text:
# High resolution measurements of the switching current in a Josephson tunnel junction: Thermal activation and macroscopic quantum tunneling

## I Introduction

The current-biased Josephson tunnel junction is an ideal system to study both thermal activation Kramers (1940); Hänggi et al. (1990) and quantum tunnelingCaldeira and Leggett (1981); Devoret et al. (1992) in a controllable experimental environment. The dynamics of such a junction is equivalent to that of a particle in a tilted washboard potentialStewart (1968); McCumber (1968). The process of the particle escape from a metastable state in this system can be characterized, by analyzing the transition of the particle from a state in which it is localized in a potential well to a state in which it runs down the potential. This corresponds to the transition of the Josephson junction from the superconducting zero-voltage state to a finite voltage state in the presence of an applied bias current. At high temperatures the escape is dominated by thermal activation across the barrier, at low temperatures it is determined by quantum tunneling through the barrier. The rate with which the particle escapes from the well depends on the detailed shape of the potential, the dissipation in the system and the temperature of the thermal bath to which the system is coupled.

Thermal activation in a current biased Josephson junction has been studied both theoretically and experimentally for large damping Martinis and Kautz (1989); Vion et al. (1996), intermediate to low damping Fulton and Dunkelberger (1974); Castellano et al. (1996); Ruggiero et al. (1998) and extremely low damping Martinis et al. (1987); Ruggiero et al. (1998). At low temperatures the quantum mechanical properties of Josephson junctions have been investigated in relation to macroscopic quantum tunneling (MQT) Jackel et al. (1981); Voss and Webb (1981); Devoret et al. (1985), energy level quantization (ELQ) Martinis et al. (1987); Silvestrini et al. (1997) and macroscopic quantum coherence (MQC) Han et al. (2001). Recently, the quantum mechanical properties of Josephson junction systems have regained interest in the view of their possible application for solid state based quantum information processing Bocko et al. (1997); Mooij et al. (1999); Ioffe et al. (1999). The prospects of superconducting devices containing Josephson junctions for use as carriers of quantum information has been strengthened by recent encouraging experimental results Nakamura et al. (1999); Friedman et al. (2000); van der Wal et al. (2000).

In this paper we present a measurement technique implemented for the characterization of the quantum properties of current biased phase qubits. The measurement scheme is based on a high resolution measurement of the junctions switching current Fulton and Dunkelberger (1974) using a timing technique. The measurement setup was tested by performing measurements of both thermal activation and quantum tunneling in a current biased small Josephson junction.

In Sec. II, the Stewart-McCumber model describing the dynamics of the phase in a Josephson junction is briefly reviewed in relation to thermal activation and quantum tunneling of the phase. The measurement technique and the setup implemented for its realization is described in Sec. III. The switching current distributions obtained over a large range of temperatures are presented in Sec. IV. The relative resolution of these measurements is compared with other results from literature in Sec. V. In Sec. VI, the data in the thermal regime is analyzed in the view of the low dissipation in the junction. The crossover temperature to the quantum regime is determined and the measured switching current distributions are compared to the quantum predictions. Finally the results are summarized in Sec. VII.

## II Model

In the Stewart-McCumber model Stewart (1968); McCumber (1968), the dynamics of a current biased Josephson tunnel junction is described by an equation of motion for the phase difference $`\varphi `$

$$C\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }\right)^2\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{R}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }\right)^2\dot{\varphi }+I_c\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )I\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }=0,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the magnetic flux quantum, $`C`$ is the capacitance, $`R`$ the effective junction resistance and $`I_c`$ the fluctuation free critical current of the junction, see Fig. 1a. Here, $`I`$ is the externally applied bias current. The equation of motion (1) is equivalent to the damped motion of a particle of mass $`m_\varphi =C(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi )^2`$ in an external potential $`U^\varphi (\varphi )`$ along the generalized coordinate $`\varphi `$

$$m_\varphi \ddot{\varphi }+m_\varphi \frac{1}{RC}\dot{\varphi }+\frac{U^\varphi (\varphi )}{\varphi }=0.$$
(2)
In Eq. (2) the damping coefficient is $`1/RC`$ and the potential is given by

$`U^\varphi (\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`E_J\left(\gamma \varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \right),`$ (3)
where $`E_J=\mathrm{\Phi }_0I_c/2\pi `$ is the Josephson coupling energy and $`\gamma =I/I_c`$ is the normalized bias current. $`U^\varphi (\varphi )`$ is a cosinusoidal potential (3) with an amplitude proportional to $`E_J`$, which is tilted proportionally to the applied bias current $`\gamma `$. Because of these properties $`U^\varphi (\varphi )`$ is called often washboard potential.

In the absence of thermal and quantum fluctuation and for bias currents $`\gamma <1`$, the junction is in the zero voltage state, corresponding to the particle being localized in one of the potential wells (see Fig. 1b). At finite temperatures $`T>0`$, the particle may escape from the well at bias currents $`\gamma <1`$ by thermally activated processes Fulton and Dunkelberger (1974); Silvestrini et al. (1988a, b); Turlot et al. (1989); Vion et al. (1996); Castellano et al. (1996) and also by quantum tunneling through the barrier Voss and Webb (1981); Jackel et al. (1981); Washburn et al. (1984); Devoret et al. (1985); Martinis et al. (1987). The rate at which both processes occur depends on the barrier height

$`U_0^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`2E_J\left[\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}\gamma \mathrm{arccos}(\gamma )\right],`$ (4)
the oscillation frequency of the particle at the bottom of the well

$$\omega _0^\varphi =\sqrt{U^{\prime \prime \varphi }/m_\varphi }=\omega _p\left(1\gamma ^2\right)^{1/4},$$
(5)
and the damping in the junction. Here $`\omega _p=\sqrt{2\pi I_c/\mathrm{\Phi }_0C}`$ is the plasma frequency. For $`\gamma 1`$, Eq. (5) can be approximated as

$`U_0^\varphi `$ $``$ $`E_J{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}}(1\gamma )^{3/2}.`$ (6)
At high temperatures the escape of the particle from the well is dominated by thermally activated processes, which occur with a bias-current dependent rate of Kramers (1940); Hänggi et al. (1990)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{t}=a_t\frac{\omega _0^\varphi }{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{U_0^\varphi }{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right).$$
(7)
Here $`a_t`$ is a temperature and damping dependent thermal prefactor.

As the temperature $`T`$ is lowered, the thermal activation is exponentially suppressed. At temperatures below the so called cross-over temperature $`T^{}`$ the quantum tunneling rate of the particle through the barrier exceeds the thermal activation rateGrabert and Weiss (1984). The tunneling rate of the phase is calculated in the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation for a particle of mass $`m^\varphi `$ tunneling through the potential barrier described by $`U^\varphi `$. The effect of damping with the characteristic coefficient $`a=1/(2RC\omega _0^\varphi )=1/(2Q)`$, where $`Q=\omega _0^\varphi RC`$ is the junction quality factor, is considered in terms of a coupling to a bath of harmonic oscillators Caldeira and Leggett (1981); Caldeira (1983); Leggett (1984). The rate is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{q}=A\mathrm{exp}(B)$$
(8)
with

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{60}\omega _0^\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}\right)^{1/2}(1+𝒪(a)),`$ (9)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36U_0^\varphi }{5\mathrm{}\omega _0^\varphi }}(1+1.74a+𝒪(a^2)).`$ (10)
As in Eq. (7), the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$, $`U_0^\varphi `$, and $`\omega _0^\varphi `$ depend on $`I`$.

At low temperature and small damping the energy of the small oscillations of the phase at the bottom of the well is quantized, see Fig. 1b. The energy level quantization has been observed experimentally both below Martinis et al. (1987) and above $`T^{}`$ Silvestrini et al. (1997); Ruggiero et al. (1999). The escape of the phase from the well in the presence of quantized energy levels was discussed theoretically by Larkin and Ovchinnikov in Ref. Larkin and Ovchinnikov, 1986. This theory allows for the calculation of the bias current dependent escape rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$ considering the escape of the particle from the well by tunneling from any energy level. The occupation of the levels can be calculated for finite temperatures and in the presence of microwaves using a master equation approach. Previous measurements of energy level quantization have been compared with the predictions of this theory and good agreement was foundKopietz and Chakravarty (1988); Chow et al. (1988). This theory has also been used to explain switching current distributions for non-stationary distributions of the phase at high current ramp rates and above the cross-over temperature Ruggiero et al. (1999). Here, we analyze our data for the escape of the phase in the presence of energy levels with a separation comparable to the bath temperature $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$ at temperatures above $`T^{}`$ in the framework of this theory.

## III Measurement Technique and Setup

The escape of the phase in a Josephson tunnel junction is experimentally investigated by performing a statistical measurement of the current at which the junction switches from the zero-voltage state to a finite voltage stateFulton and Dunkelberger (1974). There are two different well established methods to perform such a measurement. One method consists of applying a fixed bias current $`I<I_c`$ to the junction and measuring the time between the application of the current and the appearance of a voltage across the junction Devoret et al. (1984); Han et al. (2001). This corresponds to a direct measurement of the lifetime $`\tau (I)`$ of the particle in the well. The inverse of the lifetime corresponds to the escape rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$. In the other method, the bias current applied to the junction is ramped up at a constant rate $`\dot{I}`$ and the current $`I`$ at which the junction switches from the zero-voltage to a finite voltage state is recorded Fulton and Dunkelberger (1974). The switching current probability distribution $`P(I)`$ is found by accumulating a large number of switching currents $`I`$ and generating a histogram. From the $`P(I)`$ distribution the bias current dependent escape rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)=\dot{I}\mathrm{ln}\frac{_I^{\mathrm{}}P(I^{})𝑑I^{}}{_{I+\mathrm{\Delta }I}^{\mathrm{}}P(I^{})𝑑I^{}}.$$
(11)
can be reconstructed Fulton and Dunkelberger (1974) and compared with the theoretical predictions.

### III.1 Experimental setup

In order to measure the switching current distribution of a Josephson tunnel junction with a high accuracy, we have developed a measurement setup in which the analog biasing electronics and the sample are electrically isolated from the digital control electronics using an optical fiber link. Using a universal time interval counter with $`20\mathrm{GHz}`$ time-base, the switching current is determined by measuring the time between the zero crossing of the bias current ramped up at a constant rate and the switching of the junction to the finite voltage state.

In the following the elements of the experimental setup are discussed starting from the sample cell mounted at the cold finger of the dilution refrigerator, the cold and warm filters in the dc-bias lines, the room temperature analog electronics, the optical fiber link and finally the digital control and data acquisition electronics, see Fig. 2.

#### III.1.1 Sample Cell and Wiring

The sample, typically fabricated on a $`5\times 5\mathrm{mm}^2`$ chip, is mounted in a closed rf-tight copper cell to shield it from electromagnetic radiation from the environment. The sample cell is thermally anchored to the cold finger of a dilution refrigerator. For current-biasing the Josephson junction and measuring the voltage across it, four wires are fed through microwave filters into the cell. Inside the cell the wires are thermally anchored and connected via wire bonds to the sample. Each microwave filter consists of a commercially available 111Thermocoax GmbH, Hamburg, Germany 1 meter piece of a $`0.5\mathrm{mm}`$ in diameter, lossy stainless steel coaxial line with a $`50\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{m}`$ inner conductor made from Ni/Cr (80%/20%) which is soldered into the wall of the cell. This type of filter, also called thermocoax filter Zorin (1995), has an attenuation of more than $`50\mathrm{dB}/\mathrm{m}`$ at frequencies above $`1\mathrm{GHz}`$. Alternatively, we have also used copper powder microwave filters Martinis et al. (1987), consisting of a few meters of resistive wire coiled up in a $`10\mathrm{cm}`$ long copper tube filled with $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ grain-size copper powder and mounted in the wall of the cell. If heating of the sample at large bias currents is an issue, the total dc resistance of this filter may easily be adjusted by choosing a different wire material and diameter. This type of filter is designed to have an attenuation of more than $`50\mathrm{dB}`$ per piece above $`1\mathrm{GHz}`$. All required additional wires for heaters, temperature sensors, coils etc. were fed into the cell through microwave filters of this type. Another possible type of cryogenic microwave filter, which has not been tested in our setup, is based on a micro-fabricated distributed RLC filter Vion et al. (1995).

The sample leads are passed to the 1 K stage of the cryostat in a tightly twisted loom of superconducting wire and filtered using a low pass RC filtering stage with a $`3\mathrm{dB}`$ cutoff frequency of approximately $`50\mathrm{kHz}`$, which is thermally anchored at the $`1\mathrm{K}`$ pot. The wiring is further fed to the top of the cryostat in a loom of twisted copper pairs shielded separately from the sensor and control wiring of the cryostat. At room temperature all wires are going through low pass $`\pi `$-type feedthrough filters with a cutoff frequency of about $`10\mathrm{MHz}`$. After the last filtering stage the wires are separated into shielded pairs which are connected to the analog biasing electronics.

#### III.1.2 Analog Electronics

The sample is current biased by a voltage controlled current source with selectable output-current ranges. The source current $`I`$ is proportional to the input voltage $`V_I`$ in the range from $`10\mathrm{V}`$ to $`10\mathrm{V}`$. The control voltage $`V_I`$ is a sawtooth waveform with an adjustable voltage ramp rate generated by charging a capacitor with a constant current. The sawtooth signal is started upon a digital trigger signal at the set input (S). The voltage ramp is stopped by a digital trigger signal at the reset input (R), see Fig. 2.

The current flowing through the sample is monitored by measuring the voltage drop $`V_{I,\mathrm{Mon}}`$ across the biasing resistor $`R_I`$ using an instrumentation amplifier. The voltage $`V`$ across the junction is measured using a fast FET instrumentation amplifier (amplification $`\times 1000`$). Both voltages $`V_{I,\mathrm{Mon}}`$ and $`V`$ are fed to two independent Schmidt triggers with adjustable threshold and window voltages. The current trigger is calibrated to generate a TTL pulse $`V_{I,\mathrm{TTL}}`$ upon the zero-crossing of the bias current. The voltage trigger is set up to generate a TTL pulse $`V_{\mathrm{TTL}}`$ when the junction switches from the zero voltage to a finite voltage state. The trigger window is adjusted wide enough to avoid voltage noise induced triggering. The voltage trigger signal $`V_{\mathrm{TTL}}`$ is simultaneously used to stop the current ramp. To avoid a ground loop in the signal lines an opto-coupler is used at the reset input of the sawtooth generator.

All analog electronics components described above have been specifically designed and implemented for these measurements. The supply voltage is delivered by lead accumulators. Care has been taken to avoid ground loops. All electronics is grounded at a single grounding point on the top of the cryostat. The cryostat and the analog electronics are placed inside a stainless steel shielded room. Outside of the shielded room the pumping lines of the cryostat are electrically isolated from the gas handling system and the pumps. The cryostat is connected to the shielded room through the pumping lines.

To perform the current measurement, the current trigger signal $`V_{I,\mathrm{TTL}}`$ and the voltage trigger signal $`V_{\mathrm{TTL}}`$ are converted to digital optical pulses which are passed out of the shielded room via optical fibers. Outside the shielded room both signals are converted back to TTL level electric signals. Conversely, for starting the current ramp a TTL pulse is passed via the optical fiber link into the shielded room. The arrangement of the analog electronics setup is shown in Fig. 2.

#### III.1.3 Digital Control and Data Acquisition Electronics

A square wave generator provides a TTL signal at a rate $`\nu _I`$ which is used to start the current ramp with the same repetition rate $`\nu _I`$. In each cycle of the measurement the bias current is increased at a fixed rate $`\dot{I}`$ until the switching current $`I`$ is reached. The optically decoupled current and voltage trigger signals are then supplied to the start and stop inputs of a universal time interval counter to measure the time $`\tau `$ between the triggers with a resolution of approximately $`25\mathrm{ps}`$. Having calibrated the current ramp rate $`\dot{I}`$ the switching current can be calculated from the time as $`I=\dot{I}\tau `$.

Our method has a high instrumental resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\dot{I}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25}\mathrm{ps}`$ of the current measurement. For typical ramp rates between $`0.1\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{s}`$ and $`1\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{s}`$ as used in the experiments presented here, a relative *instrumental current resolution* between $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I=\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{25.\hspace{0.17em}10}^{12}`$ can be achieved. This value is much better than that achievable using a 16 bit A/D converter for direct current measurements with $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I=\mathrm{0.15\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$.

Similar time-based methods for measuring the junctions critical current at a constant current ramp rate Silvestrini et al. (1988b, a) or the lifetime of the zero-voltage state of a junction at a constant applied bias current Devoret et al. (1984); Han et al. (2001) have been implemented by other groups.

The time interval counter 222Stanford Research Instruments, Model SR 620 Universal Time Interval Counter used in our setup allows for “the on-the-fly” generation of switching current histograms from the acquired data during the measurement. This feature is very useful for online monitoring of switching current histograms with changing experimental conditions, e.g. when doing spectroscopic measurements by applying microwave radiation to the sample or when searching for parasitic noise sources.

The temperature controller of the dilution refrigerator is installed inside the shielded room. It can be powered either by two lead accumulators or by an isolation transformer. The electrical ground of the controller is anchored on the cryostat. The temperature controller is computer controlled via an optical fiber link.

## IV Experimental Observations

The experiments were performed using a high quality $`5\times 5\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ tunnel junction fabricated on an oxidized silicon waver using a standard Nb/Al-AlOx/Nb trilayer process. The junction had a nominal critical current density of $`j_c1000\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, a nominal capacitance of $`C1\mathrm{pF}`$ and a subgap resistance of $`R>500\mathrm{\Omega }`$ below $`1.0\mathrm{K}`$.

The switching current distribution of the sample was measured at bath temperatures $`T`$ between $`4.2\mathrm{K}`$ and $`25\mathrm{mK}`$. The current was ramped up at a constant rate of $`\dot{I}=0.245\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{s}`$ with a repetition rate of $`\nu _I=500\mathrm{Hz}`$. Typically $`10^4`$ switching currents were recorded at each temperature. Histograms of the switching currents were calculated with bin widths of approximately $`10\mathrm{nA}`$ in order to determine the $`P(I)`$ distributions. In Fig. 3 the measured switching current distributions are plotted versus $`T`$. To show all histograms in the same plot, the switching probability $`P`$ has been plotted versus $`II`$, where $`I`$ is the temperature dependent mean value of the switching current shown in the inset of Fig. 3. It is observed that the width of the $`P(I)`$ distributions decreases with temperature and then saturates at low temperatures, as expected.

The standard deviation $`\sigma _I`$ of $`P(I)`$ is plotted versus $`T`$ in Fig. 4. In the temperature range between $`1\mathrm{K}`$ and approximately $`300\mathrm{mK}`$, $`\sigma _I`$ decreases with $`T`$, indicating the temperature dependent thermal activation of the phase across the barrier. At the characteristic temperature $`T^{}300\mathrm{mK}`$, $`\sigma _I`$ saturates at approximately $`115\mathrm{nA}`$ suggesting that the escape of the phase is dominated by quantum tunneling through the barrier. In Sec. VI, the $`P(I)`$ distributions in both the thermal and the quantum regime are analyzed quantitatively and compared with existing models.

## V Experimental Resolution

We have compared the experimental resolution of our switching current measurements performed with the experimental setup described above to the resolution of such measurements presented in literature. Since the limiting resolution of the measurement technique is not always stated in existing publications, we have focused our comparison on the minimum measured width of the switching current distribution mentioned in the articles. To allow for comparison among very widely varying sample parameters, we express the width with respect to the critical current of the measured junction. As a measure of the width we have considered the standard deviation $`\sigma _I`$ of the $`P(I)`$ distributions. If the values of $`\sigma _I`$ were not available in the reference, we evaluated the full width at half maximum of $`P(I)`$. In some of the evaluated references the effect of energy level quantization is investigated. This typically leads to features on the distributions which are more narrow than $`\sigma _I`$. In such cases Silvestrini et al. (1997); Martinis et al. (1987) we have taken the width of these smaller features. If data of multiple samples were discussed in a reference, the data of the sample with the smallest relative $`P(I)`$ width is considered.

In Tab. 1 the collected data are summarized.

First, we note that our sample has a high critical current and a relatively small capacitance, leading to a comparatively high cross-over temperature. Only in Refs. Washburn et al., 1984; Jackel et al., 1981 higher cross-over temperatures have been reported. Most of the experiments listed in Tab. 1 reach measured relative widths $`\sigma _I/I_c`$ down to a few $`10^3`$. Only in a few experiments the smallest relative width is a few times $`10^4`$. The measurements we present here show a resolution which is close to the best measurements of this type performed so far, see last row of Tab. 1. We stress that we have not performed any digital filtering or data processing neither on the raw data nor on the switching current distributions presented here. In microwave spectroscopy experiments performed on the same sampleWallraff et al.  we have observed photon absorption peaks which showed even smaller relative widths than the switching current distributions presented here. In test experiments we have measured current histograms of relative width down to $`1.5\times 10^4`$, which is the limiting experimental current resolution achievable in our setup at the present time. These tests have been performed with the junction biased in the resistive state but otherwise with experimental conditions identical to those used for performing switching current measurements.

We note that the *instrumental resolution* of the switching current measurements by a timing technique as implemented in this setup is extremely high as in comparison to other approaches using analog to digital converters Martinis et al. (1987); Castellano et al. (1996); Ruggiero et al. (1999) or time to amplitude converters Silvestrini et al. (1988b, a). However, we note that typically the *experimental resolution* for switching current measurements is not limited by the instrumental resolution of the data acquisition hardware but rather by the residual current and voltage noise in the junction bias electronics. Thus the most important aspect in a well designed measurement setup is the reduction of the external interference by the use of appropriate filtering techniques together with low noise analog electronics.

## VI Data Analysis

### VI.1 Thermal Activation

At temperatures $`T>T^{}`$ the escape of the phase is dominated by thermal activation. At a fixed bias current the activation rate is given by Eq. (7). Using Eq. (11), the experimental escape rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$ is determined from the $`P(I)`$ data and compared with the predictions of Eq. (7).

To perform this comparison we rewrite Eq. (7) using the known bias current dependences of the approximated barrier height (6) and the small amplitude oscillation frequency (5) in the following form

$$\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(I)}{a_t\omega _0^\varphi (I)}\right)^{2/3}=\left(\frac{E_J}{k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{esc}}}\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}\right)^{2/3}\frac{1}{I_c}\left(I_cI\right),$$
(12)
where we have introduced the effective escape temperature $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ Devoret et al. (1985). The left hand side of Eq. (12) is then calculated in a first iteration using the experimental data $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$ and $`a_t\omega _0^\varphi (I)`$ estimated approximating the initially unknown value of $`I_c`$ by the maximum measured switching current $`I_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and using $`C=1.61\mathrm{pF}`$ determined from independent microwave resonance activation measurements on the same sampleWallraff et al. . Because the right hand side of Eq. (12) is a linear function of the bias current $`I`$, both the critical current $`I_c`$ in absence of fluctuations and the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ of the thermal activation process can be determined from a linear fit of the experimental data to the right hand side of Eq. (12). Accordingly, we find

$`I_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{const}}}{c_{\mathrm{lin}}}},`$ (13)
$`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_\mathrm{B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_{\mathrm{const}}^{1/2}c_{\mathrm{lin}}}},`$ (14)
where $`c_{\mathrm{const}}`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{lin}}`$ are the two fitting parameters. The values of $`I_c`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ are then found with high accuracy by iteratively repeating the fitting procedure with the value of $`I_c`$ found in the previous iteration Castellano et al. (1996). This procedure is converging quickly due to the logarithmic dependence of the left hand side of Eq. (12) on $`I_c`$.

#### VI.1.1 The thermal prefactor in the extremely low damping limit

We have extracted the effective escape temperature $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ from the experimental data according to the procedure described above taking into account the thermal prefactor $`a_t`$. In the simple transition state theory, the thermal prefactor is unity and the escape rate is only determined by the fraction of particles with energy larger than the barrier height. In the high as well as in the low damping regimes the prefactor deviates substantially from unity Weiss (1999).

The exact form of the prefactor is found from a analysis of a classical Langevin equation for the motion of the particle according to Eq. (2) in the presence of fluctuations (see e.g. Refs. Weiss, 1999; Hänggi et al., 1990). In the moderate to strong damping limit the value of $`a_t`$ depends predominantly on the damping and the small oscillation frequency in the junction. In the very strong damping limit, the inertia of the particle can be neglected and its motion becomes diffusive Vion et al. (1996); Martinis and Kautz (1989). In the low to extremely low damping regime, however, the distribution of the particles in the well deviates from thermal equilibrium. The thermal escape across the barrier depletes the population within a range of $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$ to the top of the barrier. Therefore, $`a_t`$ becomes dependent on the barrier height and on temperature. For simplicity, we use an approximate analytical expression for the thermal prefactor in the extremely low to low damping regime, relevant for the experimental data presented here, as calculated in Ref. Büttiker et al., 1983

$$a_t=\frac{4a_0}{\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{a_0Qk_\mathrm{B}T}{1.8U_0^\varphi }}+1\right)^2},$$
(15)
where $`a_0`$ is a numerical constant close to unity. An exact calculation of $`a_t`$ valid in all damping regimes can be found in Ref. Hänggi et al., 1990.

In a first step, $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ has been evaluated for $`a_t=1`$. Under this assumption the escape temperatures extracted from the data deviates more than $`100\mathrm{mK}`$ from the bath temperature at $`T>T^{}`$, see open symbols in Fig. 5.

The difference $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}T`$ even increases with increasing temperature, as shown in the inset of Fig. 5. This deviation is too large to be due to an inaccurate estimate of the junction capacitance or errors in the calibration of the current measurement, thus, indicating the importance of the thermal prefactor.

In a second step, we used the thermal prefactor given by the expression (15) in the calculation of the left hand side of Eq. (12) in our data analysis scheme. We used the junction resistance $`R`$ as the adjustable parameter determining the junction quality factor $`Q`$. We found good agreement between the extracted $`T_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ and the bath temperature $`T`$ for $`R=500\mathrm{\Omega }`$ neglecting its temperature dependence, see solid symbols in Fig. 5. With the low damping prefactor (15), the difference $`\left|T_{\mathrm{esc}}T\right|`$ is less than $`75\mathrm{mK}`$ in the temperature range above $`T^{}`$, as shown by the solid symbols in the inset of Fig. 5. The effective resistance used for the fit is in good agreement with the sub-gap resistance determined from the dc current voltage characteristic of the junction.

In Fig. 6, the thermal prefactor $`a_t`$ evaluated at the most probable switching current $`I_p`$ is plotted versus temperature for $`T>T^{}`$. Independently of the bath temperature, the mean value of $`a_t`$ is approximately $`0.17`$ . This weak temperature dependence can be attributed to the almost constant ratio of $`k_\mathrm{B}T/U_0^\varphi (I_p)`$ for the switching data measured at different temperatures, see Eq. (15). At a fixed bath temperature, the bias current variation within a single $`P(I)`$ distribution results in a noticeable variation of $`a_t`$. The value of $`a_t`$ at the minimum and maximum switching currents $`I_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is indicated in Fig. 6 by error bars.

Thus, the experimental data is explained with good accuracy by the classical model of the thermal activation of the phase over a potential barrier in the presence of extremely small damping. The quality factor used for the extraction of the effective escape temperature is in agreement with the value determined from the sub gap resistance of the junction.

#### VI.1.2 Thermal activation in the presence of energy levels

In thermal activation theory, it is assumed that the particle energies in the well are continuously distributed. For the sample considered here, however, the quantization of the energy of the small amplitude oscillations of the phase may be relevant. In fact, we found direct evidence for the energy level quantization of the phase in this sample by using microwave spectroscopy Wallraff et al. .

To address this issue we calculate the approximate number of levels in the well at a given bias current as

$$n_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{U_0^\varphi }{\mathrm{}\omega _0^\varphi },$$
(16)
neglecting the anharmonicity of the well. Eq. (16) has been evaluated at the most probable switching current $`I_p`$ at each temperature, see Fig. 7a. In the quantum tunneling regime at $`T<T^{}`$, we find that there are only a few levels in the well ($`n_{\mathrm{max}}3`$). The number of levels in the well at the relevant switching currents increases approximately linearly with temperature from about 5 levels at $`1\mathrm{K}`$ to about $`20`$ levels at $`4\mathrm{K}`$. Additionally we have evaluated the level separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{}\omega _0^\varphi (I)`$ in harmonic approximation at the most probable switching current $`I_p`$, see Fig. 7b. At temperatures below $`1\mathrm{K}`$ the level separation is much larger than $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$ and at temperatures above $`1\mathrm{K}`$ it is comparable with $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$. These facts indicate that the energy level structure may be relevant for the process of the escape of the phase even at temperatures $`T>T^{}`$.

To analyze the effect of the level quantization on the escape of the phase at high temperatures we have made use of the Larkin Ovchinnikov theory Larkin and Ovchinnikov (1986). In the framework of their model the escape of the phase is considered in terms of tunneling out of the well from individual energy levels. The overall escape rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LO}(I)`$ depends on the population of different levels, which is determined by the coupling to the thermal bath. To apply the Larkin Ovchinnikov theory, we have calculated the energy level structure of the phase in the potential in dependence on the bias current $`I`$. The matrix elements for transitions between individual levels have been evaluated and the resulting escape rate has been calculated by solving a master equation for the dynamics of the system. From the escape rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LO}(I)`$ we have calculated $`P(I)`$ distributions in a wide temperature range.

The calculated $`P(I)`$ distributions at temperatures well below $`T^{}`$, when essentially only the ground state is populated, were in good agreement with the distributions calculated using the WKB approximation for the tunneling from the ground state. At temperatures above $`T^{}`$, the width of the distribution calculated using Larkin Ovchinnikov theory increased with temperature as expected. We have evaluated these calculated data in the same way as the experimental data, see Sec VI.1.1. We found that the calculated histograms are consistent with the classical prediction for a low damping thermal prefactor. Thus in the high temperature limit the results of the Larkin Ovchinnikov theory are in agreement with the predictions of purely classical thermal activation theory. More details on this analysis will be presented elsewhere Duty and Wallraff .

### VI.2 Quantum Tunneling

At temperatures below the crossover temperatureGrabert and Weiss (1984)

$$T^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0^\varphi }{2\pi k_\mathrm{B}}\left[\left(1+\left(\frac{1}{2Q}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{2Q}\right]$$
(17)
the escape of the phase from the potential well is dominated by quantum tunneling through the barrier. According to Eq. (17), the crossover temperature $`T^{}`$ for this sample at the most probable switching current $`I_p`$ is predicted to be approximately $`282\mathrm{mK}`$, which is in good agreement with our experimental findings, see Fig. 4. Since the quality factor of this sample is bounded by $`Q>100`$, the reduction of $`T^{}`$ in comparison to the ideal case of $`Q=\mathrm{}`$ is less than one percent. Accordingly, the reduction of the tunneling rate due to dissipation is small.

Furthermore, we have compared the measured $`P(I)`$ distributions for $`TT^{}`$ to the predicted distributions calculated using the quantum tunneling rate (8). As an example, the data for $`T=25\mathrm{mK}`$ are shown in Fig. 8 by solid symbols.

The quantum tunneling distribution $`P_q(I)`$ calculated for $`I_c=325.05\mu \mathrm{A}`$ and $`C=1.61\mathrm{pF}`$ is shown by the solid line. The critical current $`I_c`$ was extracted from fits to the data in the thermal regime. As it has been already said above, the capacitance $`C`$ was determined with high accuracy in independent spectroscopic measurements of the energy level structure of the same sample Wallraff et al. . The most probable switching current of the calculated distribution is in good agreement with experimental data. However, the width of the measured distribution is slightly bigger than the predicted one, which is most likely due to the finite residual electromagnetic interference in the measurement setup. To quantify this effect, we have calculated the convolution of the predicted quantum tunneling distribution $`P_q(I)`$ with a gaussian current distribution with a standard deviation of $`\sigma _I=47.5\mathrm{nA}`$, shown by the dotted line centered about $`I=323.4\mu \mathrm{A}`$. The resulting distribution, shown by the dashed line in Fig. 8, accurately fits to the experimental data.

## VII Conclusions

We have developed an experimental setup for the investigation of the escape of the phase in a current-biased Josephson tunnel junction. Using a timing technique we are able to achieve a high instrumental resolution in the switching current measurement of a Josephson junction. The relative resolution of the switching current measurements demonstrated in this paper is better than $`3.7\times 10^4`$. This distribution width $`\sigma _I/I_c`$ is comparable to the highest resolution measurements of this type performed so far. Using the described technique we have investigated the escape of phase in a high-quality $`5\times 5\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ Nb-Al/AlOx-Nb tunnel junction with a relatively large critical current of $`I_c325\mu \mathrm{A}`$. At temperatures above the crossover temperature of $`T^{}300\mathrm{mK}`$ the escape is dominated by thermal activation. Due to the high quality factor of the junction ($`Q>100`$) the thermal activation is observed in the limit of extremely low damping. The thermal prefactor $`a_t`$ extracted from the experimental data is varying between $`0.1`$ to $`0.3`$ depending on bias current and temperature. At temperatures below $`T^{}`$, the value of which agrees well with the theoretical predictions, the escape of the phase by quantum mechanical tunneling is observed. Due to the high $`Q`$-factor of the junction, the tunneling rate is only weakly suppressed by dissipation.

Recent developments in the field of quantum information processing have strongly increased the interest in research on the quantum properties of Josephson junction systems Nakamura et al. (1999); Friedman et al. (2000); van der Wal et al. (2000). Using the measurement technique and setup described in this paper the quantum mechanical properties of current biased Josephson junctions can be investigated with high accuracy. In particular, we are currently applying this technique for the experimental investigation of the theoretically predictedKato and Imada (1996); Shnirman et al. (1997) but not yet observed quantum properties of a single vortex in a long Josephson junction Wallraff (2000).

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank A. Kemp, S. Lebeda, G. Logvenov, K. Urlichs and M. Schuster for their technical help. We are indebted to M. H. Devoret, M. Fistul and V. Kurin for useful discussions and to C. van der Wal, R. Schouten for for sharing their experience in low temperature transport measurements with us. We acknowledge the partial financial support of this project by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and by D-Wave Systems Inc..


format: text

text:
# The Cantor set of linear orders on ℕ is the universal minimal 𝑆_∞-system

## Abstract.

Each topological group $`G`$ admits a unique universal minimal dynamical system $`(M(G),G)`$. When $`G`$ is a non-compact locally compact group the phase space $`M(G)`$ of this universal system is non-metrizable. There are however topological groups for which $`M(G)`$ is the trivial one point system (extremely amenable groups), as well as topological groups $`G`$ for which $`M(G)`$ is a metrizable space and for which there is an explicit description of the dynamical system $`(M(G),G)`$. One such group is the topological group $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ of all permutations of the integers $``$, with the topology of pointwise convergence. We show that $`(M(S_{\mathrm{}}),S_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a symbolic dynamical system (hence in particular $`M(S_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a Cantor set), and give a full description of all its symbolic factors. Among other facts we show that $`(M(G),G)`$ (and hence also every minimal $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$) has the structure of a two-to-one group extension of proximal system and that it is uniquely ergodic.

###### Key words and phrases:

dynamical systems, universal minimal systems  The author was an invited speaker at the Ninth Prague Topological Symposium.  This is a summary article. The results in this article will be treated fully in an article, written jointly with B. Weiss, to be published in Geometric and Functional Analysis (GAFA)  Eli Glasner, The Cantor set of linear orders on $``$ is the universal minimal $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-system, Proceedings of the Ninth Prague Topological Symposium, (Prague, 2001), pp. 119–123, Topology Atlas, Toronto, 2002

This is a summary of a talk given at the Prague Topological Symposium of 2001 in which I described results obtained in a joint paper with B. Weiss. The paper is going to appear soon in GAFA .

Given a topological group $`G`$ and a compact Hausdorff space $`X`$, a dynamical system $`(X,G)`$ is a jointly continuous action of $`G`$ on $`X`$. If $`(Y,G)`$ is a second dynamical system then a continuous onto map $`\pi :(X,G)(Y,G)`$ which intertwines the $`G`$ actions is called a homomorphism. The dynamical system $`(X,G)`$ is point transitive if there exists a point $`x_0X`$ whose orbit $`Gx_0`$ is dense in $`X`$. $`(X,G)`$ is minimal if every orbit is dense. It can be easily shown that there exists a unique (up to isomorphism of dynamical $`G`$-systems) universal point transitive $`G`$-system $`(𝐋,G)`$. One way of presenting this universal object is via the Gelfand space of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`_l(G)`$ of left uniformly $``$-valued continuous functions on $`G`$. From the existence of $`(𝐋,G)`$ one easily deduces the existence of a universal minimal dynamical system; i.e. a system $`(M(G),G)`$ such that for every minimal system $`(X,G)`$ there exists a homomorphism $`\pi :(M(G),G)(X,G)`$. Ellis’ theory shows that up to isomorphism this universal minimal dynamical system is unique, see e.g. .

The existence of uncountably many characters of the discrete group $``$ already shows that the phase space $`M()`$ is non-metrizable. In fact one can show that $`M(G)`$ is non-metrizable whenever $`G`$ is non-compact locally compact group.

A topological group $`G`$ has the fixed point on compacta property (f.p.c.) (or is extremely amenable) if whenever it acts continuously on a compact space, it has a fixed point. Thus the group $`G`$ has the f.p.c. property iff its universal minimal dynamical system is the trivial one point system.

A triple $`(X,d,\mu )`$, where $`(X,d)`$ is a metric space and $`\mu `$ a probability measure on $`X`$, is called an $`mm`$-space. For $`AX`$, $`\mu (A)1/2`$, and $`ϵ>0`$ let $`A_ϵ`$ be the set of all points whose distance from $`A`$ is at most $`ϵ`$.

A family of $`mm`$ spaces $`(X_n,d_n,\mu _n)`$ is called a Lévy family if for every $`ϵ`$, $`\alpha _n(ϵ)0`$, where $`\alpha (ϵ)=1inf\{\mu (A_ϵ):AX,\mu (A)1/2\}`$. When a Polish group $`(G,d)`$ contains an increasing sequence of compact subgroups $`\{G_n:n\}`$ whose union is dense in $`G`$ and such that with respect to the corresponding sequence of Haar measures $`\mu _n`$, the family $`(G_n,d,\mu _n)`$ forms a Lévy family, then $`G`$ is called a Lévy group.

In  Gromov and Milman prove that every Lévy group $`G`$ has the f.p.c. property. Many of the examples presently known of extremely amenable groups are obtained via this theorem. There are however other methods of obtaining such groups. Here is a partial list:

1. The unitary group $`U(\mathrm{})=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}U(n)`$ with the uniform operator topology (Gromov-Milman, ).
2. The monothetic Polish group $`L_m(I,S^1)`$, consisting of all (classes) of measurable maps from the unit interval $`I`$ into the circle group $`S^1`$ with the topology of convergence in measure induced by, say, Lebesgue measure on $`I`$ (Glasner, ; Furstenberg-Weiss). More generally, $`L_m(I,G)`$, where $`G`$ is any locally compact amenable group (Pestov, ).
3. The group of measurable automorphisms $`\mathrm{Aut}(X,\mu )`$ of a standard sigma-finite measure space $`(X,\mu )`$, with respect to the weak topology (Giordano-Pestov ).
4. Using Ramsey’s theorem, Pestov has shown that the group $`\mathrm{Aut}(,<)`$, of order automorphism of the rational numbers with pointwise convergence topology, is extremely amenable, .

Thus, as we have seen, the universal minimal system $`(M(G),G)`$ corresponding to a non-compact $`G`$ is usually non-metrizable but can be, in some cases, trivial. Are there non-compact topological groups for which $`M(G)`$ is metrizable but non-trivial? The first such example was pointed out by Pestov  who used claim 4 above to show that the universal minimal dynamical system of the group $`G`$ of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of the circle coincides with the natural action of $`G`$ on $`S^1`$.

In  V. Uspenskij shows that the action of a topological group $`G`$ on its universal minimal system $`M(G)`$ is never $`3`$-transitive. As a direct corollary he shows that for manifolds $`X`$ of dimension $`>1`$ (as well as for $`X=Q`$, the Hilbert cube) the corresponding group $`G`$ of orientation preserving homeomorphisms, $`(M(G),G)`$ does not coincide with the natural action of $`G`$ on $`X`$.

Let $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the group of all permutations of the integers $``$. With respect to the topology of pointwise convergence on $``$, $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Polish topological group. The subgroup $`S_0S_{\mathrm{}}`$ consisting of the permutations which fix all but a finite set in $``$ is an amenable dense subgroup (being the union of an increasing sequence of finite groups) and therefore $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is amenable as well.

In  Gromov and Milman conjectured, in view of the concentration of measure on $`S_n`$ with respect to Hamming distance, that $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the f.p.c. property. In  and  V. Pestov has shown that, on the contrary, $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ acts effectively on $`M(S_{\mathrm{}})`$ and that, in fact, there is no Hausdorff topology making $`S_0`$ a topological group with the f.p.c. property. He as well as A. Kechris (in private communication) asked for explicit examples of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-minimal systems.

The main result of our work  is the fact that the universal minimal system $`(M(S_{\mathrm{}}),S_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a metrizable system, in fact a system whose phase space is the Cantor set. We also give in this work an explicit description of $`(M(S_{\mathrm{}}),S_{\mathrm{}})`$ as a “symbolic” dynamical system and exhibit explicit formulas for all of its symbolic factors. Let me now describe these results in more details.

For every integer $`k2`$ let

$$_{}^k=\{(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)^k:i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k\text{ are distinct elements of }\},$$

and set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^k=\{1,1\}^_{}^k`$. Consider the dynamical system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^k,S_{\mathrm{}})`$, where for $`\alpha S_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^k`$ we let

$$(\alpha \omega )(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)=\omega (\alpha ^1i_1,\alpha ^1i_2,\mathrm{},\alpha ^1i_k).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{alt}^k\mathrm{\Omega }^k`$ consist of all the alternating configurations, that is those elements $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^k`$ satisfying

$$\omega (\sigma (i_1),\sigma (i_2),\mathrm{},\sigma (i_k))=\mathrm{sgn}(\sigma )\omega (i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k),$$

for all $`\sigma S_k`$ and $`(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)_{}^k`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{alt}^k`$is a closed and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-invariant subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^k`$.

A configuration $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ determines a linear order on $``$ if it is alternating, and satisfies the conditions:

$$\omega (m,n)=1\omega (n,l)=1\omega (m,l)=1.$$

Let $`<_\omega `$ be the corresponding linear order on $``$, where $`m<_\omega n`$ iff $`\omega (m,n)=1`$. Let $`X=\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2`$ be the subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ consisting of all the configurations which determine a linear order. The correspondence $`\omega <_\omega `$ is a surjective bijection between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2`$ and the collection of linear orders on $``$. Clearly $`X`$ is a closed $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-invariant set and using Ramsey’s theorem we shall show that $`(X,S_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a minimal system.

Say that a configuration $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ is determined by a circular order if there exists a sequence $`\{z_m:m\}S^1`$ with $`mnz_mz_n`$ such that: $`\omega (l,m,n)=1`$ for $`(l,m,n)_{}^3`$ iff the directed arc in $`S^1`$ defined by the ordered triple $`(z_l,z_m,z_n)`$ is oriented in the positive direction. Let $`Y=\mathrm{\Omega }_c^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{alt}^3`$ denote the collection of all the configurations in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ which are determined by a circular order. It follows that the set $`Y=\mathrm{\Omega }_c^3`$ is closed and invariant and using Ramsey’s theorem one can show that it is minimal.

If we go now to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{alt}^4`$, can one find a sequence of points $`\{z_n\}`$ on the sphere $`S^2`$ in general position such that the tetrahedron defined by any four points $`z_{n_1},z_{n_2},z_{n_3},z_{n_4}`$ has positive orientation when $`n_1<n_2<n_3<n_4`$?

Starting with any sequence $`\{z_n\}S^2`$ in general position one can use Ramsey’s theorem to find a subsequence with the required property. Another way to see this is to use the ‘moment curve’

$$t(t,t^2,t^3).$$

Again it turns out that the orbit closure in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{alt}^4`$ which is determined by such a sequence forms a minimal dynamical system.

It now seems as if going up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{alt}^k`$ with larger and larger $`k`$’s we encounter more and more complicated minimal systems. However, as we show in , this is not the case and the entire story is already encoded in the simplest symbolic dynamical system $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2`$.

###### Theorem 1.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2`$ is the universal minimal $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-system.

The fact that the topology on $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is zero-dimensional, and in fact given by a sequence of clopen subgroups, enables us to reduce this theorem to the following one.

###### Theorem 2.

Every minimal subsystem $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^k,S_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a factor of the minimal system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2,S_{\mathrm{}})`$.

Finally let me mention two more facts concerning the system $`(M(S_{\mathrm{}}),S_{\mathrm{}})`$.

###### Theorem 3.

The universal minimal system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2,S_{\mathrm{}})`$ has the structure of a two-to-one group extension of a proximal system.

###### Theorem 4.

The universal minimal system $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{lo}^2,S_{\mathrm{}})`$ is uniquely ergodic and therefore so is every minimal $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$-system.


text:
# CONCLUDING TALK AT THE WORKSHOP “QCD AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE FOURTH DECADE/IOFFEFEST” Landau’s Theoretical Minimum, Landau’s Seminar, ITEP in the Beginning of the 1950’s

## 1 Landau’s theoretical minimum

I start with the story of how I became Landau’s student. I was a third year student at the Physics Department of Moscow University. My desire was to be enlisted in the theoretical group, and I managed to do so. The professors of the Physics Department were strong in the Marxist philosophy, but almost all were weak in physics. Especially bad was the situation in the theoretical group: all high class theoreticians — Landau, Tamm, Leontovich and others — had been expelled. I was dissatisfied by the quality of education at the Physics Department, but was in doubts, whether my abilities were enough to become Landau’s student. Finally, I collected all my courage and in the summer of 1947 I made a decisive step: I called Landau and asked him whether I could become his student. He invited me to come the next day. This was an entrance examination on mathematics, which I passed easily. Landau gave me the programs of eight courses on theoretical physics. Besides, there was one more examination on mathematics — complex variables, special functions, the Laplace transformation, etc. By that time only a few books of the famous Landau course were published: Mechanics, Classical Field Theory, The Theory of Continuous Media and the first (classical) part of Statistical Physics. One had to study all other courses by reading various books and original papers. For example, let me display the list of books/papers which we were supposed to study for the Quantum Mechanics course:

Quantum Mechanics

1. Blokhintsev, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (in Russian), Chs. 3–14, 17–22, 24;
2. Kronig, Striped Spectra and Molecular Structure (in Russian);
3. Rosenthal and Murphy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 317 (1936);
4. Bethe, Ann. der Phys. 3, 133 (1929);
5. Pauli, Hdb. der Phys. XXIV-2, II, 2, 12;
6. Brillouin, Quantum Statistics (in Russian) §124;
8. Bethe, Ann. der Phys. 5, 325 (1930);
9. Mott and Massey, The Theory of Atomic Collisions (in Russian), Chs. 2 and 5;
10. Landau, Sov. Phys. 1, 68 (1932), 2, 46 (1932);
11. Bethe and Peierls, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 148, 146 (1935);
12. Breit and Wigner, Phys. Rev. 49, 519 (1936).

The papers were either in English or German and some of them were very long (e.g., each of Bethe’s papers was about 100 pages). Therefore, it was implicitly assumed, that the student-to-be knew well both foreign languages, which was very unusual at that time.

The examination proceeded as follows. An aspiring student would call Landau and say: I would like to pass an exam on such and such course (the order was more or less arbitrary).

— OK, please come on a certain day and time.

When students arrived at Landau’s apartment, Landau would ask them to leave all their books, notes, etc. in the garderobe and invite them into a small room with a round table, with a few pages of blank paper on it, and nothing else. Then Landau would formulate a problem and leave, but every 15 to 20 minutes he would reappear and look over one’s shoulder.

If he was silent, then this was a good sign, but sometimes he would say “hmm” — this was a bad sign. I have no failed examination experience of my own. However, once, when I was passing statistical physics, I started solving a problem in a way that Landau did not expect. Landau came, looked and said: “hmm.” Then he left. In 20 minutes he came back, looked again and said “hmm” in an even more dissatisfied tone. At that moment Evgeny Lifshitz appeared, who also looked at my notes and shouted: “Dau, do not waste time, throw him out!” But Dau replied: “Let us give him another 20 minutes.” During this time I got the answer and it was correct! Dau looked at the answer, looked again at my calculations and agreed, that I was right. After that, he and Lifshitz asked a few easy questions, and the exam was over.

The problems given by Landau in the examinations were sometimes very complicated and the student had to solve each of them in about an hour. (As a rule, they would get 2 or 3 problems in the examination session). So one had to have a lot of practice in advance. In order to get experience, I tried to find problems wherever I could. I asked Abrikosov, who had passed Landau’s minimum before me, what problems he got (but not their solutions!) and solved them. After a few examination sessions I realized that Landau had only a limited number of problems — sometimes he would give me the same problem which he had given to Abrikosov. I gathered that Landau understood that his students would inform each other as to what problems had been given, but that did not worry him: to estimate the student’s ability it was enough for him to observe the process of the solution. Here I will give you an example of Landau’s problems – the one from macroscopic electrodynamics. A dielectric sphere with the electric and magnetic susceptibilities $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\mu _1`$ is rotating with angular frequency $`\omega `$ in a constant electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ in a medium, characterized by the parameters $`\epsilon _2`$ and $`\mu _2`$. The angle between the rotation axis and the direction of $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is $`\alpha `$. Find the electric and magnetic fields inside the sphere and in the medium.

It took me almost two years to pass Landau’s minimum. (During the same two years, I did two scientific works under Pomeranchuk’s supervision). In June 1949, after the last examination, Landau officially recognized me as his scholar and included my name in the list.

## 2  Landau’s seminar

To be Landau’s disciple implied no privileges, only obligations. That’s because anybody could have scientific discussions with Landau and get his advice. Moreover, only a few among those who passed Landau’s minimum became his graduate students (I did not). Landau’s students enjoyed full rights as participants of Landau’s seminar. But, again, anyone could participate in his seminar, ask questions and make remarks. The obligations of the “full-right” participants were to prepare, in a regular way, in alphabetical order, review talks for the seminar. After each seminar Landau would take a recent issue of Physical Review (at that time it was not divided into sections) and point out to a speaker-to-be which papers he was supposed to report on at the seminar. As a rule, he would choose a dozen such papers from all branches of physics. Mostly, they were experimental or part theoretical-part experimental. Sometimes, it could also be short theoretical papers, such as Letters to the Editor, etc. The speaker not only had to review the paper, i.e. present its basic idea and final results, but was supposed to understand well how the results were obtained, present and explain to the audience all necessary formulae, including experimental techniques, and have his own opinion, as to whether or not the results were reliable. In short, the speaker was almost as much responsible for the reported paper (and for errors in it!) as if he were the author. As I have already mentioned, the subjects of these papers were quite varied — from particle and nuclear physics to properties of metals and liquids. Landau’s special love was the properties of alums. Landau knew well all subjects (despite the fact that he almost did not read papers, only listened to their presentations) and put questions which had to be immediately and definitely answered — general words or statements like “the author claims …” were not accepted. In the audience there were always specialists on any subject, and they also put questions and made remarks. Therefore, it was a hard task to present such a talk. (Luckily, this would happen once or twice a year). Sometimes, when Landau was dissatisfied with the presentation of a paper, he would stop the speaker and ask him/her to go to the next issue. If such an event occurred two or three times during a given report, Landau would say: “You did not prepare your lesson! Who is the next speaker?”

In the worst cases, when the speaker failed a few times, he was ostracized — excluded from the list of the seminar participants, and Landau would refuse to have discussions with him, but, of course, he (the ostracized person) could attend seminars. (I remember two such cases — in one case the speaker was a famous physicist, V.G. Levich, who eventually became a Member of the Academy of Sciences). Only after a long time, a year or more, and after being advocated by the most respected seminar participants, could such a person be pardoned by Landau.

The presentation of a theoretical report would proceed differently. A person, who wanted to present a theoretical investigation at the seminar (his own or from the literature) was first supposed to tell the story to Landau privately. If Landau agreed with the basic points of the work, then the talk at the seminar would be allowed. During the talk, Landau gave clarifying comments and quite often his explanation of the work was strongly different from that of the author. A hot discussion would then often follow. One could hear from Landau: “The author, in fact, did not understand what he did.” Landau’s understanding in all cases was quite original and for normal people it was not easy to follow his line of reasoning. For me (and not only for me) it would require a few hours (sometimes, a few days) before I could understand how deep his remarks were, which often would turn the problem upside down and shed light on it from a different side. Theoretical talks freed a speaker from obligatory presentations of Physical Review papers; therefore, it was a serious stimulus to present theoretical talks at Landau seminars. (Pomeranchuk, for example, never did reviews, since he always presented theoretical talks). Sometimes, speakers from the outside, who were not from Landau’s school, presented theoretical talks. Up until 1955 no foreign physicists visited Moscow. So, by outside theoreticians, I mean the ones from FIAN, Mathematical Institute and Moscow University (Bogolyubov, Gelfand), as well as from Leningrad and Kharkov.

This was the normal routine of Landau’s seminar at the end of the 1940’s and in the beginning of the 1950’s. There were exceptional persons, however: Ginzburg and Migdal. Once upon a time Landau said about Ginzburg: “Ginzburg is not my disciple — he just jumped onto the bandwagon.” Indeed, Ginzburg came from Tamm’s school, but was a very active participant of Landau’s seminar. He did not follow the standard seminar routine with presentations of review talks, etc. Each time he arrived, he was full of new facts and ideas and presented them with brilliance and sharp wit. I vividly remember his impressive talk on supernovae, with a historical introduction on their observations in ancient Babylonia, Egypt and China. It was no accident that the famous phenomenological theory of superconductivity, the predecessor of many modern models of spontaneous symmetry breaking, was done by Ginzburg and Landau.

Another exceptional person was Migdal. His name is absent in the list of Landau’s disciples, written by Landau himself: he did not pass Landau’s minimum, but he was a full-fledged participant of the seminar. It was only Migdal whom Landau allowed to be late to the seminar and, nevertheless, enter the hall through the front door. As a rule, the seminars would start just in time, up to a minute. But sometimes Landau would say: “Let us wait for five minutes — these are Migdal’s five minutes.” One day, in the middle of the seminar, the front door of the hall opened and a person wearing a fireman’s helmet and jacket appeared. “Get out! Leave the hall — we will perform here anti-fire exercises!” — exclaimed the man in a severe tone of voice. Lifshitz jumped up and shouted: “We have a seminar here every Thursday! You have no right!”

“Get out!” – repeated the man inexorably. People started standing up and moving to the doors. Then the man took off his helmet and the thread, which held his nose up — it was Migdal!

Another good joke was a letter from Pauli, which Landau had received through Pontecorvo. It was in 1958. At that time Landau was enthusiastic about Heisenberg’s recent papers, where a universal nonlinear fermion theory was suggested. In a short letter, which Landau read at the seminar, Pauli claimed that he had found new arguments in favor of Heisenberg’s theory and, moreover , there were new experimental facts supporting it. The facts, however, were not mentioned explicitly, and there was only a hint about their origin. The majority of the seminar participants became very excited. Somebody even went to the blackboard and tried to imagine which experiments they could be. Meanwhile, Migdal took the letter, read it carefully and said: “Please, look. If you read the first letters in each line, you will find the Russian word “duraki” (fools); what could that mean?”

In 1950–1951 the first experimental data on the pion production in $`pp`$ collisions appeared. Because of the low energies available, the data referred only to the threshold region. Migdal had immediately formulated the theory of this phenomena: he had demonstrated that $`pn`$ interaction in the final state dominated here and proved that this interaction reduced to $`pn`$ scattering phase in the $`S`$-wave. He had also calculated the ratio $`\sigma (pppn\pi ^+)/\sigma (pppd\pi ^+)`$, which was in good agreement with the data. Migdal presented a talk about his results at Landau’s seminar, which was met with great enthusiasm. However, he had failed to publish this paper. In Kurchatov Institute (Laboratory No.2), where he worked, the paper was classified and its publication forbidden. In the US the same results were obtained by K.M. Watson (Phys. Rev. 88 (1952) 1163) a year later and were called “the Watson effect.” Migdal managed to publish his paper only in 1955 (JETP 28 (1955) 10). In ITEP, the papers on related subjects, $`\pi ^{}`$ capture in hydrogen and deuterium, photoproduction of pions on deuterium, etc., were not classified and were published thanks to Alikhanov.

The third exceptional person was Pomeranchuk. I will dwell on him later.

## 3 My senior thesis under Pomeranchuk’s supervision

Now I return to 1947. I was a student in the theoretical group for a very short time — about a month. Then an order from the Dean’s Office came, and I and a few of my friends were transferred to a Department called “The Structure of Matter.” This name was a camouflage: in fact, this meant nuclear physics. My friends (David Kirzhnitz among them) and I did not want to go into this field. For a month we tried to resist: we visited the Dean of the Physics Department, a few times, arguing in various ways. But the order was strong, and we had to submit to force. Only later, after a year or two, I realized that, in fact, this was my luck. Just because of this transfer, I became what I am now: if I had stayed in the theoretical physics group, then, probably, I would have faded away. The Structure of Matter Chair belonged to I.M. Frank, the future Nobel Prize Laureate. Although the Chair was mostly experimental, a theoretical course was also offered there. Moreover, it was possible to do a theoretical diploma and take, as a supervisor, anybody involved in the atomic project. (The rule of the Theoretical Physics Chair was that a supervisor had to be from this Chair). I wanted to have a supervisor from Landau’s school, and by chance, chose Pomeranchuk. (I did not know him before). I called him, introduced myself, and told him, that I am a student at the Physics Department, I am taking Landau’s examinations and have already passed three of them: mechanics, classical field theory and math-II. Pomeranchuk invited me to come for a conversation. When I came, after a short conversation, Pomeranchuk agreed to supervise my diploma work. He said, however, that first I had to pass all of Landau’s examinations. I believe that there were two motivations which prompted Pomeranchuk’s decision. First, I was a student at the Physics Department of Moscow University during the time when Landau’s name was notorious there, and the fact that a student would like to have him — Pomeranchuk — as a supervisor, was not trivial. And, secondly, in 1948 only a dozen persons passed Landau’s minimum, and all of them were outstanding physicists (with the exception of the last two — Ter-Martirosyan and Abrikosov — who had passed the minimum just before me and had no time to manifest themselves). Later, Pomeranchuk told me that he was surprised by the way I was dressed: it was a very cold winter day of 1948, but I came very poorly dressed. In turn, I was surprised by the absence of furniture in Pomeranchuk’s apartment: a bed covered by a soldier-type blanket, a table, a bookcase, and nothing else.

Thus, I was continuing my preparations for Landau’s quantum mechanics examination.

Here is an episode, characterizing the levels of education at Moscow University and Landau’s minimum. In the spring of 1948, the time came to pass the quantum mechanics examination at Moscow University. The lecturer was Blokhintsev, but I did not attend his lectures. I was busy studying quantum mechanics according to Landau’s program, and at that time I estimated the level of my knowledge of the subject to be low: I had to work much more. One day, I met D. Shirkov , who was a student in the theory group. “I am going to pass Blokhintsev’s quantum mechanics exam. Do you want to join me?” he asked.

“OK, I’ll put Blokhintsev’s book in my bag in order to look at it, just in case,” I replied.

We passed this examination successfully, I got an A, and Shirkov a B. I managed to pass the same examination given by Landau only in September.

Since I was successfully progressing with my examinations, in the late autumn of 1948 Pomeranchuk formulated a problem for my senior thesis work: it was the calculation of neutron polarization in the scattering off nuclei due to interference of the Coulomb and nuclear scattering. The calculation was based on Schwinger’s paper, but I had to invent some elements on my own. The second part of the work was the calculation of the neutron depolarization in the course of the neutron deceleration in the medium. This part was merely educational: I had to study the theory of neutron moderation as well as some aspects of the theory of nuclear reactors. During this winter, until March of 1949, I had finished my senior thesis and almost finished Landau’s minimum (except for the last examination — the theory of continuous media, which I passed in June of 1949). So, Pomeranchuk gave me a new problem: to calculate the cross-section of $`e^+e`$ pair production on nuclei by linearly polarized $`\gamma `$-quanta and the related cross section of bremsstrahlung of polarized $`\gamma `$. At that time there was no Feynman diagram technique — the famous papers of Feynman were published at the end of 1949. Therefore, I did the calculations in the old Heitler technique with the account of the electron transitions to negative-energy states, using non-covariant Dirac matrices, etc. You can see how complicated the old technique was, looking at the original Bethe-Heitler paper, where the calculation of the electron bremsstrahlung was performed. (The calculation of polarized $`\gamma `$ bremsstrahlung was not easier!) To give drastically different problems to students was typical of Pomeranchuk’s (as well as Landau’s) style: a student had to be able to solve problems in many (if not in all) fields of physics. Pomeranchuk recommended that I write two short papers: one on the neutron polarization and another on $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production by polarized photons. I did that, but, probably, he forgot about this, and I hesitated to remind him. Thus, these papers were not published. (They are being published in this book, in the English translation from the Russian original manuscripts.)

Later, in the 1950’s, a few papers appeared in which calculations of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production by polarized photons and electron bremsstrahlung of polarized photons were performed, using the Feynman technique. I felt sorry that I did not publish these papers.

In the spring of 1949 Pomeranchuk introduced me to A.I. Alikhanov, the Director of Laboratory No.3 (now ITEP), as a person whom he would like to take to the Theoretical Physics Division of Laboratory No. 3. Alikhanov had a custom — to have a prior conversation with any prospective new worker in the Laboratory. After a short conversation, Alikhanov signed a letter, requesting my assignment to Laboratory No. 3 after my graduation from Moscow University. This was an extraordinary case. The anti-Semitic campaign was in full swing, and I was the only Jewish student from the whole Physics Department who got an appointment in Moscow, and in a good place. All others were sent far away (for instance, my friend Kirzhnitz was sent to a factory in Gorky), or got no jobs at all.

## 4  ITEP in the 1950’s

On January 1, 1950 (a symbolic date — the beginning of the second half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century!) I started my work in the Laboratory of Theoretical Physics of ITEP. The Head of the Laboratory was Pomeranchuk. In the beginning, Pomeranchuk “lent” me to the ITEP Vice-Director V. Vladimirsky. I had to calculate electric fields in the electron linear accelerator, which he wanted to construct. I did not like this job: I had no idea on how to calculate the electric field for complicated configurations of electrodes, and this work seemed to me to be very gloomy. So, instead of doing it, I read the papers of Feynman, Schwinger and Dyson that had just appeared (I translated some of them to Russian, and the translations were published in Russian review journals). <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1It should be mentioned that getting American physics journals in Moscow was a problem at that time: they would often come with great delay, and sometimes they were stamped “classified.” We knew that they were delivered illegally, through Sweden.

I wanted to educate myself in the new approach to quantum electrodynamics (the Feynman diagram technique, renormalizations, etc.). At that time nobody in Moscow was proficient in these new QED methods, and only a few people (Galanin, Abrikosov, Khalatnikov, maybe, somebody else) learned them. Such a situation — neglecting my job in favor of Feynman, Schwinger and Dyson — could not continue for a long time and was destined to end in a scandal. But I was “lucky” again. An order came from the highest level (probably, from Beria, or, maybe, even from Stalin himself) — the Institute was supposed to present in the shortest time — within a few weeks — a project of the heavy-water nuclear reactor on enriched uranium, for tritium production. All theoreticians, including myself, were mobilized to do the physical design of this reactor. I was returned under Pomeranchuk’s guidance, and starting from this time (the spring of 1950) I worked for many years in parallel on elementary particle physics and on nuclear reactor design.

There were three principles which Pomeranchuk put in the basis of the work of Theoretical Laboratory:

1. “The Directorate must be respected.” This meant that all problems formulated for theoreticians by the Institute Management and devoted to applied physics, such as nuclear reactor design, had to be solved with priority and full responsibility; any errors had to be completely ruled out.

2. “The experimentalists must be respected.” This meant that if an experimentalist came with a question to our Theoretical division, or asked for help, the question had to be answered, and assistance provided, even if this required a complicated calculation.

3. “You may do science from 8 p.m. till 12 p.m.” This meant that young people, even if they were busy doing their jobs, according to the points 1 and 2 above, had to find time for the science (i.e. purely theoretical work).

In one particular aspect Pomeranchuk and I had something in common — we had a common hobby, reading newspapers. At that time almost nobody read newspapers regularly — there was no information there. All newspapers were filled with articles that would start with words like “New successes in the production of … are achieved at the factory … ” or “The worker Ivanov (Petrov, etc.) in one shift produced …” In order to get information from newspapers one had to be a professional in this business, and we — Chuk and me — were. (From now on I will call him Chuk, as many did.) In the morning, just after arriving at the ITEP, Chuk would come into my office and ask:

— “ Have you read Pravda today?”

— “ Yes,” I would reply.

— “And what did you pay attention to?”

— “ To a small article on the third page.”

— “Oh!” and Chuk would raise his forefinger.

— “And you?”

— “ Probably, the same, the report on the meeting of the Voronezh District Party Committee.”

— “Yes.”

— “And what was interesting for you in this report?”

— “The greeting to the Politbureau.”

— “Oh!” And Chuk’s forefinger would go up up again. “What concretely?”

— “The ordering in which the names of the Politbureau members were listed.”

We understood each other well. From this ordering one could obtain an idea of who was going up or down in the Politbureau, and estimate political trends.

In 1950 all members of the ITEP Theoretical Physics Laboratory — V. Berestetsky, A. Galanin, A. Rudik and myself — were intensively studying new methods in QED. Pomeranchuk strongly supported this activity, but in1950 and in the first half of 1951 he did not participate in it too much himself: he was busy with other problems — in 1950/51 he was sent for half a year to Arzamas-16, to work on the hydrogen bomb project. Landau was sceptical of the new trends in QED. He did not believe that the problems of infinities in quantum field theory could be circumvented by the mass and charge renormalization. Two attempts to present Feynman’s papers at Landau’s seminar failed: the speakers were thrown off the podium after 20 or 30 minutes of talking. Only the third attempt succeeded (if I remember correctly, this was in 1951 or even in 1952). But still he had no interest in these problems: the dominating subjects on his seminars were what we called “alums.”

Landau called me a “snob.” He repeated this even in public: “Boris is snob!” The meaning of his words was that I did not want to solve real physical problems and, instead, preferred to study a refined theory. His words had no influence on Pomeranchuk, because we were allies, but — what was the worst — he said the same thing to Alikhanov, the ITEP Director. And for Alikhanov, Landau’s evaluation of anyone in theoretical physics, had the highest weight. So, Landau’s words could have resulted in undesirable consequences for me. Fortunately in this case Alikhanov already had his own opinion. He knew very well that I was performing calculations of nuclear reactors for him (as well as calculations of his experimental set-up) and by no means thought I was a snob.

## 5  Pomerancuk’s seminar

Pomeranchuk tried many times to convince Landau to shift his interests to QED and mesonic theories. Once in a while, he would repeat:

“Dau, there are a lot of problems here. They are hard, but they are just for a person of your class!”

In response, Dau would say:

“I know my abilities — to solve the problems of infinities in field theory is above them.”

In fact, contrary to common belief, Landau was very modest in his self-evaluation. He underestimated rather than overestimated his abilities and achievements. Experimental facts in particle physics were always reported on Landau’s seminar, but theoretical papers were reported only as an exception.

Then Pomeranchuk decided to organize a separate theoretical seminar devoted to quantum field theory and particle physics. The seminars could not proceed at ITEP, since all participants had to have permission to enter ITEP territory, and by no means did everyone have such a permission. Therefore, Pomeranchuk made an arrangement with Landau that the seminar will proceed at the Institute of Physical Problems, on the same day of the week, Thursday, as Landau’s seminar, but two hours earlier. Pomeranchuk nominated me as the seminar secretary. The first meeting took place on October 1, 1951. I reported on the famous paper of Dyson at this meeting. Alikhanov, as the ITEP Director, asked me to present to him an official letter regarding the creation of a new seminar, and I did this. (This document still exists). Almost all famous theorists participated in the seminar. The main papers on quantum field theory were reviewed followed, as a rule, by heated debates. Sometimes Landau would peep in the hall from the door. Chuk would invite him: “Please come in, we are discussing this and that”. But Landau would only condescendingly smile: “If young people want to spend time on nothing, then let them do it”. With time the number of participants of Pomeranchuk’s seminar was increasing, as well as the enthusiasm and excitement around the problems under discussion. This excitement eventually spilled over into Landau’s seminar which, as I already mentioned, used to start just after Pomeranchuk’s seminar. Then Landau decided: his seminar had to precede, not follow Pomeranchuk’s. In 1953, when the restrictions regarding the admission of outsiders to ITEP were somewhat relaxed, the seminar was transferred to ITEP. It still exists, to this day, every Monday, at 3.30 p.m. (except holidays), the doors of the main ITEP conference hall open for the ITEP theoretical seminar.

## 6  The history of the making of Landau, Abrikosov and Khalatnikov’s papers

Aleksei Galanin and myself educated ourselves in the calculation of radiative corrections in QED and meson theories, and in performing the mass and charge renormalization — first, at lowest order, then at higher orders. I succeeded in writing an exact infinite system of coupled equations for the Green’s functions in the meson theory. In the paper by Galanin, Pomeranchuk and myself the mass and charge renormalization was performed in this system of coupled equations. The solution of this system of equations was shown to have no infinities after renormalization, it had to be finite. However, we did not succeed in solving this system in a recurrent way by cutting it off at some fixed number of equations. After the cut-off the infinities reappeared; in order to get rid of them, one had to sum the whole infinite series.

Upon calculating several first-order corrections in perturbation theory Galanin and myself realized that large logarithms of the type $`\mathrm{ln}(p^2/m^2)`$ appear in the polarization operators and vertex function far off-shell, $`p^2m^2`$. In the first order one deals with $`ln(p^2/m^2)`$, in the second order with terms proportional to $`[\mathrm{ln}(p^2/m^2)]^2`$, in the third order $`[\mathrm{ln}(p^2/m^2)]^3`$, and so on. In this aspect the paper by S.F. Edwards (Phys. Rev. 90 (1953) 284) was important for us. Edwards considered the equation for the vertex function in the ladder approximation and demonstrated that at the $`n`$-th order the terms $`(e^2\mathrm{ln}p^2/m^2)^n`$ appear.

In the 1950’s Landau visited ITEP every Wednesday. He participated — very actively — in the ITEP Wednesday experimental seminars, steered by Alikhanov. After the seminars he used to come to the theorists office, for discussions which would normally go on for 1 or 2 hours. In these discussions we explained to Landau the situation with the radiative corrections and he came up with the idea to sum up the leading logarithmic terms, i.e. the terms $`(e^2\mathrm{ln}p^2/m^2)^n`$ in QED. Initially, when Landau formulated his idea, he believed that he would find in QED what is now called asymptotic freedom. These expectations were formulated in the first papers by Landau, Abrikosov and Khalatnikov which had been sent for publication before the final result was obtained. At one of the following Wednesday visits Landau showed us their result, confirming his expectation: the effective charge in QED was decreasing with energy. Galanin and myself decided to check their calculation, because we had a desire to use this idea in our coupled system of the renormalized equations. (We did this later, in collaboration with Pomeranchuk). But the first-loop calculation demonstrated the opposite behavior. The effective charge was increasing with energy! Next Wednesday we told Landau about this and convinced him that we were right. Landau, Abrikosov and Khalatnikov’s paper which was already prepared for publication, had a sign error, drastically changing the final conclusion. S.S. Gershtein who worked at the Institute of Physical Problems at that time, wrote later in his memoir that upon returning from ITEP, Landau said:

— “Galanin and Ioffe saved me from shame.”

After the publication of Landau, Abrikosov and Khalatnikov’s papers, in approximately one year, Landau got a letter from Pauli. In this letter Pauli informed him that his graduate student, Walter Thirring, had found an example of a theory, in which there was no zero charge problem — the theory of the scalar meson-nucleon interaction. The manuscript of Thirring’s paper was attached to the letter. Dau gave this paper to Chuk, and Chuk asked me to check the paper. I studied Thirring’s paper and came to the conclusion that it was wrong. The origin of the mistake was that the Ward identity arising from differentiation over the nucleon mass, was exploited, which in fact was violated by renormalization. I told Chuk about this.

— “You should write a letter to Pauli” — was Chuk’s response.

I hesitated: to write to Pauli, that his graduate student had made a mistake and he, Pauli, had overlooked it! Chuk insisted and, finally, I wrote a letter ending up with the signature: “Respectfully yours …” The answer I received was not from Pauli, but from Thirring. He accepted his error, and Thirring’s paper was never published.

## 7  Papers on $`P`$, $`C`$, $`T`$ non-conservation

Now I would like to tell you about another episode which adds important touches to Landau’s portrait.

In 1955-56 the $`\theta `$$`\tau `$ puzzle agitated all physicists. The $`K`$-meson decays in 2 and 3 pions had been observed experimentally. Under the condition of parity conservation, which was taken for granted at that time, one and the same kaon could not decay in 2 and 3 pions simultaneously. For this reason most physicists believed that $`\theta `$ and $`\tau `$ were two different mesons. As the precision of experiments grew, however, it became clear that their masses coincided. At that time, in the spring of 1956, Lee and Yang came up with their revolutionary paper in which they put forward a parity non-conservation hypothesis which explained the $`\theta `$$`\tau `$ puzzle. Moreover, Lee and Yang calculated parity non-conservation effects in the $`\beta `$ decay and in the $`\pi \mu e`$ cascade.

Landau vigorously rejected the possibility of parity non-conservation, saying “space cannot be asymmetric!” Pomeranchuk preferred the hypothesis of parity-degenerate doublets of strange particles. A.P. Rudik and I decided to calculate some additional effects based on the assumption of parity non-conservation in weak interactions, other than those considered by Lee and Yang. We decided to examine $`\beta `$$`\gamma `$ correlations. I made an estimate and found that the corresponding effect had to be large. Rudik turned to detailed calculations. In some time he came to me and said:

“Look, Boris, the effect vanishes!”

“This cannot be the case,” I replied.

We began trying to make sense of this result. I observed that Rudik, being a well-educated theorist, had imposed the condition of $`C`$ invariance on weak interaction Lagrangian. As a result, the coupling constants in front of the parity-nonconserving terms turned out to be purely imaginary. The constants in Lee and Yang’s papers were arbitrary complex numbers. (If one assumes them to be purely imaginary, then all parity-nonconserving effects disappear.)

A question arose as to the connection between $`C`$ and $`P`$ invariance. I discussed this problem with Volodya Sudakov; an earlier paper by Pauli surfaced in this conversation. Although I had read this paper previously, I had forgotten about it. In part, the reason was that Landau regarded this paper with scepticism — he believed that the $`CPT`$ theorem was a trivial relation satisfied for any Lagrangian and, for this reason, no physical consequences could follow from the $`CPT`$ theorem. I noted that Lee and Yang’s paper did not mention the $`CPT`$ theorem at all, and nothing was said on the connection between $`C`$, $`P`$ and $`T`$ invariance. I read Pauli’s paper again, more attentively than the first time, and it became clear to me immediately that if $`P`$ were violated, then either $`C`$ or $`T`$, or both had to be violated with certainty.

This observation gave rise to the following idea: two $`K^0`$ mesons with drastically different lifetimes may appear only provided one of the invariances, $`C`$ or $`T`$, takes place, at least approximately. Rudik and I considered a number of effects and observed that $`P`$-odd pair correlations of spin and momentum ($`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}`$) appear if $`C`$ is violated and $`T`$ is conserved. In the opposite case they are absent. (In my subsequent paper I proved this theorem in a general form, and found the type of $`P`$-odd terms corresponding to $`T`$ violation.) We wrote a paper and told its contents to L.B. Okun. Okun made a very useful remark that analogous effects which unambiguously differentiate models with $`C`$ invariance from those with $`T`$ invariance, appear in $`K^0`$ decays into pions too. We included this remark in the paper and I suggested to Okun to become a co-author. At first he refused, saying that such a remark deserves a mention in the acknowledgments, but later I persuaded him.

After that I reported our results to Pomeranchuk. Pomeranchuk decided that we had to tell them to Dau — immediately, next Wednesday. On Wednesday, Dau’s first reaction was to refuse to listen.

“I do not want to hear anything about parity nonconservation. This is nonsense!”

Chuk persuaded him:

“Dau, have patience for about 15 minutes, listen to what young people have to say.”

With heavy heart Dau agreed. I spoke not for long, perhaps, for half an hour. Dau kept silent, and then went away. Next day in the morning Pomeranchuk called me: Dau solved the parity non-conservation problem! We were supposed to come to him immediately.

By that time both of Landau’s papers — on the conservation of the combined ($`CP`$) parity and on two-component neutrinos, with all formulations, were already ready.

Our paper and that of Landau were sent for publication prior to experiments of Wu et al., where the electron asymmetry in polarized nucleus decay was observed (i.e. the correlation between nucleus’ spin and electron’s momentum). In this way the parity non-conservation was discovered. Our results then implied that the $`C`$ parity was not conserved in the $`\beta `$ decay either. The corresponding note was added in proof in our paper. An analogous statement was made in the paper by Wu et al., who referred to the paper by Lee, Oheme and Yang, which, in turn, was published after our paper. In their Nobel lectures Lee and Yang emphasized our priority in this problem.

Landau considered the $`CP`$ conservation to be the exact law of nature; he did not admit the possibility of its violation. Concerning $`CP`$, Landau would say exactly the same words on the space asymmetry as he used to say previously with regards to $`P`$ violation. I constructed an example of the Lagrangian in which $`CP`$ was violated, and nothing bad happened to the vacuum, and tried to change Landau’s mind, but he did not want to listen.