text:
# An optical conveyor belt for single neutral atoms

## 1 The standing-wave dipole trap

Our dipole trap (Fig.1) consists of two counter-propagating Gaussian laser beams with equal intensities and optical frequencies $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ producing a position- and time-dependent dipole potential

$$U(\rho ,z,t)=U_0\frac{w_0^2}{w(z)^2}e^{\frac{2\rho ^2}{w(z)^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\nu tkz).$$
(1)
The optical wavelength is $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$, $`w^2(z)=w_0^2(1+z^2/z_0^2)`$ is the beam radius with waist $`w_0`$ and the Rayleigh length $`z_0=\pi w_0^2/\lambda `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\nu _1\nu _2\nu _1,\nu _2`$ is the mutual detuning of the laser beams. The laser beams have parallel linear polarization and thus produce a standing wave interference pattern. Changing the frequency difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ moves the stationary ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$=0) standing wave along the $`z`$-axis. This can be understood intuitively in a simple picture. Assume, the two beams are detuned by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /2`$ and $`+\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /2`$, respectively. In a reference frame moving with velocity $`v=\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\nu /2`$ both beams are Doppler shifted by the same amount resulting in a stationary standing wave Wilkinson 96 . In the laboratory frame, this corresponds to a motion of the standing wave along the optical axis with velocity $`v`$. In our experimental realization, as described below, it is more convenient to detune only one of the beams by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ while keeping the other one at constant frequency.

Both dipole trap laser beams are derived from a single Nd:YAG laser ($`\lambda =1064`$ nm) which is far red detuned from the $`6S_{1/2}6P_{1/2,3/2}`$ transitions of cesium ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{D1}}=894`$ nm, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{D2}}=852`$ nm). Since the laser detuning is much larger than the atomic fine-structure splitting, the maximum potential depth $`U_0`$ is

$$U_0=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{P}{\pi w_0^2I_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(2)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi 5.2`$ MHz is the natural linewidth of the cesium D2-line and $`I_0=1.1`$ mW/cm2 is the corresponding saturation intensity. The effective laser detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given for alkalis by Grimm 00  $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1=(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1+2\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1)/3`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{i}`$ is the detuning from the Di-line. In our case $`\mathrm{\Delta }10^7\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For a total power $`P`$ of 4 W and a beam waist $`w_0`$ of 30 $`\mu `$m, the potential depth $`U_0`$ is 1.3 mK.

The maximum photon scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ is proportional to the potential depth

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sc}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{U_0}{\mathrm{}}$$
(3)
and amounts to 15 photons/s for our parameters. The spin relaxation rates, however, are two orders of magnitude smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. In previous experiments in a travelling dipole trap we measured spin relaxation times on the order of several seconds Frese 00 .

In a harmonic approximation an atom of mass $`m`$ (for a cesium atom $`m=2.210^{25}`$ kg) trapped in such a standing wave oscillates with frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{z}=2\pi \sqrt{2U_0/m\lambda ^2}2\pi 340`$ kHz in axial and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{rad}}=`$

$`\sqrt{4U_0/mw_0^2}2\pi 2.6`$ kHz in radial directions. The rms size of the ground state wavefunction in the axial and radial directions is $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{z}}`$ = 11 nm and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _0=120`$ nm, respectively. In our case, atoms at about Doppler temperature ($`T_\mathrm{D}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2k_B=125`$ $`\mu `$K) Alt 01b  are localized in the axial direction to $`43`$ nm and in the radial direction to $`5.6`$ $`\mu `$m.

The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. Acousto-optical modulators (AOMs) control the frequencies of both laser beams that generate the dipole trap. They are driven by a digital dual-frequency synthesizer (by APE Berlin) with two phase-synchronized RF-outputs. Both AOMs are set up in double-pass configuration in order to avoid beam walk-off during a frequency sweep. To achieve optimal interference contrast of the standing wave, the optical path lengths of both laser beams are equalized. A coherence length of the Nd:YAG laser of $`>10`$ cm ensures a fringe visibility close to 100 % within the desired displacement distance.

A standard six-beam magneto-optical trap (MOT) Raab 87  at the center of a UHV glass cell serves as our primary source of single cold atoms Frese 00 . Dissipative forces slow cesium atoms from the background vapor and cool them down to about Doppler temperature. The high magnetic field gradient of 400 Gauss/cm localizes the trapped atoms to a region of diameter 30 $`\mu `$m which is much smaller than the 2 mm waist of the MOT lasers. It also provides a low loading rate of 2 atoms/min only which ensures that accidental loading events during the measurement procedure are negligible. We speed up the loading process by temporarily lowering the magnetic field gradient to 40 Gauss/cm. This results in a larger capture cross section which significantly increases the loading rate. After several 100 ms the field gradient is returned to its initial value, concentrating the trapped atoms at the center of the MOT. Varying the time during which the field gradient is low enables us to select a specific mean atom number. This procedure allows us to repeat the experiment with identical parameters in quick succession many hundreds of times. Since we record the initial number of atoms trapped in the MOT, we can evaluate the results for each atom number separately. By slightly increasing the cesium partial pressure in the vacuum chamber this system could easily deliver one atom within 100 ms.

The fluorescence light of the atoms is collected by a diffraction limited objective Alt 01  (NA=0.29) and projected onto an avalanche photodiode (APD, model SPCM-200 by EG&G) with a quantum efficiency of 50 $`\%`$ at $`\lambda =852`$ nm. This yields a photon count rate of $`510^4s^1`$ per atom. Spatial filtering reduces the MOT laser stray light background to a count rate of $`210^4s^1`$, allowing us to determine the exact number of trapped atoms in real time, with a typical uncertainty of $`<1`$ $`\%`$ in 1 ms. Interference filters transmitting the fluorescence light at 852 nm attenuate the strong Nd:YAG laser stray light to 30 photons/s which is as low as the dark count rates of the APDs.

Transfer of atoms from the MOT into the optical dipole trap with a high efficiency is the backbone of the experiment. A prerequisite for efficient transfer is a thorough alignment of the dipole trap laser onto the MOT. As a sensitive alignment criterion we use the fact that the Nd:YAG laser shifts the atomic transition out of resonance, which lowers the fluorescence rate of the MOT. The dipole trap laser is therefore superposed with the MOT by minimizing the fluorescence rate of a single trapped atom Frese 00 . This is done for both dipole trap laser beams separately. Since the localization of the atom in the MOT is tighter than the foci of the two beams, this alignment also yields their optimal mutual superposition to provide the standing wave structure. To transfer cold atoms from the MOT into the dipole trap, both traps are simultaneously operated for several milliseconds before we switch off the MOT (Fig. 2). After storage in the dipole trap the atoms are transferred back into the MOT by the reverse procedure. In other experiments only a fraction of atoms stored in a MOT can be loaded into a dipole trap due to inelastic collisions, see Kuppens 00  and references therein. In our case, however, the small number of atoms together with the perfect superposition of the two small traps and intrinsic cooling during the transfer process Frese 00  warrant a transfer efficiency of nearly 100 $`\%`$.

The ability to transfer atoms between the two traps provides a simple procedure for measuring the lifetime of the atoms in the dipole trap. Background gas collisions limit this trap lifetime to about 25 s. Other heating mechanisms such as photon scattering (about 1.5 $`\mu `$K/s in our case), intensity fluctuations and beam pointing instabilities of the trapping laser beams Gehm 98  are not observable in our experiment. However, fluctuations of the relative phase with an rms-value of roughly $`2\pi /1000`$ between the two RF-outputs of the frequency synthesizer are directly translated into position fluctuations of the dipole trap potential. This causes heating of the trapped atoms Alt 01b  and limits the lifetime to 3 s, which is still several orders of magnitude longer than all experimentally relevant time scales.

## 2 Transportation efficiency

The conveyor belt accelerates a trapped atom and brings it to a stop at preselected points along the standing wave. For this purpose, we transfer one atom from the MOT into the dipole trap (Fig. 3) before the MOT lasers and magnetic field are switched off. To move the atom over the distance $`d`$ it is uniformly accelerated along the first half of $`d`$ and decelerated in the same manner along the second half.

To accomplish this, the digital frequency synthesizer linearly sweeps the frequency of one of the modulators in a phase-continuous way from $`f_0`$ to $`f_0+\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and back to $`f_0`$ (Fig. 3), while the other modulator remains at $`f_0`$. Since the AOMs are set up in double pass configuration, the maximum relative detuning of the AOM frequencies $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is translated into an optical detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{max}}=2\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{max}}`$. These frequency sweeps accelerate and decelerate the standing wave structure achieving a maximum velocity of $`v=\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/2`$. The duration of the overall displacement procedure, $`t_\mathrm{d}`$, determines the required accelerations $`a=\pm \lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/t_\mathrm{d}`$. The moving potential wells of the dipole trap thus carry the atom along the required distance $`d=at_\mathrm{d}^2/4`$. This distance can be controlled with sub-micrometer precision by heterodyning both frequencies of the AOM drivers. A counter monitors the number of cycles during a frequency sweep, which directly measures the transportation distance in multiples of $`\lambda `$.

To observe the atom at its new position, we use a second optical system identical to the one used for collecting fluorescence from the MOT (Fig. 1). Spatial filters limit the field of view to a radius of $`40\mu `$m, which is much smaller than the typical displacements. A linear motion stage moves both detector and imaging optics by the transportation distance. The fixed imaging optics permanently monitors the MOT region, both to verify the initial presence of a single atom in the MOT and to confirm its absence after displacement, see Fig. 3. At its destination, the transported atom is illuminated by a resonant probe laser ($`F=4F^{}=5`$ transition of the D2 line) overlapped with a repumping laser ($`F=3F^{}=4`$), providing cyclic optical excitation. Both probe and repumping laser are collimated and overlapped with the Nd:YAG laser and focused to a beam diameter of only 100 $`\mu `$m in order to achieve a high intensity of $`10I_0`$ at the position of the atoms without a measurable contribution to stray light. From a single atom we routinely collect 40 fluorescence photons within 40 ms with near zero background. This allows us to unambiguously detect the atom at its new position as long as $`d3`$ mm, as will be shown below.

This detection scheme demonstrates the deterministic delivery of a single atom to a desired position. The measured probability to observe the transported atom as a function of the displacement is shown in Fig. 4 as empty circles. For small distances, the fraction of detected atoms is above 90 %. However, the position dependence of the trap depth limits this detection efficiency for larger displacements from the laser focus. The tight focusing of the trapping laser beams yields a Rayleigh length $`z_0`$ of only 3 mm. Due to the divergence of the beams, the local trap depth $`U(z)`$ scales with the displacement $`z`$ from the focus as

$$U(z)=U_0\left(1+\frac{z^2}{z_0^2}\right)^1.$$
(4)
During resonant excitation the atom is heated by scattering photons. The fluorescence signal lasts until the atom is evaporated out of the trap, which happens on average after $`N=U(z)/2E_\mathrm{r}`$ scattering events. Here $`E_\mathrm{r}=(\mathrm{}k_{\mathrm{D2}})^2/2m`$ is the photon recoil energy with $`k_{\mathrm{D2}}=2\pi /\lambda _{\mathrm{D2}}`$. As a consequence, we observe that the number of detected fluorescence photons per atom is proportional to $`U(z)`$. In this measurement we detect the presence of the atom if a fluorescence peak substantially exceeds (more than 5 photons) the stray light background (2 photons on average) of the Nd:YAG and the probe laser beams. Thus, at $`d>3`$ mm, the probe laser can evaporate the atom out of the dipole trap before enough fluorescence photons have been detected.

The actual transportation efficiency, however, is much higher than that shown by the resonant illumination detection. To demonstrate this, we use the MOT to detect the atom with 100 % efficiency. Without resonant illumination, the displaced atom is transported back to $`z=0`$ before we switch on the MOT lasers to reveal the presence or absence of the atom. The results of this measurement are shown in Fig. 4 as filled circles. Even for distances as large as 10 mm, the two-way transportation efficiency remains above 80 %. At a distance of 15 mm, however, the transportation efficiency drastically decreases to 16 $`\%`$.

The atoms are lost at this distance because gravity reduces the effective potential depth. In our setup, the optical $`z`$-axis of the dipole trap is oriented horizontally. Thus, the potential in vertical direction is the sum of the radial dipole trapping potential and the gravitational potential

$$U_{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho ,z)=U(z)e^{\frac{2\rho ^2}{w(z)^2}}+mg\rho ,$$
(5)
where $`U(z)`$ is the trap depth of a potential well, given in Eq. (4). The acceleration due to gravity tilts these Gaussian potential wells, which reduces the trap depth to $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)`$, see Fig. 5. In contrast to the pure Lorentzian dipole potential $`U(z)`$, this effective potential disappears at $`z=21`$ mm. However, due to the initial energy of the atom, we lose the atom at even smaller distances. This interpretation is supported by an independent measurement Alt 01b  in a stationary standing wave. We measured the survival probability of the atom after an adiabatic lowering of the trap depth by attempting to recapture it in the MOT. We observed that 80 $`\%`$ of the atoms survive if the trap depth is reduced from $`U_0`$ to $`0.03U_0`$, which equals the effective potential depth $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}(z)`$ at $`z=13`$ mm. However, a reduction to $`0.01U_0`$, which corresponds to a displacement to $`z=17`$ mm, yielded a survival probability of only 10 $`\%`$. This is in agreement with the measured transportation efficiency of 16 % at $`z=15`$ mm.

More complicated position manipulations than a simple displacement of an atom along the standing wave are possible. We implemented an ’atomic shuttle’ by transporting one atom by 1 mm and then reversing the direction of motion repeatedly. After swapping the atom back and forth $`n`$ times, it is directly detected using resonant illumination (Fig. 6). Each acceleration process causes heating of the atom as discussed below which results in a decreased detection efficiency. Heating processes are sufficiently small, such that a single atom bounces back and forth 30 times with a measured efficiency of 40 %.

## 3 Acceleration

We have investigated the transportation efficiency as a function of the acceleration for a constant displacement of 1 mm using resonant illumination detection. Although the acceleration $`a`$ was varied over 4 orders of magnitude (Fig. 7), we found a nearly constant transportation efficiency of more than 90 % for $`a<710^4`$ m/s2. For larger accelerations, the efficiency rapidly decreases.

The potential in the accelerated frame is the sum of the periodic potential of the standing wave and the contribution of the accelerating force, $`U(z^{})=U_0\mathrm{cos}^2(kz^{})+maz^{}`$. In the ideal case of an initially motionless atom, the acceleration could be adiabatically increased until the local minima of the standing wave disappear. The acceleration is thus fundamentally limited by the potential depth, $`a_{\mathrm{max}}=U_0k/m=4.810^5`$ m/s2.

However, there are two effects that experimentally limit the maximum acceleration to a lower value. The first is an additional heating effect due to abrupt changes of the acceleration. At the beginning of the transportation process the acceleration is instantly switched from 0 to $`a`$ and similarly from $`a`$ to $`a`$ after half the transportation distance (Fig. 3). The equilibrium position of the accelerated potential is shifted by the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=(2k)^1\mathrm{arcsin}(a/a_{\mathrm{max}})`$ (Fig. 8). These sudden changes of the potential, which occur three times during a transportation process, either heat or cool the atom depending on the phase of its oscillation. The atom can increase its energy twice during the first two changes, as illustrated in Fig. 8 where the worst case of a maximal energy gain is shown. This leads to a non-zero probability to lose the atom for accelerations exceeding $`0.42a_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The initial thermal energy of the atom, corresponding to $`0.15U_0`$ in our case Alt 01b , reduces this value to $`0.24a_{\mathrm{max}}`$. For accelerations below $`0.1a_{\mathrm{max}}`$ this heating effect can be neglected. The maximum energy gained due to abrupt jumps of the acceleration for $`aa_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{max}}(a)=4U_0(a/a_{\mathrm{max}})^2`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{max}}(0.1a_{\mathrm{max}})`$ is only $`80\mu `$K. Changing the acceleration slowly enough would avoid this heating effect completely because the atom would then adiabatically follow the motion of the potential well.

The second fact that experimentally limits the maximum acceleration is the finite bandwidth of the AOMs. The highest acceleration achieved requires a mutual detuning of up to $`20`$ MHz of the counter-propagating laser beams. For these parameters, the AOM deflection efficiency decreases by 50 $`\%`$ which results in a similar decrease of the dipole trap laser power and thus of the trap depth. Due to the combination of these two effects the transportation efficiency should decrease for accelerations exceeding $`0.12a_{\mathrm{max}}=5.810^4`$ m/s2. This is indeed what we observe. Note, however, that the accelerations realized here still exceed that of the maximum resonant light pressure force, $`a_\mathrm{R}=p_{\mathrm{ph}}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2m610^4`$ m/s2. Here, $`p_{\mathrm{ph}}=\mathrm{}k_{\mathrm{D2}}`$ is the photon momentum. This allows us to change the atomic velocity from zero to the maximum velocity of 10 m/s (limited by the AOM bandwidth) within 100 $`\mu `$s.

The decrease of the transportation efficiency around 100 m/s2 is attributed to a modulation of the dipole trap potential caused by partial reflection of one of the laser beams on the glass cell. The reflected beam interferes with the standing wave which is thus phase and amplitude modulated. For appropriate detunings this effect causes either resonant or parametric heating of the atoms. This mechanism can be used to measure the oscillation frequency of the atoms in the trap and is currently under study Alt 01b . If required, the effect could be avoided by slightly changing the geometry of the setup or by selecting proper detunings of the two beams.

## 4 Conclusions and outlook

We have realized a deterministic source of cold atoms which delivers a prescribed number of single atoms to a desired spot. The precise control of the experimental parameters allows us to transport a single atom over the distance of 10 mm within 1 ms with an accuracy of $`\lambda /2`$. The absolute position of the atom is limited by the size of the MOT. The decrease in the efficiency at larger distances is accredited only to the effect of gravity. This indicates that larger displacements could be achieved by using higher laser power and different beam geometries. Moreover, additional cooling of the trapped atoms would further improve the performance of the atomic conveyor-belt.

Alternative approaches are possible to control the motion of the standing wave interference pattern. The first is to retro-reflect one of the trap laser beams by a mirror. Translating the mirror would result in a travelling wave. This mechanical solution would avoid the major heating effect due to the phase noise of the AOM drivers. Its disadvantages, however, are a worse overall stability and much lower possible accelerations and velocities. A second alternative is to use an EOM to phase-shift one of the laser beams. Here, an adiabatic shift from 0 to $`2\pi `$ moves the interference pattern along with the trapped atom by $`\lambda /2`$. Then, the EOM rapidly switches the phase from $`2\pi `$ back to 0 without the atom being able to follow. Repeating this procedure $`n`$ times transports the atom over the distance of $`n\lambda /2`$. This approach would simplify the optical setup at the cost of placing demanding requirements on the EOM driver.

One of the most interesting applications of the optical conveyor-belt is the controlled positioning of two or more atoms in the fundamental mode of a high-finesse optical cavity. In current single-atom cavity-QED experiments Hood 00 ; Pinkse 00  atoms are released from a MOT and thus enter the cavity in a random way. Our device, however, could place a predetermined number of atoms into the cavity deterministically. This could provide the possibility to entangle neutral atoms via the exchange of optical photons Pellizzari 95 ; Beige 00 , a demanding task which, so far, has only been accomplished in the microwave domain Hagley 97 ; Rauschenbeutel 00 .

###### Acknowledgements.

We have received support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen.

Figures


format: text

text:
# How frames of reference are the key to gravity

## I Introduction

Van Raamsdonk’s theory that spacetime is emergent from quantum entanglement has facilitated contributions towards a theory of gravity through various quantum models. The theory’s fundamental premise is that spacetime, which accounts for gravity, is an abstraction of quantum phenomena. The goal is to develop a quantum theory of gravity, equivalent to general relativity, by deconstructing spacetime in quantum terms. However, spacetime is a complex concept and to achieve this goal it may be unnecessary (or impossible) to account for all aspects.

Inherent in spacetime is the concept of a frame of reference. From this subconcept, this paper derives mathematics which account for several of relativity’s main assertions about gravity. Furthermore, through additional mathematical reasoning, this mathematics of gravity is correlated with the Schrödinger equation. This allows quantum models to account for these main assertions about gravity without having to account for spacetime.

## II Frames of reference & gravity

The fundamental premise underlying frames of reference is that spatial properties are relativistic. For quantum systems this means particles would never possess properties like absolute position or speed. Furthermore, given that there are no absolute reference points, a frame of reference must necessarily be established based on a specific set of particles. Consequently, a quantum system’s spatial data is, ultimately, about relationships between particles. For example, rather than possessing well-defined positions, particles have distances to other particles.

In this paper, the term ‘perceived’ is used to refer to phenomena as described by classical physics. For example, ‘perceived speed’ refers to the classical concept of speed, defined as the rate of change of the spatial distance in an observer’s rest frame.

The objective of this section is to account for the following assertions of general relativity, achieved through a mathematical analysis of the relationship between classical motion and changes to distances between particles:

1. Gravity is not a force.
2. Gravity results in a perceived acceleration for approaching objects.
3. Gravity results in a perceived deceleration for objects receding from each other.
4. The perceived acceleration/deceleration due to gravity reduces with distance.
5. Gravity is not limited to a finite distance.

This analysis derives a formula for perceived acceleration given a constant rate of change in distance between two particles, denoted $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. For this analysis, $`p_1`$ is taken to be included in the frame of reference and, therefore, its position is considered fixed. As for $`p_2`$ it could be moving in any direction. Regardless of the direction, a geometric relationship between these particles’ positions and $`p_2`$’s direction is known (see Fig. 1).

Herein, the term direction-line refers to the line parallel to a particle’s direction. That is, a direction-line maintains a constant angle with a particle’s direction but extends indefinitely in both directions.

Where $`p_2`$’s direction-line is closest to $`p_1`$ there would exist a point $`P`$. Given that the shortest distance between $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$’s direction-line occurs at $`P`$, the line through $`P`$ and $`p_1`$ would be perpendicular to $`p_2`$’s direction-line. Therefore, the positions of $`P`$, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ form a right-angle triangle, with $`P`$ being the right-angle vertex.

The distance from $`p_1`$ to $`p_2`$, denoted $`x`$, is the hypotenuse. The minimum distance between $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$’s direction-line, denoted $`m`$, is a leg side. The distance from $`p_2`$ to $`P`$, denoted $`y`$, is the leg side along the direction-line. This length can be calculated from the others using Pythagorean theorem.

$$y=\sqrt{x^2m^2}$$
(1)
The perceived speed is the rate of change for $`y`$; whereas the rate of change in distance is that of $`x`$. Therefore, the ratio between perceived speed and the distance’s rate of change is calculated by taking the derivative of $`y`$ with respect to $`x`$.

$$\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2m^2}}$$
(2)
The rate of change for the ratio between perceived speed and the distance’s rate of change is calculated by taking the second derivative.

$$\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}=\frac{m^2}{\left(x^2m\right)^{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)}}$$
(3)
For any constant (non-zero) rate of change in distance, a change in the ratio between perceived speed and this rate is perceived as an acceleration. Therefore, formula 3 can be expressed in terms of perceived acceleration, denoted $`a_p`$. I call this formula the quantum-relativity gravity formula (GF).

$$a_p=\frac{m^2}{\left(x^2m\right)^{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)}}$$
(4)
The GF calculates the perceived acceleration when mapping a constant rate of change in distance to a given direction, represented by $`m`$. The lowest value for $`m`$ is zero, which corresponds to a heading directly towards or away from $`p_1`$. If $`p_2`$ is at $`P`$ then $`y`$ is zero and, therefore, $`m`$ equals the hypotenuse, its maximum value. Therefore, m has the following range:

$$0mx$$
(5)
Considering this range, the direction has a non-trivial influence. When $`m=0`$ the perceived acceleration is 0 but as $`m`$ approaches $`x`$ the perceived acceleration approaches $`\mathrm{}`$.

$$\underset{mx^{}}{lim}a_p=\underset{mx^{}}{lim}\frac{m^2}{\left(x^2m\right)^{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)}}=\mathrm{}$$
(6)
The direction depends on the frame of reference. Without a multiparticle frame of reference, (following Occam’s razor) any change in distance is considered motion directly towards or away. Such motion is associated with an $`m`$ value of 0. Therefore, without such a frame of reference there is no perceived acceleration.

However, with any frame of reference there would be a non-zero $`m`$ value for all particles except those exactly on the direction-line of $`p_2`$. Therefore, maintaining a constant rate of change in distance with most particles of any given multi-dimensional frame of reference, results in a perceived acceleration. That is, except at the exact point, enclosed within the frame of reference, where the influences cancel out. That aside, for a constant rate of change in distance, a (multi-dimensional) frame of reference is necessary and sufficient for a non-zero perceived acceleration.

Given a non-zero perceived acceleration the GF (formula 4) accounts for all five assertions listed above. This perceived acceleration is not attributable to a force (assertion 1) because it is not related to changes to the distance’s rate of change; instead, it is derived from the relationship between this rate and perceived speed. Furthermore, any non-zero perceived acceleration is negative under all valid conditions; this indicates a perceived acceleration towards the point closest to $`p_1`$ on $`p_2`$’s direction-line. This means, perceived acceleration when approaching and perceived deceleration when receding (assertions 2 and 3). Finally, the perceived acceleration is predicted to reduce with the distance (denominator increases with $`x`$) but never reaches zero (numerator remains constant), thus realizing all five assertions.

This means that even without incorporating time as a fourth dimension, mapping a constant rate of change in distance to normal space results in perceived accelerated motion. With a relativistic model, gravity is seen as an anomaly caused by the mismatch between the fundamental structure of the universe and our perception of it. As demonstrated, this perception is contingent on a frame of reference, thus making frames of reference the crucial factor for gravitational effects.

## III Quantum states

One fundamental difference when analyzing particles rather than objects is that it leads to predictions of quantum states. Before going into a technical analysis of this, consider two objects on a collision course. The first object is taken to be the frame of reference and is composed of two particles $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. The second object is a single particle $`p_3`$ which is equidistant from $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ and headed directly towards the midpoint between them (see Fig. 2). As $`p_3`$ approaches, its rate of change in distance with both $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ remains constant (resulting in a perceived acceleration towards the midpoint).

However, this cannot continue indefinitely. Something has to give when $`p_3`$ reaches the midpoint, since $`p_3`$ cannot continue to approach both $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$; at this point any movement towards $`p_1`$ would be a movement away from $`p_2`$ and vice versa. The GF offers no prediction because it is undefined at this point (denominator is zero, since $`x=m`$ at the midpoint). However, this is merely a mapping problem since the only constraint on the distances is a constant rate of change (assuming no forces). Therefore, the prediction would be that $`p_3`$ would continue to approach both $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ by entering a state of quantum superposition.

For a technical analysis of quantum states the overall system structure is considered. Since a quantum system’s relativistic data is about relationships between particles, such data relates to particle pairs rather than individual particles. Here, the term ‘particle pair’ is used to denote any arbitrary pair of particles without implying any special relationship or the notion of an antiparticle. The implied overall system structure is that of an undirected graph, such that:

1. Nodes of the graph represent particles.
2. Edges of the graph represent spatial data about their associated particle pair, including the distance between the particles and that distance’s rate of change.
3. A complete system description would be a complete graph (every node connected to every other node with a single edge).

This particle-pair graph is the basis for a model that I call the quantum-relativity model (QRM), which also encompasses the technical details for mapping this structure to a 3D Cartesian space.

The technique for mapping distance data to points in a Cartesian space is trilateration, which requires reference points that span the space’s dimensions. For the QRM, each reference point would associate a node from the particle-pair graph, denoted $`n_i`$, with a position in Cartesian space, denoted $`P_i`$.

A set of reference points which spans three dimensions is a 3D frame of reference. Therefore, mapping from the QRM starts with establishing a 3D frame of reference. To span three dimensions the frame of reference must include four reference points such that positions $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ are not collinear and $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$, $`P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ are not coplanar.

$`P_1`$ can be at any coordinates but $`P_2`$ is limited by the distance (for the edge) between $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, denoted $`d_{1,2}`$. Therefore, it must be located a distance of $`d_{1,2}`$ away from $`P_1`$. In general, each reference point imposes a distance constraint on any node being mapped. Therefore, each node added to the frame of reference increases the number of distances to satisfy when mapping. For example, with $`n_3`$ there are two distance constraints, one for the edge with $`n_1`$ ($`d_{1,3}`$) and $`n_2`$ ($`d_{2,3}`$).

A Cartesian space cannot express a set of distance constraints that violate the triangle inequality. Consequently, for nodes that would introduce such a violation there is no valid position to map to. The distances to consider are those between nodes of the frame of reference and between those nodes and the node being mapped.

For example, with $`n_3`$ there are three distances to consider: $`d_{1,2}`$, $`d_{2,3}`$ and $`d_{1,3}`$. Therefore, only nodes that satisfy the triangle inequality as stated by equation 7 can serve as $`n_3`$. So, although any node can serve as $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$, this is not the case for other frame of reference nodes (e.g. $`n_3`$, $`n_4`$).

$`d_a+d_bd_c,`$ (7)
For all distinct $`a,b,c\{\{1,2\},\{2,3\},\{1,3\}\}`$
For any node being mapped, when there is no valid position to map to it is not a failure but a prediction. Each reference point has a position $`P_r`$ and known distances with all other nodes. Therefore, the node being mapped, denoted $`n_m`$, has many potential positions associated with each reference point. In geometric terms, these potential positions are located on the surface of a sphere centered at $`P_r`$ with a radius of $`d_{r,m}`$ (see Fig. 3). However, if there is no common intersection point for these spheres then there is no well-defined (agreed) position for $`n_m`$. In such cases, $`n_m`$ has many potential positions, just not an agreed position with respect to all reference points. Therefore, the prediction is that the particle associated with $`n_m`$ is in a state of quantum superposition.

Note, in the example from beginning of this section (see Fig. 2), when $`p_3`$ was predicted to enter a state of superposition the distances would have violated the triangle inequality, specially $`d_{1,3}+d_{2,3}d_{1,2}`$.

Trilateration, essentially, yields the intersection between sets of potential positions. This intersection is what determines a node’s valid positions, if any. As these sets are based on the reference points comprising the frame of reference, changing the frame of reference potentially changes a particle’s predicted position. It can even affect whether there is a valid position. Therefore, not only are the positions of particles relative to the frame of reference but so are quantum states.

For example, if a particle is predicted to be in superposition the mapping process can be repeated with its node serving as $`n_1`$ or $`n_2`$. Since there is at most one distance constraint to satisfy when mapping $`n_1`$ or $`n_2`$, the triangle inequality does not apply. Consequently, the particle will no longer be predicted as being in superposition.

With a 3D frame of reference established, mapping a node (via trilateration) yields at most one solution, the predicted position of the associated particle. Furthermore, once the frame of reference is established which distances will be considered for any given node is known. Therefore, once the frame of reference is established all subsequent mapping is deterministic. However, which nodes comprise the frame of reference is indeterminate, thus making particle positions and quantum states indeterminate.

Since the Schrödinger equation models the universe’s indeterminateness, this equation would relate to the QRM’s source of indeterminateness. That is, the Schrödinger equation would represent the indeterminateness of which particles will comprise the frame of reference.

As is the case with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics,the overall state of the universe is modeled as eternally indeterminate, with the QRM. The determinate perspective associated with each moment of observation is realized via a frame of reference from which to interpret the universe’s state.

Superposition predictions are entangled via their relationship to the frame of reference and any disentanglement is tied to the mapping to Cartesian space. This makes the QRM compatible with van Raamsdonk’s theory. However, the QRM does not distinguish between superposition disentanglement causing space’s emergence or vice versa. Instead, both are associated with the establishment of a frame of reference.

## IV Summary

The QRM is a simple model for the underlying premise of frames of reference. However, by modeling the universe as indeterminate and relativistic it is consistent with principles of quantum mechanics and relativity, respectively. This allows for the relating of concepts across these branches via the QRM. For example, frames of reference are related to superposition disentanglement. These relationships, ultimately, link a mathematical model of gravity to the Schrödinger equation. This potentially offers insights towards, if not the basis for, a quantum theory of gravity.


text:
# Correspondence Principle in Quantum Gravity

## Abstract

The problem of consistent formulation of the correspondence principle in quantum gravity is considered. The usual approach based on the use of the two-particle scattering amplitudes is shown to be in disagreement with the classical result of General Relativity given by the Schwarzschild solution. It is shown also that this approach fails to describe whatever non-Newtonian interactions of macroscopic bodies. An alternative interpretation of the correspondence principle is given directly in terms of the effective action. Gauge independence of the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ part of the one-loop radiative corrections to the gravitational form factors of the scalar particle is proved, justifying the interpretation proposed. Application to the black holes is discussed.

Establishing the correspondence between classical and quantum modes of description in the case of the theory of gravity displays features quite different from those encountered in other theories of fundamental interactions. Namely, the usual limiting procedure of the transition from quantum to classical theory turns out to be inapplicable in General Relativity. In electrodynamics, e.g., the quantum potential, defined as the Fourier transform (with respect to the momentum transfer from one particle to another) of a suitably normalized two-particle scattering amplitude, takes the form of the Coulomb law when the momentum transfer becomes small as compared with the particles’ masses, so the above mentioned procedure is accomplished by tending the masses to infinity. Contrary to this, in General Relativity, the radiative corrections do not disappear in the limit: particle masses $`\mathrm{},`$ because strength of the gravitational interaction of particles is proportional to their masses. In fact, the relative value of the radiative corrections to the classical Newton law, corresponding to the logarithmical contribution to the gravitational form factors of the scalar particle, is independent of the scalar particle mass . Yet, this contribution is proportional to the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}.`$ Newton’s theory is therefore correctly reproduced in the formal limit $`\mathrm{}0.`$

There is, however, a still more important aspect of the correspondence between classical and quantum pictures of gravitation. The Einstein theory, being essentially nonlinear, demands quantum theory to reproduce not only the Newtonian form of the particle interaction, but also all the nonlinear corrections predicted by General Relativity. In this respect, the above-mentioned peculiarity of the gravitational interaction, namely, its proportionality to the masses of particles, is manifested in the fact (also pointed out in Ref. ) that, along with true quantum corrections (i.e., proportional to the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$), the loop contributions also contain classical pieces (i.e., proportional to $`\mathrm{}^0`$). Thus, an important question arises as to relationship between these classical loop contributions and the classical predictions of General Relativity.

In analogous situation in the Yang-Mills theories, the correct correspondence between classical and quantum theories is guaranteed by the fact that all radiative corrections to the particle form factors disappear in the limit: masses $`\mathrm{},`$ thus providing the complete reduction of a given quantum picture to the corresponding nonlinear classical solution. It is claimed in Ref.  that when collected in the course of the construction of the gravitational potential from the one-particle-reducible Feynman graphs, the aforesaid classical contributions exactly reproduce the post-Newtonian terms given by the expansion of the Schwarzschild metric in powers of $`r_g/r,`$ where $`r_g`$ is the gravitational radius.

However, as will be shown presently, the value of the potential found in Ref.  disagrees with the classical result given by the Schwarzschild solution. The latter has the form

$`ds^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}}\right)c^2dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1\frac{r_g}{r}}}`$
$`r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),`$ (1)
where $`\theta ,\phi `$ are the standard spherical angles, $`r`$ is the radial coordinate, and $`r_g=2GM/c^2`$ is the gravitational radius of a spherically-symmetric distribution of mass $`M.`$ The form of $`ds^2`$ given by Eq. (Correspondence Principle in Quantum Gravity) is fixed by the requirements $`g_{ti}=0,`$ $`i=r,\theta ,\phi ,`$ $`g_{\theta \theta }=r^2.`$ To compare the two results, however, one has to transform Eq. (Correspondence Principle in Quantum Gravity) to the DeWitt gauge

$`\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu g_{\nu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\alpha g_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (2)
used in Ref. .

The $`t,\theta ,\phi `$-components of Eq. (2) are already satisfied by solution (Correspondence Principle in Quantum Gravity). To meet the remaining condition, one substitutes $`r=f(\stackrel{~}{r}).`$ A simple calculation shows that the function $`f(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ should expand as

$$f(\stackrel{~}{r})=\stackrel{~}{r}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{r_g}{\stackrel{~}{r}}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{r_g}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right]$$

at large $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ for Eq. (2) to be satisfied to the order $`r_g^2/r^2.`$

In the new coordinates, $`g_{00}`$ component of the Schwarzschild solution takes the following form (the tilde is omitted),

$`g_{00}=1{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_g^2}{2r^2}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_g^3}{r^3}}\right)`$
Taking the square root of $`g_{00},`$ we see that the classical gravitational potential turns out to be equal to

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{c}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{GM}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G^2M^2}{2c^2r^2}}.`$ (3)
The post-Newtonian correction here is twice as small as that obtained in .

Thus, we arrive at the puzzling conclusion that in the classical limit, the quantum theory of gravity, being based on the Bohr correspondence principle, does not reproduce the Einstein theory it originates from.

However, before making such a conclusion, one should question relevance of the definition of gravitational potential through the scattering amplitudes. It may well turn out that the above discrepancy arises because of the incorrect choice of the quantum-field quantity to be traced back to the classical potential.

In what follows, I give an interpretation of the correspondence principle as applied to gravity, which naturally resolves the above paradox .

Let us note first of all that, from the formal point of view, the correspondence between any quantum theory and its classical original is most naturally established in terms of the effective action rather than the S-matrix. This is because the effective action (generating functional of the one-particle-irreducible Green functions) just coincides with the initial classical action in the tree approximation. In particular, the nonlinearity of classical theory (resulting, e.g., in $`r_g/r`$ power corrections to the Newton law in the General Relativity) is correctly reproduced by the trees. In the case of quantum gravity, there are still additional contributions of the order $`\mathrm{}^0,`$ coming from loop corrections. These are given by the gravitational form factors of the particles, which serve as building blocks for the gravitational potential. Instead of constructing the potential, however, let us consider them in the framework of the effective action method. From the point of view of this method, the $`\mathrm{}^0`$-parts of the particle form factors, together with the proper quantum parts of order $`\mathrm{},`$ describe the radiative corrections to the classical equations of motion of the gravitational field. It is non-vanishing of these terms that violates the usual Bohr correspondence. There is, however, one essential difference between the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ loop terms and the nonlinear tree corrections. Consider, for instance, the first post-Newtonian correction of the form

$$\mathrm{const}\frac{G^2M^2}{c^2r^2}.$$

The ”const” receives contributions from the tree diagram pictured in Fig. 1(a), as well as from the one-loop form factor, Fig. 1(b). If the gravitational field is produced by only one particle of mass $`M,`$ then the two contributions are of the same order of magnitude.

They are not, however, if the field is produced by a macroscopic body consisting of a large number $`N`$ of particles with mass $`m=M/N.`$ Being responsible for the nonlinearity of Einstein equations, the tree diagram 1(a) is bilinear in the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ of the particles, while the loop diagram 1(b) is only linear (to be precise, it has only two particle operators attached). Therefore, when evaluated between the $`N`$-particle states, the former is proportional to $`(mN)(mN)=M^2,`$ while the latter, to $`m^2N=M^2/N.`$ If, for instance, the solar gravitational field is considered, the quantum correction is suppressed by a factor of the order $`m_{proton}/M_{}10^{57}.`$

This fact suggests the following interpretation of the correspondence principle when applied to the case of gravity: the effective gravitational field produced by a macroscopic body of mass $`M`$ consisting of $`N`$ particles turns into the corresponding classical solution of the Einstein equations in the limit $`M\mathrm{},`$ $`N\mathrm{}.`$

It is clear from the above discussion that the use of the effective action is essential for this interpretation: the quantum potential defined with the help of the scattering amplitudes, being of the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{q}(r)=N{\displaystyle \frac{G(M/N)}{r}}+c_1N{\displaystyle \frac{G^2(M/N)^2}{c^2r^2}}`$
$`+c_2N{\displaystyle \frac{G^3(M/N)^3}{c^4r^3}}+\mathrm{},`$
for a macroscopic ($`N`$-particle) body of mass $`M,`$ would fail to reproduce whatever classical potential other than Newtonian, since

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{q}(r)\frac{GM}{r}\mathrm{when}N\mathrm{}.$$

Thus, the loop corrections of the order $`\mathrm{}^0`$ are now considered on an equal footing with the tree corrections, and thereby are endowed with direct physical meaning as describing deviations of the spacetime metric from classical solutions of the Einstein equations in the case of finite $`N.`$

Like any other argument trying to assign physical meaning to the effective action, the above interpretation immediately runs up against the problem of its gauge dependence. In spite of being independent of the Planck constant, the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ terms originating from the loop diagrams are not gauge-independent a priori. However, there is a strong evidence for that they are gauge-independent nevertheless. Namely, as is demonstrated in full detail in , the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ terms of the one-loop gravitational form factors of the scalar particle, contributing to the first post-Newtonian correction to the metric, turn out to be independent of the Feynman gauge parameter $`\xi `$ weighting the gauge condition. A very specific feature of this gauge dependence cancellation must be emphasized: it holds only for the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ part of the form factors. For instance, the logarithmical part of the form factors (which is of the order $`\mathrm{}`$) is gauge-dependent .

Actual value of the one-loop $`\mathrm{}^0`$ contribution to the effective metric can be found with the help of the explicit expressions for the gravitational form factors of the scalar particle, obtained in Ref. . In the momentum space,

$`\delta g_{\mu \nu }(p)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2G^2m^2}{c^2\sqrt{p^2}}}`$
$`\times \left(3\eta _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right),`$ (4)
where $`q_\mu `$ is the 4-momentum of the scalar particle with mass $`m.`$

With the help of Eq. (Correspondence Principle in Quantum Gravity), one can find the effective gravitational potential of a spherically symmetric body with mass $`M,`$ consisting of $`N`$ identical (scalar) particles with mass $`m=M/N,`$ in the first post-Newtonian approximation. Namely, if the gravitational interaction of the constituent particles is not too strong (viz., if it can be represented as a series in powers of $`G`$), then one has, in the coordinate space

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{eff}}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{GM}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G^2M^2}{2c^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^2M^2}{Nc^2r^2}}.`$ (5)
Indeed, the tree contribution to the effective field, represented in this equation by the first two terms, always coincides with the corresponding classical (Schwarzschild) solution. It is given, therefore, by Eq. (3), all the effects of the particle interactions are taken into account by identifying $`M`$ as the gravitational mass, while account of the interaction in the loop correction (the third term in Eq. (5)), which is itself of the order $`G^2,`$ would give rise to terms of the order $`G^3,`$ irrelevant to the present concern. Appearance of the factor $`1/N`$ in the third term was explained earlier.

It was mentioned above that the loop contributions to the post-Newtonian corrections are normally highly suppressed: their relative value for the stars is of the order $`10^{56}10^{58}.`$ This differs, however, in the case of objects consisting of strongly interacting particle. In particular, in the limit of an infinitely strong interaction, the object is to be considered as a particle, i.e., one has to set $`N=1`$ in Eq. (5). The sign of the first post-Newtonian correction is then opposite to that given by the classical General Relativity.

An example of objects of this type is probably supplied by the black holes. Applicability of the above results to these objects depends on whether they can be considered as elementary particles. It seems that at least certain types of the black holes do behave like normal elementary particles . It should be noted, however, that the very existence of the horizon is now under question. The potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ may well turn out to be a regular function of $`r`$ when all the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ loop corrections are taken into account.

If the notion of elementary particle is indeed applicable to the black holes, then the above results imply, in particular, that the emission of the gravitational waves by the black hole binaries is strongly affected by the quantum contributions already in the first post-Newtonian approximation. The LIGO and VIRGO gravitational wave detectors , which are now under construction, will hopefully bring light into this issue.


text:
# Nature of the Electronic Excitations near the Brillouin Zone Boundary of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ

\[

## Abstract

Based on angle resolved photoemission spectra measured on different systems at different dopings, momenta and photon energies, we show that the anomalously large spectral linewidth in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region of optimal doped and underdoped Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ has significant contributions from the bilayer splitting, and that the scattering rate in this region is considerably smaller than previously estimated. This new picture of the electronic excitation near $`(\pi ,0)`$ puts additional experimental constraints on various microscopic theories and data analysis.

\]

Angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) data from the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (Bi2212) have been one of the most important sources of information about the electronic structure of the high temperature superconductors (HTSC). The normal state spectra are very broad, with widths much larger than those from the nodal region (near $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$), indicating a large anisotropy in the scattering rate along the Fermi surface. This anisotropy has been considered in various theories that describe the anomalous transport and optical properties in the cuprates. In addition, the information gathered from these spectra have helped to put additional important parameters into microscopic models. On the other hand, the superconducting state spectra contains the well known peak-dip-hump structure. The position of the dip was suggested to be related to the neutron $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ resonance mode, resulting in modelling of the tunnelling and ARPES data . The peak intensity in the peak-dip-hump structure has been interpreted as being related to the condensate fraction, as discussed by various theories. These studies constitute a significant part of the HTSC literature.

Bi2212 has two coupled CuO2 planes in the unit cell and therefore bilayer splitting is naturally expected. However, it has been largely ignored in the studies mentioned above, partly because of earlier reports of its absence in the ARPES spectra. Recently, this long-sought bilayer splitting was finally observed in overdoped Bi2212. The two originally degenerate bands (one for each CuO2 layer) are split into bonding and antibonding bands due to the intra-bilayer coupling. In the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region, the amplitude of the bilayer splitting is found to be about 100 meV, comparable to the size of the superconducting gap and the normal state band dispersion. As a result, the bilayer splitting causes a peak-dip-hump structure even in the normal state of heavily overdoped Bi2212, demonstrating that the intra-bilayer coupling plays an important role in the electronic structure of the overdoped regime and should be seriously considered in relevant theories. These results naturally raise the question of whether bilayer splitting exists in the optimal and under-doped regimes where most experiments and analyses were conducted, and if it does, how it affects our understanding of the nature of the electronic excitations near $`(\pi ,0)`$.

In this letter, we report ARPES spectra from Bi2212 and Bi2Sr2CuO6+δ (Bi2201) for various dopings and photon energies ($`h\nu `$). The lineshapes of Bi2201 and Bi2212 are similar in the nodal region, but very different near $`(\pi ,0)`$. In addition, Bi2212 spectra from the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region are strongly modified by $`h\nu `$, in contrast to the weak photon energy dependence of the Bi2201 spectra. We show that these results can be well explained by the underlying bilayer splitting effects in under and optimally doped Bi2212 and that the broad linewidth near $`(\pi ,0)`$ is, in large part, due to the bilayer splitting. These results are very different from the current, commonly-accepted picture of the electronic excitations near $`(\pi ,0)`$, and therefore requires the reexamination of many existing theories, and puts strong constraints on future theoretical models and data analysis.

High quality Bi2212 and Bi2201 single crystals were grown by the floating zone technique. Bi2212 samples are labeled by the superconducting phase transition temperature $`T_c`$ of the sample with the prefix UD for underdoped, OP for optimally doped, and OD for overdoped. Bi2201 samples are labeled in the same way but in lowercase. For example, UD83 represents a $`T_c`$=83 K underdoped Bi2212 sample, while od17 represents a $`T_c`$=17 K overdoped Bi2201 sample. Samples with Pb doping are labeled with the prefix “Pb”, except od33, which is doped with both Pb and La. The superconducting transition widths, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$, were less than $`3`$K for all the samples used. Angle resolved photoemission experiments were performed at a normal incidence monochromator (NIM) beamline of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, where the intensity of the second order light is extremely weak. Data were taken with a Scienta SES200 electron analyzer with the angular resolution of $`0.3\times 0.5`$ degrees unless specified otherwise. The overall energy resolution varied from 10 meV to 18 meV at different $`h\nu `$’s. This variation of the energy resolution does not affect any of our conclusions since the energy scales of the discussed features are much larger. The chamber pressure was better than $`5\times 10^{11}torr`$, and sample aging effects were negligible during the measurements. Unless otherwise specified, normal state data were taken 10$``$20K above $`T_c`$.

The most obvious signature of the bilayer splitting is double features in the Fermi surface and energy distribution curves (EDC), as shown in Fig. 1 for heavily overdoped Bi2212 . Due to the anisotropic nature of the intrabilayer coupling, the amplitude of the bilayer splitting is also anisotropic with zero splitting in the nodal region and maximum splitting at $`(\pi ,0)`$ \[Fig. 1(a)\]. The normal state $`(\pi ,0)`$ EDC of heavily overdoped Pb-OD65 \[Fig. 1(b)\] clearly shows two features that exhibit a normal state peak-dip-hump structure, and are assigned to the two bilayer split bands. This was not observed in previous measurements on overdoped samples, mainly due to extrinsic factors such as energy and angular resolution. With a slight decrease of the doping (Pb-OD72), the two components of the $`(\pi ,0)`$ spectrum are barely distinguishable. Compared with Pb-OD65, the two features become broader and their intensities smaller. For OP90, the spectrum is intrinsically too broad to distinguish the two split features, which makes the identification of the bilayer splitting very difficult in this manner.

To clarify this further, we looked for other signs of bilayer splitting by comparing the spectra of Bi2212 with those of single layer Bi2201 at similar doping levels. We chose two pairs of samples: OP90 and op33, and OD63 and od17. Based on the empirical $`T_c`$ vs. doping formula, they have doping levels of 0.16, 0.16, 0.22, and 0.24, respectively. For the spectra taken in the nodal region shown in Fig. 2a, Bi2201 and Bi2212 have similar lineshapes, and the linewidth varies only slightly for different systems and experimental conditions. This holds true even for the heavily overdoped Bi2201 sample with a $`T_c<1.7K`$ (doping level $``$ 0.28). The situation is very different for the spectra taken in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region (Fig. 2b). For OD63, the spectrum consists of both the bonding and antibonding bands, while the spectrum at $`(\pi ,0.2\pi )`$ mostly consists of the bonding band, because the antibonding band is above $`E_F`$ . We find that the Bi2212 and Bi2201 spectra match at $`(\pi ,0.2\pi )`$ almost perfectly, while those at at $`(\pi ,0)`$ do not because of the presence of the bonding band at higher energies. As far as the near-$`E_F`$ features are concerned, the spectra from both od17 and OD63 have very similar linewidths at similar binding energies and momenta. This similarity between the OD63/od17 low energy spectra can be attributed to their similar doping levels in each CuO2 plane. The OP90/op33 $`(\pi ,0)`$ spectra show a large mismatch similar to the OD63/od17 case, which can be naturally attributed to the additional spectral weight from the bonding band of OP90. On the other hand, without bilayer splitting (or intra-bilayer coupling) in OP90, properties of the CuO2 planes of OP90 and op33 should be similar. It is then difficult to explain why the linewidths of OP90 and op33 are so dramatically different in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region, considering that Bi2201 and Bi2212 are very similar in many other aspects such as the phase diagram, Fermi surface shapes, dispersion energy scales, and particularly, residual resistivity, which indicates the scattering caused by defects and impurities. The larger linewidth of op33, compared to od17, may be attributed to enhanced correlation effects with decreased doping, presumably $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ scattering due to increased antiferromagnetic fluctuations. We note that these normal state spectra were taken at different temperatures. However, the thermal broadening is negligible compared to the peak widths, within the experimental temperature range.

The above comparison between spectra from Bi2201 and Bi2212 suggests the possible presence of bilayer splitting in optimally doped samples. This is further supported by photon energy dependence studies. As depicted in Fig. 3(a), the antibonding and bonding states have opposite symmetry along the c-axis with respect to the midpoint between the two $`CuO_2`$ planes. As a consequence, their photoemission matrix elements respond differently to various experimental parameters, including the photon energy. Upon tuning $`h\nu `$, the spectral weight from the bonding and antibonding states will vary differently, thus changing the overall spectral lineshapes. This can be further illustrated by an analysis of the photoemission matrix elements. Although comprehensive calculations of the photoemission matrix element are still not feasible because of the complexity in the crystal structure and the photoemission process, as well as the electron-electron correlations, with reasonable assumptions and simplifications one can still study its behaviors on a qualitative level, which turns out to be very helpful for the interpretation of the data on various occasions.

We consider two 2D systems coupled via a certain bilayer interaction. The photoemission intensity for such a system with non-interacting electrons is $`I_{\alpha =a,b}M_\alpha ^2A_\alpha (\stackrel{}{k},\omega )`$ where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, $`\omega `$ and $`A_\alpha `$ are the momentum, energy for the final state, and the spectral function respectively, while $`a`$ and $`b`$ represent antibonding and bonding bands. In the one-electron matrix element $`M_\alpha =\psi _f|𝐀𝐩|\psi _{i\alpha }`$, $`\psi _f`$ and $`\psi _{i\alpha }`$ are the final state and initial state single electron wave functions, A is the vector potential of the photon field, and $`𝐩i\mathrm{}`$. Assuming $`\psi _{i\alpha }(x,y,z)=\varphi _i(x,y)\chi _\alpha (z)`$ and a free electron final state $`\psi _f(x,y,z)=e^{ik_xx+ik_yy+ik_zz}`$, the matrix element can be separated into the in-plane contribution $`M_{}`$ and the out-of-plane contribution $`M_{z\alpha }`$. Under the dipole approximation,

$`M_\alpha `$ $``$ $`M_{}+M_{z\alpha }`$ (1)
$``$ $`A_{}/A_ze^{ik_xx+ik_yy}|r_{}|\varphi _i(x,y)+e^{ik_zz}|z|\chi _\alpha (z)`$ (2)
where $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ are fixed to be $`(\pi ,0)`$ for both the initial and final states. The first term contributes equally to both bonding and antibonding states, and the ratio of polarization, $`A_{}/A_z`$, is approximately constant in the experiment. Therefore, we can focus on $`M_{z\alpha }`$ as a function of $`h\nu `$. To further simplify, we assume

$$\chi _\alpha (z)=e^{\frac{(xl_0/2)^2}{(\beta l_0)^2}}\pm e^{\frac{(x+l_0/2)^2}{(\beta l_0)^2}},$$

where “-” and “+” signs are for $`\alpha =a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. $`l_0`$ is the intrabilayer distance, and $`\beta `$ is an adjustable parameter reflecting how the electron wavefunction is localized within a $`CuO_2`$ layer and is assumed to be $`\beta =1/6`$ in the calculation. For the final state, the free electron approximation gives $`k_z=[2m^{}\mathrm{}^2(h\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+v_0)(k_x^2+k_y^2)]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where we choose the photoelectron effective mass $`m^{}`$ to be the free electron mass, the work function $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.3}eV`$, and inner potential $`v_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}eV`$ in the calculation. $`M_{z\alpha }`$ calculated with these parameters and simplifications is shown for both antibonding and bonding states in Fig. 3(b). The $`M_{z\alpha }`$’s for the bonding and antibonding state have almost opposite behaviors with $`h\nu `$, and changes quite dramatically in the studied $`h\nu `$ range. This causes the overall lineshape of the Bi2212 $`(\pi ,0)`$ spectrum to alter significantly with $`h\nu `$ as the relative weight of bonding/antibonding states oscillates. In the case of optimally doped and underdoped systems, the centroid of the broad feature will shift.

This is indeed observed in OD65, where the bilayer splitting has been clearly identified. Fig. 4(a-c) show ARPES intensity taken in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region at different $`h\nu `$’s as a function of momentum and binding energy. Because the NIM gives extremely weak second-order light, it is possible to directly compare spectra taken at different $`h\nu `$’s. One can see that the relative intensities of the antibonding band (A) and bonding band (B) change with $`h\nu `$. At some photon energies, only one feature is prominent, while in others, both features are clearly visible. EDC’s of OD65 at $`(\pi ,0)`$ are plotted in Fig. 4(d). While some $`k_z`$ dispersion may exist, the data show strong bilayer matrix element effects. One clearly sees that the relative intensities of the bonding and antibonding features vary drastically with $`h\nu `$. For optimally doped \[Fig. 4(e)\] and underdoped Bi2212 \[Fig. 4(f-g)\], one does not see two clearly separated features. However, one can see the strong variation of the lineshape, and changes in the centroid of the feature. Although there are some detailed variations from sample to sample, the spectra of underdoped and optimally doped Bi2212 change with a similar trend as the OD65. On the other hand, for the optimally doped single layer system Bi2201 \[Fig. 4(h)\], the peak position and the overall lineshape show virtually no photon energy dependence. The high binding energy background of op33 is a smooth function of binding energy and photon energy. These indicate that the strong photon energy dependence of the Bi2212 spectra is due to the bilayer splitting.

Because of the previous lack of evidence for bilayer splitting in optimally doped and underdoped Bi2212 , many analyses and calculations assumed its absence. For example, the momentum distribution curves in this region were usually fitted by one Lorentzian, when in fact it consisted of two Lorentzians separated by the bilayer splitting in momentum space. Bi2212 $`(\pi ,0)`$ spectra were discussed , and particularly, fitted with a one-component formula. We show that even with a two-component model, there are various uncertainties involved in fitting the spectra, because the bonding and antibonding features are weighted by unknown factors at certain $`h\nu `$’s, and generally too broad to be reliably separated. For overdoped Bi2212, the dip position will be shifted by the overlapping of the two humps and the the superconducting peaks.

Intra-bilayer coupling was assumed in some theories to explain the different temperature dependence behavior of c-axis and in-plane transport and optical properties of bilayer systems . Our results reinforce the assumptions of these theories. On the other hand, we find that the quasiparticle in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ region of optimally doped Bi2212 should be similar to that of Bi2201, and thus much better defined than previously believed from earlier Bi2212 data. The quasiparticle lifetime is more than 100% longer than obtained from previous EDC analyses, i.e., the scattering rate in this $`(\pi ,0)`$ “hot spot” is not as large as previously believed, although an anisotropy of the scattering rate still exists in the optimally doped and underdoped regime, as is observed in Bi2201.

SSRL is operated by the DOE Office of Basic Energy Science Divisions of Chemical Sciences and Material Sciences. The Material Sciences Division also provided support for the work. The Stanford experiments are also supported by the NSF grant DMR0071897 and ONR grant N00014-98-1-0195-A00002. The crystal growth of op33, Pb-od17, and Pb-OD65 at Stanford was supported by DOE under Contract Nos. DE-FG03-99ER45773-A001 and DE-AC03-76SF00515. M.G. is also supported by the A. P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# Relative dispersion in fully developed turbulence: The Richardson’s Law and Intermittency Corrections

## Abstract

Relative dispersion in fully developed turbulence is investigated by means of direct numerical simulations. Lagrangian statistics is found to be compatible with Richardson description although small systematic deviations are found. The value of the Richardson constant is estimated as $`C_20.55`$, in a close agreement with recent experimental findings \[S. Ott and J. Mann J. Fluid Mech. 422, 207 (2000)\]. By means of exit-time statistics it is shown that the deviations from Richardson’s law are a consequence of Eulerian intermittency. The measured Lagrangian scaling exponents require a set of Eulerian structure function exponents $`\zeta _p`$ which are remarkably close to standard ones known for fully developed turbulence.

The statistics of two particle dispersion is historically one of the first issues which has been quantitatively addressed in the study of fully developed turbulence. This was done by Richardson, in a pioneering work on the properties of dispersion in the atmosphere in 1926 , 15 years before the theoretical development by Kolmogorov and Obukhov . Despite this fact, there are still relatively few experimental studies on turbulent Lagrangian dispersion. This is essentially due to the difficulties to obtain Lagrangian trajectories in fully developed turbulent flow. The first studies where done in geophysical flows (see  for a review) in which Lagrangian tracers are more easily followed. Recently, the problem was approached in laboratory experiments  but the results are still not conclusive. Moreover, most of the numerical studies of relative dispersion rely on kinematic simulations in synthetic flows . Direct numerical simulation have been done mostly for two-dimensional turbulence .

The scope of this Letter is to contribute to the understanding of relative dispersion by means of direct numerical simulations of three dimensional turbulence. In what follows we show the qualitative validity of the Richardson’s description, and discuss its limitations as posed by Lagrangian intermittency, whose properties will be investigated in detail.

Richardson’s original description of relative dispersion is based on a diffusion equation for the probability density function of pair separation $`p(𝐫,t)`$ which in the isotropic case can be written as

$$\frac{p(𝐫,t)}{t}=\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{}{r}r^2K(r)\frac{p(𝐫,t)}{r}.$$
(1)
The turbulent eddy diffusivity was empirically established by Richardson to follow the “four-thirds law” $`K(r)r^{4/3}`$. This law is a direct consequence of the small-scale velocity statistics, as was first recognized by Obukhov . Thus, for $`r`$ within the inertial range, the dimensional analysis gives

$$K(r)=k_0\epsilon ^{1/3}r^{4/3},$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the mean energy dissipation and $`k_0`$ a dimensionless constant. We remark that (2) does not imply that a finite energy flux is necessary for particle dispersion. Indeed, particle separation is observed also in pseudo-turbulent synthetic Gaussian velocity field . Using (2), the solution of (1) for $`\delta `$-distribution initial condition has the well known form

$$p(𝐫,t)=\frac{A}{(k_0t)^3\epsilon }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{9r^{2/3}}{4k_0\epsilon ^{1/3}t}\right)$$
(3)
where $`A=2187/2240\pi ^{3/2}`$ is a normalizing factor. The most important feature of the Richardson distribution (3) is non-Gaussianity with a very pronounced peak at the origin and rather fat tails. In the past, alternative distributions have been proposed . In particular Batchelor  suggested a Gaussian distribution as a consequence of a diffusivity which depends only on averaged quantities. Because the available data is scarce, there is still no general consensus on the real form of pair separation pdf. Recent experimental works  are in favor of (3).

The possibility to describe the dispersion process by means of a diffusion equation is based on two physical assumptions. The first is that the velocity field is short correlated in time. Indeed, in the limit of velocity field $`\delta `$-correlated in time (the so-called Kraichnan model of turbulence) the diffusion equation of the type of Eq.(1) becomes exact . The effects of finite correlation time have been recently discussed in .

The second assumption, which is one of the points discussed in this Letter, is that the dispersion process is self-similar in time, i.e. the scaling exponents of the moments of the separation

$$R^{2n}(t)r^{2n}(t)=C_{2n}\epsilon ^nt^{\alpha _{2n}}$$
(4)
have the values $`\alpha _{2n}=3n/2,`$ as following from dimensional analysis. If this is the case, a single number, such as the Richardson constant $`C_2`$ is sufficient to parameterize turbulent dispersion. There is still a large uncertainty on the value of $`C_2`$, ranging from $`O(10^2)O(10^1)`$ for kinematic simulations  to $`O(1)`$ or more in the case of closure predictions . A recent experimental investigation gives the value $`C_2=0.5`$ . The hypothesis of self-similarity is reasonable with a self-affine Eulerian velocity, such as in the case of two-dimensional inverse cascade turbulence . A recent analysis of a kinematic model with synthetic velocity field has shown that Lagrangian self-similarity can be broken in presence of Eulerian intermittency. In this case the exponents $`\alpha _n`$ have been found in agreement with the prediction of a multifractal approach for Lagrangian statistics. In particular, the second moment of relative dispersion is not affected by intermittency, i.e. $`\alpha _2=3`$ , essentially because it is proportional to $`\epsilon ^1`$. We remind that Lagrangian intermittency has been observed also in the case of the so-called strong anomalous diffusion . Although in that case the mechanism leading to intermittency is different (there is no scaling invariant flow), the implication for Lagrangian description is identical, i.e. the process can not be described by a Fokker-Planck equation like (1).

We now turn to our numerical procedure. The turbulent velocity field is generated by direct integration of Navier-Stokes equation in a periodic box of size $`L=2\pi `$. The integration is done on a parallel computer by means of a pseudo-spectral code at resolution $`256^3`$ with $`Re_\lambda 200`$. Energy is injected into the flow by keeping the total energy in each of the two first wavenumber shells constant  and is removed by a second-order hyperviscous dissipation. Time integration is performed with a second-order Runge-Kutta scheme. In Figure 1 we plot the energy spectrum which shows a well developed Kolmogorov power-law scaling. A small “bump” at $`k20`$ is the signature of a bottleneck effect  as a consequence of hyperviscosity. In the inset of Figure 1 we show the third order longitudinal structure function $`S_3(x)=\delta u(x)^3`$ compensated with the theoretical prediction $`S_3(x)=4/5\epsilon x`$ .

Passive tracer trajectories are obtained by integrating $`\dot{𝐱}(t)=𝐮(𝐱(t),t)`$ with the velocity at particle positions obtained by linear interpolation from the nearest grid points. The reported results are obtained averaging over a total number of about $`3\times 10^5`$ particle pairs starting from initial separation $`R(0)=L/256`$ and over $`7`$ large scale eddy turnover times.

In Figure 2 we plot the second moment of relative dispersion $`R^2(t)`$. The Richardson $`t^3`$ law (4) is clearly observable although systematic deviations are detectable, in particular in the compensated plot. These deviations, observed also in kinematic simulations  and in two-dimensional turbulence , are due to finite size effects. Consider a series of pair dispersion experiments, in each of which a couple of particles is released at time $`t=0`$ at initial separation $`R(0)`$. At a fixed time $`t`$ one performs an average over all realizations and computes $`R^2(t)`$. For $`t`$ small $`R^2(t)`$ is dominated by the initial distance, so that the $`R^2(t)`$-curve flattens. For large times some pairs might have reached a separation larger than the integral scale and thus show normal (not Richardson) diffusion, so that the $`R^2(t)`$-dependence flattens again. Under these conditions, a precise determination of the exponents and coefficients in (4), in particular the Richardson constant $`C_2`$, is very difficult.

The distribution of relative separations is plotted in Figure 3 for three different times. The form of the pdf is very close to the Richardson prediction (3) and excludes other distributions. Our result is the first direct numerical evidence of the substantial validity of Richardson’s equation and gives support to recent experimental findings . A closer inspection of Figure 3 reveals however that the self-similar evolution predicted by (1) is not exact. Again, the deviations from the distribution (3) are mostly due to finite Reynolds effects: because of the large tails, a large fraction of particles exits the inertial range after a very short time.

To overcome these difficulties in Lagrangian statistics, an alternative approach based on doubling time (or exit time) statistics has been recently proposed . Given a set of thresholds $`R_n=\rho ^nR(0)`$ within the inertial range, one computes the “doubling time” $`T_\rho (R_n)`$ defined as the time it takes for the particle pair separation to grow from threshold $`R_n`$ to the next one $`R_{n+1}`$. Averages are then performed over many dispersion experiments, i.e., particle pairs. The outstanding advantage of averaging at fixed scale separation, as opposite to a fixed time, is that it removes crossover effects since all sampled particle pairs belong to the same scales. In the simulations presented here, the value $`\rho =1.2`$ is used.

Let us first show how doubling time analysis can be used for estimating the Richardson constant $`C_2`$. Neglecting intermittency, the mean doubling time can be obtained from the first-passage problem for the Richardson diffusion equation (1) as

$$T_\rho (R)=\frac{\rho ^{2/3}1}{2k_0\epsilon ^{1/3}\rho ^{2/3}}R^{2/3}.$$
(5)
From (3) and (4) one has $`C_2=\frac{1144}{81}k_0^3`$. Comparison with (5) gives

$$C_2=\frac{143}{81}\frac{(\rho ^{2/3}1)^3}{\rho ^2}\frac{R^2}{\epsilon T_\rho ^3}.$$
(6)
In the inset of Figure 4 we plot expression (6) which gives directly the value of $`C_2`$. Although the compensation is not perfect, it is possible to estimate the Richardson constant with much better accuracy than from the direct analysis of Figure 2. The resulting value, $`C_2=0.55\pm 0.1`$, is remarkably close to the recent experimental finding . The non perfect compensation is the consequence of intermittency.

Let us now discuss the issue of intermittency in more detail and concentrate on the behavior of the moments of inverse doubling times, $`\left(1/T_\rho (R)\right)^p`$. We expect for doubling time statistics a power-law behavior

$$\left(\frac{1}{T_\rho (R)}\right)^pR^{\beta _p}$$
(7)
with exponents $`\beta _p`$ connected to the exponents $`\alpha _n`$ in (4). Negative moments of doubling time are dominated by pairs which separate fast; this corresponds to positive moments of relative separation. Kolmogorov scaling, based on the dimensional analysis, gives $`\left(1/T_\rho (R)\right)^p\epsilon ^{p/3}R^{2p/3}`$ so that $`\beta _p=2p/3`$. Intermittency can be taken into account by using the simple dimensional estimate for the doubling time, $`T(R)R/\delta u(R)`$ which gives

$$\beta _p=\zeta _pp,$$
(8)
where $`\zeta _p`$ are the scaling exponents of the longitudinal structure functions. As a consequence of the Kolmogorov “4/5” law, $`\zeta _3=1`$  and the doubling time exponent not affected by intermittency is $`\beta _3=2`$ (again, the quantity not affected by intermittency depends on the first power of $`\epsilon `$) .

In Figure 4 we plot the first moments of inverse doubling time (7) compensated with the Kolmogorov scaling $`R^{2p/3}`$. The quality of the scaling is remarkable, especially if compared with the standard statistics of Figure 2. This allows to detect small deviations from dimensional scaling. Indeed, a closer inspection of Figure 4 reveals that the compensation is not perfect, the deviation being more evident for higher moments; this indicates the existence of Lagrangian intermittency.

Figure 5 shows some moments of the inverse doubling time, now compensated with best fit exponents $`\beta _p`$. The improvement with respect to Figure 4 demonstrates that the exponents in (7) are corrected in comparison to dimensional prediction. From the doubling time exponent $`\beta _p`$ we can obtain the Eulerian exponents $`\zeta _p`$ by inverting (8). The result shown in the inset of Figure 4 gives a set of exponents $`\zeta _p`$ which are remarkably close to “standard” structure function exponents in fully developed turbulence. We stress that, at the present resolution, the scaling of the Eulerian structure function is rather poor, thus a precise determination of $`\zeta _p`$ is possible only using indirect analysis, such as the ESS technique .

Let us summarize our findings. We have performed direct numerical simulations of a three-dimensional turbulent flow and concentrated on the problem of particles’ dispersion. The overall dispersion behavior is well-described by the Richardson’s equation, although some deviations (mostly caused by the finite-Reynolds nature of the simulations) are evident. The use of fixed-scale statistics (doubling-time distribution) instead of fixed-time ones removes to a large extent these restrictions, and gives a possibility to evaluation the Richardson’s constant very accurately. Its value is $`C_20.55`$, in a close agreement with recent experimental findings. The discussion of the inverse moments of the doubling-time distributions unveils the role of Lagrangian intermittency in the two-particle dispersion. The values of the Lagrangian scaling exponents are connected with the Eulerian structure function exponents $`\zeta _p`$. The values of $`\zeta _p`$ obtained from the separation statistics are remarkably close to standard ones, known for fully developed turbulence. In the next future it will be probably possible to have experimental Lagrangian trajectories in high Reynolds number flows . It would be extremely interesting to check our findings in real fluid turbulence.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. Celani and M. Cencini for useful comments and discussions. We acknowledge the allocation of computer resources from INFM Progetto Calcolo Parallelo.