format: text

text:
# What Does Free Space ΛΛ Interaction Predict for ΛΛ Hypernuclei?

## I Introduction

In the past years a considerable amount of work has been done both in the experimental and the theoretical aspects of the physics of single and double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei HYP . Because of the lack of targets, the data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei provide a unique method to learn details on the strangeness $`S=2`$ sector of the baryon-baryon interaction. Ground state energies of three (the production of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H has been recently reported AGS ) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He, $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$B, have been measured. The experimental binding energies, $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\left[M\left({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{A+2}Z\right)M\left({}_{}{}^{A}Z\right)2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$, are reported in Table 1. Note that the $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He energy has been updated very recently Na01  in contradiction to the old one, $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$= 10.9$`\pm `$0.8 MeV Pr66 . The scarce hyperon-nucleon ($`YN`$) scattering data have been used by the Nijmegen (NJG), Bonn-Jülich (BJ) and Tübingen groups HYP  to determine realistic $`YN`$ and thus also some pieces of the $`YY`$ interactions. In Ref. Ca99  an effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction, with a form inspired in the One Boson Exchange (OBE) BJ potentials Re94 , was fitted to data, and the first attempts to compare it to the free space one were carried out. Similar studies using OBE NJG potentials Nij  have been also performed in Ref. Hy97  and the weak decays of double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei have been studied in Ref. weak . Short Range Correlations (SRC) play an important role in these systems Ca99 , but despite of their inclusion the effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction, fitted to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$hypernuclei data, significantly differs from the free space one deduced in Ref. Re94  from scattering data. In this letter we consider the new datum for He and, importantly, the effect of the long range nuclear correlations (RPA) is also incorporated. Starting from the free space BJ interactions, we find a good description of the masses of He, Be and B $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. This has never been achieved before despite the use of different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ free space interactions ga01 . The BJ set of potentials used here and the new NJG (NSC97e,b Nij ) interactions are similar in shape, though the latter ones are shifted around 0.2 fm to larger distances as compared to the BJ potentials. Due to the difficulty of including RPA effects in NJG models and since both sets of interactions give similar energies in absence of nuclear effects, in this work we have used BJ-type potentials.

## II Model for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Hypernuclei

### II.1 Variational Scheme: Jastrow type correlations

Following the work of Ref. Ca99 , we model the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei by an interacting three-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+`$nuclear core system. Thus, we determine the intrinsic wave–function, $`𝚽_{𝚲𝚲}(\stackrel{}{r_1},\stackrel{}{r_2})`$, and the binding energy $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{r}_{1,2}`$ are the relative coordinates of the hyperons respect to the nucleus, from the intrinsic Hamiltonian.

$$H=h_{\mathrm{sp}}(1)+h_{\mathrm{sp}}(2)+V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1,2)\stackrel{}{}_1\stackrel{}{}_2/M_A$$
(1)
where $`h_{\mathrm{sp}}(i)=\stackrel{}{}_i^2/2\mu _A+𝒱_{\mathrm{\Lambda }A}(|\stackrel{}{r_i}|)`$, $`M_A`$ and $`\mu _A`$ are the nuclear core and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-core reduced masses respectively. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-nuclear core potential, $`𝒱_{\mathrm{\Lambda }A}`$, is adjusted to reproduce the binding energies, $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`>0`$), of the corresponding single–$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei Ca99 , and $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ stands for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction in the medium. Due to the presence of the second $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a dynamical re-ordering effect in the nuclear core is produced. Both the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ free interaction and this re-ordering of the nuclear core, contribute to $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}2B_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, the latter effect is suppressed with respect to the former one by at least one power of the nuclear density, which is the natural parameter in all many body quantum theory expansions. We assume the nuclear core dynamical re-ordering effects to be around 0.5 MeV, as the findings of the $`\alpha `$cluster models of Ref. Bo84  suggest, for He, Be and B $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei, and negligible for medium and heavy ones. This estimate for the size of the theoretical uncertainties is of the order of the experimental errors of $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ reported in Table 1. Furthermore, the RPA model used below to determine $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ accounts for particle-hole ($`ph`$) excitations of the nuclear core and thus it partially includes some nuclear core reordering effects.

In Ref. Ca99 , both Hartree-Fock (HF) and Variational (VAR), where SRC can been included, schemes to solve the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) were studied. In both cases, the nuclear medium effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions fitted to data were much more attractive than that deduced from the free space $`YN`$ scattering data. Since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions obtained by $`\sigma \omega `$ exchanges behave almost like a hard-core at short distances, the VAR energies are around 30-40% lower than the HF ones (see Fig. 4 and Table 9 of Ref. Ca99 ). Hence, trying to link free space to the effective interaction, $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, requires the use of a variational approach where $`r_{12}`$correlations (SRC) are naturally considered. We have used a family of $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$wave functions of the form: $`𝚽_{𝚲𝚲}(\stackrel{}{r_1},\stackrel{}{r_2})=NF(r_{12})\varphi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_1)\varphi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(r_2)\chi ^{S=0}`$, with $`\chi ^{S=0}`$ the spin-singlet, $`\stackrel{}{r}_{12}=\stackrel{}{r_1}\stackrel{}{r_2}`$ and

$$F(r_{12})=\left(1+\frac{a_1}{1+(\frac{r_{12}R}{b_1})^2}\right)\underset{i=2}{\overset{3}{}}\left(1a_ie^{b_i^2r_{12}}\right)$$
(2)
where $`a_{1,2,3}`$, $`b_{1,2,3}`$ and $`R`$ are free parameters to be determined by minimizing the energy, $`N`$ is a normalization factor and $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the $`s`$wave $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$function in the single–$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernucleus $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{A+1}Z`$. This VAR scheme differs appreciably to that used in Ref. Ca99 . There, $`𝚽_{𝚲𝚲}(\stackrel{}{r_1},\stackrel{}{r_2})`$ was expanded in series of Hylleraas type terms whereas here we have adopted a Jastrow–type correlation function. Hylleraas SRC, though suited for atomic physics, are not efficient to deal with almost hard core potentials, as it is the case here. Thus, to achieve convergence in Ref. Ca99  a total of 161 terms (161 unknown parameters) were considered. The ansatz of Eq. (2), which has only seven parameters and thus it leads to manageable wave functions, satisfactorily reproduces all VAR results of Ref. Ca99 .

### II.2  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Interaction in the Nuclear Medium

The potential $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ represents an effective interaction which accounts for the dynamics of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pair in the nuclear medium, but which does not describe their dynamics in the vacuum. This effective interaction is usually approximated by an induced interaction Os90  ($`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{ind}`$) which is constructed in terms of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ ($`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$) and $`NNNN`$ ($`G_{NN}`$) $`G`$matrices, as depicted in Fig. 1. The induced interaction, $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{ind}`$ combines the dynamics at short distances (accounted by the effective interaction $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) and the dynamics at long distances which is taken care of by means of the iteration of $`ph`$ excitations (RPA series) through the effective interactions $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ and $`G_{NN}`$. Near threshold ($`2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) , the $`S=2`$ baryon-baryon interaction might be described in terms of only two coupled channels $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }N`$. For two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons bound in a nuclear medium and because of Pauli-blocking, it is reasonable to think that the ratio of strengths of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (with no $`\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ intermediate states) transitions is suppressed respect to the free space case. This is explicitly shown for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}`$He in Ref. Ca97 , though a recent work Ya00 , using a NJG model, finds increases of the order of 0.4 MeV in the calculated $`B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ values, for He, Be and B $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei, due to $`\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ components. In any-case 0.4 MeV is of the order of the experimental and other theoretical uncertainties discussed above, and we will assume that the data of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei would mainly probe the free space, $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{free}`$, diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ element of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }N`$ potential. Hence $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ might be roughly approximated by $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{free}`$, and the interaction $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can be splited into two terms $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{free}+\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}`$, where the first one accounts for the first diagram of the rhs of Fig. 1 and $`\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}`$ does it for the remaining RPA series depicted in this figure. Let us examine in detail each of the terms.

#### II.2.1 Free space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction

We use the BJ models for vacuum $`NN`$ Bonn  and $`YN`$ interactions Re94  to construct the free space diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential. We consider the exchange between the two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons of $`\sigma (I=0,J^P=0^+)`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi (I=0,J^P=1^{})`$ mesons. The free space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential, $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{free}`$, in coordinate space (non-local) and for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel, can be found in Eqs. (24) and (25) of Ref. Ca99  for $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$exchanges respectively. The $`\varphi `$exchange potential can be obtained from that of the $`\omega `$exchange by the obvious substitutions of masses and couplings. Besides, monopolar form–factors are used Bonn ; Re94 , which leads to extended expressions for the potentials (see Eq. (19) of Ref. Ca99 ). In the spirit of the BJ models, $`SU(6)`$ symmetry is used to relate the couplings of the $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$mesons to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon to those of these mesons to the nucleons. We adopt the so-called “ideal” mixing angle ($`\mathrm{tan}\theta _v=1/\sqrt{2}`$) for which the $`\varphi `$ meson comes out as a pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state and hence one gets a vanishing $`\varphi NN`$ coupling Bonn . This also determines the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ couplings in terms of the $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ones. Couplings ($`g_{\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }},g_{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }},f_{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) and momentum cutoffs ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) appearing in the expression of the $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$exchange $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potentials can be found in Table 2 of Ref. Ca99  which is a recompilation of model $`\widehat{A}`$ of Ref. Re94 , determined from the study of $`YN`$ scattering. The $`\varphi `$ meson couplings are given in Eq. (65) of Ref. Ca99 . Because the $`\varphi `$ meson does not couple to nucleons, there exist much more uncertainties on the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Assuming that this cutoff should be similar to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and bigger than the $`\varphi `$ meson mass, we have studied three values, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 GeV.

#### II.2.2 RPA contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction

Here, we perform the RPA resummation shown in the rhs (from the second diagram on) of Fig. 1. We will do first in nuclear matter and later in finite nuclei.

##### Nuclear Matter:

Let us consider two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons inside of a non-interacting Fermi gas of nucleons, characterized by a constant density $`\rho `$. The series of diagrams we want to sum up correspond to the diagrammatic representation of a Dyson type equation, which modifies the propagation in nuclear matter of the carriers ($`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons) of the strong interaction between the two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s. This modification is due to the interaction of the carriers with the nucleons. Because in our model the $`\varphi `$ meson does not couple to nucleons, its propagation is not modified in the medium and will be omitted in what follows. The $`\sigma \omega `$ propagator in the medium, $`𝒟(Q)`$, has been already studied in the context of Fermi-liquids in Ref. ma81  and it is determined by the Dyson equation

$`𝒟(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟^0(Q)+𝒟^0(Q)\mathrm{\Pi }(Q)𝒟(Q)`$ (3)
$`𝒟^0(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}D_{\mu \nu }^\omega (Q)& 0\\ 0& D^\sigma (Q)\end{array}\right]`$ (6)
where $`𝒟^0(Q)`$ is a $`5\times 5`$ matrix composed of the free $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ propagators, and the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ matrix is the medium irreducible $`\sigma \omega `$ selfenergy

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(Q)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(Q)& \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (Q)\\ \mathrm{\Pi }^\mu (Q)& \mathrm{\Pi }_s(Q)\end{array}\right]$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ account for excitations over the Fermi sea driven by the $`\omega `$ and $`\sigma `$ mesons respectively and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ generates mixings of scalar and vector meson propagations in the medium. Obviously, this latter term vanishes in the vacuum. Having in mind the findings of Ref. Ca99 $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{free}`$ should give us the bulk of $`V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and thus we have performed some approximations to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Pi }(Q)`$: i) We approximate $`G_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}`$ and $`G_{NN}`$ in Fig. 1 by the free space diagonal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ and $`NN`$ potentials, which are well described by $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ exchanges in the isoscalar $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega `$ vertices were discussed in the previous subsection while the $`NN\sigma `$ and $`NN\omega `$ Lagrangians can be found in Ref. Bonn . The corresponding coupling constants and form-factors can be found in Ref. Bonn  and in Table 3 of Ref. Ca99 ). ii) We have only considered $`ph`$ excitations over the Fermi sea. This corresponds to evaluate the diagrams depicted in Fig. 2 plus the corresponding crossed terms which are not explicitly shown there. iii) We work in a non-relativistic Fermi sea and we evaluate the $`ph`$ excitations in the static limit.

With all these approximations and taking the four–momentum transferred between the two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s, $`Q^\mu =(q^0=0,0,0,q)`$, the elements of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0,q)`$ matrix read

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(0,q)=U(0,q;\rho )C_i^N(q)C_j^N(q);i,j=1,\mathrm{},5$$
(8)
where $`C^B(q)(g_{\omega BB}(q),0,0,0,g_{\sigma BB}(q))`$ with

$$g_{\alpha BB}(q)=g_{\alpha BB}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha BB}^2m_\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha BB}^2+q^2};\alpha =\sigma ,\omega ;B=\mathrm{\Lambda },N$$
(9)
In the Lindhard function, $`U(0,q;\rho )`$, a finite excitation energy gap is included for particles (see appendix of Ref. jesus ). We use gap values between 1 and 3 MeV, to account for typical excitation energies in finite nuclei, and we find rather insensitive results. The case of 4He is special and for it we use a gap value of 20 MeV. Using Eq. (8), one can invert the Dyson equation Eq. (3), and thus one easily gets for the $`\sigma \omega `$ propagator in the medium $`𝒟(Q)=\left(I𝒟^0(Q)\mathrm{\Pi }(Q)\right)^1𝒟^0(Q)`$. With this propagator, the RPA series of diagrams (from the second one on) of the rhs of Fig. 1 can be evaluated and one gets

$`\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}(q,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij=1}{\overset{5}{}}}C_i^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)\left[𝒟(Q)𝒟^0(Q)\right]_{ij}C_j^\mathrm{\Lambda }(q)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`U(0,q;\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{\left(W_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^\sigma W_{\mathrm{\Lambda }N}^\omega \right)^2}{1+U\left(W_{NN}^\sigma W_{NN}^\omega \right)}}`$
where $`𝒟^0(Q)`$ accounts for the first term of the rhs of Fig. 1, and it has been subtracted to avoid double counting, and finally

$$W_{BB^{}}^\alpha =\frac{g_{\alpha BB}(q)g_{\alpha B^{}B^{}}(q)}{q^2+m_\alpha ^2}$$
(11)
In the non-relativistic limit adopted to evaluate $`\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}`$, and for consistency, we have neglected the spatial and tensor ($`f_{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) couplings of the $`\omega `$ meson to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

##### Finite Nuclei:

The Fourier transform of Eq. (10) gives the RPA $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ nuclear matter interaction, $`\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}(r_{12},\rho )`$, in coordinate space. It depends on the constant density $`\rho `$. In a finite nucleus, the carrier of the interaction feels different densities when it is traveling from one hyperon to the other. To take this into account, we average the RPA interaction over all different densities felt by the carriers along their way from the first hyperon to the second one. Assuming meson straight–line trajectories and using the local density approximation, we obtain

$$\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}(1,2)=_0^1𝑑\lambda \delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}(r_{12},\rho (|\stackrel{}{r_2}+\lambda \stackrel{}{r}_{12}|))$$
(12)
where $`\rho `$ is the nucleon center density given in Table 4 of Ref. Ca99 . Note that $`\delta V_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{RPA}(1,2)`$ depends on $`r_{12}`$ and also on the distance of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s to the nuclear core, $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$.

## III Results and Concluding Remarks

Using the numerical constants and the YNG Mo91  (He) and BOY Bo81  (Be, B, Ca, Zr, Pb) nuclear core potentials

given in Ref. Ca99  we obtain the results of Table 1, where both the effect of the $`\varphi `$exchange and that of the RPA correlations can be seen. We have also investigated the dependence of the results on the $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ couplings ($`g`$ and $`f`$), by varying both couplings by $`\pm 10`$% around their $`SU(6)`$ values. We find appreciable changes of the energies for the two highest values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. These changes become greater for variations of $`f_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ than of $`g_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, increase with $`A`$ and are bigger when RPA effects are considered. For instance, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}=2.5`$ GeV and with RPA the He, Be and B energies vary in the ranges 7.05–7.83, 16.0–17.7 and 26.0–28.2 MeV respectively. Finally in Table 2, we present details of $`F(r_{12})`$, Eq. (2). Our conclusions are: i) It is not possible to describe the experimental masses of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei if RPA effects were not included. ii) The RPA re-summation leads to a new nuclear density or $`A`$ dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ potential in the medium which notably increases $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and that provides, taking into account theoretical and experimental uncertainties, a reasonable description of the currently accepted masses of the three measured $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei (see last column of Table 1). This is achieved from a free space OBE BJ potential determined from $`S=0,1,`$ baryon-baryon scattering data. Hence, our calculation does not confirm the conclusions of Ref. ga01  about the incompatibility of the He, and Be and B data. The binding energies of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}`$Be and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}`$B might change if the single hypernuclei produced in Be and B events were produced in excited states ga01 . The modified Be and B masses would then favor a different set of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$couplings (see columns 8–10 in Table 1 and discussion on $`SU(6)`$ violations).

###### Acknowledgements.

We warmly thank C. García-Recio for useful discussions. This research was supported by DGES under contract PB98-1367 and by the Junta de Andalucía.


text:
# Quantum Computing: A View from the Enemy Camp

## Abstract

Quantum computing relies on processing information within a quantum system with many continuous degrees of freedom. The practical implementation of this idea requires complete control over all of the $`2^n`$ independent amplitudes of a many-particle wavefunction, where $`n>1000`$. The principles of quantum computing are discussed from the practical point of view with the conclusion that no working device will be built in the forseeable future.

—————————————————————

1. Introduction

We are witnessing an overwhelming rush towards ”quantum computing”. Quantum information research centers are opening all over the globe, funds are generously distributed, and breathtaking perspectives are presented to the layman by enthusiastic scientists and journalists. Many people feel obliged to justify whatever research they are doing by claiming that it has some relevance to quantum computing. The impression is created that quantum computing is going to be the next technological revolution of the 21st century.

The comments below reflect my personal frustration with this state of affairs. I will attempt to dispel the general enthusiasm and put the subject into a proper perspective. No references to original work will be given. The reader may consult the excellent review by Steane on quantum computing with an historical survey of the development of the basic ideas and references (see also Ref.). The skeptical remarks due to Landauer and to Haroche and Raimond are also recommended. The so-called quantum cryptography is beyond the scope of this presentation.

Quantum information theory is a respectable branch of mathematics, within which outstanding results, such as the famous Shor’s algorithm and error correction codes, were obtained during the last decade. Still, quoting Steane who has contributed much to the field, ”The quantum computer is first and foremost a machine, which is a theoretical construct, like a thought experiment, whose purpose is to allow quantum information processing to be formally analyzed”.

The natural questions are, first, do we need a real quantum computer, and, second, can we build a practically working quantum computer in a foreseeable future? Although in my opinion the answer to both questions is negative, I will concentrate on the second one. I will argue that quantum computing relies on storing and processing information within a physical system with a large number of continuous degrees of freedom, and that the requirements for the precision with which this physical system should be manipulated are absolutely unrealistic.

In fact, a quantum computer is a complex system of $`n=10^310^5`$ particles with two states each. While theoretically it may be quite enlightening to think about a complete description of the system by a grand wavefunction with its $`2^n`$ independent amplitudes, in practice it would be rather difficult to manipulate this wave function by controlled unitary transformations.

A classical example may help to better understand my point. Take an ensemble of many oscillators, say a cubic centimeter of NaCl with its $`10^{22}`$ vibrational modes, or an array of LC circuits, and consider the following idea. Let us store information by imposing prescribed amplitudes and phases for all of our oscillators. We can then process this information by switching on external fields and interactions between oscillators. This system would be a classical analog computer, and everyone can see immediately that such a proposal does not make sense for many obvious reasons. Nonetheless, this classical system can very well mimic a quantum computer, although one would need $`2^n`$ classical oscillators to simulate a quantum computer with $`n`$ spins. In spite of this fundamental difference, the basic idea of employing many continuous degrees of freedom for information processing is the same. From the practical point of view, this property, not the quantum laws, makes all the difference with a digital computer. It is by no means easier to manipulate the state of $`10^5`$ classical oscillators with the required speed and precision, virtually eliminating relaxation processes within this system, than to fulfill the same requirements for $`10^5`$ quantum spins. In fact, the requirements for a quantum system are more stringent.

One of the main reasons for the interest in a quantum computer is that it should be able to solve problems which are beyond the limits of classical computation. The number of such known problems, like factorizing numbers greater than $`10^{130}`$, is currently between 2 and 10, depending on whether one counts similar problems as distinct, or not. Certainly, the mere fact that such problems exist is of considerable theoretical interest. However, from the practical point of view, their existence may be of interest to a relatively small minority involved in cracking cryptography codes. Can this goal really justify years of efforts by an army of researchers?

In the meantime, quite a lot of proposals for practical implementations of quantum computing have been advanced, mostly by theorists. Some think that spins of electrons confined in quantum dots and interacting via the two-dimensional electron gas in the regime of the Quantum Hall Effect will do the job. Others find it more natural to use anyons, hypothetical objects with a statistics intermediate between bosons and fermions that could exist in a two-dimensional space. Less exotic ideas, like using conventional NMR techniques, were also put forward (see section 3 for a discussion of this idea). Most of the ongoing experimental work is concerned with manipulating and measuring the states of 1-3 individual spins, or atoms. Thus there is some hope (which I do not share) that within the next 20 years we will be able to factor the number 6, or even 15, by using Shor’s algorithm! It is for the reader to judge whether more exciting possibilities may exist.

2. What is a quantum computer and how does it work?

The main idea is to replace the classical bit by the quantum bit, or qubit, a quantum two-level system, which can be thought of as the spin-up and spin-down states of a spin 1/2 particle. These states are denoted as $`|1>`$ and $`|0>`$ respectively. The general state of the spin is described by the wavefunction $`\psi `$, which is a superposition of the two states

$$\psi =a|0>+b|1>.$$
$`(1)`$
The complex amplitudes $`a`$ and $`b`$ satisfy the normalization condition $`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$, so that, apart from the irrelevant overall phase, $`\psi `$ is defined by two real parameters. Classically speaking, these could be chosen as two angles describing the orientation of the spin vector. More precisely, it is the orientation of the quantum mechanical average of the spin vector $`𝐒`$ (which would obey the classical Bloch equation in an external magnetic field). The components of $`𝐒`$ are expressed through $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Eq. (1) as:

$$S_z=(|b|^2|a|^2)/2,S_x=(ab^{}+a^{}b)/2,S_y=(ab^{}a^{}b)/2i.$$
$`(2)`$
It is often stressed that a qubit can contain infinitely more information than a classical bit. The reason is that the classical yes/no switch is replaced by an object with continuous degrees of freedom, the two polar angles determining the orientation of the spin vector. This object certainly remains quantum, since one obtains the results given by Eq. 2 only in measurements averaged over an ensemble of spins, all of which are described by the wave function of Eq. (1). An individual measurement of the spin component along any direction will always give values +1/2 or $`1/2`$ with certain probabilities. Thus, the probability of having a projection $`\pm 1/2`$ on the $`x`$-axis is $`1/2\pm S_x`$.

Quantum computing is based on controlled manipulation of the quantum state of $`n`$ spins, or $`n`$ qubits, where, if one wants to have a real computer, not just a demonstration toy, $`n`$ should be on the order of $`10^310^5`$ (the origin of this number will be explained below). Let us begin with a two-spin or two-qubit system. The general wavefunction is a superposition of four available states

$$\psi =a|00>+b|01>+c|10>+d|11>$$
$`(3)`$
with four independent amplitudes, restricted only by the normalization condition.

To get a feeling of what this state describes, we must again calculate the average values of the components of $`𝐒_1`$ and $`𝐒_2`$, but also correlations between the two spins, so that we will need average values of products $`S_{1x}S_{2y}`$, etc. The number of such independent physical quantities is exactly equal to the number of independent real parameters in Eq. 3. Thus, Eq. 3 generally describes a state in which the two spins are correlated, the nature of correlation being defined by the values of amplitudes.

Finally, a general state of $`n`$ spins is a superposition of $`2^n`$ basis states, like $`|01001110\mathrm{}>`$. Each such state can be labeled by a single number $`x`$, which has the corresponding representation in the binary code. Symbolically the wavefunction can be written as

$$\psi =\mathrm{\Sigma }A_x|x>,$$
$`(4)`$
where the sum is over all values of $`x`$, from 0 to $`2^n1`$, each $`x`$ represents a certain state of $`n`$ spins (example: $`|5>`$ stands for $`|1011>`$, if $`n=3`$), and $`A_x`$ are the corresponding amplitudes. In such a state, higher order correlations between all of the $`n`$ spins may exist.

Now we can have a definition of a quantum computer, which was basically put forward by Deutsch in 1985 (quoted from Stean ). A quantum computer is a set of $`n`$ qubits in which the following operations are experimentally feasible:

1. Each qubit can be prepared in some known state $`|0>`$.

2. Each qubit can be measured in the basis $`\{|0>,|1>\}`$.

3. A universal quantum gate (or set of gates) can be applied at will to any fixed-size subset of qubits.

4. The qubits do not evolve other than via the above transformations.

To get just a glimpse of the beautiful ideas in quantum computing, consider the ingenious trick that is at the heart of quantum algorithms. Suppose we have an integer variable $`x`$, between 0 and $`2^n1`$, and a function $`f(x)`$, whose values are also integers in the same interval (for simplicity). Assume that there exists an efficient (classical) algorithm for calculating $`f(x)`$ for a given $`x`$, however if $`n`$ is large, say 1000, calculation for all $`x`$ would take quite a lot of time. The quantum computer, in a certain sense, performs all these calculations much faster, during a time which is not exponential, but polynomial in $`n`$. (I note in passing, that the difficulty of building a quantum computer increases exponentially with $`n`$, which is a kind of Nature’s revenge).

Here is how it works. Take two sets of $`n`$ qubits each. One will serve to store the values of $`x`$, while the other is for the values of $`f(x)`$. Start with the initial state $`|0>|0>`$, which means that all of the spins in both sets are in their down position. Apply a unitary transformation to change the initial state to

$$\psi =2^{n/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }|x>|0>,$$
$`(5)`$
where again the sum is over all $`x`$, i.e. over all $`2^n`$ possible states of the first set. These states enter Eq. 5 with identical amplitudes, while the second set remains unchanged in all terms.

Now apply another unitary transformation, $`U_f`$, which acts on any pure state $`|x>|0>`$ as

$$U_f|x>|0>=|x>|f(x)>,$$
$`(6)`$
where, as before, $`|f(x)>`$ stands for the state of $`n`$ qubits of the second set, corresponding to the binary representation of the value of $`f(x)`$. Equation 6 means simply that $`U_f`$ calculates $`f(x)`$ for a given $`x`$. However, when applied to the superposition in Eq. 5, this transformation gives

$$U_f\psi =2^{n/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }|x>|f(x)>.$$
$`(7)`$
Thus we have obtained a state of the two sets of spins, which contains information on the values of $`f(x)`$ for all $`x`$. This property is called quantum parallelism. The important point is that in order to construct the transformation $`U_f`$, one does not need to pre-calculate the values of $`f(x)`$ for all $`x`$ (in which case the procedure would be senseless). Instead, $`U_f`$ should contain the description of the algorithm to calculate $`f(x)`$, which is something much simpler. It is the hardware that performs automatically all the $`2^n`$ applications of this (classical) algorithm.

If one measures the state of the system described by Eq. 7, one will obtain one of the pairs $`(x,f(x))`$ with equal probabilities. So, this state is not useful by itself. The idea of quantum algorithms (see Ref. 1 for details) is to perform further unitary transformations with the final goal to enhance the probability of the state, containing the answer to our problem.

3. Discussion of feasibility

Certainly, the ideas of quantum computing, which were only very briefly sketched in the previous section, are beautiful and appealing. However it should be fully realized that the practical implementation of these ideas requires complete control over all the intimate details of a many-particle quantum system. I will now discuss the principles of a quantum computer, outlined above, from the practical point of view.

Clearly, these mathematical postulates cannot be fulfilled exactly in any real experimental setup. So, we must have an idea of the required precision and also of the number $`n`$ that is needed to outperform the classical computer. If specially designed error-correction codes are used, an estimate for the tolerable noise level gives the order of magnitude of $`10^5`$ per qubit per gate. This estimate could be somewhat exaggerated, since only a simplified model of relaxation was used (uncorrelated errors in each qubit). The values of $`n`$ of practical interest are defined by the maximal numbers that we should be able to store in order to beat the classical computer and also by the large quantity of additional qubits required for error correction (without error correction, a fantastic precision of $`10^{13}`$ is required). From these considerations an estimate $`n=10^310^5`$ is obtained .

While the basic points of the following discussion are independent on the physical nature of qubits, to be more specific, we will use the term ”spins” instead of ”qubits”. Thus, we must have some $`10^310^5`$ spins and the operation of our quantum computer depends on the possibility of the following:

1. We must be able to put them in the spin-down state with a precision $`10^5`$. No problem about that: if these are electronic spins we can have this polarization in a magnetic field of 1T at temperatures below 100 mK. However, this magnetic field will create some problems with postulate 4, to be discussed below. (Here I assume that the precision required for the initial polarization, as well as for measurement of the system state, is of the same order as the estimated tolerable noise level. The validity of this assumption is by no means evident, but apparently nobody has considered this problem theoretically. Can the quantum computer tolerate an initial state, in which one of its $`10^5`$ spins points in the wrong direction, or a mistake in measuring one of the spins? It should be noted that while physically the spins are equivalent, from the computational point of view it is not so: a mistake in the first spin changes the corresponding number $`x`$ by $`2^{n1}`$, while a mistake in the $`n`$th spin changes it only by 1. This difference does not matter if we do everything exactly, but it seems that it should be taken into account when one is concerned with the effects of errors.)

2. We must be able to measure the state of each spin, i.e. its projection on the direction of the magnetic field, presumably with the same precision. This formidable task may be compared with measuring simultaneously all the velocities of a thousand atoms in a gas cell. It is very difficult, though not impossible, to measure the state of a single spin. This cannot be done directly, but rather through the influence of our spin on some process, such as photon emission (in this case we must measure the polarization of a single photon with a precision of $`10^5`$, which is unheard of), or transport properties, which involve complex physics and additional interactions. Any measurement scheme will be based on spin-orbital or exchange interaction with the environment, which will make it more difficult to satisfy postulate 4. However, the problem of measuring one spin is infinitesimal compared to the problem of measuring simultaneously $`10^5`$ or even $`10^2`$ spins (remember, with a precision $`10^5`$!).

3. We must have a universal quantum gate, that is, a device that can transform an arbitrary state of our system into another state of our choice via a unitary transformations of the system wave function.

This universal quantum gate is reminiscent of an old Russian joke. The story goes that during World War II an inventor appeared with an idea of extreme military value. Since at the time quantum cryptography did not yet exist, the inventor insisted that they take him to the very top, that is, to Stalin.

\- So, tell me what is it about.

\- It’s simple, comrade Stalin. You will have three buttons on your desk, a green one, a blue one, and a white one. If you press the green button, all the enemy ground forces will be destroyed. If you push the blue button, the enemy navy will be destroyed. If you push the white button, the enemy air force will be destroyed.

\- OK, sounds nice, but how will it work?

\- Well, it’s up to your engineers to figure it out! I just give you the idea.

Quantum-mechanically, anything that may happen in this world is a unitary transformation. Thus the wave function of the destroyed ground force is related to that of intact ground force by a unitary transformation, and the same is true for the navy and the air force. The required apparatus is illustrated in Fig. 1. Before dismissing this analogy, the reader is invited to consider the difficulty of constructing a classical equivalent of the universal quantum gate, which must be easier. Is there any hope of ever learning to transform an arbitrary state of $`10^5`$ classical oscillators into another prescribed state with a precision $`10^5`$?

It was proved that an arbitrary transformation could be decomposed into a sequence of elementary transformations that influence either individual spins, or all possible pairs of spins. The total number of such operations needed to beat the classical computer in factorizing numbers is estimated as $`10^{10}`$. For each transformation, such as $`U_f`$, a special Hamiltonian of our spin system must be designed and implemented. This means that magnetic fields should be applied individually and independently to each spin, but also $`n(n1)/2`$ interactions between any two spins should be switched on and off at will.

There are some quite trivial difficulties. An individual spin can be manipulated by applying either static magnetic fields or pulses of high frequency fields under the conditions of spin resonance. Each spin must have an individual set of coils producing such fields, and each spin must be shielded from fields acting on other spins with enormous precision, which means that the inter-spin distance should be large enough (there should also be some space for the coils). Then how can we make them interact? If the field of 1 T, that is needed to provide the initial polarization, is present all the time, so that we can use spin resonance techniques, there are other problems. It is easy to reverse the spin, by applying a $`180^o`$-pulse, however it is virtually impossible to put the spin in a fixed direction in the $`xy`$-plane, because of the continuous fast precession around the direction of the magnetic field. (This point will be explained in other terms below).

This problem makes it impossible to achieve even the first step of quantum algorithms, the transformation, leading to the wave function in Eq. 5. It can be easily seen that this wave function is the joint eigenfunction of all operators $`S_{1x},S_{2x},\mathrm{}S_{nx}`$. In other words, Eq. 5 describes a state in which all the spins point in the $`x`$-direction, while in the initial state they pointed in the $`z`$-direction.

4. Any evolution of the system, apart from the transformations imposed by our quantum gates, should be avoided. Relaxation, or ”decoherence” as a source of errors, was studied in many works in the framework of a simplified model of uncorrelated stochastic noise (the effects of noise on different qubits, or on the same qubit at different times, are assumed to be uncorrelated). New and profound ideas of quantum error-correction were proposed , with the resulting estimate of $`10^5`$ for the required precision, as was used above. There are trivial problems that were not treated. Suppose that some of the magnetic fields applied to individual spins, or interactions between pairs of spins do not have exactly the values they should have, which will be certainly the case for any practical device. This discrepancy would mean that the errors are correlated: each time a certain spin, or a certain pair of spins, is manipulated, the same type of error will occur.

The list of similar problems could be easily enlarged. However, there is a more fundamental reason why in practice the postulate 4 will be violated. So long as the energies of states $`|0>`$ and $`|1>`$ are different, which is the case for two-level atoms or spins in an external magnetic field, the general superposition in Eq. 4 will not remain unchanged, even if there is no relaxation and no quantum gates are applied. The reason is simple: each amplitude $`A_x`$ will acquire a time-dependent phase $`k\mathrm{\Omega }t`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E/\mathrm{}`$, $`E`$ is the energy difference, $`t`$ is the time, and $`k`$ is the number of qubits in the $`|1>`$ state within a state $`x`$. (For example, $`k=3`$ for the state $`|1011>`$, corresponding to $`n=4,x=11`$). This time-dependent phase difference is the quantum-mechanical way of saying that each spin performs a fast precession around the direction of the magnetic field. Thus, our $`2^n`$ states will be divided into groups with the same phase (same values of $`k`$), which are physically similar, but computationally quite different (for example, states $`|1000>(x=8)`$ and $`|0001>(x=1)`$ fall into one group).

For atomic hyperfine levels, the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E/\mathrm{}`$ is typically on the order of $`10^{10}10^{12}`$ s<sup>-1</sup>, and it is impossible to fix the relative phase of states with different $`k`$ on such a time scale. As a result, the relative phases will have random values at the moments when our gates are applied, which will completely disorganize the performance of our quantum computer. For electron spins in a magnetic field of 1 T, the corresponding frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is on the order of $`10^{11}`$ s<sup>-1</sup>. Even if we move the fundamental frequency to an accessible range, say 100 MHz, by lowering the field to 0.001 T and making the temperature 0.1 mK, it still will not help. There always will be higher harmonics with the difference in $`k`$ on the order of $`n=10^310^5`$, whose coherence it would be impossible to preserve. The existence of the higher harmonics with frequencies $`p\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`p=1,\mathrm{},n`$) has a simple physical explanation: they are the frequencies of evolution of the $`p`$-spin correlations of the type $`<S_{1x}S_{2x}\mathrm{}S_{px}>`$. Since each spin makes a precession in the $`xy`$-plane with a frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, such a product will have all the harmonics, up to $`p\mathrm{\Omega }`$ .

It appears that the only way to avoid this fast and unwanted evolution of our wave function is to have qubits with degenerate or quasi-degenerate states. This means that we will have to abandon the spin resonance method and switch off the initial field of 1 T. This switching will take a long time, during which some relaxation could take place. Also the switching-off process will, most probably, perturb our spin system. Besides, we will have to do this switching on and off each time we need the state $`|00000\mathrm{}>`$ for the next step of calculations. After we have made the spin states degenerate, we will have to use quasi-static magnetic fields to independently rotate individual spins in the desired direction with the desired precision (please, design the experimental setup).

It seems that at this stage it would be pointless to discuss numerous additional problems related to the possibilities of controlling interactions between any two spins, which is indispensable for quantum computing.

In summary, I do not believe that it will be possible to construct even a toy (but working!) quantum computer with three qubits.

4. The classical limit of a quantum computer

There is no impenetrable wall between quantum and classical physics. Quantum effects may gradually disappear when some parameter is changed. Under certain conditions, even such small objects as electrons, are very well described by Newton’s laws. For a solid-state physicist, a familiar example is provided by magnetotransport phenomena. At room temperature, transport is well described by the classical Drude theory. As the temperature is lowered, small Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations appear, which are due to the quantization of the electron energy in magnetic field. In the strong magnetic field limit one enters the extreme quantum Hall effect regime. Note that the condition for a classical description to be valid is not the requirement that the Landau energy spacing be smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{}/\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time. Their ratio is a classical parameter $`\omega _c\tau `$, where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency. This parameter, which enters the classical Drude formulas, may be quite large and still the classical description will hold. The true criterion is the ratio between the Landau spacing and the thermal energy, $`kT`$. The classical description fails when this ratio becomes large enough.

In view of these remarks, the following questions seem to be justified. What is the classical limit of a quantum computer? What are the conditions for achieving this limit? These are difficult questions, which were never addressed properly by the quantum computing community. Apparently, most people in the field believe that the classical limit of a quantum computer is a digital computer, employing switching between spin-up/spin-down states as a classical bit, and that this limit is achieved when the coherent superposition of states in Eq. (4) is destroyed by relaxation processes. This is supposed to happen when the energy spacing between the spin-up and spin-down states, due to an applied magnetic field, becomes less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{}/\tau `$. (Another way of expressing this idea is to say that the classical limit is achieved when the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix disappear). Just as in the example above, this statement is not correct. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau `$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the spin precession frequency in the external magnetic field, is a classical parameter (it does not contain the Planck constant) describing the quality of the spin resonance, so that quantum versus classical behavior cannot be chosen depending on the value of this parameter. One need not go to the over-damped situation ($`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau <1`$) to insure classical behavior. (In terms of the density matrix, it should be noted, first, that a matrix that is diagonal in one basis may become non-diagonal in another basis and, secondly, that it is the non-diagonal density matrix that transforms into the classical distribution function in the classical limit, see, for example the Wigner density matrix.)

In my opinion, the classical limit of the quantum computer is a classical analog machine that stores information in the mutual orientations of a large number of classical magnetic moments (spins). Evidently, the practical possibility of building such a machine is questionable, to say the least. However it is much, much easier than to build a true quantum computer.

To shed more light on these questions, let us for a moment replace the two-state qubit ($`S`$ = 1/2) by a ”many-state qubit” (high spin $`S>>1`$). For example for $`S`$ = 9/2, which is the spin value for the <sup>113</sup>In nucleus, one has $`2S+1=10`$ states. This change will not affect the basic ideas for quantum computing, except that now we will have to abandon the binary code for writing numbers in favor (for example) of the familiar decimal code. It is well known that for high quantum numbers the behavior of any quantum system approaches that of a corresponding classical system. Thus, under application of external fields, various interactions, and so on, the hardware of our high-spin quantum computer should behave very similarly to a classical system of spins. However, under ideal conditions it should still remain a quantum computer.

The paradox is resolved by taking into account the effects of finite temperature, finite precision of our unitary transformations, or finite accuracy of our measurements. As soon as the precision becomes such that we cannot distinguish between neighboring states $`m`$ and $`m+1`$, where $`m`$ is the projection of $`𝐒`$ on a chosen axis (though we can still distinguish between states for which $`|m_1m_2|>>1`$), we will see purely classical behavior. (This path is the usual one from quantum towards classical mechanics. A tennis ball in a rectangular one-dimensional potential well obeys textbook quantum mechanics. For high energy levels the wave function is a standing wave, but since the wavelength is smaller than the precision of any imaginable instrument, we will see the classical distribution function, which is uniform throughout the well. Note again that the classical limit does not require that the energy spacing be smaller than $`\mathrm{}/\tau `$, or that the tennis ball density matrix be diagonal.) But at this point the quantum computer will stop working as such, since we will be making random mistakes of $`\pm 1`$ in each digit of all the numbers written in our $`(2S+1)`$-code. Instead, we will have an analog machine consisting of classical spins.

In this context, a remark concerning some proposals to use NMR techniques for quantum computing is in order. At first glance, the advantage of nuclear spins is in their extremely long relaxation times, due to the very small value of nuclear magnetic moments and consequently to their poor coupling to external fluctuating magnetic fields. However, for the same reason it is extremely difficult to obtain full nuclear polarization and it is practically impossible to measure the state of an individual nuclear spin. In order to overcome these difficulties, it is suggested to use not an individual spin, but rather a cluster of, say, $`10^{15}`$ nuclear spins, which may be weakly polarized. A thousand of such clusters are supposed to play the role of the qubits.

In fact, the idea is completely misconceived. A weakly polarized cluster of many nuclear spins behaves like a classical spin, and cannot be represented by a wave function given by Eq. (1). Accordingly, a measurement of the spin per nucleus will always give the small average value with a $`100\%`$ probability (more precisely, with an uncertainty $`10^{15/2}`$). The situation would not change even if the nuclear polarization were to reach $`99.99\%`$. This is the reason one actually does not need quantum mechanics to understand most of the phenomena pertaining to NMR or, more generally, to the average spin of large ensembles. Many clusters would work as a classical analog machine, described above, but by no means like a quantum computer.

5. Conclusions

We should make a clear distinction between the quantum computer of the abstract information theory and the working quantum computer, between a thought experiment and a real experiment. For a mathematician, rotating a vector in a huge Hilbert space is a routine algebraic operation, while doing it in practice may be possible or not, depending on the required precision, the dimension of the space, and other conditions imposed by the real physical world.

Modern ideas linking quantum mechanics and information theory are quite fascinating, providing better insight into both theories, but this advance is not related in any way to the possibility of building a working quantum computer.

The practical performance of a quantum computer is based on manipulating on a microscopic level and with an enormous precision a many-particle physical system with continuous degrees of freedom. Obviously, for large enough systems, either quantum or classical, this becomes impossible, which is why such systems belong to the domain of statistical, not microscopic physics. The question is whether a system of $`n=10^310^5`$ quantum spins, needed to beat the classical computer in solving a limited special class of problems, is large enough in this sense. Can we ever learn to control the $`2^n`$ amplitudes defining the quantum state of such a system? Based on the previous analysis, my answer is no, never.

There is an intermediate link between a quantum and a digital computer, which is a classical analog machine, like a system of $`10^5`$ oscillators or classical spins. Why not try to build such a machine first, and then, when we see that it works, try to accomplish the next, orders-of-magnitude more difficult task of constructing a quantum computer with $`10^5`$ quantum spins? Personally, I do not believe that even such a classical analog machine of sufficient complexity will ever work.

The fashion of quantum computer building will gradually die away, the sooner, the better. Research in atomic and spin physics is interesting and useful on its own and need not be justified by irresponsible projects and promises.

6. Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Andrew Steane for illuminating correspondence. I have also benefited from discussions with Sergei Meshkov, Gérard Mennessier, and Serge Luryi.


text:
# Pseudo-Hermiticity versus 𝑃𝑇-Symmetry II: A complete characterization of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with a real spectrum

## Acknowledgment

The basic idea of the present work was originated from a comment made by Z. Ahmed about his checking the results that I had reported in Ref.  for a specific example of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian with a real spectrum. This project was supported by the Young Researcher Award Program (GEB$`\dot{\mathrm{I}}`$P) of the Turkish Academy of Sciences.


text:
# Signatures of resonance superfluidity in a quantum Fermi gas

## Abstract

In this letter, we predict a direct and observable signature of the superfluid phase in a quantum Fermi gas, in a temperature regime already accessible in current experiments. We apply the theory of resonance superfluidity to a gas confined in a harmonic potential and demonstrate that a significant increase in density will be observed in the vicinity of the trap center.

Following the successful realization of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in confined vapors , it is natural to consider possibilities for observing the analogous superfluid phase transition in a dilute Fermi gas. Quantum degeneracy has already been demonstrated in a two-component Fermi gas of 40K atoms , although the spin states utilized were not suitable for exhibiting superfluidity. The lowest temperatures achieved to date in this system are around $`0.2T_F`$—limited by Pauli blocking as well as a number of technical considerations . In other experiments, the rethermalization of fermion atoms by elastic collisions with a bath of ultracold bosons is exploited; realized by mixtures of 6Li and 7Li at Rice , and at ENS , and more recently by mixtures of 40K atoms and 87Rb atoms at JILA .

In order to observe a superfluid phase transition at critical temperatures as high as $`0.2T_F`$, the existence of a strong coupling mechanism which could lead to a significant amount of Cooper pairing is necessary. Several theoretical papers have presented models to investigate this regime, essentially based on application of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS)  theory of superconductivity. These approaches consider dilute Fermi vapors in which the two body scattering processes are characterized by a large negative scattering length $`a`$ . Under such conditions the relevant length scale—the spatial extent of the Cooper pair—may become comparable to the average interparticle spacing. This places the system in a crossover region from the BCS superfluidity of momentum-correlated fermion pairs to the BEC of tightly bound composite bosons. In this crossover regime, fluctuations play a crucial role  and must be addressed.

Eventually, as the coupling is increased, it becomes necessary to construct a theory in which explicit treatment of the composite bosonic states is made. Such an approach was proposed in the context of high-temperature superconductivity  and is based on an effective many-body Hamiltonian, in which quasibound pairs are explicitly treated as resonance states embedded in the continuum of the Fermi sea. Such resonances are ubiquitous in atomic physics, where, for example, a Feshbach resonance  can be utilized to tune a quasibound state through threshold, providing an explicit microscopic basis for a theory of resonance superfluidity .

A convincing method for detecting the superfluidity will be required. Various approaches have been proposed; including measurements of the pair distribution , experiments involving the breakup of the Cooper pairs , measurements of the moment of inertia , and probes of collective excitations . In this letter, we show that a more straightforward and direct experimental signature of the transition to the superfluid phase is provided by the density characteristics in an inhomogeneous system. We demonstrate that in a harmonic trap, the superfluid state is manifest as the appearance of a bulge in the central atomic density. To this aim we derive a theory of resonance superfluidity including the description of external confinement.

Although our results will have general applicability, for the purpose of illustration, we consider a typical system of $`N=5\times 10^5`$ atoms in an isotropic harmonic trap with angular frequency $`\omega =2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}`$ s-1. This gives a Fermi energy of $`E_F=(3N)^{1/3}\mathrm{}\omega `$. We consider a 40K Feshbach resonance, illustrated in Fig. 1, for $`s`$-wave scattering of atoms in the lowest two hyperfine spin states which we denote by $`\sigma \{,\}`$. We begin by considering the general structure of the theory for the homogeneous system where the fermions are represented by the wave-number-$`𝒌`$ dependent annihilation operators $`a_{𝒌\sigma }^{}`$ and the composite boson field by $`b_𝒌`$. The Hamiltonian is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\sigma }{}}ϵ_ka_{𝒌\sigma }^{}a_{𝒌\sigma }^{}+\nu {\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}b_𝒌^{}b_𝒌^{}`$ (3)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒𝒌𝒌^{}}{}}a_{𝒒/2+𝒌}^{}a_{𝒒/2𝒌}^{}a_{𝒒/2𝒌^{}}^{}a_{𝒒/2+𝒌^{}}^{}`$
$`+\left(g{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌𝒒}{}}b_𝒒^{}a_{𝒒/2𝒌}^{}a_{𝒒/2+𝒌}^{}+\text{h.c.}\right),`$
where h.c. denotes the hermitian conjugate. The free dispersion relation for the fermions is $`ϵ_k`$, and $`\nu `$ denotes the detuning of the boson resonance state from the zero edge of the collision continuum. The collisional interactions include both background fermion scattering and interconversion between composite bosons and fermion pairs. It is implicit in treating $`U`$ and $`g`$ as constants that the theory will be renormalized, and thereby contain no ultraviolet divergences in the calculation of observable quantities . This procedure involves ascribing a cutoff value $`K`$ as the upper limit of all momentum summations, and renormalizing the Hamiltonian constants in terms of $`K`$ and the parameters for the Feshbach resonance as given in Fig. 1. Defining $`\alpha =mK/(2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2)`$ and a dimensionless factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1\alpha U_0)^1`$, the renormalization is executed by the following relations $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }U_0`$, $`g=\mathrm{\Gamma }g_0`$, and $`\nu =\nu _0+\alpha gg_0`$. All results presented here have been shown to be independent of $`K`$.

From this Hamiltonian, we construct the dynamical Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations for both the bosonic and fermionic mean-fields. These equations involve the mean fields corresponding to the spin density $`n=_𝒌a_{𝒌\sigma }^{}a_{𝒌\sigma }^{}`$ (taken to be identical for both spins), the pairing field $`p=_𝒌a_𝒌^{}a_𝒌^{}`$, and the condensed boson field $`\varphi _m=b_{𝒌=0}`$. The single particle density matrix

$$𝒢_{i,j}=A_j^{}A_i^{},A=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_𝒌^{}\\ a_𝒌^{}\\ a_𝒌^{}\\ a_𝒌^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
evolves according to the Bogoliubov self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d𝒢}{dt}=[\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒢].$$
(5)
The self-energy has hermitian structure

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}U_k& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ 0& U_k& \mathrm{\Delta }& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& U_k& 0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& 0& 0& U_k\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where the single particle energy is $`U_k=ϵ_k\mu +T_kn`$, the gap is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=Up+g\varphi _m`$, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. Here, without cost, we have upgraded the mean-field contribution to the single particle energy (which would otherwise be given by $`Un`$) to the full ladder sum, $`T_kn`$, where $`T_k`$ is the two-body $`T`$-matrix. This expression for the mean-field contribution to the particle energy is an approximation which is accurate for dilute Fermi gases where the quantum Fermi pressure limits achievable densities. The dynamical equations are closed by the evolution equation for the boson mode;

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\varphi _m}{dt}=\nu \varphi _m+gp.$$
(7)
The self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is diagonalized locally at each $`𝒌`$ by the Bogoliubov transformation generating quasiparticles with energy spectrum $`E_k=\sqrt{U_k^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}`$. In equilibrium, the quasiparticle states are occupied according to the Fermi-Dirac distribution $`n_k=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left((E_k\mu )/k_bT\right)+1\right]^1`$. The corresponding maximum entropy solution for the molecule amplitude is found by $`i\mathrm{}d\varphi _m/dt=\mu _m\varphi _m`$ where $`\mu _m=2\mu `$, so that Eq. (7) implies $`\varphi _m=gp/(\mu _m\nu )`$. The mean fields can then be determined by integration of the equilibrium single particle density matrix elements, given by;

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^K}𝑑k\left[(2n_k1)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _k+1\right],`$ (8)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^K}𝑑k(2n_k1)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _k,`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _k=|\mathrm{\Delta }|/U_k`$ is the Bogoliubov transformation angle. Since $`\theta _k`$ depends on $`n`$ and $`p`$, these equations require self-consistent solutions .

So far this theory has been presented for a homogeneous system, while we are interested in a gas of $`N`$ atoms confined in an external trapping potential $`V(𝒓)`$. However, a full quantum mechanical treatment of the trapping states is not required. For instance, in our case, with a temperature of $`T=0.2T_F`$, the harmonic oscillator level spacing is smaller than both the Fermi and thermal energies. Under these conditions, we may incorporate the effect of the trap through a semiclassical local density approximation . This involves replacing the chemical potential by a local one $`\mu (𝒓)=\mu V(𝒓)`$, and determining the thermodynamic solution at each point in space as for the homogeneous system.

In general, the validity of the semiclassical approximation requires a slow variation in the occupation of the discrete quantum levels as a function of energy. Remarkably, in both bosonic and fermionic gases, this condition can often be satisfied even at very low temperatures; because of strong correlations in a BEC due to repulsive interactions, and because of exchange effects in a quantum Fermi gas. In both cases the zero-temperature semiclassical approximation for dilute gases is usually referred to as the Thomas-Fermi approximation.

We evaluate the thermodynamic quantities at given $`T`$ and $`N`$ in three steps: (i) For given $`\mu `$, we determine the local chemical potential $`\mu (𝒓)=\mu V(𝒓)`$ and use this value to find the self-consistent solution for the density $`n(𝒓)`$ and pairing field $`p(𝒓)`$ at each point in space, according to the solution of Eqns. (9); (ii) We modify the global chemical potential $`\mu `$ until the density integral is the desired atom number, i.e. $`N=d^3rn(𝒓)`$; (iii) We use the resulting solution for $`\mu `$ to calculate observable quantities, such as the density, gap, compressibility, and so forth.

The resulting solution for the density distribution is illustrated in Fig. 2. A striking signature of the resonance superfluidity is evident in the predicted density profile which has a notable bulge in the region of the center of the trap. Experimentally, this signature appears to be directly accessible. A typical approach would be to fit the expected density profile for a quantum degenerate gas with no superfluid phase to the wings of the distribution (outside the dotted lines shown in Fig.2). Then the excess density observed at the trap center can be recorded. Fig.3 illustrates the emergence of the superfluid as the temperature is decreased. Qualitatively this situation is reminiscent of the central condensate peak observed for a Bose-Einstein condensed gas in a harmonic potential, although the connection appears to be somewhat serendipitous.

We explain the observed behavior by considering the compressibility of the normal and superfluid gas. Thermodynamically, the isothermal compressibility $`C`$ is defined as $`C^1=n(P/n)_T`$ where $`P`$ is the pressure, and is shown in Fig. 4. The compressibility is positive everywhere, indicating that, in spite of the large attractive interactions, the Fermi pressure makes the configuration mechanically stable. A significant feature is the discontinuous behavior at the radius from the trap center at which the superfluid changes from a zero to a non-zero value. This discontinuity is a manifestation of a second-order phase transition occurring in space. The discontinuity is a consequence of the local density approximation, and cannot occur in a finite system. However, a rapid change in the compressibility is expected. In principle this could be probed by studies of shock waves generated by the abrupt jump in the speed of sound as a density fluctuation passes through this region.

In conclusion, we demonstrated that there exists a direct signature of superfluidity in trapped fermion gases. The onset of superfluidity leads to a density bulge in the center of the trap which can be detected by direct absorption imaging. The critical conditions for superfluidity are satisfied initially in the trap center, and the region of non-zero pairing field spreads out from the center as the temperature is lowered further. The increase in the density profile in the superfluid region is caused by a jump in the compressibility. Direct measures of this behavior are possible by the study of the propagation of sound waves. We have applied our method here to 40K, but a similar approach is easy to derive for other interesting atoms, including in particular 6Li which is the other fermionic alkali currently being investigated experimentally.

Support is acknowledged for M.H. and S.K. from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences via the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, and for M.C. from the National Science Foundation and SNS, Pisa (Italy). We are grateful for the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was partially carried out. M.C. acknowledges the marvelous hospitality of JILA, and thanks Ester Piegari for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are currently 36 known and probable galaxy members of the Local Group within a zero-velocity surface of 1.2 Mpc. Except for the three spiral galaxies M31, Milky Way, and M33, the irregular Large Magellanic Cloud, and the small elliptical galaxy M32 all other galaxies in the Local Group are dwarf galaxies with $`M_V>18`$ mag. In this review I will concentrate on the properties of the interstellar medium (ISM) of the Magellanic Clouds and the Local Group dwarf galaxies, moving from gas-rich to gas-poor objects. Recent results from telescopes, instruments, and surveys such as NANTEN, ATCA, HIPASS, JCMT, ISO, ROSAT, FUSE, ORFEUS, STIS, Keck, and the VLT are significantly advancing our knowledge of the ISM in nearby dwarfs and provide an unprecedented, multi-wavelength view of its different phases. For a detailed review of the properties of all Local Group galaxies see .

## 2 The Magellanic Clouds

### 2.1 The Large Magellanic Cloud

At high Galactic latitude and a distance of only $``$50 kpc, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is one of the best-studied galaxies in the Local Group. With $`0.510^9`$ M , the gaseous component (neglecting He) contributes $`9`$ % to the total mass of the LMC ($`5.3\pm 1.010^9`$ M; ). The gas to dust ratio is four times lower in the LMC than in the Milky Way . The total diffuse H2 mass is $`810^6`$ M, $`<2`$% of the LMC’s H i mass and $``$1/9th of the Milky Way’s fraction . The reduced H2 fraction may imply enhanced destruction through UV photodissociation in low-metallicity environments or suppressed H2 on dust grains that H2 . While high dust content is correlated with high H2 abundances, H2 does not trace CO or dust per se .

CO shows a strong correlation with H ii regions and young ($`<10`$ Myr) clusters, but only little with older clusters and supernova remnants (SNRs) (, cf. ). Massive CO clouds have typical lifetimes of $`6`$ Myr and are dissipated within $``$3 Myr after the formation of young clusters. CO clouds exist also in quiescent areas without ongoing star formation; potential sites of future activity. Overall, the LMC clouds haver lower CO luminosities than in the Milky Way and higher gas to dust ratios . Individual cloud masses range from a few $`10^4`$ M to $`210^6`$ M. With 4 to $`710^7`$ M the estimated molecular gas mass of the LMC amounts to 8 to 14% of its total gas mass .

H i aperture synthesis maps of the LMC have revealed an ISM with a turbulent, fractal structure that is self-similar on scales from tens to hundreds of pc , likely due to the energy input of OB stars and supernova explosions. The flocculent ISM consists of numerous shells and holes surrounded by broken H i filaments . At very large scales supershells dominate. 23 H i supershells (i.e., holes with sizes that exceed the H i scale height) and 103 giant shells (sizes below the H i scale height) were identified . Many of the giant shells interlock or collide with one another, or occur at the rims of supershells. They probably result from winds of recently formed massive stars in a propagating-star-formation scenario. Generally, the H i shells show little correlation with the optically dominant H ii shells, which suggests that H i shells live longer than the OB stars that caused them initially . H i associated with H ii typically exceeds the size of the ionized regions.

The overall appearance of the H i disk of the LMC is symmetric, does not show obvious correlations with the optical bar, and reveals spiral features . Its southernmost “spiral arm” connects to the Magellanic Bridge, the tidal H i overdensity between the LMC and the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC).

Photoionization is the main contributor to the optical appearance of the ISM at $`10^4`$ K in the LMC and other gas-rich, star-forming galaxies. The LMC has a total H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of $`2.710^{40}`$ erg s-1. 30 to 40% are contributed by diffuse, extended gas . Nine H ii supershells with diameters $`>600`$ pc are known in the LMC . Their rims are marked by strings of H ii regions and young clusters/OB associations. The standard picture for supershells suggests that these are expanding shells driven by propagating star formation (e.g., ). However, an age gradient consistent with this scenario was not detected in the largest of these supershells, LMC4 . Nor are the supershells LMC1 , LMC2 , and LMC4  expanding as a whole, but instead appear to consist of hot gas confined between H i sheets and show localized expansion. Supershells in several other galaxies do not show evidence for expansion either , nor for the expected young massive stellar populations .

More highly ionized gas can be effectively traced through ultraviolet absorption lines from species such as such as C iv ($`10^5`$ K), N v ($`210^5`$ K), and O vi ($`310^5`$ K; these temperatures are valid in the likely case of collisionally ionized gas). C iv and O vi are detected along sight lines across the entire LMC, spatially uncorrelated with star-forming regions. Its velocities indicate that it is likely part of a hot, highly ionized corona of the LMC (, ).

Shock heating through fast stellar winds and, more importantly, supernova explosions are the primary creation mechanisms for hot gas with $`10^6`$ K . Diffuse hot gas in supershells, however, contributes only 6% to the total X-ray emission from the LMC . LMC2, the supershell east of 30 Doradus, has the highest X-ray surface brightness of all the supergiant shells in the LMC. The second highest X-ray surface brightness comes from the yet unexplained extended “spur” south of LMC2. The largest contribution to the LMC X-ray budget comes from discrete X-ray binaries ($`41`$%), followed by diffuse field emission ($`30`$%), and discrete SNRs ($`21`$%) .

Finally, the LMC is the only external galaxy detected thus far in diffuse $`\gamma `$-rays, which are produced by (and directly proportional to) the interaction of cosmic rays (e.g., from supernovae) with the interstellar medium . The integrated flux above 100 MeV is $`1.910^7`$ photons cm-2 s-1 .

### 2.2 The Small Magellanic Cloud

The SMC is the second most massive Milky Way companion ($`210^9`$ M; ). With a total H i mass of $`4.210^8`$ M , 21% of its mass are in the ISM. The SMC’s dust mass, on the other hand, is only $`1.810^4`$ M , and its average dust to gas mass ratio is $`8.210^5`$, a factor 30 below the Galactic value. The highest concentrations of dust are found in luminous H ii regions. Cold gas appears to be mostly atomic rather than molecular due to the reduced dust abundance, fewer coolants, and a higher UV radiation field (, ), which help to photodissociate H2. Less than 15% of the H i is in cold gas, which tends to be colder than in the Milky Way ($`40`$ K vs. 50 to 100 K ). The diffuse H2 mass is $`210^6`$ M, $``$0.5% of its H i mass and 1/9th of the Galactic value, similar to the reduced H2 fraction in the LMC .

Three H i supershells ($`>600`$ pc) and 495 giant shells were detected in the SMC (; ). These shells appear to be expanding. Their rims coincide with a number of H ii regions. Their centers lack pronounced H$`\alpha `$ emission in good agreement with their dynamical ages of $`>10^7`$ years and the propagating star formation scenario proposed by , though detailed studies of the stellar age structure are lacking so far. As in the LMC, the ISM of the SMC is fractal , likely due to turbulent energy input. The idea that the SMC consists of multiple components that are distinct in location and velocity is not supported by the recent large-scale H i data and was probably an artifact of the complex shell structure of the SMC . On large scales, areas of high H i column densities coincide with the luminous H ii regions that form the bar and the wing of the SMC . The distribution of stars younger than 200 Myr also traces these areas of recent massive star formation well . Collisionally ionized gas with a few $`10^5`$ K forms a hot halo around the SMC and shows enhanced column densities toward star-forming regions . Slightly enhanced diffuse X-ray emission has been detected along the SMC bar .

### 2.3 The Magellanic Bridge and Stream

The SMC has a distance of $`60`$ kpc from the Milky Way and $`20`$ kpc from the LMC. SMC, LMC, and Milky Way interact tidally with each other, which is reflected in, e.g., the H i warp of the Milky Way disk , in the thickening of the LMC’s stellar disk , its elliptical extension toward the Milky Way , in the star formation histories of the three galaxies (; ; ), and most notably in the gaseous tidal features surrounding the Magellanic Clouds.

The LMC and SMC are connected by the “Magellanic Bridge”, an irregular, clumpy H i feature with a mass of $`10^8`$ M that emanates from both Clouds . Cold (20 to 40 K) H i gas has been detected in the Bridge , and recent star formation occurred there over the past 10 to 25 Myr . Higher ionized species with temperatures up to $`10^5`$ K show an abundance pattern suggesting depletion into dust . Interestingly, stellar abundances in the Bridge were found to be $`1.1`$ dex , 0.4 dex below the mean abundance of the young SMC population, which is inconsistent with the proposed tidal origin 200 Myr ago . However, it is conceivable that the Bridge formed from Magellanic Clouds material that mixed with an unenriched component , making cloud-cloud collisions a possible star formation trigger .

Additional tidal H i features include the leading arm ($`10^7`$ M, 25 length, ) and the patchy, clumpy trailing arm ($`10^{}\times 100^{}`$) of the Magellanic Stream, in which no stars have been detected so far . The Magellanic Stream is detected in H$`\alpha `$ due to photoionization by the Galaxy . The abundance patterns of interstellar absorption lines are consistent with those in the SMC, and the H2 detected in the leading arm may originally have formed in the SMC . Based on their abundances, additional high-velocity clouds in the vicinity may have been torn out of the SMC .

## 3 Other Local Group Irregulars

The remaining Local Group dwarf irregulars (dIrrs) are more distant from the dominant spirals, and fairly isolated. While their star formation activity and gas content generally decrease with decreasing galaxy mass, their star formation histories and ISM properties present a less homogeneous picture when considered in detail. We first present the contrasting examples of two comparatively high-mass dIrrs and then move on to the low mass end.

The H i of IC 10 (distance 660 kpc) is 7.2 times more extended than its Holmberg radius . While the inner part is a regularly rotating disk full of shells and holes, the outer H i gas is counterrotating . IC 10 is currently undergoing a massive starburst, which may be triggered and fueled by an infalling H i cloud (, ). Only upper limits have been established for the diffuse X-ray emission , which may be due to the high foreground absorption toward IC 10. A non-thermal superbubble was detected that may be the result of several supernova explosions . The masses of the molecular clouds in IC 10 are as high as 0.3 to $`510^6`$ M . Owing to the high radiation field and the destruction of small dust grains, the ratio of far-infrared \[C ii\] to CO 1–0 emission is a factor 4 larger than in the Milky Way , resulting in small CO cores are surrounded by large \[C ii\]-emitting envelopes . Two H2O masers were detected in dense clouds in IC 10, marking sites of massive star formation . The internal dust content of IC 10 is high .

NGC 6822, a dIrr at a distance of $`500`$ kpc, is also embedded in an elongated H i cloud with numerous shells and holes that is much more extended than its stellar body . Its total H i mass is $`1.110^8`$ M, $`7`$% of its total mass. The masses of individual CO clouds reach up to 1 to $`210^5`$ M , while the estimated H2 content is 15% of the H i mass , and the dust to gas mass ratio is $`1.410^4`$ . In comparison to IC 10, NGC 6822 is fairly quiescent, although it contains many H ii regions. Its huge supershell ($`2.0\times 1.4`$ kpc) was likely caused by the passage of and interaction with a nearby $`10^7`$ M H i cloud and does not show signs of expansion .

The H i in low-mass dIrrs may be up to three times more extended than the optical galaxy and is clumpy on scales of 100 to 300 pc. The most massive clumps reach $`10^6`$ M. H i concentrations tend to be close to H ii regions. Some dIrrs contain cold H i clouds associated with molecular gas, while dIrrs without cold H i also do not show ongoing star formation. The total H i masses are usually $`<10^8`$ M. The center of the H i distribution coincides roughly with the optical center of the dIrrs, although the H i may show a central depression surrounded by an H i ring or arc (e.g., SagDIG, Leo A). In contrast to the more massive dIrrs, the low-mass dIrrs show little to no rotation and appear to be dominated by chaotic motions. Details are given in , , , .

## 4 Elliptical, Spheroidal, and Transition-Type Dwarfs

The ISM of the dwarf elliptical (dE) companions of M31 exhibits puzzling properties that are not yet understood. In NGC 205, the stellar component does not show rotation, while the H i does . In NGC 185, stars and gas belong to the same kinematic system, while in NGC 147 neither H i nor molecular gas were detected . In these three galaxies, the most recent measured star formation event took place 50 Myr, 100 Myr, and $`>`$1 Gyr ago, respectively (, , ), but these recent episodes cannot explain the differences in the ISM content. With $`10^6`$ M, the amount of gas in NGC 205 is a factor of 10 below what one would expect from normal mass loss through stellar evolution, and the kinematic differences between gas and stars make this an unlikely origin . In NGC 185 stellar mass loss may provide an explanation for the H i. In both galaxies, the gas is less extended than the optical body, asymmetrically distributed, and clumpy on scales of less than 200 pc. NGC 205 contains CO and dust, which are closely associated with H i concentrations on scales of 100 pc . While the molecular clouds in NGC 205 closely resemble Galactic clouds, the H i envelopes of the CO clouds have much lower column densities of only $`10^{20}`$ cm-2 due to the lower interstellar UV radiation field. This implies that in dwarf galaxies with low UV radiation molecular gas may form and survive even at column densities below $`10^{21}`$ cm-2 as less shielding is required (; see also ). The gas to dust ratio, which is similar to the one in the Milky Way, indicates that little dust gets destroyed in this environment. Even extremely cold dust with $`<10`$ K was detected in NGC 205 .

Owing to their prominent old stellar populations, some dIrrs resemble dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies. But while dSph galaxies appear to be devoid of gas, these galaxies have been detected in H i. Thus they are classified as dIrr/dSph systems, galaxies that may be in transition from low-mass dIrrs to gas-less dSphs. LGS 3, one of these transition types, is at a distance of 280 kpc from M31 and experienced low-rate star formation until 500 Myr ago . Its star formation rate was not significant enough to expel its gas, and the H i distribution is nicely centered on the optical galaxy. In contrast, the dIrr/dSph galaxy Phoenix (distance $`400`$ kpc from the Milky Way), which formed stars continuously until 100 Myr ago , does not contain H i within the main body of the optical galaxy. However, a nearby H i cloud with $`510^6`$ M has a velocity consistent with its having originated from Phe (, ). It may have been expelled through supernova explosions (though its regular shape seems to argue against this), or ram pressure stripping . Gas in two extended H i lobes appears to be within the tidal radius of Sculptor, a dSph without a young or significant intermediate-age population , matching its velocity . The amount of gas detected is consistent with expectations from stellar mass loss through normal stellar evolution. On the other hand, the surrounding field is filled with similar clouds, suggesting the possibility of mere coincidence .

The upper limits for H i in the other Local Group dSphs are at column densities of a few $`10^{17}`$ cm-2, well below even of expectations from mass loss through normal stellar evolution. At earlier stages in their evolution, these dSphs were evidently capable of forming stars and retaining gas over extended periods of time. Even those that are predominantly old show evidence for metallicity spreads . The Fornax dSph still formed stars $`<200`$ Myr ago , while sensitive H i searches did not detect any gas  – perhaps a galaxy one step beyond Phe, just having completed its transformation into a dSph? Claims that gas exists at larger distances from dSphs  were not confirmed for several of them (e.g., Leo I ; And V ). Searches for diffuse highly ionized gas only yielded upper limits (Leo I: ). Internal effects such as supernova explosions appear to be insufficient for removing the gas . Gas loss through tidal shocks during perigalactic passages close to a massive galaxy may rid dSphs of their gas  and provide an explanation for transition-type galaxies and the morphology-density relation, but environmental effects cannot explain isolated, gas-less dSphs like Tucana. Hence many interesting questions concerning the ISM in dwarf galaxies remain open.

Acknowledgements.  It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for their kind invitation, Y.-H. Chu and J.S. Gallagher for a critical reading of the text, and Landessternwarte Heidelberg for a quiet office where this review was completed.


text:
# THE ANOMALOUS TRAJECTORIES OF THE PIONEER SPACECRAFT11footnote 1Electronic addresses: ‡mmn@lanl.gov ∗john.d.anderson@jpl.nasa.gov +Philip.A.Laing@aero.org §Eunice.L.Lau@jpl.nasa.gov †turyshev@jpl.nasa.gov

## 1 Introduction

Some thirty years ago, on 2 March 1972, Pioneer 10 was launched on an Atlas/Centaur rocket from Cape Canaveral. Pioneer 10 was Earth’s first space probe to reach an outer planet. After surviving intense radiation, on 4 December 1973 it successfully encountered Jupiter $`^{}`$.

Today we are all used to spectacular photographs from the solar system. But in 1973 it was different. For those of us (speaker - MMN) who remember, the impact of the first Jupiter encounter photographs was astounding. To understand this one only has to compare the 25 January 1974 cover of Science  with the best Palomar telescope photographs.

Pioneer 10 was followed by Pioneer 11 (launched on 5 April 1973). After Jupiter and (for Pioneer 11) Saturn encounters, the two spacecraft have followed hyperbolic orbits near the plane of the ecliptic to opposite sides of the solar system. Pioneer 10 was also the first mission to “leave the solar system” when in June 1983 it passed beyond the orbit of Pluto . (See Figure 1.)

The Pioneers have been amazingly robust. They knew how to build cars in those days! The Pioneers were adventures into the unknown, so great care was given to the design and reliability of the craft. Hence, although it was required (hoped) these craft would have a lifetime of 3 (7) years, they successfully operated for much longer. Pioneer 10 (at a distance $`>70`$ AU) is still transmitting and we have analyzed data up to 1998.5. The Pioneer 11 Doppler signals failed on 1 October 1990. So, after that date, when the spacecraft was $`30`$ AU away from the Sun, no useful data has been generated for our purposes.

## 2 Testing Newtonian Dynamics

I myself (MMN) became involved in this project while I was preparing a talk on antimatter and gravity for the 1994 Low Energy Antiproton conference . I wanted to argue that we really do not understand gravity at distances much larger than the size of the solar system. We know it is there, but we don’t know how well it obeys Newton/Einstein physics. Basically the rotation curves of spiral galaxies tell us something is wrong. Our “creationist” solution is dark matter (although we can’t find enough of it to explain the problem).

To better understand what spacecraft could tell us about this, I eventually was directed to John Anderson. He emailed me that rather than considering the orbits of three-axis stabilized craft like the Voyagers, spinning craft like the Pioneers were better since fewer maneuvers are necessary.

How you obtain a result from spacecraft is very simple to understand – in principle. You transmit an S-band signal to the craft via the Deep Space Network. It is transponded back and you compare the re-received signal to your station clocks. There will be a Doppler shift since the spacecraft is traveling out. From this shift you subtract out known effects, like the gravity of the Sun and any nearby planets.222I am sympathetic to the story Eric Adelberger told us about the commercial miscalibration of their micrometer. We spent a couple of months trying to understand evidence of an anomalously large corona signal. Eventually we realized that we needed to input physical parameters that had been determined elsewhere instead of using default operations of the codes. Then you see if any Doppler residuals are left over.

## 3 The Anomaly

As to what the Pioneers could actually tell us, John went on, “By the way, the biggest systematic in our acceleration residuals is a bias of $`8\times 10^{13}`$ km/s2 directed toward the Sun.” It turns out that indicative evidence of this had been around for some time. But the motivation to analyze it seriously had not arisen. Now it did .

Our collaboration expended a great deal of effort in detailed analysis of the Pioneer 10 data between 1987.0 and 1998.5 and of the Pioneer 11 data between 1987.0 and 1990.75. When systematics had been considered, we obtained a present result of  $`a_P=(8.74\pm 1.25)\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}^2`$.

## 4 A Standard Physic Explanation

Most people (including ourselves) believe the answer must be some systematic. But we have not found it. The most likely candidates are gas leaks from the thrusters or non-isotropic heat radiation. In what probably shows a deep respect for what they deal with, space navigators tend to think it is gas leaks and space scientists tend to think it is heat.

The navigators argue their case privately and the space scientists argue their case in print. The navigational and heat details are in our big report . The ongoing heat discussions are in our references $`^{}`$. You people will have to decide for yourselves, but we claim no “smoking gun” has been found.

The care of the design turned out to be beneficial to us. (See Figure 2.) The radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) were placed at the end of long booms. Therefore, the effect of the radiant heat from them was much less than it might have been. Further, these extended booms had to be balanced as part of a rotating craft. This spin-stabilization meant there were fewer maneuvers. Finally, the basically cylindrical symmetry meant one could easily look for changes in the anomaly with time that might be associated with radioactive or electrical-power heat decay.

## 5 Something Wrong?

If, contrary to expectation, no systematic can explain the anomaly, one has to ask what it could be. The obvious answer to explain an “acceleration” is a “force.” But as discussed elsewhere , this force would not satisfy the Principle of Equivalence. Still one has to remain curious since $`a_P𝒪(a_0)𝒪(cH)`$, where $`a_0`$ is Milgrom’s acceleration parameter in his Modified Newtonian Dynamics  and $`H`$ is the Hubble constant.

This last ties into this conference on CPT. One can easily speculate (and people have) that the effect is time. Remember, this is a Doppler measurement which we interpreted as an acceleration, $`a_P`$. But if one writes it as $`ca_t=a_P`$ one has a time acceleration.

The question probably must be settled by new experiment. A craft going quickly to deep space, built to minimize systematics, and with modern Doppler and range electronics is what is called for. We are thinking about this.

## Acknowledgments

M.M.N. acknowledges support by the U.S. DOE. This work of J.D.A., E.L.L, and S.G.T. was performed under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. P.A.L. was supported by a grant from NASA through the Ultraviolet, Visible, and Gravitational Astrophysics Program.

## References