text:
# Bose-Einstein condensation of correlated atoms in a trap

## I Introduction

The first theoretical prediction of the famous phenomenon known as Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) was made in 1924 and 1925 by Bose  and Einstein , respectively. In a system of particles obeying Bose-Einstein statistics where the total number of particles is conserved, there should be a temperature below which a finite fraction of all the particles condense into the same one-particle state . Seventy years later, in a remarkable experiment, Anderson et al.  have cooled magnetically trapped 87Rb gas to nanokelvin temperatures, and observed the BEC. This discovery has generated a huge amount of theoretical investigations .

The main feature of the trapped alkali-metal and atomic hydrogen systems (which obey the Bose-Einstein statistics) is that they are dilute, i.e., the average distance among the atoms is much larger than the range of the interaction. The crucial parameter defining the condition of diluteness is the gas parameter $`\chi =na^3`$, where $`n`$ is the density of the system and $`a`$ is the s-wave scattering length . There are two ways to bring $`\chi `$ outside the regime of validity of the mean field description. The first one consists by increasing the density, while the second one consists by changing the effective size of the atoms . In the present work we follow the second way.

The characteristic dimension of a harmonic oscillator (HO) trap for 87Rb is $`b=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega }\right)^{1/2}=(12)\times 10^4\AA `$ while the scattering length lies in the range $`85a_o<a<140a_o`$, where $`a_o=0.5292\AA `$ is the Bohr radius. The atomic density in the trap is $`n10^{12}10^{14}`$ atoms/cm3 giving an inter-atomic distance $`l=\left(\frac{V}{A}\right)^{1/3}10^4\AA `$ . In this case, the effective atomic size is small compared both to the trap size and to the inter-atomic distance ensuring the diluteness of the gas. However, the effects of inter-particle interactions are of fundamental importance in the study of the BEC dilute-gas where the physics should be dominated by two-body collisions described in terms of the s-wave scattering length $`a`$. In the case of positive $`a`$, it is equivalent to consider a very dilute (atomic) system of hard spheres, whose diameter coincides with the scattering length itself . The natural starting point for studying the behavior of those systems is the theory of weakly interacting bosons which, for inhomogeneous systems, takes the form of the Gross-Pitaevskii theory . This is a mean-field approach for the order parameter associated with the condensate. It provides closed and relatively simple equations for describing the relevant phenomena associated with BEC .

In the present work, we avoid to use the Gross-Pitaevskii’s theory and we study the BEC in a phenomenological way where the bose-gas is considered as a many body system . In particular, we study the ground state of a system of correlated bosonic atoms at zero temperature, trapped by a HO potential. The key quantity for this effort is the two body density distribution (TBDD) $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$, which expresses the joint probability of finding two atoms at the positions $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$, respectively. In the mean field case, the TBDD is the product $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\rho (𝐫_1)\rho (𝐫_2)`$ where $`\rho (𝐫)`$ is the density distribution (DD) of the system. As the mean field approach fails to incorporate the inter-particle interactions which are necessary for the description of the correlated Bose system, we introduce the repulsive interactions through the Jastrow correlation function  $`f(𝐫_1𝐫_2)`$. In this approximation the TBDD has the form $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=N\rho (𝐫_1)\rho (𝐫_2)f^2(r_{12}),`$ where the normalization constant $`N`$ ensures that $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2=1`$ .

The calculations of the ground state properties of the correlated Bose system (DD, rms radii, momentum distribution (MD) and kinetic energy (KE)) are made using four different expressions for the correlation function $`f(r_{12})`$. Two of them are Jastrow type Gaussian functions similar to those which have been used extensively in Nuclear Physics , while, three of them are of hard sphere form and they are more realistic in describing atomic and molecular systems . The various expressions of the correlation function have one or two parameters (the correlation parameter $`\beta `$ and the hard sphere radius $`r_0`$). In the case of the Jastrow type Gaussian function, analytical expression of the one-body density matrix (OBDM) is derived and is also used for the calculation of the corresponding natural orbitals (NO’s) and natural occupation numbers (NON’s). Finally, we give analytical or approximate expressions for the rms radius and the mean kinetic energy $`T`$ (in one case) which depend on the parameters $`\beta `$ or/and $`r_0`$.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II the general definitions related to the Bose system are considered. Details of the lowest-order cluster expansion and analytical expressions of the DD (and in one case of the MD) are given in Sec. III. Numerical results are reported and discussed in Sec. IV, while the summary of the present work is given in Sec. V.

## II General definitions

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)`$ be the wave function which describes the inhomogeneous atomic system. In the case where this system is composed of bosonic atoms at zero temperature, all atoms occupy the same single-particle ground state. The many body ground state wave function is then a product of $`A`$ identical single particle ground state wave functions. This ground state wave function is therefore called the condensate wave function or macroscopic wave function and has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)=\psi _o(𝐫_1)\psi _o(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}\psi _o(𝐫_A),$$
(1)
where $`\psi _o(𝐫)`$ is the normalized to 1 ground state single particle wave function describing a bosonic atom. It is worth to indicate that Eq. (1) is valid even when weak interactions are included. In this case the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)`$ is still, to a very good approximation, a product of $`A`$ single particle wave functions which are now obtained from the solution of a non-linear Schrödinger equation, the well known Gross-Pitaevskii equation.

The density distribution $`\rho (𝐫)`$, which can be directly observed in a non-destructive way, is defined as

$$\rho (𝐫)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)𝑑𝐫_2𝑑𝐫_3\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_A.$$
(2)
In the condensation case, where the wave function of the system is given by Eq. (1), the DD, using relation (2), takes the form

$$\rho (𝐫)=\psi _o(𝐫)^2.$$
(3)
The TBDD $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$, which is a key quantity in this work, is defined as

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)𝑑𝐫_3\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_A,$$
(4)
which in the condensation case, takes the simple form

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\psi _o(𝐫_1)^2\psi _o(𝐫_2)^2=\rho (𝐫_1)\rho (𝐫_2).$$
(5)
The TBDD is needed for the evaluation of the two-body properties of the atomic system, mainly for the interaction energy. It gives also direct information about the correlations between the atoms of the system. This is the reason that the calculation of this quantity is very significant for the study of atomic or in general quantum many body systems.

Another quantity characterizing the atomic system is the OBDM $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})`$  which is defined as

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1^{},𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_A)𝑑𝐫_2𝑑𝐫_3\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_A.$$
(6)
The knowledge of the OBDM is also very important because this quantity is connected to the position and to the momentum space. The diagonal part of the OBDM gives the DD $`\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})=\rho (𝐫)`$, while the MD $`n(𝐤)`$  is given by a particular Fourier transform of it

$$n(𝐤)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐤(𝐫_1𝐫_1^{})\right]𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_1^{}.$$
(7)
In addition, the OBDM may be expanded in terms of its eigenfunctions $`\psi _i(𝐫)`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`n_i`$, that is

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})=\underset{i}{}n_i\psi _i^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _i(𝐫_1^{}),$$
(8)
where

$$\underset{i}{}n_i=1.$$
(9)
The eigenfunctions $`\psi _i(𝐫),`$ which are called natural orbitals, and the eigenvalues $`n_i`$, which are called natural occupation numbers, are obtained by diagonalizing the OBDM through the eigenvalue equation

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})\psi _i(𝐫_1^{})𝑑𝐫_1^{}=n_i\psi _i(𝐫_1).$$
(10)
The condition, generally adopted, for the existence of condensation is that there should be one eigenvalue $`n_i`$ which is of the order of the number of the particles in the trap.

### A Harmonic oscillator trap and Gross-Pitaevskii equation

The first step for the study of the BEC at zero temperature is to neglect the atom-atom interaction. In this case (named independent particle model (IPM)), we consider that the atoms are confined in an isotropic HO well and the Schrödinger equation takes the form

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2r^2\right]\psi (𝐫)=\epsilon \psi (𝐫),$$
(11)
where the ground state single-particle wave function $`\psi (𝐫)`$ has the form

$$\psi _o(r)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi b^2}\right)^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{r^2}{2b^2}\right],$$
(12)
and the width $`b`$ is

$`b=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega }}\right)^{1/2}.`$

The normalization of the wave function is $`\psi (𝐫)^2𝑑𝐫=1`$, while the DD has the form $`\rho (𝐫)=\psi _0(𝐫)^2`$.

It is obvious that for a system of non-interacting bosons in a HO trap the condensate has the Gaussian form of average width $`b`$. If the atoms are interacting, the shape of the condensate can be changed significantly with respect to the Gaussian . The ground-state properties of the condensate, for weakly interacting atoms, are explained quite successfully by the non-linear equation, known as Gross-Pitaevskii equation, of the form

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2r^2+A\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{m}\psi (𝐫)^2\right]\psi (𝐫)=\mu \psi (𝐫),$$
(13)
where $`A`$ is the number of the atoms, $`a`$ is the scattering length of the interaction and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential . This equation has the form of a non-linear stationary Schrödinger equation, and it has been solved for several types of traps using different numerical methods . The presence of the third term, which is linear in $`A`$ is responsible for the dependence of the gas parameter $`\chi `$ on the density of the system. That dependence is negligible in the case of the IPM. In the phenomenological approach which we consider in this work, there is not a direct dependence between the condensation and the number of the atoms. The inter-particle correlations is incorporated in the mean field only by the correlation function which, in a way, depends on the effective size of the atoms.

## III Lowest-order cluster expansion

A dilute BE atomic system can be studied using the lowest-order approximation (LWOA). In the LWOA the two-body density matrix (TBDM) has the form

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2;𝐫_1^{},𝐫_2)=N\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})\rho (𝐫_2)f(𝐫_1^{}𝐫_2)f(𝐫_1𝐫_2),$$
(14)
where $`f(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ is the Jastrow correlation function, which depends on the inter-particle distance and $`N`$ is the normalization factor.

The diagonal part of $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2;𝐫_1^{},𝐫_2)`$ is the TBDD

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=N\rho (𝐫_1)\rho (𝐫_2)f^2(r_{12}),$$
(15)
while the OBDM is

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})=\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_2;𝐫_1^{},𝐫_2)𝑑𝐫_2.$$
(16)
The DD, which is the diagonal part of $`\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})`$, can also be obtained from the integral

$$\rho (𝐫)=N\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫_2)f^2(𝐫𝐫_2)𝑑𝐫_2$$
(17)
In the mean field case, using Eq. (8), the OBDM becomes

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})=\psi _0^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _0(𝐫_1^{}),$$
(18)
where $`\psi _0(𝐫)`$ is the uncorrelated ground state wave function. In the case of the inclusion of the inter-particle interactions between the atoms, which give rise to the depletion of the condensate, the OBDM takes the form

$$\rho (𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})=n_0\psi _0^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _0(𝐫_1^{})+\underset{i0}{}n_i\psi _i^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _i(𝐫_1^{}),$$
(19)
where the sum $`_{i0}n_i\psi _i^{}(𝐫_1)\psi _i(𝐫_1^{})`$ is the contribution arising from the atoms out of the condensate.

The NO’s $`\psi _i(𝐫_1)`$ and the NON’s $`n_i`$ are obtained by diagonalizing the OBDM through the eigenvalue Eq. (10). This is made expanding the OBDM in Legendre polynomials

$$\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})=\rho (r,r^{},\mathrm{cos}\omega _{rr^{}})=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\rho _l(r,r^{})P_l(\mathrm{cos}\omega _{rr^{}}),$$
(20)
where

$$\rho _l(r,r^{})=\frac{2l+1}{2}_1^1\rho (r,r^{},\mathrm{cos}\omega _{rr^{}})P_l(\mathrm{cos}\omega _{rr^{}})d(\mathrm{cos}\omega _{rr^{}}),$$
(21)
and substituting Eq.(20) into Eq. (10). Using the addition theorem of the spherical harmonics and integrating over the angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{r_1^{}}`$, the eigenvalue problem takes the form

$$4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}\rho _l(r,r^{})\phi _{nl}^{NO}(r^{})r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dr^{}=n_{nl}^{NO}\phi _{nl}^{NO}(r),$$
(22)
where $`\phi _{nl}^{NO}(r)`$ is the radial part of $`\psi _i(𝐫)`$

$`\psi _i(𝐫)=\phi _{nl}^{NO}(r)Y_{lm}(\mathrm{\Omega }_r).`$

In the present work, we use four different expressions of the correlation function $`f(r_{12})`$ for the study of the BE atomic systems. These expressions are

$`\mathrm{Case}1`$ $`f(r)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta r^2\right],`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{Case}2`$ $`f(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(1r_o/r\right)^{1/2},& r>r_0\\ 0,& r<r_0\end{array},`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{Case}3`$ $`f(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (r^2r_0^2)\right],& r>r_0\\ 0,& r<r_0\end{array},`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{Case}4`$ $`f(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (r^2r_0^2)\right]}{r/r_0}\right)^{1/2},& r>r_0\\ 0,& r<r_0\end{array},`$ (35)
where $`r=𝐫_1𝐫_2`$.

The correlation function $`f(r)`$ in case 1 for large values of $`r`$ goes to 1 and it goes to 0 for $`r0`$. It is obvious that the effect of correlations introduced by the function $`f(r)`$ becomes large when the correlation parameter $`\beta `$ becomes small and vice versa. Case 2 is the classical hard sphere correlation function, which has been used extensively in atomic and molecular physics and depends on the hard sphere radius $`r_0`$. Case 3, which is a generalization of case 1, depends also on the ”hard sphere” radius $`r_0`$ of the interaction between the atoms. In the limit $`r_00`$, $`f(r)`$ goes to that of case 1. Finally, case 4 is a generalization of case 2 including a Gaussian function with the additional parameter $`\beta `$. In the limit $`\beta 0`$ $`f(r)`$ goes to that of case 2.

The above defined correlation functions were used to find analytical expressions of the DD through Eqs. (16) or/and (17). In case 1 the OBDM and the MD was calculated also analytically through Eq. (16) and (7) respectivelly, while the NO’s and the NON’s are calculated through Eq. (22).

### A Analytical expressions in case 1

In case 1 we found the analytical expressions of the DD and MD from the OBDM which have been calculated from Eq. (16) and has the form

$$\rho (𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{N}{\pi ^{3/2}b^3}\left[O_1(𝐫,𝐫^{})O_{21}(𝐫,𝐫^{})O_{22}(𝐫,𝐫^{})+O_{23}(𝐫,𝐫^{})\right],$$
(36)
where $`N`$ is the normalization factor of the form

$$N=\left[1\frac{2}{(1+2y)^{3/2}}+\frac{1}{(1+4y)^{3/2}}\right]^1,$$
(37)
and the one- and the two-body terms of the cluster expansion have the forms

$`O_1(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_b^2+r_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}\right],`$ (38)
$`O_{21}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+y)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+3y}{1+y}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_b^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}\right],`$ (40)
$`O_{22}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`O_{21}(𝐫^{},𝐫),`$ (42)
$`O_{23}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+2y)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[(1+2y){\displaystyle \frac{r_b^2+r_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{1+2y}}(𝐫_b+𝐫_b^{})^2\right],`$ (44)
where $`r_b=r/b`$ and $`y=\beta b^2`$.

The analytical expression of the DD can be found from Eq. (36), putting $`r^{}=r`$, while the MD can be found analytically using Eq. (7). It takes the form

$$n(k)=\frac{Nb^3}{\pi ^{3/2}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left[k_b^2\right]\frac{2}{(1+3y)^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1+2y}{1+3y}k_b^2\right]+\frac{1}{(1+2y)^{3/2}(1+4y)^{3/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{1+2y}k_b^2\right]\right],$$
(45)
where $`k_b=kb`$.

The expressions of $`\rho (r)`$ and $`n(k)`$, given by Eq. (36) (for $`r^{}=r`$) and (45), respectively, have been used to find the analytical expressions of the mean square radius and kinetic energy of the trapped gas, through the integrals

$`r^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho (r)r^4𝑑r,`$ (46)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}n(k)k^4𝑑k,`$ (48)
respectivelly. The expressions we found, for $`r^2`$ and $`T`$, are

$`r^2`$ $`=`$ $`Nb^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}3{\displaystyle \frac{1+y}{(1+2y)^{5/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2y}{(1+4y)^{5/2}}}\right],`$ (49)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{}\omega \left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+3y}{(1+2y)^{5/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2y}{(1+4y)^{3/2}}}\right].`$ (51)
These expressions, which for a given HO trap are functions of the correlation parameter $`y`$, could be used to define $`y`$ from Eq. (49), if the rms radius of the trapped atoms is known and then to define the $`T`$ from Eq (51) and vice versa. For very large values of $`y`$ Eqs. (49) and (51) give the HO expressions of $`r^2`$ and $`T`$, i.e. $`r^2=\frac{3}{2}b^2`$ and $`T=\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{}\omega `$, respectively.

### B Analytical expressions in case 2

In case 2, where the correlation function is given by Eq. (27), the DD defined by Eq. (17), is written

$$\rho (r)=\frac{N}{b^3\pi ^{3/2}}\left[O_1(r)\frac{r_{0b}}{2r_b}\mathrm{exp}\left[r_b^2\right]\left(\frac{}{}\mathrm{Erf}(r_b+r_{0b})\mathrm{Erf}(r_b+r_{0b})\right)\right],$$
(52)
where $`N`$ is the normalization factor of the form

$$N=\left[1\mathrm{Erf}\left(\frac{r_{0b}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]^1,$$
(53)
and

$`\mathrm{Erf}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^z}\mathrm{e}^{t^2}𝑑t.`$

The one-body term $`O_1(r)`$ has the form

$$O_1(r)=\mathrm{exp}\left[r_b^2\right]\left[1\frac{1}{2r_b\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left[(r_b+r_{0b})^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[(r_br_{0b})^2\right]\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{Erf}(r_b+r_{0b})+\mathrm{Erf}(r_b+r_{0b})\right)\right].$$
(54)
### C Analytical expressions in case 3

In case 3, where the correlation function is given by Eq. (31), the DD defined by Eq. (17), is written

$$\rho (r)=\frac{N}{b^3\pi ^{3/2}}\left[O_1(r)2O_2(r,\beta )+O_2(r,2\beta )\right],$$
(55)
where $`N`$ is the normalization factor of the form

$$N=\left[N_12N_2(\beta )+N_2(2\beta )\right]^1,$$
(56)
where

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{Erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{0b}}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}r_{0b}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_{0b}^2}{2}}\right],`$ (57)
$`N_2(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[yr_{0b}^2\right]}{(1+2y)^{3/2}}}\left[1\mathrm{Erf}\left(r_{0b}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+2y}{2}}}\right)\right]+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{0b}}{1+2y}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_{0b}^2}{2}}\right],`$ (59)
where $`r_{0b}=r_0/b`$. The factor $`N_2(2\beta )`$ can be found from the factor $`N_2(\beta )`$ replacing $`y2y`$.

The one-body term is the same as in case 2 and is given by Eq. (54), while the two-body term $`O_2(r,\beta )`$ has the form

$`O_2(r,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[yr_{0b}^2\right]}{(1+y)^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+2y}{1+y}}r_b^2\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{Erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_b+r_{0b}(1+y)}{(1+y)^{1/2}}}\right)+\mathrm{Erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_b+r_{0b}(1+y)}{(1+y)^{1/2}}}\right)\right)\right]`$ (60)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[r_b^2]}{2r_b\sqrt{\pi }(1+y)}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left[(r_b+r_{0b})^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[(r_br_{0b})^2\right]\right].`$ (62)
The term $`O_2(r,2\beta )`$ can be found from the term $`O_2(r,\beta )`$ replacing $`y2y`$.

### D Analytical expressions in case 4

In case 4, where the correlation function is given by Eq. (35), the DD defined by Eq. (17), is written

$$\rho (r)=\frac{N}{b^3\pi ^{3/2}}\left[O_1(r)O_2(r,\beta )\right],$$
(63)
where $`N`$ is the normalization factor of the form

$$N=\left[1\mathrm{Erf}\left(r_{0b}/\sqrt{2}\right)+\frac{2^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{yr_{0b}}{1+2y}\mathrm{exp}\left[r_{0b}^2/2\right]\right]^1.$$
(64)
The term $`O_1(r)`$ is the same as in cases 2 and 3, while the two-body term is of the form

$`O_2(r,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{0b}}{2r_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[yr_{0b}^2\right]}{(1+y)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+2y}{1+y}}r_b^2\right]\left[\mathrm{Erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_b+r_{0b}(1+y)}{(1+y)^{1/2}}}\right)\mathrm{Erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_b+r_{0b}(1+y)}{(1+y)^{1/2}}}\right)\right].`$ (65)
The above expressions of the DD (and of the MD in case 1) depend on two parameters in cases 1 and 2 and on three parameters in cases 2 and 4, i.e. the HO parameter $`b`$, the correlation parameter $`\beta `$ or/and the hard sphere radius $`r_0`$. We may note, however that their dependence on $`\beta `$ and $`r_0`$ is only through the dimensionless quantities $`y=\beta b^2`$ and $`r_{0b}=r_0/b`$.

## IV Results and discussion

The calculation of the DD of trapped Bose gas, confined in an isotropic HO potential with length $`b=10^4\AA `$, has been carried out on the basis of Eqs. (36), (52), (55) and (63) which have been found using four different expressions for the correlation function. The dependence of the DD on the parameters $`y`$ and $`r_0`$ are shown in Figs. 1 to 3.

The DD, in case 1, for various values of the parameter $`y`$, including also the uncorrelated case ($`y=\mathrm{}`$), has been plotted in Fig. 1a. It is seen that, the large values of $`y`$ ($`y>10`$) correspond to the Gaussian distribution (HO case), while when $`y`$ becomes small enough ($`y<1`$) the DD spreads out as in Gross-Pitaevskii’s theory. For $`y>10`$ the effect of correlations is small, while for very large correlations ($`y0.1`$) the DD is modified entirely from the Gaussian form which originates from the HO trap. The same effect of the inter-particle correlations on the DD appears also in case 2 where the correlation function is that of the hard sphere. This is seen in Fig. 1b where the DD has been plotted for various values of the hard sphere radius $`r_0`$. The effect of the correlations becomes significant for $`r_0>1000\AA `$. Thus the inter-particle correlations become large when $`r_0`$ approaches the characteristic trap length $`b`$. It is noted that, in Gross-Pitaevskii’s theory, the difference between the correlated DD and the uncorrelated one becomes significant for smaller values of the parameter $`r_0`$ .

In Fig. 2 the DD in case 3 for three values of the parameter $`y`$ and various values of the parameter $`r_0`$ is shown. It is seen that small values of $`y`$ result to a depression of the central part of the DD independent of the values of $`r_0`$. This is obvious in Fig. 2, where for $`y=0.1`$ and $`r_0>500\AA `$, the maximum of the DD is moved from the center ($`r/b=0`$) to $`r/b1`$. The same behavior of the DD in case 4 can be seen in Fig. 3, where it is plotted for the same values of $`y`$ and $`r_0`$ as in Fig. 2. The only difference is that the same depression of the DD in the central region appears for smaller values of the parameter $`y`$.

The rms radius of the Bose gas has also been calculated analytically from Eq. (49) in case 1 and numerically in the other cases from Eq. (46) for various values of the parameters $`y`$ or/and $`r_0`$. The results are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. From Fig. 4a, which corresponds to the DD calculated in case 1, it is seen that $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ ($`r_b=r/b`$) is a decreasing function of the parameter $`y`$ and for $`y>10`$ approaches the rms radius of the uncorrelated case. If we expand the expression of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$, given by Eq. (49), in powers of $`y^1`$ and truncate the expansion to the $`y^3`$ power, the following approximate expression is obtained,

$$r_b^2=\frac{3}{2}+0.4366y^{3/2}0.60432y^{5/2}+0.2541y^3.$$
(66)
The values of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ calculated from that expression are very close to the ones calculated from Eq. (49) for $`y>2`$.

The behavior of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$, in case 2, as function of the parameter $`r_0`$ is shown in Fig 4b. In this case, $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ is an increasing function of $`r_0`$. We fitted the form $`r_b^2=\frac{3}{2}+Cr_{0b}^{3/2}`$ to the values of the rms radius obtained in case 2 and we found the expression

$$r_b^2=\frac{3}{2}+0.3978r_{0b}^{3/2}.$$
(67)
This simple expression gives values for $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ which are very close to the ones calculated from the DD as can be seen from Fig. 4b.

The dependence of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ on $`y`$ and $`r_0`$, in cases 3 and 4, are shown in Fig. 5, where it is plotted versus $`r_0`$ for three values of the parameter $`y`$. It is seen that, in both cases for the same value of $`y`$, $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ is an increasing function of $`r_0`$, as in case 2, while for the same value of $`r_0`$ it is a decreasing function of $`y`$, as in case 1. This behavior of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ as well as Eqs. (66) and (67) lead us to fit the numerical values of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ in cases 3 and 4 with two functions, which are combinations of the expressions of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ of cases 1 and 2. For the two cases we found the expressions

$`\mathrm{Case}3`$ $`r_b^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\left(0.2916y^{3/2}0.1290y^{5/2}+0.0323y^3\right)+0.1327r_{0b}^{3/2},`$ (68)
$`\mathrm{Case}4`$ $`r_b^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\left(5.4556y^{3/2}7.3299y^{5/2}+2.1458y^3\right)r_{0b}^{3/2}.`$ (70)
From Fig. 5, it is seen that the numerical values of $`r_b^2^{1/2}`$ calculated in cases 3 and 4 from the DD are very close to the ones calculated from Eqs. (68) and (70), respectively.

The NO’s and the NON’s have been calculated, in case 1, by diagonalizing the OBDM through Eq. (22). The NON $`n_{1s}`$, gives directly the condensation fraction $`n_0`$ as a result of the repulsive interaction between the atoms of the Bose gas at zero temperature. The NON’s for the ground state and for some excited states are given in Table 1. It seems that, for strong correlations, a fraction of atoms spread out into many higher excited states. The condensation fraction $`n_0`$, versus the parameter $`1/y`$ is plotted in Fig. 6. From that figure and from Table 1 it is seen that the effect of the correlations on $`n_0`$ is small and all the atoms occupy the ground state, when $`y>10`$. The effect of the correlations is prominent when $`y<10`$, while the decrease of the parameter $`y`$ (large correlations) induces a significant depletion of the condensated atoms exciting them into higher states.

The NO’s of the states $`1s`$, $`1p`$ and $`1d`$ for $`y=1`$ are shown in Fig. 7. It is seen that the interatomic correlations in the $`1s`$-state spread out the ground state wave function and consequently the condensation is appears in the outer region of the trap. From the same figure it is obvious that the NO’s of excited states are much more localized in coordinate space than the equivalent HO orbitals.

The MD in case 1 can be calculated analytically from Eq. (45) or by Fourier transform of the NO’s. The MD calculated analytically for various values of the parameter $`y`$ has been plotted in Fig. 8a. It is seen that the large values of $`y`$ ($`y>10`$) correspond to the Gaussian distribution, while when $`y`$ becomes small enough ($`y<1`$) the MD has a sharp maximum for $`k=0`$. The MD of the $`1s`$-state NO as well as of the residual excited states for $`y=0.1`$ are shown and compared with the total MD in Fig. 8b. It is obvious that although the $`1s`$-state NO gives the main contribution to the MD, the NO’s of the excited state contribute to the MD mainly in the large values of the momentum $`k`$.

The dependence of the mean kinetic energy $`T`$ on the parameters $`y`$ calculated analytically in case 1, using Eq. (51), is presented in Fig. 9. It is seen that $`T`$ has a maximum for $`y2.5`$. It is interesting to note that for the same value of the parameter $`y`$ the NON’s of the states $`1d`$ and $`1f`$ have a maximum as can be seen from Table 1. The contribution of the $`1s`$-state NO and of all the excited states to $`T`$ are shown in the same figure. It is seen that, for large values of the parameter $`y`$ (weak correlations) the main contribution to $`T`$ comes from the $`1s`$-state NO, while for large correlations there is a significant contribution coming from the NO’s of the excited states.

An approximate expression of $`T`$, similar to the one of $`r_b^2`$ can be found if we expand the expression of $`T`$, given by Eq. (51), in powers of $`y^1`$ and truncate the expansion to the $`y^2`$ power. The approximate expression has the form

$$T/\mathrm{}\omega =\frac{3}{4}+0.1875y^{1/2}0.3355y^{3/2}+0.1092y^2.$$
(71)
The values of $`T`$ calculated from that expression are very close to the ones calculated from Eq. (51) for $`y>2.5`$.

A final comment is appropriate. The Gross-Pitaevskii equation explains successfully the ground-state properties of the condensate for weakly interacting atoms, i.e. for small correlations between the atoms. The method of the present work can be used for larger correlations, provided that the expansions of the TBDM and the OBDM contain higher order terms. It should be noted also that, in the present work there is not a direct dependence between the condensation and the number of the atoms. The inter-particle correlations are incorporated in the mean field only by the correlation function which, in some way, depends on the effective size of the atoms. However, the condensate fraction can be found by calculating the natural orbitals and the natural occupation numbers by diagonalizing the OBDM from Eq. (10). These calculations have been made in case 1, while it is a very difficult task in the other cases.

## V Summary

The effect of the inter-particle correlations between Bose atoms at zero temperature is examined using a phenomenological way to incorporate the atomic correlations. That is made by introducing the Jastrow correlation function in the TBDD. We examined the effect of correlations using four different correlation functions. The introduction of correlations change the shape of the DD and MD comparing with the Gaussian form, which corresponds to IPM. There is a reduction of the DD in the central region of the atomic system, and so an increase of the rms radius of the system, while the MD, which is calculated in case 1, increases in the region of small $`k`$ and so there is a decrease of the mean kinetic energy of the system. In case 1 where the mean kinetic energy is calculated also analytically, there is a maximum for a certain value of the correlation parameter. Finally in case 1 the natural orbitals and the natural occupation numbers have been calculated and consequently the condensate fraction has been obtained for different values of the parameter $`y`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Dr. C.P. Panos for useful comments on the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Multiplicity Fluctuations and Bose-Einstein Correlations in DIS at HERA

## 1 Introduction

Various aspects of multihadron production can be revealed through multiplicity fluctuations and particle correlations studies. The fluctuations are sensitive to soft particle dynamics and their measurements allow to test perturbative QCD  and local parton hadron duality (LPHD) hypothesis . In BEC studies , the correlation function gives information about the shape, size and lifetime of the boson emitter source.
In the fluctuations studies, the method of normalized factorial moments, $`F_q`$, was used . The moments of order $`q`$ were calculated by counting $`n`$, the number of charged particles in a restricted region of phase space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$F_q(\mathrm{\Omega })=<n>^q<n(n1)\mathrm{}(nq+1)>,$$
(1)
where $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes averaging over the sample and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined either as a polar-angle ring around the jet axis or as an upper limit on the particle transverse or absolute momentum calculated w.r.t. the jet axis.

## 2 Angular multiplicity fluctuations

The factorial moments were measured as a function of the ring width $`\theta `$ in the corresponding cone with half opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ .

Substituting $`\theta `$ with a scaling variable, $`z=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Theta }_0/\theta )/\mathrm{ln}(E\mathrm{\Theta }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, the experimental results can be compared with analytic calculations where $`E`$ is energy of an outgoing quark radiating the gluons. The QCD + LPHD prediction for $`F_q`$ is:

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{F_q(z)}{F_q(0)}=z(1D_q)(q1)\mathrm{ln}(E\mathrm{\Theta }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(2)
where $`D_q`$ are the R$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$nyi dimensions  which can be calculated either in a fixed or in a running-coupling regime (see ) of the Double Leading Log Approximation (DLLA). For independent particle production: $`D_q=1`$ and $`F_q(z)=F_q(0)`$. Figure 1(left) compares the factorial moments for the DIS data with the QCD predictions. A significant disagreement with the data was found. Figure 1(right) shows comparison with Monte Carlo predictions at hadron and parton levels. All MC models reproduce the trends seen in the data. For consistency with the LPHD picture, the parton cascade was cut-off at $`Q_0`$ = 0.27 GeV, which is close to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.22`$ GeV. For higher order moments, the parton level is closer to the data than the analytic calculations.

## 3 Multiplicity fluctuations in limited momentum space

According to QCD+LPHD predictions , the normalized factorial moments are expected to behave as

$$F_q(p_t^{cut})1+\frac{q(q1)}{6}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p_t^{cut}/Q_0)}{\mathrm{ln}(E/Q_0)},F_q(p^{cut})const(q)>1,$$
(3)
when particles are restricted in either the transverse momentum $`p_t<p_t^{cut}`$ or in spherical momentum $`p<p^{cut}`$. If $`p_t^{cut}Q_0`$, then all $`F_q1`$ and the multiplicity distribution approaches Poissonian distribution due to the coherence effect of soft gluons in a parton cascade. This is not the case for soft gluons with spherical momentum cut. Figure 2 shows $`p_t^{cut}`$ and $`p^{cut}`$ moments  together with Monte Carlo predictions at the hadron and parton levels. The parton level is consistent with analytic calculations. For $`p_t<1`$ GeV, Fig. 2(left), all moments rise in contradiction to the analytic QCD predictions. The MC results for hadrons show similar trends to the data. The similar behaviour is found for $`p^{cut}`$ factorial moments for small momentum cut off, Fig. 2(right). The observed disagreement between QCD+LPHD and the measurements is on qualitative level.

## 4 Bose-Einstein correlations at large Q2

Bose-Einstein correlations between pairs of identical bosons can be expressed by the two-particle correlation function of the Lorentz-invariant four-momentum transfer $`Q_{12}=\sqrt{(p_1p_2)^2}`$ ($`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ are the four-momenta of the particles) : $`R(Q_{12})=\rho (Q_{12})/\rho _0(Q_{12})`$, where $`\rho _0(Q_{12})`$ represents the two-particle density without the Bose-Einstein effect.

After the corrections for dynamical correlations and detector effects (Monte Carlo without BEC), the correlation function R was fitted to the following expression:

$$R(Q_{12})=\kappa (1+ϵQ_{12})(1+\lambda e^{r^2Q_{12}^2}),$$
(4)
where $`r`$ estimates the size of the two-boson emitter which is taken to be of Gaussian shape, $`\lambda `$ measures the BEC strength, factor $`1+ϵQ_{12}`$ takes into acount possible long-range momentum correlations and $`\kappa `$ is the normalization constant.
The BEC were studied to test of the energy dependence of r and $`\lambda `$. Figure 3 shows r and $`\lambda `$ as a function of four-momentum transfer squared Q2. No Q2 dependence was found for r and $`\lambda `$. The H1 DIS results  at lower Q2 are consistent with ZEUS data.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the DESY Directorate for financial support.
Thanks to J. Chwastowski for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful remarks.


text:
# Random low rank mixed states are highly entangled

(October,2001)

## Abstract

We prove that for many low ranks $`r2m3`$, random rank $`r`$ mixed states in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ have realtively high Schmidt numbers based on algebraic-geometric separability criterion proved in . This also means that algebraic-geometric separability criterion can be used to detect all low rank entagled mixed states outside a measure zero set.

Quantum entanglement was first noted as a feature of quantum mechanics in the famous Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen  and Schrodinger  papers. Its importance lies not only in philosophical considerations of the nature of quantum theory, but also in applications where it has emerged recently that quantum entanglement is the key ingredient in quantum computation  and communication  and plays an important role in cryptography .

A mixed state $`\rho `$ in the bipartite quantum system $`H=H_A^mH_B^n`$ is called separable if it can be written in the form $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_jp_j|\psi _j><\psi _j||\varphi _j><\varphi _j|`$, where $`p_j>0`$ and $`|\psi _j>,|\varphi _j>`$ are pure states in $`H_A^m,H_B^n`$. Otherwise it is called entangled, ie., it cannot be prepared by A and B separately. It is realized that entangled states are very important resources in quantum communication, quantum cryptography and quantum computation. Thus one of the fundamental and natural questions concerning quantum entanglement is to estimate how many entamgled or separable states exist among all quantum states (,,,). Similar problems are also considered for continuous variable quantum entanglement (,). The main previously known results are:

(1) The volumes of separable ,entangled, bound entangled mixed states are not zero ();

(2) All mixed states in a neighborhood (this neighborhood can be explicitlly determined ) of the maximally mixed state are separable (,,);

(3) The volume of separable mixed states approaches zero when dimension goes to infinity ().

(4) It is also noted from numerical simulation that the purer the quantum state is, the smaller its possibility of being separable ().

There are also applications of the result (2) in analysis of NMR quantum computation ().

In , Schmidt number of mixed states was introduced as the minimum Schmidt rank of pure states that are needed to construct such mixed states. For a bipartite mixed state $`\rho `$, it has Schmidt number $`k`$ if and only if for any decomposition $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i|v_i><v_i|`$ for positive real numbers $`p_i`$’s and pure states $`|v_i>`$’s, at least one of the pure states $`|v_i>`$’s has Schmidt rank at least $`k`$, and there exists such a decomposition with all pure states $`|v_i>`$’s Schmidt rank at most $`k`$. It is proved that Schmidt number is entanglement monotone, ie., they cannot increase under local quantum operations and classical communication in . So we can naturally think Schmidt numbers of mixed states as a measure of their entanglement. We say mixed states are highly entangled if their Schmidt numbers are high.

The main result of this letter is the following result.

Theorem 1. There exists a subset $`Z(r)`$ defined by algebraic equations in the space $`M(r)`$ of all rank $`r`$ mixed states in bipartite quantum system $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ , such that, Schmidt numbers of mixed states in $`M(r)Z(r)`$ are at least
1) $`[\sqrt{m}]1`$ if $`rm`$;
2) $`\frac{m}{rm+[\sqrt{m}]+1}`$ if $`r>m`$;
3) $`3`$ if $`\frac{3m}{2}5r>m169`$;
4) $`2`$ if $`r2m3`$.

Here $`[x]`$ of a positive real number $`x`$ means the integral part of $`x`$.

From now on, “generic” elememts of a set means the elements of this set outside an algebraic set (ie. zero locus of some algebraic equations, see ).

We should note that the algebraic set $`Z(r)`$ () defined as zero locus of algebraic equations has volume zero under any reasonable measure. Thus it is known from Theorem 1 that random low rank mixed states in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ are highly entangled, for example, random rank $`rm+\sqrt{m}`$ mixed states have their Schmidt numbers at least $`[\sqrt{m}]/21`$ from 1) and 2) of Theorem 1.

For example, for rank 1 mixed states (pure states) $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}^ma_{ij}|ij>`$ it is well-known that the Schmidt number of $`\varphi `$ is just the rank of the matrix $`A=(a_{ij})_{1i,jm}`$. Thus the pure states outside the algebraic set defined by $`detA=0`$ have Schmidt number $`m`$, thus highly entagled. This is previously known result (,).

Our special attention to low rank mixed states is partially motivated from previous works in ,,, where it is proved that PPT low rank $`rn`$ mixed states in $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ ($`mn`$) are separable and a constructive method to check separability of low rank mixed states is presented. Their results suggested that in some sence there are not too “many” low rank separable mixed states.

After the posting of 1st version of this paper, 4) in Theorem 1 is extened to many other “low “ ranks and arbitrary multipartite cases in . The proof there is based on a dimension-counting argument and Horodecki range criterion .

Our result Theorem 1 is proved by a lower bound of Schmidt numbers of bipartite mixed states which is derived from the emptyness of certain algebraic-geometric invariants of these mixed states developed in  (Theorem 2 below). For any concrete bipartite mixed states given explicitly, it is realtively easy to calculate these algebraic-geometric invarinants and then get strong lower bounds of their Schmidt numbers (see Example 1,2 and Corollary 1,2 below). Thus our method is constructive.

For bipartite mixed states $`\rho `$ in $`H=H_A^mH_B^n`$, algebriac sets $`V_A^k(\rho )`$ in $`CP^{m1}`$ (respectively $`V_B^k(\rho )`$ in $`CP^{n1}`$) are introduced in  as the degenerating locus of the measurement of the mixed states by separable pure states. They are non-local invariants of $`\rho `$, ie., they are invariant when local unitary transformations applied to the mixed states. Moreover these algebraic sets are independent of the eigenvalues and only measure the positions of the eigenvectors of the mixed states.

Let us recall the basic facts about algebraic-geometric invariants of bipartite mixed states in . For any bipartite mixed states $`\rho `$ on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ , we want to understand it by measuring it with separable pure states, ie., we consider the $`<\varphi _1\varphi _2|\rho |\varphi _1\varphi _2>`$ for any pure states $`\varphi _1H_A^m`$ and $`\varphi _2H_B^n`$. For any fixed $`\varphi _1P(H_A^m)`$, where $`P(H_A^m)`$ is the projective space of all pure states in $`H_A^m`$, $`<\varphi _1\varphi _2|\rho |\varphi _1\varphi _2>`$ is a Hermitian bilinear form on $`H_B^n`$, denoted by $`<\varphi _1|\rho |\varphi _1>`$ . We consider the degenerating locus  of this bilinear form, ie., $`V_A^k(\rho )=\{\varphi _1P(H_A^m):rank(<\varphi _1|\rho |\varphi _1>)k\}`$ for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. We can use the coordinate form of this formalism. Let $`\{|11>,\mathrm{},|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$ be the standard orthogonal base of $`h_A^mH_B^n`$ and $`\rho `$ be an arbitrary mixed states. We represent the matrix of $`\rho `$ in the base $`\{|11>,\mathrm{}|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$, and consider $`\rho `$ as a blocked matrix $`\rho =(\rho _{ij})_{1im,1jm}`$ with each block $`\rho _{ij}`$ a $`n\times n`$ matrix corresponding to the $`|i1>,\mathrm{},|in>`$ rows and the $`|j1>,\mathrm{},|jn>`$ columns. For any pure state $`\varphi _1=r_1|1>+\mathrm{}+r_m|m>P(H_A^m)`$ the matrix of the Hermitian linear form $`<\varphi _1|\rho |\varphi _1>`$ with the base $`|1>,\mathrm{},|n>`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}r_ir_j^{}\rho _{ij}`$. Thus the “degenerating locus” is actually as follows.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}V_A^k(\rho )=\{(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)CP^{m1}:rank(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}r_ir_j^{}\rho _{ij})k\}& & & & \end{array}$$

for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. Similarly $`V_B^k(\rho )CP^{n1}`$ can be defined. Here * means the conjugate of complex numbers. It is known from Theorem 1 and 2 of  that these sets are algebraic sets (zero locus of several multi-variable polynomials, see ) and they are invariants under local unitary transformations depending only on the eigenvectors of $`\rho `$. Actually these algebraic sets can be computed easily as follows.

Let $`\{|11>,\mathrm{},|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$ be the standard orthogonal base of $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ as above and $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l=1}^tp_l|v_l><v_l|`$ be any given representation of $`\rho `$ as a convex combination of projections with $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_t>0`$. Suppose $`v_l=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j=1}^{m,n}a_{ijl}|ij>`$ , $`A=(a_{ijl})_{1im,1jn,1lt}`$ is the $`mn\times t`$ matrix. Then it is clear that the matrix representation of $`\rho `$ with the base $`\{|11>,\mathrm{},|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$ is $`AP(A^{})^\tau `$, where $`P`$ is the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_t`$. We may consider the $`mn\times t`$ matrix $`A`$ as a $`m\times 1`$ blocked matrix with each block $`A_w`$, where $`w=1,\mathrm{},m`$, a $`n\times t`$ matrix corresponding to $`\{|w1>,\mathrm{},|wn>\}`$. Then $`V_A^k(\rho )`$ is just the algebraic set in $`CP^{m1}`$ as the zero locus of the determinants of all $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$ submatrices of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^mr_iA_i`$.

The following obsevation is the the key point of the proof of Theorem 1. From Lemma 1 in , the range of $`\rho `$ is the linear span of vectors $`|v_1>,\mathrm{},|v_t>`$. We take any $`dim(range(\rho ))`$ linear independent vectors in the set $`\{|v_1>,\mathrm{},|v_t>\}`$, say they are $`|v_1>,\mathrm{},|v_s>`$ , where $`s=dim(range(\rho ))`$. Let $`B`$ be the $`mn\times s`$ matrix with columns corresponding to the $`s`$ vectors $`|v_1>,\mathrm{},|v_s>`$’s coordinates in the standard base of $`H_A^mH_B^n`$. We consider $`B`$ as $`m\times 1`$ blocked matrix with blocks $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_m`$ $`n\times s`$ matrix as above. It is clear that $`V_A^k(\rho )`$ is just the zero locus of determinants of all $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$ submatrices of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^mr_iB_i`$, since any column in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ is a linear combination of columns in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iB_i`$.

We have the following result, which gives a strong lower bound of Schmidt numbers of bipartite mixed states and is the key of the proof of Theorem 1.

Theorem 2. Let $`\rho `$ be a mixed state on $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ of rank $`r`$ and Schmidt number $`k`$. Suppose $`V_A^{mt}(\rho )=\mathrm{}`$, then $`k\frac{m}{rm+t}`$.

Proof. Take a representation $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^tp_i|v_i><v_i|`$ with $`p_i`$’s positive, and the maximal Schmidt rank of $`v_i`$’s is $`k`$. As observed above, it only need to take $`r`$ linear independent vectors in $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_t\}`$ to compute the rank of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$. For the purpose that the rank of these $`r`$ columns in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ is not bigger than $`mt`$, we just need $`rm+t`$ of these columns are zero. On the other hand, from Proposition 1 in , the dimension of the linear subspace $`(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)H_A^m`$, such that the corresponding column of $`v_i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ is zero, is exactly $`mk(v_i)`$ where $`k(v_i)`$ is the Schmidt rank of $`v_i`$. Thus we know that there is at least one nonzero $`(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ is of rank smaller than $`mt+1`$ if $`m>k(rm+t)`$. The conclusion is proved.

Theorem 2 can be used to give strong results for Schmidt numbers of mixed states as illustrated in the following example.

Example 1. Let $`\rho `$ be a rank 2 mixed state in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ of the form $`\rho =\lambda _1|v_1><v_1|+\lambda _2|v_2><v_2|`$, where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ positive, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are linear independent unit vectors and of the form $`v_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}a_{ij}^1|ij>`$ and $`v_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}a_{ij}^2|ij>`$. Suppose the linear span by the $`2m`$ rows of the matrices $`A^1=(a_{ij}^1)_{1i,jm}`$ and $`A^2=(a_{ij}^2)_{1i,jm}`$ is of dimension $`m`$ (We should note that this is a condition satified by generic rank two mixed states, since for all rank 2 mixed states outside an algebraic set, the $`2m\times m`$ matrix consisting of $`2m`$ rows of $`A^1`$ and $`A^2`$ has rank $`m`$). Then Schmidt number of $`\rho `$ is at least $`\frac{m}{2}`$.

For the proof, we just need to take $`r=2,t=m`$ in Theorem 2. From the condition that the $`2m\times m`$ matrix consiting of $`2m`$ rows of $`A^1`$ and $`A^2`$ has rank $`m`$, we can easily get $`V_A^0(\rho )=\mathrm{}`$. Thus from Theorem 2, we get the conclusion.

For example, the following rank 2 mixed states $`\rho _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2}=\frac{1}{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}(\lambda _1|v_1><v_2|+\lambda _2|v_2><v_2|)`$ in bipartite quantum system $`H_A^5H_B^5`$, where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are real positive real numbers and

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}v_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11>+|22>)& & & & & \\ v_2=\frac{1}{2}(|33>+|44>+|55>+|45>)& & & & & \end{array}$$

have their Schmidt numbers at least 3.

Actually example 1 can be generalized as follows.

Corollary 1. Let $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{t=1}^rp_i|v_t><v_t|`$ be a rank $`r<m`$ mixed state in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$, where $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_r`$ are positive numbers and $`v_t=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}a_{ij}^t|ij>,A^t=(a_{ij}^t)_{1i,jm}`$. Suppose that the linear span of all $`rm`$ rows of matrices $`A^1,\mathrm{},A^r`$ is of dimension $`m`$. Then Schmidt number of $`\rho `$ is at least $`\frac{m}{r}`$,thus entangled.

Proof. We take $`t=m`$ in Theorem 2 and from the condition about matrices $`A^1,\mathrm{},A^r`$ it is clear $`V_A^0(\rho )=\mathrm{}`$. Thus the conclusion follows from Theorem 2.

Corollay 1 implies that if a mixed state is mixed by not too many pure states and one of these pure states has highest Schmidt rank, then the mixed state has a relatively high Schmidt number. It is clear that the condition of Corollary 1 is satisfied by generic rank $`r<m`$ mixed states.

Example 2. Let $`\rho _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}=\frac{1}{\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3}(\lambda _1|v_1><v_2|+\lambda _2|v_2><v_2|+\lambda _3|v_3><v_3|)`$ in bipartite quantum system $`H_A^7H_B^7`$, where $`\lambda `$’s are positive real numbers, $`v_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}(|11>+\mathrm{}+|77>)`$ and $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ are arbitray pure states. Then Schmidt numbers of $`\rho _{\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3}`$ are at least 3.

Generally the follwing result is valid.

Corollary 2.Let $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^rp_i|v_i><v_i|`$ be a mixed state in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$, where $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_r`$ are positive real numbers and Schmidt rank of $`v_1`$ is $`m`$. Then Schmidt number of $`\rho `$ is at least $`\frac{m}{r}`$ and thus
1) Schmidt number of $`\rho `$ is at least 3 if $`r<\frac{m}{2}`$;
2) $`\rho `$ is entangled when $`r<m`$.

From Example 1,2 and Corollary 1,2 we can see that our method is constructive to check Schmidt numbers of mixed states by just calculating rank of some numerical matrices.

For the purpose to prove Theorem 1, we need to recall a well-known result in the theory of determinantal varieties (see Proposition in p.67 of ). Let $`M(m,n)=\{(x_{ij}):1im,1jn\}`$ (isomorphic to $`CP^{mn1}`$) be the projective space of all $`m\times n`$ matrices. For a integer $`0kmin\{m,n\}`$, $`M(m,n)_k`$ is defined as the locus $`\{A=(x_{ij})M(m,n):rank(A)k\}`$. $`M(m,n)_k`$ is called generic determinantal varieties.

Proposition 1. $`M(m,n)_k`$ is an irreducible algebriac subvariety of $`M(m,n)`$ of codimension $`(mk)(nk)`$.

From Theorem 2 and Proposition 1 the following result can be proved.

Corollary 3. Generic rank $`m`$ mixed states in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ have Schmidt numbers at least $`[\sqrt{m}]1`$.

Proof. We take $`r=m,t=[\sqrt{m}]+1`$. For rank $`m`$ mixed state $`\rho `$ we take its spectral decomposition $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^mp_i|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$, from Theorem 2 and its proof in , $`V_A^{mt}(\rho )`$ can be computed from this spectral decomposition. Thus $`V_A^{mt}(\rho )`$ is the locus of the condition that the $`m\times m`$ matrix corresponding to eigenvectors $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _m`$ (as described in ) has rank smaller than $`mt+1`$. From proposition 1, for generic rank $`m`$ mixed states $`\rho `$ (ie., generic $`m\times m`$ matrices), $`V_A^{mt}(\rho )`$ in $`CP^{m1}`$ has codimension $`t^2>m1`$, thus empty. From Theorem 2 the conclusion is proved.

Now we can prove Theorem 1, the idea is basically the same as the proof of Corollary 1,2,3, ie., we take suitable $`t`$ such that $`V_A^{mt}(\rho )`$ has codimension larger than $`m1`$ and then apply Theorem 2 to get the conclusion.

Proof of Theorem 1. Similarly as the argument for Corollary 3, for any given $`m,r`$ for the purpose that $`V_A^{mt}(\rho )=\mathrm{}`$ for generic mixed states in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ we just need $`(m(mt))(r(mt))m`$ from Proposition 1.

We take $`t=mr+\sqrt{m}+1`$ in case 1) and $`t=\sqrt{m}+1`$ in case 2) , the conclusions of 1) and 2) are proved.

It is clear that random $`r\frac{4m33[\sqrt{m}]}{3}`$ has their Schmidt numbers at least $`3`$ from 1) and 2). For ranks $`\frac{4m33[\sqrt{m}]}{3}r\frac{3m}{2}5`$ we can take $`t=4`$, the conclusion of 3) is proved.

For mixed states of rank $`r=2m3`$, we take $`t=2`$. A similar argument as above implies that $`V_A^{m2}(\rho )`$ in $`CP^{m1}`$ has codimension $`2(m1)>m1`$, thus empty for generic $`2m3`$ mixed states. Hence from Theorem 2, Schmidt numbers of generic rank $`2m3`$ mixed states are at least $`\frac{m}{2m3m+2}=\frac{m}{m1}`$. For other ranks we can use a similar argument to get the conclusion.

Since algebraic-geometric invariants $`V_A^k(\rho )`$ of mixed states $`\rho `$ are only dependent on range of $`\rho `$. Thus our results actually imply that generic low dimension $`r2m3`$ subspaces of $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ cannot be a linear span of separable pure states(recall range criterion of P. Horodecki in ). However this is not true for high dimensional subspaces of $`H_A^mH_B^m`$. In the following example it is proved that generic dimension 3 subspaces of $`H_A^2H_B^2`$ are linear span of separable pure states.

Example 3. For any given 4 complex numbers $`a,b,c,d`$ satisfying that $`d0`$ and $`adbc`$, it is easy to check that the following $`3`$ product vectors $`v_1,v_2,v_3`$ are linear independent and orthogonal to the vector $`a|11>+b|12>+c|21>+d|22>`$ in $`H_A^2H_B^2`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}v_1=c|11>+a|21>& & & & & & & & & & \\ v_2=d|12>+b|22>& & & & & & & & & & \\ v_3=(c+d)|11>(c+d)|12>+(a+b)|21>+(a+b)|22>& & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

We have a family of dimension 3 subspaces span by $`v_1,v_2,v_3`$ in $`H_A^2H_B^2`$. Since any dimension 3 subspace of $`H_A^2H_B^2`$ has only one normal direction, thus this example showed that generic dimension 3 subspaces (Here generic dimension 3 subspaces means that their normal directions $`a|11>+b|12>+c|21>+d|22>`$ are outside the algebraic set defined by $`d=0`$ or $`ad=bc`$.) of $`H_A^2H_B^2`$ are linear span of seaprable pure states. In high rank mixed state entanglement , it seems people cannot only use ranges to determine whether mixed states are entangled and eigenvalues play certain role, as partially manisfested in result (2) (of ,, mentioned in introduction) for highest rank mixed states.

In conclusion, we have proved that for many cases of low ranks $`r`$ ,random rank $`r`$ mixed states in $`H_A^mH_B^m`$ have relatively high Schmidt numbers and thus highly entangled. The results presented here also indicated that algebraic-geometric separability criterion of  is strong enough to detect generic low rank entangled mixed states. Our method can be used constrcutively to get strong lower bounds of Schmidt numbers of low rank bipartite mixed states.

The author acknowledges the support from NNSF China, Information Science Division, grant 69972049.

e-mail: dcschenh@nus.edu.sg

REFERENCES

1.Hao Chen, quant-ph/01008093

2.A.Einstein, B.Podolsky and N.Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47,777(1935)

3.E.Schrodinger, Proc.Camb.Philos.Soc.,31,555(1935)

4.R.Jozsa, in The Geometric Universe, edited by S.Huggett, L.Mason, K.P.Tod, S.T.Tsou, and N.M.J.Woodhouse (Oxford Univ. Press, 1997)

5.A.Ekert, Phys Rev.Lett.67, 661(1991)

6.C.H.Bennett, G.Brassard, C.Crepeau, R.Jozsa, A.Peres and W.K.Wootters, Phys.Rev.Lett 70, 1895 (1993)

7.C.H.Bennett, G.Brassard, S.Popescu, B.Schumacher, J.Smolin and W.K.Wootters, Phys. Rev.Lett. 76, 722(1996)

8.K. Zyczkowski, P.Horodecki, A.Sanpera and M.Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A., 58:883-892 (1998)

9.S.L.Braunstein,C.M.Caves,R.Jozsa,N.Linden,S.Popescu and R.Schack, Phys.Rev.Lett.,83,1054(199)

10.G.Vidal and R.Tarrach, Phys. Rev., A 59,141(1999)

11.M.Horodecki, P.Horodecki and R.Horodecki, in Quantum Information–Basic concepts and experiments, edited by G.Adler and M.Wiener (Springer Berlin, 2000)

12.R.Clifton and H.Halvorson, Phys. Rev. A., 61, 012108(2000)

13.P.Horodecki, J.I.Cirac nad M.Lewenstein, quant-ph/0103076, v3

14.B.M.Terhal and P.Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A R040301, 61(2000)

15.S.Popescu,Phys.Rev.Lett. 72,797(1994),74,2619(1995)

16.B.Kiraus, J.I.Cirac, S.Karnas and M.Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062302 (2000)

17.P.Horodecki ,M.Lewenstein, G.Vidal and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032310 (2000)

18.S.Karnas and M.Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A, 64 ,042313 (2001)

19.R.Lockhart, quant-ph/0111051

20.P.Horodecki, Phys.Lett. A 232 333(1997)

21.J.Harris, Algebraic Geometry, A First course, GTM 133, Springer-Verlag 1992

22.E.Arbarello, M.Cornalba, P.A.Griffiths and J.Harris, Geometry of algebraic curves,Volume I, Springer-Verlag, 1985, Chapter II”Determinantal Varieties”


text:
# Application of Bent Crystals At IHEP 70-GeV Accelerator To Enhance The Efficiency Of Its Usage

## 1 Studies of beam extraction by means of bent crystal

Since 1997 at the IHEP 70 GeV accelerator we carried out studies of proton beam extraction by means of bent silicon crystals \[1-4\]. These studies pursued the realization of a pure multiturn extraction using short, 5 to 3 mm, O-shaped crystals (see Fig. 1) with small bendings of 2 to 0.5 mrad. Such a small bending of a crystal is insufficient for direct extraction of the beam out of accelerator. Therefore, crystals served as primary element in the existing scheme of slow extraction.

Crystals with bendings of 1.5 to 2 mrad were installed in straight section 19 of the accelerator before the septum-magnet OM-20 of the slow extraction system and provided a kick of the deflected beam into the aperture of this magnet with partition thickness of 8 mm (Fig. 1).

Another series of crystals with bendings of 0.5-1 mrad were installed in straight section 106 (not shown in Fig. 1); here the extraction of the crystal-deflected beam was performed through the septum-magnet OM-24 with partition thickness 2.5 mm (Fig. 1, curve 2).

To direct the accelerated beam onto the crystals, the local orbit distortion systems were used working in the regime of close loop operation. The obtained efficiencies are plotted in Fig. 2. The accuracy of the beam extraction efficiency measurements was about 4%. For 20% of the accelerator beam intensity dumped onto the crystal, the measured extraction efficencies were 42% for the 5-mm crystal with 1.5 mrad bending and 65% for the 3-mm crystal with 0.9 mrad bending, installed in straight sections 19 and 106 respectively. The reduction of extraction efficency with increase of the beam fraction dumped onto the crystal is due to the drift of the beam angle at a crystal because of the tilted phase ellipse. During the studies of the extraction efficiency, for a short period of time ($``$1 hour) the regimes of beam extraction of intensity $``$1.2$``$$`10^{12}`$ protons per cycle were exploited.

## 2 Example of practical usage of bent crystals at IHEP accelerator

The obtained high efficiencies of the beam extraction with use of bent crystals open new ways for setting up new physical experiments at accelerators. As an example, let us consider one of the schemes for the practical usage of bent crystals realized at U-70 accelerator and shown in Fig. 3.

By means of 1.5 mrad bent crystal Si19 (straight section 19) the proton beam of up to 4$`\times `$1011 p/cycle intensity was extracted into beamline 8 and directed into beamline 23 onto the target of the experimental set-up used for the studies of $`K^\pm `$-mesons decay modes into three $`\pi `$-mesons: $`K^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\pi ^0`$. As the $`K^+`$-meson yield is about 20 times higher than that of $`K^{}`$, with the transfer from $`K^{}`$ to $`K^+`$ the intensity of the extracted proton beam had to be reduced by the same factor. This procedure was repeated regularly with 24 hours period.

Along the path of the extracted beam, at the beginning of beamline 8 another crystal Si30 bent $``$9 mrad was positioned to deflect a small fraction of the beam (up to 107 protons per cycle) into beamline 22. Simultaneously with crystals Si19 and Si30, two internal targets IT24 and IT27 were working, supplying negatively-charged beams of up to 107 particles/cycle intensity into beamlines 2 and 4 respectively. Besides the physical studies on these four beamlines (22, 23, 4, and 2), methodical work was feasible on the test beamline 18.

To direct the accelerated beam onto crystal Si19 and two internal targets IT24 and IT27 along the flattop of magnet cycle 1.6 s long, three local orbit distortion systems were used in the regime of close loop operation.

Fig. 4 shows the intensity of secondary beams in beamline 2 and in the set-up at beamline 23 in the $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ work regimes. For a time about 27 days, the Si19 crystal has obtained an irradiation of the order of 1020 proton/cm2. Herein the crystal channeling properties have not changed, as comes directly from the measurements of beam extraction efficencies in the beginning (44$`\pm `$2 %) and in the end (43$`\pm `$2 %) of the run.

The first experience of the work with the above-considered system, although satisfied the physicists, has also revealed ways for further advancement (improvement of the local orbit distortion systems stability, possibility to increase the intensity in the $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ regimes on the set-up of beamline 23 etc.).

## 3 Further plans

As computations show, the efficiency of beam extraction can be raised with use of shorter (order of 1 mm and less) bent crystals.

Besides the high energy accelerators, crystals of this kind could be used also at low energy accelerators. Basic problem here is to bend such a crystal at an angle of 0.5-1.5 mrad. One of radical solutions for this problem is to obtain bent crystals in the process of crystal growth . Another direction, now in progress in IHEP, is related to the methodics of bending a short strip.

The above said is illustrated by Fig. 5 where plotted are the calculations of extraction efficiency for the most interesting, still-unstudied region, and the experimental data obtained at the IHEP accelerator.


text:
# Colour Reconnection at LEP2

## 1 Introduction

Colour reconnection, better said colour rearrangement between partons or cross-talk (CR), corresponds to a colour interference between partons close-by in space-time, and is a good probe to understand the dynamics of hadronization. It is expected to be the cause for the J/$`\psi `$ formation in the decays of the B meson, in which occurs a cross-talk between two original colour singlets, $`\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$+s and c+spectator.

In the case of double production of heavy particles (WW, ZZ, ZH, t$`\overline{\mathrm{t}}`$), if both decay hadronically almost simultaneously in space and time, there could be also cross-talk effects between the decay products. In this case particles cannot anymore be assigned unambiguously to one parent particle, and the parent particle’s properties such as invariant mass cannot be inferred from its alleged decay products. Finally it could also induce additional interference between beam and final state partons in hadron machines.

LEP2, the second phase of the LEP machine at CERN, has been working since 1996 at centre of mass energies above the threshold for double W boson production, aiming at measuring the W boson mass with a precision of the order of 50 MeV . Each of the four LEP experiments collected about 10000 WW events, for a total luminosity per experiment of about 700 pb<sup>-1</sup>.

In the hadronic channel, in which both W bosons decay hadronically, the decay products from different W bosons can interfere, since the distance traveled by the W boson before decaying, $`c\tau _W\mathrm{}c/\mathrm{\Gamma }_W0.1`$fm, is much smaller than the typical hadronization scales of 1 fm. At several stages these effects could be caused by colour rearrangement between the quarks coming from the W bosons, gluon exchange in the parton cascade, and by Bose Einstein interference between identical bosons (e.g, pions). The third item is the topic of other proceedings in this conference (see Jorn van Dalen’s contribution), and the first two items are the main subject of the review presented below, with most of the results preliminary.

## 2 Theoretical aspects of colour rearrangements

The effects of colour rearrangement between the primary quarks or energetic hard gluons from different W bosons, are small at perturbative level, with the effect in the W mass of the order of

$$(\delta M_W)_{PT}\left(\frac{C_F\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)}{\pi }\right)^2\frac{1}{N_C^21}\mathrm{\Gamma }_WO(1\mathrm{MeV}).$$
(1)
Non perturbative QCD effects between soft gluons ($`E_g<\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$) coexisting in space and time could be large, of $`O(10\mathrm{MeV})`$ in the W mass, and affect average multiplicities and inclusive particle distributions, with enhancements for low-momentum and/or heavier particles. To estimate these effects phenomenological models are needed and were developed in the past by T. Sjöstrand and V. A. Khoze  (skI, skII, skII’), G. Gustafson and J. Hakkinen  (gh), L. Lönnblad  (ar2, ar3), G. Marchesini et al  (herwig), J. Ellis and K. Geiger  (eg), and more recently by J. Rathsman .

The models of Sjöstrand and Khoze, implemented in the Pythia Monte Carlo generator , type I and type II in analogy to the super-conducting vortices associated to the strings, allow for reconnection if the strings cross each other. In type I model (skI), the most commonly used as a basis for the studies reported here, the strings have a transverse dimension, similar to flux tubes, and they may cross with different overlapping volumes $`V_{\mathrm{overlap}}`$. Then the probability of reconnection in one event is given by $`P_{\mathrm{reco}}=1e^{k_IV_{\mathrm{overlap}}}`$, with $`k_I`$ a user parameter allowing to vary the percentage of reconnected events (probability of reconnection integrated for the accepted phase space).

## 3 Analysis of standard variables

The effects on the average charged multiplicities $`n(4q)`$ in fully hadronic WW events (WW(4q)), were the first signatures probed by the four experiments, in particular by comparing with the average charged hadronic multiplicities $`n(2q)`$ in semi-leptonic WW events (see  and  for a review). In the absence of these effects, there should not be any statistically significant difference between $`n(4q)`$ and twice $`n(2q)`$. The latest results  on the average multiplicities in WW events and on their differences and ratios are shown in table 1. The Aleph result was not included in the averages because is not corrected for momentum acceptance and selection biases.

It can be concluded that the measurements are compatible with equity between WW(4q) and twice WW(2q), and do not show any evidence for colour rearrangement effects.

These effects were also searched for in inclusive distributions of charged particles, as well as in the ratio of the average multiplicities of low momentum identified heavy hadrons (Kaons and protons) in WW(4q) to WW(2q) , and no effects were found.

The conclusions of the studies on the standard variables are that the extreme models (eg, ar3) can be excluded by these data , but these variables are insensitive to most of the other more realistic models.

## 4 The particle flow method

L3 has developed a new approach , toward a more restrictive event selection criteria, and building new variables relating the particle and energy distributions with respect to jets. The tight event selection criteria enable the proper definition of inside W and outside W regions, but with the disadvantage of very low efficiency (less than $``$15%). This event selection has been followed also by the Delphi collaboration  as the mainstream analysis, and by the other collaborations as a cross-check analysis (Aleph , Opal ); table 2 gives the luminosities, numbers of events analysed so far, the efficiency of the event selection(s), the purities of the selected data samples, and the efficiency for correct pairing of jets to their parent W bosons (all the results are preliminary).

For the events selected, which contain 4 jets, distributions of the particle and energy flows are built in a way to best reflect the inside W and outside W regions, depicted as regions A,B (inside W) and C,D (outside W) in figure 1.

The method used to build these distributions, explained in detail in , uses the angles between particles and jets, and angles between jets, to define a rescaled angle and associate the particles to inside W and outside W regions. The rescaled angle distribution for the particle flow of L3 is shown in figure 2.

Adding the inside W regions and the outside W regions, the distributions of the ratios of inside to outside are shown in figure 3 for the four experiments.

The ratios R of the integrals, from 0.2 to 0.8 in the rescaled angle, of the particle flow distributions of inside W regions to outside W regions (sum of inside divided by sum of outside), are shown in table 3 for the four experiments , along with the values expected from simulation with and without CR effects. The experiment’s sensitivity to the model skI with 100% reconnection probability, computed as $`S=|R_{\mathrm{noCR}}^{MC}R_{\mathrm{skI}}^{MC}|/\mathrm{Error}_{\mathrm{data}}`$ is also shown in the table.

The R value given for Delphi is the average of the R values at each centre of mass energy, after rescaling using simulation to the luminosity weighted average centre of mass energy of 196 GeV. Please note that the R values shown, uncorrected for detector effects, cannot be directly compared between different experiments. In the systematic errors, it were considered the effects of background subtraction and modeling (Aleph(A), Delphi(D), L3(L) and Opal(O)), the Bose-Einstein effects (ADL), fragmentation modeling (ADL), generators and tuning (DO) and definition of particles and cluster objects (L).

L3 has performed recently  further studies, using a sample of WW semi-leptonic decay events, which by definition have no colour rearrangement effects between the decay products of different W bosons. L3 measures in this sample a ratio of values of R in data to R in simulation of $`R_R=1.011\pm 0.035`$, perfectly compatible with unity.

The ratio between the values of R for the data and for simulation with or without CR effects (as expected from skI model with 100% reconnection probability), averaged over the centre of mass energies for each experiment, using as weights the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic errors, is shown in table 4. The values for Aleph, L3 and Opal, were estimated from the respective values of R for data and simulation for the different centre of mass energies (the statistical error on the MC samples was considered as systematic error). Correlations in the systematic error were taken into account inside each experiment (correlations between experiments were not considered important at this level).

L3 and Delphi agree with no effect observed in their data, Aleph results are between the model without CR effects and the model of skI with 100% reconnection probabiblity, and Opal has two analysis of similar sensitivity with incompatible preliminary results. Using simulation of skI model for different values of reconnection probability, as translated in the user set $`k_I`$ parameter, Aleph and L3 translate their results into limits for this parameter of $`k_I<25`$ (68% Confidence Level), with the minimum of discrepancy ($`\chi ^2`$) at $`k_I=3.5`$, for Aleph, and $`k_I<1.55`$(68% Confidence Level), with the minimum of discrepancy at $`k_I=0.32`$ for L3.

## 5 Conclusions

After five years of very successful LEP runs, 10,000 WW events have been collected by each of the four LEP experiments (Aleph, Delphi, L3, Opal).

The search for colour rearrangement effects in the WW fully hadronic events, using standard variables like average charged multiplicities and inclusive distributions, has excluded only the most extreme models of colour reconnection (Ellis and Geiger ’eg’ and Ariadne 3 ’ar3’). The sensitivity to other more realistic models has been shown to be negligible in these variables.

A preliminary search following a L3 idea, the particle flow, has proven sensitive for the different experiments, but inconclusive, as one experiment claims part of the effect, two experiments claim no observation, and one experiment has incompatible results in two nearly equal sensitive analysis. However, systematic studies are still in a very preliminary stage of study, and the exploration of the data to its full extent might improve the results in the near future.

In order to pin down models of colour rearrangement and estimate parameters, it is mandatory to combine the results from the four experiments in order to reduce sizeably the statistical errors.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the invitation from the organizing committee to come to this conference, in particular to Gosta Gustafson, and for the very kind atmosphere they were able to provide in situ. I am also grateful to Mário Pimenta and Alessandro De Angelis for the help in preparing this talk and manuscript, and to Thomas Ziegler/Aleph, Nuno Anjos/Delphi, Dominique Duchesneau/L3 and to Nigel Watson/Opal for providing results and fruitful discussions.