite-dimensional truncations of the Bell matrices. We finally remark that our experience indicates that the recursive relation (4.23) on the matrix $`V`$ is of practical importance for the numerical solution of the functional equation (4.26).
Example: Consider as an illustrative example the well-known exactly solvable case of the logistic equation (3.7) with $`\mu =4`$

$$x_{n+1}=4x_n(1x_n).$$
(4.59)
Using the identity

$$\mathrm{arccos}(2x^21)=2\mathrm{arccos}x,0x1,$$
(4.60)
we get the solution to the functional equation (4.26), where $`f(x)=4x(1x)`$, of the form

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`4,`$ (62)
$`u(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}[\mathrm{arccos}(12x)]^2.`$ (63)
Finally, taking into account (4.25) we get the desired formula on the continuous iterations such that

$$f^t(x)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\{1\mathrm{cos}[2^t\mathrm{arccos}(12x)]\}.$$
(4.64)
Referring back to (4.22) we find

$$x_{}=0,h(x)=x,\phi _0=0,\phi _k(x)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(1)^{k+1}\frac{[\mathrm{arccos}(12x)]^{2k}}{(2k!)},k1.$$
(4.65)
Thus the well-known solution to (4.29) of the form $`x_n(x_0)`$ = $`f^n(x_0)`$, where $`f^n(x_0)`$ is given by (4.32) corresponds to the fixed point $`x_{}=0`$ of $`f(x)`$. We now discuss the solution corresponding to the second fixed point $`x_{}=\frac{3}{4}`$ of $`f(x)`$. On utilizing the identity

$$2\pi \mathrm{arccos}(2x^21)=2\mathrm{arccos}x,1x<0,$$
(4.66)
we arrive at the solution to (4.26), where

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`2,`$ (68)
$`u(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arccos}(12x){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{3}}.`$ (69)
Taking into account (4.25) and (4.35) we obtain

$$f^t(x)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\{1\mathrm{cos}\{(2)^t[\mathrm{arccos}(12x){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}]+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}\}\}.$$
(4.70)
It can be checked with the use of (4.22), where $`x_{}=\frac{3}{4}`$ and $`h(x)=x\frac{3}{4}`$, that the obtained solution really refers to the fixed point $`x_{}=\frac{3}{4}`$. Furthermore, a straightforward calculation shows that the function (4.32) is equivalent to (4.36) for non-negative integer $`t`$, that is the solutions of the logistic equation (4.29) corresponding to (4.32) and (4.36), respectively, such that $`x_n(x_0)`$ = $`f^n(x_0)`$, coincide. Clearly, (4.32) is different from (4.36) for non-integer $`t`$. We conclude that in the case with the logistic equation (4.29) the continuous iteration is not unique. It should be noted that such ambiguity was not recognized in . In fact, the solution (4.36) cannot be obtained by means of the approach introduced in . We also remark that uniqueness of the continuous iterations referring to (4.29) is violated by the existence of the multiple equilibria for (4.29). It is suggested that it is the case for the general recurrence (2.4). We finally point out that due to the term $`(2)^t`$ the function $`f^t(x)`$ given by (4.36) is complex-valued.

## V From iterated maps to continuous time evolution

In the previous section we have investigated the continuous iterations $`f^t(x)`$ referring to the recurrence (2.4). Since we can interpret the continuous parameter $`t`$ as a “time variable”, therefore the question naturally arises on the dynamics of $`f^t(x)`$. Consider the continuous iterations $`f^t(x)`$ and the corresponding powers of the Carleman embedding matrix $`M^t(f)`$. We have

$`(f^t(x))^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(M^t)_{jk}x^k,`$ (5.71)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}M^t`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}MM^t.`$ (5.72)
Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2) taken together yield

$$\frac{d}{dt}f^t(x)=G(f^t(x)),$$
(5.73)
where

$$G(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{ln}M)_{1k}x^k.$$
(5.74)
We have thus shown that the continuous iterations $`f^t(x)`$ satisfy the ordinary differential equation (5.3) subject to the initial condition $`f^0(x)=x`$, i.e. $`f^t`$ is the flow corresponding to (5.3). Of course, since $`f^t(x)`$ is a flow therefore the vector field $`G`$ can be expressed by $`f^t(x)`$ with the help of the well-known relation

$$G(x)=\frac{df^t(x)}{dt}|_{t=0}.$$
(5.75)
An alternative form of the vector field $`G`$ can be obtained directly from (4.25). Indeed, differentiating both sides of (4.25) with respect to time we get (5.3) with

$$G(x)=\mathrm{ln}\lambda \frac{du^1(u(x))}{dx}u(x).$$
(5.76)
Interestingly, there exists a remarkably simple relation between the Carleman linearization of the differential equation (5.3) and the Carleman linearization of the original recurrence (2.4). In fact, on setting

$$x_j(t):=(f^t(x))^j,$$
(5.77)
and using (3.1), (3.14) and (5.2) we arrive at the infinite linear system

$$\dot{x}_j=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}L_{jk}x_k,$$
(5.78)
where

$$L=\mathrm{ln}M.$$
(5.79)
Thus the logarithm of the Carleman embedding matrix related to the linearization of the recurrence (2.4) is simply the Carleman embedding matrix describing the linearization of the differential equation (5.3). We finally remark that whenever the solution $`f^n(x)`$ to (2.4) is chaotic then it is plausible to expect that the solution $`f^t(x)`$ of the differential equation (5.3) is also chaotic. As is well-known, the definition of chaotic systems presents a delicate problem, nevertheless it seems incredible that the one-dimensional autonomous system (5.3) would exhibit in any sense the chaotic behavior. The following example provides a possible solution of the problem.
Example: Consider the continuous iteration (4.32) corresponding to the solution of the logistic equation (4.29). An immediate consequence of (5.5) or (5.6) and (4.31) is the following differential equation satisfied by $`f^t(x)`$:

$$\frac{df^t(x)}{dt}={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{sin}\{\mathrm{arccos}[12f^t(x)]\}\mathrm{arccos}[12f^t(x)].$$
(5.80)
Notice that the principal part $`\mathrm{arccos}(x)`$ of the inverse cosine obeys $`0\mathrm{arccos}(x)\pi `$, therefore the right-hand side of (5.10), that is $`\frac{df^t(x)}{dt}`$, is non-negative. On the contrary, in view of (4.32) $`f^t(x)`$ oscillates. We conclude that $`f^t(x)`$ cannot satisfy (5.10) for arbitrary $`t`$. Indeed, an easy inspection shows that $`f^t(x)`$ satisfies the following differential equation:

$$\frac{df^t(x)}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{G}(t,x,f^t(x)),f^0(x)=x,0x1,$$
(5.81)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{G}(t,x,f^t(x))`$ (5.82)
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{sin}\{\mathrm{arccos}[12f^t(x)]\}\mathrm{arccos}[12f^t(x)]\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }0t<\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2},\hfill \\ {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{sin}\{\mathrm{arccos}[2f^t(x)1]\}\{\pi +\mathrm{arccos}[2f^t(x)1]\}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2}<t<\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2},\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{ }\mathrm{}\hfill \\ {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{sin}\{\mathrm{arccos}[12f^t(x)]\}\{2k\pi +\mathrm{arccos}[12f^t(x)]\}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{2k\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2}<t<\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{(2k+1)\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2},\hfill \\ {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{sin}\{\mathrm{arccos}[2f^t(x)1]\}\{(2k+1)\pi +\mathrm{arccos}[2f^t(x)1]\}\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{(2k+1)\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2}<t<\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{2(k+1)\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2},\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{ }\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }t=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{l\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ }\text{for }x=0,(5.12)\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.91)
where $`k,l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{}`$. Thus, it turns out that (5.10) holds only for $`0t<\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{arccos}(12x)}}{\mathrm{ln}2}`$. Nevertheless, in view of (5.12) the form of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is determined completely by (5.10). In fact, the continuation of (5.10) expressed by (5.12) is evidently implied by (5.10) and the fact that the inverse cosine is the infinitely-many-valued function. It seems that the adequate denomination for (5.10) would be the “principal part” of (5.11). As with (4.29) the differential equation (5.11) is also chaotic. In fact, by (4.32) $`0f^t(x)1`$, and the Lyapunov exponent $`\sigma `$ is

$$\sigma =\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{f^t(x)}{x}\right|=\mathrm{ln}2.$$
(5.92)
As expected, this exponent coincides with the Lyapunov exponent for (4.29) . Notice that the chaoticity of (5.11) does not contradict the well-known fact based on the Poincaré-Bendixon theorem that the minimal dimension of the phase space of the chaotic autonomous system is three. As a matter of fact the nonautonomous equation (5.11) refers to the two-dimensional phase space with coordinates $`f^t`$ and $`t`$. Nevertheless, becouse of the non-periodic dependence of the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ on the time variable $`t`$, the volume of the phase space occupied by the trajectories of the autonomous system corresponding to (5.11) is, in contrast to the assumption of the Poincaré-Bendixon theorem, infinite one.

## VI Conclusion

In this work it is shown that the Carleman linearization of nonlinear recurrences defines the matrix representation of analytic functions. Such representation enables a sound definition of continuous iterations. On introducing the infinite-dimensional eigenvalue equation (4.14) related to the problem of the definition of continuous iterations and translating it back into the language of the composition of functions, we have arrived at the functional equivalent (4.26) of (4.14). As we have mentioned earlier that equation can be met in the literature. Nevertheless its application in the context of continuous iterations as with (4.25) is most probably new. In opposition to the alternative approach introduced by Aldrovandi and Freitas  the interpretation is provided in the actual treatment of the matrices representing functions in terms of the infinite dimensional linearization of the original nonlinear recurrence. We have also identified the (finite) dynamical system corresponding to continuous iterations, and we have found a simple formula (5.9) relating the Carleman embedding matrices in the discrete and continuous time cases. We note that the naive approach to the continuous iterations corresponding to (2.4) relying on the formal replacement of the discrete variable $`n`$ by the continuous one $`t`$ suggests only the delayed equation $`x(t+1)=f(x(t))`$ which is equivalent to the infinite dimensional system of ordinary differential equations. The simplicity of the approach taken up herein suggests that it would be a useful tool in the study of nonlinear recurrences as well as their continuous counterparts.


text:
# Experimental Test of Relativistic Quantum State Collapse with Moving Reference Frames

## Figure captions

1. Schematic of the experiments that consist of a photon pair source and two analyzers separated by 10.6 km, see . The absorbing surface A and the rotating wheel are at equal distances from the source. The detectors APD3 and APD4 are connected with longer fibers such that each photon meets first the absorber, next the detector. In a second experiment the absorbers are replaced by two photon counters APD1 and APD2, again at exactly the same distance. We obtain typically 2 kcts/s single count rates and a mean value of about 3 coincidences per second (incl. 2 accidentals), for details, see text and .
2. 2-photon interference fringes measured over 6 hours, each data point corresponds to a time interval of 100s. The difference of the optical path lengths is is varying from - 8 to + 1.3 ps. Negative values mean that the detections occurs first in Bernex in the Geneva-Bernex reference frame. In the moving Bellevue reference frame the detections happen first in Bellevue over the entire scan range, as indicated on the upper time scale. Despite this different time ordering no reduced visibility is observed.