text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The idea that the slow dynamics of supercooled liquids is related in some way to the existence of domains in which the dynamics of the particles is cooperative is an old one (Adam and Gibbs 1958). The size of such domains is supposed to grow with decreasing temperature and can in turn be used to explain the slowing down of the dynamics. For a long time it was not clear at all whether or not the idea of such domains has any counterpart in real glass formers or whether it is just an appealing theoretical concept. Only in recent years a variety of novel experimental techniques yielded results that gave evidence that such domains do indeed exist in the supercooled state (e.g. Cicerone et al. 1995, Ediger 2000, Hempel et al. 2000, Leheny et al. 1996, Richert 1996, Sillescu 1999, Tracht et al. 1998, Yamamuro et al. 1998). Also computer simulations of two and three dimensional model systems give evidence that in the supercooled state the relaxation dynamics of the particles is very cooperative (Doliwa and Heuer 2000, Donati et al. 1999a/b, Perera and Harrowell 1999, Yamamoto and Onuki 1998). Progress has also been made on the theoretical level in that it was shown that such domains are related to the nonlinear susceptibility of a certain four point correlation function (Franz and Parisi 1998, Franz et al. 1999, Franz and Parisi 2000).

In the present paper we use the fact that the relaxation dynamics of a particle in a confined system depends strongly on its distance $`z`$ from the wall (Scheidler et al. 2000, Scheidler 2001). By investigating how this influence depends on $`z`$ and time $`t`$ we thus can determine a dynamical length scale and study its dependence on temperature.

## 2 Model and Details of the Simulations

The system we study is a binary (80:20) mixture of Lennard-Jones particles, i.e. with an interaction potential $`V_{\alpha \beta }(r)=4ϵ_{\alpha \beta }[(\sigma _{\alpha \beta }/r)^{12}(\sigma _{\alpha \beta }/r)^6]`$. This potential was truncated and shifted at 2.5$`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$. The interaction parameters are $`\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}=1.0`$, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{AA}}=1.0`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{AB}}=0.8`$, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{AB}}=1.5`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BB}}=0.88`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{BB}}=0.5`$, where A and B label the type of particle. In the following we will discuss the results in terms of reduced units, using $`\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{AA}}`$ as the units of length and energy (setting the Boltzmann constant $`k_B=1`$), and $`(m\sigma _{AA}^2/48ϵ_{AA})^{1/2}`$ as the unit of time. (Here $`m`$ is the mass of the particles.)

In the past the static and dynamical properties of this system in the bulk have been analyzed carefully (Kob and Andersen 1995a/b, Gleim et al. 1998) and it was found that its dynamics is described very well by means of the so-called mode-coupling theory (Götze 1999) with a critical temperature around $`T_c=0.435`$. Thus this is the temperature at which the dynamics of the bulk system slows down significantly. A further relevant temperature for this system is the Kauzmann temperature $`T_K`$ which has been estimated to be around 0.3 (Coluzzi et al. 2000a/b, Sciortino et al. 1999).

The confined liquid studied in the present work was set up in the following way: We first equilibrated a system of 3000 particles in a box of dimensions $`L_x=L_y=12.8`$ and $`L_z=15`$ by applying periodic boundary conditions in all three directions. After equilibration we joined a copy of the configuration in the positive $`z`$-direction and one in the negative $`z`$-direction. The particles of these two copies that were in the layer (perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis) of thickness 2.5 closest to the original system were subsequently frozen and constituted the wall for the confined system (2.5 is the range of the interaction). In this way we thus generated a sandwich geometry in which a fluid system of extension $`L_x\times L_y\times L_z`$ was confined by two walls of dimension $`L_x\times L_y\times 2.5`$. (In the direction of the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axis we kept the periodic boundary conditions.) The width $`L_z`$ of the film was sufficient to make sure that the dynamical bulk properties are realized in the center. Apart from the two mentioned walls we also added a hard-core potential at $`z=0`$ and $`z=L_z`$ to avoid a penetration of particles into the wall. It is now straightforward to show that with these types of boundary conditions the equilibrium structure of the confined liquid is identical to the one of the bulk liquid. Hence it is not necessary to equilibrate the confined system after the introduction of the wall. (Note that this procedure was done for all temperatures investigated and hence the structure of the wall depends slightly on temperature.) Moreover the energy of a particle near to the wall is statistically the same to the one of a particle far from the wall: in general the presence of such a wall cannot be discovered by looking to quantity measured at one time, but influences only the correlation of quantities measured at two different times.

The lowest temperature investigated was $`T=0.5`$ for which production runs of 16 million time steps were used. Note that the length of these production runs is more than ten times longer than the one needed in a simulation for the bulk (Kob and Andersen 1995a/b), since the relaxation of the system close to the wall is so much slower. Finally we mention that in order to improve the statistics of the results we averaged them over 8-16 independent runs.

## 3 Results

The dynamical quantity that we investigate is the incoherent intermediate scattering function $`F_s(𝐪,t)`$, i.e. a space-time correlation function that is important from the theoretical as well as experimental point of view (Hansen and McDonald 1986). Due to the presence of the walls the system is no longer homogeneous or isotropic and hence we have to consider the $`z`$-dependence of $`F_s(𝐪,t)`$. For this we investigate the following generalization of the incoherent intermediate scattering function:

$$F_s(𝐪,z,t)=\frac{1}{N_\alpha }\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\alpha }{}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪(𝐫_j(t)𝐫_j(0)))\delta (z_j(0)z)$$
(1)
where the $`\delta `$-function on the right hand side makes sure that one considers only particles that at time $`t=0`$ were a distance $`z`$ away from the wall. The wave-vectors $`𝐪`$ we consider in the following are parallel to the walls and their $`x`$ and $`y`$ components are chosen such that they are compatible with the periodic boundary conditions. In Fig. 1 we show the time dependence of $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)`$ for various values of $`z`$. From this figure we see that the relaxation dynamics of the particles close to the walls (curves for $`z0`$) is much slower than that for particles in the middle of the film (curves for $`z7.5`$). In an earlier paper we have shown that the typical relaxation time for particles that have a distance $`z`$ from the wall, $`\tau (z,T)`$, increases like

$$\tau (z,T)\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }/(zz_p)\right],$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }7.5`$ and $`z_p0.5`$ are constants and the proportionality factor depends on $`T`$ (Scheidler et al. 2000, Scheidler 2001). This law is valid for small values of $`z`$, i.e. close to the wall. For large $`z`$ we recover instead the bulk relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{bulk}}(T)`$. The distance from the wall at which one finds the crossover from the law given by equation (2) to the constant bulk value $`\tau _{\mathrm{bulk}}(T)`$ can be used to define a length scale $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ (Scheidler 2001). Thus $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ is the length scale over which the wall influences the dynamics of the particles and below we will discuss how this scale depends on temperature.

A second approach to investigate the spatial dependence of the structural relaxation is to consider the whole $`t`$\- and $`z`$-dependence of the intermediate scattering function within one Ansatz. From figure 2 we see that the $`z`$-dependence of $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)`$ is very smooth. In particular it is clear that for $`z1`$ this function has to converge to the intermediate scattering function for the bulk, $`F_s^{\mathrm{bulk}}(𝐪,t)`$. Therefore it is reasonable to make an Ansatz of the form

$$F_s(𝐪,z,t)=F_s^{\mathrm{bulk}}(𝐪,t)+a(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[(z/\xi (t))^{\beta (t)}\right],$$
(3)
i.e. that the whole $`z`$-dependence of $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)`$ is given by a stretched exponential. Here $`a(t)`$, $`\xi (t)`$, and $`\beta (t)`$ are unknown functions of time that can be found from fitting at a given time the $`z`$-dependence of $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)`$ with the functional form given by equation (3). Note that $`F_s^{\mathrm{bulk}}(𝐪,t)`$ is known from the simulations of the bulk and is hence not a fit parameter.

That the Ansatz (3) is indeed able to describe the $`z`$-dependence of $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)`$ very well is demonstrated in figure 2 where we show $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)F_s^{\mathrm{bulk}}(𝐪,t)`$ as a function of $`z`$ for times that span the range from microscopic times to the time of the $`\alpha `$-relaxation, i.e. of the final decay of the correlation functions. We also mention that other simple functional forms, e.g. if the stretching parameter $`\beta `$ is set to 1.0, do not give satisfactory fits (Scheidler 2001). Nevertheless such a purely exponential Ansatz leads to a very similar dynamical length scale.

In figure 3 we show the time dependence of the stretching parameter $`\beta (t)`$ for all temperatures investigated. From this figure we recognize that at low temperatures $`\beta (t)`$ shows at short times ($`3`$ time units) a rapid decrease from values around 1.5 to a value around 1.2. Subsequently it remains at this latter value for a time span that corresponds roughly to the $`\beta `$-relaxation, i.e. the time window during which the correlation functions for small $`z`$ remain close to the plateau and which extends at the lowest temperature over roughly three decades in time (see figure 1). For longer times $`\beta (t)`$ increases again to values above 1.4. For intermediate and high temperatures the time dependence of $`\beta (t)`$ remains qualitatively the same as the one we just described. The main difference is that the length of the plateau at intermediate times is shortened significantly, in agreement with the fact that also the correlation functions show only a short plateau at high temperatures (Scheidler 2001). Note that the fact that at intermediate times $`\beta (t)`$ is larger than 1.0 shows that the $`z`$-dependence of the $`F_s(𝐪,z,t)`$ is rather strong, i.e. it is not just an exponential dependence. Additionally we observed in thin films that the influence of two walls on the dynamics of the particles between them is not just the superposition of two laws of the form given by equation (3). This is thus evidence that the slowing down of the dynamics is related to the presence of a strongly non-linear process such as, e.g., the non-linear feedback process of mode-coupling theory.

In figure 4 we show the time dependence of the parameter $`\xi (t)`$ for all temperatures investigated. We see that for short and intermediate times this length scale increases, attains a maximum around a time that corresponds to the $`\alpha `$-relaxation time of the bulk system, and then starts to decrease again. The value of $`\xi `$ at its maximum can thus be used to define a new length scale $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$. Note that the time at which this maximum is attained is roughly in the time window in which $`\beta (t)`$ has a minimum, i.e. is relatively small. This implies that at this time the influence of the wall on the dynamics of the particles in the fluid extends over the largest range.

Finally we discuss the temperature dependence of the length scales $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$. These quantities are shown in figure 5 as a function of temperature. We see that both length scales increase with decreasing temperature but that this increase is relatively modest. In the temperature interval $`0.5T1.0`$, where the relaxation times of the system in the bulk increases by about a factor of 500, this increase is only around 2.5 for the case of $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and a factor of 4 for $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$. Due to the slow relaxation of the particles close to the wall it is presently not possible to study the relaxation dynamics of these particles at significantly lower temperatures and hence it is also not possible to determine neither $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ nor $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ at low temperatures. Due to this relatively weak increase of the length scales it is difficult to make precise statements on whether or not these length scales diverge or not and if yes, at which temperature this would be expected to happen. Furthermore it is presently not even clear whether such a divergence occurs at the same temperature, since the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{z}/\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ depends on temperature (see inset of figure 5). Since previous simulations have identified two relevant temperatures, the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of mode-coupling theory at $`T_c=0.435`$ and the Kauzmann temperature $`T_K`$ at around $`T_K=0.29`$ (Coluzzi et al. 2000a/b, Sciortino et al. 1999) we have tried to see whether the increasing length scale is compatible with a power-law divergence at one of these two temperatures. Whereas it seems that no such divergence occurs at $`T_c`$, the data is indeed compatible with a critical behavior at $`T_K`$ with an exponent of the power-law around 1, both for $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\xi _{\mathrm{max}}`$. This result is in agreement with a theoretical approach to describe the temperature dependence of the size of cooperatively rearranging region in the concept of configurational entropy (Huth et al. 2000) . However, it is also possible that the divergence occurs only at $`T=0`$ since also this temperature is compatible with our data. Hence we conclude that although we are able to identify a growing length scale it is presently not yet possible to give a definite answer regarding the precise temperature dependence of the scale. Therefore simulations at lower temperatures as well as some theoretical guidance on this matter would be highly desirable.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by SFB 262/D1 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. We also thank the HLRZ Jülich for a generous grant of computer time on the T3E.

## References

* Adams G., and Gibbs J.H., 1958, J. Chem. Phys. 43, 139.
* Cicerone M.T., Blackburn F.R., and Ediger M.D., 1995, Macromol. 28, 8224.
* Coluzzi B., Parisi G., and Verrocchio P., 2000a, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 2933.
* Coluzzi B., Parisi G., and Verrocchio P., 2000b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 306.
* Doliwa B., and Heuer A., 2000, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 6898.
* Donati C., Glotzer S.C., Poole P.H., Kob W., and Plimpton S.J., 1999a, Phys. Rev. E, 60, 3107.
* Donati C., Glotzer S.C., and Poole P.H., 1999b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5064.
* Ediger M.D., 2000, Annual Rev. of Phys. Chem. 51, 99.
* Franz S., and Parisi G., 1998, cond-mat/9804084.
* Franz S., Donati C., Parisi G., and Glotzer S.C., 1999 Phil. Mag. B, 79, 11.
* Franz S., and Parisi G., 2000, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12, 6335.
* Gleim T., Kob W., and Binder K., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4404.
* Götze W., 1999, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 10, A1.
* Hansen J.-P., and McDonald I.R., 1986, Theory of Simple Liquids, Academic Press, London.
* Hempel E., Hempel G., Hensel A., Schick C., and Donth E., 2000 J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 2460.
* Huth H., Beiner M., and Donth E., 2000 Phys. Rev. B 61, 15092.
* Kob W., and Andersen H.C., 1995a, Phys. Rev. E, 52, 4134.
* Kob W., and Andersen H.C., 1995b, Phys. Rev. E, 52, 4626.
* Leheny R.L., Menon N., Nagel S.R., Price D.L., Suzuya K., and Thiyagarajan P., 1996, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 7783.
* Perera D.N., and Harrowell P., 1999, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 5441.
* Richert R., 1996, Phys. Rev. B, 54, 15762.
* Scheidler P., Kob W., and Binder K., 2000, Europhys. Lett. 52, 277.
* Scheidler P., 2001, PhD thesis, University of Mainz.
* Sciortino F., Kob W., and Tartaglia P., 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3214.
* Sillescu H., 1999, J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 243, 81.
* Tracht U., Wilhelm M., Heuer A., Feng H., Schmidt-Rohr K., and Spiess H.W. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2727.
* Yamamoto R., and Onuki A., 1998, Phys. Rev. E, 58, 3515.
* Yamamuro O., Tsukushi I., Lindquist A., Takahara S., Ishikawa M., and Matsuo T., 1998, J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 1605.


format: text

text:
# Generating Converging Eigenenergy Bounds for the Discrete States of the -𝑖𝑥³ Non-Hermitian Potential

## I Introduction

In the recent work by Bender and Boettcher (1998) they conjectured that certain $`𝒫𝒯`$ invariant systems should have real discrete spectra. Various examples were presented, including the $`ix^3`$ potential. The interest in such systems has increased, particulary through the more recent work of Bender et al (1999), Bender et al (2000), Bender and Wang (2001), Caliceti (2000), Delabaere and Pham (1999), Delabaere and Trinh (2000), Levai and Znojil (2000), Mezincescu (2000, 2001), Shin (2000), and Znojil (2000).

We present a radically new way of attacking such problems. Although the results presented here combine rigorous mathematical theorems and their numerical implementation, it should also be possible to develop them purely within an algebraic context, and confirm that the $`ix^3`$ potential can only have real discrete spectra. This particular approach is under investigation, and the results will be presented elsewhere. However, we have been able to implement the procedure discussed below, numerically, for the case of complex energies, $`E`$, and find no evidence for such discrete states (for moderate energy values). The details of this will be communicated in a forthcoming work focusing on the $`ix^3+i\alpha x`$ potential studied by Delabaere and Trinh (2000). Our principal objective in this communication is to emphasize the importance of positivity as a quantization condition, within the appropriate (moment based) representation.

Our starting point is the observation that the one dimensional Schrodinger equation (on the real line),

$$_x^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+V(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$
(1)
for complex potentials, $`V=V_R+iV_I`$, and real energies, $`ImE=0`$, can be transformed into a fourth order, linear differential equation for $`S(x)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)|^2`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_I}}S^{(4)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_I}}\right)^{}S^{(3)}+4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_RE}{V_I}}\right)S^{(2)}+\left(4\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_R}{V_I}}\right)^{}+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{V_I}}\right)4E\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_I}}\right)^{}\right)S^{(1)}`$ (2)
$`+\left(4V_I+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{V_I}}\right)^{}\right)S=0,`$ (3)
where $`S^{(i)}_x^iS`$. This equation assumes that the eigenenergy, $`E`$, is real. We derive it in the next section.

We could also assume that $`E`$ is complex and incorporate its imaginary part into $`V_I`$. Since our objective is to show, numerically, that the conjecture that $`E`$ is real is a viable one, we restrict our considerations to this case only, here. The method presented in this work is so powerful (both theoretically and numerically) that if the discrete state is not purely real, then it will be detected, at some sufficiently high calculation order.

The above fourth order differential equation can be generalized to include any complex contour in the complex plane. However, for the particular problem considered here, we have only focused on the simplest representation for $`S(x)`$, as given by Eq.(2).

If the potential is real, $`V_I=0`$, then Handy et al (1987a,b; 1988c) have shown that $`S(x)`$ satisfies a third order differential equation. This is easy to see from the above by simply taking $`V_I0`$, and recognizing that Eq.(2) becomes the total derivative of the third order equation

$$\frac{1}{2}S^{(3)}(x)+2V(x)S^{(1)}(x)+V^{}(x)S(x)=2ES^{(1)}(x).$$
(4)
The importance of converting the discrete state problem into the nonnegative $`S(x)`$ representation is that for rational fraction complex potentials, one can then exploit the Eigenvalue Moment Method (EMM) of Handy, Bessis, and coworkers (1985,1988a,b), enabling the generation of converging lower and upper bounds for the low lying discrete states.

For rational fraction potentials, Eq.(2) can be transformed into a moment equation involving the Hamburger moments

$$\mu _p_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xx^pS(x),$$
(5)
$`p0`$. The Moment Equation (ME) takes on the form

$$\mu _p=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{m_s}{}}M_{p,\mathrm{}}(E)\mu _{\mathrm{}},$$
(6)
$`p0`$, where the energy dependent coefficients are easily obtained, and satisfy (i.e. “initialization conditions”): $`M_{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2}=\delta _{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2}`$, for $`0\mathrm{}_{1,2}m_s`$. The missing moments, $`\{\mu _{\mathrm{}}|0\mathrm{}m_s\}`$, are to be considered as independent variables. The missing moment order, $`m_s`$, is problem dependent.

The homogeneous nature of the Schrodinger equation requires the imposition of an appropriate normalization condition. Although this requires some care, usually, a convenient choice is to take

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{m_s}{}}\mu _p=1.$$
(7)
Solving for $`\mu _0`$, and substituting into the ME relation, gives

$$\mu _p=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{m_s}{}}\widehat{M}_{p,\mathrm{}}(E)\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{}},$$
(8)
where

$$\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\mathrm{}=0\hfill & \\ \mu _{\mathrm{}},1\mathrm{}m_s\hfill & \end{array}$$
(9)
and

$$\widehat{M}_{p,\mathrm{}}(E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}M_{p,0}(E),\mathrm{}=0\hfill & \\ M_{p,\mathrm{}}(E)M_{p,0}(E),1\mathrm{}m_s\hfill & \end{array}.$$
(10)
From the Hankel-Hadamard (HH) positivity theorems (Shohat and Tamarkin (1963)), the Hamburger moments must satisfy the conditions $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x(_{j=0}^JC_jx^j)^2S(x)>0`$, for all $`C`$’s and $`J0`$. These become the quadratic form expressions

$$\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}\mu _{j_1+j_2}C_{j_2}>0.$$
(11)
In terms of the (unconstrained) normalized $`\mu `$’s this becomes

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{m_s}{}}\widehat{\mu }_{\mathrm{}}\left(\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}\widehat{M}_{j_1+j_2,\mathrm{}}(E)C_{j_2}\right)>0,$$
(12)
which defines the linear programming equations (Chvatal (1983)):

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m_s}{}}𝒜_{\mathrm{}}(C,E)\mu _{\mathrm{}}<(C,E),$$
(13)
for all possible $`C`$’s (except those identically zero), where

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{}}(C,E)=\left(\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}\widehat{M}_{j_1+j_2,\mathrm{}}(E)C_{j_2}\right),$$
(14)
and

$$(C,E)=\left(\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}\widehat{M}_{j_1+j_2,0}(E)C_{j_2}\right).$$
(15)
If at a given order, $`J`$, and arbitrary energy value, $`E`$, there exists a solution set to all of the above inequalities, $`𝒰_E^{(J)}`$, then it must be convex. Through a linear programming based cutting procedure (Handy et al (1988a,b)), one can find optimal $`C`$’s which (in a finite number of steps) establish the existence or nonexistence of $`𝒰_E^{(J)}`$. The energy values for which missing moment solution sets exist, define energy intervals,

$$E\underset{n=0}{\overset{N(J)}{}}[E_{L;n}^{(J)},E_{U;n}^{(J)}],\mathrm{if}𝒰_E^{(J)},$$
(16)
which become smaller as $`J`$ increases, converging to the corresponding discrete state energy (which must always lie within the respective interval):

$$E_{L;n}^{(J)}E_{L;n}^{(J+1)}\mathrm{}E_{physical;n}\mathrm{}E_{U;n}^{(J+1)}E_{U;n}^{(J)}.$$
(17)
Through the EMM approach, we can easily generate the converging lower and upper bounds to the desired discrete state energy.

We note that although the traditional Moment Problem theorems are concerned with uniqueness questions (i.e. is there a unique function with the moments $`\mu _p`$ satisyfing the HH positivity conditions ?), within the context of physical systems such issues are usually inconsequential. This is because the very nature of the ME relation will guarantee uniqueness. That is, our moments are associated with an underyling differential equation with unique physical solutions.

## II  Deriving the Positivity Equation for $`S(x)`$

We derive Eq.(2) as follows. First, multiply the Schrodinger equation ($`E`$ real) by $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }(x)+V(x)S(x)=ES(x).$$
(18)
The complex conjugate becomes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(x)+V^{}(x)S(x)=ES(x).$$
(19)
Adding both expressions, and using $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }=(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{})^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2`$, yields

$$[S^{\prime \prime }2|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2]+2V_RS=2ES.$$
(20)
This in turn becomes (upon differentiating)

$$S^{\prime \prime \prime }+2\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2\right)^{}+2\left(V_RS\right)^{}=2ES^{}.$$
(21)
If we subtract Eq.(18) from Eq.(17), then

$$_x\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)=2iV_IS.$$
(22)
Returning to the Schrodinger equation, we multiply both sides by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }+V\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=E\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.$$
(23)
The complex conjugate is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+V^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=E\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.$$
(24)
Substituting $`V=V_R+iV_I`$, we add both expressions (and divide by $`iV_I`$):

$$\frac{\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2\right)^{}}{iV_I}+\frac{V_RS^{}}{iV_I}+[\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}]=E\frac{S^{}}{iV_I}.$$
(25)
Differentiating with respect to $`x`$, and substituting Eq.(21) yields

$$\left(\frac{\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2\right)^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}+\left(\frac{V_RS^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}2iV_IS=E\left(\frac{S^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}.$$
(26)
Upon dividing Eq.(19) by $`iV_I`$, and differentiating, we obtain

$$\left(\frac{S^{\prime \prime \prime }}{iV_I}\right)^{}+2\left(\frac{\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2\right)^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}+2\left(\frac{\left(V_RS\right)^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}=2E\left(\frac{S^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}.$$
(27)
Finally, we substitute Eq.(25) for the second term in Eq.(26), obtaining a fourth order linear differential equation for $`S`$:

$$\left(\frac{S^{\prime \prime \prime }}{iV_I}\right)^{}+2\times \left(\left(\frac{V_RS^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}2iV_ISE\left(\frac{S^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}\right)+2\left(\frac{\left(V_RS\right)^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{}=2E\left(\frac{S^{}}{iV_I}\right)^{},$$
(28)
or

$$\left(\frac{S^{\prime \prime \prime }}{V_I}\right)^{}+4\times \left(\left(\frac{V_RS^{}}{V_I}\right)^{}+V_IS\right)+2\left(\frac{V_R^{}S}{V_I}\right)^{}=4E\left(\frac{S^{}}{V_I}\right)^{},$$
(29)
which becomes Eq.(2).

The positivity differential representation in Eq.(2) is a fourth order linear differential equation, with four independent solutions, for any $`E`$. Within the EMM formalism, it is important to prove that the physical solution is the only one which is both nonnegative ($`S(x)0`$) and bounded, with finite moments (i.e. $`S(x)`$ is in $`L^2`$). We can prove this for Eq.(2).

For any real energy variable value, $`E\mathrm{}`$, let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$ denote the two independent solutions to the Schrodinger equation. The expression $`S(x)=|\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)|^2=|\alpha |^2\times |\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)|^2+|\beta |^2\times |\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)|^2+\alpha \beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}(x)+\alpha ^{}\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$, then becomes a solution to Eq.(2). So too are $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)|^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)|^2`$. Accordingly, since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are arbitrary, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$ are complex, the configurations $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$ are independent (complex) solutions to Eq.(2) as well.

From low order JWKB asymptotic analysis (Bender and Orszag (1978)), in either asymptotic direction ($`x\pm \mathrm{}`$), one of the semiclassical modes will be exponentially increasing, while the other is exponentially decreasing. Therefore it becomes clear that the only possible nonnegative and bounded $`S(x)`$ configuration is that corresponding to the physical solutions.

## III  The $`ix^3`$ Potential

The positivity differential equation for the $`V(x)=ix^3`$ potential is (i.e. $`V_R=0,V_I=x^3`$)

$`x^3S^{(4)}(x)3x^4S^{(3)}(x)+4Ex^3S^{(2)}(x)12Ex^4S^{(1)}(x)4x^3S(x)=0.`$ (30)
Multiplying both sides by $`x^{p+4}`$, and integrating over $`\mathrm{}`$, produces the ME relation

$$4\mu _{p+7}=(p+4)p(p1)(p2)\mu _{p3}+4Ep(p+4)\mu _{p1},$$
(31)
for $`p0`$.

The moment equation separates into two relations, one for the odd moments, the other for the even moments. Assuming that the discrete states are nondegenerate and have real eigenenergies, we have:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$
(32)
and

$$S(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)=S(x).$$
(33)
Thus, the physical $`S(x)`$’s are symmetric, and the odd order moments are zero.

The even order Hamburger moments

$$\mu _{2\rho }u_\rho ,$$
(34)
correspond to the Stieltjes moments,

$$u_\rho _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^\rho \mathrm{{\rm Y}}(y),$$
(35)
of the function

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(y)\frac{S(\sqrt{y})}{\sqrt{y}}.$$
(36)
The corresponding Stieltjes moment equation for the $`ix^3`$ potential becomes (i.e. substitute $`p=2\rho +1`$ in Eq.(30))

$$4u_{\rho +4}=(2\rho +5)(2\rho +1)(2\rho )(2\rho 1)u_{\rho 1}+4E(2\rho +1)(2\rho +5)u_\rho ,$$
(37)
for $`\rho 0`$. This is an $`m_s=3`$ order problem. One can convert this into the form in Eq.(5) (i.e. $`u_\rho =_{\rho =0}^{m_s}M_{\rho ,\mathrm{}}(E)u_{\mathrm{}}`$), where the $`M`$ coefficients satisfy Eq.(36), with respect to the first index ($`\rho `$), as well as the initial conditions previously identified.

One convenient feature about the Stieltjes representation is that the normalization condition

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{3}{}}u_{\mathrm{}}=1,$$
(38)
involves nonnegative moments.

From the Stieltjes moment problem (Shohat and Tamarkin (1963)) we know that the counterpart to Eq.(10) is

$$\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}u_{\sigma +j_1+j_2}C_{j_2}>0,$$
(39)
for $`\sigma =0,1`$. Accordingly, the necessary linear programming equations to consider are

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m_s}{}}𝒜_{\mathrm{}}(C,E;\sigma )<(C,E;\sigma ),$$
(40)
where

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{}}(C,E;\sigma )=\left(\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}\widehat{M}_{\sigma +j_1+j_2,\mathrm{}}(E)C_{j_2}\right),$$
(41)
and

$$(C,E;\sigma )=\left(\underset{j_{1,2}=0}{\overset{J}{}}C_{j_1}\widehat{M}_{\sigma +j_1+j_2,0}(E)C_{j_2}\right).$$
(42)
The numerical implementation of the EMM procedure yields the excellent results quoted in Tables I - V. Our results are in agreement with those of Bender and Boettcher (1998), as well as those of Handy, Khan, and Wang (2000). We indicate the maximum moment order generated, $`P_{max}`$, through the ME relation.

Since our results are based on equations that explicitly assume $`E`$ is real, and the EMM procedure is very stable and highly accurate (as evidenced through the tightness of its bounds), any imaginary part to the discrete state energy would reveal itself through some anomalous behavior in the generated bounds. That is, at some order $`P_{max}`$, no feasible energy interval would survive (i.e. $`𝒰_E^{(J)}=`$, for all $`E`$). This is never observed, to the order indicated. As such, our analysis strongly supports the reality of the (low lying) discrete state spectrum for the $`ix^3`$ potential.

## IV Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (HRD 9632844) through the Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems (CTSPS). The author is appreciative of stimulating discussions with Dr. Alfred Z. Msezane, Dr. G. Andrei Mezincescu, and Dr. Daniel Bessis, as well as comments by Dr. Carl Bender, which impacted this work.

## V References

Bender C M and Boettcher S 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 5243

Bender C M, Boettcher S, and Meisinger P N 1999, J. Math. Phys. 40 2201

Bender C M, Boettcher S, Jones H F and Savage V M 1999 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 1

Bender C M, Boettcher S and Savage V M 2000 J. Math. Phys. 41 6381

Bender C M and Wang Q 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.

Bender C M and Orszag S A, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers (New York: McGraw Hill 1978).

Caliceti E 2000 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 3753

Chvatal V 1983 Linear Programming (Freeman, New York).

Delabaere E and Pham F 1998 Phys. Lett. A250 25

Delabaere E and Trinh D T 2000 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 8771

Handy C R 1987a Phys. Rev. A 36, 4411

Handy C R 1987b Phys. Lett. A 124, 308

Handy C R and Bessis D 1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 931

Handy C R, Bessis D, and Morley T D 1988a Phys. Rev. A 37, 4557

Handy C R, Bessis D, Sigismondi G, and Morley T D 1988b Phys. Rev. Lett 60, 253

Handy C R, Khan D, and Xian Qiao Wang 2001 CAU preprint

Handy C R, Luo L, Mantica G, and Msezane A 1988c Phys. Rev. A 38, 490

Levai G and Znojil M 2000 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 7165

Mezincescu G A 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.

Mezincescu G A 2000 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 4911

Shohat J A and Tamarkin J D, The Problem of Moments (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1963).

Shin K C 2000 Preprint math-ph/0007006 (J. Math. Phys, under press)

Znojil M 2000 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 33 6825


text:
# Adiabatic steering and determination of dephasing rates in double dot qubits

## I Introduction

One key point for the implementation of quantum logic gates in quantum dots is the preparation of arbitrary superpositions $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ of two (or more) electron eigenstates. Such superpositions would constitute a qubit basis in an artificial semiconductor structure that can be coupled to the external world by leads and therefore be accessed by transport spectroscopy. Transport experiments have already successfully revealed a number of quantum coherent effects due to static potential coupling  or coupling to microwave radiation  in double quantum dots, and their use as qubits that are controlled by gate–voltages or magnetic fields has been suggested  recently. Unfortunately, at present there are no data at all for dephasing rates $`\gamma `$ of superpositions $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ in such systems. The knowledge of $`\gamma `$, in particular for lowest eigenstate superpositions that are expected to be most stable, is crucial to determine the feasibility of quantum dot based qubits and to choose the time scale for logic operations needed for, e.g., quantum computation .

In this article, we suggest a scheme to determine $`\gamma `$ from time–dependent transport measurements through coupled quantum dots. We show that it is indeed possible to prepare an arbitrary coherent superposition of ground states using stimulated Raman adiabatic passage  with two microwave pulses irradiated on a double dot in the Coulomb blockade regime. Solving the equations of motion for the dot density matrix, it turns out that two subsequent pairs of microwave pulses filter out the degree of decoherence in the form of a detectable electron current peak, the strength of which directly depends on $`\gamma `$.

Apart from conventional photon–assisted tunneling experiments with single microwave sources, recent two–source microwave techniques have turned out to be an extremely versatile tool to investigate both ground and excited states in single dots . Furthermore, different groups  have already identified three–level systems as potential candidates to establish and control low–frequency coherence in solid state structures.

## II Adiabatic Transfer Scheme

Our scheme to prepare and analyze superpositions is based on previously discussed dark resonance states in lateral double dots  that can be probed by linear and non–linear transport spectroscopy : A left and a right dot are coupled to external leads with chemical potentials such that electrons can tunnel out to the right only via an excited state $`|0`$ in the right dot and tunnel in from the left and the right only via the two double dot ground states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, see Fig. 1. The latter are the symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions of the left and the right tunnel–coupled dot groundstates for one additional electron. In the regime of weak coupling, this corresponds to ‘ionic’ binding, while strong coupling can be termed ‘covalent binding’. Microwave–induced ‘dark’ stable superpositions $`|\psi _f`$ of $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ then constitute the qubit and can be formed by adiabatic transfer as discussed in the following. In this work, we concentrate on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–type couplings in coupled $`N`$–dot devices for $`N=2`$ (double dots, Fig. 1 left and center). For multiple dot devices with $`N>2`$ (Fig. 1 right), though more difficult to control, we expect even more possibilities to manipulate energy levels and the shape of wave functions.

We assume the dot initially prepared in $`|1`$, which can be easily achieved emptying level $`|2`$ by driving the $`|2|0`$ transition with a microwave field. Once preparation of the dot in $`|1`$ is achieved, the dot is set to a ground state superposition of $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ by irradiation with two electric fields of the form

$`𝐄_i(t)=\stackrel{}{}_i(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _it+\phi _i),i=1,2,`$ (1)
with microwave frequencies $`\omega _i`$ of the order of the transition frequencies $`\delta \epsilon _i/\mathrm{}`$ and slowly varying pulse–shaped amplitudes $`\stackrel{}{}_i(t)`$. The latter give rise to time–dependent matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)|\stackrel{}{}_1(t)|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)|\stackrel{}{}_2(t)|`$ for the transitions $`01`$ (P) and $`02`$ (S) that induce the adiabatic transfer of the qubit from the initial state to the desired superposition. Without loss of generality, we assume real Rabi frequencies

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{(t\tau )^2/T^2},`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0\left(e^{t^2/T^2}+\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{(t\tau )^2/T^2}\right).`$ (4)
Here, $`\tau `$ and $`T`$ are the pulse delay and pulse duration, respectively. The precise Gaussian form of Eq. (II) is not a strict requirement for the process of adiabatic transfer and has been chosen only for convenience.

The Stokes microwave pulse $`S`$ couples $`|2`$ to $`|0`$, before a second pulse (the pump pulse $`P`$), partially overlapping with $`S`$, couples $`|1`$ to $`|0`$ . If the pulses terminate simultaneously with a constant ratio of their amplitudes, the dot is left in a superposition

$$|\psi _f=\mathrm{cos}\theta |1\mathrm{sin}\theta |2,$$
(5)
where the mixing angle $`\theta `$ is determined by the ratio with which the pump and Stokes pulses terminate. The process is robust against experimental details such as the delay between pulses, or pulse areas. The only strict requirement is two–photon Raman resonance $`\delta _R\delta _2\delta _1`$ where $`\delta _j=\omega _j\delta ϵ_j/\mathrm{}`$ is the one photon detuning. The phase difference $`\phi _1\phi _2`$ of the two electric fields is either $`0`$ or $`\pi `$ so that by changing $`|\stackrel{}{}_1|`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{}_2|`$ one covers the whole range of $`\theta `$ values.

## III Model

### A Interaction Hamiltonian and Density Matrix Equations

We now investigate the preparation of superpositions $`|\psi _f`$ and their stability with respect to dephasing numerically. In the dipole and rotating wave approximation, as appropriate for near-resonant excitation, the time–dependent interaction Hamiltonian is

$`V_{\mathrm{AL}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)e^{i\omega _Pt}|01|+\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)e^{i\omega _St}|02|\right]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`h.c..`$ (7)
For simplicity, we assume identical tunneling rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for tunneling of electrons into $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ and out of $`|0`$. The double dot is assumed to be in the strong Coulomb blockade regime where the charging energy is larger than the single particle excitation energy. Electron tunneling is one–by–one, and the system can effectively be described by its three states $`0`$, $`1`$, $`2`$, and the empty state $`e`$ before or after one additional electron has tunneled. The resulting density-matrix equations are

$`\dot{\rho }_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\rho _{0,0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{e,e}+2\gamma \rho _{2,2}+\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,0}]`$ (9)
$`\dot{\rho }_{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\rho _{0,0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{e,e}2\gamma \rho _{2,2}+\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{2,0}]`$ (10)
$`\dot{\rho }_{0,0}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^0)\rho _{0,0}\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,0}]\mathrm{Im}[\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{2,0}]`$ (11)
$`\dot{\rho }_{e,e}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{e,e}+\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{0,0}`$ (12)
$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\right)+i\delta _P\right]\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)(\rho _{0,0}\rho _{1,1})`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,2}`$
$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_{2,0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\right)+i\delta _S\right]\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{2,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)(\rho _{0,0}\rho _{2,2})`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,2}^{}`$
$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma +i\delta _R\right)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,2}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{0,2}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,0},`$ (17)
where $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2=1\alpha _1`$ determine the branching ratio for the decay of the excited state with rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$.

### B Parameters

Before discussing the numerical results, we address typical values of the parameters for lateral quantum dots in GaAs/AlGaAs. Coulomb charging energies are of a few meV and set the largest energy scale so that states with more than one additional transport electron can be neglected. Typical excitation energies $`\delta \epsilon _i`$ from the ground states $`|i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are of the order of a few hundred $`\mu `$eV which corresponds to microwave frequencies up to the 100 GHz range. The decay of the excited state $`|0`$ then is due to acoustic phonon emission at typical rates of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^010^9`$ s-1.

Microwave experiments so far have been performed in cw mode only, and we expect the pulse strengths to be difficult to control. The latter determine, together with the two dipole matrix elements for the transitions $`|i|0`$, the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\theta `$, Eq. (II). Fortunately, control of the strength ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P/\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ is sufficient for the scheme to work, apart from the requirement to generate pulsed electric fields $`𝐄_i(t)`$ in smooth forms.

Recently, it has been suggested that the dephasing of the optical coherence for transitions in (electron and hole) quantum dots is produced by elastic LO-phonon carrier collisions . In our case, such processes result in a much smaller dephasing for ground state electron superpositions because the quasi-degenerate states forming the superpositions experience a similar phase shift while scattering.

Instead, there is strong experimental  and theoretical  evidence that the spontaneous emission of acoustical phonons is the most dominant process affecting ground state superpositions $`|\psi _f`$ based on the electron charge for sub–Kelvin regime temperatures. Microscopic coupling constants that determine the dephasing rate $`\gamma `$ of the coherence $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{1,2}`$, Eq.(4g), for the different dephasing channels (bulk and surface acoustic phonons ) are difficult to calculate, in particular as there might be additional contributions from non–equilibrium phonons induced by the microwave radiation itself . A decisive advantage of coupled dots, however, is the fact that $`\gamma T_c^2`$ can be tuned to values which are orders of magnitude smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ by varying the tunnel coupling $`T_c`$ between the dots.

Here, we do not pursue a microscopic approach to the dephasing rate $`\gamma `$, but rather solve the dynamics of the dot for given $`\gamma `$ numerically. As we show now, this allows us to infer the value of $`\gamma `$ in a real experiment from another observable quantity, i.e. the electric current, much similar to a recent time–resolved experiment in a superconducting system . Note that due to the Pauli blocking of the leads and the Coulomb blockade, electrons trapped in the coherent ground state superposition cannot tunnel out of the dot and no second electron can tunnel in. This is why a coupling to external leads of the qubit does not introduce additional dephasing channels .

## IV Numerical Results

We now discuss our results from the numerical solution of the equations of motion, Eq.(III A). For ideal adiabatic evolution and long-living ground state superpositions ($`\gamma =0`$), the pulses (II) prepare the dot in the superposition $`|\psi _f=\mathrm{cos}\theta |1\mathrm{sin}\theta |2,`$ Eq. (5). For finite $`\gamma `$, the adiabatic steering is disturbed and the superposition decays into a mixture.

### A Single Pair of Pulses

We solved the density-matrix equations (III A) and calculated the fidelity of the preparation in $`|\psi _f`$,

$$F=\psi _f|\rho |\psi _f$$
(18)
as a function of the interaction time. Numerical results for $`F`$ for different values of the ground state relaxation rate $`\gamma `$ are reported in Fig. 2 together with a plot of the Rabi frequencies of the pulses, as from Eq. (II). In all the numerical calculations $`T=\tau =100/\mathrm{\Gamma }^o`$. This corresponds to a pulse of the order of one tenth microsecond, resulting in a frequency dispersion of the order of 10 MHz. Ground state splittings larger than that are easily achieved in quantum dots by an appropriate tuning via gate–voltages, so that the assumption that each microwave field couples only one transition is fully justified. Furthermore the ground state splitting has to be larger than the excited state width, to avoid unwanted couplings.

In the absence of ground state relaxation processes, the evolution is analogous to what is known from atomic physics: the interaction with the light leads to the preparation of the dot in the desired superposition of states. After the pulse sequence the dot stays in this superposition. For small but nonzero relaxation rate ($`\gamma =0.001\mathrm{\Gamma }^o`$), one recognizes that the microwave driving still results in the preparation of the dot in $`|\psi _f`$, but after the pulse sequence the fidelity degrades rapidly. For a larger relaxation rate ($`\gamma 0.01\mathrm{\Gamma }^o`$), also the driving into the superposition is disturbed, and the preparation in $`|\psi _f`$ is never complete. Furthermore, there is a fast degradation of the fidelity after the pulse sequence.

We now show how to get access to the ground state evolution and to $`\gamma `$ by a current measurement. As shown in Fig. 2, it is in principle possible to get insight on the ground state dynamics by monitoring the time–dependent electric current through the dot

$$I(t)=e\mathrm{\Gamma }[\rho _{0,0}(t)\rho _{e,e}(t)],$$
(19)
due to the flow of electrons with charge $`e<0`$ through the tunnel barrier connecting the dot into the right reservoir. However, for small relaxation rates the current through the dot is weak; note that the scale in Fig.2 is blown up by a factor 100 and that a current $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }/100`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10^9`$ s-1 corresponds to 1.6 pA.

### B Double Pulse Sequence

A more sensitive detection is obtained by letting the system evolve freely, and then applying the microwave radiation once again. The two pulses that have been used for the preparation of the state $`|\psi _f`$ are then applied simultaneously at a second time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>0`$ (i.e. after the first pair of pulses) with

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2/T_p^2},`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_S(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )e^{(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2/T_p^2}`$ (22)
and the ratio of their amplitudes corresponding to $`|\psi _f`$ ($`\varphi =0`$) or to its orthogonal state ($`\varphi =\pi `$).

As shown in Fig. 3, if $`\gamma =0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$, nothing happens: the dot stays in the state $`|\psi _f`$ and the subsequent application of the probe pulses does not produce any current through the dot. On the contrary, for $`\varphi =\pi `$ the probe pulses are in anti–phase with the ground state superposition and a large current follows. For a nonzero relaxation rate $`\gamma `$ the superposition decays into a mixture on a time scale $`1/\gamma `$ and therefore the application of the probe pulses results in a current through the dot both for $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$. The larger the relaxation rate $`\gamma `$, the less sensitive is the current on the relative phase $`\varphi `$ of the probe pulses. Therefore, the contrast $`C`$

$$C=\frac{I_{max}(\varphi =\pi )I_{max}(\varphi =0)}{I_{max}(\varphi =\pi )+I_{max}(\varphi =0)}$$
(23)
is a good measure of the ground state relaxation rate $`\gamma `$, as shown in Fig. 4.

The relaxation rate $`\gamma `$ thus can be extracted experimentally in the following way: the dot is prepared in $`|\psi _f`$ as described and then probed at the instant $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ by pulses with a relative phase $`\varphi =0`$. The cycle preparation/probing is then repeated for $`\varphi =\pi `$. Different measurement of $`C`$ in this way are made for various choices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. A plot of the contrast $`C`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ then allows the determination of $`\gamma `$.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown that the time–evolution of double dots in the regime of strong Coulomb blockade under coherent microwave pulses provides a scheme that allows both preparation and analysis of eigenstate superpositions $`|\psi _f`$. A ‘read–out’ current pulse provides the information about the superposition dephasing rate $`\gamma `$. In double dots it is possible to fine–tune $`\gamma `$ by varying the interdot–coupling by gate–voltages, and to prepare $`|\psi _f`$ as a dark state that is protected deeply below the Fermi seas of the contact reservoirs by the Pauli principle and the Coulomb blockade effect. This suggests that it might be worthwile to further investigate (among other proposals based on, e.g., the electron spin ) such charge–based qubits that have been proven to be accessible to transport spectroscopy.


text:
# Nested braneworlds and strong brane gravity

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Filipe Bonjour, Ian Davies, Roberto Emparan, James Gregory, Karen Lovis, Davina Page and Simon Ross for useful discussions. R.G. was supported by the Royal Society and A.P. by PPARC.


text:
# A Study of the Unidentified Gamma-Ray Source 3EG J1828+0142

## 1 Introduction

The best estimated position of the gamma ray source 3EG J1828+0142 is at $`(lb)(31.9^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5.8}^{})`$, according to the Third EGRET catalog (Hartman et al. 1999). There are not known potential galactic counterparts like hot massive stars, supernova remnants (SNR) or young pulsars within the positional error box (Romero et al. 1999). The source is very variable over timescales of months (Torres et al. 2000). No strong radio source that could be identified with a blazar is found within the 95 % confidence contour of the gamma-ray emission. The high-energy spectral index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.76\pm 0.39`$ ($`FE^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is steeper than what is expected for most galactic gamma-ray sources. All these features make of 3EG J1828+0142 a very puzzling object.

In this paper we present both large and small scale radio maps of the region where this high-energy source is located. These maps could provide some clues about the origin and nature of 3EG J1828+0142.

## 2 Large-scale radio maps

We have studied the surroundings of 3EG J1828+0142 using radio data from the large-scale surveys by Haslam et al. (1981) and Reich & Reich (1986). Small-scale VLA observations from the NVSS Sky Survey by Condon et al. (1998) were used for a complementary study of the emission within the 95 % confidence location contour. We have applied a well-proven Gaussian filtering technique to the radio images (e.g. Combi et al. 1999) in order to remove the background contamination from the large-scale non-thermal disk emission.

In Figure 1, upper panel, we show a map of the radio field around 3EG J1828+0142 at 1.4 GHz. The probability location contours of the gamma-ray source are superposed to the radio image. A large, shell-type structure can be clearly seen. The outer boundary has been encircled in the figure. It is a weak source (the integrated flux density is $`18.2\pm 2.1`$ Jy at 1.4 GHz) with a low surface brightness that very much resembles a typical SNR. The identification is confirmed by the non-thermal spectral index found for the radio emission: $`\alpha =0.72\pm 0.18`$ ($`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$). The gamma-ray source is located on the boundary of this new SNR.

The fact that the gamma-ray emission is highly variable rules out the possibility that the source be the result of the interaction of the SNR with a cloudy medium as it has been suggested for other unidentified gamma-ray sources (e.g. Combi et al. 1998). A pulsar origin is also discarded by the variability levels and the steep spectrum. The gamma-ray emitting object, however, could be a compact remnant left by the SN explosion if it is a black hole instead of a pulsar. An isolated black hole would not undergo steady accretion from a stellar companion and consequently it should not be a strong X-ray source. Moreover, if the whole is charged and a strong magnetic field is supported by an orbiting opposite-charged ring or disk, as suggested by Punsly (1998), the system could produce relativistic leptonic jets, which can emit inverse Compton (IC) and annihilation gamma-rays (see Romero et al., these proceedings, for additional details of the model). The jets would also generate synchrotron radio emission, and hence the source should have a weak non-thermal counterpart.

## 3 Point-like radio sources in the field

In order to find the potential radio counterpart of the gamma-ray source we have used VLA images of the region within the EGRET 95 % confidence contour. The lower panel of Figure 1 shows the point-like radio sources visible at 1.4 GHz with flux densities above 5 mJy. In Table 1 we list the characteristics of these sources. Most of them have no entry in any current catalog. We have computed spectral indices when observations at other frequencies were available. For instance, source No. 9 corresponds to TXS B1825+016, with a flux density of 278 mJy at 365 Mhz (Douglas et al. 1996). Source No. 11 has been detected at 3900 MHz with a flux of 61 mJy (Torres et al. 2000) and source No. 15 is at the position of PNM J1827+0201, which presents a flux of $`49`$ mJy at 4.85 GHz (Griffith & Wright 1993). For those sources not detected at 5 GHz in Condon et al.’s (1994) survey we have estimated upper limits for the spectral index. Many sources have non-thermal spectra and can be considered as potential radio-counterparts of the gamma-ray source, if the latter is produced by a magnetized black hole.

## 4 Discussion

The large angular size of the new SNR suggests that it is a nearby source. Applying the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ relationship derived by Allakhverdiyev et al. (1988) for shell-type remnants of low surface brightness, we estimate a distance of about 1 kpc. The radius of the remnant, then, would be $`30`$ pc and its age $`4\times 10^4`$ yr, assuming standard values for the particle density of the ISM and the original energy release (Spitzer 1998). Since the gamma-ray source is located on the boundary of the remnant, the hypothetical black hole should have a birth velocity of $`700`$ km s-1. Although high, such a velocity is not unreasonable in the light of the recent estimates of Lyne & Lorimer (1994) for the birth velocities of radio pulsars.

The spectral energy distribution of a magnetized black hole in isolation (see Figure 2) has a broad peak at MeV energies, where the blueshifted annihilation radiation exceeds the synchrotron self-Compton emission. Adopting a set of standard parameters for the hole ($`M=4`$ $`M_{}`$, $`B=10^{11}`$ G), the peak luminosity results $`1.8\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1 at $`6`$ MeV (Punsly et al. 2000). At a distance of 1 kpc this implies a flux on Earth of $`1.5\times 10^4`$ ph cm-2 s-1. The source, consequently, should be detected by the Imager IBIS of the INTEGRAL mission. Frequent observations could provide more information on the variability of the emission. Spectral decomposition in the range 15 KeV – 10 MeV should reveal the existence of a luminosity peak at a few MeV. The exact position of the peak can be used to determine the Doppler factor of the beamed radiation. The improved source location will also allow to restrict the number of possible radio counterparts given in Table 1.

## 5 Conclusions

We report the discovery of a new and large SNR, till now masked by the diffuse background radio emission of the Galaxy. The variable gamma-ray source 3EG J1828+0142 is located on the outer boundary of this remnant. We suggest that this source could be a magnetized black hole produced by the original supernova explosion. The hole would have a transverse birth velocity of $`700`$ km s-1 and an age of $`4\times 10^4`$ yr. Gamma-rays are expected from electron-positron annihilations and synchrotron self-Compton losses in the jets generated by the hole. A detailed model (Punsly et al. 2000) predicts a peak luminosity in the spectral energy distribution of $`1.8\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1 at $`6`$ MeV. Imager IBIS of the INTEGRAL mission could test this hypothesis on the nature of 3EG J1828+0142 through:

* Detecting the predicted peak of the spectral energy distribution at MeV energies.
* Providing a better source location that enables to identify the expected weak radio counterpart.
* Measuring with high confidence the level of variability.

If the identification with a magnetized black hole is supported by the observations, then IBIS data can be used for:

* Estimating the actual value of the Doppler factor of the jet flow (from the blueshifted annihilation peak).
* Estimating the particle density in the jet (from the integrated annihilation line luminosity).
* Clarifying the mechanism that produce the gamma-ray variability.

At present time, it is not known whether charged and rotating (Kerr-Newman) black holes can exist in isolation. If stable configurations of black hole plus magnetosphere as those proposed by Punsly (1998) actually occur in the universe, then some variable gamma-ray sources like 3EG J1828+0142 could be their high-energy manifestations. The INTEGRAL mission, with the fine imaging capability and spectral sensitivity of IBIS instrument, could be a fundamental key to unveil the existence of such mysterious objects.

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by CONICET, ANPCT (PICT No. 03-04881) and Fundación Antorchas. G.E.R. is very grateful to the organizers for a travel grant that made possible his participation in the Workshop.


text:
# Persistence and Life Time Distribution in Coarsening Phenomena

## Abstract

We investigate the life time distribution $`P(\tau ,t)`$ in one dimensional and two dimensional coarsening processes modelled by Ising-Glauber dynamics at zero temperature. The life time $`\tau `$ is defined as the time that elapses between two successive flips in the time interval $`(0,t)`$ or between the last flip and the observation time $`t`$. We calculate $`P(\tau ,t)`$ averaged over all the spins in the system and over several initial disorder configurations. We find that asymptotically the life time distribution obeys a scaling ansatz: $`P(\tau ,t)=t^1\varphi (\xi )`$, where $`\xi =\tau /t`$. The scaling function $`\varphi (\xi )`$ is singular at $`\xi =0`$ and $`1`$, mainly due to slow dynamics and persistence. An independent life time model where the life times are sampled from a distribution with power law tail is presented, which predicts analytically the qualitative features of the scaling funtion. The need for going beyond the independent life time models for predicting the scaling function for the Ising-Glauber systems is indicated.

Coarsening phenomenon, is a simple example of a dynamical process which is slow, and which becomes slower as time proceeds. This phenomenon is found in several nonequilibrium systems, e.g. phase separation in binary alloys, grain growth, growth of soap bubbles, magnetic bubbles etc. A striking feature of the coarsening phenomenon is the dynamical scale invariance. The domain structure at different times are statistically similar to each other but for a rescaling length $`L(t)`$. The rescaling length can be taken as the typical linear size of a domain and it increases with time as $`t^{1/z}`$. It was soon realized that the dynamical scaling exponent $`z`$ is not adequate to describe completely the coarsening dynamics, see below.

An interesting question asked in this context concerns the persistence probability $`P_0(t)`$, that a local order parameter does not change its sign until the observation time $`t`$. In other words, $`P_0(t)`$ refers to the fraction of the total volume that remains unswept by the domain walls until time $`t`$, in the context of three dimensional coarsening phenomenon. This quantity, exhibits, asymptotically, a power law decay, $`P_0(t)t^\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is called the persistence exponent, and it is independent of $`z`$, the dynamical scaling exponent.

The persistence phenomenon has a long history. The earliest question on persistence was perhaps asked and answered by W. A. Whitworth in 1878 and later by J. Bertrand in 1887, see Feller. The question relates to two canditates $`P`$ and $`Q`$, who poll $`p`$ votes and $`q`$ votes respectively, with canditate $`P`$ winning the election by a margin of $`x=pq`$ votes. Let $`n=p+q`$ denote the total number of votes polled and there are no invalid votes! The ballot problem consists of finding the probability that throughout the counting process the canditate $`P`$ leads. In the language of random walks, this persistence probability equals the ratio of the number of walks that start at origin, remain above origin and eventually reach the site $`x`$ after $`n`$ steps to the total number of walks that start at origin and reach site $`x`$ after $`n`$ steps. A simple application of reflection principle yields the persistence probability as $`x/n`$, see Feller, which equals the fractional excess votes polled by $`P`$ over $`Q`$.

The next question on persistence arose in the context of simple random walks on a one dimensional lattice. Let us consider the walks that start at origin and take $`2n`$ steps. The total number of random walks is thus $`2^{2n}`$ and we consider that all these walks to be equally probable. Let us collect the fraction of random walks that visit origin for the last time at step $`2k`$. This fraction is given by,

$$P(2k,2n)=\frac{(2k)!}{k!k!}\frac{(2n2k)!}{(nk)!(nk)!}\frac{1}{2^{2n}}$$
(1)
$`P(2k,2n)`$, given above, is called the discrete arc-sine distribution of order $`n`$. It is $``$-shaped; it is maximum at either ends of the support i.e. at $`k=0`$ and at $`k=n`$. It is symmetric. Let us define a scaling variable $`\xi _k=k/n`$ and express $`P(2k,2n)=n^1\varphi (\xi _k)`$. The continuous arc-sine distribution,

$$f(\xi )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{1}{\xi ^{1/2}(1\xi )^{1/2}}$$
(2)
provides a very good fit to the discrete scaling function $`\varphi (\xi _k)`$, especially for large $`n`$ and $`k`$ not too close to $`0`$ or $`n`$. Eq. (2) was first derived by P. Lévy for the Brownian motion, which is a continuum version of the random walk problem considered above. The persistence probability distribution as given by the arc-sine law is a surprising result, since contrary to intuition, it says that in a duration of time $`t`$, the probability for the last zero crossing is maximum at time zero and at time $`t`$. In other words, the probability is highest for the Brownian particle to be left or right of the origin persistently. The $``$ shaped arc-sine distribution with singularities at either ends of the support is the fore-runner to all the surprising results found in the recent times in the context of persistence in Ising and Potts spin systems, coarsening systems etc., including the ones presented in this paper. For a review of the persistence phenomenon see Majumdar.

The phenomenon of persistence has been studied extensively both theoretically  and experimentally in the recent times. Also the notion of persistence of local order has been extended to persistence of global order, of domains, and of patterns. We propose here yet another generalization of the phenomenon of persistence for characterizing the slow dynamics of the coarsening process.

Accordingly, we investigate first the one dimensional zero temperature Ising-Glauber dynamics for the coarsening phenomenon. Consider a one dimensional array of $`N`$ Ising spins $`\{S_i=\pm 1:i=1,N\}`$. The spin system is prepared in a homogeneous, disordered, high temperature phase. Operationally this means that we assign to each spin a value of $`+1`$ or $`1`$ independently and with equal probability. A spin interacts with its nearest neighbours only and the interaction is ferromagnetic. The Hamiltonian is given by, $`H=J_{i,j}S_iS_j`$, where the sum runs over nearest neighbour pairs and $`J`$ measures the strength of ferromagnetic interaction. We set $`J=1`$, without loss of generality. Periodic boundary condition is imposed. At time $`t=0`$, we quench the system to zero temperature. Upon the temperature quench, the system does not order instantaneously or even immediately. Instead, domains of equilibrium broken-symmetry phases form, grow and the domain structure coarsens.

The dynamics is simulated as follows. A spin is selected randomly. It is always flipped if the resulting configuration has lower energy; the spin is never flipped if the energy is raised; the spin is flipped with probability half if the change in energy is zero. A set of $`N`$ consecutive spin-flip attempts constitutes a Monte Carlo time Step (MCS) which sets the unit of time. Spin-flips occur relatively often in the initial times since there would exist a large number of lattice sites where the spin flips are energetically favourable. As time proceeds, domains of up spins and down spins form, coalesce and grow. Since only the spins in the domain boundaries can flip, the dynamics slows down. The dynamics becomes slower and slower since the number of domains decreases with time.

We say that when a spin flips, it dies and is reborn instantaneously in the flipped orientation. We denote by $`\tau `$ the time that elapses between two consecutive spin flips, and call it the life time. Thus a single spin can have many lives of possibly different life times. $`\tau `$ is a random variable and we are interested in its distribution obtained from an ensemble of all the lives of all the spins in the system. Further we average the life time distribution over several initial disorder configurations. Suppose during the time interval $`(0,t)`$, a spin flips for the last time at say $`t_L`$ and does not flip until time $`t`$. Then we take $`tt_L`$ as the last life time of the spin. The average life time distribution is obviously dependent on the observation time $`t`$. We denote this by $`P(\tau ,t)`$. We define a scaling variable $`\xi =\tau /t`$, and make a scaling ansatz that for $`t\mathrm{}`$, $`P(\tau ,t)t^1\varphi (\xi )`$. Fig. 1 depicts $`tP(\tau ,t)`$ vs $`\xi `$ for several values of $`t`$ on a semi-log graph. We find that the life time distributions for large $`t`$, collapse reasonably well establishing the validity of the scaling ansatz. In Fig. 1, we see that the collpase occurs for $`t4000`$ MCS. We have also shown the life time distributions for $`t=500`$ and $`1000`$, and they deviate, though not considerably, from the scaling curve. One can see from Fig. 1 that the scaling curve is $``$ shaped and exhibits singularities at either ends of its support $`(0,1)`$, a feature observed in the arc-sine law arising in the context of Brownian motion.

Consider now the distribution $`P(\tau ,t)`$, in the limit $`\tau t`$. This limit requires that the spin never flips during the time interval $`(0,t)`$. Let us define $`Q(t)=P(\tau =t,t)`$. Clearly $`Q(t)`$ is the same as the persistence probability $`P_0(t)`$ but for a time dependent normalization $`N(t)`$, defined as the average number of lives per spin. In other words, $`Q(t)=P_0(t)/N(t)`$. Fig. 2 depicts $`Q(t)`$ vs. $`t`$ on a log-log graph. The points fall on a straight line, and a linear least square estimate gives the slope as $`\theta _L=0.87`$, implying that $`Q(t)t^{\theta _L}`$. Fig. 3 depicts a similar plot for the average number of lives per spin. We find that $`N(t)t^{\theta _N}`$, with $`\theta _N`$ estimated as $`0.49`$. The exponent $`\theta _N`$ lends itself to a simple explanation. It is related to the number of zero crossing of a Brownian particle in a duration of time $`t`$, which goes  as $`t^{1/2}`$. From these two exponents $`\theta _L`$ and $`\theta _N`$, we can now calculate the standard persistence exponent as $`\theta =\theta _L\theta _N=0.38`$, a result consistent with earlier results . The singularities at $`\xi =0`$ and at $`\xi =1`$, of the scaling curve $`\varphi (\xi )`$, can be understood as follows. In the discussions below, we always take the limit $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\xi =\tau /t`$ is finite. Let us first consider the singularity at $`\xi =0`$. We notice that only those spins in the domain boundaries can flip. As time progresses, the number of domains decreases as $`t^{1/2}`$. Also once a spin flips the probability it flips next in time $`\tau `$ is related to the first return to origin of a Brownian particle, and is proportional to $`\tau ^{1/2}`$. Thus we get, $`P(\tau ,t)=t^1\varphi (\xi )t^{1/2}\tau ^{1/2}`$. Hence in the limit $`\xi 0`$, we have, $`\varphi (\xi )\xi ^{1/2}`$. For understanding the other singularity (at $`\xi =1`$), we use the notion of persistence. The limit $`\xi 1`$ implies $`\tau t`$. In this limit, $`P(\tau ,t)=t^1\varphi (\xi )t^{\theta _L}`$. Hence $`\varphi (\xi )t^{\theta _L+1}`$; also $`t`$ is of the order of $`(1\xi )^1`$. Thus we find that in the limit $`\xi 1`$, $`\varphi (\xi )(1\xi )^{(1\theta _L)}`$.

Next we consider the two dimensional zero temperature Ising-Glauber model for coarsening phenomenon. In Fig. 4 we depict the distribution of the life time in the scaling form. The scaling curve looks qualitatively the same as the one found for the one dimensional case. The data collapse for large observation times $`t`$ is very clear. In Fig. 5 we depict $`Q(t)`$ vs. $`t`$ on a log-log graph. The data points fall on a straight line showing that $`Q(t)t^{\theta _L}`$ and the exponent $`\theta _L=0.58`$. Fig. 6 depicts the average number of lives per spin, $`N(t)`$ vs.  $`t`$ on a log-log graph, and we find that $`N(t)t^{\theta _N}`$. The exponent $`\theta _N=0.36`$. Unlike the one dimensional Ising-Glauber dynamics, this exponent does not have a simple analytical explanation. It has to be calculated only numerically, atleast as of now. From the numerical estimates of $`\theta _L`$ and $`\theta _N`$, we can calculate the standard persistence exponent as $`\theta =\theta _L\theta _N=0.22`$, a result which matches with an earlier finding.

At this stage, one can think of a simple model for the coarsening dynamics, in terms of sampling the life times independently and randomly from a distribution, which we denote by $`\rho _1(\tau )`$. The persistence exponent appears in this model as a parameter and our interest is to investigate the nature of the $``$ shaped life time distribution. In such an approach, we neglect the spin-spin correlations that are present in the Ising model. The hope is that such simple models would help us understand the nature of the persistent events underlying these distributions and help us in investigtating persistence in extended nonequilibrium statistical mechanical models. The distribution $`\rho _1(\tau )`$ is taken as power-law tailed. The reason is clear, if we consider that within the scope of independent life time model, the persistence probability is

$$P_0(t){}_{t\mathrm{}}{}^{}t_{}^{\theta _L}=_t^{\mathrm{}}\rho _1(\tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(3)
which implies that for large $`\tau `$, we have,

$`\rho _1(\tau )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _L}{\tau ^{1+\theta _L}}}.`$ (4)
We take the above as the distribution of a single life time. Also $`1\tau \mathrm{}`$ and $`\theta _L<1.`$ We set the lower limit of $`\tau `$ at unity for ensuring normalization. Let $`\rho _m(\tau )`$ denote the distribution of the sum of $`m`$ independent realizations of $`\tau `$. It is easily seen that,

$$\rho _m(\tau )=\theta _L^{1/m}\rho _1\left(\frac{\tau }{\theta _L^{1/m}}\right).$$
(5)
With this model for the basic life time distribution, we are now ready to derive the scaling function. We define $`t_n=_i^n\tau _i`$, the sum of $`n`$ independent realizations of the random variable $`\tau `$, sampled from the distribution $`\rho _1(\tau )`$. We define $`\xi =\tau /t_n`$. Formally we have,

$$\varphi (\xi )=𝑑\tau 𝑑t_n\delta (\xi \tau /t_n)\rho _1(\tau )\rho _{n1}(t_n\tau ).$$
(6)
Noting that $`\delta (\xi \tau /t_n)=t_n\delta (\tau \xi t_n),`$ and carrying out the inegration over $`\tau `$, we get,

$$\varphi (\xi )=_\beta ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_nt_n\rho _1(\xi t_n)(n1)^{1/\theta _L}\rho _1\left(\frac{t_n\left(1\xi \right)}{(n1)^{1/\theta _L}}\right)$$
(7)
where $`\beta `$ is the lower limit of the integration, obtained suitably, see below. In the above we substitute for $`\rho _1()`$ given by Eq. (4) and carry out the integration. We get,

$$\varphi (\xi )=\frac{(n1)\theta _L}{2\xi ^{1+\theta _L}(1\xi )^{1+\theta _L}}\beta ^{2\theta _L}$$
(8)
We note that the argument of the function $`\rho _1()`$ occuring in Eq. (7) must be greater than unity. This requirement gives rise to the following inequalities,

$`\xi t_n`$ $`>`$ $`1`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t_n(1\xi )}{(n1)^{1/\theta _L}}}`$ $`>`$ $`1`$ (10)
From the above we get $`\beta `$ as,

$`\beta =max\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }},{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)^{1/\theta _L}}{1\xi }}\}`$ (11)
Finally we get,

$`\varphi (\xi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(n1)\theta _L}{2(1\xi )^{1+\theta _L}}\frac{1}{\xi ^{1\theta _L}}\hfill & \text{ for }0<\xi <\xi ^{}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{\theta _L}{2(n1)\xi ^{1+\theta _L}}\frac{1}{(1\xi )^{1\theta _L}}\hfill & \text{ for }\xi ^{}<\xi <1\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
where,

$$\xi ^{}=\frac{1}{1+(n1)^{1/\theta _L}}$$
(13)
First observation we make is that the scaling function is singular at the either ends of the support, a feature observed in the one and two dimensional Ising-Glauber models presented in this paper. We find that the scaling function is explicitly a function of $`n`$, the number of lives of a spin. The exponents characterizing the singularities at $`\xi =0`$ and at $`\xi =1`$ are both equal. However, for the Ising-Glauber models, the exponents are different. Hence we may need to go beyond the independent life time models, for making contact with the observations on Ising-Glauber dynamics. A correlated life time model could prove useful in this context. Work in this direction is in progress and will be reported soon

We dedicate this work to the memory of Klaus W. Kehr.