text:
# Inclusive Higgs boson and dijet production via Double Pomeron exchange

## Abstract

We evaluate Higgs boson and dijet cross-sections at the Tevatron collider via Double Pomeron exchange when accompanying particles in the central region are taken into account. Such inclusive processes, normalized to the observed dijet rate observed at run I, noticeably increase the predictions for tagged (anti)protons in the run II with respect to exclusive ones, with the potentiality of Higgs boson detection.

1. Not only recently, Higgs boson and dijet production via Double Pomeron (DP) exchange have attracted attention. It has been shown  that a non negligeable fraction of events with double colour singlet exchange features may appear. The calculation was based on a Pomeron model formulated as a pair of non-perturbative QCD gluons. However, the lack of solid QCD theoretical framework for diffraction makes a theoretical determination difficult. Predictions with many different mechanisms appeared  since then without clear consensus on the expected rate at hadron colliders. An evaluation of experimental possibilities  has given the prediction of a discovery potential for the Higgs boson through diffraction using outgoing (anti)proton tagging and a missing mass method. However, this evaluation again strongly depends on the theoretical framework.

In the present paper our aim is to give predictions based on inclusive Higgs boson and dijet production at the Tevatron collider via DP exchange. Indeed, so far, the predictions have been based on exclusive production without taking into account the accompanying particles in the central rapidity region. This accompanying radiation is unavoidable and is present in dijet production, a DP process already detected at the Tevatron . This is obvious from the observed dijet over total mass fraction spectrum which is very different from the one expected in absence of radiation.

In fact, the evaluations contained in the present paper may have a triple phenomenological interest. i) Taking into account the accompanying particles allows one to normalize the theoretical predictions to the observed dijet rate and thus can be translated into a more constrained prediction for the Higgs boson. ii) The inclusive cross-sections are expected to be larger than the exclusive production mode iii) The signal/background ratio has to be evaluated differently in inclusive and exclusive events.

In the following we use the Bialas-Landshoff exclusive model for Higgs boson and heavy flavor jet production  as a starting point. We modify it in order to take into account inclusive Higgs boson and dijet production and the addition of light quark jets and gluon jets (not included in the analysis of Ref. ) . We show that we are able to reproduce up to a scale (which will be fixed from experiment) the observed distributions, in particular the dijet mass fraction spectrum. Using the same framework, we give predictions for inclusive Higgs boson production via DP exchange at the Tevatron.

The main lesson of our study is that, if the signal/background ratio can be maintained at a reasonable level when associated central radiation is allowed, an interesting discovery potential for the Higgs boson particle at the Tevatron run II can be expected in double (anti)proton tagged experiments. It is materialized in table I for the number of events as a function of $`M_H`$ depending on experimental cuts and decay products.

Note that theses estimates are sizeably higher than the more recent exclusive production predictions . The inclusion of all inclusive  production modes of dijets allow us to fix the estimated proportion of quarks over gluon jets. It is small but not negligeable, contrary to the exclusive  production. Thus DP production of dijets cannot be called a pure “gluon factory” (cf. last paper of Ref. ). One reason of this difference is for exclusive production the helicity conserving suppression of dijet production into quark jets vs. gluon jets which is absent in inclusive production. This re-normalization, in turn, enhances the prediction for Higgs boson production via the $`\overline{t}t`$ loop.

2. Let us introduce the formulae for Higgs boson and dijet production cross-sections via DP exchange. In the exclusive channel  one writes;

$`d\sigma _H^{excl}=C_H\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_H^2}}\right)^{2ϵ}\delta \left((1x_1)(1x_2)M^2/s\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{dx_i}{x_i}}d^2v_i(1x_i)^{\alpha ^{}v_i^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\lambda v_i^2\right)\right\},`$ (1)
$`d\sigma _{\overline{Q}Q}^{excl}=C_{\overline{Q}Q}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{M_{\overline{Q}Q}^2}}\right)^{2ϵ}F_{\overline{Q}Q}(\rho )\delta ^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(v_i+k_i)\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{dx_i}{x_i}}d^2v_id^2k_i(1x_i)^{\alpha ^{}v_i^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\lambda v_i^2\right)\right\},`$ (2)
for a Higgs boson of mass $`M_H`$ and two heavy quark jets (of total mass $`M_{\overline{Q}Q}`$), respectively. $`\alpha (t)=1+ϵ+\alpha ^{}t`$ for the Pomeron trajectory ($`ϵ.08,\alpha ^{}.25GeV^2`$), $`x_{1,2}(>.9)`$ are the fraction of momentum of the outgoing $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$, $`v_{1,2},`$ their 2-transverse momenta, $`k_{1,2},`$ those of the outgoing quark jets, $`\lambda 4GeV^2`$ the slope of the Pomeron $`p\overline{p}`$ coupling, and the constants $`C_H,C_{\overline{Q}Q}`$ are normalizations containing various factors related to the hard matrix elements together with a common non-pertubative factor $`G^8`$ due to the non-pertubative gluon coupling . Thus, the ratio $`C_H/C_{\overline{Q}Q}`$ is well defined while the overall normalization is not known, and will be determined by direct comparison with data.

For heavy quarks of mass $`m_Q`$ and transverse mass $`m_{T1,2}`$ the hard contribution reads

$$F_{\overline{Q}Q}(\rho )=\frac{\rho (1\rho )}{m_{T1}^2m_{T2}^2},\rho \frac{4m_Q^2}{M_{\overline{Q}Q}^2}$$
(3)
which, up to colour factors included in the $`C_{\overline{Q}Q},`$ stands for the $`gg\overline{Q}Q`$ hard cross-section in the model. It is worthwhile to note that this cross section is proportional to $`m_Q^2,`$ and thus is quasi zero for light quarks. This reflects the known zero helicity constraint of the quark jet production mechanism of Ref.  (For light quarks a zero appears in the forward anti(proton) direction, see dijet papers in ).

The method we propose to evaluate the inclusive production mechanisms for Higgs boson and dijets (including light quarks and gluons) is simple and not restricted to the Bialas-Landshoff model, even if we use it as a starting point. The main driving idea is that whatever the mechanism and normalization of the diffractive part of the process could be, the “hard” partonic interaction in the central region depends on the probability of finding the initial partons (quarks and gluons) in the central region at the short time. Since the overall partonic configuration is produced initially by the long-range, “soft” DP interaction, we will assume that, up to a normalization, the inclusive cross-section is the convolution of the “hard” $`partonsHiggsboson,partonsjets`$ subprocesses by the probability of finding these partons in both Pomerons, see Fig.1. The working hypothesis is that the expected factorization breaking from soft color interaction will essentially affect the normalization through a renormalization of the Pomeron fluxes, which are not the same as in hard diffraction at HERA.

In this framework, QCD radiative corrections is the natural origin of inclusive production . Indeed, our ansatz remarkably reproduces the dijet mass fraction seen in experiment which is obviously different from exclusive production, see Fig.2.

Hence, the Higgs boson and dijet inclusive cross-sections become:

$`d\sigma _H^{incl}`$ $`=`$ $`G_P(x_1^g,\mu )G_P(x_2^g,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{dx_1^g}{x_1^g}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2^g}{x_2^g}}d\sigma _H^{excl}(sx_1^gx_2^gs),`$ (4)
$`d\sigma _{JJ}^{incl}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{\overline{Q}Q}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1^gx_2^gs}{M_{\overline{J}J}^2}}\right)^{2ϵ}F_{JJ}\delta ^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}(v_i+k_i)\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left\{G_P(x_i^g,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{dx_i^g}{x_i^g}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_i}{x_i}}d^2v_id^2k_i(1x_i)^{\alpha ^{}v_i^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\lambda v_i^2\right)\right\},`$ (5)
where $`x_1^g,x_2^g`$ define the fraction of the Pomerons’ momentum carried by the gluons involved in the hard process, see Fig.1, and $`G_P(x_{1,2}^g,\mu ),`$ are, up to a normalization, the gluon structure function in the Pomerons extracted from HERA experiments, see . $`\mu ^2`$ is the hard scale (for simplicity kept fixed at $`75GeV^2,`$ the highest value studied at HERA). We neglected the processes initiated by quarks in the Pomeron which are negligeable in .

The dijet cross-section $`\sigma _{JJ}`$ depends on two“hard” cross-sections $`gg\overline{Q}^{(i)}Q^{(i)}`$ and $`gggg`$ . This gives for 5 quark flavors $`(i=15)`$

$`F_{JJ}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}F_{\overline{Q}^{(i)}Q^{(i)}}\left(\rho ^{(i)}\right)+27F_{gg}\left(\rho ^{gg}\right);\rho ^{(i)}{\displaystyle \frac{4m_{T1}^{(i)}m_{T2}^{(i)}}{M_{\overline{Q}^{(i)}Q^{(i)}}^2}};\rho ^{gg}{\displaystyle \frac{4p_{T1}p_{T2}}{M_{gg}^2}},`$ (6)
$`F_{\overline{Q}^{(i)}Q^{(i)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{(i)}}{m_{T1}^{(i)}m_{T2}^{(i)}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{(i)}}{2}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}\rho ^{(i)}\right);F_{gg}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_{T1}^2p_{T2}^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{gg}}{4}}\right)^3.`$ (7)
$`27`$ stands for the colour factor fraction between gluon jets and quark jets partonic cross-sections . Note that from now on , the $`gg\overline{Q}^{(i)}Q^{(i)}`$ cross section is proportional to transverse and not to rest quark masses. Thus, all 5 quark flavors sizeably contribute to the dijet cross-section. The quark contribution remains smaller, due to the color factor and to the $`1/p_T^4`$ behaviour of the gluon exchange cross-section compared to the $`1/(p_T^2M_{\overline{Q}^{(i)}Q^{(i)}}^2)`$ one of the quark exchange cross-section but is no more suppressed by the helicity constraint.

3. The first step we perform is a comparison of our results with the measurements performed at Tevatron, in the CDF experiment . To this end, we interfaced our generator with a fast simulation of the D0 and CDF detectors, namely SHW . We chose as gluon content of the pomeron the result of the H1 “fit 1” performed in Ref. . Note that the gluon density is used only up to the normalisation of the flux. We normalize our dijet cross section prediction with the CDF one.

We first compare our results for the dijet mass fraction with the measurement of the CDF collaboration  in DP events. A tagged antiproton with $`0.035\xi _{\overline{p}}0.095`$ and $`|t|<1`$ GeV2 was required where $`\xi _{\overline{p},p}1x_{1,2}`$ is the momentum faction of the $`\overline{p},p`$ carried by the corresponding pomeron. This quantity is reconstructed using the roman pot detectors installed by the CDF collaboration. After the CDF cuts to tag an antiproton and the fast simulation of the detector, we obtain a cross section of 14.4 $`nb`$, to be compared with the CDF measurement of 43.6 $`nb`$. At the present stage, at least two aspects are lacking in our study : firstly, our cross-section formulae do not include dissociation of the outgoing (anti)protons. Secondly, some (difficult to evaluate) fraction of the proton-tagged events seen in experiment are in fact fake tags, coming namely from excited N\* states leaving an energetic decay proton in the detector. Both effects contribute to enhance the measured cross-section, and thus the difference between our prediction and the measured value ***Note that the CDF cross section was measured after kinematical cuts on the proton side: $`0.01\xi _p0.03`$. This cut is difficult to reproduce using a fast simulation of the detector since it is very sensitive to the energy measurement inside the main CDF detector (the proton is not tagged). Thus, we did not apply this cut on our cross section. If one tries to apply these cuts in our fast simulation program, one obtains a cross-section two or three times smaller depending on the energy corrections. We chose not to apply these additional factors to be on the safe side concerning our predictions on the numbers of Higgs boson events. Thus, our Higgs boson event rates may be conservative by a factor 2 to 3 if one takes into account this effect.. We thus scale up our cross-sections by a factor $`43.6/14.43`$. As shown in Fig. 2, the dijet mass fraction spectrum is well reproduced. The CDF measurement could clearly not be described without radiation since the obtained dijet mass fraction would peak near one, up to detector resolution effects.

We can now give predictions for the Higgs boson production cross sections in double diffractive events, by scaling our results by the abovedetermined factor . The results are given in Table 1, first column. We note the high values of the cross-sections, which predictThe expected luminosity is between 20 and 25 $`fb^1`$ per experiment for run II. more than 10 events per $`fb^1`$ for a Higgs boson mass below 140 GeV.

After interfacing the generator with the fast simulation package SHW , we can estimate the rates which could be observed in the experiments. The experimental resolution and acceptances of the roman pot detectors have been chosen to be similar to the D0 ones for dipole detectors, namely the $`t`$-resolution is $`0.1\sqrt{t}`$, $`t`$-acceptance $`|t|`$ 0.5 GeV2, $`\xi `$-resolution 0.2 %, and the $`\xi `$-acceptance 100% if $`\xi >0.04`$, 0% if $`\xi <0.01`$ and linear between 0 and 100% if $`0.01<\xi <0.04`$ . The tagging efficiency (see column 2 of Table 1) is quite good if one uses dipole detector on each side. To be able to trigger these events, some activity inside the central detector will be required, and we give in Table 1, third column, the number of events after requiring at least two jets of $`p_T>30`$ GeV This allows us to enhance our signal/background ratio (the $`b\overline{b}`$ diffractive background without any cuts is estimated to be about 2.3 $`10^7`$ events per $`fb^1`$, and becomes about 8.3 $`10^4`$ events after those $`p_T`$ cuts), as shown in Fig.3 c,d. When we compare Fig.2 c,d, we also note that radiation is more important for dijet events than for Higgs boson events, since the distribution for dijet events is more shifted to the left after radiation than the Higgs boson one. Hence, the $`p_T`$ cut is more efficient after radiation..

To enhance the signal to background ratio, it is possible to cut on the proton and antiproton tagged energy at 930 GeV (see Fig.3a), on the jet topologies (the jets coming from Higgs boson events are more central) and on the reconstructed mass distribution using the missing mass method  (see Fig.3b, and Fig.4). We slightly modified the original method to partly take into account radiation and define $`M_H=\sqrt{\xi _p\xi _{\overline{p}}S}\frac{E_{jet1}+E_{jet2}+E_p+E_{\overline{p}}}{2E_{beam}}`$ where the $`E_{jeti}`$ are the leading two jets energies, $`E_p`$ and $`E_{\overline{p}}`$ the tagged $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ energies. We notice that the missing mass method is not working so nicely when radiation is included. It is however still a competitive method to reduce background and reconstruct the Higgs boson mass§§§Due to radiation effects which escape mostly into the beam pipe, the missing mass method cannot work as it stands and is modified by radiation. However, it will be very useful to perform constrained fits and to have different ways of reconstructing the Higgs boson mass.. The background over signal ratio will be detailed in Ref . Since we obtain quite high cross-sections, other Higgs boson decay channels with smaller branching ratios, like $`H\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ (about 10% of Higgs boson decay, see table 1) or $`HW^+W^{}`$ are of very high interest since the expected background is very small. This will be further discussed in Ref. .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with M. Albrow, A. Bialas, A. Brandt, A. De Roeck, V. Khoze, L. Schoeffel.

REFERENCES

TABLE

FIGURES

Figure 1

Inclusive production schemme.

$`x_i,v_i`$ are the longitudinal and transverse 2-momenta of the diffracted (anti)proton, $`x_i^g,`$ the Pomeron fraction momentum brought by the gluons participating in the hard cross-section, $`k_i,`$ the transverse 2-momenta of the outgoing jets in the central region from quarks, gluons or the $`\overline{b}b`$ decay products of the Higgs boson.

Figure 2

Comparison of the dijet mass fraction obtained in our model and CDF data (open circles).

With radiation: The shaded distribution is the dijet distribution after radiation and simulation of the detector.
Without radiation: Dotted line: distribution at generator level; Dashed line: after simulation of the detector.

Figure 3

Comparison of diffractive dijet and Higgs boson distributions.

the Higgs boson distributions are here always on the right of the $`\overline{b}b`$ distribution. Fig (3a, up left) gives the energy distribution of the tagged proton or antiproton, Fig (3b, up right) the leading dijet mass distribution, Fig (3c, down left) the mean leading two jet transverse energy in case radiation is added, and Fig (3d, down right) is the same plot without radiation. Normalisation is arbitrary in all figures.

Figure 4

Higgs boson mass reconstruction. On top, with radiation, on bottom, without. The grey distribution is the result of the missing mass method, and the dashed line is the leading dijet mass distribution.


format: text

text:
# A PT-symmetric QES partner to the Khare-Mandal potential with real eigenvalues

## References

1. \] C. M. Bender, S. Boettcher : Phys. Rev. Lett 80 (1998) 5243.
2. \] C. M. Bender, S. Boettcher : J. Phys A 31 (1998) L 273.
3. \] E. Delabaere, F. Pham : Phys. Lett A 250 (1998) 25, 29.
4. \] M. Znojil : Phys. Lett A 259 (1999) 220.
5. \] B. Bagchi, R. Roychoudhury : J. Phys A 33 (2000) L 1.
6. \] M. Znojil : J. Phys A 33 (2000) L 61.
7. \] M. Znojil : J. Phys A 33 (2000) 4561.
8. \] B. Bagchi, F. Cannata, C. Quesne : Phys. Lett A 269 (2000) 79.
9. \] A. Khare, B. P. Mandal : Phys. Lett A 272 (2000) 53.
10. \] B. Bagchi, C. Quesne : Phys. Lett A 273 (2000) 285.
11. \] F. Cannata, M. Ioffe, R. Roychoudhury, P. Roy : Phys. Lett A 281 (2001) 305.
12. \] G. Lévai, F. Cannata, A. Ventura : J. Phys A 34 (2001) 839.
13. \] Z. Ahmed : Phys. Lett A 282 (2001) 343.
14. \] P. Dorey, C. Dunning, R. Tateo : J. Phys. A 34 (2001) L391.
15. \] D. Bessis : Unpublished (1992).
16. \] A. Ushveridze : Quasi-Exactly Solvable Models in Quantum Mechanics, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol (1994).


text:
# Toroidal dipole resonances in the relativistic random phase approximation

## Abstract

The isoscalar toroidal dipole strength distributions in spherical nuclei are calculated in the framework of a fully consistent relativistic random phase approximation. It is suggested that the recently observed ”low-lying component of the isoscalar dipole mode” might in fact correspond to the toroidal giant dipole resonance. Although predicted by several theoretical models, the existence of toroidal resonances has not yet been confirmed in experiment. The strong mixing between the toroidal resonance and the dipole compression mode might help to explain the large discrepancy between theory and experiment on the position of isoscalar giant dipole resonances.

In addition to data on isoscalar giant monopole resonances (IS GMR) in spherical nuclei, it is expected that information on nuclear matter incompressibility should also be obtained in studies of the isoscalar dipole mode. The isoscalar giant dipole resonance (IS GDR) is a second order effect, built on $`3\mathrm{}\omega `$, or higher configurations. It corresponds to a compression wave traveling back and forth through the nucleus along a definite direction. Recent data on IS GDR obtained by using inelastic scattering of $`\alpha `$ particles on 208Pb , and on 90Zr, 116Sn, 144Sm, and 208Pb , have been analyzed in the non-relativistic Hartree-Fock plus RPA framework , and with relativistic mean-field plus RPA (RRPA) calculations . Both analyses have shown that: (a) there is a strong disagreement between theory and the reported experimental data on the position of the IS GDR centroid energies, and (b) calculations predict the splitting of the IS GDR strength distribution into two broad structures, one in the high-energy region above 20 MeV, and one in the low-energy window between 8 MeV and 14 MeV. Effective interactions, both non-relativistic and relativistic, which reproduce the experimental excitation energies of the IS GMR, predict centroid energies of the IS GDR that are $`45`$ MeV higher than those extracted from small angle $`\alpha `$-scattering spectra. This disagreement between theory and experiment is an order of magnitude larger than for other giant resonances. Another puzzling result is the theoretical prediction of a substantial amount of isoscalar dipole strength in the $`814`$ MeV region. In Ref.  we have shown that the RRPA peaks in this region do not correspond to a compression mode, but rather to a kind of toroidal motion with dynamics determined by surface effects. In a very recent article , Clark et al. reported new experimental data on the isoscalar dipole strength functions in 90Zr, 116Sn, and 208Pb, measured with inelastic scattering of $`\alpha `$ particles at small angles. They found that the isoscalar E1 strength distribution in each nucleus consists of a broad component at $`E_x114/A^{1/3}`$ MeV containing approximately 100% of the E1 EWSR, and a narrower one at $`E_x72/A^{1/3}`$ MeV containing $`1528`$ % of the total isoscalar E1 strength. The higher component is identified as the E1 compression mode, whereas the lower component may be the new mode predicted by the RRPA analysis of Ref. . In the present work we suggest that the observed low-lying E1 strength may correspond to the toroidal giant dipole resonance (TGDR).

The role of toroidal multipole form factors and moments in the physics of electromagnetic and weak interactions has been extensively discussed in Refs.  and . They appear in multipole expansions for systems containing convection and induction currents. In particular, the multipole expansion of a four-current distribution gives rise to three families of multipole moments: charge moments, magnetic moments and electric transverse moments. The later are related to the toroidal multipole moments and result from the expansion of the transverse electric part of the current. The toroidal dipole moment, in particular, describes a system of poloidal currents on a torus. Since the charge density is zero for this configuration, and all the turns of the torus have magnetic moments lying in the symmetry plane, both the charge and magnetic dipole moments of this configuration are equal to zero. The simplest model is an ordinary solenoid bent into a torus.

Vortex waves in nuclei were analyzed in a hydrodynamic model . By relaxing the assumption of irrotational motion, in this pioneering study solenoidal toroidal vibrations were predicted, which correspond to the toroidal giant dipole resonance at excitation energy $`E_x(5070)/A^{1/3}`$ MeV. It was suggested that the vortex excitation modes should appear in electron backscattering. In the framework of the time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory, the isoscalar $`1^{}`$ toroidal dipole states were also studied by analyzing the dynamics of the moments of the Wigner transform of the density matrix .

In this Letter the toroidal dipole strength distributions are calculated in the relativistic random phase approximation (RRPA). The RRPA represents the small amplitude limit of the time-dependent relativistic mean-field theory . A self-consistent calculations ensures that the same correlations which define the ground-state properties, also determine the behavior of small deviations from the equilibrium. The same effective Lagrangian generates the Dirac-Hartree single-particle spectrum and the residual particle-hole interaction. In a number of recent applications  it has been shown that, by using effective Lagrangians which in the mean-field approximation provide an accurate description of ground-state properties, excellent agreement with experimental data is also found for the excitation energies of low-lying collective states and of giant resonances. Two points are essential for the successful application of the RRPA in the description of dynamical properties of finite nuclei: (i) the use of effective Lagrangians with non-linear terms in the meson sector, and (ii) the fully consistent treatment of the Dirac sea of negative energy states. In particular, in Ref.  it has been shown that configurations which include negative-energy states have an especially pronounced effect on isoscalar excitation modes.

In Fig. 1(a) we display the RRPA toroidal dipole strength distribution for 208Pb:

$$R(E)=\underset{i}{}B^{T=0}(E1,1_i^{}0_f)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4(EE_i)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the width of the Lorentzian distribution, and

$$B^{T=0}(E1,1_i^{}0_f)=\frac{1}{3}|0_f||\widehat{T}_1^{T=0}||1_i^{}|^2.$$
(2)
For the strength distributions in Fig. 1 the width is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.0`$ MeV. The isoscalar toroidal dipole operator is defined

$$\widehat{T}_{1\mu }^{T=0}=\sqrt{\pi }\left[r^2\left(\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{5}\stackrel{}{Y}_{12\mu }^{}\right)<r^2>__0\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}\right]\stackrel{}{J}(\stackrel{}{r})d^3r.$$
(3)
In the relativistic framework the expression for the the isoscalar baryon current reads

$$J^\nu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\overline{\psi }_i\gamma ^\nu \psi _i,$$
(4)
where the summation is over all occupied states in the Fermi sea. The resulting toroidal dipole operator is

$$\widehat{T}_{1\mu }^{T=0}=\sqrt{\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\left[r_i^2\left(\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{5}\stackrel{}{Y}_{12\mu }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)\right)\stackrel{}{\alpha }_i<r^2>__0\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)\stackrel{}{\alpha }_i\right],$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{Y}_{ll^{}\mu }`$ denotes a vector spherical harmonic, and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ are the Dirac $`\alpha `$-matrices. The calculations have been performed with the self-consistent Dirac-Hartree plus relativistic RPA. The effective mean-field Lagrangian contains nonlinear meson self-interaction terms, and the configuration space includes both particle-hole pairs, and pairs formed from hole states and negative-energy states. The inclusion of the term $`<r^2>__0\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}`$ in the operator ensures that the TGDR strength distributions do not contain spurious components that correspond to the center-of-mass motion . In Fig. 1(a) we compare the toroidal strength distributions calculated without (dashed) and with (solid) the inclusion of this term in the operator.

The projection of spurious center-of-mass motion components can be also performed by subtracting the spurious transition current, following a procedure similar to that adopted in Refs.  for the IS GDR. The toroidal dipole strength distribution can be written as

$$R(E)=\left|d^3r\delta \stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})\stackrel{}{T}(\stackrel{}{r})\right|^2$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{}{T}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the vector toroidal operator, and $`\delta \stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the transition current

$$\delta \stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})=j_{}(r)\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })+j_+(r)\stackrel{}{Y}_{12\mu }^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(7)
The radial functions $`j_{}(r)`$ and $`j_+(r)`$ are defined in Ref. . We have verified that identical strength distributions (solid curve in Fig. 1) are obtained when: (a) the transition current (7) is used and the toroidal operator is corrected by including the term $`<r^2>__0\stackrel{}{Y}_{10\mu }^{}`$, or (b) this term is not included in the operator and the spurious component is subtracted from the transition current at each energy

$$\delta \stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})a\rho _0\stackrel{}{e}_z.$$
(8)
The second term in this expression is the spurious transition current . $`\rho _0`$ is the ground-state density and $`\stackrel{}{e}_z`$ denotes the unit vector in the direction of the center-of-mass motion. The energy dependent coefficient $`a`$ is determined by the condition that the integral of the transition current over the nucleus should vanish at each energy

$$d^3r\left(\delta \stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})a\rho _0\stackrel{}{e}_z\right)=0.$$
(9)
The strength distributions in Fig. 1 have been calculated with the NL3  effective interaction. In Ref.  it has been shown that isoscalar giant monopole resonances calculated with this effective force ($`K_{\mathrm{nm}}=271.8`$ MeV) are in excellent agreement with experimental data, and in Ref.  this interaction was used in the RRPA analysis of the IS GDR. By using effective interactions with different values of the nuclear matter compressibility modulus, it was shown that only the high-energy (above 20 MeV) portion of the isoscalar dipole strength distribution corresponds to a compression mode. The same effect is observed for the toroidal strength function: the position of the peaks in the low-energy region (below 20 MeV) depends only weakly on the incompressibility, while the structure in the high-energy region is strongly affected by the choice of the compression modulus of the interaction. In Fig. 1(b) we plot the strength function of the isoscalar dipole compression operator

$$\widehat{Q}_{1\mu }^{T=0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\gamma _0(r^3\frac{5}{3}<r^2>__0r)Y_{1\mu }(\theta _i,\phi _i).$$
(10)
We note that both dipole strength distributions, toroidal in Fig. 1(a) and compressional in Fig. 1(b), display two broad structures: one at low energies between 8 and 15 MeV, and one in the high-energy region $`2530`$ MeV. Obviously, one could expect a strong coupling between the two isoscalar $`1^{}`$ modes. This coupling becomes even more evident if one rewrites the expression in square brackets of the toroidal operator (3) as

$$\times (\stackrel{}{r}\times )(r^3\frac{5}{3}<r^2>__0r)Y_{1\mu },$$
(11)
and compares it with the isoscalar dipole operator of the compression mode (10). The relative position of the two resonance structures will, therefore, depend on the interaction between the toroidal and compression modes.

In Fig. 2 we display the RRPA toroidal dipole strength distributions in 90Zr, 116Sn, and 208Pb, calculated with the NL3 effective interaction. In all three nuclei a broad, strongly fragmented structure is found in the low-energy region, where ”the low-lying component of the IS GDR” has been observed . The toroidal strength distributions in this region should be compared with the experimental centroid energies of the ”low-lying component” : $`16.2\pm 0.8`$ MeV for 90Zr, $`14.7\pm 0.5`$ MeV for 116Sn, and $`12.2\pm 0.6`$ MeV for 208Pb. The calculated peaks in the high-energy region, on the other hand, correspond to the compression mode. The dynamics of the solenoidal toroidal vibrations is illustrated in Fig. 3, where we plot the velocity fields for the four most pronounced peaks of the toroidal dipole strength distributions in 116Sn (see Fig. 2). The velocity distributions are derived from the corresponding transition currents, following the procedure described in Ref. . A vector of unit length is assigned to the largest velocity. All the other velocity vectors are normalized accordingly. Since the collective flow is axially symmetric, we plot the velocity field in cylindrical coordinates. The $`z`$-axis corresponds to the symmetry axis of a torus. We note that the two lowest peaks at 8.82 MeV and 10.47 Mev are completely dominated by vortex collective motion. The velocity fields in the $`(z,r_{})`$ plane correspond to poloidal currents on a torus with vanishing inner radius. The poloidal currents determine the dynamical toroidal moment. The high-energy peak at 30.97 MeV displays the dynamics of dipole compression mode. The ”squeezing” compression mode is identified by the flow lines which concentrate in the two ”poles” on the symmetry axis. The velocity field corresponds to a density distribution which is being compressed in the lower half plane, and expands in the upper half plane. The centers of compression and expansion are located on the symmetry axis, at approximately half the distance between the center and the surface of the nucleus. Finally, the intermediate peak at 17.11 MeV clearly displays the coupling between the toroidal and compression dipole modes. A very similar behavior of the velocity distributions as function of excitation energy is also observed for 90Zr and 208Pb.

We suggest, therefore, that the recently observed ”low-lying component of the isoscalar dipole mode”  might in fact correspond to the toroidal giant dipole resonance. By employing the fully consistent relativistic random phase approximation, in Ref.  and in the present analysis we have shown that the toroidal dipole strength is concentrated in the low-energy region around 10 MeV, while the isoscalar dipole excitations in the high-energy region above 20 MeV correspond to the ”squeezing” compression mode. States in the intermediate region display a strong mixing between the two dipole resonances. The pronounced coupling between the toroidal resonance and the IS GDR, predicted by the RRPA calculations, might also explain the strong discrepancy between theory and the experimental position of the ISGDR centroid energies . Namely, the interaction causes a repulsion of the two $`1^{}`$ isoscalar modes, i.e. it pushes to higher energies the IS GDR and pulls to lower energies the TGDR. This effect would explain the observation of Ref.  that: ”The centroids of the higher (compression) mode calculated with interactions which reproduce GMR energies are about 4 MeV higher than the experimental centroids while the calculated centroids for the lower mode lie 1-2 MeV below the experimental values.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been supported in part by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung under the project 06 TM 979. D.V. and T.N. would like to acknowledge the support from the Alexander von Humboldt - Stiftung.


text:
# High Temperature limit-from{𝜋/2}-SQUID

## I Introduction

In a usual Josephson tunnel junction, the current $`I`$ passing through the junction is related to the phase difference $`\phi `$ between the two superconductors by

$$I=I_c\mathrm{sin}\phi .$$
(1)
The equilibrium phase difference is zero in the absence of current (current is also zero when $`\phi =\pi `$, but this corresponds to the maximum of the Josephson energy rather than a minimum). The simple relation (1) should be replaced with a more complicated one ,  in the case of constriction junctions, but the equilibrium phase difference will still be at $`\phi =0`$.

A conventional DC-SQUID consists of a superconducting ring with two ordinary Josephson junctions on its opposite arms. The total current passing through the SQUID is the sum of the currents crossing each of the Josephson junctions. As a result of interference between the two currents, the total current-phase relation depends on the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ threading the ring. In particular, the critical current (the maximum current allowed before going to non-stationary state with finite voltage drop across the junction) is given by

$$I_c=I_{c0}\left|\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\varphi _e}{2}\right)\right|,$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _e`$ is related to the external flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ threading the loop through $`\varphi _e2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e`$ being the flux quantum, $`h`$ the Planck constant, and $`e`$ the charge of electron. Here we neglect the self-inductance of the loop. Notice that $`\varphi _e`$ in Eq. (2) has period $`2\pi `$ which corresponds to one flux quantum. At small $`\varphi _e`$, the relation (2) is almost flat ($`I_c\varphi _e^2`$); consequently, the sensitivity of the measurement of small fluxes is low. Moreover, the critical current does not depend on the direction of the magnetic field. To avoid this problem, one can apply a biasing flux to move the working point of the SQUID away from the flat region. However, this biasing flux increases the noise as well as the complexity of the device and sometimes can have unwanted influence on the measured system.

Therefore, it is desirable to shift the working point of the SQUID away from the flat region without applying an external magnetic field. This is possible by replacing one of the Josephson junctions with a junction with non-zero equilibrium phase difference. A DC-SQUID with a $`\pi `$-phase difference between the equilibrium phases of the two Josephson junctions has already been studied . Here we propose another type of SQUID (we call it a $`\pi /2`$-SQUID) with the equilibrium phase difference of $`\pi /2`$ between the junctions. The frustration caused by the two junctions produces the desired shift of the working point. In the next section we introduce such a device using high $`T_c`$ superconducting grain boundary junctions. In section III we study the $`\pi /2`$-SQUID using a simple model. Section IV is devoted to the quasiclassical calculation of the current in the $`d`$-wave structure and demonstrating agreement with the simple model of section II. Finally, we summarize our results in section V.

## II High $`T_c`$ $`\pi /2`$-SQUID

In high $`T_c`$ superconductors, because of the $`d`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter, the current-phase relations are nontrivial and generally depend on the orientations of the order parameters on both sides of the junction , . If we keep only the first two harmonics, we can write the current-phase relation as

$$I=I_1\mathrm{sin}\phi I_2\mathrm{sin}2\phi .$$
(3)
When $`I_2>I_1/2`$ the equilibrium phase will occur at $`\phi =\phi _0`$, where $`\phi _0`$ is neither 0 nor $`\pi `$. In particular, when the first harmonic vanishes, the equilibrium phase difference happens at $`\phi _0=\pi /2`$. These types of junctions, known as $`\pi /2`$-junctions, can be realized at the grain boundary junction between two $`d`$-wave superconductors with crystalline orientations of $`0^{}`$ and $`45^{}`$ with respect to the grain boundary. At such a junction (known as an asymmetric junction), there is an exact cancellation of the first harmonic and the second harmonic dominates the current , . These junctions have been realized and tested experimentally . A symmetric junction can also be made with $`45^{}`$ misorientation angle by choosing -22.5 and $`22.5^{}`$ crystalline orientations at the two sides. This junction is very different from the asymmetric one; specifically, the exact cancellation of the first harmonic does not occur in this case . In a realistic junction with non-ideal transparency and roughness at the boundary, the second harmonic gets suppressed by the boundary imperfections more strongly than the first harmonic and, as a result, the latter dominates the current. This leads to a conventional junction (0-junction) with the usual current-phase relation of Eq. (1). These junctions have also been studied experimentally .

By combining symmetric and asymmetric junctions, we can have a SQUID with $`\pi /2`$ equilibrium phase difference between the junctions. Fig. 1 illustrates such an structure. First we study this system using a simple model. The more realistic numerical simulation of the system using a quasiclassical model will come after that.

## III Simple Model

Consider a DC-SQUID, consisting of a conventional and a $`\pi /2`$ Josephson junction, with current-phase relations

$$I_1=I_{c1}\mathrm{sin}\phi _1,I_2=I_{c2}\mathrm{sin}2\phi _2,$$
(4)
respectively. To simplify the calculations, we will assume $`I_{c1}=2I_{c2}=2I_{c0}`$. The more general case of arbitrary $`I_{c1}/I_{c2}`$ can also be treated as the solutions are similar. We also neglect the self inductance of the ring in our calculations. When there is a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ threading the SQUID ring, the phases at two junctions are related by $`\phi _1\phi _2=\varphi _e`$. The total current passing through the SQUID is then given by

$$I=I_{c0}[2\mathrm{sin}(\phi _2+\varphi _e)\mathrm{sin}2\phi _2].$$
(5)
The critical current is the maximum current in this current-phase relation. To find the critical current, one has to find the solutions to the equation $`dI/d\phi _2=0`$. These solutions are $`\varphi _e+2\pi n`$ and $`(\varphi _e+2\pi n)/3`$, with $`n`$ being an integer number. Substituting into Eq. (5) we find the maximum current to be

$$I_c=\frac{3}{2}I_{c0}\mathrm{Max}\left\{\mathrm{sin}\frac{2}{3}(\varphi _e+n\pi )\right\}.$$
(6)
Here “Max” means the maximum of the three cases with $`n=0,\pm 1`$.

Fig. 2 shows the flux dependence of the critical current using Eq. (6). Notice that the periodicity of the function is $`\pi `$ (half a flux quantum) although the period of the argument of the sine-functions in Eq. (6) is actually $`3\pi `$. The $`\pi `$-periodicity of Eq. (6) is a result of the symmetry $`I(\varphi _e+\pi ,\phi _2)=I(\varphi _e,\phi _2+\pi )`$ in Eq. (5). In other words, changing the applied flux by half a flux quantum shifts the current-phase relation by $`\pi `$ and therefore does not change the critical current. This is evidently different from the ordinary SQUID for which the period is $`2\pi `$ (one flux quantum). The important feature here is that the $`\varphi _e=0`$ does not coincide with the maximum of the function as it does in usual the DC-SQUIDs. Therefore, an increase in sensitivity for measuring small fluxes is gained. Moreover, the direction of the flux is also detectable by measuring the critical current.

## IV Quasiclassical Calculations

As was mentioned, the current-phase relations in $`d`$-wave grain boundary junctions does not usually have the simple forms of Eq. (4). One has to find the realistic current-phase relation using a microscopic theory, taking into account the imperfections of the boundary. Here we use a quasiclassical model to study this system. The equations we solve are the Eilenberger equations

$$𝐯_F\frac{}{𝐫}\widehat{G}_\omega (𝐯_F,𝐫)+[\omega \widehat{\tau }_3+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐯_F,𝐫),\widehat{G}_\omega (𝐯_F,𝐫)]=0,$$
(7)
where

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& 0\end{array}\right),\widehat{G}_\omega (𝐯_F,𝐫)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_\omega & f_\omega \\ f_\omega ^{}& g_\omega \end{array}\right).$$
(8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the superconducting order parameter and $`\widehat{G}_\omega (𝐯_F,𝐫)`$ is the matrix Green’s function, which depends on the electron velocity on the Fermi surface $`𝐯_F`$, the coordinate $`𝐫`$, and the Matsubara frequency $`\omega =(2n+1)\pi T`$, with $`n`$ being an integer number and $`T`$ the temperature. We also need to satisfy the normalization condition

$$g_\omega =\sqrt{1f_\omega f_\omega ^{}}.$$
(9)
In general, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ depends on the direction of $`𝐯_F`$ and is determined by the self-consistency equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐯_F,𝐫)=2\pi N(0)T\underset{\omega >0}{}V(𝐯_F,𝐯_F^{})f_\omega (𝐯_F^{},𝐫)_{𝐯_F^{^{}}}$$
(10)
where $`V(𝐯_F,𝐯_F^{})`$ is the interaction potential. Solution of matrix equation (7) together with (10) determines the current density $`𝐣(𝐫)`$ in the system

$$𝐣(𝐫)=4\pi ieN(0)T\underset{\omega >0}{}𝐯_Fg_\omega (𝐯_F,𝐫)_{𝐯_F}.$$
(11)
In two dimensions, $`N(0)=m/2\pi `$ is the 2D density of states and $`\mathrm{}=\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}(d\theta /2\pi )\mathrm{}`$ is the averaging over directions of the 2D vector $`𝐯_F`$.

The transparency of the boundary is described by the parameter $`D_0`$ , . To incorporate the roughness, we assume a narrow scattering region of width $`d`$ between the two superconductors , . The roughness is therefore parameterized by $`\rho =d/l`$, where $`l`$ is the mean free path of the quasiparticles in this scattering region. In our calculations, we use $`D_0=\rho =0.5`$ which are reasonable values for a realistic system. Different widths, $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$, are chosen for the two arms and the ratio of the widths is denoted by $`r=W_2/W_1`$. The details of our numerical method for solving these equations is given in .

Fig. 3 displays the current-phase relation at different values of the external flux $`\varphi _e`$ for a SQUID structure with $`r=1.4`$. At $`\varphi _e=0`$, the graph has two local maxima, which is the signature of having a mixture of first and second harmonics. As $`\varphi _e`$ is increased, the two maxima become closer and at some value of $`\varphi _e`$, they will be equal. At this point, the global maximum jumps from one local maximum to another. This actually explains the sharp kinks at the minimum positions in Fig. 2 (and also in Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 shows the critical current as a function of $`\varphi _e`$ for different values of $`r`$. One can immediately see the similarities between these graphs and the one obtained from our simple model in Fig. 2. Specifically, the maxima again occur with period of $`\pi `$, although the $`\pi `$-periodicity is not exact here (the real period is $`2\pi `$). The maximum of the critical current is shifted from $`\varphi _e=0`$, as was desired. One can also see from Fig. 4 that the maximum range of variation of $`I_c`$ is obtained at $`r=1.4`$. This is actually the optimal ratio of the widths for SQUID design.

## V Conclusions

We proposed and studied a DC-SQUID which has $`\pi /2`$ difference between the equilibrium phases at its two junctions. The $`\pi /2`$ phase difference is easily obtained using the properties of high $`T_c`$ grain boundary symmetric and asymmetric junctions. The frustration caused by this phase difference moves the working point of the SQUID to a point at which the maximum critical current is obtained at a non-zero external flux. This will increase the sensitivity of the SQUID at small magnetic field, with a dependence on the direction of the flux, without any external biasing coil.

We introduced a simple model and compared its results with the ones obtained from a microscopic quasiclassical model. The agreement between the two models is acceptable. We found that the $`\pi /2`$-SQUID exhibits other new features, different from a conventional SQUID or a $`\pi `$-SQUID, among those is the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ (instead of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$) periodicity of the critical current. We find the optimal ratio between the widths of the two arms to be $`r=1.4`$.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to A.M. Zagoskin, E. Il’ichev, and J.P. Hilton for stimulating discussions.


text:
# Concurrence in arbitrary dimensions.

## I Introduction.

Entanglement plays central role in quantum information theory . Pure state entanglement of bipartite systems is well understood in the sense that the relevant parameters for its optimal manipulation by local operations and classical communication (LOCC) have been identified and analyzed , . Many efforts have also been devoted to the study of mixed-state entanglement. There, several possible entanglement measures have been proposed. Among these, entanglement of formation ($`E_F`$) ,  attracts much of attention, as it is closely connected with (or, perhaps, equal to) the rate of production of mixed bipartite states out of pure ones by LOCC operations. It is, however, extremely difficult to evaluate $`E_F`$, but for the analytical formula for a single copy of an arbitrary state of two qubits obtained by Wootters . Despite efforts, not much progress has been recorded regarding generalization of Wootters’ result to the states in more than $`2\times 2`$ dimensions .

Wootters’ success in quantifying $`E_F`$ for two qubits can be attributed to associating $`E_F`$ with concurrence which is easier to calculate than $`E_F`$. Concurrence, as introduced by Hill and Wootters , was defined via operation of spin flip. More recently, Rungta et al.  made an attempt to generalize the notion of concurrence to pure bipartite states in arbitrary dimensions by introducing operation of universal state inversion . Their universal inverter generalizes spin flip to a transformation which brings pure state $`|\psi `$ into the maximally mixed state in the subspace orthogonal to $`|\psi `$. In the same way that the spin flip generates concurrence for a pair of qubits, the universal inverter generates a number which generalizes concurrence for joint pure states of pairs of quantum systems of arbitrary dimensions. Generalized in this way, concurrence measures entanglement of pure bipartite states in terms of the purity of their marginal density operators.

As one knows , a complete characterization of quantum correlations in bipartite systems of many dimensions may require a quantity which, even for pure states, does not reduce to a single number . Take, e.g., two pure states represented by vectors$`\psi =\left(|11+|22\right)/2`$ and $`\varphi =a\psi +b|33`$, with $`a=\sqrt{x}`$ and $`b=\sqrt{1x}`$, where $`x0.2271`$ is a root of $`x^x\left[2\left(1x\right)\right]^{1x}=1`$. The two states have the same entanglement $`E_F`$ of 1 ebit, nevertheless they have different Schmidt numbers and, consequently, it is impossible to locally convert one into the other.

In this contribution, we argue than that a suitable generalization of spin flip to more dimensions should produce a multi-dimensional analogue of concurrence rather than a single number. Such a concurrence would then describe not only the amount of entanglement but also its structure, e.g., the size (the number of dimensions) of the entangled spaces on each side. The concurrence for pure states is thus a matrix acting on the antisymmetric subspace of the total Hilbert space of two systems. Having that, one can follow Wootters and generalize the concept to mixed states by introducing a matrix of preconcurrence. The elements of this matrix are matrices in their own right and at the end, the matrix is often difficult to analyze. At least partially, the difficulties can be associated with the matrix dependence on the choice of the local bases. Therefore, we also generalize the concept of concurrence in a somewhat different direction. We abandon the requirement for preconcurrence to be a second order object in the state’s ensemble. For this price we can define a fourth order object, biconcurrence matrix. It is independent of the local unitaries and allows us to reformulate separability problem in terms of the main diagonal of the matrix. Biconcurrence is a very simple function of ensemble of density matrix and has many symmetries. Therefore, the obtained necessary and sufficient separability condition seems to be the most promising one from algebraic point of view.

The generalization of pre-concurrence which satisfies our criterion is presented in section II. Then, in section III we give an example to show how our multi-dimensional pre-concurrence can be used for analysis of separability in arbitrary dimensions. There, we also discuss possible limitation of such analysis. Subsequently, in Sec. IV we introduce biconcurrence and formulate the necessary and sufficient condition for separability in terms of its elements. Finally, in section V we present a brief discussion of the results.

## II Spin flip and concurrence.

### A Pure states.

For pure states of two qubits, a spin flip transforms vector $`v`$ in a 2-dimensional vector space into vector $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ equally long and orthogonal to $`v`$. In a bipartite system, a spin flip means that Alice performs a spin flip on her qubit and Bob on his. This gives a particularly simple expression for concurrence:

$$C\left(\psi \right)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }|\psi $$
(1)
The spin flip operation and the concurrence which follows are well defined since, in a 2-dim space, there is only one direction which is orthogonal to a given one. One may further notice that concurrence defined in (1) together with the state’s normalization allow to determine the eigenvalues of the associated reduced density matrix and, via these, the pure state’s entanglement. The eigenvalues are the squares of the moduli of the singular values $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ of a $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\left[\psi \right]`$ of the coefficients defining the state in the standard basis:

$$|\psi =\underset{i,j}{}\psi _{i,j}|i_A|j_B$$
(2)
The singular values are then related to the concurrence via

$`C=2\lambda _1\lambda _2=2det\left(\left[\psi \right]\right)`$

In general, in a *d*-dimensional space there are $`d1`$ dimensions orthogonal to a given direction. These can be represented by a $`d1`$ antisymmetric form. From this point of view, performing a spin flip on a bipartite state means constructing a double $`d1`$ form (one side for Alice and one side for Bob) locally dual to the double one-form representing the state vector $`|\psi `$. Concurrence can then be associated with the contraction of the form representing $`|\psi `$ with the form representing $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }|`$. The contraction gives a double $`\left(d2\right)`$-form which is equivalent to a double $`2`$-form and can be represented by a $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)`$ matrix with the following elements:

$$C_{i_1j_1;i_2j_2}=2\left(\psi _{i_1,i_2}\psi _{j_1,j_2}\psi _{i_1,j_2}\psi _{j_1,i_2}\right)$$
(3)
These elements are easily identified as twice the two-dimensional minors of matrix $`[\psi ]`$. They describe the two-state contributions to the bipartite entanglement.

Regarding their structure, matrices $`C`$ form a vector space with a natural trace norm:

$$\left|C\right|^2=Tr\left(CC^{}\right)=\underset{ij,kl}{}\left|C_{ij;kl}\right|^2$$
(4)
Having constructed the concurrence matrix, one may proceed in the same spirit and construct higher dimensional minors of $`[\psi ]`$ (up to the Schmidt number). They will represent those contributions to the bipartite entanglement which embrace local subspaces of higher dimensions. We believe that, in principle, these concurrences of order higher than two may be important for the quantification of entanglement even if the separability of a pure state is determined by the lowest order (i.e. 2) concurrence. Clearly, a pure state (2) in arbitrary dimensions is separable iff $`\left[C\right]=0`$.

### B Mixed states.

In order to further generalize the concept of concurrence to multidimensional mixed states, we follow Wootters and introduce (pre)concurrence as follows. Given a decomposition of state $`\varrho `$ into pure, unnormalized states,

$$\varrho =\underset{\mu }{}|\psi ^\mu \psi ^\mu |$$
(5)
we define pre-concurrences

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_{i_1j_1;i_2j_2}^{\mu \nu }& =& \psi _{i_1,i_2}^\mu \psi _{j_1,j_2}^\nu \psi _{i_1,j_2}^\mu \psi _{j_1,i_2}^\nu \\ & & \\ & +& \psi _{i_1,i_2}^\nu \psi _{j_1,j_2}^\mu \psi _{i_1,j_2}^\nu \psi _{j_1,i_2}^\mu \end{array}$$
(6)
The pre-concurrences can be regarded as a set of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)`$ matrices in $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ or, equivalently, as one matrix in $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ with vector-like elements living in a $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)`$ dimensional space.

To systematize this picture, it may also be convenient to view $`C`$ as an operator in the tensor product of two spaces. The first, $`_1`$ is the antisymmetric subspace of the space $`C^dC^d`$ the state acts on. Thus $`_1=C^{d^2d/2}`$. The space $`_2`$ is the space of ”lists” of vectors for decomposition of the state. In principle we should allow this space to be infinite-dimensional, as one can consider infinite decompositions. However, it is likely that dimension $`d^4`$ is enough (for example, a separable state can be certainly decomposed into no more than $`d^4`$ product states ; similarly, there always exists an optimal decomposition for entanglement of formation containing no more than $`d^4`$ components ).

Matrix $`C`$ viewed as operator acting on $`_1_2`$ has simple transformation rules under $`(i)`$ change of decomposition $`(ii)`$ local unitary transformations of the state. Operations of type $`(i)`$ transform the preconcurrence matrix according to:

$$C^{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}=\underset{\mu \nu }{}U^{\mu ^{}\mu }C^{\mu \nu }U^{\nu ^{}\nu }$$
(7)
with $`U`$ being a unitary matrix changing the decomposition of the state into pure states . This transformation can be represented as:

$$CC^{}=IUCIU^T$$
(8)
where subscript $`T`$ stands for transposition. Similarly, a unitary transformation of the local bases

$$|e_{i_1}f_{i_2}=\underset{k_1k_2}{}|\widehat{e}_{k_1}\widehat{f}_{k_2}V_{k_1i_1}W_{k_2i_2}$$
(9)
(matrices $`V`$ and $`W`$ unitary) changes the components of the elements of $`C^{\mu \nu }`$ according to

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{𝐂}_{i_1j_1;i_2j_2}^{\mu \nu }& =& \underset{k_1l_1k_2l_2}{}V_{i_1k_1}V_{j_1l_1}W_{i_2k_2}W_{j_2l_2}𝐂_{k_1l_1;k_2l_2}^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \underset{k_1<l_1;k_2<l_2}{}\left(V_{i_1k_1}V_{j_1l_1}V_{i_1l_1}V_{j_1k_1}\right)\left(W_{i_2k_2}W_{j_2l_2}W_{i_2l_2}W_{j_2k_2}\right)𝐂_{k_1l_1;k_2l_2}^{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
which can be represented as

$$C\widehat{C}=\left(VW\right)IC(V^TW^T)I$$
(11)
## III Concurrence and separability.

The preconcurrence matrix defined in the previous section sheds some interesting light on the separability of mixed states. Obviously, a given bipartite state $`\rho `$ is separable iff there is a decomposition for which all the diagonal elements $`C^{\mu \mu }`$ are zero vectors. The non-separable states can then be divided into two classes:

1. the states which allow for such a pair of local bases that for at least one $`\kappa _0=i_1^0j_1^0;i_2^0j_2^0`$, no transformation (7) can zero the diagonal of $`C_{\kappa _0}^{\mu \nu }`$.
2. the states where for every single component $`\kappa =i_1j_1;i_2j_2`$, there exist a decomposition with all the diagonal elements $`C_\kappa ^{\mu \mu }`$ to zero (different decompositions for different multi-indexes $`\kappa `$). This property must hold irrespective of the choice of the local bases.

The states in class (a) contain 2-qubit entanglement and as such are distillable . Class (b), on the other hand contains all the bound entangled (BE) states . Indeed, two qubit entangled states are distillable hence a BE state cannot contain two-qubit entanglement. A known open question in this context is if class (b) is equivalent to the BE states or if it is strictly larger. In Ref.  it was shown that a state $`\varrho `$ is distillable iff for some number $`k`$ the state $`\varrho ^k`$ has two-qubit entanglement. Call such state k-copy pseudo distillable (according to notation of Ref. ). The question if the set of BE states is equal to class (b) can be then rephrased as: does k-copy pseudo distillability imply 1-copy pseudo distillability. In principle it might happen that the property of having two-qubit entanglement is not additive: 1 copy would not contain it, but two or more copies would. For some Werner states there is strong evidence that this is the case . In Ref.  a possible equivalence of the considered sets was connected with some “binarization” of conditional information in cryptography based on mixed quantum states.

In this context, our preconcurrence matrix allows for a simple argument which shows that rank 2 states are either separable or 1-copy pseudo distillable (for the original proof of non-existence of bound entangled states of rank 2 see ).

### A Rank-2 states are either separable or 1-copy pseudo distillable.

Rank-2 states have $`2\times 2`$ preconcurrence matrices. A state which has a decomposition where all the matrices are of the form

$$C_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& x\\ x& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(12)
is separable. A candidate for a non-separable and not 1-copy pseudo-distillable state must have at least two essentially different preconcurrence matrices. In a decomposition where one of the matrices is of the form (12), there must be another one

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_2=e^{i\phi }\left[\begin{array}{cc}ae^{i\alpha }& b\\ b& ae^{i\alpha }\end{array}\right]$$
(13)
with all the parameters real and $`a0`$. This form is necessary since otherwise it would be impossible for transformation (7) to make the diagonal of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ zero. Moreover, a simple phase adjustment in the decomposition of the state can bring $`\alpha `$ and $`\phi `$ to zero, without changing $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1`$’s diagonal. With such an adjustment the second matrix becomes

$$C_2=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right]$$
(14)
with both $`a`$ and $`b`$ real. Now, a change of the local bases which (up to a normalizing factor) produces

$`C_2^{}=C_2+i\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \left|x\right|\\ \left|x\right|& 0\end{array}\right]`$

shows that the state contains 2-qubit entanglement, i.e., it is distillable. Indeed, $`C_2^{}`$ is of form (13) with real non-zero $`a`$ and complex $`b`$. Such a matrix has two singular values of different moduli. Consequently, no transformation (7) can reduce its trace to zero. This implies 2-qubit entanglement.

As a corollary to the above argument, one may notice that a rank-2 state is separable iff there exists a 2-state decomposition of the state which simultaneously diagonalizes all the $`C_\kappa `$ matrices so that all the matrices are of the essentially the same form

$$C_\kappa =\left[\begin{array}{cc}x_\kappa & 0\\ 0& x_\kappa \end{array}\right]$$
(15)
Indeed, if separability requires existence of a decomposition where, irrespectively of the choice of the local bases, all the $`C_\kappa `$’s are of form (12), then transformation (7) with

$$U=U_q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(16)
transforms them into (15).

Analysis of separability of states of rank higher than two appears to be more difficult. In particular, an attempt to follow Wootters’ minimization procedure for the expectation value of the concurrence’s norm is not simple since there is no guarantee that transformation (8) can diagonalize matrix $`C`$ (notice that the elements of $`C`$ are vectors while the elements of $`U`$ are numbers. One can, nevertheless, diagonalize $`D=Tr__1CC^{}`$. This leads to some simplifications in special cases, like when diagonal $`D`$ implies diagonal $`C`$. Nevertheless, at the moment, we do not have any general results for states of rank higher than 2.

## IV Biconcurrence.

Bearing in mind the difficulties, one may try to look at the generalized concurrence from a somewhat different perspective. For two qubits, preconcurrence can be viewed as a bilinear form $`C(\psi ,\varphi )`$ which distinguishes between product vectors and entangled vectors. It satisfies the following crucial condition:

Condition 1. $`C(\psi ,\psi )=0`$ if and only if $`\psi `$ is a product vector.

In passing, one may note that a form which satisfies condition 1 cannot be linear in one argument and anti-linear in the other, since a linear-antilinear form can be written as

$$C(\psi ,\varphi )=\psi |A\varphi ,$$
(17)
where $`A`$ is a linear operator acting on space $``$. However, form (17) which vanishes on all the product vectors, vanishes everywhere, thus violating condition 1. Consequently, the form must be bi-linear (or bi-antilinear, it does not matter which). In this context, Wootters’ concurrence defines a good form for $`=C^2C^2`$. It reads

$$C(\psi ,\varphi )=\stackrel{~}{\psi }|\varphi $$
(18)
Wootters’ preconcurrence matrix is then simply

$$C^{\mu \nu }(\varrho )=C(\psi _\mu ,\psi _\nu )$$
(19)
Unfortunately, as it follows from Ref. , in higher dimensions there does not exist a bi-linear form satisfying Condition 1. A possible way to generalize Wootters concurrence can then be to look for a 4-argument form $`B(\psi ,\varphi ,\kappa ,\theta )`$ which would satisfy

Condition $`1^{}`$. $`B(\psi )B(\psi ,\psi ,\psi ,\psi )=0`$ iff $`\psi `$ is a product vector. A possible form satisfying Condition $`1^{}`$, linear in two arguments and antilinear in the two other is closely related to Rungta et al. concurrence  and to our preconcurrence matrix. For instance, one can take a slightly simplified version of concurrence in  as a departure point, and define

$$B(\psi )=\psi |I\mathrm{\Lambda }(|\psi \psi |)|\psi .$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the positive map used in the reduction criterion of separability : $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)=Tr(A)IA`$

One finds that $`B(\psi )=1\mathrm{Tr}\varrho ^2`$, where $`\varrho `$ is a reduction of $`\psi `$. It is then clear that $`𝐁`$ satisfies the condition $`1^{}`$. The corresponding bi-concurrence matrix is then

$$B^{\mu \nu mn}=B(\psi _\mu ,\psi _\nu ,\psi _m,\psi _n)=\psi _\mu |I\mathrm{\Lambda }(|\psi _\nu \psi _m|)|\psi _n.$$
(21)
After some algebra this can be rewritten as

$$B^{\mu \nu mn}=\psi _\mu |\psi _\nu \psi _m|\psi _nTr\left[[\psi _\mu ]^{}[\psi _\nu ][\psi _m]^{}[\psi _n]\right]$$
(22)
which is nothing else than a partial contraction of a product of preconcurrence matrix with its complex conjugation.

$$B^{\mu \nu mn}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{ij,kl}{}C_{ij;kl}^{n\nu }\left(C_{ij;kl}^{m\mu }\right)^{}$$
(23)
Bi-concurrence is invariant under local unitary rotations of the state. Changes in the state’s decomposition, on the other hand, transform bi-concurrence as follows

$$\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \nu mn}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta ,a,b}{}(U^{\mu \alpha })^{}(U^{ma})^{}B^{\alpha \beta ab}U^{\nu \beta }U^{nb}.$$
(24)
If we treat the matrix $`𝐁`$ as an operator acting on tensor product of Hilbert spaces with Greek (Latin) indices for first (second) space, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=U^{}U^{}𝐁(U^{})^{}(U^{})^{}$$
(25)
One can see that the matrix $`B`$ contains the whole information about possible separability of state $`\varrho `$. Moreover, irrespective of the decomposition, the elements on the main diagonal of $`B`$ are real and non-negative. Therefore, in terms of biconcurrence, separability is equivalent to the existence of such a unitary $`U`$ that in eq. (25)

$$tr(\stackrel{~}{𝐁})=0$$
(26)
The lower-case $`tr`$ is here understood as the sum of the elements on the main diagonal:

$$tr\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\underset{\mu }{}\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \mu \mu \mu }.$$
(27)
Note that the elements $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \mu \mu \mu }`$ are always nonnegative. Therefore it suffices to minimize (26)over unitaries $`U`$ and check whether the minimum vanishes.

Within the picture of $`B`$ acting on product Hilbert space one can express the condition as follows

$$\underset{U}{\mathrm{min}}Tr(UUPU^{}U^{}B)=0,$$
(28)
where $`P=_i|iiii|`$ with $`|ij`$ being standard product basis.

The condition (26) seems to be quite simple, and we hope that it will lead to a more operational condition for separability.

## V Conclusions.

In conclusion, we argue that the multidimensional generalizations of concurrence which we have introduced in this contribution put the question of determination of separability of bipartite quantum states in a somewhat new perspective.

First, we introduced a concept of preconcurrence matrix. The matrix was designed to distinguish between the contributions to the entanglement which embrace pairs of different two dimensional subspaces of the bipartite system. In this way, our preconcurrence matrix contained all the information necessary to identify separability of a given state. Nevertheless, its dependence on the particular choice of the local basis made it rather difficult to analyze in detail, but in a rather restricted class of cases.

Therefore, we also generalized the concept of concurrence in another direction and abandoned the requirement for it to be a second order object in the state’s ensemble. We arrived at the concept of biconcurrence matrix. This matrix is of the fourth order in the state’s ensemble, however, for this price it is invariant under local unitaries. Biconcurrence can be easily derived from a given bipartite state directly. It can also be constructed by a suitable contraction out of our preconcurrence matrix. The resulting separability condition is probably the easiest possible one from the algebraic point of view.

Regarding a complete characterization of entanglement, on the other hand, our generalizations of concurrence matrix may not be enough. The main reason for this is that in order to specify the singular values of $`\left[\psi \right]`$, in addition to the length of the preconcurrence defined in eq. (4), one needs the lengths of all its tri-, …, d-linear analogues. We hope to return to this point in the nearest future.

P.B. is partially supported by Svenska Institutet, project ML2000. In addition, P.B. acknowledges stimulating discussions with Richard Bonner and Benjamin Baumslag. M.H., P.H. and R.H. are supported by Polish Committee for Scientific Research, contract No. 2 P03B 103 16 and by UE project EQUIP, contract No. IST-1999-11053.


text:
# Equilibrium Distribution of the Inherent States and their Dynamics in Glassy Systems and Granular Media

## Abstract

The present paper proposes a Statistical Mechanics approach to the inherent states of glassy systems and granular materials, following the original ideas developed by Edwards for granular materials. Two lattice models, a diluted Spin Glass and a system of hard-spheres under gravity, introduced in the context of glassy systems and granular materials, are evolved using a “tap dynamics” analogous to that of experiments on granular materials. The asymptotic macrostates, reached by the system, are shown to be described by a single thermodynamical parameter, and this parameter to coincide with the temperature, called the “configurational temperature”, predicted assuming that the distribution among the inherent states satisfies the principle of maximum entropy.

The thermodynamics of macroscopic systems evolving at equilibrium is well described by Statistical Mechanics. However there are many systems, typically found in “frozen states”, where they do not evolve at all. These are, for example, supercooled liquids quenched at zero temperature in states, called inherent states , corresponding to the local minima of the potential energy in the 3N-dimensional configuration space of particle coordinates. Granular materials  at rest are another important example of system frozen in mechanically stable microstates. Grains are “frozen” because, due to their large masses , the thermal kinetic energy is negligible compared to the gravitational energy; thus the external bath temperature, $`T_{bath}`$, can be considered equal to zero (by analogy with supercooled liquids, we call these mechanically stable configurations inherent states).

In this paper, following the original ideas by Edwards for granular materials  we attempt to develop a unified Statistical Mechanics approach for the inherent states of glassy systems and granular materials along the line of Ref. . The connection between Edwards approach and recent developments on glass theory has received much attention .

The first step is to introduce a suitable dynamics which allows to explore the configurations of the inherent states. In granular materials the dynamics, from one stable microstate to another, can be induced by sequences of “taps”, in which the energy is pumped into the system in pulses. Due to inelastic collisions the kinetic energy is totally dissipated after each tap, and the system is again frozen in one of its inherent states . Similarly, in glass formers at zero temperature the dynamics, from one inherent state to another, can be induced by sequences of taps, where each tap consists in raising the bath temperature and, after a lapse of time $`\tau _0`$, quenching it back to zero. By repeating the process cyclically the system explores the space of the inherent states . For a tap of infinite length ($`\tau _0\mathrm{}`$) the way to explore the inherent states coincides with the one used in  for a system of Lennard Jones mixture. In the approach of Barrat et al.  the system instead evolves in an out of equilibrium quasi-stationary state at an external very low bath temperature. In the limit of zero external temperature the system explores the inherent states.

Here we consider a diluted Spin Glass and a system of hard-spheres under gravity, introduced in the context of glassy systems and granular materials, which are evolved using a “tap dynamics”. We show that the systems reach a stationary or quasi-stationary state which can be characterized by a single thermodynamical parameter, defined through the static fluctuation-dissipation relation, and this parameter coincides with the “configurational temperature”, predicted by the Edwards’ hypothesis of a flat measure for the microstate distribution. We also show that time averages over the dynamics can be replaced by ensemble averages over such measure.

We first consider the Frustrated Lattice Gas model in three dimensions ($`3D`$). The model was recently introduced to describe glass formers  and, in presence of gravity, granular materials . It is made of particles with a twofold orientation (i.e., pointing in only two allowed directions), displaced on a cubic lattice (of linear size $`L=8`$ and overall density $`\rho =_in_i/L^3=0.65`$ and $`0.75`$), and interacting via a quenched potential:

$$=J\underset{ij}{}f_{ij}(S_i,S_j)n_in_j,$$
(1)
where $`n_i=0,1`$ whether site $`i`$ is empty or filled by a particle, $`S_i=\pm 1`$ is a variable associated to the particle orientation, $`J`$ the amplitude of the interaction potential between neighbours. The shape factor $`f_{ij}(S_i,S_j)=1ϵ_{ij}S_iS_j`$ (where $`ϵ_{ij}=\pm 1`$ are quenched and random variables) is 0 or 1 depending whether the relative orientations $`(S_i,S_j)`$ are favoured or not when neighbouring sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ are both occupied (for a review see ).

We also consider a 3D system of hard-spheres subject to gravity, where the centers of mass of grains are constrained to move on the sites of a cubic lattice, as depicted in the upper inset of Fig.4. Its Hamiltonian is given by eq.(1), plus a gravitational term, with $`f_{ij}=1`$ if $`i`$ and $`j`$ are nearest neighbours, $`f_{ij}=0`$ elsewhere and $`J\mathrm{}`$ (in this case grains have no orientation and $`S_i`$ is redundant $`i`$).

In both models the value of particle density is fixed, and a Monte Carlo tap dynamics, which allows the system to explore its inherent states, is applied. During the dynamics, the system cyclically evolves for a time $`\tau _0`$ (the tap duration ) at a finite value of the bath temperature, $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (the tap amplitude), and it is suddenly frozen at zero temperature in one of its inherent states (at zero temperature the system does not evolve anymore if the energy cannot be decreased by one single particle movement). After each tap, when the system is at rest, we record the quantities of interest. The time, $`t`$, considered is therefore discrete and coincides with the number of taps.

Let’s first discuss the results about the Frustrated Lattice Gas model for density, $`\rho =0.65`$, since very similar features are found for $`\rho =0.75`$ and in the hard-sphere system (described later on).

Interestingly, under the tap dynamics the system reaches a stationary state (see Fig.1) for all the values of $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and $`\tau _0`$) we considered. During the tap dynamics, in the stationary state, we have calculated the time average of the energy, $`\overline{E}`$, and its fluctuations, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E^2}`$. We show the results in Fig.2 as function the tap amplitude, $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (for several values of the tap duration, $`\tau _0`$). Apparently, $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not the right thermodynamical parameter, since sequences of “taps” with different $`\tau _0`$ give different values of $`\overline{E}(T_\mathrm{\Gamma },\tau _0)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E^2}(T_\mathrm{\Gamma },\tau _0)`$. However, if the stationary states corresponding to different tap dynamics (i.e., different $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\tau _0`$), are indeed characterised by a single thermodynamical parameter, all the curves should collapse onto a single master function when $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E^2}`$ is parametrically plotted as function of $`\overline{E}`$. This data collapse is in fact found and shown in the lower inset of Fig.3. This is a prediction which could be easily checked in real granular materials (where one could consider the density which is easier to measure than the energy).

In the Frustrated Lattice Gas for density, $`\rho =0.75`$, as much as in the hard-sphere model, for low values of the tap amplitude, $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the system reaches a quasi-stationary state, where one time quantities decay as the logarithm of time. In this case the average over the time is performed over a time interval of the tap dynamics such that the energy is practically constant. By performing then the same procedure described in the stationary case, we find (see Ref. ) again a collapse of data as in Fig.3.

The thermodynamical parameter, $`\beta _{fd}`$, is defined apart from an integration constant, $`\beta _0`$, through the fluctuation-dissipation relation:

$$\frac{\overline{E}}{\beta _{fd}}=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E^2}.$$
(2)
By integrating eq. (2), $`\beta _{fd}\beta _0`$ can be expressed as function of $`\overline{E}`$, where the integration constant $`\beta _0`$ can be determined independently . In Fig.3, $`\overline{E}`$ as function of $`T_{fd}\beta _{fd}^1`$ is shown. The corresponding results for the hard-sphere system are shown in Fig.4. In the last model we have also checked that the system density on the bottom layer, $`\rho _b`$, and the density self-overlap function, $`Q`$ depend only on $`\beta _{fd}`$ (see Ref. ), confirming that a unique thermodynamical parameter is enough to describe the system macrostates.

We have found that the fluctuations of the energy in the stationary state depend only on the energy, $`\overline{E}`$, and not on the past history. If all macroscopic quantities depend only on the energy, $`\overline{E}`$, or on its conjugate thermodynamical parameter, $`\beta _{fd}`$, the stationary state can be genuinely considered a “thermodynamical state”. If this is the case one can attempt to construct an equilibrium statistical mechanics, as originally suggested by Edwards .

More precisely we ask in the stationary regime what is the probability distribution, $`P_r`$, of finding the system in the inherent state $`r`$ of energy $`E_r`$ (see ). We assume that the distribution is given by the principle of maximum entropy, $`S=_rP_rlnP_r`$, under the condition that the average energy is fixed: $`E=_rP_rE_r`$. Thus, we have to maximise the following functional: $`I[P_r]=_rP_rlnP_r\beta _{conf}(E_rP_rE_r)`$. Here $`\beta _{conf}`$ is a Lagrange multiplier determined by the constraint on the energy and takes the name of “inverse configurational temperature”. This procedure leads to the Gibbs result:

$`P_r={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta _{conf}E_r}}{Z}}`$ (3)
where $`Z=_re^{\beta _{conf}E_r}`$. Using standard Statistical Mechanics it is easy to show that, in the thermodynamic limit, the entropy $`S`$ and $`\beta _{conf}`$ are also given by:

$`S=ln\mathrm{\Omega }(E),\beta _{conf}={\displaystyle \frac{ln\mathrm{\Omega }}{E}}`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$ is the number of inherent states corresponding to energy $`E`$.

It is possible to show  that in the particular case in which the particles density $`\rho `$ is constant, $`T_{conf}`$ is simply related to the “compactivity”, $`X=\left(\frac{S}{V}\right)^1`$, introduced by Edwards in his seminal papers . In general $`X`$ and $`T_{conf}`$ are two independent variables.

If the distribution in the stationary state coincides with eq.(3) the time average of the energy, $`\overline{E}(\beta _{fd})`$, recorded during the tap dynamics, must coincide with the ensemble average, $`E(\beta _{conf})`$, over the distribution eq.(3). To calculate the average $`E`$, as function of $`\beta _{conf}`$, we have introduced an auxiliary hamiltonian (see also ) $`^{}(\{S_i,n_i\})=(\{S_i,n_i\})+\delta (\{S_i,n_i\})`$, where $`(\{S_i,n_i\})`$ is the hamiltonian (1), and $`\delta (\{S_i,n_i\})`$, is zero, if the configuration is an inherent one, and infinite, otherwise. In this way the canonical distribution for this Hamiltonian gives a weight, $`e^{\beta _{conf}^{}}`$, which is equal to $`e^{\beta _{conf}}`$, for the inherent configurations, and zero otherwise, reproducing the distribution eq.(3). With this auxiliary hamiltonian, using standard Monte Carlo simulations, we have then calculated $`E(\beta _{conf})`$. Fig.s 3, 4 outline a very good agreement between $`E(\beta _{conf})`$ and $`\overline{E}(\beta _{fd})`$ (notice that there are no adjustable parameters). The same agreement is found in the Frustrated Lattice Gas model for $`\rho =0.75`$ and in the hard-sphere system for the other quoted observables, $`\rho _b`$, and $`Q`$ (see Ref. ).

In the approach of Ref.  the system explores the inherent states evolving in an out of equilibrium quasi-stationary state at a very low bath temperature; in this approach the configurational temperature is expected to coincide with the “dynamical temperature”, $`T_{dyn}`$, which appears in the extension of the fluctuation-dissipation relation to the out-equilibrium case. One of the differences with the approach used here is that using the tap dynamics it is also possible to explore low density inherent states in a stationary regime and not only the off-equilibrium “glassy regime”. For istance, the Frustrated Lattice Gas model at density $`\rho =0.65`$ (one of the cases here studied) is never found in an out of equilibrium quasi-stationary state (at any finite value of the bath temperature the system quickly reaches the equilibrium state).

In conclusion, in the context of models for glasses and granular materials, we have obtained two different results. First, we have shown that the stationary states reached by the system under the tap dynamics among the inherent states are not dependent on the past history and can be considered as a thermodynamical state characterized by a single thermodynamical parameter, $`T_{fd}`$, defined through the fluctuation-dissipation relation. Second, $`T_{fd}`$ coincides with $`T_{conf}`$, predicted assuming that the distribution among the inherent states satisfies the principle of maximum entropy under the constraint that energy is fixed. Moreover ensemble average coincides with time average over the tap dynamics. In particular we have found that, by using $`T_{conf}`$ as a state parameter, the observables recorded in different tap sequences (different amplitude and duration of taps) fall onto universal master curves, and the curves turn out to coincide with the ones predicted by the distribution eq.(3).

We thank S.F. Edwards for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the TMR-ERBFMRXCT980183, INFM-PRA(HOP), MURST-PRIN 2000. The allocation of computer resources from INFM Progetto Calcolo Parallelo is acknowledged.