text:
# The trumping relation and the structure of the bipartite entangled states

## I Introduction

The study of quantum entanglement has received considerable attention in recent years, with numerous remarkable applications including quantum cryptography , quantum teleportation , and superdense coding . Entanglement seems to be the essential element of such applications, and as a result it has come to be viewed as a fundamental resource that allows one to perform certain information-processing tasks. As with any physical resource, one wishes to measure how much entanglement is present in a given system, and to determine under what conditions it is possible to convert one form of entanglement to another. The problem of how to quantify and classify entanglement is one of the basic questions in the rapidly growing science of quantum information theory .

A significant advance in understanding entanglement was made by Nielsen, who showed  that the structure of the bipartite entangled states is related to the linear-algebraic theory of majorization . We give an introduction to this subject here. Suppose that $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ and $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$ are $`d`$-dimensional probability vectors; in other words, their components are nonnegative and sum to unity. We let $`x^{}`$ denote the $`d`$-dimensional vector obtained by arranging the components of $`x`$ in non-increasing order: $`x^{}=(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_d^{})`$, where $`x_1^{}x_2^{}\mathrm{}x_d^{}`$. Then we say that $`x`$ is majorized by $`y`$, written $`xy`$, if the following relations hold:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}x_i^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}y_i^{}(1l<d).$$

(In fact, the theory of majorization is not limited to probability vectors. The majorization relation can be defined as above for any real vectors $`x`$ and $`y`$, if we include the additional restriction that $`_{i=1}^dx_i=_{i=1}^dy_i`$, which is automatically satisfied for probability vectors. For our applications to the study of entanglement, however, $`x`$ and $`y`$ will always be probability vectors, and we will make this assumption throughout.)

Intuitively, if $`x`$ and $`y`$ are probability vectors such that $`xy`$, then $`x`$ describes an unambiguously more random distribution than does $`y`$. For example, in $`R^2`$, we have that $`(0.5,0.5)(0.8,0.2)`$. In fact, $`(0.5,0.5)`$ is majorized by every vector in $`R^2`$ whose components sum to unity.

The majorization relation defines a partial order on $`d`$-dimensional real vectors, where $`xy`$ and $`yx`$ if and only if $`x^{}=y^{}`$. To see that majorization is not a complete relation, consider for instance $`x=(0.5,0.25,0.25)`$ and $`y=(0.4,0.4,0.2)`$; then $`xy`$ and $`yx`$.

We are now ready to state Nielsen’s theorem :

###### Theorem 1

Suppose Alice and Bob are in joint possession of a bipartite entangled quantum state $`|\psi `$ which they wish to transform into another bipartite entangled state $`|\varphi `$ using only local operations and classical communication (LOCC). Let $`|\psi =_{i=1}^d\sqrt{\alpha _i}|i_A|i_B`$ be a Schmidt decomposition of $`|\psi `$, and let $`|\varphi =_{i=1}^d\sqrt{\beta _i}|i_A^{}|i_B^{}`$ be a Schmidt decomposition of $`|\varphi `$ . Then $`|\psi `$ can be converted to $`|\varphi `$ by LOCC if and only if the vector $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _d)`$ is majorized by $`\beta =(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _d)`$.

Nielsen’s theorem defines a partial order on the entangled bipartite pure states. If state $`|\psi `$ has $`x`$ as its vector of Schmidt coefficients, and $`|\varphi `$ has $`y`$ as its vector of Schmidt coefficients, then we can transform $`|\psi `$ to $`|\varphi `$ using LOCC if and only if $`xy`$. Because our ability to transform one state to another depends only on their Schmidt coefficients, and not on the bases, we shall abuse nomenclature and refer to any vector of Schmidt coefficients as a “state”.

The above characterization of when one entangled state can be transformed to another is particularly helpful because the structure of the majorization relation is relatively well understood. For example, the following results are well known :

###### Theorem 2

Let $`x,yR^d`$. Then

* The following are equivalent:

+ $`xy`$.
    + $`_{i=1}^dx_i=_{i=1}^dy_i`$ and for all $`l\{2,\mathrm{},d\}`$, $`_{i=l}^dx_i^{}_{i=l}^dy_i^{}`$.
    + $`x=Dy`$ for some doubly stochastic $`d\times d`$ matrix $`D`$.
    + For every real number $`t`$, $`_{i=1}^d|x_it|_{i=1}^d|y_it|`$.
* Let $`S(y)=\{xR^dxy\}`$. Then $`S(y)`$ is a convex set whose extreme points are the elements of the set $`\{PyP\text{ is a }d\times d\text{ permutation matrix}\}`$.

Jonathan and Plenio have extended Nielsen’s result by describing a phenomenon known as entanglement catalysis . Suppose that $`x=(0.4,0.4,0.1,0.1)`$ and $`y=(0.5,0.25,0.25,0)`$. Then $`xy`$. Now let $`z=(0.6,0.4)`$. Then we have $`xzyz`$. In other words, if Alice and Bob start only with state $`x`$ (by which we mean a jointly entangled quantum state whose Schmidt coefficients are the components of $`x`$), they cannot transform it into state $`y`$ using LOCC. But if they also have state $`z`$ available, then they can turn $`xz`$ into $`yz`$. So they can “borrow” $`z`$, use it to help turn $`x`$ into $`y`$, and “return” it after performing the transformation. We say that $`z`$ is a catalyst for the transformation.

The phenomenon of catalysis illustrates that entanglement itself can be used as a resource to help perform transformations of entangled states. One naturally wishes to know when this is possible: given $`x`$ and $`y`$, can we determine whether $`x`$ can be transformed to $`y`$ using LOCC in the presence of a catalyst? This is equivalent to asking whether there is a probability vector $`z`$ such that $`xzyz`$.

We will adopt the terminology and notation introduced by Nielsen  and say that $`x`$ is trumped by $`y`$, written $`x_Ty`$, if there exists a catalyst $`z`$ (of any dimension) such that $`xzyz`$. For any given $`y`$, let $`T(y)`$ denote the set of all $`x`$ such that $`x`$ is trumped by $`y`$; and for any $`y`$ and $`z`$, let $`T(y,z)`$ be the set of all $`x`$ such that $`xzyz`$. In addition, we introduce the following notation: for any $`d`$-dimensional probability vector $`y`$ and any positive integer $`k`$, let $`T_k(y)=\{x\text{ a }k\text{-dimensional probability vector }z\text{ such that }xzyz\}.`$

Our results will rely heavily on the fact that the trumping relation involves vectors with all nonnegative components. Note that this is quite different from the situation with majorization, in which most results extend easily to vectors containing negative components.

The following facts are known about the trumping relation. The first three are straightforward from the definitions; the others have been proven elsewhere  .

###### Theorem 3

Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be $`d`$-dimensional probability vectors, let $`z`$ be a probability vector (of any dimension), and let $`S(y)`$, $`T(y)`$, and $`T_k(y)`$ be defined as above. Then

* $`xyxzyz`$.
* $`S(y)T(y)`$.
* $`T(y)=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}T_k(y)`$.
* $`T(y)`$ is a convex set.
* If $`x_Ty`$ and $`y_Tx`$, then $`x^{}=y^{}`$.
* If $`x_Ty`$, then $`x_1^{}y_1^{}`$ and $`x_d^{}y_d^{}`$.

In contrast to the situation with the majorization relation, the mathematical structure of the trumping relation is not well understood. One desires a necessary and sufficient condition for determining whether $`x_Ty`$ (or alternately, to determine the elements of the set $`T(y)`$ for any given $`y`$). Characterizing the trumping relation in this way would help us to better understand the structure of the bipartite entangled states. However, such a characterization is not yet known.

In examining the trumping relation, many questions naturally arise. For instance, if $`y=(\frac{1}{d},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{d})`$, the trumping condition is (trivially) the same as the majorization condition: $`xy`$ if and only if $`x_Ty`$. One wishes to know for which $`y`$ this is the case. One also desires to know whether catalysts of arbitrarily high dimension need be considered, in the following sense: given $`y`$, is it possible to find $`k`$ such that $`T_k(y)=T(y)`$? These questions are among those answered in this paper.

## II A Key Lemma

The following lemma and its corollary will be useful to us in proving additional results, and are also interesting in their own right:

###### Lemma 4

Let $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ and $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$ be $`d`$-dimensional probability vectors, whose components we assume to be arranged in non-increasing order: $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_d`$, and similarly for $`y`$. Suppose that $`xy`$, $`y_1>x_1`$, and $`y_d<x_d`$. Then $`x`$ is in the interior of $`T(y)`$.

Note that when we say $`x`$ is in the interior of $`T(y)`$ we mean the interior relative to the space of $`d`$-dimensional probability vectors; that is, for any $`x`$ there must exist an $`ϵ`$ such that if $`x^{}`$ is a probability vector for which $`x^{}x<ϵ`$ (in the Euclidean norm, for instance), then $`x^{}T(y)`$.

We remark that the conclusion is obvious if $`x`$ is in the interior of $`S(y)`$; the important fact is that the result holds when $`x`$ is on the boundary of $`S(y)`$.

Proof. Note that $`x_d>0`$. Pick an $`\alpha `$ satisfying $`\alpha <1`$, $`\alpha >x_1/y_1`$, and $`\alpha >y_d/x_d`$. Let $`k`$ be an integer for which $`x_1\alpha ^{k1}<x_d`$. Now let $`z`$ be the $`k`$-dimensional vector

$`z=(1,\alpha ,\mathrm{},\alpha ^{k1}).`$

(Of course $`z`$ is not a probability vector, but it can easily be normalized. For convenience in the proof, we neglect the normalization.)

We will show that $`x`$ is in the interior of $`T(y,z)`$. Since $`T(y,z)T(y)`$, this will establish the result.

Let $`(yz)_i^{}`$ denote the $`i`$th component of $`yz`$ when its components are arranged in non-increasing order. We will show that for $`1ldk1`$,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}<\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}.$$
(1)
Note that since $`xz`$ must be majorized by $`yz`$, we already know that (1) must hold for $`0ldk`$ if “$`<`$” is replaced by “$``$” (and this fact is used later in the proof). Showing that (1) holds for $`1ldk1`$ will complete the proof since it is then clear that any sufficiently small perturbations to $`x`$ (within the probability space) will not cause (1) to be violated for any $`1ldk1`$.

For the remainder of the proof we fix $`l`$ as an arbitrary integer satisfying $`1ldk1`$. Consider the terms that the left hand sum of (1) will contain. For $`1id`$, let $`r_i`$ denote the number of these terms which are of the form $`x_i\alpha ^j`$, with $`0j<k`$. (In case of repeated values of components of $`xz`$, we regard terms with smaller $`i`$ to be included in the sum first.) Note that these $`r_i`$ terms must be $`x_i,x_i\alpha ,\mathrm{},x_i\alpha ^{r_i1}`$, since these are the largest of this form. The sum (which we denote by $`s_x`$) can thus be written

$$s_x=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{r_i1}{}}x_i\alpha ^j$$
(2)
Note that $`0r_ik`$ and in addition $`r_1>0`$ and $`r_d<k`$.

Consider the sum

$$s_y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{r_i1}{}}y_i\alpha ^j.$$
(3)
The terms of this sum may or may not be the $`l`$ largest components of $`yz`$, but if $`s_x<s_y`$ then we are done because $`s_y`$ is less than or equal to the right hand sum in (1). The fact that $`xy`$ implies that $`s_xs_y`$; this follows from comparing the terms in the sums with a fixed $`j`$. Thus we need only consider the case $`s_x=s_y`$.

Let $`m_y`$ be the minimum of the terms included in the sum in (3) and let $`M_y`$ be the maximum of those components of $`yz`$ which are not included in this sum. Define $`m_x`$ and $`M_x`$ analagously. If $`M_y>m_y`$ then we are done, since the largest term not in the sum in (3) can be swapped with the smallest one in the sum, implying (1). We assume that $`M_ym_y`$ and show that a contradiction will follow.

There are two cases to consider. We first consider the case where $`r_1<k`$ (that is, $`r_1k`$). Note that our current assumptions (including $`M_ym_y`$) imply $`m_ym_x`$, since otherwise we would have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}(xz)_i^{}>{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}(yz)_i^{}.`$

It follows that

$$m_ym_xx_1\alpha ^{r_11}<y_1\alpha ^{r_1}M_y,$$
(4)
where we have used one of our requirements on $`\alpha `$ as well as the facts that $`x_1\alpha ^{r_11}`$ is in the sum in (2) and $`y_1\alpha ^{r_1}`$ is not in the sum in (3). But (4) contradicts our assumption that $`M_ym_y`$, so the first case is complete.

In the other case $`r_1=k`$, so $`m_xx_1\alpha ^{k1}`$. But $`x_1\alpha ^{k1}<x_d`$ by our choice of $`k`$, so we must have $`r_d>0`$. Our assumptions imply that $`M_yM_x`$, since otherwise we would have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}}(xz)_i^{}>{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}}(yz)_i^{}.`$

Therefore,

$`M_yM_xx_d\alpha ^{r_d}>y_d\alpha ^{r_d1}m_y`$

by reasoning similar to that yielding (4). Again our assumption that $`M_ym_y`$ is contradicted. Thus the proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 5

Suppose $`x`$ and $`y`$ are $`d`$-dimensional probability vectors, with components arranged in non-increasing order, such that $`x_Ty`$ and $`y_1>x_1`$ and $`y_d<x_d`$. Then $`x`$ is in the interior of $`T(y)`$.

Proof. By definition there exists a $`z`$ such that $`xzyz`$. Since $`y_1>x_1`$ and $`y_d<x_d`$ we must have $`(xz)_1^{}<(yz)_1^{}`$ and $`(xz)_{dk}^{}>(yz)_{dk}^{}`$, where $`k`$ is the dimension of $`z`$.

We can thus apply Lemma 4 and conclude that $`xz`$ is in the interior of $`T(yz)`$. Since $`xxz`$ is a continuous function, it follows that $`x`$ is in the interior of $`\{xxzT(yz)\}`$. But $`\{xxzT(yz)\}=T(y)`$, so we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

## III When is Catalysis Useful?

If $`T(y)=S(y)`$, then catalysis is of no help in producing the state $`y`$. This is obviously the case when $`y=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, for then all vectors in $`R^d`$ are in both $`S(y)`$ and $`T(y)`$. Jonathan and Plenio have shown  that if $`d3`$ then $`x_Tyxy`$; in other words, $`S(y)=T(y)`$ if $`y`$ is at most three-dimensional. The following theorem shows that for almost all vectors $`y`$ of four or more dimensions, $`S(y)T(y)`$:

###### Theorem 6

Let $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional probability vector whose components are in non-increasing order. Then $`T(y)S(y)`$ if and only if $`y_1y_l`$ and $`y_my_d`$ for some $`l,m`$ with $`1<l<m<d`$.

This theorem says that $`S(y)T(y)`$ if and only if $`y`$ has at least two components that are distinct from both its smallest and largest components.

Proof. Suppose that there exist such $`l`$ and $`m`$. Let $`d_1`$ be the number of components of $`y`$ equal to $`y_1`$, and let $`d_2`$ be the number of components of $`y`$ equal to $`y_d`$. Then $`d_1+d_2+2d`$. Let $`x`$ be the $`d`$-dimensional vector whose first $`d_1+1`$ components are each equal to the average of the first $`d_1+1`$ components of $`y`$, whose last $`d_2+1`$ components are each equal to the average of the last $`d_2+1`$ components of $`y`$, and which matches $`y`$ in any other components. Then it is easily checked that $`xy`$. In fact $`x`$ is on the boundary of $`S(y)`$ since $`_{i=1}^{d_1+1}x_i=_{i=1}^{d_1+1}y_i`$. However, by Corollary 5, $`x`$ is in the interior of $`T(y)`$; thus $`S(y)T(y)`$.

Conversely, assume that there are no $`l,m`$ such that $`l<m`$, $`y_1y_l`$, and $`y_my_d`$. Again let $`d_1`$ be the number of components of $`y`$ equal to $`y_1`$, and $`d_2`$ the number of components equal to $`y_d`$. Let $`xT(y)`$ and assume the components of $`x`$ are arranged in decreasing order. Then $`x_1y_1`$, so $`_{i=1}^jx_i_{i=1}^jy_i`$ for $`j\{1,\mathrm{},d_1\}`$. Also $`x_dy_d`$, so $`_{i=j+1}^dx_i_{i=j+1}^dy_i`$, and therefore $`_{i=1}^jx_i_{i=1}^jy_i`$, for $`j\{dd_2,\mathrm{},d1\}`$. But our assumptions imply that $`d_1+d_2+1d`$, so in fact $`_{i=1}^jx_i_{i=1}^jy_i`$ for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$, and so $`xy`$. Thus in this case $`S(y)=T(y)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In applying this theorem, it should be noted that the dimension of $`y`$ is somewhat arbitrary, as one can append zeroes to the vector $`y`$ and thereby increase its dimension without changing the underlying quantum state. If $`y`$ has at least three nonzero components, but exactly two distinct nonzero components, then appending zeroes will result in a vector $`y^{}`$ such that $`S(y^{})T(y^{})`$, although $`S(y)=T(y)`$. The reason for this phenomenon is that we only consider vectors $`x`$ with the same dimension as that of $`y`$; by increasing the dimension of $`y`$, we increase the allowed choices for $`x`$ as well. Thus, the dimension of the initial states $`x`$ under consideration may determine whether $`S(y)=T(y)`$.

## IV Catalysts of Arbritrarily High Dimension Must Be Considered

We will now show that for most $`y`$, there is no $`k`$ such that $`T_k(y)=T(y)`$. In other words, there is no limit to the dimension of the catalysts that must be considered, in trying to determine which vectors are trumped by a given vector $`y`$. Our proof will proceed as follows: First we will show that $`T_k(y)`$ is a closed set for any $`k`$ and all $`y`$, and then we will show that $`T(y)`$ is in general not closed. It follows that $`T_k(y)T(y)`$.

The results of the previous section, and of this section, give a precise characterization of when $`S(y)=T(y)`$, and when there exists a $`k`$ such that $`T_k(y)=T(y)`$. While it is clear that the former situation implies the latter, it turns out that the converse is true as well.

###### Theorem 7

$`T_k(y)`$ is closed.

*Proof.* For a given $`d`$-dimensional probability vector $`y`$, let

$`h(x,z)=\underset{1j<dk}{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}}\left((xz)_i^{}(yz)_i^{}\right),`$

where $`x`$ and $`z`$ are probability vectors of $`d`$ and $`k`$ dimensions, respectively. Observe that $`h`$ is a composition of continuous functions (including the maximum of a finite set of expressions, and the function $`xx^{}`$), and so is continuous in $`x`$ and $`z`$.

Let

$`f(x)=\underset{z}{\mathrm{min}}h(x,z),`$

where the minimum is over all $`k`$-dimensional probability vectors $`z`$; this minimum exists since $`h(x,z)`$ is continuous in $`z`$ and the minimization is over a compact set. Observe that $`xT_k(y)`$ if and only if $`f(x)0`$.

Suppose now that $`xT_k(y)`$. Then $`f(x)>ϵ`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$. Let $`x^{}`$ be given with $`xx^{}<ϵ/d`$. Let $`z`$ be an arbitrary $`k`$-dimensional probability vector, let $`j_0`$ be a maximizing value of $`j`$ in $`h(x,z)`$ and $`\pi `$ be a permutation for which $`(xz)_i^{}=(xz)_{\pi (i)}`$ for each $`i`$. Let $`v`$ be the $`d`$-dimensional vector $`(ϵ/d,\mathrm{},ϵ/d)`$ and note that $`x_i^{}>x_iv_i`$ for each $`i`$. We then have

$`h(x^{},z)h(x,z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j_0}{}}}\left((x^{}z)_i^{}(xz)_i^{}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j_0}{}}}\left((x^{}z)_{\pi (i)}(xz)_{\pi (i)}\right)`$
$`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j_0}{}}}\left(((xv)z)_{\pi (i)}(xz)_{\pi (i)}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j_0}{}}}(vz)_{\pi (i)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{dk}{}}}(vz)_{\pi (i)}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ.`$
Therefore $`h(x^{},z)>0`$ for all $`z`$, so $`f(x^{})>0`$. We thus see that $`x^{}T_k(y)`$ for $`x^{}`$ in a neighborhood of $`x`$. Therefore $`T_k^c(y)`$ is open, so $`T_k(y)`$ is closed. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 8

Let $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional probability vector, with components in non-increasing order, such that $`T(y)S(y)`$. Then for all $`k`$, $`T_k(y)T(y)`$.

Proof. By Theorem 6, the hypothesis is equivalent to the existence of $`l,m`$ such that $`1<l<m<d`$, $`y_1>y_l`$, $`y_m>y_d`$. For convenience, we redefine $`l`$ to be the index of the first component of $`y`$ that is not equal to $`y_1`$, and $`m`$ to be the index of the last component of $`y`$ that is not equal to $`y_d`$; clearly we still have $`l<m`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{min}\{y_1y_l,y_my_d\}`$ and let $`x`$ be the $`d`$-dimensional vector given by $`x_l=y_l+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`x_m=y_m\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`x_i=y_i`$ for $`i\{l,m\}`$. It is easily checked that $`yx`$ but $`xy`$; therefore $`x_Ty`$. Let $`w=(\frac{1}{d},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{d})`$ and note that $`wS(y)`$.

Suppose $`T(y)`$ is closed. Since $`T(y)`$ is convex, the set $`\{t[0,1]tx+(1t)wT(y)\}`$ is a closed interval not containing 1, say $`[0,t_0]`$. So $`T(y)`$ contains $`t_0x+(1t_0)w`$ as a boundary point. But $`t_0x+(1t_0)w`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary 5 and is thus an interior point of $`T(y)`$. This is a contradiction, so $`T(y)`$ cannot be closed. As Theorem 7 says that each $`T_k(y)`$ is closed, we must have $`T_k(y)T(y)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

So whenever catalysis is useful in producing $`y`$ (i.e., $`S(y)T(y)`$), catalysts of arbitrarily high dimension must be considered. In other words, when $`S(y)T(y)`$, then for any $`k`$ there is a $`k^{}>k`$ such that $`T_k(y)`$ is a strict subset of $`T_k^{}(y)`$. However, we do not know whether increasing the catalyst dimension by one will necessarily give an improvement. That is, it is unknown whether there is any vector $`y`$ and $`k1`$ such that $`S(y)T(y)`$ but $`T_k(y)=T_{k+1}(y)`$.

## V Which states can be catalysts?

Another interesting question is that of which states are potentially useful as catalysts. If a vector $`z`$ is uniform, meaning that its nonzero components are all identical, then it is easily seen that $`z`$ is not capable of acting as a catalyst: if $`xzyz`$, then $`xy`$ so $`z`$ served no use as a catalyst. In  Nielsen conjectured that all nonuniform vectors are potentially useful as catalysts. In this section, we show that this conjecture is true.

Before we proceed, let us consider the implications of this conjecture. We know already that a uniform $`z`$ cannot act as a catalyst. A uniform $`z`$ with $`k`$ nonzero components corresponds to a maximally entangled quantum state of Schmidt number $`k`$; if $`k=1`$ then the state is unentangled. So we have the following situation: if $`z`$ is a maximally entangled state, then $`z`$ cannot be used as a catalyst; but for any other entangled state $`z`$, the conjecture says that $`z`$ can serve as a catalyst. In using entanglement as a resource, it is possible to have too much as well as too little.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)`$ be a non-uniform probability vector. Then there exist probability vectors $`x,yR^4`$ such that $`xzyz`$, but $`xy`$.

Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that $`z_1z_2\mathrm{}z_k>0`$. Define $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ by the relations

$$\frac{z_1}{z_k}=\frac{\alpha }{\beta }$$

and

$$\alpha +\beta =1.$$

By non-uniformity of $`z`$, $`\alpha >\beta `$.

Let $`x_1=x_2=\frac{1}{2}\alpha +\frac{1}{4}\beta `$, and $`x_3=x_4=\frac{1}{4}\beta `$. Let $`y_1=\alpha `$, let $`y_2=y_3=\frac{1}{2}\beta `$, and let $`y_4=0`$. Let $`x=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$, $`y=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)`$. Note that $`xy`$, so obviously $`xzyz`$. Our goal is to show that all the majorization inequalities between $`xz`$ and $`yz`$ are strict; in other words, for all $`l\{1,2,\mathrm{},4k1\}`$,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}<\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}.$$
(5)
We will show first that the inequalities are strict when $`l`$ is even; so for now, assume that $`l`$ is even. There are five cases to consider.

*Case 1:* $`1lk`$. We have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}=(\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta )\underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}z_i,$$

while

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}=\alpha \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}z_i.$$

Thus

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(yz)_i^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(xz)_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=l/2+1}{\overset{l}{}}}z_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}z_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}(\alpha z_{1/2+i}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta z_i).`$
This last quantity is a sum of positive terms (by the definition of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$), so the inequality 5 is strict.

*Case 2:* $`k+1l<2k`$. We have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}=(\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta )\underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}z_i$$

and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta \underset{i=1}{\overset{lk}{}}z_i.$$

The difference thus satisfies

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}\alpha \underset{i=l/2+1}{\overset{k}{}}z_i\frac{1}{2}\beta \underset{i=lk+1}{\overset{l/2}{}}z_i.$$

Note that the sums on the right hand side each contain $`kl/2`$ terms. Since $`\alpha z_i>\frac{1}{2}\beta z_j`$ for any $`i,j`$, the difference is positive, and again (5) holds.

*Case 3:* $`l=2k`$. In this case

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}=\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta $$

and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta \underset{i=1}{\overset{k1}{}}z_i+\frac{1}{2}\beta z_1$$

$$=\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}\beta (z_1z_k)>\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta ,$$

so the inequality 5 is strict.

*Case 4:* $`2k+1l3k`$. We have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(xz)_i^{}=\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}\beta \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2k}{}}z_i$$

while

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}(yz)_i^{}\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\beta +\frac{1}{2}\beta \underset{i=1}{\overset{l2k}{}}z_i.$$

The second quantity is clearly larger, so the inequality 5 is strict.

*Case 5:* $`3k+1l<4k`$. This case is trivial because the sum for $`yz`$ is 1 (because there are no more nonzero terms to be added), and the sum for $`xz`$ is less than 1.

We have shown that (5) holds when $`l`$ is even (and in the proper range). Now suppose $`l`$ is odd. From the even cases, it is easily verified that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l1}{}}(xz)_i^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}(xz)_i^{}<\underset{i=1}{\overset{l1}{}}(yz)_i^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}(yz)_i^{}$$
(6)
when $`l\{1,3,\mathrm{},4k1\}`$. Based on the fact that the components of $`(yz)^{}`$ are non-increasing, $`_{i=1}^l(yz)_i^{}`$ is greater than or equal to the average of the two sums in the right side of (6). However, $`_{i=1}^l(xz)_i^{}`$ is *equal* to the average of the sums in the left side of (6), since the components of $`(xz)^{}`$ appear in pairs. We therefore see that (5) holds when $`l`$ is odd.

Thus, the majorization inequalities are strict for all $`l`$ between 1 and $`4k1`$ inclusive, so for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$, $`(x_1+ϵ,x_2+ϵ,x_3ϵ,x_4ϵ)zyz`$. However, $`(x_1+ϵ,x_2+ϵ,x_3ϵ,x_4ϵ)y`$, so our theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

## VI Conclusion

While the majorization relation is a fairly well-studied subject, tensor-product induced majorization (i.e., the trumping relation) is an extension of this relation about which comparatively little is known. Trumping is a relatively new notion that allows us to categorize which transformations of entangled states are possible using only local operations and classical communication. Unfortunately, given $`x`$ and $`y`$ it is not easy to determine whether $`x`$ is trumped by $`y`$. And given $`y`$, there is no known geometric or function-theoretic categorization of $`T(y)`$, the set of vectors trumped by $`y`$; this is in contrast to the case with the majorization relation, where such characterizations do exist. In this paper we have derived a number of results about the trumping relation, in an effort to improve our understanding of this relation.

Recent work has demonstrated additional applications for majorization in quantum information theory . For instance, a majorization condition has been shown necessary for a state to be separable ; and it has also been shown that various majorization conditions must be satisfied by quantum systems undergoing mixing and measurement processes . As discoveries relating majorization to quantum information science are made, new applications for the trumping relation may arise.

## VII Acknowledgements

The authors thank Michael Nielsen for introducing us to this subject, providing encouragement and feedback on our results, and generously commenting on the manuscript. We also thank David Beckman for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# The liquid to vapor phase transition in excited nuclei

## Abstract

For many years it has been speculated that excited nuclei would undergo a liquid to vapor phase transition. For even longer, it has been known that clusterization in a vapor carries direct information on the liquid- vapor equilibrium according to Fisher’s droplet model. Now the thermal component of the $`8`$ GeV/c $`\pi +^{197}`$Au multifragmentation data of the ISiS Collaboration is shown to follow the scaling predicted by Fisher’s model, thus providing the strongest evidence yet of the liquid to vapor phase transition.

Nuclear multifragmentation, the break up of a nuclear system into several intermediate sized pieces, has been frequently discussed in terms of equilibrium statistical mechanics, and its possible association with a phase transition . However, ample uncertainty remains regarding its nature, in particular whether multifragmentation is a phase transition and if so whether it is associated with the liquid to vapor phase transition.

This paper will show that: 1) high quality experimental data contain the unequivocal signature of a liquid to vapor phase transition through their strict adherence to Fisher’s droplet model; 2) the two phase coexistence line is observed over a large energy/temperature interval extending up to and including the critical point; 3) several critical exponents, as well as the critical temperature, the surface energy coefficient and the compressibility factor can be directly extracted; 4) the nuclear phase diagram can be constructed with the available data; 5) the nuclear liquid at break-up is a slightly super-saturated vapor, for which the pressure and density can be determined as a function of the temperature.

In past attempts to investigate the relationship between nuclear multifragmentation and a liquid to vapor phase transition, critical exponents have been determined , caloric curves have been examined , and the observation of negative heat capacities have been reported . Other studies of multifragmentation data have shown two general, empirical properties of the fragment multiplicities called reducibility and thermal scaling .

Reducibility refers to the observation that for each energy bin the fragment multiplicities are distributed according to a binomial or Poissonian law. As such, their multiplicity distributions can be reduced to a one-fragment production probability according to a binomial or Poissonian distribution.

Thermal scaling refers to the feature that the average fragment yield $`N`$ behaves with temperature $`T`$ as a Boltzmann factor: $`N\mathrm{exp}(B/T)`$. Thus a plot of $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ vs. $`1/T`$, an Arrhenius plot, should be linear. The slope $`B`$ in such a plot is the one-fragment production “barrier”.

Both the features of reducibility and thermal scaling are inherent to any statistical model, in particular to the clusterization of droplets from a vapor as described by Fisher’s droplet model . Thus it is interesting to see if a system portraying reducibility and thermal scaling portrays also the scaling of Fisher’s model . Fisher’s droplet model describes the aggregation of molecules into clusters in a vapor, thus accounting for its non-ideality. The abundance of a cluster of size $`A`$ is given by:

$`n_A`$ $`=`$ $`q_0A^\tau \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{T}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_0A^\sigma }{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_0A^\sigma }{T}}\right)`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`q_0A^\tau \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_0\epsilon A^\sigma }{T}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`n_A`$ is the number of droplets (or fragments) of mass $`A`$, normalized to the size of the system $`A_0`$; $`q_0`$ is a normalization constant depending only on the value of $`\tau `$ ; $`\tau `$ is the topological critical exponent; $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mu \mu _l`$, and $`\mu `$ and $`\mu _l`$ are the actual and liquid chemical potentials respectively; $`c_0\epsilon A^\sigma `$ is the surface free energy of a droplet of size $`A`$; $`c_0`$ is the zero temperature surface energy coefficient; $`\sigma `$ is the critical exponent related to the ratio of the dimensionality of the surface to that of the volume; and $`\epsilon =(T_cT)/T_c`$ is the control parameter, a measure of the distance from the critical point, $`T_c`$.

Equation (1) shows clearly that thermal scaling is contained in this description. In particular, at coexistence ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$), Eq. (1) leads to a “barrier” $`B=c_0A^\sigma `$.

Recently, gold multifragmentation data from the ISiS Collaboration was shown to exhibit reducibility and thermal scaling in the fragment production probabilities . Since this behavior is inherent to Fisher’s model, it is interesting to determine if Fisher’s model describes the ISiS data set. In order to find if this is the case, the ISiS charge yields from 8 GeV/c $`\pi ^{}+`$ 197Au fragmentation data (see Fig 1a) were fit to Eq. (2).

The mass of a fragment $`A`$ (estimated by multiplying the measured fragment charge $`Z`$ by the $`A`$-to-$`Z`$ ratio of the fragmenting system) was used as the cluster size in Eq. (2). The total number of fragments of a given size $`N_A`$ was normalized to the size of the fragmenting system $`A_0`$ thus $`n_A=N_A/A_0`$. Here $`\sqrt{E^{}}`$ was used in lieu of $`T`$, assuming the system behaves as a degenerate Fermi gas.

The parameters of Fisher’s model, e.g. $`\tau `$, $`\sigma `$, and $`E_c^{}`$ (in lieu of $`T_c`$) were used as fit parameters. The distance from equilibrium $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ was parameterized by a polynomial of degree four in $`E^{}`$ and the coefficients of that polynomial were used as fit parameters. The surface energy coefficient $`c_0`$ was parameterized by a polynomial of degree one and the coefficients of that polynomial were used as fit parameters. The level density parameter was absorbed into the fit parameters for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`c_0`$.

While analyses similar to this one have been performed on multifragmentation data in the past , those efforts dealt with inclusive data sets; data from every excitation energy were examined as a whole and the results were presented as a function of incident beam energy. This work makes use of the high statistics, exclusive data set of the ISiS Collaboration and bins the events in terms of reconstructed excitation energy . In addition, explicit use of Fisher’s expressions for the bulk and surface energies allows $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`c_0`$ to be determined by the data.

Data for $`E^{}E_c^{}`$ and for $`5Z16`$ were included in the fit to Eq. (2) and the parameters were allowed to float to minimize $`\chi _\nu ^2`$. Fisher’s parameterization of the surface energy $`c_0\epsilon `$ is invalid for $`T>T_c`$, thus excitation energies greater than $`E_c^{}`$ were not considered. Fisher’s model expresses the mass/energy of a fragment in terms of bulk and surface energies. This approximation is known to fail for the lightest of nuclei where structure details (shell effects) dominate the mass. For this reason and the fact that for the lightest fragments equilibrium and nonequilibrium production cannot be clearly differentiated, fragments with $`Z<5`$ were not considered in the fit. Fragments with $`Z>16`$ were not elementally resolved , and were also excluded.

The behavior of the data for the $`(n_A,A,T)`$ surface is reproduced over a wide range in excitation energy and fragment charge. This is also shown in Fig. 1. In this figure the results of the analysis are presented in terms of Arrhenius plots (Fig. 1b), or of the fragment yield distribution plots (Fig. 1c). A powerful method to observe the results of this analysis directly is to scale the data according to Eq. (2) using the parameters resulting from the fitting procedure. Figure 2 shows such a result. The fragment mass yield distribution is scaled by the Fisher’s power law pre-factor and the bulk term: $`n_A/q_0A^\tau \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu A/T)`$. This quantity is then plotted against the temperature scaled by Fisher’s parameterization of the surface energy: $`A^\sigma \epsilon /\sqrt{E^{}}`$. The scaled data collapse over five orders of magnitude onto a single curve, which is precisely the behavior predicted by Fisher’s droplet model . This curve is equivalent to a liquid-vapor coexistence line, as will be shown below, and provides the best, most direct evidence yet for a liquid to vapor phase transition in excited nuclei.

To illustrate the generality of this type of scaling, Fig. 2 also shows the scaled cluster distributions from a three-dimensional Ising model calculation . This system is know to model liquid-vapor coexistence up to the critical temperature. The perfect scaling of the cluster yields according to Eq. (2) demonstrates liquid-vapor-like coexistence up to $`T_c`$.

The value of $`\tau `$ extracted from this analysis, $`\tau =2.00\pm 0.01`$, is in the range predicted by Fisher’s model. Similarly, $`\sigma =0.64\pm 0.05`$ is close to the value expected for a three dimensional system, $`2/3`$. The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`c_0`$ and their energy dependence are shown in Fig. 3. The positive value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ for $`E^{}<E_c^{}`$ indicates that the system behaves as a slightly super-saturated vapor. Values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ and $`c_0`$ can be determined by making a choice of the level density parameter. For $`a=A_0/8`$, $`c_010.0\pm 0.3`$ MeV while $`a=A_0/13`$ gives $`c_012.8\pm 0.4`$ MeV; both values are in the range of the value of the surface energy coefficient of the semi-empirical mass formula ($`17`$ MeV), although the linear extrapolation all the way down to $`T=0`$ implied by Eq. (2) is questionable. The values of the critical exponents determined here are in agreement with those determined for the EOS multifragmentation data  and the value of the excitation energy at the critical point $`E_c^{}=3.70\pm 0.05`$ MeV/nucleon is in the neighborhood of the value observed in the EOS analysis ($`E_c^{}=4.75`$ MeV/nucleon) . The EOS analysis relied on the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu 0`$. No such assumption was made in this work. In fact the present effort tests that assumption and finds it to be approximately valid below the critical point since the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ values are at most $`1`$ MeV (assuming $`a=A_0/13`$).

Using the value of $`E_c^{}`$ determined here and a level density parameter of $`A_0/13`$, the critical temperature can be estimated to be on the order of $`6.9`$ MeV, which is comparable to theoretical estimates for small nuclear systems . In most theoretical calculations the Coulomb force and small size of the system drastically reduces the value of $`T_c`$. It is also well known that both $`T_c`$ and $`\rho _c`$ scale as a function of system size in many systems .

The coexistence line and actual position of the fragmenting system in the pressure-density-temperature $`(P,\rho ,T)`$ diagram can be determined from this analysis.

Fisher’s theory assumes that the non-ideal vapor can be approximated by an ideal gas of clusters. Accordingly, the quantity $`n_A`$ is proportional to the partial pressure of a fragment of mass $`A`$ and the total pressure due to all of the fragments is the sum of their partial pressures:

$$\frac{P}{T}=\underset{A=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_A.$$
(3)
The reduced pressure is then given by:

$$\frac{P}{P_c}=\frac{_{A=1}^{\mathrm{}}n_A(T)}{_{A=1}^{\mathrm{}}n_A(T_c)}.$$
(4)
This is a transformation of the information given in Fig. 3 onto a more familiar frame of reference.

When values of $`n_A`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$ are used in these equations, the coexistence curve is obtained. In other words, this analysis provides simultaneously the coexistence line and the actual line. Both are shown in Fig 4a.

The system’s density can be found via

$$\rho =\underset{A=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}An_A,$$
(5)
and the reduced density from

$$\frac{\rho }{\rho _c}=\frac{_{A=1}^{\mathrm{}}An_A(T)}{_{A=1}^{\mathrm{}}An_A(T_c)}.$$
(6)
As before, both the actual curve and the coexistence curve can be determined. Both are shown in Fig. 4b together with the coexistence curve of Guggenheim .

The coexistence curve from the nuclear data does not agree closely with the Guggenheim plot over the full range of $`T/T_c`$. This is not surprising given the complexity of the nuclear fluid compared to the simple fluids analyzed by Guggenheim. However, near $`T_c`$, the universal behavior of the coexistence curve is recovered.

The compressibility factor $`p_c/T_c\rho _c`$ is calculated by dividing the denominator of Eq. (4) by that of Eq. (6) and found to be $`0.24\pm 0.06`$. This value agrees with the value of the compressibility factor of many fluids .

In conclusion this paper has shown that the data of the ISiS Collaboration contain the unequivocal signature of a liquid to vapor phase transition via their strict adherence to Fisher’s droplet model. Through Fisher’s scaling of the fragment yield distribution (Fig. 2) the two phase coexistence line has been determined over a large energy/temperature interval extending up to and including the critical point. The critical exponents $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ as well as the approximate value of $`T_c`$, the surface energy coefficient $`c_0`$ and the compressibility factor have been extracted and agree with accepted values. A portion of the nuclear phase diagram has been constructed with the available data. Finally, the nuclear liquid at break-up was observed to be a slightly super-saturated vapor for which $`P/P_c`$ and $`\rho /\rho _c`$ were determined as a function of $`T/T_c`$.

The authors would like to thank Prof. Cathy Mader for her input and invaluable efforts with the Ising model calculations. This work was supported by the the US Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Polish State Committe for Scientific Reseach, Indiana Universtiy Office of Research, the University Graduate School, Simon Fraser University and the Robert A. Welch Foundation.


text:
# Microscopic optical potentials for nucleon-nucleus scattering

## I Introduction

All of the development of the folding models of the microscopic nucleon-nucleus ($`NA`$) optical potentials for medium energy scattering to date have concentrated on the description of proton-nucleus ($`pA`$) scattering observables, with particular emphasis on studying the effective interaction and its components (see Ref.  and references cited therein). Much success in the description of differential cross sections and spin observables has been achieved by using a folding model in the coordinate space representation when coupled with reasonable models of nuclear structure . More recently, this model has also been applied to the predictions of integral observables, with success in describing data from both proton and neutron scattering .

A natural extension of the application of this formalism would be to describe the observables for neutron-nucleus ($`nA`$) scattering. Comparison of $`nA`$ and $`pA`$ data for a given target and at a given energy would elicit details specifically of the nuclear part of the microscopic optical potential. Such a comparison would also highlight the role of the Coulomb interaction in $`NA`$ scattering. It is only the inclusion (or exclusion) of the Coulomb interaction being the only difference in proton and neutron scattering that results in the prediction that the analyzing powers for neutron and proton elastic scattering from 208Pb at 100 MeV would be completely out of phase . This phenomenological result has yet to be experimentally verified so it would be instructive to note if a completely microscopic model for the scattering would lead to the same conclusion. Such was done for 100 MeV scattering by Karataglidis and Madland , whose results supported the phenomenological result.

Reaction and scattering information can be obtained directly from the optical model. However, while numerous measurements have been made for proton reaction cross sections and elastic scattering distributions, very few measurements have been made for neutrons above 20 MeV, owing to experimental difficulties in producing suitable monoenergetic neutron beams. Thus, phenomenological proton optical potentials can be obtained from fitting the available proton scattering data, but this approach cannot be directly used to obtain phenomenological neutron potentials, though procedures exist by which the neutron potential may be obtained from that of the proton using a Lane model. Therefore, we look to the applicability of the microscopic $`NA`$ optical potentials to $`nA`$ scattering.

A microscopic theory of $`NA`$ scattering must necessarily start with an appropriate form of the underlying nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) interaction from which the $`g`$ matrices for nucleons scattering from infinite nuclear matter are obtained as solutions of the Bruckner-Bethe-Goldstone (BBG) equation. A local density approximation then maps the $`g`$ matrix onto an effective $`NN`$ interaction in medium for the target in question. That effective interaction is folded with density of the target to obtain the microscopic, nonlocal, optical potential, cast in terms of central, tensor and spin-orbit terms. For the calculations presented herein, we use the Bonn B  $`NN`$ interaction as the starting interaction, with densities obtained primarily from the shell model, specifying both the density dependence of the effective $`NA`$ interaction and the density of the target.

The examples considered herein are 65 MeV proton and neutron scattering from 12C, 28Si, 40Ca, 56Fe, 90Zr, and 208Pb. These choices are predicated on the availability of both proton and neutron scattering data. Comparisons of the results of the microscopic calculations are also made with results obtained using a global phenomenological optical potential applicable for the mass range encompassed in our investigation.

## II Optical potentials

The complete details of the calculation of the microscopic optical potential can be found in a recent review article , including details of the program DWBA98 , with which we calculate the optical potential and all observables. Herein, we present a summary showing the relevant details to allow for a comparison of $`pA`$ and $`nA`$ scattering.

With $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ denoting the relative coordinates between a colliding pair of particles, the Schrödinger equation describing their scattering by a local Coulomb, $`V_C(r)`$, and a nonlocal hadronic (optical) potential is of the form

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }^2V_C(r)+E\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r})=U(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}^{})𝑑\stackrel{}{r}^{},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the scattering solution and $`U(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{})`$ is the optical potential. The optical potential is obtained by the folding of the relevant nuclear structure information with the effective $`g`$ matrices, as specified in $`ST`$-channel form and in coordinate space. They are obtained from the set of infinite matter nuclear $`g`$ matrices  obtained by solution of the BBG equation,

$`g_{LL^{}}^{(JST)}(p^{},p;k,K,k_F)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{LL^{}}^{(JST)}(p,p^{})`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}V_{Ll}^{(JST)}(p^{},q)\left[\right]g_{lL^{}}^{(JST)}(q,p;k,K,k_F)q^2𝑑q,`$ (3)
where

$$(q,k,K,k_F)=\frac{\overline{Q}(q,K,k_F)}{\overline{E}(k,K,k_F)\overline{E}(q,K,k_F)+i\epsilon }$$
(4)
in which $`\overline{Q}(q,K,k_F)`$ is an angle-averaged Pauli operator with an average center-of-mass momentum $`K`$ . The energies in the propagator of the BBG equation include auxiliary potentials $`U`$  (first order mass operator) and are defined by

$$\overline{E}(q,K,k_F)=(q^2+K^2)+\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\left\{U\left(\left|\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{K}\right|\right)+U\left(\left|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{K}\right|\right)\right\}.$$
(5)
The nuclear structure information is specified in terms of the one body density matrix elements (OBDME) (with $`\alpha `$ specifying the set $`n,l,j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{\alpha m}=(1)^{jm}a_{\alpha m}`$)

$$S_{\alpha \alpha ^{}I}=J_f\left[a_\alpha ^{}^{}\times \stackrel{~}{a}_\alpha \right]^IJ_iJ\left[a_\alpha ^{}^{}\times \stackrel{~}{a}_\alpha \right]^IJ,$$
(6)
for the case of elastic scattering from a target of spin $`J`$. With the diagonal OBDME specified in the occupation number representation, for $`I=0`$,

$$S_{\alpha \alpha 0}=\sqrt{2j+1}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }`$ is the fractional shell occupancy with a filled shell signifying $`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }=1`$, the optical potential given by the folding process, takes the form

$`U(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2;E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha m\alpha ^{}m^{}}{}}(2j+1)\sigma _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\delta (\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2){\displaystyle \phi _{\alpha ^{}m^{}}^{}(\stackrel{}{s})U^D(R_{1s},E)\phi _{\alpha m}(\stackrel{}{s})𝑑\stackrel{}{s}}+\phi _{\alpha ^{}m^{}}^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_1)U^{Ex}(R_{12},E)\phi _{\alpha m}(\stackrel{}{r}_2)\right],`$ (9)
where $`R_{12}=\left|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2\right|`$ and $`R_{1s}=\left|\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{s}\right|`$, $`\varphi _{\alpha m}`$ are the single particle (SP) wave functions specifying the nucleons, and $`U^D`$ and $`U^{Ex}`$ are appropriate combinations of the multipoles of the effective interactions for the direct and exchange contributions to the optical potential respectively. The exchange term arises from the antisymmetry of the projectile and the struck (bound) nucleon within the nucleus.

The exchange terms are the major component of nonlocality in the $`NA`$ optical potential. Indeed, neglect of those terms specifically in folding models leads to severe problems in the description of the observables , with the differential cross sections being overpredicted in some cases by up to several orders of magnitude. Another source of nonlocality is the $`NN`$ interaction itself. In the calculation of $`g`$ matrices, that nonlocality also contributes to that of the optical potential and manifests itself partly in the energy and density dependences in those $`g`$ matrices. That it contributes to the overall nonlocal nature of the optical potential is also evident from the off-shell part of the $`g`$ matrices. The extrapolations of the $`g`$ matrices off-shell, relative to their on-shell values, are similar to those for the free $`NN`$ $`t`$ matrices , and so all aspects of the $`NN`$ interaction are carried through in the solution of the BBG equations. We define such a model as $`g`$-folding.

It is clear from Eq. (3) that the appropriate form of the optical potential for $`pA`$ and $`nA`$ scattering calculations may be obtained from the common $`g`$ matrix, with the projectile isospin allowing the selection of the correct components through the appropriate two-body isospin channels. The only addition in the case of $`pA`$ scattering is the inclusion of the Coulomb interaction in Eq. (1).

The microscopic neutron and proton scattering predictions are compared with predictions from a phenomenological optical potential developed by Madland . This potential is global in projectile energy, isospin, and target $`(Z,A)`$, uses Woods-Saxon form factors, and was developed for use in a relativistic Schrödinger (relativistic kinematics) approach. The potential extends the earlier Schwandt work  by increasing the target mass range from $`A=24208`$ to $`A=12208`$, increasing the energy range from $`E=80180`$ MeV to $`E=50400`$ MeV, and transforming the Schwandt proton potential to a projectile-isospin dependent potential for neutrons and protons, using a relativistic Lane model naturally incorporating Coulomb effects. Experimental data for integrated observables (proton reaction, and neutron total cross sections) and proton elastic scattering angular distributions, were used to determine the phenomenological potential parameters. The potential is described in detail in Ref. .

The observables are obtained once the optical potential has been calculated, as is detailed in the recent review . In particular, the integral observables are obtained from the $`S`$ matrix, or equivalently the phase shifts, $`\delta _l(k)`$:

$$S_l^\pm S_l^\pm (k)=e^{2i\delta _l^\pm (k)}=\eta _l^\pm (k)e^{2i\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^\pm (k)\right]}$$
(10)
where

$$\eta _l^\pm \eta _l^\pm (k)=\left|S_l^\pm (k)\right|=e^{2\mathrm{}\left[\delta _l^\pm (k)\right]}.$$
(11)
In terms of these and with $`Ek^2`$, the elastic and total reaction (absorption) cross sections are given by

$`\sigma _{\text{el}}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{(l+1)\left|S_l^+1\right|^2+l\left|S_l^{}1\right|^2\right\},`$ (12)
$`\sigma _R(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left\{(l+1)\left[1\left(\eta _l^+\right)^2\right]+l\left[1\left(\eta _l^{}\right)^2\right]\right\},`$ (13)
respectively. The total cross section, $`\sigma _{\text{TOT}}(E)`$, is the sum of these two cross sections.

## III Results

Select results are presented for elastic 65 MeV $`NA`$ scattering from 12C, 28Si, 40Ca, 56Fe, 90Zr, and 208Pb. We present the differential cross sections and analysing powers for all cases, as well as consider the integral neutron scattering data: the total, elastic, and total reaction cross sections. The shell model calculations, where applicable, were performed using the code OXBASH . The starting $`NN`$ interaction for the microscopic calculations was the Bonn B interaction .

The SP wave functions for the microscopic calculations were chosen to be harmonic oscillators, with the oscillator parameter chosen to reproduce the root-mean-square (r.m.s.) radius of each nucleus within the given shell model space. The exception to that was 208Pb, for which we used a Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF) calculation . In that calculation, the neutron wave functions were chosen such that the difference in the neutron and proton r.m.s. radii were $`0.16\pm 0.02`$ fm, the Friedman-Pandharipande neutron equation of state serving as the constraint. The choice of SHF wave functions reproduce both the proton and predicted neutron r.m.s. radius. For the other nuclei, Table I lists the oscillator parameter used for each nucleus along with the shell model used, and predicted r.m.s. radius. In all cases, the models used together with the choice of oscillator parameters reproduce the r.m.s. radii quite well. For all nuclei, these models and SP wave functions were used in the microscopic calculations of the scattering presented below.

The results of the microscopic calculations of the scattering from 12C, as well as those obtained from the phenomenological model, are compared to the available data in Fig. 1. Therein, the proton scattering data of Kato et al.  and the neutron scattering data of Hjort et al.  (squares) and Ibaraki et al.  (diamonds) are compared to the results of the calculations made using the microscopic and phenomenological optical potentials. While the microscopic potential results tend to underestimate the region of the minimum ($`40^{}`$), for both proton and neutron scattering from 12C, the model reproduces well the overall shape and magnitude. The model also reproduces the analyzing powers well, and predicts the negative slope above $`60^{}`$, which is not present in the result from the phenomenological calculation. For neutron scattering, the microscopic model gives much better agreement with the data for the forward angle cross section, and so one expects that the total cross section would be better reproduced by this model. That total elastic cross section, along with the total reaction and total neutron scattering cross sections for all the nuclei, are given in Table II. As expected, the total cross section for $`n`$-12C scattering at 65 MeV is much better reproduced by the microscopic result. Also, there are differences between the predicted total elastic and total reaction cross sections. The microscopic model predicts a smaller elastic cross section and larger reaction cross section than the phenomenological model, suggesting the microscopic model calculates a weaker real and stronger imaginary part of the potential. Note that the total neutron scattering cross section from 12C predicted by the microscopic model at intermediate energies is in good agreement with the data .

We compare the results of our calculations for the 65 MeV scattering of nucleons from 28Si to the data in Fig. 2. The proton scattering data are those of Sakaguchi et al. , while the neutron data are those of Hjort et al.  and Ibaraki et al. . The proton scattering data are described well by both models, the phenomenological model giving a better representation of both the cross section and analyzing power. There is a discrepancy between the two sets of neutron scattering data around the first minimum, at $`25^{}`$. Both model results favor the Ibaraki set, giving excellent reproduction of those data, including in the region of the discrepancy. The models give similar results for the neutron analyzing power. In Table II, we find similar behavior in the optical potentials for 28Si as for 12C, as evidenced by the relative elastic and total reaction cross sections. Both models predict the total cross section to within 3%.

The differential cross sections and analyzing powers for the 65 MeV scattering of nucleons from 40Ca are presented in Fig. 3. As with the previous results, both the microscopic and phenomenological results agree with the data of Sakaguchi et al.  quite well, with the phenomenology giving a better representation of the observables. However, as with 28Si, both calculations are unable to reproduce the neutron scattering differential cross section data of Hjort et al. , in the region of the minimum, $`23^{}`$. There are no other available data for this case with which to compare.

In Fig. 4, we compare the results of both model calculations for the scattering of 65 MeV nucleons from 56Fe to the proton scattering data of Sakaguchi et al. , and to the neutron scattering data of Hjort et al.  and Ibaraki et al. . The agreement between the model calculations and the data for proton scattering is quite good, and as before the phenomenological result gives the better representation of the data. As with 28Si, a discrepancy between the Hjort and Ibaraki data sets exists in the region of the first minimum ($`22^{}`$) of the neutron scattering differential cross section. The model calculations both favor the Ibaraki set. There would appear to be a normalization problem in the Hjort data in this region in general, when one considers also the previous examples. This would suggest the need for another measurement of these data in order to resolve the discrepancy. In the case of the neutron integral observables, the optical potentials for 56Fe reflect the same behavior as for the lighter systems, although in this case the predicted total cross sections are in agreement.

The results of both model calculations for the 65 MeV scattering of nucleons from 90Zr are compared to the proton scattering data of Sakaguchi et al.  and neutron scattering data of Ibaraki et al.  in Fig. 5. There is good agreement between the model results and the data. This is also reflected in the total cross section, for which both models are in agreement with the measured value to within 1%. However, we would encourage measurement of the neutron analyzing power in this case. That analyzing power as predicted by both models is very much different to the proton one, unlike those of the lighter nuclei. This is an effect that was first observed by Kozack and Madland  for 100 MeV nucleon scattering from 208Pb, and confirmed recently by Karataglidis and Madland  using the microscopic Schrödinger model.

In Fig. 6, the results of the model calculations for the 65 MeV scattering of nucleons from 208Pb are compared to the proton scattering data of Sakaguchi et al. (circles)  and the neutron scattering data of Hjort et al.  (squares) Ibaraki et al.  (diamonds). While both models give a reasonable representation of the proton scattering data, with the phenomenological model doing better, the neutron scattering data are far better reproduced by the microscopic model. The phenomenological model significantly underpredicts the cross section above $`20^{}`$. In Fig. 7, we show the total and total reaction cross sections for the scattering of neutrons from 208Pb. Between 60 and 200 MeV the predicted total cross section as calculated by the microscopic model shows excellent agreement, to within 1.5%, with the data of Finlay et al. . The phenomenological model does reasonably well above 80 MeV, underpredicting the total cross section by at most 4%. Below 80 MeV, however, the phenomenological model fails to reproduce the minimum. This is consistent with the relatively poor results of the phenomenological model at 65 MeV. As the elastic cross section is well reproduced by the microscopic model, one has confidence in the predicted microscopic results of the total reaction cross section. Those measurements rely on careful subtraction of the elastic from the total cross section and hence some degree of error is to be expected. That we can predict the reaction cross section to within 10% of measurement is encouraging. The phenomenological model does worse. Note that unlike the optical potentials for the other nuclei, we find a weaker imaginary part of the microscopic optical potential relative to that of the phenomenological.

As with the results of Kozack and Madland , which were based on a relativistic Dirac phenomenological optical potential model, and of Karataglidis and Madland, as based on the microscopic Schrödinger model , we observe a significant difference between the proton and neutron analyzing powers for the 65 MeV scattering from 208Pb. The analyzing powers are not completely out of phase, however, as was observed in the other calculations at 100 MeV, suggesting an energy dependence.

## IV Conclusions

We have presented detailed comparisons of model predictions of proton and neutron elastic scattering at 65 MeV for a number of nuclei. The models used were a phenomenological relativistic model and a microscopic one based on the $`g`$ matrices of the Bonn-B $`NN`$ interaction.

In all cases, the differential cross sections and analyzing powers were well reproduced by both models. This is of note as the microscopic optical potentials for both proton and neutron scattering are derived from the same $`g`$ matrix, with isospin selecting the appropriate components. Thus the changes in magnitude and shape between the proton and neutron scattering observables are contained within the same underlying physics. While the phenomenological potentials are derived within a relativistic Lane model, those potentials rely on a global fit to constrain parameters and hence differences between the proton and neutron potentials. Those differences are naturally contained in the microscopic model.

Both the microscopic and phenomenological model analyses contained herein have allowed us to identify a problem with the existing set of neutron scattering data. The two sets of data (Hjort et al.  and Ibaraki et al. ) show a discrepancy between them in the region of the first minimum. The analyses favor the Ibaraki data and, as the two approaches to the scattering problem are fundamentally different, one has some confidence in the results. A new measurement would be required of these data, especially of the $`n`$-40Ca elastic scattering cross section.

Measurements of the neutron scattering analyzing powers are also suggested. First, the differences between the two models are most noticeable in the results for the neutron analyzing powers, suggesting a method of delineation between the two. Second, for the heavier nuclei, a significant difference is observed between the proton and neutron analyzing powers. That difference is attributed to the absence of the Coulomb potential in neutron scattering . A measurement of the neutron analyzing power for scattering from 90Zr or 208Pb at intermediate energies, admittedly a difficult experiment, would demonstrate this effect, and a systematic study based on the microscopic model is under way to determine in which cases this effect would be strongest .

This work was supported by the United States Department of Energy Contract no. W-7405-ENG-36.