text:
# Bargmann invariants and off-diagonal geometric phases for multi-level quantum systems — a unitary group approach

## I Introduction

The notion of geometric phase, though defined originally in the context of adiabatic, unitary and cyclic evolution, has now come to be recognised as a direct consequence of the geometry of the complex Hilbert space and that of the associated ray space . The quantum kinematic picture which has thus emerged provides a much wider setting for the notion of the geometric phase by rendering superfluous the various assumptions that attended its original discovery, and subsequent development . In particular, the requirement of cyclic evolution is no longer necessary and it becomes possible to ascribe a geometric phase to any open curve in the Hilbert space which has non- orthogonal unit vectors as its end points. Further, following the quantum kinematic approach one is led, in a natural way, to the intimate relationship that exists between the geometric phase and the $`n`$-vertex Bargmann invariants and that between the geometric phase and Hamilton’s theory of turns. As an application of this approach the Gouy phase (the phase jump experienced by a focussed light beam as it crosses the focus), discovered over a hundred years ago, has been shown to be a four vertex Bargmann invariant.

In the present work, we develop the quantum kinematic approach for the special case of unitary evolution of an $`n`$-level system. It turns out that, in the present context, it becomes necessary to introduce Bargmann invariants constructed out of two sets of orthonormal basis vectors. We investigate, in detail, their properties and identify and construct a full set of gauge-invariant building blocks for the $`n`$-level system. We also develop a canonical representation of $`U(n)`$ matrices and bring out its relation to the Bargmann invariants. This representation has recently been shown to be extremely useful in parametrizing the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix which arises in the context of CP-violation in particle physics.

As noted above, the geometric phase becomes undefined for those open curves in the Hilbert space which have orthogonal vectors at their ends. A recent work by Manini and Pistolesi addresses itself precisely to such exceptional cases. Employing the original Berry setting of adiabatic evolution for an $`n`$-level quantum system, they introduce the concept of off-diagonal geometric phases which can be meaningfully defined in such cases, and showed that these off-diagonal geometric phases play an essential role in the interpretation of the findings of a recent experiment.

We study the off-diagonal phases of Manini and Pistolesi within the framework of the quantum kinematic approach and show that, in actual fact, this approach, suitably augmented, is robust enough to accommodate the off-diagonal phases as well. A brief outline of this work is as follows. In section II we quickly recapitulate the basic ingredients of the quantum kinematic approach to geometric phases in a general setting. In section III we specialise the discussion to $`n`$-level systems and construct the gauge-invariant objects for this case. These turn out to be $`n`$ geometric phases and a collection of $`4`$-vertex Bargmann invariants. Next we consider the problem of counting, leading to identification of a set of independent Bargmann invariants. This necessitates a detailed analysis of the structure of the $`U(n)`$ matrix group. In section IV, we develop a canonical representation for $`U(n)`$ matrices which is then used, in section V, for isolating the independent 4-vertex Bargmann invariants. In section IV, we apply the machinery developed in the previous sections to the off-diagonal geometric phases and show how they can be expressed in terms of the ordinary geometric phases and the 4-vertex Bargmann invariants, thus liberating these phases from the assumptions of adibaticity. Section VII contains our conclusions.

## II Geometric phases and Bargmann invariants

We review very briefly the background and ingredients that go into the definition of the quantum geometric phase from the kinematic viewpoint, and then the Bargmann invariants and their properties in the generic case. Let $``$ be the Hilbert space of states of some quantum system, and let $``$ be the set of unit vectors in $``$:

$`=\{\psi |\psi ^2=(\psi ,\psi )=1\}.`$ (1)
The corresponding ray space (consisting of equivalence classes of unit vectors which differ from one another by phases) and projection map are written as $``$ and $`\pi `$ respectively:

$`\pi :=\text{space of unit rays}.`$ (2)
To arrive at the concept of geometric phase we begin with parametrised smooth (for our purposes continuous and once piecewise differentiable) curves $`𝒞`$ of unit vectors, which may be pictured as strings lying in $``$:

$`𝒞=\{\psi (s)|s_1ss_2\}.`$ (3)
A gauge transformation is a smooth change of phase in a parameter dependent manner at each point of such a curve $`𝒞`$ to lead to another $`𝒞^{}`$:

$`𝒞^{}=\left\{\psi ^{}(s)=e^{i\alpha (s)}\psi (s)\right|\psi (s)𝒞,s_1ss_2\}.`$ (4)
Then $`𝒞^{}`$ and $`𝒞`$ share a common parametrised image curve $`C`$ in ray space:

$`\pi [𝒞^{}]=\pi [𝒞]=C.`$ (5)
In general we permit $`𝒞`$ and even $`C`$ to be open curves.

The total, dynamical and geometric phases are then defined as follows as functionals of appropriate arguments:

$`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}(\psi (s_1),\psi (s_2)),`$ (6)
$`\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞]`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1}{\overset{s_2}{}}}𝑑s(\psi (s),{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi (s)}{ds}}),`$ (7)
$`\phi _g[C]`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞]\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞].`$ (8)
While the first two phases are functionals of $`𝒞`$ and do change under a gauge transformation, the geometric phase $`\phi _g[C]`$ is gauge-invariant, which explains why it is written as a functional of the ray space curve $`C`$. All three phases are, however, individually reparametrisation invariant.

Now we turn to the Bargmann invariants and their 3connection to geometric phases. Given any sequence of $`n`$ vectors $`\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _n`$ in $``$, the corresponding $`n`$-vertex Bargmann invariant is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _n)(\psi _1,\psi _2)(\psi _2,\psi _3)\mathrm{}(\psi _{n1},\psi _n)(\psi _n,\psi _1).`$ (9)
Here we assume in the generic case that no two successive vectors in the sequence are mutually orthogonal. It is clear that this expression is invariant under cyclic permutations of the $`\psi `$’s, and also under independent phase changes of the individual vectors. Therefore it is actually a quantity defined at the ray space level. It turns out that the phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _n)`$ is the geometric phase for suitably constructed closed ray space curves obtained by joining each $`\psi _j`$ to the next $`\psi _{j+1}`$ (and finally $`\psi _n`$ to $`\psi _1`$) by any so-called ‘null-phase curve’. A null-phase curve is a continuous ray-space curve such that for any finite connected portion of it the geometric phase vanishes. That is ‘being in phase’ in the Pancharatnam sense becomes an equivalence relation on such curves. Examples of null phase curves are ray space geodesics (with respect to the well-known Fubini-Study metric), but the former are a much larger set than the latter. It should be emphasized that whereas the Bargmann invariant (2.7) is defined once its ‘vertices’, namely the projections $`\pi (\psi _1),\pi (\psi _2),\mathrm{},\pi (\psi _n)`$ in $``$, are given, to interpret its phase as a geometric phase requires that we join each $`\psi _j`$ to the next $`\psi _{j+1}`$ in some definite manner, namely by some null phase curve, resulting in an ‘$`n`$-sided’ closed figure in $``$.

It can now be seen that as far as phases are concerned, an $`n`$-vertex Bargmann invariant for $`n4`$ can be reduced to a product of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ factors in the generic case, so we can regard the three-vertex Bargmann invariants as the primitive ones. For example we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3,\psi _4)=\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3)\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\psi _1,\psi _3,\psi _4)/\left|(\psi _1,\psi _3)\right|^2,`$ (10)
and more generally

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _n)=\mathrm{\Delta }_3(\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3)\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}(\psi _1,\psi _3,\psi _4,\mathrm{},\psi _n)/\left|(\psi _1,\psi _3)\right|^2.`$ (11)
Thus the geometric phases of ray space ‘triangles’, each of whose sides is a null phase curve, are primitive or irreducible phases, and all others can be built up from them additively. The purpose in mentioning this is that in the particular situation we shall be dealing with later the primitive Bargmann invariants will turn out to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$’s, so that situation will not be generic in the present sense.

## III Gauge- invariant phases for $`n`$-level systems

We now turn to a study of phases associated with $`n`$-level quantum systems. Thus we have an $`n`$-dimensional complex Hilbert space $`_n`$ describing the pure states of the system. The unit sphere in $`_n`$, and the corresponding space of unit rays, will be denoted by $`_n`$ and $`_n`$ respectively.

If we imagine that a time-dependent Hamiltonian ($`n\times n`$ hermitian matrix) is given, then at each time its complete orthonormal set of eigenvectors defines an orthonormal basis for $`_n`$. Assuming there are no degeneracies or level crossings, the eigenvalues can be arranged in, say, increasing order; and at each time this basis for $`_n`$ is defined upto the freedom of phase changes in each basis vector. As time progresses this basis experiences a continuous unitary rotation.

In keeping with the approach of the previous Section, however, we will adopt a kinematic approach here as well and not assume any particular Hamiltonian to be given. Thus we imagine that for each value of a parameter $`s`$ in the range $`s_1ss_2`$ we have an orthonormal basis $`\psi _j(s),j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ for $`_n`$; and as $`s`$ evolves this basis experiences a continuous unitary evolution. Thus we have

$`(\psi _j(s),\psi _k(s))`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{jk},j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},n;`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\psi _j(s)\psi _j(s)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Id},s_1ss_2.`$ (13)
For ease in writing, we shall denote these vectors at the end points $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ as follows:

$`\psi _j(s_1)=\psi _j,\psi _j(s_2)=\varphi _j.`$ (14)
(The orthonormal vectors $`\psi _j`$ here are not to be confused with the arguments of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ in eqn.(2.7)). Our aim is to obtain gauge-invariant expressions and phases in this context. We expect to be able to construct both geometric phases $`\phi _g[C]`$ for various $`C`$, and Bargmann invariants.

For each value of the index $`j`$, as $`s`$ varies from $`s_1`$ to $`s_2`$, the vector $`\psi _j(s)`$ traces out a particular continuous parametrised curve $`𝒞_j`$ in $`_n`$:

$`𝒞_j=\{\psi _j(s)_n|s_1ss_2\}_n,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (15)
This curve runs from $`\psi _j`$ to $`\varphi _j`$. Its image is $`\pi [𝒞_j]=C_j_n`$, and we have $`n`$ distinct geometric phases:

$`\phi _g[C_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞_j]\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞_j],`$ (16)
$`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}(\psi _j,\varphi _j),`$ (17)
$`\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞_j]`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{s_1}{\overset{s_2}{}}}𝑑s(\psi _j(s),{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi _j(s)}{ds}}),j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (18)
Each of these geometric phases is unchanged under arbitrary alterations in the phase of each $`\psi _j(s)`$ at each parameter value $`s`$.

We turn next to the construction of Bargmann invariants, the vertices of which are taken from the $`n`$ initial orthonormal vectors $`\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _n`$ and the $`n`$ final ones $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n`$. Here we encounter an interesting difference compared to the generic situation discussed in the previous Section. Since any two distinct $`\psi _j`$’s (and similarly any two distinct $`\varphi _j`$’s) are orthogonal, in any Bargmann invariant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{})`$ an argument $`\psi _j`$ must be followed by an argument $`\varphi _k`$, which must be followed by some $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}`$, and so on. Similarly if the first argument is some $`\psi `$, the last one must be some $`\varphi `$. Thus in the present context only even order Bargmann invariants $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{}`$ survive, a general one being

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{}(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_1},\psi _{j_2},\varphi _{k_2}\mathrm{},\psi _j_{\mathrm{}},\varphi _k_{\mathrm{}})=(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_1})(\varphi _{k_1},\psi _{j_2})(\psi _{j_2},\varphi _{k_2})\mathrm{}(\psi _j_{\mathrm{}},\varphi _k_{\mathrm{}})(\varphi _k_{\mathrm{}},\psi _{j_1})`$ (19)
We may now regard the generic case as obtaining when every inner product $`(\psi _j,\varphi _k)`$ is nonzero. In this situation we find that the primitive Bargmann invariants are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$’s; for instance,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_6(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_1},\psi _{j_2},\varphi _{k_2},\psi _{j_3},\varphi _{k_3})=\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_1},\psi _{j_2},\varphi _{k_2})\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_2},\psi _{j_3},\varphi _{k_3})/|(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_2})|^2,$$
(20)
and similarly for higher order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{}`$’s.

From this discussion it emerges that in the present context the basic gauge-invariant expressions are the $`n`$ geometric phases $`\phi _g[C_j]`$ and the various 4-vertex Bargmann invariants $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{k_1},\psi _{j_2},\varphi _{k_2})`$. (We are using here quantities referring to the entire parameter range $`s_1ss_2`$ and to its end points, and not to any subranges). An important problem that now remains is to select out of all possible $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s a maximal set of independent ones as far as phases are concerned. For this, as a first step, we turn to an interesting analysis of the structure of the unitary matrix groups $`U(n)`$.

## IV A canonical representation for $`U(n)`$ matrices, counting of invariant phases

Referring to eqns.(3.1,2) we have a parameter dependent $`n\times n`$ unitary matrix describing the transition from the initial orthonormal basis $`\{\psi _j\}`$ for $`_n`$ at $`s=s_1`$ to the moving basis $`\{\psi _j(s)\}`$ at a general $`s`$:

$`A(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(a_{jk}(s))U(n),`$ (21)
$`a_{jk}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(\psi _j,\psi _k(s)),s_1ss_2,`$ (22)
$`a_{jk}(s_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{jk}.`$ (23)
At $`s=s_2`$ we write $`A(s_2)=A`$:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(a_{jk}),`$ (24)
$`a_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`(\psi _j,\varphi _k).`$ (25)
The four-vertex Bargmann invariants of the type appearing in eqn.(3.6) are expressions involving products of matrix elements of $`A`$ and their complex conjugates:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _j,\varphi _k,\psi _{\mathrm{}},\varphi _m)`$ $`=`$ $`(\psi _j,\varphi _k)(\varphi _k,\psi _{\mathrm{}})(\psi _{\mathrm{}},\varphi _m)(\varphi _m,\psi _j)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`a_{jk}a_\mathrm{}k^{}a_\mathrm{}ma_{jm}^{}.`$ (27)
Our problem is to determine how many algebraically independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s there are in the generic case in so far as their phases are concerned, and to find a convenient enumeration of them. This turns out to be a somewhat intricate problem. After some preparation in this Section, the solution will be developed in the next one.

In working with $`n\times n`$ unitary matrices it is convenient to keep in mind the standard basis in $`_n`$. Then $`U(n)`$ is the group of unitary transformations acting on all $`n`$ dimensions. For $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$, we will denote by $`U(m)`$ the unitary group acting on the first $`m`$ dimensions in $`_n`$, leaving dimensions $`m+1,m+2,\mathrm{},n`$ unaffected. Then we have the inclusion relations (the canonical subgroup chain)

$`U(1)U(2)U(3)\mathrm{}U(n1)U(n).`$ (28)
General matrices of $`U(n),U(n1),\mathrm{}`$ will be written as $`A_n,A_{n1},\mathrm{}`$. In a matrix $`A_mU(m)`$, the last $`(nm)`$ rows and columns are trivial, with ones along the diagonal and zeroes elsewhere. (When no confusion is likely to arise, $`A_m`$ will also denote an unbordered $`m\times m`$ unitary matrix).

We will now show by a recursive argument that (almost all) elements $`A_nU(n)`$ can be expressed uniquely as $`n`$-fold products

$`A_n=A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })A_{n2}(\underset{¯}{\xi })\mathrm{}A_3(\underset{¯}{\beta })A_2(\underset{¯}{\alpha })A_1(\chi ),`$ (29)
where $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ is a special $`U(n)`$ element determined by an $`n`$-component complex unit vector $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }_n;A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })`$ is a special $`U(n1)`$ element determined by an $`(n1)`$-component complex unit vector $`\underset{¯}{\eta }_{n1}`$; and so on down to $`A_2(\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ which is a special $`U(2)`$ element determined by a 2-component complex unit vector $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }_2`$; and $`A_1(\chi )`$ is a phase factor belonging to $`U(1)`$. We are led to expect such a representation for $`A_n`$ by the following argument. Any vector $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }_n`$ can be carried by a suitable $`U(n)`$ element into the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ vector of the standard basis, $`(0,0,\mathrm{},0,1)^T`$; and the stability group of this vector is the subgroup $`U(n1)U(n)`$ acting on the first $`(n1)`$ dimensions in $`_n`$. Thus $`U(n)`$ acts transitively on $`_n`$, and this is just the coset space $`U(n)/U(n1)`$. Each coset is thus uniquely labelled by some $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }_n`$. We therefore expect that a general $`A_nU(n)`$ is expressible as the product $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1}`$ where $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ is the last column in $`A_n`$ and $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ is a suitably chosen coset representative. Repeating this argument $`(n1)`$ times we are led to expect the representation (4.5). The counting of parameters is also just right. Remembering that $`\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{\beta },\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{\xi },\underset{¯}{\eta },\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ are complex unit vectors of dimensions $`2,3,\mathrm{},n2,n1,n`$ and adding the $`U(1)`$ phase $`\chi `$, the number of real independent parameters adds up to $`n^2`$, the dimension of $`U(n)`$.

We now present the argument leading to (4.5), yielding in the process the determination of $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$. Let a generic matrix $`A_n=(a_{jk})U(n)`$ be given and let its last ($`n^{\text{th}}`$) column be $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$:

$`a_{jn}=\zeta _j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (30)
Multiplying $`A_n`$ by an $`A_{n1}`$ on the right leaves this column unchanged. We choose $`A_{n1}`$ so as to bring the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ row of $`A_n`$ to a particularly simple form (for ease in writing we keep using $`A_n`$ and $`a_{jk}`$ for the $`U(n)`$ element obtained at each successive stage of the argument):

$`a_{nk}`$ $`=`$ $`0,k=1,2,\mathrm{},n2;`$ (31)
$`a_{n,n1}`$ $`=`$ real positive (32)
$`=`$ $`\left(1|\zeta _n|^2\right)^{1/2}.`$ (33)
The $`A_{n1}`$ used here is arbitrary upto an $`A_{n2}`$ factor on its right. Having simplified the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ row of $`A_n`$ in this way, we can determine all the other elements in the $`(n1)^{\text{th}}`$ column by imposing orthogonality of rows $`1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$ to row $`n`$:

$`a_{n,n1}a_{j,n1}=\zeta _n^{}\zeta _j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (34)
At this point the last two columns and the last row of $`A_n`$ are known in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$.

We next use the freedom in choice of $`A_{n1}`$ mentioned above and multiply $`A_n`$ on the right by a suitable $`A_{n2}`$ (unique upto an $`A_{n3}`$ on its right) to bring the $`(n1)^{\text{th}}`$ row of $`A_n`$ to a particularly simple form:

$`a_{n1,k}=0,k`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,\mathrm{},n3;`$ (35)
$`a_{n1,n2}`$ $`=`$ real positive (36)
Normalising this row gives $`a_{n1,n2}`$:

$`a_{n,n1}a_{n1,n2}=\left(1|\zeta _n|^2|\zeta _{n1}|^2\right)^{1/2}.`$ (37)
Next we determine all the remaining elements in the $`(n2)^{\text{th}}`$ column of $`A_n`$ by imposing orthogonality of rows $`1,2,\mathrm{},n2`$ to row $`(n1)`$:

$`a_{n,n1}^2a_{n1,n2}a_{j,n2}=\zeta _{n1}^{}\zeta _j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n2.`$ (38)
At this point the last three columns and last two rows of $`A_n`$ are known in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$.

This argument can be repeated all the way until we obtain a matrix $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })U(n)`$, all of whose elements are determined by the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ column $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$, namely it serves as a coset representative in the coset space $`U(n)/U(n1)`$. (In particular the last $`U(1)`$ element $`A_1(\chi )`$ is used to make $`a_{21}`$ real positive). After some algebra we obtain the result that the matrix $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })=(a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }))`$ is uniquely determined by the conditions:

$`a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`0,jk+2;`$ (39)
$`a_{j,j1}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`\text{real positive},j=2,3,\mathrm{},n;`$ (40)
$`a_{jn}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _n,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (41)
Thus $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ has vanishing matrix elements in the lower left hand triangular portion upto two steps below the main diagonal; nonzero matrix elements appear only one step below the main diagonal, and beyond. The explicit expressions for the nonzero matrix elements are:

$`a_{j,j1}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{j1}/\rho _j,j=2,3,\mathrm{},n;`$ (42)
$`a_{j,k}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _{k+1}^{}\zeta _j/\rho _k\rho _{k+1},jkn1;`$ (43)
$`a_{jn}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _n,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n;`$ (44)
$`\rho _j`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|\zeta _1|^2+|\zeta _2|^2+\mathrm{}+|\zeta _j|^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`\left(1|\zeta _{j+1}|^2|\zeta _{j+2}|^2\mathrm{}|\zeta _n|^2\right)^{1/2}.`$ (46)
Since the quantities $`\rho _j`$ obey

$`\rho _1=|\zeta _1|\rho _2\rho _3\mathrm{}\rho _{n1}\rho _n=1,`$ (47)
it is evident that this determination of $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ goes through with no problems as long as $`\zeta _1`$ is nonzero, ie., $`\rho _1>0`$.

It may be helpful to give the expressions for $`A_2(\underset{¯}{\alpha })U(2),A_3(\underset{¯}{\beta })U(3)`$ determined in this way, so as to see the general pattern:

$`A_2(\underset{¯}{\alpha })`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^{}\alpha _1}{|\alpha _1|}}& \alpha _1\\ |\alpha _1|& \alpha _2\end{array}\right),|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2=1;`$ (51)
$`A_3(\underset{¯}{\beta })`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^{}\beta _1}{\rho _1\rho _2}}& {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3^{}\beta _1}{\rho _2}}& \beta _1\\ \rho _1/\rho _2& {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _3^{}\beta _2}{\rho _2}}& \beta _2\\ 0& \rho _2& \beta _3\end{array}\right),`$ (58)
$`|\beta _1|^2+|\beta _2|^2+|\beta _3|^2=1,`$
$`\rho _1=|\beta _1|,\rho _2=\left(1|\beta _3|^2\right)^{1/2}.`$
We notice in passing that these are not elements of $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ respectively.

Going back to the proof of eqn.(4.5), we see that it can be recursively established; and $`\chi ,\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{\beta },\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{\xi },\underset{¯}{\eta },\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ supply us with exactly $`n^2`$ real independent parameters for $`A_n`$. Of these, the $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$ independent quantities $`|\alpha _1|,|\beta _1|,|\beta _2|,\mathrm{},|\zeta _1|,|\zeta _2|,\mathrm{},|\zeta _{n1}|`$ are of the modulus type, and then there are $`\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)`$ independent phases. We can display a general element $`A_nU(n)`$, (in particular $`A`$ of eqns.(4.2)) in the selfevident forms

$`A_n`$ $`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta },\underset{¯}{\eta },\underset{¯}{\xi },\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{\beta },\underset{¯}{\alpha },\chi )`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1},`$ (60)
$`A_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta },\underset{¯}{\xi },\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{\beta },\underset{¯}{\alpha },\chi ).`$ (61)
We are now interested in the following operation: suppose we premultiply and post multiply $`A_n`$ by two independent diagonal elements of $`U(n)`$ (a ‘gauge transformation’ of $`A_n`$):

$`A_nA_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)A_nD_n(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _n^{}),`$ (62)
$`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}(e^{i\theta _1},e^{i\theta _2},\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _n}).`$ (63)
We would like to know: how many independent invariants can we construct out of $`A_n`$ under these transformations, how many of them are phases, and how can they be captured through four-vertex Bargmann invariants ? In the case of the matrix $`A`$ of eqn.(4.2) the transformation (4.17) amounts to changing the phase of each $`\psi _j`$ and each $`\varphi _k`$ independently:

$`\psi _j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta _j}\psi _j,`$ (64)
$`\varphi _k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta _k^{}}\varphi _k,`$ (65)
$`a_{jk}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\left(\theta _j+\theta _k^{}\right)}a_{jk},`$ (66)
and we seek an independent set of invariant expressions of the form (4.3).

First we count the expected numbers of invariants of each kind. The real dimension of $`U(n)`$ is $`n^2`$. The number of independent $`\theta `$’s and $`\theta ^{}`$’s in (4.17) is $`(2n1)`$, because an overall constant phase can be attributed to either the left or the right diagonal factor. Therefore the number of real invariants in $`(n1)^2`$. In the description (4.16) of a general $`A_nU(n)`$, it is clear that under (4.17) every component of each of $`\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{\beta },\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ just undergoes a phase change, so the quantities $`|\alpha _1|,|\beta _1|,|\beta _2|,\mathrm{},|\zeta _1|,|\zeta _2|,\mathrm{},|\zeta _{n1}|`$ are $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$ real independent modulus type invariants. Thus there must be a balance of $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ real independent phase type invariants. This is in agreement with known results.

We shall describe in the next Section a recursive procedure by which we can pick out $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ algebraically independent four-vector Bargmann invariants whose phases are the expected phase invariants associated with a general $`U(n)`$ matrix.

## V Determination of independent Bargmann invariants

We describe first how, in a recursive manner, we can isolate the expected $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ independent gauge-invariant phases for a generic $`A_nU(n)`$ using the parametrisation (4.5), and then turn to the choice of an equal number of independent primitive Bargmann invariants $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$.

We begin with eqns.(4.5,4.16),

$`A_n`$ $`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1},`$ (67)
$`A_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })A_{n2}(\underset{¯}{\xi })\mathrm{}A_2(\underset{¯}{\alpha })A_1(\chi )`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta },\underset{¯}{\xi },\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{\alpha },\chi ),`$ (69)
apply diagonal matrices on the left and on the right as in eqn.(4.17), and trace the changes that occur in $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ and in $`A_{n1}`$:

$`A_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)A_nD_n(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _n^{})`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})A_{n1}^{}.`$ (71)
Our aim is to compute $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{}`$ and $`A_{n1}^{}`$. Since the $`D_n`$ factors are quite elementary this can be carried through as follows:

$`A_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1}D_n(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _n^{})`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1}D_n(0,0,\mathrm{},0,\theta _n^{})D_n(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}^{},0)`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })D_n(0,\mathrm{},0,\theta _n^{})A_{n1}D_{n1}(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}^{}).`$ (74)
The product of the first three factors simplifies:

$`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })D_n(0,\mathrm{},0,\theta _n^{})`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`D_n(\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)(a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }))D_n(0,0,\mathrm{},\theta _n^{})`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`(b_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })),`$ (77)
$`b_{jn}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _j^{}=e^{i\left(\theta _j+\theta _n^{}\right)}\zeta _j,`$ (78)
$`b_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta _j}a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }),k=1,2,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (79)
Here the matrix elements $`a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ are given in eqn.(4.13), and for simplicity the $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ dependences of $`b_{jk}`$ are left implicit. In particular, as in eqn.(4.12),

$`b_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })=0,k=1,2,\mathrm{},j2;j=3,4,\mathrm{},n,`$ (80)
while

$`b_{j,j1}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta _j}a_{j,j1}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\theta _j}\rho _{j1}/\rho _j,j=2,3,\mathrm{},n.`$ (82)
Thus the matrix $`(b_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }))`$ would have been $`\left(a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})\right)`$ except for the fact that the elements $`b_{j,j1}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ just below the main diagonal are not real positive but carry phases. But this can be easily taken care of by extracting a suitably chosen diagonal matrix on the right:

$`\left(b_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })\right)=\left(a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})\right)D_n(\theta _2,\theta _3,\mathrm{},\theta _n,0).`$ (83)
The point is that, according to the statement accompanying eqns.(4.12), after removal of this diagonal factor what remains is necessarily $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})=\left(a_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})\right)`$. Combining the above steps we get:

$`A_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})A_{n1}^{}`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`(b_{jk}(\underset{¯}{\zeta }))A_{n1}D_{n1}(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}^{})`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{})D_n(\theta _2,\theta _3,\mathrm{},\theta _n,0)A_{n1}D_{n1}(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}^{}),`$ (86)
so the changes induced in $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ and in $`A_{n1}`$ by the gauge transformation (5.2) are:

$`\zeta _j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\left(\theta _j+\theta _n^{}\right)}\zeta _j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n;`$ (88)
$`A_{n1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{n1}(\theta _2,\theta _3,\mathrm{},\theta _n)A_{n1}D_{n1}(\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}^{}).`$ (89)
We see from the structure of this result that we can tackle our problem recursively: The gauge transformation(5.2) at the $`U(n)`$ level translates into the change $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }\underset{¯}{\zeta }^{}`$ given by eqn.(5.9a) and a gauge transformation $`A_{n1}A_{n1}^{}`$ at the $`U(n1)`$ level given by eqn.(5.9b). Therefore all gauge-invariant expressions that exist at the $`A_{n1}`$ or $`U(n1)`$ level survive when we move from $`U(n1)`$ to $`U(n)`$, and in addition as the vector $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }_n`$ becomes available, new invariant phases involving $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ can be constructed. The number of the latter can be immediately computed: it is the difference between $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}(n2)(n3)`$, namely the difference between the numbers of gauge-invariant phases at the $`U(n)`$ and the $`U(n1)`$ levels, and this is $`(n2)`$. Therefore the number of new independent phase invariants involving $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$, ie., $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$, in an essential way must be $`(n2)`$. These can now be isolated or explicitly constructed as follows.

From eqn.(5.9) we notice that $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _n^{}`$ appears only in the transformation law for $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$, not for $`A_{n1}`$. Therefore we first form the $`(n1)`$ independent combinations $`\zeta _j^{}\zeta _{j+1}`$ to eliminate $`\theta _n^{}`$ completely:

$`\zeta _j^{}\zeta _{j+1}e^{i(\theta _j\theta _{j+1})}\zeta _j^{}\zeta _{j+1},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (90)
Here $`\theta _1`$ occurs only in the transformation law for $`\zeta _1^{}\zeta _2`$, being absent as we just mentioned in the law for $`A_{n1}`$. Next we notice that the phases $`\theta _1^{},\theta _2^{},\mathrm{},\theta _{n1}^{}`$, involved in $`A_{n1}^{}`$, are completely absent in the transformation law (5.10) of $`\zeta _j^{}\zeta _{j+1}`$. Let us therefore look at the $`(n1)^{\text{th}}`$ column, say, of $`A_{n1}`$, which as is evident from eqn.(5.1) is just the $`(n1)`$ component complex unit vector $`\underset{¯}{\eta }_{n1}`$:

$`A_{n1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \eta _1& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \eta _2& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \eta _{n1}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (95)
The “earlier” columns of $`A_{n1}`$ are more complicated, as is clear from the structure of $`A_{n1}`$ in eqn.(5.1). From eqn.(5.9b) we can read off the transformation law for the $`\eta `$’s under the gauge transformation (5.2):

$`\eta _j^{}=e^{i\left(\theta _{j+1}+\theta _{n1}^{}\right)}\eta _j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (96)
To eliminate $`\theta _{n1}^{}`$ we form the $`(n2)`$ combinations $`\eta _j\eta _{j+1}^{}`$ which transform thus:

$`\eta _j\eta _{j+1}^{}e^{i(\theta _{j+2}\theta _{j+1})}\eta _j\eta _{j+1}^{},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n2.`$ (97)
Comparing eqns.(5.10) and (5.13) we immediately obtain the expected $`(n2)`$ independent (phase-type) invariants involving $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }_n`$ in an essential manner, namely they can be taken to be the complex quantities

$`\eta _j\eta _{j+1}^{}\zeta _{j+1}^{}\zeta _{j+2},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n2.`$ (98)
By recursion the complete set of $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ independent phase type invariants that can be formed from a generic matrix $`A_nU(n)`$ can be written down in terms of the canonical parametrisation (4.5) for $`A_n`$, and the list reads:

$`\alpha _j\alpha _{j+1}^{}\beta _{j+1}^{}\beta _{j+2}`$ , $`j=1;`$ (99)
$`\beta _j\beta _{j+1}^{}\gamma _{j+1}^{}\gamma _{j+2}`$ , $`j=1,2;`$ (100)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ (101)
$`\xi _j\xi _{j+1}^{}\eta _{j+1}^{}\eta _{j+2}`$ , $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n3;`$ (102)
$`\eta _j\eta _{j+1}^{}\zeta _{j+1}^{}\zeta _{j+2}`$ , $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n2.`$ (103)
While we have here an explicit solution to our problem, the difficulty is that these invariants are not directly expressed in terms of the matrix elements of $`A_n=(a_{jk})U(n)`$. It is true that in our parametrisation $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ is the last, $`n^{\text{th}}`$, column of $`A_n`$; but the previous, $`(n1)^{\text{th}}`$, column involves both $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$; the $`(n2)^{\text{th}}`$ column involves $`\underset{¯}{\xi },\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$, and so on. The task that remains is to see how to translate the expressions (5.15), as far as their phases are concerned, into an algebraically equivalent set of $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ expressions formed as simply as possible out of the matrix elements of $`A_n`$. We turn to this now, bringing in the 4-vertex Bargmann invariants of $`A_n`$.

As indicated in eqn.(4.3), a general 4-vertex Bargmann invariant requires the choice of some two rows, say $`j`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`j<\mathrm{}`$, and some two columns, say $`k`$ and $`m`$ with $`k<m`$, and use of the four matrix elements at their intersections:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j\mathrm{}km}a_{jk}a_\mathrm{}k^{}a_\mathrm{}ma_{jm}^{}.`$ (104)
But as far as phases go, we can see in a step by step manner that a general $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j\mathrm{}km}`$ reduces to a product of factors of the simpler form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,j+1,k,k+1}`$ (105)
involving some two adjacent rows and some two adjacent columns. This is to be understood modulo real positive definite factors coming from the squared moduli of some of the matrix elements of $`A_n`$. The two “recursion formulae” that help us achieve this simplification are:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j\mathrm{}km}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j\mathrm{}km1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{j\mathrm{}m1m}/|a_{j,m1}a_{\mathrm{},m1}|^2,`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j\mathrm{}1km}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}km}/|a_{\mathrm{}1,k}a_{\mathrm{}1,m}|^2.`$ (107)
It therefore suffices to work with the $`(n1)^2`$ expressions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}=a_{jk}a_{j+1,k}^{}a_{j+1,k+1}a_{j,k+1}^{},j,k=1,2,\mathrm{},n1,`$ (108)
and their phases. Our goal now is to (at least in principle and in the generic situation) express (the phases of) the $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ complex invariants (5.15) in terms of (the phases of) the $`(n1)^2`$ complex invariants (5.19). (In this process any number of real positive factors may intervene). We already have here an indication that the $`(n1)^2`$ expressions (5.19) (more exactly their phases) cannot all be independent, the number of independent ones being only $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$. It will turn out, as we indicate below, that these may be taken to be the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ for $`j<kn1`$. Again the proof is recursive in nature.

Consider the $`(n1)`$ invariants (5.14) that get added to all previous ones when we make the transition $`U(n1)U(n)`$ and bring in the vector $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }_n`$. Instead of being expressed in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\eta }_{n1}`$, we now show that they can be equally well expressed in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ and the penultimate, ie $`(n1)^{\text{th}}`$, column of the complete $`U(n)`$ matrix $`A_n`$. Let us denote this column vector by $`\underset{¯}{w}_n`$; it is orthogonal to $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$. As noted earlier, it is easily determined in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ or, more conveniently for our purpose, $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ is expressible in terms of $`\underset{¯}{w}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$. Starting with

$`A_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& w_1& \zeta _1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& w_2& \zeta _2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& w_n& \zeta _n\end{array}\right)`$ (112)
$`=`$ $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })A_{n2},`$ (114)
and transposing $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ we get

$`A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })A_{n2}=A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })^{}A_n.`$ (115)
Since the factor $`A_{n2}`$ does not affect the last two columns on both sides, we can use the matrix elements (4.12,13) of $`A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })`$ to obtain:

$`\eta _j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2,\mathrm{}}{\overset{j+1}{}}}a_{kj}(\underset{¯}{\zeta })^{}w_k`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j}{\rho _{j+1}}}w_{j+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _{j+1}}{\rho _j\rho _{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}\zeta _j^{}w_j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1.`$ (117)
The gauge transformation laws of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ are given in eqns.(5.9a,12), while that of $`\underset{¯}{w}`$ is seen from eqn.(5.2) to be

$`w_je^{i\left(\theta _j+\theta _{n1}^{}\right)}w_j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (118)
Naturally the relations (5.22) are consistent with these transformation laws. The combinations of $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ needed in (5.14) are $`\eta _j\zeta _{j+1}^{}`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$. We see from eqns.(5.22) that they are real linear combinations of $`w_1\zeta _1^{},w_2\zeta _2^{},\mathrm{},w_{n1}\zeta _{n1}^{},w_n\zeta _n^{}`$

$`\eta _j\zeta _{j+1}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta _{j+1}|^2}{\rho _j\rho _{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}\zeta _j^{}w_j+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _j}{\rho _{j+1}}}w_{j+1}\zeta _{j+1}^{}.`$ (119)
Using both the orthogonality of $`\underset{¯}{w}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$, and the reduction process (5.18) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s formed out of the last two column of $`A_n`$, it is now clear that the set of complex invariants (5.14) can be replaced by the following set of $`(n2)\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,n1}=w_j\zeta _j^{}w_{j+1}^{}\zeta _{j+1},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n2.`$ (120)
The known algebraic independence of the set (5.14) implies a similar independence of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s.

To tackle the next set of $`(n3)`$ invariants $`\xi _j\eta _{j+1}^{}\xi _{j+1}^{}\eta _{j+2}`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n3`$ in the list (5.15), we must bring in the $`(n2)^{\text{th}}`$ column of the matrix $`A_n`$. Denote this by $`\underset{¯}{v}_n`$ so that

$`A_n=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & v_1& w_1& \zeta _1\\ & & & v_2& w_2& \zeta _2\\ & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & & v_n& w_n& \zeta _n\end{array}\right).`$ (125)
Analogous to eqn.(5.21) we now have

$`A_{n2}(\underset{¯}{\xi })A_{n3}=A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })^{}A_n(\underset{¯}{\zeta })^{}A_n,`$ (126)
from where we get expressions for $`\xi _j`$ in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta },\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{v}`$. This is naturally more complicated than eqn.(5.22) at the previous stage. In place of the real positive factors $`\rho _j`$ defined in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }`$ in eqn.(4.13), we now have similarly defined factors $`\sigma _j`$ in terms of $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ occurring in the elements of $`A_{n1}(\underset{¯}{\eta })`$. The result of comparing the $`(n2)^{\text{th}}`$ columns of both sides of eqn.(5.27) is:

$`\xi _j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _j\rho _{j+1}}{\sigma _{j+1}\rho _{j+2}}}v_{j+2}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _j}{\sigma _{j+1}\rho _{j+1}\rho _{j+2}}}\zeta _{j+2}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{j+1}{}}}\zeta _{\mathrm{}}^{}v_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{j+1}}{\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _k}{\rho _{k+1}}}\eta _k^{}v_{k+1}`$ (127)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{j+1}}{\sigma _j\sigma _{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{j}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _k^{}\zeta _{k+1}}{\rho _k\rho _{k+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\zeta _{\mathrm{}}^{}v_{\mathrm{}},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n2.`$ (128)
Here next we can use eqn.(5.22) to go from $`\underset{¯}{\eta }`$ to $`\underset{¯}{w}`$. Then we form the expressions $`\xi _j\eta _{j+1}^{}`$ and step by step work our way up to the invariants $`\xi _j\eta _{j+1}^{}\xi _{j+1}^{}\eta _{j+2}`$. We can then see that apart from various real factors we encounter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s involving $`v`$’s and $`w`$’s, $`v`$’s and $`\zeta `$’s and $`w`$’s and $`\zeta `$’s. Using the reduction rules (5.18) the $`v\zeta `$ combinations can be eliminated in favour of the other two types. It is now clear that apart from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,n1}`$ in eqn.(5.25) which appeared at the previous stage, the new quantities that come in now are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,n2}`$. But we know in advance that at this stage only $`(n3)`$ new independent invariants are available. As all the rows of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are on equal footing, we conclude that the new $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s to be added now to the previous $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,n1}`$ may be taken to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,n2}=v_jw_j^{}v_{j+1}^{}w_{j+1},j=1,2,\mathrm{},(n3).`$ (129)
In this manner one sees recursively that the $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)`$ independent gauge-invariant phases in a general matrix $`A_nU(n)`$ are the Bargmann invariants $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ for $`j<kn1`$. In any case such a choice is permitted. However the actual algebraic expression of a general $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ in terms of this special subset may be rather involved, so one may freely use all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ in constructing interesting gauge-invariant expressions with various properties.

The upshot of these considerations is that the naturally available gauge-invariant phases for the continuous unitary evolution of an $`n`$-level quantum system, barring degeneracies and level-crossings, are $`n`$ geometric phases $`\phi _g[C_j]`$ as defined in eqn.(3.4), and the $`(n1)^2`$ primitive four-vertex Bargmann invariants $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ of eqn.(5.19); of the latter, only the $`\frac{1}{2}(n1)(n2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$’s for $`j<kn1`$ are independent. Any composite expression formed out of these ingredients is of course also invariant.

## VI Off-diagonal geometric phases

It is evident from the definitions (2.6) that while the dynamical phase $`\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞]`$ is always numerically well-defined once the parametrised curve $`𝒞`$ is given, the total phase $`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞]`$ is only defined modulo $`2\pi `$, and moreover is undefined if the vectors $`\psi (s_1)`$ and $`\psi (s_2)`$ at the end points of $`𝒞`$ are orthogonal. These properties naturally carry over to the geometric phase $`\phi _g[C]`$: only defined modulo $`2\pi `$, undefined when $`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞]`$ is undefined. The Bargmann invariants (2.7) too share these problems of definition as far as their phases are concerned, which explains the limitation to generic situations.

Recently a very interesting attempt to define so-called off-diagonal geometric phases has been made to cover just these exceptional or problematic situations. Specifically the idea is to set up gauge-invariant phases associated with the unitary evolution of an $`n`$\- level quantum system, which remain well-defined even when one of the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian at a final time $`t_2`$, say the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ one, happens to coincide with the $`j^{\text{th}}`$ eigenvector at the initial time $`t_1`$, with $`jk`$. In this situation, as $`\psi _j(t_1)`$ and $`\psi _k(t_2)`$ are the same upto a phase, both the geometric phases $`\phi _g[C_j]`$ and $`\phi _g[C_k]`$ become undefined since the inner products $`(\psi _j(t_1),\psi _j(t_2))`$ and $`(\psi _k(t_1),\psi _k(t_2))`$ vanish. We shall now briefly recall the basic quantities introduced in this new approach, and then show that the usual geometric phases and Bargmann invariants as defined earlier can completely handle the new situation. It is just that they must be put together in such combinations so that the potentially undefined factors in each precisely cancel one another in exceptional situations.

The notation for the evolution of an $`n`$ level quantum system is as given in Section 3. The quantities defined in the off-diagonal geometric phases method, when expressed in our notations, are:

$`I_j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞_j]\right\},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n;`$ (131)
$`\sigma _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{arg}(\psi _j,\varphi _k)i\phi _{\text{dyn}}[𝒞_k]\right\},jk;`$ (132)
$`\gamma _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{jk}\sigma _{kj},jk;`$ (133)
$`\gamma _j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi _g[C_j]\right\},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.`$ (134)
Of these, $`I_j`$ and $`\sigma _{jk}`$ are not gauge-invariant, but $`\gamma _{jk}`$ and $`\gamma _j`$ are gauge-invariant. In case for some $`jk`$ we have $`|(\psi _j,\varphi _k)|=1`$, it is clear that both $`\phi _g[C_j]`$ and $`\phi _g[C_k]`$ become undefined, but the “off-diagonal” quantity $`\gamma _{jk}`$ remains well- defined.

The two-state or two-index quantity $`\gamma _{jk}`$ has been generalised to a multi-index quantity of order $`\mathrm{}`$ as follows:

$`\gamma _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{\mathrm{}}}=\sigma _{j_1j_2}\sigma _{j_2j_3}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j_\mathrm{}1j_{\mathrm{}}}\sigma _{j_{\mathrm{}}j_1},`$ (135)
and this again is gauge-invariant.

We can now see that all these newly introduced gauge-invariant off-diagonal quantities $`\gamma _{jk},\gamma _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{\mathrm{}}}`$ are actually expressible completely in terms of the geometric phases and Bargmann invariants for the $`n`$-level system, in carefully chosen combinations:

$`\gamma _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _j,\varphi _k,\psi _k,\varphi _j)+i\phi _g[C_j]+i\phi _g[C_k]\right\},`$ (136)
$`\gamma _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{}(\varphi _{j_1},\psi _{j_1},\varphi _{j_2},\psi _{j_2},\mathrm{}\varphi _j_{\mathrm{}},\psi _j_{\mathrm{}})+i\phi _g[C_{j_1}]+i\phi _g\left[C_{j_2}\right]+\mathrm{}+i\phi _g\left[C_j_{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}.`$ (137)
In the case of $`\gamma _{jk}`$, for example, we see that when $`|(\psi _j,\varphi _k)|=1`$ and $`\phi _g[C_j],\phi _g[C_k]`$ become undefined because the total phases $`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞_j]`$ and $`\phi _{\text{tot}}[𝒞_k]`$ are undefined, there are compensating factors from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4(\psi _j,\varphi _k,\psi _k,\varphi _j)`$ that precisely cancel these parts of the individual geometric phases, so that $`\gamma _{jk}`$ remains unambiguous. The mechanism is similar in the case of the higher order expressions $`\gamma _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{\mathrm{}}}`$

It has been shown that $`\gamma _{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{\mathrm{}}}`$ for $`\mathrm{}4`$ can be reduced to the expressions with $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and $`\mathrm{}=3`$, so these are the primitive ones. Among these, we can limit ourselves to choices obeying $`j_1<j_2`$ when $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and $`j_1=1<j_2<j_3`$ when $`\mathrm{}=3`$, in counting independent quantities. However the upshot of our analysis is that we can always work with just the geometric phases $`\phi _g[C_j]`$ and the independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$’s listed in the previous Section (but for convenience employ all the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}`$ if necessary). All gauge-invariant quantities can be built up out of them, so that conceptually the off-diagonal geomeric phases are constructed out of previously known familiar building blocks.

## VII Concluding remarks

We have carried out a complete analysis of the gauge-invariant objects for $`n`$-level quantum systems. This entails introduction of Bargmann invariants defined over two sets of orthonormal basis vectors, demonstration that the primitive Bargmann invariants are 4-vertex Bargmann invariants, and finally the identification of an algebraically independent set of 4-vertex Bargmann invariants which turn out to be $`(n1)(n2)/2`$ in number. In the process of achieving this task we developed a canonical form for $`U(n)`$ matrices in terms of a sequence of complex unit vectors of dimensions $`n,n1,\mathrm{},1`$ which may be useful in other contexts as well. Indeed, this form has already found application in parametrising the CKM matrices which arise in the context of CP-violation in particle physics. The gauge-invariant building blocks constructed here are shown to provide a complete quantum kinematic picture of the recently discovered off-diagonal phases. The usefulness of the off-diagonal phases is thus extended far beyond the restrictive framework of adiabatic evolution. This reinforces the view that the Bargmann invariants and the traditional geometric phases, and suitably constructed combinations of them, suffice in answering all interesting questions in this domain.


format: text

text:
# Carbon Flashes in the Heavy Element Ocean on Accreting Neutron Stars

## 1. Introduction

The monitoring of galactic sources by the Wide-Field Camera on BeppoSAX and the All-Sky Monitor on the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer have detected large Type I bursts (hereafter referred to as “superbursts”) from six accreting neutron stars (Cornelisse et al. 2000; Strohmayer 2000; Heise et al. 2000; Wijnands 2001; Kuulkers 2001). These bursts share a number of characteristics; burst energies $`10^{42}\mathrm{erg}`$ (roughly 1000 times larger than a normal Type I burst); durations of a few hours and accretion rates $`(0.10.3)\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ (Wijnands 2001). The superburst recurrence time is not well known, though one recurrent burst has been seen 4.7 years later (Wijnands 2001). The light curves are similar to a Type I burst in spectral evolution, though the immediate decay timescale is about two hours; 1000 times longer than a typical Type I X-ray burst. The superbursts appear to be thermonuclear flashes from fuel at much larger depths than a typical Type I burst. For example, if the nuclear energy release is 1 MeV per accreted nucleon ($`E_{\mathrm{nuc}}=10^{18}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{g}^1`$), the accumulated mass would be $`10^{24}\mathrm{g}`$, implying a recurrence time of $`4`$ months for an accretion rate of $`\dot{M}0.1\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}10^{17}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$, much longer than a typical Type I burst.

Flashes from pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$layers have been discussed previously (Woosley & Taam 1976; Taam & Picklum 1978; Brown & Bildsten 1998) and might well apply to the pure helium accretor 4U 1820-30 (Strohmayer 2000). However, there are two difficulties with such a model for the superbursts from hydrogen/helium accretors: (1) the recurrence times are very long, and the burst energies correspondingly large, unless a large heat flux from the crust of the star is present deep in the ocean; and, (2) our current understanding of the ashes from hydrogen/helium burning does not point to accumulation of pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$. Instead, Schatz et al. (1999, 2001) have shown that only a small amount of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$remains after all of the hydrogen and helium has burned via the rapid proton (rp) process (Wallace & Woosley 1981); either from steady state burning or unstable type I X-ray bursting. Even though a small fraction by mass (typically $`X_{12}0.050.1`$), we show here that it is enough to trigger a thermonuclear runaway with energy comparable to the superbursts. Most important, however, is the role played by the heavy ashes from the rp process. These reduce the thermal conductivity enough to force a large temperature gradient in the ocean. This ignites the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$at much lower masses than previously expected and reduces the energy and recurrence times to levels consistent with the superbursts. In addition, the conductive cooling times from these flashes are consistent with the long decay times observed.

## 2. Carbon Ignition in a Heavy Element Ocean

We presume that the ashes of hydrogen/helium burning in the upper atmosphere primarily consist (by mass) of a single dominant nucleus of mass $`Am_p`$ and charge $`Ze`$ and a small amount of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$with mass fraction $`X_{12}`$. Schatz et al. (2001) recently showed that the onset of a closed cycle (called the SnSbTe cycle) in the rp-process naturally stops the increasing $`A`$ trajectory once nuclei of mass $`A104`$ are reached. Though a range of nuclei are made, those with masses in this region dominate the mix. For simplicity, we take $`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$as our fiducial nucleus ($`A=104`$ and $`Z=44`$) with mass fraction $`1X_{12}`$.

The energy released when $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$fuses (for simplicity, we presume that the reaction makes $`{}_{}{}^{24}\mathrm{Mg}`$) is $`E_{\mathrm{nuc}}5.6\times 10^{17}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{g}^1`$, so that if $`X_{12}=0.05`$, an accumulated mass of $`3.6\times 10^{25}\mathrm{g}`$ is needed for a $`10^{42}\mathrm{erg}`$ burst. At an accretion rate of $`0.1\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ onto a $`10\mathrm{km}`$ neutron star, the recurrence time would be $`10`$ years (we define $`\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}=8.8\times 10^4\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, the local Eddington accretion rate for solar composition). The pressure at the base of such a pile is $`P5.7\times 10^{26}(g_{14}/2)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where the surface gravity is $`g=g_{14}10^{14}\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^2`$. At such high pressures, the equation of state is that of degenerate, relativistic electrons with Fermi energy $`E_F=1.9\mathrm{MeV}(2Z/A)^{1/3}\rho _8^{1/3}`$, where $`\rho _8=\rho /10^8\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Supporting this pressure requires a density $`\rho 1.3\times 10^9\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`E_\mathrm{F}4.3\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Though they exert little pressure, the nuclei set the thermal conductivity via electron-ion scattering. For a classical one component plasma with ion separation, $`a`$, defined by $`a^3=3/4\pi n_i`$, where $`n_i=\rho /Am_p`$, the importance of Coulomb physics for the ions is measured by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{(Ze)^2}{akT}=434\frac{\rho _8^{1/3}}{T_8}\left(\frac{Z}{44}\right)^2\left(\frac{104}{A}\right)^{1/3},$$
(1)
where $`T_8=T/10^8\mathrm{K}`$. For this initial calculation we use the microphysics of the liquid state; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<173`$ (Farouki & Hamaguchi 1993 and references therein), even when, in some instances (mostly when $`\dot{m}<0.3\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>173`$.

Electron conduction dominates the heat transport in the liquid ocean. The heat flux is given by $`F=KdT/dz`$, where $`K`$ is the thermal conductivity (see Yakovlev & Urpin 1980; Itoh et al. 1983, Potekhin et al. 1999). For $`X_{12}1`$, we find

$$K1.1\times 10^{18}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{K}^1\frac{\rho _8^{1/3}T_8}{Z^{2/3}A^{1/3}},$$
(2)
where we assume the electrons are relativistic, and take the Coulomb logarithm to be unity (a good approximation in the deep ocean; Bildsten & Cutler 1995). Integrating the heat equation and hydrostatic balance gives the temperature contrast required between two points (at pressure $`P_2`$ and $`P_1`$) to transport a heat flux $`F`$ (Bildsten & Cutler 1995; Brown & Bildsten 1998)

$$T_{8,2}^2T_{8,1}^2+690\frac{Z^2}{A}\frac{F}{F_{\mathrm{Edd}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{P_2}{P_1}\right),$$
(3)
where $`F_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}(GM/R)=8.8\times 10^{24}g_{14}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the Eddington flux for a $`1.4M_{}`$, $`10\mathrm{km}`$ star.

The flux in the ocean is the sum of compressional heating and heat flowing out from the crust, deposited there by electron captures and pycnonuclear reactions (Haensel & Zdunik 1990; Brown 2000). Since both contributions are proportional to the local accretion rate per unit area, we write $`F=Q\dot{m}`$, with $`Q=10^{17}Q_{17}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{g}^1`$. Equation (3) then gives

$$T_{8,2}^2T_{8,1}^2+\frac{Q_{17}}{g_{14}}\left(\frac{\dot{m}}{\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}}\right)\left(\frac{Z^2}{A}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{P_2}{P_1}\right).$$
(4)
In a careful study of the overall thermal balance of the neutron star, Brown (2000) found $`Q_{17}1`$ for accretion rates $`0.1\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ (i.e., of the $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$ per nucleon deposited in the crust, $`10`$% escapes through the surface; the rest is emitted as neutrinos from the inner crust and core). The compressional heating term contributes $`11\mathrm{keV}(T_8/6)^2(1\mathrm{MeV}/E_F)(Z/44)(104/A)`$ per nucleon, small compared to the heat flux from the crust.

For $`\dot{m}0.1\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, the second term in equation (4) is close to unity for a pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ocean ($`Z^2/A=3`$), but $`6`$ times larger for a $`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$ocean ($`Z^2/A=18.6`$) ($`\mathrm{ln}(P_2/P_1)8`$). Thus, an ocean of heavy ashes is hotter than that of pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$at the same depth. This is critical, as it allows for ignition at lower column densities, $`y=P/g`$. Figure 1 shows the temperature as a function of column depth for a pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ocean, and for a $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$$`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$mixture with $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$mass fraction $`X_{12}=0.1`$. In each case, we take $`Q_{17}=1`$, and show two accretion rates, $`\dot{m}=0.3\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, and $`\dot{m}=\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$. The dashed line is the crystallization condition for $`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$. The lower thermal conductivity makes the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$$`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$oceans much hotter than the pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$oceans.

We terminate the thermal profiles in Figure 1 at the depth at which the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ignites. Brown & Bildsten (1998) showed that the condition for an unstable $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ignition in a neutron star ocean is set by competition with conductive cooling, so that a thermal runaway occurs when the local nuclear burning energy release, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}`$, satisfies $`dϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}/d\mathrm{ln}T>dϵ_{\mathrm{cool}}/d\mathrm{ln}T`$, where $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cool}}=\rho KT/y^2`$ is an approximation of the cooling rate (e.g., Fujimoto, Hanawa, & Miyaji 1981) and the nuclear reaction rates are as described in Brown & Bildsten (1998). For the thermal conductivity given by equation (2), $`dϵ_{\mathrm{cool}}/d\mathrm{ln}T=2ϵ_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, unstable ignition requires

$$\nu ϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}>\frac{2\rho KT}{y^2},$$
(5)
where $`\nu d\mathrm{ln}ϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}/d\mathrm{ln}T26`$ is the temperature sensitivity of the fusion reaction. Ignition curves are shown in Figure 1 for two cases. The lower dotted line is for a pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ocean and matches that in Brown & Bildsten (1998). The upper dotted line shows the ignition curve for a $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$$`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$mixture with $`X_{12}=0.1`$. Because of the lower abundance, a larger column density is needed to ignite $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$in a $`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$ocean for a given temperature. However, ignition occurs at smaller column depths in this case, because the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$$`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$ocean is hotter.

For the pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$models of Figure 1, ignition occurs at $`y=2.1\times 10^{12}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ ($`y=2.4\times 10^{13}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) for $`\dot{m}=\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ ($`\dot{m}=0.3\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$). Writing the burst energy $`E_{\mathrm{burst}}=4\pi R^2yE_{\mathrm{nuc}}X_{12}`$, or $`E_{\mathrm{burst}}=7\times 10^{42}\mathrm{erg}y_{12}X_{12}(R/10\mathrm{km})^2`$, and recurrence time $`t_{\mathrm{recur}}=y/\dot{m}=0.36\mathrm{yr}y_{12}(\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}/\dot{m})`$, we find that pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ignitions have recurrence times $`0.8\mathrm{years}`$ ($`29\mathrm{years}`$) and burst energies $`1.5\times 10^{43}\mathrm{ergs}`$ ($`1.7\times 10^{44}\mathrm{ergs}`$). These burst energies exceed the energy of the superbursts by at least a factor of ten. For the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$$`{}_{}{}^{104}\mathrm{Ru}`$models, ignition occurs at $`y=1.0\times 10^{11}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ ($`y=1.8\times 10^{12}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) for $`\dot{m}=\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ ($`\dot{m}=0.3\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$), with recurrence time $`13\mathrm{days}`$ ($`2.2\mathrm{years}`$), and burst energy $`6.9\times 10^{40}\mathrm{ergs}`$ ($`1.3\times 10^{42}\mathrm{ergs}`$).

## 3. Accretion Rate Dependences of the Carbon Flashes

Not only must the thermal settling solution reach the ignition curve, but the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$must also have survived to that depth. Thus, in order to obtain a flash, the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$lifetime to the fusion reaction, $`t_{\mathrm{nuc}}E_{\mathrm{nuc}}X_{12}/ϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}`$ must exceed the accumulation time, $`y/\dot{m}`$, at the ignition point. Combining this condition with equation (5) implies that $`\dot{m}`$ must exceed the critical value

$$\dot{m}_c\frac{2\rho KT}{E_{\mathrm{nuc}}X_{12}y\nu }.$$
(6)
When we evaluate this using $`K`$ and the $`\rho `$, $`y`$ relations for degenerate relativistic electrons, the density cancels out, giving

$$\frac{\dot{m}_c}{\dot{m}_{\mathrm{Edd}}}\left(\frac{0.1}{X_{12}}\right)\left(\frac{T_8}{6}\right)^2\left(\frac{26}{\nu }\right)\left(\frac{g_{14}}{2}\right)\left(\frac{A}{104}\right)\left(\frac{44}{Z}\right)^2.$$
(7)
This relation is robust and shows that large accretion rates are required for unstable $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ignition. In order to eliminate the temperature, we neglect the outer temperature in equation (4) and substitute for the temperature at the base in equation (7). We then find that the explicit accretion rate dependences cancel and the requirement for an instability is just

$$X_{12}>\frac{4Q}{\nu E_{\mathrm{nuc}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{P_2}{P_1}\right)0.2Q_{17}\left(\frac{26}{\nu }\right)\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(P_2/P_1\right)}{8}.$$
(8)
At smaller $`X_{12}`$, the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$depletes and burns steadily before reaching ignition. Figure 2 shows the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$mass fraction required to achieve an explosion as a function of $`\dot{m}`$ and $`Q_{17}`$. The accretion rate dependence is mostly from the ignition pressure dependence on $`\dot{m}`$. The top two panels in figure 3 show the burst energies and recurrence times for unstable models. The curves are for $`X_{12}=0.1`$ and (top to bottom), $`Q_{17}=0.5,1.0`$ and $`2.0`$.

## 4. Time Dependent Behavior of the Flash

Having derived the conditions for an unstable ignition of a small mass fraction of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$, we now calculate the time dependent nature of the flash and estimate the time it takes for the energy to escape from the burning layer. The “one-zone” version of the time dependent heat equation is

$$C_V\frac{dT}{dt}=ϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}ϵ_{\mathrm{cool}},$$
(9)
in which we write the specific heat at constant volume $`C_V`$ rather than constant pressure (an excellent approximation since $`E_Fk_BT`$ throughout the flash). In the case of predominantly high $`Z`$ nuclei, the electron specific heat dominates that of the ions, so $`C_V=(\pi ^2Zk_B/Am_p)(k_BT/E_F)`$.

Once ignited, the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$burning is extremely rapid and there is no time for cooling to occur while the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$burns. The fluid then evolves to a final temperature set by the total energy released $`_{T_\mathrm{i}}^{T_\mathrm{f}}C_V𝑑T=ϵ_{\mathrm{nuc}}𝑑t=X_{12}E_{\mathrm{nuc}}`$. Using $`C_V`$ for the electrons and taking $`T_\mathrm{f}T_\mathrm{i}`$ gives

$$T_\mathrm{f}=1.92\times 10^9\mathrm{K}\left(\frac{E_F}{\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{X_{12}}{0.1}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{A}{2.36Z}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(10)
Thus, $`X_{12}>0.01`$ is adequate to substantially change the temperature from that at ignition and trigger a thermal instability. If $`X_{12}>0.20.3`$, the peak temperatures would exceed $`5\times 10^9\mathrm{K}`$ and neutrino cooling would reduce the observed energetics of the event.

After all the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$has burned and the fluid has reached $`T_\mathrm{f}`$, the layer cools. Integrating equation (9) starting from $`T_\mathrm{f}`$ with only the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ term, we find $`d\mathrm{ln}T=dt/2t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, where

$$t_{\mathrm{cool}}=4.15\mathrm{hrs}\frac{\rho _8}{g_{14}^2}\left(\frac{Z}{44}\right)^4\left(\frac{104}{A}\right)^3$$
(11)
depends only on the depth in the star and the composition, and is temperature independent. The luminosity during the conductive cooling phase is thus set by the temperature at the base of the layer; $`L=4\pi R^2ϵ_{\mathrm{cool}}yT^2T_\mathrm{f}^2\mathrm{exp}(t/t_{\mathrm{cool}})`$. Thus, the observer should see a timescale of luminosity decay equal to equation (11), as shown in Figure 3. If we use $`T_\mathrm{f}`$ from equation (10) for an upper limit, we find the maximum conductive cooling luminosity

$$\frac{L_c}{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}=0.77X_{12}\rho _8^{1/3}\left(\frac{A}{104}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{44}{Z}\right)^{8/3}.$$
(12)
Due to our neglect of convective heat transport, this $`L_c`$ will be less than the peak luminosity of the burst. However, since convection cannot last much longer than the burning time, we expect something similar to this simple luminosity evolution to occur during the burst decay, over times relevant to detection by flux monitoring on hourly timescales.

Detection of these flashes should be easiest at low $`\dot{M}`$’s, as $`L_c`$ increases due to ignition at higher densities, whereas the accretion luminosity, $`L_{\mathrm{accr}}=GM\dot{M}/R`$, is dropping. Hence, the contrast of the burst cooling tail is largest for low $`\dot{M}`$ sources, as shown in the bottom panel of Figure 3. Detecting one of these flares from a rapidly accreting $`Z`$ source would require flux sensitivity at the $`10\%`$ level on a timescale of a few hours and spectral sensitivity to distinguish that the flux rise is from extra thermal emission. Since these bursts will occur roughly once a month, it is an archival project to find the rare event in the accumulated observations.

## 5. Conclusions and Future Work

We have shown that the ignition of a small mass fraction of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$in a neutron star ocean consisting mostly of heavier elements is thermally unstable and leads to flashes whose energy, recurrence times and durations are similar to the superbursts. The energy from these flashes takes a long time to escape the star, possibly explaining the persistent “offset” in the flux nearly a day after the superburst in 4U 1735-44 (see Figure 1 of Cornellise et al. 2000). We also predict flashes at high local accretion rates which include the Z sources and accreting X-ray pulsars. In the pulsar case, some of the difficulties associated with explaining flares from LMC X-4 via pure $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$burning (see Brown & Bildsten 1998) might well be alleviated in the mixed case we present here.

Cornellise et al. (2000) reported an absence of regular type I bursts for seven days after the superburst. This might be due to thermal stabilization of the hydrogen/helium burning layers by the large heat flux from the cooling ashes of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$burning. Paczynski (1983) and Bildsten (1995) have shown that luminosities in excess of the helium burning flux (or $`L>L_{\mathrm{accr}}/100`$) will stabilize the burning, as then the thermal state of the burning layer is independent of the local burning rates. This appears most likely at low accretion rates, where the conductive cooling is slowest, thus halting Type I bursts for $`5t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ days after the superburst.

There is still much to be done, including a time dependent study of the onset of the instability. Our initial integrations of the time-dependent code from Bildsten (1995) demonstrate a transition from steady-state burning at low $`\dot{m}`$ to unstable flashes at higher rates. In future work, this code will be used to more accurately calculate the transition accretion rate, $`\dot{m}_c`$ with realistic mixes of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$and rp-process ashes. Only then can we make the comparisons to observations that will allow us to constrain the rp-process ashes.

We thank Erik Kuulkers and Marten van Kerkwijk for conversations about the properties of the superbursts and Hendrik Schatz for insights on the rp-process. We also thank Deepto Chakrabarty and Bob Rutledge for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by NASA via grant NAG 5-8658 and by the National Science Foundation under Grants PHY99-07949 and AY97-31632. L. B. is a Cottrell Scholar of the Research Corporation.


text:
# References

The Graviton Production in a Hot Homogeneous Isotropic Universe
Gerstein S.S., Logunov A.A., Mestvirishvili M.A.

Division of Theoretical Physics, IHEP, Protvino, Russia

## Abstract

It is shown that the RTG predicts an opportunity of the intensive production of gravitons at the early stage of evolution of the homogeneous isotropic Universe. A hypothesis is suggested that the produced gas of gravitons could be just the “dark matter” which presently manifests itself as a “missing mass” in our Universe.

In publications  an opportunity of graviton production in the Universe was studied in detail. In paper  the following formula for the rate of graviton production in the homogeneous and isotropic Universe was derived

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{d}{dt}(\sqrt{g}n_g)=\frac{1}{288\pi }R^2,$$
(1)
where it was supposed that

$$\frac{R^2}{R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }R^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }}1,$$
(2)
and $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }`$ is the Riemannian curvature tensor.

The following equation of state takes place in the hot Universe for radiation dominated stage of its evolution

$$p=\frac{1}{3}\rho c^2.$$
(3)
But as, according to the General Relativity Theory (GRT), the scalar curvature $`R`$ is exactly zero at this stage of the Universe evolution, the authors of papers  came to the conclusion that production of gravitons in the hot homogeneous and isotropic Universe does not occur. In publication  attention was paid also to the fact that the production of gravitons apparently forbids isotropic singularities, in the vicinity of which the equation of state should be as follows

$$p>\frac{1}{3}\rho c^2.$$
(4)
This conclusion has apparently arisen because in this case the scalar curvature $`R`$ would become arbitrary large, and therefore there should be an extremely intensive production of gravitons, and consequently in presence of a singularity this would result in contradiction to the modern data on the density of matter in the Universe.

In the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation (RTG), which views a gravitational field as a physical one with spins 2 and 0 and propagating in the Minkowski space, completely another situation arises: the evolution of the homogeneous and isotropic Universe is determined by other equations  and (extremely important) here there are no singularities:

$$\frac{1}{a}\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho +\frac{3p}{c^2}\right)2\omega \left(1\frac{1}{a^6}\right),$$
(5)
$$H^2\left(\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho \frac{\omega }{a^6}\left(1\frac{3a^4}{a_{\mathrm{max}}^4}+2a^6\right),$$
(6)
where

$$\omega =\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{mc^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2,m\text{is the graviton mass}.$$
(7)
It follows  from these equations that for a radiation dominated stage of the Universe evolution in the domain of the small values of the scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ the following equation takes place:

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{\omega }{a^6},\text{where}\dot{a}=\frac{da}{d\tau }.$$
(8)
In the GRT l.h.s. of Eq. (8) in radiation dominated region is exactly zero, and therefore, Friedman stage takes place, if scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ varies according to the law $`\sqrt{\tau }`$. In RTG, according to Eq.(8), there is an “under-Friedman” stage in the radiation dominated phase of evolution of the Universe. The scalar curvature $`R`$ for the homogeneous and isotropic Universe is as follows

$$R=\frac{6}{c^2}\left[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2\right].$$
(9)
On the basis of Eq. (8) we have

$$R=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\frac{1}{a^6}.$$
(10)
From equations (6) it follows that the scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ cannot become zero, and its minimal value is as follows

$$a_{\mathrm{min}}=\left(\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}{2\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^{1/6},$$
(11)
where

$$\rho _{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\left(\frac{mc^2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2,$$
(12)
and the maximal density of matter in the gravitational field $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is in fact an integral of motion and it is not determined by the theory.

On the basis of Eqs. (10), (11) and (12) it follows that at the moment when the maximal density of matter is reached, the scalar curvature of effective Riemannian space takes the following value

$$R=\frac{16\pi G}{c^2}\rho _{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(13)
At this instant of time the Hubble “constant” $`H`$ is precisely zero. We can see from formula (13) that in the RTG, just opposite to the GRT, the scalar curvature $`R`$ in radiation dominated stage of the Universe evolution is not zero. Moreover, it can be large enough as it is determined by the peak density of matter $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ in the gravitational field.

Thus, according to RTG, in the radiation dominated phase of the Universe evolution there is an “under-Friedman” stage, in which the scalar curvature $`R`$ is not only different from zero, but also can be large enough, as it is determined by the peak density of matter $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$. To determine the rate of graviton production we cannot take advantage of formula (1), as it is obtained in approximation (2), which in our case is not fulfilled.

If on the base of dimensional reasons we assume that the rate of graviton production in general depends only on the following quantities

$$R^2,R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }R^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu },$$
(14)
than it is necessary to pick such a time interval, during which the Hubble “constant” reaches the maximum, as after that there soon occurs the Friedman stage. From Eqs. (5) and (6) it is easy to find, that $`H`$ reaches its maximum at the instant of time when the scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ is as follows

$$a^2(\tau )=\frac{3}{2}a_{\mathrm{min}}^2.$$
(15)
By using Eq. (15) from Eqs. (6) it is discovered that the peak value of the Hubble “constant” is as follows

$$H_{\mathrm{max}}=3^2(32\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{max}})^{1/2}.$$
(16)
At the instant of time when $`H`$ reaches the maximum the scalar curvature $`R`$ is as follows

$$R=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^316\pi G\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}{c^2},$$
(17)
$`\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}`$ is determined by expression

$$\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right)=3^432\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(18)
The invariant obtained by convolution of a curvature tensor determined from metric of the homogeneous and isotropic Riemannian space is as follows

$$R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }R^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }=\frac{12}{c^4}\left[\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^4\right].$$
(19)
By substituting (16) and (18) into this expression we obtain

$$R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }R^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }=83^7\left(\frac{32\pi G}{c^2}\rho _{\mathrm{max}}\right)^2.$$
(20)
It is necessary to mention that the Hubble “constant” varies from zero value to the peak value $`H_{\mathrm{max}}`$ determined by formula (16) for a rather small time interval given by the following expression :

$$\tau =\left(\frac{3}{32\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^{1/2}\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right].$$
(21)
If the rate of graviton production is determined by quantities (14) there can be created enough large number of gravitons for a time interval (21), if density $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ will have a significant value. But if it will be much less than the Planck density then produced gravitons at once become free, and their energy further will diminish due to the red shift.

Thus, there should arise a relativistic relict gravitational background of a non-thermal origin. The gravitons interact among themselves strongly enough as their coupling constant is equal to unity. This circumstance can break homogeneity of a relict gravitational background of a non-thermal origin at sufficient density of gravitons. From dimensional reasons the general number of produced quanta of the gravitational field in cubic centimeter of volume will be proportional to the following quantities

$$cR^2\tau ,c(R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }R^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu })\tau ,$$
(22)
where $`R^2,R_{\rho \lambda \mu \nu }R^{\rho \lambda \mu \nu },\tau `$ are given by expressions (17), (20) and (21). It follows from these formulas that the rate of graviton production in the hot radiation dominated phase of evolution of the Universe is mainly determined by the peak density of matter $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$. Knowing more detailed pattern of graviton production it would be possible to spot the peak value of density of matter, which the Universe had in the present cycle of “expansion”. On the other hand, it is possible to state a hypothesis: the gravitational background of a non-thermal origin could be just that “dark matter”, which manifest itself as “missing mass” in our Universe . But all this requires more careful analysis.

The authors are grateful to A.A. Grib, V.A. Petrov, N.E. Tyurin and Yu.V. Chugreev for valuable discussions.


text:
# Spin sensitive bleaching and monopolar spin orientation in quantum wells

## Abstract

Spin sensitive bleaching of the absorption of far-infrared radiation has been observed in $`p`$-type GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well structures. The absorption of circularly polarized radiation saturates at lower intensities than that of linearly polarized light due to monopolar spin orientation in the first heavy hole subband. Spin relaxation times of holes in $`p`$-type material in the range of tens of ps were derived from the intensity dependence of the absorption.

A substantial portion of current research in condensed-matter physics is directed towards understanding various manifestations of spin-dependent phenomena like giant magneto-resistance, heavy fermions, Kondo scattering, superconductivity and others. In particular, the spin of electrons and holes in solid state systems is the decisive ingredient for active spintronic devices and several schemes of quantum computation. Especially the combination of ferromagnetic materials with semiconductors seems to be a promising combination for novel functional concepts. Open problems which have to be addressed in this respect involve spin-injection into semiconductors, spin relaxation in low dimensional semiconductor structures as well as spin detection. Significant progress was made recently: it was shown that spin polarized electrons (or holes) can be injected from semimagnetic (or ferromagnetic) semiconductor materials into semiconductors. The presence of spin polarized electrons can be probed by analyzing the Kerr effect  or by analyzing the degree of circular polarization of light which gets emitted when polarized electrons (holes) recombine with holes (electrons). The inverse process, exciting free carriers by circularly polarized light due to optical orientation  is frequently used to prepare an ensemble of spin polarized carriers. In low-dimensional systems with band splitting in k-space due to k-linear terms in the Hamiltonian optical excitation not only leads to a spin polarized ensemble of electrons but also to a current whose sign and magnitude depends on the degree of circular polarization of the incident light (circular photogalvanic effect,).

For the realization of spintronic devices sufficiently long spin dephasing times in semiconductor quantum well (QW) structures are crucially needed. Spin transport must occur without destroying the relevant spin information. Current investigations of the spin lifetime in semiconductor devices  are based on optical spin orientation by interband excitation and further tracing the kinetics of polarized photoluminescence and investigation of the dynamics of subsequent relaxation of spin polarized electron-hole pairs. Studies of bi-polar spin orientation, where both electrons and holes got excited, gave important insights into the mechanisms of spin relaxation of photoexcited free carriers. We show below that by combining the circular photogalvanic effect (CPGE)  with saturation (bleaching of absorption) spectroscopy  we are able to probe spin relaxation for monopolar spin orientation. In contrast to the conventional methods of optical spin orientation, in our measurements only one type of charge carriers (electrons or holes) gets spin oriented and is involved in relaxation processes. This is achieved by using radiation in the terahertz range which excites intraband or intersubband, but no interband (from valence to conduction band), transitions. Monopolar spin orientation allows to study spin relaxation without electron-hole interaction and exciton formation. The most important advantage of monopolar spin orientation is that relaxation processes can be investigated for electrons in n-type material and for holes in p-type material; both can be measured independently. These conditions have not been met previously in quantum well structures where, due to interband excitation, only the spin relaxation times of optically generated minority carriers were accessible (for reviews see ).

Here we report the first observation of spin sensitive bleaching of the heavy hole $`hh1`$\- light hole $`lh1`$ absorption in $`p`$-type QW structures which allows to investigate spin relaxation for a monopolar spin orientation. The basic physics is sketched in Fig. 1. Exciting with circularly polarized light results in direct intersubband transitions (solid arrow) which depopulate and populate selectively spin states in the valence subbands ($`hh1`$ and $`lh1`$) and cause a monopolar spin polarization. Spin relaxation inside the $`hh1`$-subband is characterized by the relaxation time $`\tau _s`$. Relaxation from the $`lh1`$\- subband back to $`hh1`$ is characterized by a spin independent energy relaxation time $`\tau _e`$ as the dominating transitions in this energy range are indirect (broken arrows in Fig. 1), mediated by phonons. The absorption coefficient $`\alpha `$ is proportional to the difference of the populations of the initial and final states. At high intensities the absorption coefficient decreases since the photoexcitation rate becomes comparable non-radiative relaxation rate into the initial state. Thus absorption bleaching of circularly polarized radiation governed by both the hole spin relaxation in the initial state and the energy relaxation of photoexcited carriers characterized by the spin relaxation time $`\tau _s`$ and the energy relaxation time $`\tau _e`$, respectively. In contrast to circularly polarized light, optical transitions induced by linearly polarized light are not spin selective and the saturation is controlled by the energy relaxation of photoexcited carriers only. The difference in absorption bleaching for circularly and linearly polarized radiation can be observed experimentally as is pointed out below. The method introduced here can also be applied for $`n`$-type QWs using direct inter-subband transitions in the conduction band.

The experiments have been carried out on modulated doped p-GaAs/AlGaAs (311)-MBE-grown samples with a single QW or 20 QWs of the width $`L_W`$=15 nm and with the period $`d`$= 1300 nm for multiple QW-structures. Samples with free carrier densities $`p_s`$ of about $`210^{11}`$ cm-2 and mobilities around 5x105 cm2/Vs were studied in the range from liquid helium to room temperature. A pair of ohmic contacts have been centered on opposite sample edges along the direction $`x[1\overline{1}0]`$ (see inset in Fig. 2) . As terahertz radiation source a high power far-infrared molecular laser, optically pumped by a TEA-CO2 laser, has been used delivering 100 ns pulses with intensities up to 1 MW/cm2 at wavelength $`\lambda =`$148 $`\mu `$m. The radiation induces direct optical transitions between the first heavy-hole and the first light-hole valence subband (see Fig. 1). A crystalline quartz $`\lambda /4`$ plate has been used to obtain from the initially linearly polarized laser light circularly polarized radiation with the degree of circular polarization $`P_{circ}`$ equal to $`\pm 1`$ for right and left handed circularly polarized light, respectively.

The weak absorption of terahertz radiation by free carriers in QWs is difficult to determine by direct transmission measurements particularly in the case of bleaching at high power levels. Therefore the nonlinear behavior of the absorption has been investigated employing the recently observed circular and linear photogalvanic effects . Both, the circular photogalvanic effect (CPGE) and the linear photogalvanic effect (LPGE) yield an electric current in $`x`$ direction. The absorption coefficient is proportional to photogalvanic current $`j_x`$ normalized by the radiation intensity $`I`$ . By choosing circularly or linearly polarized radiation we thus obtain a photoresponse corresponding to the absorption coefficient of circularly or linearly polarized radiation, respectively.

Our measurements, displayed in Fig. 2, indicate that the photocurrent $`j_x`$ depends at low power levels linearly on the light intensity and gradually saturates with increasing intensity $`I`$ as $`j_xI/(1+I/I_s)`$, where $`I_s`$ is the saturation intensity. This behavior of the current corresponds to a constant absorption coefficient at low power levels and decreasing absorption with rising intensity. Saturation intensities $`I_s`$ have been measured for a wide range of temperatures between 4.2 K and 200 K. The key experimental result is plotted in Fig. 3 and show that the magnitude $`I_s`$ for the photogalvanic response on circularly polarized radiation is generally smaller than that for linearly polarized radiation. The experimentally obtained values increase from about 10 kW/cm2 at liquid helium temperature to 300 kW/cm2 at 200 K. At room temperature the saturation intensities get non-measurably large.

Over the whole temperature range the holes occupy in equilibrium the lowest heavy-hole subband $`hh1`$. Absorption of far-infrared radiation occurs by direct optical transitions from $`hh1`$ to the first light hole subband $`lh1`$ and for the wavelength 148 $`\mu `$m (photon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega =8.3`$ meV) used here takes place close to $`k=0`$, as is sketched in Fig. 1. Thus, the optical dipole selection rules for the absorption are $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=\pm 1`$ with angular momentum quantum number $`m=\pm 3/2`$ for the initial state and $`m=\pm 1/2`$ for the final state. The insets in Fig. 3 show the corresponding transitions for linear (top left) and circular (bottom right) polarization by full arrows. Linearly polarized radiation has been decomposed in right and left handed circularly polarized light of identical amplitudes. Broken lines in these insets indicate non-radiative energy and spin relaxation transitions.

Linearly polarized radiation (top left inset in Fig. 3) equally depopulates both spin-up and spin-down states of the heavy hole subband and populates the first light hole subband. With rising intensity these non-equilibrium populations approach each other causing the bleaching of absorption which is controlled by the energy relaxation time $`\tau _e`$. In contrast to linear polarization the absorption of circularly polarized light is spin selective because only one type of spin component is involved in the absorption process (illustrated in the right bottom inset of Fig. 3). During energy relaxation to the initial state in subband $`hh1`$ the holes loose the photoinduced orientation due to rapid relaxation . Thus, spin orientation occurs in the initial subband $`hh1`$, only. Bleaching of absorption is hence controlled by two time constants, the energy relaxation time $`\tau _e`$ and the spin relaxation time $`\tau _s`$. Note that $`\tau _e`$ is the same for circular and linear polarization. If $`\tau _s`$ is of the order of $`\tau _e`$ or larger, bleaching of absorption becomes spin sensitive and the saturation intensity of circularly polarized radiation drops below the value of linear polarization.

Spin sensitive bleaching can be analyzed in terms of excitation-relaxation kinetics taking into account both optical excitation and non-radiative relaxation processes. The probability rates for direct optical transitions from the $`hh1`$ states with $`m=\pm 3/2`$ to higher subbands are denoted as $`W_\pm `$. For linearly polarized light, $`W_+`$ and $`W_{}`$ are equal. For the circular polarization, right handed, $`\sigma _+`$, or left handed, $`\sigma _{}`$, the rates $`W_\pm `$ are different but, due to time inversion symmetry, satisfy the condition $`W_+(\sigma _\pm )=W_{}(\sigma _{})`$. If $`p_+`$ and $`p_{}`$ are the 2D densities of heavy holes with spin $`+3/2`$ and $`3/2`$, respectively, then the rate equation for $`p_+`$ can be written as

$$\frac{p_+}{t}+\frac{p_+p_{}}{2\tau _s}=W_++\frac{1}{2}(W_++W_{}).$$
(1)
The corresponding equation for $`p_{}`$ is obtained by exchange of indices $`\pm `$. Since the laser pulse duration was longer than any expected relaxation time we consider the steady-state solution of the rate equations and omit the time derivative in Eq. (1). The second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (1) describes the spin relaxation trying to equalize the polarization of the $`\pm 3/2`$ states. The first term on the right-hand side describes the removal of holes from the $`hh1`$ subband due to photoexcitation while the second term characterizes the relaxation of holes which come down to the $`+3/2`$ and $`3/2`$ states with equal rates (see insets in Fig. 3). The right side of the Eq. (1) is proportional to $`W_+W_{}=\frac{\alpha dI}{\mathrm{}\omega }(\rho _0P_{circ}\eta \rho )`$, where $`\rho =(p_+p_{})/p_s`$ is the hole spin polarization degree, $`\rho _0`$ is the excitation induced spin polarization, and $`\eta f_i/(f_if_f)1`$ describes the difference between the population of the initial state, $`f_i`$, and the final state, $`f_f`$, respectively.

Bleaching of absorption with increasing intensity is described by the function $`\alpha =\alpha _0[1+(I/I_{se})]^1`$ where $`\alpha _0`$ is the absorption coefficient at low intensities and $`I_{se}`$ is the characteristic saturation intensity controlled by energy relaxation of the hole gas. Since the photocurrent $`j_{LPGE}`$ induced by the linearly polarized radiation is proportional to $`\alpha I`$, one has

$$\frac{j_{LPGE}}{I}\frac{1}{1+\frac{I}{I_{se}}}.$$
(2)
The photocurrent $`j_{CPGE}`$ induced by the circularly polarized radiation is proportional to $`W_+W_{}`$. Solving Eqs. (1,2) in the steady-state regime we obtain

$$\frac{j_{CPGE}}{I}\frac{1}{1+I\left(\frac{1}{I_{se}}+\frac{1}{I_{ss}}\right)},$$
(3)
where $`I_{ss}=\mathrm{}\omega p_s/(\alpha _0d\tau _s)`$ is the saturation intensity controlled by the hole spin relaxation. The saturation intensities $`I_{ss}`$ and $`I_{se}`$ were extracted from the measured saturation intensities $`I_s`$ of linear and circular photogalvanic current (Fig. 3). Using $`I_{ss}`$ together with the absorption coefficient $`\alpha _0`$, calculated after  for the wavelength used here, spin relaxation times $`\tau _s`$ have been derived. The results are plotted in Fig. 4 as a function of temperature. At low temperatures the relaxation times vary like $`T^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

The magnitude of the observed hole spin relaxation time $`\tau _s`$ in the first heavy hole subbband $`hh1`$ is in very good agreement to previously published data obtained from the interband recombination kinetics of circularly polarized photoluminescence. These works, the relation between spin relaxation time and free carrier density has been discussed in terms of the D’yakonov-Perel and the Bir-Aronov-Pikus mechanisms. In our case of monopolar spin orientation photocreated carriers and electron-hole pairs do not exist. Thus, in contrast to all previous experiments were hole spin relaxation times were probed by interband excitation, the Bir-Aronov-Pikus mechanism is absent and the spin relaxation is not affected by high density photocreated carriers, exciton formation and interband recombination. The D’yakonov-Perel mechanism was investigated theoretically by Ferreira and Bastard for spin relaxation of $`hh1`$-holes in GaAs based QWs. The values of $`\tau _s`$ on the order of 10 ps as well as the observed temperature dependence $`\tau _sT^{1/2}`$ are in accordance with these calculations for samples with parameters as in our experiment.

In conclusion, our experimental results demonstrate that absorption of terahertz radiation by inter valence band transitions in $`p`$-type QWs becomes spin sensitive at high power levels. The saturation of circularly polarized radiation, which is measured in QWs by the circular photogalvanic effect, yields the spin relaxation times of majority carriers, in our case holes. Finally we would like to emphasize that spin sensitive bleaching is also expected for inter-subband transitions in n-type QWs and may be used to extract spin relaxation times of electrons in $`n`$-type materials.

We thank L. Golub for helpful discussions. Financial support by the DFG, the RFBR, the INTAS and the NATO linkage program is gratefully acknowledge.