text:
# Period halving of Persistent Currents in Mesoscopic Möbius ladders

## Abstract

We investigate the period halving of persistent currents(PCs) of non-interacting electrons in isolated mesoscopic Möbius ladders without disorder, pierced by Aharonov-Bhom flux. The mechanisms of the period halving effect depend on the parity of the number of electrons as well as on the interchain hopping. Although the data of PCs in mesoscopic systems are sample-specific, some simple rules are found in the canonical ensemble average, such as all the odd harmonics of the PCs disappear, and the signals of even harmonics are non-negative.

The persistent currents(PCs) in mesoscopic rings has been explored for many years. Early in 1983, the effect of elastic scattering was first understood by Büttiker et al., and thus the possibility of observing nano-amper PCs in nano-scale normal metal rings with disorder was revealed. Since then the problem of PCs has been studied in many distinct aspects. Among the interesting characters of PCs, the period halving phenomenon is particular simple but significant. In the early works about the ring systems with Aharonov-Bohm(AB) flux, it has been shown generally that all relevant physical properties of this “ring” are periodic in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with period of one flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0h/e`$, here $`h`$ and $`e`$ denotes the Planck constant and the charge of electron, respectively. However the studies on PCs in canonical ensemble find that the fundamental harmonic of this current (with flux period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$) is strongly suppressed, whereas the next harmonic (with flux period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$) survives. Recently the phenomena of PCs are studied in some special systems, such as in the Möbius ladder as well as in double-ring structures. In the present work, we study the systems of non-interacting electrons in isolated mesoscopic Möbius ladders. After re-building the general model of Möbius ladder systems, we prove that the well-known formula for PCs in one-dimensional(1D) rings still holds for these complex structures. Then a series of simulation results of PCs versus the AB flux and relevant Fourier harmonics are presented, which manifest the complicated ways in which the interchain hopping elements and the parity of the number of total electrons influence the periodic behavior of PCs.

The model of Möbius ladder originates from a mathematical concept of non-orientable surface, i.e., the Möbius band (or strip), which can be formed by joining the ends of a rectangle with one twist of 180 degrees. The schematic drawing of a Möbius ladder with $`N`$ rungs is shown in Fig.1. The two chains on the opposite sides of the rectangle are connected as the unique edge of the Möbius ladder. If all the rungs are Broken off, the ladder will become a double-ring strcture. For the sake of simplicity, we take the energy integral between two nearest-neighbor sites along the edge as the energy unit, then the Hamiltonian for electrons with spin $`\sigma `$ (up or down) in such a lattice can be written as

$`\widehat{H}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2N}{}}}\left(e^{i\theta }\widehat{a}_{n+1\sigma }^{}\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }+e^{i\theta }\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }^{}\widehat{a}_{n+1\sigma }\right)`$ (2)
$`t_{}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\widehat{a}_{n+N\sigma }^{}\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }+\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }^{}\widehat{a}_{n+N\sigma }\right)`$
where $`\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }`$ ($`\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }^{}`$) is an annihilation (creation) operator for an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`n`$, the phase $`\theta 2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/N\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ arises from the path integral of vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}`$ between corresponding two nearest-neighbor sites along the edge of Möbius ladder, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the AB flux through the Möbius structure. In addition, the on-site energy for each site is set to be zero, but the matrix element $`t_{}`$ for interchain hopping, i.e., hopping perpendicular to the edge is an important tunable parameter of the systems. The two kinds of electrons with spin-up and spin-down will contributes to the total Hamiltonian in a simple way that $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_{}+\widehat{H}_{}`$.

Such a Hamiltonian is readily diagonalized as

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{k,\sigma }{}\epsilon _k\widehat{b}_{k\sigma }^{}\widehat{b}_{k\sigma }$$
(3)
with eigen-energy values

$$\epsilon _k=2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{N}\left(k+\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)t_{}(1)^k$$
(4)
by introducing an unitary transformation

$$\widehat{b}_k\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{2N}{}}e^{ikn}\widehat{a}_n,\widehat{a}_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}\underset{k}{}e^{ikn}\widehat{b}_k$$
(5)
here $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},2N1`$ so that the wave vectors $`k\pi /N`$ is limited in the first Brillouin zone and the periodic condition $`\widehat{a}_{n+2N}=\widehat{a}_n`$ is satisfied. If $`t_{}>2`$, then Eq.(4) depicts a two-band spectrum with band gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2(t_{}2)`$.

At first glance, any single eigen-energy given by Eq.(4) is a periodic function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with period $`N\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, but in fact the PCs vary with the AB flux with period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ because thermodynamic properties are determined by the whole eigen-energy spectrum. The periodicity of $`\{ϵ_k\}`$ is easy to see by using an equality $`\epsilon _k(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=\epsilon _{k+2}E(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. This is very the reason why all the calculations of PCs can be limited in the flux range $`\mathrm{\Phi }[0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$.

However, a Möbius ladder with $`t_{}=0`$ becomes a double-ring structure, and the dispersion relation Eq.(4) will be reduced as

$$\epsilon _k=2\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{N}\left(k+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)$$
(6)
here $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined as the flux-linkage through the double-ring structure. The flux-linkage is two times of the AB flux because the electrons have to travel along the full edge of the Möbius ladder, thus encircling the flux twice. Therefore the PCs in a double-ring system must be a periodic function of AB flux with period half a flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ because of $`\epsilon _k(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=\epsilon _{k+1}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$. In Ref., this simple result is referred as “Entire period halving ” effect.

There is no obvious reason to ensure that the well-known formula of PCs in one-dimensional ring systems is still held for some subtle cases such as the Möbius ladders. Therefore we try to prove it based upon some basic concept of quantum mechanics. It is obvious that the current at $`nth`$ rungs involve two parts: the current from $`n`$ to $`n+1`$ in one chain and the current from $`n+N`$ to $`n+N+1`$ in another chain. So we have

$`\widehat{𝒥}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ȷ}_n+\widehat{ȷ}_{n+N}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\widehat{ȷ}_n+\widehat{ȷ}_{n+N})`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2N}{}}}\widehat{ȷ}_n`$ (9)
in the second step of above derivation, the conservation condition of current has been used. Applying the concept of probability current in Hilbert space

$`\widehat{ȷ}_n`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ȷ}_{nn+1}\widehat{ȷ}_{n+1n}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left(e^{i\theta }\widehat{a}_{n+1\sigma }^{}\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }e^{i\theta }\widehat{a}_{n\sigma }^{}\widehat{a}_{n+1\sigma }\right)`$ (11)
to above equation (7), then we prove that the charge current operator for the Hamiltonian system defined in Eq.(2) can still be re-obtained as $`\widehat{I}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\widehat{H}(\mathrm{\Phi })/\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Simple calcualtion yields the formula of PCs in a Möbius ladder

$$I(\mathrm{\Phi })=e\widehat{𝒥}=I_0\underset{k,\sigma }{}\overline{n}_{k\sigma }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi }{N}\left(k+\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)$$
(12)
where $`I_04\pi /N\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and $`\overline{n}_{k\sigma }(\mathrm{\Phi })\widehat{b}_{k\sigma }^{}\widehat{b}_{k\sigma }`$ stands for the thermodynamic averaged number of electrons in quantum state $`(k,\sigma )`$.

The formula Eq.(12) provide us a base to study the PCs in Möbius ladders. For the sake of clarity, we will in the present paper focus on the systems with fixed number of electrons at absolute zero temperature. In this case, all the $`N_e`$ electrons will fill into single-electron quantum states $`(k,\sigma )`$ according to their eigen-energy values from ground state to higher energy states one by one. It means that $`\overline{n}_{k\sigma }=1`$ for occupied states and otherwise $`\overline{n}_{k\sigma }=0`$.

The conventional way for analyzing the periodic behavior of PCs is to calculate the Fourier harmonics of the data of currents at $`K`$ discrete values of AB flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0/K`$, $`\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},K1`$. Choosing the basis functions as $`\phi _{m,\mathrm{}}=K^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _m\mathrm{}/K)`$ with $`\omega _m2m\pi `$, then we have

$$I_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{K1}{}}F_m\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{}\omega _m/K),$$
(14)
$$F_m=\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{K1}{}}I_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{}\omega _m/K)$$
(15)
for $`m,\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},K1`$, and the spectra theorem is written as $`_{m=0}^{K1}|F_m|^2=_{\mathrm{}=0}^{K1}|I_{\mathrm{}}|^2`$. In fact, the real part of $`F_m`$ keeps to be zero and $`F_{Km}=F_m^{}`$ because $`I(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi })=I(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ for $`0\mathrm{\Phi }<\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Thus Eq.(14) can be re-written as

$$I_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{K}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{K1}{}}S_m\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{}\omega _m/K),$$
(16)
here $`S_m=Im(F_m)`$ and $`Im(\mathrm{})`$ denotes the imaginary part of a complex number. In practical experiments, $`S_m`$ will be detected as the amplitude of signals of harmonics $`\omega _m=2m\pi `$ with period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/m`$. In what follows, we will present only first twenty harmonics.

The plots in Fig.2 are some typical results selected from our numerical simulations on PCs in double-ring systems. We find that the PCs in any single double-ring system with odd number of electrons is a period function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4`$, halving of the period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ as discussed in the paragraph below eq.(6) and shown in Fig.2(a), and that the second harmonic with period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ of even number electrons in single double-ring system doesnot disappear as shown in Fig2.(b); but however we find also that the second harmonic will be strongly suppressed in summation of PCs in two systems with adjacent even numbers of electrons, such as shown Fig.2(c). Note that a double-ring system is equivalent to a 1D ring pierced by a AB flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}2\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we suppose that the parity effect of electron number exists in the PCs of mesoscopic rings. We hope that this observation will shed light on the mechanism of period behaving of PCs.

Some other interesting properties of PCs in canonical ensemble average are shown in Fig.3. It is well-known that the PCs in mesoscopic systems are sample-specific, but simple rules always appear in some kinds of averages. We calculate the PCs and relevant Fourier harmonics varying with the AB flux for different Möbius ladders with different fixed numbers of electrons. The data of single system show that the PCs can be paramagnetic or diamagnetic, the first harmonic can exist or vanish. Following the works of Bouchiat and Montambauxa, we take the arithmetic mean values od PCs on the number of electrons. The averaged PCs and corresponding harmonics manifest some surprising characters. All the odd harmonics disappear, and the even harmonics keeps to be non-negative. In addition, very small probability amplitude of inter-chain hopping, as small as $`t_{}=0.01`$ shown in Fig.3(b), can result in a considerable harmonic of period $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$.

In conclusion we study the problem of PCs in Möbius ladder systems of non-interacting electrons with a tuneable parameter $`t_{}`$. It is proven exactly that the well-known formula for PCs in 1D rings still holds for the complicated new structures. A series of simulation results manifest that the perpendicular hopping elements and the parity of the number of total electrons influence the periodic behaviors of PCs dramatically. As proposed by Mila et al, a Möbius structure with controllable inter-chain hopping could be fabricated in GaAs hetero-structure using a wide quantum wire. Our present study provides a base for further investigations on the disorder effect, temperature effect, and the effect of electron interaction. Then we can expect that these relevant theoretical results are testable in experiment.

This work is supported by National Key Program for Basic Research, 2001-03500, and partly by the Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a series of papers exploring seven lines-of-sight (LOS) in the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM) the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) team (Friedman et al. (2002); Hébrard et al. (2002); Kruk et al. (2002); Lehner et al. (2002); Lemoine et al. (2002); Sonneborn et al. (2002); Wood et al. (2002)) has presented results on the column densities of D $`\mathrm{I}`$ and O $`\mathrm{I}`$ (along with N $`\mathrm{I}`$, which will not be considered in this paper) but, not of H $`\mathrm{I}`$ (due to the absence of Ly$`\alpha `$ within the FUSE spectral range). These data, which have been summarized in Moos et al. (2002), are employed in the analysis presented here. While five of the seven absorbing clouds lie within $`80`$ pc of the Sun (within the Local Bubble), the other two clouds are further away, $`100200`$ pc. Moos et al. (2002) conclude that it is likely the deuterium abundance is represented by a single value for the five sightlines in the “near” LISM: D/H $`=1.52\times 10^5`$. While the uncertainty in this mean is $`\pm 0.08\times 10^5`$, a better measure of the uncertainty might be the weighted standard deviation which is $`\pm 0.18\times 10^5`$ (Moos, Private Communication). It is also claimed that within the Local Bubble the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratio is constant and they suggest that, as a result, the O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities can serve as a proxy for H $`\mathrm{I}`$ in the Local Bubble. The FUSE team, while cautioning that their results are subject to small number statistics, note an increasing dispersion in D $`\mathrm{I}`$/H $`\mathrm{I}`$ with increasing distance from the Sun and suggest that this could be due to real variations among the LISM deuterium abundances. However, there is no claim of evidence for an anti-correlation between D $`\mathrm{I}`$ and O $`\mathrm{I}`$ over the very limited range in metallicity they have explored thus far.

These issues are reconsidered here. Using the FUSE data (specifically, Tables 3 & 4 of Moos et al. 2002), and the same caveats concerning the limited size of their sample, it is shown that their data is not inconsistent with small, anti-correlated variations in D/H and O/H. If so, it becomes problematic to use O $`\mathrm{I}`$ as a proxy for the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities undetermined from the FUSE data. The question of variation or not can only be resolved by more data, especially, to echo the conclusion of Moos et al. (2002), HST measurements of the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities and gas velocity structure. However, if the variations suggested here are supported by further data, they offer the promise of sufficiently large D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ variations within a few kpc of the solar system that further FUSE data should have no trouble digging the signal out of the noise.

In §2 the FUSE data is used to address the question of variablility in D/H, O/H, and D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ in the LISM. Having raised the possibility of variability, the correlations of D/H and D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ with O/H are further explored in §3 where it is suggested that D/H may be anti-correlated with O/H. In §4 two, likely extreme, forms for such variation are considered and compared and the corresponding predicted and FUSE-derived abundances of deuterium and oxygen are compared. In §5 our conclusions and the prospects for future resolution of the issues raised here are discussed.

## 2 Local Variability?

Of the seven LOS explored by the FUSE team, two lack estimates of the uncertainties in the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities and Moos et al. (2002) exclude these from their quantitative analyses (except when considering the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density ratios); the same path is followed here. In Figures 1 – 4 the various abundances or column density ratios are shown versus the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. Also shown are the data from two LOS (towards $`\gamma `$ Cas and $`\delta `$Ori A) taken from the literature (see Table 4 of Moos et al. 2002; Ferlet et al. (1980); Meyer et al. (1998); Meyer (2001); Jenkins et al. (1999)). Those LOS with the largest H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities are also the most distant from the Sun, penetrating the Local Bubble and, generally, it is along these LOS that the dispersions among the abundance data are greatest. Given the small sample size (five LOS), it may be premature to take the presence of any dispersion too seriously. Nonetheless, it could be a harbinger of real variations among the abundances within the LISM. This latter possibility is explored below.

### 2.1 Deuterium

The LISM deuterium abundances are plotted in Figure 1. According to the data in Moos et al. (2002), the weighted mean deuterium abundance is D/H $`=1.52\pm 0.08\times 10^5`$. For this value, the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom) is 1.3, suggesting no contradiction with the hypothesis that the data are drawn from an underlying population with fixed deuterium abundance. Note, also, that three of the five FUSE LOS have deuterium abundances within 1$`\sigma `$ of this mean value, while the remaining two FUSE LOS have D/H only slightly more than 1$`\sigma `$ away (as does $`\gamma `$ Cas). In contrast, D/H for $`\delta `$ Ori A lies below this mean by more than 6$`\sigma `$; unless the uncertaintiess for the column densities along this LOS have been seriously underestimated, or affected by unrecognized systematic errors, this cloud may have a significantly lower deuterium abundance than that in the LISM (Jenkins et al. (1999)). Notice that of the five FUSE LOS, the one towards BD +284211, which has the lowest D/H, also has the smallest errors, thus tending to dominate the determination of the weighted mean abundance. If, instead, an unweighted mean (for all seven of the FUSE LOS) is taken, the mean shifts upward to D/H = $`1.62\times 10^5`$, moving slightly further away from BD +284211, $`\gamma `$ Cas, and $`\delta `$ Ori A, but slightly closer to Feige 110. On the basis of the FUSE deuterium data alone, there is no statistical evidence for any variation in the LISM deuterium abundance. However, as will be seen next when oxygen is considered, there is some evidence that the abundances of D and/or O towards Feige 110 or BD +284211 (or both) may be anomalous. If the latter LOS is excluded from the estimate of the weighted mean deuterium abundance, then for the remaining four FUSE LOS the value increases to D/H = $`1.68\pm 0.11\times 10^5`$. This abundance, shown by the dashed line in Figure 1, provides a very good fit to the data, with a small reduced $`\chi ^2=0.46`$ (3 dof). Notice that three of the five FUSE LOS pass within 1$`\sigma `$ of this value too, but also note that BD +284211 is now nearly 3$`\sigma `$ away.

### 2.2 Oxygen

In Figure 2 are plotted the oxygen abundances as a function of the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities for the seven FUSE LOS (five with error bars) along with $`\gamma `$ Cas and $`\delta `$ Ori A. From the data in Table 3 of Moos et al. (2002) the weighted mean for the five LOS is O/H = $`3.13\pm 0.21\times 10^4`$ (this differs slightly from the value, 3.03, quoted in Moos et al. 2002, likely due to round-off). What is notable in this case is the very large dispersion among the oxygen abundances; the reduced $`\chi ^2`$, for four degrees of freedom, is 4.0. In contrast to the deuterium abundances, now there is less than a 0.1% probability that these oxygen abundance data have been drawn from an underlying population with the weighted mean oxygen abundance. Notice that of the FUSE LOS only Feige 110 is within 1$`\sigma `$ of this abundance, and that BD +284211 is $`2\sigma `$ below the mean. Although the FUSE team identifies Feige 110 as potentially anomalous in D, they find no evidence for any O-variability for this LOS (see Friedman et al. (2002)). In fact, if this LOS is removed and the weighted mean oxygen abundance is calculated for the four remaining LOS, the mean abundance hardly changes at all (from 3.13 to 3.07) while the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ increases to 5.6 (for three degrees of freedom). It would seem that Feige 110 is not the culprit responsible for the dispersion among the oxygen abundances. Indeed, from Figure 2 the smoking gun seems to point to BD +284211 (see, also, Moos et al. (2002)). If this LOS is excluded instead, the mean oxygen abundance increases to O/H = $`3.9\pm 0.3\times 10^4`$ and the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ (for 3 dof) is 0.85. As may be seen from Figure 2, this is a good fit to the limited data set with four of the five FUSE data points along with $`\gamma `$ Cas lying within 1$`\sigma `$ of this value; the two remaining FUSE LOS without error estimates also lie very close to this abundance. For this higher oxygen abundance (the dashed line in Figure 2) only $`\delta `$ Ori A and BD +284211 are “outliers”. Recall that the LOS to $`\delta `$ Ori A also was a candidate for an anomalously low deuterium abundance (see Figure 1), raising the possibility that the “problem” may lie with the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density determination (too high?) and not with either the D $`\mathrm{I}`$ or O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. In contrast, for the $`\gamma `$ Cas LOS, while D/H is somewhat low, O/H is at the upper end of the oxygen abundance range, suggesting a possible anti-correlation between D and O along this LOS. The same anti-correlation is hinted at for the Feige 110 LOS, but for the opposite reason (high-D, somewhat low-O).

### 2.3 The D $`\mathrm{I}`$ And O $`\mathrm{I}`$ Column Densities

As the Galaxy evolves, incorporating interstellar gas into stars and returning stellar processed gas to the ISM, the deuterium abundance decreases (deuterium is destroyed in stars), while the overall metallicity, in particular the oxygen abundance, increases. At some level then, an anticorrelation between D/H and O/H is expected. Given the very local sample of interstellar gas in the FUSE data set, and the correspondingly very small range in observed abundances, any such variations in either D/H or O/H may be hidden by the statistical errors in the data. Furthermore, any systematic errors in the non-FUSE determinations of the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities may either mask – or exaggerate – any real variations. To this end, the FUSE-determined D $`\mathrm{I}`$ and O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities can play a valuable role. The consequence of charge transfer reactions among H, D, and O in the ISM (Field & Steigman 1971) is to ensure that the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratio reflects the gas phase ISM D/O ratio (e.g., the D/O ratio modulo any oxygen which may be trapped in dust). This ratio can serve as the canary in the coal mine, amplifying any existing, small anticorrelation between D and O which might be hidden in the noise of the separate D/H and O/H abundance determinations. To explore this possibility, in Figure 3 are plotted the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density ratios as a function of the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities.

For all seven of the FUSE LOS the weighted mean D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratio is $`0.040\pm 0.002`$; this is shown by the dotted line in Figure 3. However, from Figure 3 it is easy to see, once again, evidence for an increasing dispersion (now among the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratios) associated with the most distant LOS. Furthermore, only two of the seven ratios (two of the five Local Bubble ratios) are within 1$`\sigma `$ of this mean and our two suspect absorbing clouds, those along the LOS to BD +284211 and Feige 110, are between 2$`\sigma `$ and 3$`\sigma `$ away (the non-FUSE clouds towards $`\gamma `$ Cas and $`\delta `$ Ori A are some 3 – 5 $`\sigma `$ away). The reduced $`\chi ^2=3.0`$ (for 6 dof) provides no support for the hypothesis that these data are drawn from an underlying distribution with a constant D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratio. It may be worth noting that removing Feige 110 from the sample only slightly reduces the mean ratio, from 0.040 to 0.039, while the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is only slightly reduced from 3.0 (for 6 dof) to 2.6 (for 5 dof). If, instead, BD +284211 is removed, the mean is virtually unchanged while there is an improvement in the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ to 2.0; for 5 dof this still does not provide support for the hypothesis of a constant D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratio. Either the data (FUSE and non-FUSE) is contaminated by larger than estimated statistical errors, or by unidentified systematic uncertainties (or both) or, the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratios are suggesting that there may be real abundance variations in D/H and/or O/H between and among the nearby and the more distant absorbing clouds. This latter possibility is explored next.

If, indeed, at least some of the dispersion in the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratios uncovered above are due to real variations in the deuterium and/or oxygen abundances, it might be expected that the variations in these two abundances should be anticorrelated. However, while only a small amount of gas need be cycled through stars to produce a noticeable change in metallicity of the ISM, any observable change in the deuterium abundance requires that a significant, and significantly different fraction of the gas in some clouds has been processed through stars. As a result, it may well be that observable differences exist among oxygen abundances along different LOS in the LISM, while the changes in deuterium abundances are too small to be detected. Indeed, this is suggested by the FUSE results (see §2.1 and §2.2) where a constant D/H is consistent with the data while a constant O/H is disfavored. If, however, the deuterium and oxygen abundances are both varying, and they are anti-correlated, then as an example of an extremely strong anti-correlation, their product might be nearly constant. In Figure 4 the product of the deuterium and oxygen abundances is shown (versus the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities). Notice that, with the exception of BD +284211 whose product of abundances is low, all the remaining FUSE LOS are in a rather narrow range of each other. It has already been noted that both the deuterium and the oxygen abundances for BD +284211 are low, suggesting that the culprit might be the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density determination along this LOS. If so, this would be exacerbated in the product of abundances. If BD +284211 is excluded, the weighted mean for the product of $`y_\mathrm{D}10^5`$(D/H) and $`y_\mathrm{O}10^4`$(O/H) is $`6.5\pm 0.7`$; this is shown by the dashed line in Figure 4. The remaining four FUSE LOS are all within 1$`\sigma `$ of this value (and the two remaining FUSE LOS are close by) and the reduced $`\chi ^2=0.6`$ (for 3 dof). Thus, although a constant D/H is entirely consistent with the FUSE data (see §2.1), there is some evidence in the same data for variations in O/H (see §2.2) which may be anticorrelated with small variations in D/H. Notice that for $`\gamma `$ Cas, which has a deuterium abundance below the mean (see Figure 1) and an oxygen abundance at the high end of the range (see Figure 2), the product of the two abundances is completely consistent with the mean value. The same is true for Feige 110 which, in contrast, has slightly high-D and slightly low-O. Finally, note that, like BD +284211, $`\delta `$ Ori A is low both in D/H and O/H and, as a consequence, lies far from the mean of the product of deuterium and oxygen abundances.

## 3 Correlations With Oxygen?

If, as suggested above, the FUSE data hints at local abundance variations which may be anticorrelated between deuterium and oxygen, these variations should emerge when D/H, D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$, or $`y_\mathrm{D}\times y_\mathrm{O}`$ are compared with O/H (unless, of course, statistical or systematic errors are responsible for the suggested variations). To this end, in Figures 5 & 6 are shown D/H versus O/H and D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ versus O/H respectively. In these figures, for the purpose of comparison, the solar system deuterium and oxygen abundances (Geiss & Gloeckler 1998, Gloeckler & Geiss 2000; Allende-Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund 2001) are also included. Notice that considering the relatively large errors for the solar system (pre-solar nebula) deuterium abundance (Geiss & Gloeckler  & Gloeckler & Geiss (2000)), along with the lower, revised solar oxygen abundance of Allende-Prieto, Lambert, & Asplund (2001), the solar system abundances are not at all inconsistent with those found in the 4.6 Gyr younger gas in the LISM. Indeed, it should be kept in mind that the gas phase oxygen abundances may only be lower limits to the true ISM oxygen abundance since some oxygen may be tied up in dust grains. If, for example, the suggestion of Esteban et al. (2002; see also, Esteban et al. 1998) of an 0.08 dex correction for dust were adopted, the mean LISM oxygen abundance would increase from the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ value of $`3.9\times 10^4`$ found here, to $`4.7\times 10^4`$, in excellent agreement with the solar value. At the same time, it should be noted that the photospheric value chosen here (Allende-Prieto, Lambert & Asplund (2001); see also Holweger (2001)) may only be a lower bound to the pre-solar nebula abundance since over the 4.6 Gyr life of the Sun, some oxygen may have settled out of the photosphere.

Figure 5 provides a reflection of the conclusions reached in §2 that while the FUSE data may be consistent with a constant deuterium abundance, they are also not inconsistent with a small variation in deuterium abundances which is anticorrelated with a similarly small variation in oxygen abundances. This latter option receives further support in Figure 6 where it is clear that while a constant D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ratio is incapable of accounting for the bulk of the data, the ratios do support a variation in oxygen abundance which may either be uncorrelated with any variation in D/H (dotted curve) or anticorrelated with a deuterium abundance variation (dashed curve).

## 4 Discussion

Since the FUSE spectral range does not include H $`\mathrm{I}`$ (or D $`\mathrm{I}`$) Ly$`\alpha `$, and the higher lines of the Lyman series lie on the flat part of the curve of growth for the LOS in the LISM, the FUSE team has relied on independent determinations of the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. Because of this limitation, they suggest that it might, instead, be possible to use the O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities as surrogates for the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. For example, since

$$z10^2(\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{O})=10y_\mathrm{D}/y_\mathrm{O},$$
(1)
then provided that the deuterium abundance is constant, $`y_\mathrm{D}=<y_\mathrm{D}>=1.7\pm 0.1`$,

$$y_\mathrm{O}=10<y_\mathrm{D}>/z=\frac{17\pm 1}{z},$$
(2)
so that a measurement of D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ ($`z`$) leads directly to a predicted oxygen abundance. This relation is shown by the dotted curve in Figure 6. This is not at all inconsistent with the FUSE data. In this case a measurement of $`z`$ leads to a predicted oxygen abundance (eq. 2) which may be compared to those derived from the FUSE (and other) observations. In Figure 7 is shown the relation between the currently available observed and predicted oxygen abundances.

But, a constant deuterium abundance is not required by the data. Indeed, it has been seen that the data are also consistent with small variations in, along with a rather strong anticorrelation between, deuterium and oxygen ($`y_\mathrm{D}1/y_\mathrm{O}`$). In this case,

$$z=\frac{10<y_\mathrm{D}\times y_\mathrm{O}>}{y_\mathrm{O}^2}=\frac{65\pm 7}{y_\mathrm{O}^2},$$
(3)
so that

$$y_\mathrm{O}=(\frac{65\pm 7}{z})^{1/2}.$$
(4)
In this latter case, deuterium will vary along with oxygen so that

$$y_\mathrm{D}=(0.1<y_\mathrm{D}\times y_\mathrm{O}>z)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
On the assumption that both D and O are varying locally, equations 2 & 3 may be used, along with the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density ratios $`z`$, to predict the oxygen and deuterium abundances ($`y_\mathrm{O}`$ and $`y_\mathrm{D}`$). In Figures 8 & 9 these predictions are compared with the current FUSE (and other) data. Now, neither Feige 110 nor $`\gamma `$ Cas is anomalous and even the solar system values are close to those predicted. The only outliers from these $`y_\mathrm{O}`$ vs. $`z`$ and $`y_\mathrm{D}`$ vs. $`z`$ relations are BD +284211 and $`\delta `$ Ori A. A possible source of their apparently anomalous abundances is discussed below.

On the basis of the current, very limited FUSE data set it is not possible to decide between the two options explored here (D varying or constant). To resolve this conundrum will require more data with well-determined H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. The good news though, is that if indeed there are real variations in the currently very limited, very local FUSE data sample (as, perhaps, bounded by the dotted and dashed curves in Figure 6), future data from within a few kpc of the Sun should reveal statistically significant differences in the D $`\mathrm{I}`$/O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density ratios.

### 4.1 BD +284211 and $`\delta `$ Ori A

The excess dispersion in the FUSE-determined LISM abundances may be due to one or more of several possible sources. The sample is small and the statistical errors may have been underestimated. For some column densities along some LOS there may be unidentified systematic errors. Or, there may be real variations in the oxygen and deuterium abundances, even for this very local sample. The latter possibility has been explored here and it has been noted that the current data cannot exclude this option. The hypothesis of a – surprisingly strong – anticorrelation between D and O ($`y_\mathrm{D}1/y_\mathrm{O}`$; see Figure 4) is not at all inconsistent with the FUSE data. The only outliers to this anticorrelation are BD +284211 and $`\delta `$ Ori A (see Figures 4 – 6). Along both these LOS both the deuterium and oxygen abundances are low (see also Figures 7 – 9). Moos et al. (2002) note that BD +284211 (as well as Feige 110) has a complex photospheric spectrum (Sonneborn et al. (2002)) and that the placement of the continuum, crucial for accurate column density determinations, “was hindered by the complexity of the metal lines and the poorly known atomic data for some of the species arising in the photospheres of these stars”. It is the case that for both BD +284211 and $`\delta `$ Ori A the estimated abundance errors are dominated by the errors in the D $`\mathrm{I}`$ and O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. As noted by the referee (Private Communication) in $`\delta `$ Ori A, O $`\mathrm{I}`$ is determined from a single very weak line, while the component structure of the neutral gas toward BD +284211 is unknown and could result in a “low” N(O $`\mathrm{I}`$) or N(D $`\mathrm{I}`$) if the b-values vary significantly between components (FUSE lacks the spectral resolution to define this velocity structure). If, as suggested here BD +284211 and $`\delta `$ Ori A are anomalous, it should be noted that for the former the deuterium and oxygen abundances can be reconciled with the FUSE-determined means by increasing N(D $`\mathrm{I}`$) by 1.4$`\sigma `$ and N(O $`\mathrm{I}`$) by 2.4$`\sigma `$. For $`\delta `$ Ori A, while the O-abundance is less than 1$`\sigma `$ from the mean, the D-abundance differs from the mean by more than 6$`\sigma `$. Especially in this latter case it is unlikely that such a difference, if not reflecting D-destruction, can be blamed on a statistical fluctuation.

Perhaps, however, the problem is not with either the D $`\mathrm{I}`$ or O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities, but with the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities along these LOS. For BD +284211, a decrease of only $`0.13`$ dex would be sufficient to bring the abundances along this LOS into agreement (within the remaining statistical uncertainties) with our suggested anticorrelation: $`y_\mathrm{D}\times y_\mathrm{O}=6.5\pm 0.7`$. While the same may be true for $`\delta `$ Ori A, a somewhat larger decrease in N(H $`\mathrm{I}`$), $`0.2`$ dex, would be required. It must be noted, however, that such large shifts seem unlikely given the quality of the data and the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities which are so large that the broad damping wings of Ly-$`\alpha `$ alpha should provide a very good constraint on N(HI). It should be noted that such shifts would be more than six times the quoted statistical errors in the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities. Such large changes would need to result from systematic errors, although the authors (Jenkins et al. (1999), Sonneborn et al. (2002)) have been very careful in their analyses.

To shed new light on these issues it could be of value to reobserve these two LOS (and others) with a view to reexamining the H $`\mathrm{I}`$, O $`\mathrm{I}`$, and D $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density determinations in order to disentangle true abundance variations from possible systematic uncertainties.

## 5 Conclusions

The FUSE data have been used to revisit the question of possible abundance variations in the LISM. The sample is painfully limited (seven LOS; only five with H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density determinations with quoted uncertainties) but, within the statistical errors, the ananlysis presented here provides a hint of some variations in the local oxygen abundance (by the excess dispersion around the mean abundance) which may be anticorrelated with some variations in the LISM deuterium abundance. This is in contrast to the conclusions of Moos et al. (2002). Among the seven FUSE LOS and the two additional LOS considered by Moos et al. (2002), two outliers are identified: BD +284211 and $`\delta `$ Ori A. The former, from the FUSE data set, has the smallest statistical errors for the D- and O-abundances, and thus dominates the FUSE mean abundance determinations (largely due to the very small error adopted for the H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density determination). When this LOS is excluded from the sample, the mean D- and O-abundances increase slightly: $`<y_\mathrm{D}>=1.7\pm 0.1`$, $`<y_\mathrm{O}>=3.9\pm 0.3`$. The remaining FUSE data, while not inconsistent with a constant D-abundance in the LISM, still have an unexpectedly large dispersion around the mean O-abundance, suggesting that there may be real oxygen abundance variations along nearby LOS. If, indeed, there are variations in O/H in the LISM, they might be anti-correlated with variations in D/H since as gas is cycled through stars deuterium is destroyed. The FUSE data set is, indeed, not inconsistent with a constant product of deuterium and oxygen abundances. If this anticorrelation is confirmed by further data, there is both good news and bad news. The bad news is that as FUSE expands its horizon beyond the LISM, it is unlikely that the ratio of D $`\mathrm{I}`$ to O $`\mathrm{I}`$ column densities ($`z10^2`$D/O) can serve as a surrogate for independent H $`\mathrm{I}`$ column density measurements in the determination of D- and O-abundances. The good news is that even within a few kpc of the Sun, based on estimates of the oxygen and deuterium abundance gradients in the Galaxy (Martins & Viegas (2000), Chiappini & Matteucci (2000)) $`y_\mathrm{O}`$ and $`y_\mathrm{D}`$ will vary sufficiently so that the amplification of their ratio, $`z`$, will result in $`z`$-variations (e.g., by roughly a factor two over $`2`$ kpc) which will be more easily seen above the background of the statistical uncertainties.

It should be noted that even if the rather strong anticorrelation, consistent with the current FUSE data set, is confirmed locally, such a strong anticorrelation is unlikely to extend to much lower oxygen abundances. Indeed, as pristine gas from the early universe begins to be processed through stars, the heavy element abundances, oxygen in this case, will quickly increase from their zero primordial values before very much gas has been cycled through stars, destroying deuterium. As a result, for a long time (as measured by metallicity) the deuterium abundance will not deviate noticeably from its relic value, while the oxygen abundance will increase by orders of magnitude (the deuterium “plateau”). For example, if within the Galaxy a factor two lower oxygen abundance (than in the LISM) were accompanied by a factor two higher deuterium abundance, the result would be a D-abundance indistinguishable from the current estimates of the relic primordial D-abundance inferred from observations of gas in high redshift, low metallicity QSO Absorption Line Systems (Burles & Tytler 1998a Burles & Tytler 1998b ; O’Meara et al. (2001)Pettini & Bowen (2001)D’Odorico, Dessauges-Zavadsky & Molaro (2001)Levshakov et al. (2002)). Indeed, the mean LISM D-abundance proposed here, $`y_\mathrm{D}=1.7\pm 0.1`$, is already indistinguishable from that suggested by Pettini & Bowen (2001; PB) for a high redshift (z $`2`$), low metallicity (\[Si/H\] $`\stackrel{<}{}2`$) QSOALS: $`y_\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{PB})=1.65\pm 0.35`$. The deuterium abundances derived from observations of the other QSOALS range from $`y_\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{QSOALS})2.5`$ to 4.0. Therefore, it might be anticipated that future FUSE data along LOS within a few kpc of the Sun might be capable of mapping the evolution of deuterium back to the primordial deuterium plateau, providing a valuable complement to the very difficult searches for primordial-D in the QSOALS.

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge helpful and informative correspondence with several members of the FUSE team, in particular Ed Jenkins, Warren Moos, Ken Sembach and George Sonneborn. I also thank the referee for several helpful suggestions which have been incorporated in the manuscript. This research is supported at The Ohio State University by DOE grant DE-AC02-76ER-01545. Some of this work was done while visiting IAGUSP, Brasil and I thank them for their hospitality.


text:
# Realization of a resonant non-linear phase flip in cavity quantum electrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

One of the fundamental challenges in realizing optical quantum computation and similar applications of quantum information encoded in photonic qubits is the relative weakness of nonlinear interactions that could couple individual photons. Among the many proposals made to overcome this limitation, some of the most impressive results have been obtained in cavity quantum electrodynamics . In particular, the experimental observation of a nonlinear phase shift of 10 degrees reported by Turchette et al. has attracted a lot of attention . The mechanism by which this phase shift is obtained is the saturation of a single two level atom confined in a single mode cavity. Therefore, the phase shift depends on a non-vanishing excitation of the atom and the results obtained for the magnitude of the phase shift should increase as the pump light approaches resonance. The main limitation of this resonant improvement of the nonlinear phase shift is set by the sensitivity of the cavity transmission and the transversal losses to the atomic resonance. We therefore propose a reflection geometry with negligible transversal losses as an optimized device for obtaining a nonlinear phase shift sensitive to individual photons . With such a device, it should be possible to achieve nonlinear phase shifts of 180 degrees.

## 2 Optical confinement and the purpose of a bad cavity

The source of the strong nonlinearity observed in cavity quantum electrodynamics is the two level atom that changes its optical properties drastically in its transition from ground state to excited state. In principle, this nonlinear change of the optical response is found in any individual two level system. However, it is difficult to isolate a single two level atom in such a way that the optical input and output fields can be focussed efficiently on this individual atomic system. For this purpose, it is convenient to use a resonant cavity with a length equal to half a wavelength. In such a cavity, it is possible to suppress the coupling of the atom with any mode other than the single resonant cavity mode. As a result, all of the light entering the cavity will interact with the atom, and most of the light radiated by the atom will be emitted through the cavity mode. Effectively, it is the purpose of the cavity to focus all the input light on the atom and to guide all the output light to the detectors. The longitudinal confinement given by the cavity lifetime is not relevant for this purpose. It is therefore possible to achieve very good results in the bad cavity regime, where the cavity decay rate $`\kappa `$ is much faster than the coupling rate $`g`$ of the field-atom interaction.

Figure 1 illustrates a one sided cavity setup with negligible transversal losses ($`\gamma \kappa ,g`$).

In this setup, the two level atom inside the cavity only interacts with the one dimensional fields on the left side of the cavity. These fields, represented by the input $`b_{\text{ in}}`$ and the output $`b_{\text{out}}`$, have a transversal profile defined by the cavity mode. If the input light and the detectors match this mode profile, maximal interaction with the two level atom is obtained.

The conventional cavity parameters characterizing the field-atom interaction are the cavity damping rate $`\kappa `$, the atom-field coupling rate $`g`$, and the loss rate $`\gamma `$ describing the spontaneous emission into non-cavity modes. However, in the bad cavity regime, the field dynamics can be adiabatically eliminated. The cavity damping rate and the atom-field coupling then define the rate of emission through the cavity as $`2g^2/\kappa `$. A bad cavity therefore divides the total spontaneous emission of the atom into two parts, one guided by the cavity into a well focussed beam, the other spread out over all directions in three dimensional space.

This situation is also reflected by the equations of motion for the atomic system obtained from the standard equations of cavity quantum electrodynamics by adiabatic elimination of the cavity field. Due to the adiabatic elimination, these equations are now equivalent to the Bloch equations of a single two level atom,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\widehat{\sigma }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\sigma }_{}+2\sqrt{2\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}b_{\text{in}}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_z`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\widehat{\sigma }_z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ (1)
$`\sqrt{2\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(b_{\text{in}}^{}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_{}+b_{\text{in}}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{}\right).`$
In this formulation, the atom dynamics itself depends only on the dipole relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{g^2}{\kappa }+\frac{\gamma }{2}.$$
(2)
Since this dipole relaxation rate is entirely due to spontaneous emission, the total spontaneous emission rate is equal to $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the two contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be identified with spontaneous emission through the cavity ($`g^2/\kappa `$) and with emission into non-cavity modes ($`\gamma /2`$), respectively. The only other coefficient describing the cavity geometry is the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$ that describes the fraction of the total spontaneous emission emitted through the cavity, such that the coupling between the atom and the cavity input field $`b_{\text{in}}`$ is given by

$$\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{g^2}{\kappa }.$$
(3)
Note that the input field $`b_{\text{ in}}`$ is normalized in such a way that $`|b_{\text{ in}}|^2`$ is equal to the photon current in the coherent input beam.

With the coefficients given above, it is also possible to determine the output field. According to input-output theory , it is given by a sum representing interference between the reflected light and the dipole emission,

$$b_{\text{out}}(t)=b_{\text{in}}(t)+\sqrt{2\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}\widehat{\sigma }_{}.$$
(4)
Again, the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$ modifies the coupling between the atom and the field. It is therefore interesting to investigate how a variation of $`\beta `$ affects the nonlinear response of the atom.

## 3 Nonlinear response and phase shift optimization

For a continuous input field of frequency $`\omega `$ and amplitude $`b_{\text{ in}}`$, the steady state solution of equation (2) is given by

$`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2}{2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2+4\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }|b_{\text{in}}|^2)}}`$
$`\widehat{\sigma }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }i\omega )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2+4\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }|b_{\text{in}}|^2}}b_{\text{in}}.`$ (5)
The output field reflected from the cavity is then obtained from equation (4). It reads

$`b_{\text{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }i\omega )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2+4\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }|b_{\text{in}}|^2}}\right)b_{\text{in}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{((12\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }+i\omega )(\mathrm{\Gamma }i\omega )+4\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }|b_{\text{in}}|^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2+4\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }|b_{\text{in}}|^2}}b_{\text{in}}.`$
This nonlinear response function characterizes the transition from weak fields to strong fields. Close to resonance, these regimes can be defined with respect to the dipole relaxation rate as $`|b_{\text{in}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/\beta `$ and $`|b_{\text{in}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/\beta `$, respectively. In other words, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\beta `$ defines the intensity of the input light at which the nonlinear effect becomes significant.

In the limit of high intensity input fields, $`|b_{\text{in}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/\beta `$, the atom is completely saturated ($`\widehat{\sigma }_z=0`$), and the response is that of 100% reflection at an empty cavity,

$$b_{\text{out}}b_{\text{in}}.$$
(7)
The nonlinear phase shift obtained by this saturation effect is therefore equal to the phase shift caused by the single atom in the linear limit of weak fields, $`|b_{\text{in}}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/\beta `$). In this case, the response of the atomic system is given by

$$b_{\text{out}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta )+i\omega }{\mathrm{\Gamma }+i\omega }b_{\text{in}}.$$
(8)
The phase shift caused by this linear limit of the response function can then be defined by

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi |`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arccos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta )}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(12\beta )^2+\omega ^2}}}\right)`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{arccos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2}}}\right).`$
As noted above, this phase shift then describes the total nonlinear phase shift that can be obtained by varying the input intensity.

Figure 2 shows the spectra of nonlinear phase shifts obtained for various spontaneous emission factors $`\beta `$. Note that the maximal phase shifts obtained off resonance are significantly smaller than 180 degrees. Specifically, the maximal phase shift at $`\beta =0.2`$ is about 14.5 degrees at $`\omega =0.78\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the maximal phase shift at $`\beta =0.4`$ is about 42 degrees at $`\omega =0.45\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For both $`\beta =0.6`$ and $`\beta =0.8`$, the phase shift reaches its maximum value of 180 degrees at $`\omega =0`$. The increase from $`\beta =0.6`$ to $`\beta =0.8`$ only increases the off-resonant phase shifts.

## 4 Amplitude nonlinearity and switching efficiency

The nonlinear change from the weak field response described by equation (8) to the strong field response given by equation (7) also includes an increase of the reflected amplitude. For weak fields, only a fraction $`\eta `$ of the input intensity is reflected. This fraction is given by

$$\eta =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(12\beta )^2+\omega ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2}.$$
(10)
For strong fields, all of the input light is reflected. The amplitude nonlinearity is therefore characterized by a change of reflectivity from $`\eta `$ to one. In order to realize a loss free phase nonlinearity, it is desireable to improve the efficiency $`\eta `$ to be close to one. This can be achieved by varying the frequency or by varying the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$. However, the previous discussion has shown that high phase shifts can only be achieved close to resonance at high $`\beta `$. The only way to improve efficiency in this regime is to improve the value of $`\beta `$ by avoiding spontaneous emission into non-cavity modes.

At resonance, the efficiency is given by $`\eta =(12\beta )^2`$. For the values of $`\beta `$ shown in figure 2, the efficiencies at resonance are therefore equal to $`0.04`$ for $`\beta =0.6`$, and equal to $`0.36`$ for $`\beta =0.8`$. The suppression of spontaneous emission to non-cavity modes is therefore important for the realization of a maximally sensitive optical phase switch.

## 5 Conclusions

In order to realize a nonlinear phase shift of 180 degrees using the optical properties of a single atom in a cavity, it is necessary to reduce the fraction of spontaneous emission emitted into non-cavity modes below $`1\beta =0.5`$. It is then possible to obtain the desired phase shift at resonance with the atom. However, losses make a further improvement towards $`\beta =1`$ desireable. In principle, a completely loss free nonlinear phase flip of 180 degrees can be achieved if all the light emitted from the atom is confined by the cavity at $`\beta =1`$ .

## Acknowledgements

Part of this work was supported by the program ”Research and Development on Quantum Communication Technology” of the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications of Japan.


text:
# Pseudo-unitary symmetry and the Gaussian pseudo-unitary ensemble of random matrices

## Abstract

Employing the currently discussed notion of pseudo-hermiticity, we define a pseudo-unitary group. Further, we develop a random matrix theory which is invariant under such a group and call this ensemble of pseudo-Hermitian random matrices as the pseudo-unitary ensemble. We obtain exact results for the nearest-neighbour level spacing distribution for (2 $`\times `$ 2)-matrices which has a novel form, $`s\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{s}`$ near zero spacing. This shows a level repulsion in marked distinction with an algebraic form $`s^\beta `$ in the Wigner surmise. We believe that this paves way for a description of varied phenomena in two-dimensional statistical mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, and so on.

PACS Nos : 05.45.+b, 03.65.Ge

Postulates of quantum theory require the observables to be represented by Hermitian operators as only real eigenvalues correspond to measurements. However, it has recently been emphasized that there are certain Hamiltonians describing the quantum systems which possess real eigenvalues even though they are not Hermitian. Many of these systems are invariant under space-time reflection, i.e. invaiant under a joint action of parity ($`𝒫`$) and time-reversal ($`𝒯`$) . In this context, the concept of pseudo-hermiticity was introduced  where it was shown that $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetry is a special case of pseudo-hermiticity. Pseudo-hermiticity of an operator or a matrix O is simply defined through the condition : O=$`𝜼`$O$`\eta ^1`$ with $`𝜼`$ a metric and  representing the usual adjoint or conjugate-transpose. Remarkably, it was subsequently shown that non-$`𝒫𝒯`$ invariant systems that possess real eigenvalues are also pseudo-Hermitian . Physical situations of great interest belong to the above discussion. This includes two-dimensional statistical mechanics where parity and time-reversal are broken (preserving $`𝒫𝒯`$) , quantum chromodynamics where chiral ensembles are used to describe the statistical properties of lattice Dirac operator , spin-rotation coupling leading to an anomalous g-value for muon , and related fields. In this Letter, we present a random matrix theory which describes spectral fluctuations in systems which are pseudo-Hermitian and pseudo-unitarily invariant. The two aspects which are particularly notable are the simplicity of this novel description and the fact that this theory is natural when parity or (and) time-reversal is (are) violated.

The problem of two-dimensional statistical mechanics is obviously connected with anyon physics and hence to the behavior of an electron in an Aharonov-Bohm medium , i.e. a medium filled with non-quantized magnetic fluxes, reminiscent of the theory of fractional quantum Hall effect . Important to note here is also another motivation which stems from a speculation due to Nambu that this might serve as a model for theoretical ideas like the quark confinement in a medium of monopoles . In this context, it is known that the spectral fluctuations of an Aharonov-Bohm billiard exhibits an interpolating behavior with respect to the strength of the flux line . These billiards are experimentally realized in terms of quantum dots in the presence of flux lines. It is of great interest to find an appropriate random matrix description for such $`𝒫𝒯`$-invariant systems. Pseudo-hermiticity appears in several contexts. It is instructive to note that in the mean-field, RPA description of nuclei , the stability matrix leading to an eigenvalue problem can be checked to be pseudo-unitary. In the context of regularization of quantum field theories, pseudo-hermiticity and the associated improper metric was used by Dirac , Pauli , and particularly by Gupta and Bleuler , and others . Let us first establish the pseudo-unitary symmetry.

Consider vectors x and y residing in a vector space $`𝒱`$ and a fixed metric $`𝜼`$. In this vector space, we define a pseudo-inner product ($`𝜼`$-norm), which can be written in the usual quantum mechanical notation as $`\text{x}|𝜼\text{y}`$. We shall consider symmetry transformations which preserve the $`𝜼`$-norm between the vectors. We consider the Cayley form, D = $`e^{i\text{G}}`$ as a symmetry transformation acting on x, y where G is pseudo-Hermitian in accordance with $`𝜼`$G$`\eta ^1`$ = G. Noting an interesting feature of D :

$`\text{D}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\text{G}^{}}=e^{i𝜼\text{G}𝜼^1}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`𝜼e^{i\text{G}}𝜼^1=𝜼\text{D}^1𝜼^1,`$
let us call D as pseudo-unitary with respect to $`𝜼`$. $`𝜼`$ equal to unity makes D unitary trivially. To establish that D is indeed a symmetry transformation, we need to show that the transformation preserves the $`𝜼`$-norm and a consistently-defined matrix element.

Let us assume that x (y) $``$ x (y) = Dx (Dy). Then, the pseudo-unitary symmetry is defined by preserving the pseudo-norm :

$$\text{x}\text{}|𝜼\text{y}\text{}=\text{D}\text{x}|𝜼\text{D}\text{y}=\text{x}|𝜼\text{y}.$$
(2)
In proving (2), use $`e^{iG^{}}𝜼e^{iG}`$ = $`e^{iG^{}}𝜼e^{iG}𝜼^1𝜼=e^{iG^{}}e^{iG^{}}𝜼`$ = $`𝜼`$. Under the same pseudo-unitary transformation, the matrix element of an arbitrary operator, A, transforms as

$$\text{x}\text{}|𝜼\text{A}\text{}|\text{y}\text{}=\text{x}|𝜼\text{A}|\text{y}$$
(3)
if D A D-1 = A.

Let us now prove that pseudo-unitary matrices form a group under matrix multiplication. For closure, let D1 and D2 be two pseudo-unitary matrices. D1D2 is pseudo-unitary because $`𝜼^1`$(D1D2)$`𝜼`$ = $`𝜼^1`$D$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ $`𝜼𝜼^1`$D$`{}_{1}{}^{}\eta `$ = (D1D2)-1. It easily follows that D-1 is pseudo-unitary with respect to $`𝜼`$ if D is pseudo-unitary : $`𝜼^1(e^{i\text{G}})^{}𝜼`$ = $`e^{i𝜼^1\text{G}^{}𝜼}`$ = $`e^{i\text{G}}`$. The identity matrix acts as the unit element of the symmetry transformation. Finally, since the associativity is guaranteed, the N $`\times `$ N pseudo-unitary matrices form a pseudo-unitary group of order N, $`PU(N)`$.

In the following, to keep the proceedings simple and explicit, we consider Hamiltonians in their matrix representations. Also, in the spirit of the original work of Wigner , we consider (2 $`\times `$ 2) matrices as they bring out most of the essence. In this context, there i a recent generalization of Wigner surmise for 2 $`\times `$ 2 matrices . Thus, we concentrate on $`PU(2)`$ and consider the following pseudo-Hermitian matrix,

$`\text{H}=\{\text{H}_{ij}\}`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& ib\\ ic& a\end{array}\right],`$ (6)
$`a,b,c`$ being real. Consequently, $`e^{i\text{H}}`$ will be a pseudo-unitary matrix. For the above matrices, a metric is

$`𝜹`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right].`$ (9)
This metric may be interpreted as the parity operator $`𝒫`$, and the complex conjugation, $`𝒦_0`$ as time-reversal operator $`𝒯`$. With these operations, it may be verified that H is $`𝒫𝒯`$-invariant in addition to being $`𝒫`$-pseudo-Hermitian. Besides these commuting $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒯`$ operators, if we choose $`𝒯`$ as the Pauli matrix times the complex conjugation, $`\sigma _x𝒦_0`$, they do not commute, however preserving other conclusions.

This group admits three generators and an identity, viz.,

$`𝝆_1`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ i& 1\end{array}\right],𝝆_2`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right],`$ (14)
$`𝝆_3`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right],𝐈`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (19)
Note that H = $`a𝐈+b𝝆_1`$ \+ $`c𝝆_2`$ \- $`(b+c)𝝆_3`$. It is interesting to see that $`𝝆_1`$ and $`𝝆_2`$ are pseudo-hermitian and pseudo-unitary, possessing eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. It may be recalled that the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ are Hermitian and unitary. Further, the generators satisfy the following important properties,

$`𝝆_1^2=𝝆_2^2=𝝆_3^2=𝐈,`$
$`[𝝆_i,𝝆_j]={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}C_{ij}^k𝝆_k,`$ (20)
with $`C_{12}^1=C_{12}^2=C_{23}^2=C_{23}^3=C_{31}^1=C_{31}^3=2`$ and $`C_{12}^3=5`$. All the structure constants can be found with the help of commutation relations and symmetry properties, and they turn out to be $`\pm 5`$, $`\pm 2`$, or 0. Interestingly, the following relations between the structure constants hold :

$`C_{kl}^j=C_{lk}^j`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[C_{kl}^mC_{jm}^s+C_{lj}^mC_{km}^s+C_{jk}^mC_{lm}^s\right]=0,`$ (21)
thus making it a Lie group and defining a Lie algebra .

We now consider a Hamiltonian H which is diagonalizable by D, i.e.,

$$\text{H}=\text{D}.\left[\begin{array}{cc}E_+& 0\\ 0& E_{}\end{array}\right].\text{D}^1.$$
(22)
The eigenvalues of H are $`a\pm \sqrt{bc}`$ ($`bc0`$). The corresponding matrix, D,

D $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& i/r\\ ir& 1\end{array}\right],`$ (25)
is pseudo-unitary under the metric,

$`𝜼`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right].`$ (28)
The eigenvalues are

$$E_\pm =a\pm \left[\frac{c}{2r}+\frac{br}{2}\right]$$
(29)
where $`r=\sqrt{c/b}`$ ($`0r\mathrm{}`$).

Consider that the matrix H is drawn from an ensemble of random matrices with a Gaussian distribution given by

$$P(\text{H})=𝒩e^{\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}tr\text{H}^{}\text{H}}.$$
(30)
Accordingly, the joint probability distribution of $`a,b,c`$ is

$$P(a,b,c)=\frac{1}{2(\pi \sigma ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}\left[2a^2+b^2+c^2\right]}.$$
(31)
From (4) and (9), we have the following relations :

$$a=\frac{E_++E_{}}{2},b=\frac{E_+E_{}}{2r},c=\frac{r(E_+E_{})}{2}.$$
(32)
The Jacobian, $`J`$ connecting $`(a,b,c)`$ and $`(E_+,E_{},r)`$ is $`\frac{|E_+E_{}|}{2r}`$. With these, the joint probability distribution function (j.p.d.f.) of eigenvalues is

$$P(E_+,E_{})=\frac{|E_+E_{}|}{2(\pi \sigma ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}K_0\left(\frac{(E_+E_{})^2}{4\sigma ^2}\right)e^{\frac{(E_++E_{})^2}{4\sigma ^2}}.$$
(33)
Following the Dyson Coulomb gas analogy, this j.p.d.f. can be written as an equilibrium distribution of two interacting particles with a partition function $`P(E_+,E_{})𝒵(x_1,x_2)=e^{\beta (x_1,x_2)}`$. It is interesting to note that the $``$ has a potential term involving the logarithm of the modified Bessel function along with the familiar harmonic confinement and the two-dimensional Coulomb potential. $`4\sigma ^2`$ plays the role of inverse scaled temperature.

Integrating with respect to $`E_{}`$ gives the average density, shown in Fig. 1. This is not amenable to an analytically closed form.

Perhaps the most well-studied characterizer is the nearest-neighbour level spacing distribution, $`P(S)`$. This gives the frequency with which a certain spacing between adjacent levels occurs. For the Wigner-Dyson ensembles, $`P(S)S^{\beta _0}e^{\gamma S^2}`$ where $`\beta _0`$ is 1, 2, and 4 for the orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic ensembles. A wide variety of systems display universal properties possessed by random matrix ensembles as can be seen in . However, there are systems that display intermediate statistics . These systems range from examples of billiards in polygonal enclosures, three-dimensional Anderson model at the metal-insulator transition point, and so on. On the other hand, there have been important developments on non-Hermitian ensembles since long where the eigenvalues are complex , and where an ensemble of unstable states are considered . Clearly, the ensemble developed here does not fall into any of the known categories and, indeed, displays some novel features as shown below.

The spacing distribution, $`P(S)`$, is given in terms of the j.p.d.f. by

$`P(S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}P(E_+,E_{})\delta (S|E_+E_{}|)𝑑E_+𝑑E_{}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|S|}{\pi \sigma ^2}}K_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{S^2}{4\sigma ^2}}\right).`$
This result is distincty different and very interesting (Fig. 2), particularly for its behaviour near zero spacing. Near $`S=0`$, the probability distribution varies as $`S\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{S}`$. This follows from the asymptotic properties of the modified Bessel function.

We present the form of two-time correlation function for a complex system with spectral properties given by Gaussian pseudo-unitary ensembles (GPUE). In this context, we consider a system with a Hamiltonian H $``$ GPUE, and an observable given by an operator, V $``$ an another GPUE. Imagine the system to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with a canonical density matrix, $`𝝆=e^{\beta \text{H}}`$. Following an extensive study along the lines of , the time correlation function, $`C(t)=Z^1(\beta )\text{ tr }𝝆\text{V}(0)\text{V}(t)`$ decays over long times $`(\frac{\mathrm{log}1/t}{t})^3`$.

Finally, we wish to point out an aspect of general importance, encountered on many occasions in many-body theory. To give one concrete example, in the theory of collective excitations of Fermionic systems, a mean-field description is used where a collective state is first expressed in terms of particle-hole excitations . Here, one generally encounters a matrix equation like H$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }`$ with H a Hermitian or unitary operator. The above problem may be transformed into an eigenvalue problem for H, i.e., H$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }`$ with H a pseudo-Hermitian or pseudo-unitary operator. With this, there are many results immediately possible. First of all, the eigenvalues will either be real, complex-conjugate-pairs, unimodular, or they occur in pairs such that product of eigenvalues is unimodular . Secondly, the statistical properties of the eigenvalues related to collective excitations will be distributed in accordance with the results obtained for GPUE above. Thirdly, there will be long-time tail for relaxation in the same spirit as the time correlation.

The above results are found for 2 $`\times `$ 2 matrices. Although for N $`\times `$ N matrices, invariant under $`PU(N)`$, the results are not known, we conjecture that the fluctuation properties will have a similar form as above. As discussed earlier, the result found here gives a new universality corresponding to systems which are pseudo-unitarily invariant. In such systems, parity and time-reversal may be individually broken, preserving their joint action. This universality also includes those pseudo-Hermitian quantum systems where $`𝒫𝒯`$ is broken. The examples discussed include quantum chromodynamics, two-dimensional statistical mechanics, and so on.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

1. The average level density of an ensemble of 2 $`\times `$ 2 random Gaussian pseudo-unitary ensemble is shown here.
2. The nearest-neighbor level-spacing distribution is shown here. For comparison, the results corresponding to the Wigner-Dyson ensembles corresponding to orthogonal and unitary symmetries are also shown. Whereas the level repulsion is linear and quadratic in the orthogonal and unitary ensembles, here it is of the form $`s\mathrm{log}(1/s)`$, as shown in the inset. This then is a new universality.