text:
# Around the Clock Observations of the Q0957+561 A,B Gravitationally Lensed Quasar II: Results for the second observing season

## 1 Introduction

An observing campaign to determine the Q0957+561 A,B gravitational lens time delay to a fraction of a day has been undertaken, justified by the evidence available that the quasar has brightness fluctuations on time scales of hours and that microlensing on day timescales is observed (Colley & Schild 1999). Our report (Colley et al. 2002) of the brightness fluctuations observed in Jan 2000 in the first arriving A image becomes a prediction of the pattern of fluctuations expected in March 2001. In this report we present reductions of CCD images for the determination of the B image brightness record, and the determination of a refined value of the time delay.

This time delay determination comes as refinement of previous estimates which have gradually converged to a value near 417 days. After some years of uncertainty whether the delay was near 415 days or 540 days, new estimates have come from new data sets and re-analysis of extensive older data sets to produce values of 416.3 (Pelt et al. 1998), 417.5 (Kundić et al. 1997), $`425\pm 17`$ (Pijpers 1997), and 417.4 (Colley & Schild 2000). Re-analysis of much of the same data has produced a divergent value of $`422.6\pm 0.6`$ days (Oscoz et al, 1999) but our present program allows no check on this value because our monitoring was only over a 10 day time interval. Radio brightness monitoring has not had the time sampling, accuracy, or the demonstrated rapid variability to justify participation in this program.

In section 2 we report the new data and reductions for the 12 participating observatories. Section 3 contains an analysis for time delay. We found only a low-amplitude of brightness fluctuations for the quasar during the monitoring period, and any evidence for rapid microlensing is within the noise of our data. However a sharpened value of the time delay allows us to re-analyze high quality data sets from published reports (Colley & Schild, 2000), and a determination of the structure function for the rapid microlensing in that dataset will be the subject of a subsequent report.

## 2 Observations

Our list of participating observatories was shown as Table 1 of Colley et al. (2002), (Paper 1). For the second season three additional observatories joined the collaboration, principally to cover the Pacific region. The 61cm Mauna Kea reflector was operated from the Institute for Astronomy offices at Hilo, Hawaii. The Mexican 1.5m Harold Johnson Telescope at OAN (Observatorio Astronómico Nacional) at San Pedro Mártir joined the 2.1m OAGH telescope in northern Mexico. The Mt. Megantic telescope in Montreal, Canada provided coverage of the North American continent from a different weather zone.

In this section we provide additional remarks about the data reductions and its relationship to the telescope and camera properties. Any changes from the properties noted in Paper 1 will be given. Our list begins at the international date line and is ordered by increasing longitude. Throughout this section and report, we refer to R filter images only, and although approximately 10% of our data was taken with a V filter we do not remark on the results for this supplementary reduced data set.

### 2.1 BOAO (S. Korea)

This observatory produced 180 quasar image frames over 5 nights, all of uniformly high quality. The BOAO data from our first year observations are particularly important because they recorded a rapid brightness decline in the A image that will strongly contribute to the present time delay determination. However, as noted in Paper 1, the rapid brightness decline seemed to be recorded in both quasar images and we were suspicious that it might have been the result of some peculiar instrumental effect, although re-reduction of the data with entirely different software seemed to confirm the reality of the rapid brightness change. Thus it is reassuring that the BOAO data in the new campaign seem to again be of high quality and contain no bothersome artifacts evident in the reduced data.

### 2.2 SOAO (S. Korea)

This 61cm telescope on the top of Mt. Sobak in the middle of South Korea is often differently affected by weather than BOAO, and so is of importance to us because of concern about coverage of the vast Pacific region. The telescope lacks an offset guider, however, and some of the images are streaked slightly. Nevertheless we reduced 236 quasar image frames obtained over 5 nights, albeit with slightly shorter exposure times. The smaller aperture produces lower signal levels, and the error bars for the data set may be seen to be somewhat larger.

However the time coverage by the SOAO observatory has been critical to our program, especially as it provided the only coincident coverage of the rapid brightness decline recorded the previous year at BOAO as noted previously. The relatively large amplitude, approximately 40 milli-magnitudes (mmag) over just 5 hours, adds considerable weight to our time delay determination.

### 2.3 Maidanak (Uzbekistan)

Since the previous year’s campaign, the Maidanak 1.5m telescope has been equipped with a new CCD camera having $`2048\times 800`$ pixels and providing an image scale of .121 arcsec/pixel. The images are of the highest quality because of a combination of superb optics and consistently excellent seeing.

We did, however, encounter a problem with the new camera. A large diffuse bright spot of only 3% amplitude covers the entire central region of the CCD frame. The spot is apparently caused by light that is diffusely reflected from the region of the CCD detector back to the camera optics, and then again reflected back onto the CCD camera. This produces an excess brightness near the center of the CCD frame that the standard flat-fielding procedure interprets as locally more sensitive pixels. So in correcting for the apparently high sensitivity of the central region’s pixels, the flat-fielding procedure also reduces the brightnesses of the central stars in the corrected frame. The point is that flat-fielding assumes that all processes affecting the sky brightness across the image frame, such as pixel-to-pixel sensitivity and vignetting, are multiplicative, and a process that adds brightness causes failures and errors in the flat-fielding process. We corrected the problem by preparing an unsharp mask image from a stack of nighttime image frames, and subtracting off the excess brightness from our image frames and flat-field frames before flat-fielding.

The corrected frames have produced an important backbone to our brightness record, because of the consistently high quality and because of the excellent coverage of our monitoring window. The campaign produced 395 image frames over 8 nights in our program.

### 2.4 TUG (Turkey)

The 1.5m telescope was not equipped with an offset guider, and some images are somewhat streaked but the effect was minimized by taking relatively short exposures. A total of 192 image frames were collected on 6 nights. We were unable to obtain consistent photometry from the images, and we do not believe that the guiding was the problem. Instead, it appears that a slight non-linearity in the camera’s response is indicated. For example, on the cloudiest night, although the quasar brightness is referenced to local field stars, our reduced photometry was several percent different from the photometry on strictly clear nights.

We are hopeful that the data will be reducible after some mapping function of the camera response to light is available. For the present cannot include this otherwise excellent data set in our time delay determination or in the Fig. 1 plot of the brightness curve, at least until we understand better the camera’s slightly non-linear response to light.

### 2.5 NOT (Canary Islands)

The 2.5m NOT telescope is the largest involved in our campaign and was scheduled for 4 nights which turned out to have nearly ideal weather, producing a harvest of 755 image frames. These have provided excellent photometry and excellent statistics on the four nights, and together with the Maidanak results have produced a “backbone” against which we refer other observatories to look for systematic differences.

### 2.6 JKT (Canary Islands)

The 1m Johannes Kepler Telescope was scheduled for the last two nights of the formal monitoring period plus two nights beyond to allow some information about the time delay in case the 424-day delay value championed by Oscoz et al. (2001) turn out to be correct. A total of 147 quasar image frames were analyzed and produced a brightness record compatible with results for the other observatories.

### 2.7 IAC80 (Canary Islands)

The 80cm reflector produced 173 quasar image frames on 8 nights of the formal monitoring period and 3 nights beyond to allow further check on the longer delay value of 424 days advocated by Oscoz et al. (2001). We have not been able to bring the photometric results into agreement with the reductions for other observatories for reasons that we do not yet understand. Most problematic are the results for JD2451983, where the reduced photometry is 2% brighter for image B than for image A as compared to results for the same night from Maidanak and from NOT. Data from the remaining nights seem not to share this defect, and we are puzzled about its origin. Because the images were precisely registered on the CCD detector by an offset guider, it is possible that a CCD defect has affected the photometry for a single night. We have found that pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations of the CCD detector of 10% are routinely found, and we suspect that the CCD camera is not operated in correct adjustment. We expect to investigate this anomaly further, but for the present analysis we cannot justify censoring a single night’s data only, and for now we have not included the IAC data in our final data compilation and time delay calculation.

### 2.8 Mt. Megantic (Montreal)

The Mt. Megantic observatory is sited at a very dark mountainous region 250 km east of Montreal, near the U.S. border. It offers a 1.6m Ritchey-Chretien telescope with an offset guider that has been extensively used in photometric programs to date. Over 4 nights the observatory contributed 115 data images of excellent quality to our program.

### 2.9 Mt. Hopkins (Arizona)

The Mt. Hopkins Observatory has been the mainstay of Q0957 brightness monitoring for over 20 years. Because of scheduling difficulties the 14 nights allocated overlap only 3 nights with the campaign time interval. The additional 11 nights precede the campaign and allow check on possible time delays less than the nominal 417 days. Over 12 nights 375 image frames were reduced for photometry.

### 2.10 Mexico - 1.5m Harold Johnson Telescope, San Pedro Mártir (Mexico 2)

A total of 126 images over 4 nights were reduced for photometry with this telescope. The images were of excellent quality. The telescope was scheduled for only the first 7 nights of the campaign, with the last 3 nights covered by a second Mexican telescope.

### 2.11 Mexico - 2.1m Telescope OAGH, Cananea (Mexico 1)

From the OAGH (Observatorio Astrofísico Guillermo Haro) in Cananea, Sonora, a total of 84 image frames were obtained over 2 nights at the end of the monitor period. Very poor (3.5 arcsec) seeing was experienced during part of one night. In general the image quality was not quite as good as the upgraded Harold Johnson 1.5m telescope, likely a result of a problem with the mercury belt of the mirror support system. Nonetheless, the data reduction procedure seems to have produced excellent results for this telescope.

### 2.12 61cm Mauna Kea Telescope (Hawaii)

The Hawaiian 61cm telescope was operated remotely from the Institute for Astronomy at Hilo and from the University of Hawaii at Honolulu. With clear skies and excellent seeing, a large quantity of data was obtained, but lack of an offset guider caused some trailing of the images. Nevertheless most of the data could be easily reduced with our robust computer program, and the Hawaii telescope produced one of our main data sets. Over 8 nights 430 useful image frames were obtained.

## 3 Analysis: Data Reduction and Time Delay

The data for all observatories was analyzed by a single program as described in Colley et al. (2002a,b) and in Colley & Schild (1999, 2000). Briefly, all images were de-biased and flat fielded, and the corrected images had the star positions identified from an automatic procedure. Aperture photometry was performed on the two quasar images and several nearby standards, and the quasar brightness was referenced to the standards. Corrections for the aperture crosstalk were determined according to the Colley et al. (2002b) method: a simple parabolic fit to the magnitude relative to the mean magnitude of the run, vs. the log of FWHM seeing is made, and that signal is subtracted out. Colley & Schild (1999) showed that a detailed correction involving galaxy subtraction from HST data (Bernstein et al. 1997) and detailed A-B aperture cross-talk corrections yielded a relation to seeing well described by this very simple model.

The reduced data are shown in Fig. 1, where we plot the photometry obtained in the campaign time frame 12–21 March 2001. Upper and lower plots show the A and B image photometry, and the bottom panel shows as bars the time coverage of each participating observatory, and at the bottom the total coverage. The plotted data points show the hourly photometry means obtained by each observatory, and an error bar calculated from the photon statistics relevant to the detection (not a standard error relative to the mean).

We are frankly disappointed by the low level of brightness fluctuations shown by the late-arriving B image, which will now be compared with the A image data for the previous year. Note that from simple inspection it may be seen that the amplitude of fluctuations in image B is approximately half the level seen in image A for 2001. Similarly, data for image A in 2000 show fluctuations only half as large as those for image B. Both the 2000A and 2001B patterns exhibit less than half the amplitude of the pattern found for fluctuations in 1994–96 by Colley and Schild (2000). Thus the quasar has given us an opportunity to demonstrate that accurate photometry and detection of a very low level amplitude of brightness fluctuations could be produced with our methodology, but we would have preferred stronger fluctuations.

The time delay calculation was undertaken with the “PRH” method (Press et al. 1991), which, despite some controversy has become a standard utility. The method is based on the notion that the quasar variations exhibit a power-law “structure-function,” which is to say the expected magnitude variance of one point from another on the light-curve is power-law in the time separation of the points, (i.e. $`V|t_1t_2|^\alpha `$). This method allows one to address the non-uniform time sampling of the data without direct interpolation. From there, usual second-order Gaussian statistical methods are used to construct a “$`\chi ^2`$” statistic that reduces to the usual $`\chi ^2`$ method if there were no interpolation necessary.

The method is known to have problems, particularly if the data records are affected by microlensing (a highly non-Gaussian signal) (Press & Rybicki 1997, Thomson & Schild 1997, Schild 1996). The method also has a propensity to favor lags where there is the least data overlap (Colley & Schild, 2000), but because our data have an irregular sampling history, this is not expected to be a problem.

Results for the PRH method test are shown in Fig. 2, where we plot $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of lag between the A and B images. A small valley for 417.1 days is presumed to indicate the best value of time delay. Toward the left of the plot, the $`\chi ^2`$ value declines chiefly because the main feature of the image A light-curve ceases to overlap with the image B’s shifted dates.

The agreement of the two quasar brightness curves for a 417.1-day lag is shown in Fig. 3, where we plot as unfilled circles the image A data from 2000 and as filled circles the image B data from 2001. Error bars are computed as described previously, and are calculated from the fundamental photon statistics, not from the purely empirical departure of individual points from the hourly means. Also shown is the “error snake” that shows the width of the 1-$`\sigma `$ error interval computed by the PRH method as part of the interpolation scheme. Note that the mean width of this snake is only 5 milli-mag (henceforth mmag, where 1 mmag = .001 mag). A quick glance shows that the true errors seem to be very close to the computed errors, in the sense that more than half the hourly average points lie within the 1-$`\sigma `$ “snake”.

The formal time delay value calculated for the project is $`417.09\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.07}`$ days. Inspection of Fig. 3 shows that a weak pattern of fluctuations is seen throughout the campaign period, and a single fluctuation at $`\text{JD}2449000`$ = 2564.5 of 30 mmag amplitude predominates. We suspect that the overall pattern and the single large event contribute about equally to the time delay value. As was noted by Colley et al. 2002a, the event was seen in the Korean/BOAO data from the first season and not entirely believed because the data seemed to show a simultaneous event in the B data for 2000 also. However re-reduction of the data with a different analysis program (IRAF) seemed to show that the feature is real, and its repetition in 2001 make the case more convincing.

With the data in Fig. 3 plotted for the best fit lag, the plot also becomes a record of microlensing, in the sense that any significant differences between the two brightness records indicates a pattern of fluctuations not intrinsic to the quasar, and presumably originating in the lens galaxy. We do not find that the Fig. 3 comparison makes a convincing case that any microlensing has been detected at the 5 mmag level. There is an appearance of a peak for $`\text{JD}2449000=2564`$, and we note that evidence for this peak comes from two observatories (Maidanak and BOAO.). We have seen evidence for a peak of similar amplitude and duration in the Q0957 B data record for JD 2449704 as illustrated in Fig. 3 of Colley & Schild (2000). The detection of an event in our microlensing record is only based upon 3 hourly average data points, each having approximately $`2\sigma `$ significance, and we feel obliged to err on the side of conservatism and claim no significant detection.

We do not consider that this proves that rapid microlensing does not exist; our sharpened time delay of 417.1 days will allow us to show from previous data records that data from a single observatory can overlap, and produce microlensing information. This will be the subject of a further report.

## 4 The Structure Function

In Fig. 4 we show the structure function for the quasar’s brightness fluctuations during Jan 2000 for image A and March 2001 for image B. In Figure 4 the variance plotted as a function of lag is a squared quantity, so the actual brightness fluctuations are the square root of the plotted numbers. Thus for a lag of one day, either image component showed variance of approximately $`10^5`$, or the mean brightness fluctuation was $`0.3\times 10^2`$, or 3 mmag. So on average, the quasar brightness changed by only 3 mmag during any 24-hour time interval.

This level of brightness fluctuation is extraordinarily low for this quasar, as may be seen from comparison with the solid line which shows the fit to the variance measured in 1995 (Colley & Schild 2000, Fig. 5). Thus we were extremely unlucky that the date chosen for the beginning of our monitoring for reasons of optimum observability turned out to coincide with a period of low quasar activity. This allowed us to demonstrate the ability to reduce data from multiple observatories and measure brightness with high precision, but we would have preferred to find large fluctuations to firmly establish a time delay and microlensing.

Fig. 4 quantitatively shows that the statistics of the quasar’s brightness fluctuations are highly non-stationary. On timescales of 1–10 days the fluctuations were smaller than measured in 1995; on time scales of a year, the fluctuations were actually twice as large as measured in 1995 (the data point for year lag is far off scale and not seen on this plot).

## 5 The Correlation for Zero Lag

In the course of monitoring Q0957, many groups have noticed a “zero lag” correlation between the A and B images (e.g., Kundić et al. 1995). This “zero lag” correlation is impossible by all models of the gravitational lensing, and would require some kind of precisely aligned gravitational wave in the Halo of our Galaxy or perhaps a cosmic string. It is presently interpreted as a frame-by-frame correlated error in the photometry.

The Kundić et al. (1995) group endeavored with fair diligence to uncover the source of such an error, examining moon phase, zenith angle, and many other observational states for some correlation with the apparent photometric errors, but encountered little success. We have also noticed that our data seem, upon inspection, to exhibit a similar “zero lag” correlation, even after our parametric correction for seeing, discussed previously. In particular, the PRH “snake,” a completely objective interpolation, yields light-curves in which the coincidence of the many shallow peaks and valleys is immediately striking to the eye. We therefore engaged ourselves in a great amount of effort to remove errors that might be correlated with flux, sky background, location on CCD, and time of night, but those efforts have yielded little improvement for most observatories.

We show the effect quantitatively in Fig. 5 as the PRH $`\chi ^2`$ (lower $`\chi ^2`$ means higher correlation) for lags in the vicinity of zero lag in the two data sets; the solid curve shows the correlation for the 2001 data, and the dashed curve shows the correlation for 2000. Any correlations would be expected to be quite random in the vicinity of zero lag if the photometry were perfect. However, in both cases, there is a $`\chi ^2`$ trough near zero. For 2001, the overall minimum is at precisely zero lag, quite suggestive of a photometric problem. For 2000, the case is more muddled. The trough nearest zero is closer to 0.1 days and is only the sixth lowest trough, while the overall minimum is at around a one day lag. While in the 2001 dataset, there seems to be compelling evidence of a photometric problem, nothing compelling arises in the 2000 dataset, despite identical photometric reduction methods.

Most likely, there is a similar photometric error correlation in both 2000 and 2001, but the true correlation of the light-curves adds slight destructive and constructive interference to that signal (respectively). We interpret Fig. 5, therefore, as showing a zero lag correlation that is evidence of an as yet uncorrected photometric problem at the few mmag level, residing on top of the true correlation (PRH $`\chi ^2`$) of the A and B light-curves.

## 6 The Possibility of Multiple Time Delays

Our brightness monitoring has produced a time delay of $`417.09\pm 0.07`$ days, and scant evidence for microlensing. During our monitoring campaign the quasar was experiencing below-normal brightness variability, and very possibly the low level of microlensing fluctuations measured is related.

At the time this project was organized, time delays for the gravitational lens system seemed to be converging to a value near 417 days. Analysis of the 17-year brightness history by Pelt et al. (1998) produced a delay of $`416.3\pm 1.7`$ days, and the Kundic et al. (1997) observation of a large event seemed to make their 417.4 day delay unquestionable, although in hindsight the quoted value was for g-filter data, and their r-filter data gave 420.3 days. Finally the extensive monitoring over 7 consecutive nights reported in Colley & Schild (1999) seemed to make a convincing case that significant fluctuations were observed, and repeated after a time delay of 417.4 days. Their Fig. 7 appeared to show ample repeated fluctuations to define adequately the time delay.

At the same time, suspicions of a somewhat longer time delay have arisen. The Pijpers time delay determination using a long extensive data base gave $`425\pm 17`$ days, but the error seemed to include the favored shorter value. But then a report by Oscoz et al. (2001) seemed to show a longer delay for the same data sets, utilizing different statistical methods. A new thesis by Ovaldsen (2002) with re-reduction of the original data frames seems to show not only stronger evidence for the 424-day delay, but even a small local anti-correlation bump in the delay curve where the favored 417-day lag should be. Thus we find it perplexing and frustrating that with so many nights of overlapping data, it is difficult to find an enduring time delay.

As noted by Pelt et al. 1996, the fine structure filtered out of the brightness record does not give a time delay value (Pelt et al. 1996, Fig. 10, 11), even though hundreds of nights of data overlap for any test value of lag near 420 days (Pelt et al. 1996, Fig. 1). If microlensing were not affecting the brightness records, it should be easy to determine the time delay to a fraction of a day.

We believe that it is now appropriate to re-assess our assumptions and methodology to ask what we are seeking and why we have such problems finding it. We seek the time delay between the propagation paths for the two quasar images, where it has long been believed that the geometry of the smooth mass distribution in the direction of the lens system provides different paths and the two quasar images are seen at different times. We have presumed that by observing brightness fluctuations of the two images we will be able to match up the patterns and measure the time delay. But what are the limits to this procedure if the quasar’s luminous structure is so large that microlensing by massive objects in the lens galaxy amplifies different parts of the quasar by different amounts? What if, for example, the inner edge of the accretion disc is highly microlensed for the A image but not for B?

For the Q0957 radio source quasar the black hole mass would be perhaps $`3\times 10^9M_{}`$, giving a Schwarzschild diameter of $`2\times 10^{15}`$ cm. Thus the diameter of the innermost stable orbit, $`6R_S`$, is approximately $`10^{16}`$ cm, or 4 light days. For a quasar redshift of 1.4, a proper time of 4 light days is observed as 10 days. As such, a maximum of 1% variability might be expected on the timescale of hours (pertinent to this paper). Colley & Schild (1999) showed by measuring the structure function down to sub-day lags, that more typically the quasar varies about 1% per day on average.

With an inner diameter for the accretion disc of order 10 days (our time), a simultaneous event that illuminated the entire inner disc would appear to us to brighten roughly 10 days earlier on the front size compared to the back side. This simple light travel time couples strongly to the microlensing. By coincidence, the Einstein radius (at the source), is also of order $`10^{16}\text{cm}`$ for stellar mass objects in the lens galaxy. In this high optical depth case, the Einstein radius becomes the typical separation between caustics. Thus, if the stars alone had an optical depth of order 0.1, of order 10% of the time one would expect a caustic to be lying somewhere on the inner accretion disc. Hence, one image could significantly magnify the same event at a different time than the other, due to simple light travel time from one edge of the QSO emitting surface to the other.

Since the inner edge of the disc presumably demonstrates a significant fraction of the variability seen on the few-week timescale (typical of the large events seen in the QSO historically, including those leveraged for time-delay measurements \[e.g., Kundić et al. 1997\]), a light travel time problem could be significant even without a MACHO dark matter population. If there is a significant population of MACHOs, the problem becomes nearly unavoidable.

Additional outer structure at scales of 100 days (our time) is implied in the Elvis (1999) model. If such structure responds to an event near the center, the light travel time problems are exacerbated, particularly for stellar mass lenses, since one would expect multiple caustics to lie somewhere on this outer structure all the time. Thomson & Schild (1997) encountered autocorrelation peaks near 100 proper light days, which supports the Elvis (1999) model. Such a model would necessarily present substantial light travel time signal in the light curve.

Further evidence for the phenomenon comes from a cross-correlation calculation for Q0957 by Schild and Cholfin (1986), who showed a Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of nearly 100 days; subsequent analyses of the same or comparable data sets by Vanderriest et al. (1989) and Press, Rybicki, and Hewitt (1991) gave a similar result. Even the modern calculations by Pelt et al. (1997) shows in their Fig. 3 and following figures a 100-day wide correlation curve. Only the more modern calculations for short data sets centered around strong brightness changes give the sharper cross-correlation peaks of programs by Kundić et al. (1997) and Colley & Schild (1999). Thus, quasar structure on observed scales of 100 light-days (observed) has long been predicted by observations.

More significant results were gleaned from a statistical analysis of the brightness records by Thomson & Schild (1997) who found two unexpected facts. Their Fig. 6 shows that different subsets of the brightness data show different lags, with the lags seeming to persist over approximately 2 years. This would be expected if microlensing were locally magnifying different parts of the quasar’s luminous region by different amounts as the pattern of microlenses changes on a time scale of 2 years. Furthermore, their Fig. 3 seems to show autocorrelation peaks with observed lags near 200 days, suggesting that the quasar has some structure on scales much larger than the 1-night sampling of most data. (note that for a quasar at $`z=1.4`$, the proper scale of the implied quasar structure is 200 days / 2.4, or approximately 70 light day proper size scale.) Weaker structure on smaller scales is further implied by autocorrelation peaks near 20 light days (observed).

Thus we interpret our new time delay measurement as follows. For the microlensing configuration observed in calendar 2000–01, the time delay corresponding to the microlensing alignment then relevant is 417.1 days. Possibly other parts of the quasar were being magnified to produce other lags as well, but their signature is hardly apparent because of the disappointingly low level of quasar activity. Very probably a component of what is commonly called rapid microlensing is actually the result of quasar brightness fluctuations seen magnified by the different microlensing of the A and B images, and any other data sets taken at epochs close to ours might well find evidence for other lags. Our 417.1-day lag is sharply defined by the depth and narrowness of the valley of our PRH autocorrelation calculation, but it does not allow prediction of lags that will be observed several years in the future. Use of this lag will allow us to make careful comparisons of older data sets and allow some conclusions to be made about the structure function for rapid microlensing, which will relate to both the quasar’s structure and the microlensing population.

## 7 Conclusions and Discussion

We have carried out the first gravitational lens time delay measurement from data sampled nearly continuously over many days. The measurement of $`417.09\pm 0.07`$ is certainly consistent with many previous efforts (e.g., Kundić et al. 1997), but puzzlingly inconsistent with others (e.g., Oscoz et al. 2001). Since there was surprisingly little variation in the brightness of the QSO images, compared to previous structure function measurements (Colley & Schild 2000), the time delay measurement is not as strong as we had hoped. Furthermore, there is little evidence of microlensing on timescales of hours to days.

In recognizing that there are now (again) two credible, and competing time delays (around 417 days and around 424 days), both with a wealth of evidence to support them, one must attribute the discrepancy either to a lack of quality data, as was done a decade ago (PRH), or to the possibility that the QSO and lens system form multiple delays which foil our efforts to produce a unique time delay. The former seems increasingly untenable given the level of observational effort poured into this system over the past decade. If the multiple delay hypothesis is to be examined, careful consideration of more complex QSO models must be undertaken (e.g., Wyithe & Loeb 2002).

As a final comment, we note that one of the most intriguing aspects of this work has been the formation of a large, international collaboration, and integration of data from widely varying nations, telescopes and instruments. As the number of lensed QSOs has grown, so has the need for nearly constant monitoring by as many telescopes in as many locations as possible, with some coordination. Our project has demonstrated proof that a large international collaboration of medium-sized observatories can be coordinated sufficiently to obtain nearly constant monitoring of lensed QSOs.

WNC thanks the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory which provided the computing resources for this project. We wish to thank University of Hawaii graduate students Kevin Sweeney, Jennifer Halsted, and Masa Matulonis for assisting with the observing. Ki-Won Lee assisted in the SOAO observations. Andrew Pickles was instrumental is setting up the Hawaii telescope for remote observing. MGP was supported by the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation, grant No. R01-1999-00023. MGL was supported in part by the Korea Research Foundation, Grant No. KRF-2000-DP0450. AFJM and J-PC are grateful for financial aid from NSERC (Canada) and FCAR (Quebec) We wish to thank the OAN-SPM and specially the TAC president Margarita Rosado for making the Mexican participation in this campaign possible. The research of OLC, RM and VCH is partially supported by CONACYT grants J32098-E, J32178-E and 28499-E, respectively.


format: text

text:
# Physical content of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation: Limitation and reformulation

## I Introduction

An essential departure of quantum mechanics from classical mechanics is that any measurement of a microscopic object involves the interaction with the apparatus not to be neglected and accordingly introduces an unavoidable and uncontrollable disturbance on the measured object. Undoubtedly, this point of view led to fundamental doctrines of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics Boh28 , which successfully dissolved the wave-particle duality and the continuous-discontinuous discrepancy. In his celebrated paper Hei27  published in 1927, Heisenberg attempted to establish the quantitative expression of the amount of unavoidable momentum disturbance caused by any position measurement. His statement, with some elaborations, can be formulated as follows: For every measurement of the position $`Q`$ of a mass with root-mean-square error $`ϵ(Q)`$, the root-mean-square disturbance $`\eta (P)`$ of the momentum $`P`$ of the mass caused by the interaction of this measurement always satisfies the relation

$$ϵ(Q)\eta (P)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$
(1)
Heisenberg Hei27  not only explained the physical intuition underlying the above relation by discussing the $`\gamma `$ ray microscope thought experiment, but also claimed that this relation can be proven as a straightforward consequence of the canonical commutation relation (CCR), $`QPPQ=i\mathrm{}`$. A mathematical part of his proof was refined by introducing the notion of standard deviation shortly afterward by Kennard Ken27  and later generalized to arbitrary pair of observables by Robertson Rob29  as the following statement: For any pair of observables $`A`$ and $`B`$, their standard deviations, $`\sigma (A)`$ and $`\sigma (B)`$, satisfy the relation

$$\sigma (A)\sigma (B)\frac{1}{2}|\psi ,[A,B]\psi |$$
(2)
in any state $`\psi `$ with $`\sigma (A),\sigma (B)<\mathrm{}`$. In the above, $`[A,B]`$ stands for the commutator $`[A,B]=ABBA`$, and the standard deviation is defined as $`\sigma (A)=(\psi ,A^2\psi \psi ,A\psi ^2)^{1/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ denotes the inner product note-1 . As a consequence of $`[Q,P]=i\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\sigma (Q)\sigma (P)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},$$
(3)
which was proven by Heisenberg himself for Gaussian states and by Kennard Ken27  generally.

Heisenberg Hei27  argued that the mathematical relation Eq. (3) concludes the physical assertion expressed by Eq. (1). Since then, his claim has been accepted by many vN32 ; Boh49 ; Boh51 ; Mes59a ; Bra74 ; CTDSZ80 ; BVT80 . However, the universal validity of Eq. (1) has been also criticized in many ways EPR35 ; AK65 ; Bal70 ; Yue83 ; Kra87 ; AG88 ; 88MS ; 89RS ; HV90 ; MM90 ; 91QU ; Ish91 ; BK92 ; MM92 ; App98 ; 01CQSR ; 02KB5E . In fact, the “resolution power” of the $`\gamma `$ ray microscope cannot be identified in any interpretation with the standard deviation of the mass position in the state to be measured. Thus, Eq. (3) cannot be considered as a “formal expression” of Eq. (1). Moreover, no one has succeeded in proving Eq. (1) for general measurements even by applying Eq. (3) not only to the mass state but also to the apparatus state. Undoubtedly, this has caused serious confusions among physicists on the status of this leading principle of quantum mechanics.

In order to clarify the confusion, we shall start with precise definitions of root-mean-square disturbance and mean-square error in arbitrary measurements and reconstruct Heisenberg’s argument. His argument applies Eq. (3) to the mass state just after the measurement. However, in order to derive Eq. (1), additional assumptions are necessary. Here, we shall show that the following two assumptions completes Heisenberg’s argument: (i) Both amounts of $`ϵ(Q)`$ and $`\eta (P)`$ are independent of the input state. (ii) The measurement always leaves the mass with position standard deviation smaller than the $`ϵ(Q)`$. Thus, Heisenberg’s argument left open the following questions: Can we further relax the assumptions? What relation holds for arbitrary measurements? What conditions characterize violations of Eq. (1)? In particular, the second assumption, which will be called the equipredictivity of measurement, stringently restricts the class of measurements to which Eq. (1) is applicable. In order to answer those questions, a new approach to proving Eq. (1) will be proposed based on analysis of commutation relations for the operators representing the error and the disturbance. From this approach, we shall obtain a generalization of Heisenberg’s relation proven valid for arbitrary measurements and also obtained a new proof of Heisenberg’s relation without assuming the equipredictivity. We shall further discuss limitations on Heisenberg’s relation based on the generalized relation and show that there are two distinct types of measurements in which Heisenberg’s relation is violated uniformly for any input state. The significance of the results will be discussed in the final section. In this Letter, we shall confine our attention to the position measurement error and momentum disturbance; generalizations to arbitrary observables are partly discussed in a separate paper 03UVRHUP .

## II Formulation of error and disturbance

Let us consider a measurement of position $`Q`$ of a mass with momentum $`P`$. The interaction between the mass and the apparatus is assumed to turn on at time 0 and turn off at time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Let $`\psi `$ be the input state, i.e., the state of the mass just before the interaction, and let $`\xi `$ be the state of the apparatus just before the interaction. Let $`U`$ be the unitary operator representing the time evolution of the mass plus apparatus for the time interval $`(0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. Then, in the Heisenberg picture the momentum change is represented by

$$D(P)=P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)P(0),$$
(4)
where $`P(0)=PI`$ and $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=U^{}P(0)U`$. The root-mean-square momentum disturbance is defined by

$$\eta (P)=D(P)^2^{1/2},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the mean value in the original state $`\psi \xi `$.

Now we shall discuss some basic properties of the above quantity. The above statistical definition leads to the following geometric expression

$$\eta (P)=P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\psi \xi P(0)\psi \xi .$$
(6)
Thus, by the relation

$$\sigma (A)=A\psi \xi A\psi \xi $$
(7)
for any observable $`A`$, we easily obtain the following relation

$$|\sigma (P(\mathrm{\Delta }t))\sigma (P(0))|\eta (P)+|P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)P(0)|,$$
(8)
stating that the change in the momentum standard deviation is bounded from above by the root-mean-square disturbance except for the change in the mean momentum. If the mass had a definite momentum $`p`$ before the measurement, i.e., $`P(0)\psi =p\psi `$, we would have

$$D(P)\psi \xi =[P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)p]\psi \xi ,$$
(9)
and hence

$$\eta (P)^2=[P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)p]^2\sigma (P(\mathrm{\Delta }t))^2.$$
(10)
Thus, the momentum standard deviation after the measurement is bounded from above by the root-mean-square disturbance. In particular, if $`p=0`$, we have

$$\eta (P)^2=P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2.$$
(11)
This relation can be interpreted as follows. If the mass is at rest before the measurement, all the object’s momentum after the measurement arises from the interaction, so that the mean-square disturbance (i.e., the square of the root-mean-square disturbance) is equal to the mean-square momentum after the measurement.

The role of the interaction is to transduce the value of $`Q`$ before the interaction to the value of an observable $`M`$ of the probe, a part of the apparatus, after the interaction. We shall call $`M`$ the meter observable. We suppose that after the interaction is turned off, the outcome of the $`Q`$ measurement in the state $`\psi `$ is obtained by measuring $`M`$ without further disturbing the momentum $`P`$ of the mass; this is possible by another measuring apparatus coupled only to the probe. The postulates of quantum mechanics do not limit the accuracy of the latter measurement of $`M`$, and hence we neglect the error from this measurement. Then, in the Heisenberg picture the error caused by this process of the $`Q`$ measurement is represented by

$$N(Q)=M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)Q(0),$$
(12)
where $`Q(0)=QI`$ and $`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=U^{}(IM)U`$. The root-mean-square error is defined by

$$ϵ(Q)=N(Q)^2^{1/2}.$$
(13)
The above statistical definition leads to the following geometric expression

$$ϵ(Q)=M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)\psi \xi Q(0)\psi \xi .$$
(14)
Analogously with Eq. (15), we obtain

$$|\sigma (M(\mathrm{\Delta }t))\sigma (Q(0))|ϵ(Q)+|M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)Q(0)|,$$
(15)
showing that the change in the standard deviation from input to output is bounded from above by the root-mean-square noise except for the bias, namely, the change in the mean value. If the mass had a definite position $`q`$ before the measurement, we would have

$$ϵ(Q)^2=[M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)q]^2\sigma (M(\mathrm{\Delta }t))^2,$$
(16)
so that $`ϵ(Q)`$ would represent the root-mean-square deviation of the measurement outcome from the true position $`q`$ and would limit the standard deviation of the outcome of the $`Q`$ measurement.

## III Reconstruction of Heisenberg’s argument

In the 1927 paper, Heisenberg claimed that Eq. (1) is a straightforward mathematical consequence of the CCR, $`QPPQ=i\mathrm{}`$. Although he gave a claimed proof of Eq. (1) from the CCR, his argument includes some implicit assumptions. Consequently, Eq. (1) cannot be considered as a straightforward consequence of the CCR nor as a universally valid relation. Heisenberg’s idea of the proof is as follows: Start with a measurement with error $`ϵ(Q)`$, claim that the state just after the measurement has $`\sigma (Q)=ϵ(Q)`$, prove Eq. (3) from the CCR for the above state to obtain the relation $`ϵ(Q)\sigma (P)\mathrm{}/2`$, and identify $`\sigma (P)`$ with $`\eta (P)`$ to obtain Eq. (1). In order to clarify the hidden assumptions, in what follows, we shall show that Heisenberg’s original proof can be rigorously reconstructed under the following two additional assumptions: (i) Both $`ϵ(Q)`$ and $`\eta (P)`$ are independent of the input state; in this case, we say that the measurement has constant mean-square noise and disturbance. (ii) The measurement always leaves the mass with position standard deviation smaller than $`ϵ(Q)`$; in this case, we say that the measurement is equipredictive.

Under the above assumptions, the proof of Eq. (1) runs as follows. In order to obtain an estimate of the momentum disturbance, we shall consider the case where the mass were at rest before the measurement. Then, by Eq. (11) the object’s mean-square momentum after the measurement is equal to the mean-square momentum disturbance, i.e.,

$$\eta (P)^2=P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2.$$
(17)
Let $`\psi _x`$ be the state of the mass after the measurement with outcome $`x`$. We shall denote by $`\sigma _x`$ the standard deviation in the state $`\psi _x`$. We shall later show that the relation

$$\eta (P)\sigma _x(P)$$
(18)
holds with positive probability. On the other hand, by condition (ii), we have

$$ϵ(Q)\sigma _x(Q)$$
(19)
holds with probability one. It follows from Eqs. (18) and (19) that there must be a state vector $`\psi _x`$ satisfying

$$ϵ(Q)\eta (P)\sigma _x(Q)\sigma _x(P).$$
(20)
Thus, Eq. (1) follows from Eq. (3), if the mass is at rest just before the measurement. Then, assumption (i) ensures that Eq. (1) holds irrespective of the particular choice of the input state. We, therefore, conclude that every equipredictive measurement with constant mean-square noise and disturbance satisfies Eq. (1) for every input state note-2 .

Now, we shall prove Eq. (18). The state $`\psi _x`$ arises with the probability distribution $`\pi (dx)`$ of obtaining the outcome $`x`$ determined by

$$\pi (dx)=E^{M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}(dx),$$
(21)
where $`E^{M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}`$ is the resolution of the identity corresponding to the observable $`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. Then, since $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2`$ is the mean of $`P^2`$ after the measurement, we have

$$P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2=\psi _x,P^2\psi _x\pi (dx).$$
(22)
Since $`\psi _x,P^2\psi _x\sigma _x(P)^2`$ for any $`x`$, we have

$$\psi _x,P^2\psi _x\pi (dx)\sigma _x(P)^2\pi (dx),$$
(23)
and consequently

$$P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2\sigma _x(P)^2\pi (dx).$$
(24)
Thus, we have

$$P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2\sigma _x(P)^2,$$
(25)
with positive probability; otherwise the opposite inequality of Eq. (24) would hold. This concludes the proof of Eq. (18).

## IV Universally valid reformulation

The above proof of Eq. (1) rigorously reproduces Heisenberg’s intention in 1927 that the uncertainty relation expressed by Eq. (1) is a straightforward consequence from Eq. (3) for the state after the measurement. However, the above proof does not show that Eq. (1) is universally valid and has left the problem quite open as to the limitation of Eq. (1). Thus, the following problems have remained open on Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation. Can we further relax the assumptions of the proof? What relation holds for arbitrary measurements? What conditions characterize violations of Eq. (1)?

In what follows, we shall prove that the relation

$$ϵ(Q)\eta (P)+ϵ(Q)\sigma (P)+\sigma (Q)\eta (P)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$
(26)
holds for every measurement and every input state as long as all the relevant terms are finite, where $`\sigma (Q)`$ and $`\sigma (P)`$ refer to the standard deviations of $`Q`$ and $`P`$ in the input state.

The proof of Eq. (26) runs as follows. Since $`M`$ and $`P`$ are observables in different systems, we have $`[M(\mathrm{\Delta }t),P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)]=0`$. Substituting $`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=Q(0)+N(Q)`$ and $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=P(0)+D(P)`$ for this relation and using the commutation relation $`[Q,P]=i\mathrm{}`$, we have AG88 ; 91QU ; Ish91

$$[N(Q),D(P)]+[N(Q),P(0)]+[Q(0),D(P)]=i\mathrm{}.$$
(27)
Taking the moduli of means of the both sides and applying the triangular inequality, we have

$`|[N(Q),D(P)]|+|[N(Q),P(0)]|`$ (28)
$`+|[Q(0),D(P)]|\mathrm{}.`$
Since the variance is not greater than the mean-square, Eq. (2) gives

$$ϵ(Q)\eta (P)\sigma [N(Q)]\sigma [D(P)]\frac{1}{2}|[N(Q),D(P)]|,$$
(29)
where $`\sigma `$ in the middle term refers to the standard deviation in the state $`\psi \xi `$. Similarly, we have

$`ϵ(Q)\sigma (P)`$ $``$ $`\sigma [N(Q)]\sigma [P(0)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|[N(Q),D(P)]|,`$ (30)
$`\sigma (Q)\eta (P)`$ $``$ $`\sigma [Q(0)]\sigma [D(P)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|[Q(0),D(P)]|.`$ (31)
Thus, from Eqs. (28)–(31), we conclude Eq. (26).

## V Limitation of Heisenberg’s relation

The above proof clearly answers the question when Eq. (1) holds generally: If $`[N(Q),P(0)]+[Q(0),D(P)]=0`$, then Eq. (1) holds for every input state $`\psi `$ and every apparatus state $`\xi `$. In fact, from Eq. (27), the condition $`[N(Q),P(0)]+[Q(0),D(P)]=0`$ implies the commutation relation

$$[N(Q),D(P)]=i\mathrm{}.$$
(32)
Thus, Eq. (1) follows immediately from Eq. (29).

In order to draw a useful conclusion, we say that the measurement has independent intervention, if there are two operators $`N`$ and $`D`$ on the state space of the apparatus such that

$`N(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`IN,`$ (33)
$`D(P)`$ $`=`$ $`ID,.`$ (34)
In this case, we have $`ϵ(Q)=N\xi `$ and $`\eta (P)=D\xi `$, so that every measurement with independent intervention has constant mean-square noise and disturbance.

From Eqs. (33) and (34) the relations

$$[N(Q),P(0)]=[Q(0),D(P)]=0$$
(35)
follows easily. Thus, we conclude that every measurement with independent intervention satisfies Eq. (1) for every input state $`\psi `$ and every apparatus state $`\xi `$ without requiring the equipredictivity.

The above conclusion suggests that the equipredictivity is not an essential requirement for a measurement to satisfy Heisenberg’s relation compared with the independence of the noise and the disturbance from the measured system.

## VI Von Neumann models

Von Neumann vN32  constructed the first quantum mechanical model of position measurement. His model is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=K(QP_0)$$
(36)
that couples the mass position $`Q`$ and the probe momentum $`P_0`$ with coupling constant $`K`$ satisfying $`K\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$. Then, taking the meter to be the probe position, i.e., $`M=Q_0`$, the time evolution $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }tH/\mathrm{})`$ determines the input-output relation 02KB5E

$`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q(0)+(IQ_0),`$ (37)
$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(0)(IP_0).`$ (38)
Thus, this model has independent intervention with $`N(Q)=IQ_0`$ and $`D(P)=IP_0`$, and hence Eq. (1) holds. Assuming that the probe’s mean position is initially at the origin, the constant root-mean-square error $`ϵ(Q)=\sigma (Q_0)`$ plays an analogous role of “resolution power” of microscopic measurements. Then, Eq. (1) follows directly from the relation $`\sigma (Q_0)\sigma (P_0)\mathrm{}/2`$ 02KB5E .

## VII Equivalence of measurements with independent intervention

Interestingly, we can show that every measurement with independent intervention has the position error operator and the momentum disturbance operator equivalent to those of the above von Neumann model. In fact, from Eqs. (32),(33), and (34), we have

$$[N,D]=i\mathrm{}.$$
(39)
Thus, by the Stone-von Neumann theorem on the uniqueness of representations of the canonical commutation relations RS75 , the independent error and disturbance operators can be, up to unitary equivalence, decomposed as

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`Q_0I,`$ (40)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`P_0I,`$ (41)
for a one-dimensional position $`Q_0`$ and momentum $`P_0`$. Then, the input-output relation can be, up to local unitary equivalence, represented as

$`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q(0)+(IQ_0I),`$ (42)
$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(0)(IP_0I).`$ (43)
Thus, every measurement with independent intervention has the position error and momentum disturbance equivalent with the von Neumann model.

## VIII Violations of Heisenberg’s relation

For finitely accessible input states, i.e., $`\sigma (Q),\sigma (P)<\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (26) excludes the possibility of having both $`ϵ(Q)=0`$ and $`\eta (P)=0`$ simultaneously. However, it is possible to have $`\eta (P)=0`$ uniformly over every input state or alternatively to have $`ϵ(Q)=0`$ uniformly. In both cases, Eq. (1) is violated uniformly with $`ϵ(Q)\eta (P)=0`$. Thus, we have two types of uniform violations of Eq. (1); we shall refer to the former as type I and the latter as type II.

In type I violations, by substituting $`\eta (P)=0`$ in Eq. (26), we have

$$ϵ(Q)\sigma (P)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$
(44)
The above relation even allows to have $`ϵ(Q)0`$ with $`\sigma (P)\mathrm{}`$, and actually a model in Section IX will realize relations $`\eta (P)=0`$ and $`ϵ(Q)0`$ with $`\sigma (P)\mathrm{}`$. In this case, the small error is compensated not by the large momentum disturbance but by the large initial momentum uncertainty. From Eq. (3), this means that without disturbing the momentum the position can be measured as precisely as our initial knowledge on the object position. This rather natural possibility has been excluded from Eq. (1).

Similarly, in type II violations, $`\sigma (Q)`$ and $`\eta (P)`$ are constrained as

$$\sigma (Q)\eta (P)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},$$
(45)
so that the small momentum disturbance is compensated by the large initial position uncertainty, and actually a model in Ref. 02KB5E  realizes relations $`ϵ(Q)=0`$ and $`\eta (P)0`$ with $`\sigma (Q)\mathrm{}`$. From Eq. (3), this implies the possibility of the precise position measurement with only disturbing the momentum as much as the initial momentum uncertainty. Since Eq. (1) has prohibited the precise position measurement without infinite momentum transfer, this opens a new possibility of precision measurements of the mass position and similar physical quantities.

## IX Type I violations and EPR thought experiments

A Type I violation can be obtained by reformulating the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment EPR35 . Let the measured system be a two-particle system comprising one-dimensional particles 1 and 2 with positions $`Q_1,Q_2`$ and momenta $`P_1,P_2`$, respectively, and consider the following process of measuring $`Q_1`$; our measuring apparatus is assumed to couple only to particle 2 and to precisely measure $`Q_2`$, but then to output this measured value of $`Q_2`$ as the outcome of the indirect $`Q_1`$ measurement. This is generally not a good measurement of $`Q_1`$; however, the interaction for this measurement does not disturb $`P_1`$, so that $`\eta (P_1)=0`$ uniformly. In this case, we can show that $`ϵ(Q_1)^2=(Q_1Q_2)^2`$ for any input state note-3 . On the other hand, for any small $`\alpha >0`$, we can choose a two-particle state $`\psi `$ such that $`(Q_1Q_2)^2<\alpha ^2`$. Thus, in all such states, we can measure $`Q_1`$ with $`ϵ(Q_1)<\alpha `$ without disturbing $`P_1`$.

The importance of the above example is the abundance of such state $`\psi `$. Let $`_i`$ be the state space of particle $`i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. There exist a unitary operator $`U`$ on the space $`_1_2`$ and a state $`\eta ^{}_2`$ such that for every $`\eta `$ the state $`\psi =U(\eta \eta ^{})`$ satisfies the condition $`(Q_1Q_2)^2<\alpha ^2`$.

## X Type II violations

All the type II violations are characterized by the condition $`N(Q)=0`$. Thus, the input-output relation of such measurement is characterized by

$`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q(0),`$ (46)
$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(0)+D(P).`$ (47)
It is generally accepted that every measurement is associated with a probability operator-valued measure (POVM) $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, which maps every interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to a positive operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ on the state space of the measured object Dav76 ; 84QC ; the POVM determines the probability of obtaining the outcome $`𝐱`$ of the measurement in an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on input state $`\psi `$ by $`\mathrm{Pr}\{𝐱\mathrm{\Delta }\}=\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta })\psi `$. Then, by Eq. (46) the measurement is of type II violation if and only if for any interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the spectral projection of $`Q`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. All the possible state changes associated with those measurements of type II violation were described in Ref. 01QI

A model measurement of type II violation arose from the controversy on the sensitivity limit of gravitational wave detectors (see Mad88  for a brief survey). The sensitivity limit of interferometer type gravitational wave detectors is derived from the accuracy of the monitoring of a free mass position, the relative position of mirrors in the interferometer. Braginsky, Caves, and others Bra74 ; CTDSZ80 ; BK92  claimed that any position measurement results a back-action obeying Eq. (1) that leads to the following sensitivity limit, called the standard quantum limit (SQL), for monitoring the free-mass position: Let a free mass $`m`$ undergo unitary evolution during the time $`\tau `$ between two measurements of its position $`Q`$, made with identical measuring apparatuses; the result of the second measurement cannot be predicted with root-mean-square error smaller than $`(\mathrm{}\tau /m)^{1/2}`$ in average Cav85 . However, Yuen Yue83  claimed that the SQL is not universally valid and can be breached by a “contractive state measurement” that leaves the free-mass in a state with decreasing position uncertainty in time. After the debate on the realizability of contractive state measurements, it was shown in Ref. 88MS  that the contractive state measurement can be realized by the interaction

$$H=\frac{K\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}\{2(QP_0PQ_0)+(QPIIQ_0P_0)\},$$
(48)
where $`Q_0`$ and $`P_0`$ are the probe position and probe momentum, respectively. We can show that this measurement not only breaks the SQL 88MS  but also is a type II violation of Heisenberg’s relation. In fact, with the meter observable $`M=Q_0`$, the time evolution $`U=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }tH/\mathrm{})`$ with $`K\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ determines the input-output relation 02KB5E

$`M(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q(0),`$ (49)
$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(0)+[P_0(0)P(0)].`$ (50)
From the above input-output relation, we have $`N(Q)=0`$ and $`D(P)=P_0(0)P(0)`$, so that $`ϵ(Q)=0`$ uniformly and $`\eta (P)^2=P_0(0)^2+P(0)^22P_0(0)P(0)<\mathrm{}`$. Thus, $`ϵ(Q)\eta (P)=0`$ uniformly and the above measurement is of type II violation of Eq. (1). For more detail on this measurement, we refer to Refs. 88MS ; 89RS ; 01CQSR ; 02KB5E ; 03UVRHUP ; 90QP .

## XI Concluding remarks

Many text books have associated the formal expression of “Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation” to Eq. (3), but also associated the physical meaning of “Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation” to Eq. (1). However, Eq. (3) can no longer be considered as a formal expression of Eq. (1), since Eq. (3) is a universally valid mathematical relation, but Eq. (1) has its own limitation.

In this Letter, we define “Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation” based on Heisenberg’s claim published in 1927, which, of course, revealed the limitation of our ability of observation on microscopic objects at the first time. However, Heisenberg himself appears to have changed his position from 1927 to 1929. Around this time, it was already known that the EPR type thought experiment violates Eq. (1). In this case, the position of the mass at a time $`t`$ can be indirectly measured very precisely without disturbing the momentum, and hence if the momentum is measured directly just after the position measurement, the momentum at the time $`t`$ can also be measured very precisely, as discussed in Section IX. Heisenberg’s response to this criticism appears to have been that he considered the uncertainty relation to be Eq. (3) rather than Eq. (1) by stating, for instance, that “every experiment destroys some of the knowledge of the system which was obtained by previous experiments. This formulation makes it clear that the uncertainty relation does not refer to the past” (p. 20, Ref. Hei30 ). Heisenberg’s response means that even if we can measure both the position and the momentum at the past time $`t`$ very precisely, after the momentum measurement the mass has no longer definite position so that Eq. (3) is not violated at any time. Thus, around this time, “Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation” might turn to be a more fundamental formal relation like the CCR than what Heisenberg claimed in 1927.

Although there have been many attempts to show violations of Eq. (1), it has been difficult to construct a forceful argument without definite definitions of error and disturbance, since, as shown in Section VIII, any such conceivable violation has an alternative compensating reciprocal relation, Eq. (44) or Eq. (45), with the same lower bound. For instance, if one shows a calculation on some model indicating that Eq. (1) is ultimately violated, then the defender can easily modify the calculation to lead to a reciprocal relation Eq. (44) or Eq. (45) and tell that not only Eq. (3) but also “Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation” holds in this measurement.

Thus, the definiteness of the definition of error is quite important in the whole story. We can justify our definition of error as follows. If the input state has the true value of the measured observable, our definition gives the root-mean-square difference between the true value and the measured value, and hence this is the only one from the name “root-mean-square error.” We can also show that under some natural mathematical requirements, extending the definition to arbitrary input states is also unique. In this Letter, the root-mean-square error is defined through the model of measuring process. However, this error can be shown to be model independent and actually determined directly from the POVM of the measurement. In fact, the error $`ϵ(A)`$ in measuring an observable $`A`$ using apparatus with a POVM $`\mathrm{\Pi }(dx)`$ coincides with the distance $`d(\mathrm{\Pi },A)`$ between the POVM $`\mathrm{\Pi }(dx)`$ and the observable $`A`$ defined by

$`d(\mathrm{\Pi },A)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\psi \left|{\displaystyle x^2\mathrm{\Pi }(dx)}\left[{\displaystyle x\mathrm{\Pi }(dx)}\right]^2\right|\psi `$ (51)
$`+{\displaystyle x\mathrm{\Pi }(dx)\psi }A\psi ^2.`$
The detail will be discussed in a forthcoming paper 03NDM . According to that, the definition of root-mean-square error is believed to be unique.

The $`\gamma `$ ray microscope is considered to be described by a model with independent intervention under usual approximation allowed in mathematical modeling of the physical apparatus. Then, the theory shows that the root-mean-square error and the root-mean-square momentum disturbance satisfy Heisenberg’s relation. The resolution power of the $`\gamma `$ ray microscope is considered to coincide with the experimental root-mean-square error in the state with definite position before measurement up to constant factor. Thus, the resolution power should coincide with the root-mean-square error of the model up to constant factor, so that the theory consistently concludes that the product of the resolution power and the momentum disturbance is lower bounded by the Planck constant times a constant factor.

In the present Letter, we have shown that Heisenberg’s reciprocal relation between position-measurement error and momentum disturbance holds for every measurement with independent intervention and clarifies the limitation of Heisenberg’s relation. We also proposed a new universally valid relation among measurement error, disturbance, and initial uncertainties. This relation reveals possibilities of measurements beyond Heisenberg’s relation and clarifies the new constraints for measurements beyond Heisenberg’s relation.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Strategic Information and Communications R&D Promotion Scheme of the MPHPT of Japan, by the CREST project of the JST, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the JSPS.


text:
# DFUB 10/2002 24/9/02 Search for GUT Magnetic Monopoles with the MACRO Experiment at the Gran Sasso Lab.

## Abstract

The final results of the MACRO experiment on the search for GUT supermassive magnetic monopoles in the penetrating cosmic radiation are presented and discussed. The 90% CL upper limits are at the level of 1.5 - $`2\times 10^{16}`$ $`cm^2`$ $`s^1`$ $`sr^1`$ for $`0.0004<\beta <1`$. Similar limits were obtained for nuclearites. Limits for the MM catalysis of proton decay are at $`34\times 10^{16}`$ $`cm^2`$ $`s^1`$ $`sr^2`$ for $`10^4<\beta <610^3`$.

One of the primary aims of the MACRO detector at the Gran Sasso lab. (at an average depth of 3700 mwe) was the search in the penetrating cosmic radiation for the supermassive magnetic monopoles (MMs) predicted by Grand Unified Theories of the electroweak and strong interactions; the search was planned for a sensitivity level well below the Parker bound $`(10^{15}cm^2s^1sr^1)`$ and for a large range of velocities, $`410^5<\beta <1,\beta `$= v/c.

MACRO used three different types of detectors: liquid scintillators, limited steamer tubes and nuclear track detectors (NTDs; CR39 and Lexan) arranged in a closed-box modular structure, divided into a lower and an upper (“Attico”) part. The overall dimensions of the apparatus were $`76.5\times 12\times 9.3m^3`$. MACRO took data from early 1989 till december 2000 .

The response of the three types of detectors to slow and fast particles was experimentally studied \[2 - 4\]. The use of three types of subdetectors with redundant electronics, in stand alone and combined modes, ensured redundancy of information, cross-checks and indipendent signatures for possible MM candidates; it also allowed to cover the complete $`\beta range`$, $`4\times 10^51`$.

The searches performed with the liquid scintillator subdetector used different specialized triggers to cover the $`10^4<\beta <4\times 10^2`$ range ; a custom made 200 MHz wave form digitizer was used for the lower $`\beta range`$, while the PHRASE system was used in the intermediate $`\beta range`$.

The searches performed in the low $`\beta region`$ with the limited streamer tubes were based on the search for single tracks and on the measurement of the velocity by means of a “time track” .

The searches with the CR39 NTDs required chemical etching of each individual sheet $`(24.5\times 24.5\times 0.14cm^3)`$, double scannings, measurements and eventual cross checks with other sheets of the same module. We analized 845.5 $`m^2`$ of sheets, exposed for an average time of 9.5 y .

Combined analyses with 2 or 3 types of detectors were performed as described in ref. .

No MM candidate was found; the obtained limits were presented and discussed at many conferences and compared with other results  .

Fig. 1 shows the 90% C.L. flux upper limits for $`g=g_D`$ MMs (one unit Dirac magnetic charge) obtained by indipendent methods. The final limit, computed by combining the indipendent limits obtained by the different analyses, is shown in Figs. 1 and 2; the MACRO limit is compared with previous limits in Fig. 2 .

Fig. 3 shows the flux upper limits obtained with the CR39 nuclear track detector for MMs with different magnetic charges, $`g=g_D`$, $`2g_D`$, $`3g_D`$ and for M + p composites.

The interaction of the GUT monopole core with a nucleon can lead to a reaction in which the nucleon decays (monopole catalysis of nucleon decay), f. e. $`M+pM+e^++\pi ^0`$ . The cross section for this process is of the order of the core size, $`\sigma 10^{56}cm^2`$, practically negligible. But the catalysis process could proceed via the Rubakov-Callan mechanism with a cross section of the order of the strong interaction cross section . We developed a dedicated analysis procedure aiming to detect nucleon decays induced by the passage of a GUT MM in our streamer tube system. The flux upper limit results of this search as a function of the MM velocity and of the catalysis cross section is shown in Fig. 4 .

MMs with intermediate masses, $`10^5<m_M<10^{12}`$ GeV, could be present in the cosmic radiation; underground and underwater experiments have a limited sensitivity to such MMs.

As a byproduct of our scintillator and nuclear track detector searches, we obtained upper limits for a flux of nuclearites and of Q-balls in the penetrating cosmic radiation.

Nuclearites (Strangelets, Strange Quark Matter) should consist of aggregates of u, d and s quarks in almost equal proportion. They could have been produced shortly after the Big Bang or in violent astrophysical processes, and may have survived as remnants; they could be part of the cold dark matter and would have typical galactic velocities, $`\beta 10^3`$. They should yield a large amount of light in scintillators and large Restricted Energy Losses in the nuclear track detectors. Fig. 5 shows our upper limits for an isotropic flux of nuclearites obtained with the scintillator and the CR39 subdetectors; also the MACRO combined limit is shown . Fig. 6 shows a compilation of limits for a flux of nuclearites compared with the dark matter limit, assuming a velocity at ground level of $`\beta =10^3`$.

Q-balls should be aggregates of squarks $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, sleptons $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ and Higgs fields . The scalar condensate inside a Q-ball core should have a global baryon number Q. There could exist neutral and charged Q-balls and they could be possible cold dark matter candidates. Charged Q-balls could have been detected, with reduced sensitivity, by our scintillators and nuclear track detectors.

In conclusion, we have presented the final results of the MACRO searches for superheavy MMs in the penetrating cosmic radiation. The flux limits are at the level of $`12\times 10^{16}cm^2s^1sr^1`$ for $`\beta >4\times 10^5`$. The obtained limits are the best existing and cover the widest $`\beta range`$. It will be difficult to do much better since one would require detectors of much larger areas.

Similar considerations apply to massive nuclearites with $`\beta 10^3`$ and to charged Q-balls.

I thank the colleagues of the MACRO collaboration, in particular those from Bologna. I thank ms. Anastasia Casoni for her cooperation.


text:
# Stimulated emission and ultrafast carrier relaxation in InGaN multiple quantum wells

## Abstract

Stimulated emission (SE) was measured from two InGaN multiple quantum well (MQW) laser structures with different In compositions. SE threshold power densities (Ith) increased with increasing QW depth ($`x`$). Time-resolved differential transmission measurements mapped the carrier relaxation mechanisms and explained the dependence of Ith on $`x`$. Carriers are captured from the barriers to the QWs in $`<`$ 1 ps, while carrier recombination rates increased with increasing $`x`$. For excitation above Ith an additional, fast relaxation mechanism appears due to the loss of carriers in the barriers through a cascaded refilling of the QW state undergoing SE. The increased material inhomogeneity with increasing $`x`$ provides additional relaxation channels outside the cascaded refilling process, removing carriers from the SE process and increasing Ith.

Recent advances in the growth of group-III nitride heterostructures have made it possible to manufacture efficient green, blue, and ultraviolet emitters and detectors. Carrier dynamics in such device structures are beginning to be understood through the use of high power, short pulse, regenerative and optical parametric amplifiers. In this paper, stimulated emission (SE) in InGaN multiple quantum well (MQW) laser structures with differing QW depths is explored. SE threshold power densities increase with increasing QW depth, and ultrafast measurements of carrier dynamics reveal why.

Two different InGaN MQW samples, differing primarily by QW In composition ($`x`$), were grown on c-plane sapphire in a modified two flow metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) reactor. Both samples have $``$2 $`\mu `$m thick GaN:Si base layers. The 12% sample consists of 10 periods of 8.2 nm/3.4 nm In0.07Ga0.93N:Si/In0.12Ga0.88N QWs and is capped with a 100 nm thick GaN:Si layer. The 23% sample consists of 12 periods of 10 nm/3.5 nm In0.03Ga0.97N:Si/In0.23Ga0.77N QWs and is capped with 16 nm thick Al0.10Ga0.90N and 40 nm thick GaN:Si layers. The In compositions and the QW/barrier thicknesses are determined by high resolution X-Ray measurements. Material inhomogeneities, which arise from QW thickness fluctuations, compositional fluctuations, and In phase separation, have previously been observed to increase with increasing $`x`$ and will be shown to play an important role in carrier relaxation and emission processes.

Fig. 1 shows the cw-PL for 3.81 eV low intensity (300W Xe lamp) and moderate intensity (25mW HeCd laser at 325 nm) excitations, and time-integrated PL (TI-PL) with a high intensity ($``$15 $`\mu `$J/cm2) pulsed 3.31 eV excitation for both MQW samples. PL for the 12% sample shows a single peak at 3.01 eV for both Xe lamp (not shown) and HeCd excitations. The 23% sample shows at least two well-defined PL peaks for Xe-Lamp and HeCd laser excitation, the higher energy of which (2.52 eV) is assigned as the main PL from the QWs. The lower energy PL peak is associated with impurity (yellow) emission. For both samples, TI-PL from spontaneous emission (SPE) blueshifted for with increasing pump pulse intensity (Fig. 1) due to band filling and piezoelectric (PZE) field screening by the increasing number of laser-induced carriers. The intensity-dependent blueshifts and PL linewidths increased with increasing $`x`$, indicating a greater role of inhomogeneities.

Cw-absorption measurements (Fig. 1) revealed the 3D barrier energies as 3.23 eV and 3.29 eV for the 12% and 23% samples, respectively. Although the 12% sample showed no remarkable QW band edge absorption, a PLE edge at the confined QW energy is weakly visible at room temperature (3.11 eV) and clearly visible at 77 K (3.14 eV). By contrast, the QW band edge is clearly observed for the 23% sample at 2.93 eV for both cw-absorption and PLE measurements. More importantly, the PLE signal was much broader for the 23% sample and extended to localized states at least 200 meV below the QW band edge. The broadening of the PLE, the Stokes-like shift between the QW band edge and the emission energy, and the number of localized states below the QW band edge clearly increased with increasing $`x`$, another consequence of increased material inhomogeneities and carrier localization.

For normal incidence pulsed excitation at moderate pump densities ($`>`$100$`\mu `$J/cm2), stimulated emission (SE) is observed from the edge parallel to the sample surface. The SE peaks for both samples appear near the QW band edge, indicating that the SE originates from the lowest energy QW confined states. Spectrally-integrated emission and linewidths were measured as a function of the average pump density to obtain Ith. For the 12% sample, a broad SE peak appeared slightly blueshifted (20 meV) from the PL peak. In contrast, the SE peak for the 23% sample (2.90 eV) appeared 200 meV bluer than the PL peak. The linewidth of the SE peak for the 23% sample ($`>`$70 meV) is remarkably larger than the linewidth for the 12% sample ($``$30 meV), again a consequence of material inhomogeneities.

SE thresholds (Ith) increased with $`x`$ (90, and 160 $`\mu `$J/cm2 for the 12% and 23% samples, respectively), contradicting earlier observations that Ith decreased with increasing QW depth. In order to further investigate this behavior, non-degenerate time-resolved differential transmission (TRDT) spectroscopy was applied to measure carrier dynamics at room temperature. A Ti:Sapphire laser-seeded Quantronix Titan regenerative amplifier (RGA) with $``$1.8 mJ, $``$100 fs pulses at 800 nm was used. Half of the RGA output power is used to pump a Quantronix TOPAS optical parametric amplifier (OPA). The signal output from the tunable OPA is frequency quadrupled and used as the pump in the TRDT experiment. The other half of the RGA output is frequency doubled in a BBO crystal and focused on a quartz cell filled with D2O to generate a broadband continuum probe. The pump beam is delayed with respect to the probe beam using a retroreflector mounted on a 1 $`\mu `$m-resolution translational stage. The probe, transmitted through the sample, is then collected by a spectrometer with a liquid nitrogen cooled charge-coupled device camera.

To examine the relaxation of the total population of carriers, TRDT signals are spectrally integrated (SI) over all energies where photoexcited carriers were observed (Fig. 2). For excitation energies near the barrier band edge and power densities above Ith, both samples show an initial fast decay followed by a much slower relaxation. SI-TRDT data were fit by a bi-exponential decay function, $`Fe^{t/\tau _F}+Se^{t/\tau _S}`$, where $`\tau _F`$ and $`\tau _S`$ are the decay constants, and $`F`$ and $`S`$ are the magnitudes, for the fast and slow decaying components, respectively. As the excitation density decreased, $`F`$ decreased and $`\tau _F`$ slowed, while $`S`$ and $`\tau _S`$ were unchanged (Fig. 2). The fast decaying component in the SI-TRDT data is caused by the accelerated relaxation of carriers through SE. After $``$10 ps the SE ends, leaving only the much slower decaying component due to carrier recombination and spontaneous emission.

Spectrally-resolved TRDT (SR-TRDT) data for the 12% and 23% samples further elucidates the carrier redistribution and relaxation processes, as shown in Fig. 3. For excitation densities below Ith in the 12% sample (Ith(12%)), photoexcited carriers relax to the barrier band edge in $`<`$1 ps, resulting in a broad distribution (160 meV) of carriers in the QWs centered at energies that increasingly redshift below the barriers with increasing time (Fig. 3a). The arrival of carriers at the QW band edge (3.11 eV) $``$300 fs after carrier accumulation at the barriers (3.22 eV) indicates the rate of carrier capture from the 3D barrier states into the 2D QW states.  For excitation densities above Ith(12%), the larger number of photoexcited carriers relax in a similar manner, except that the broad carrier distribution is centered at, not below, the barrier energy (Fig. 3b). This suggests that the QW states are saturated at high excitation densities and that excess photoexcited carriers accumulate in the 3D barrier states. For both excitations, the blue edge of the carrier distribution begins to decay after 1 ps, but the red edge remains almost constant until 400 ps. The rate of blue edge decay is significantly faster for the above Ith excitation than below (Fig. 3b), explaining the pump intensity-dependent behavior of the fast component in the SI-TRDT (Fig. 2a). It is apparent that during the SE process, carriers cascade to refill the emission-emptied QW states from higher energy 3D barrier states and 2D QW states.  After SE ends, a much slower, pump intensity-independent decay and redshift is observed as the carriers are lost through recombination. By 400 ps, the carrier distribution is centered at the QW band edge (3.11 eV). The decay constant for the TRDT signal at the QW energy (3.11 eV) is 0.66$`\pm `$0.06 ps, which agrees with the slow SI-TRDT rate and the previously measured recombination time.

SR-TRDT data for the 23% sample for excitation densities below (Fig. 3c) and above (Fig. 3d) Ith(23%) presents a slightly different behavior. Since the localized and confined QW states are deeper, initial carrier accumulation is not observed at the barrier energy, and below Ith excitation produces a broader (420 meV) carrier distribution whose peak occurs near the QW band edge ($``$2.93 eV) in only 0.5 ps. The carriers arrive in the QWs (2.93 eV) 0.85 ps later than at the barriers (3.29 eV), indicating the carrier capture process is significantly slower than in the 12% sample. By contrast, for the above Ith(23%) excitation, a wider and flatter carrier distribution is observed in 1 ps, extending from the barriers to the localized states below the QWs. As in the 12% sample, the blue edge of the carrier distribution is responsible for the fast component in Fig. 2b, which peaks in $`<`$1 ps and quickly decays while SE is underway ($`<`$10 ps). Likewise, the carrier distribution peak remains near the QW band edge, and carriers cascade from higher energy states to refill the SE-emptied QW states. After SE ends, the distribution continues to redshift slowly as carriers are lost through various decay channels. The carriers at the QW band edge are observed to decay much faster (0.32$`\pm `$0.05 ns at 2.90 eV) than in the 12% sample. This occurs because, in addition to radiative decay, QW carriers in the 23% sample decay non-radiatively into the localized states as much as 200 meV below the QW band edge. Carrier decay is slower in these localized states (0.48$`\pm `$0.08 ns at 2.84 eV) than at the QW band edge, suggesting that the presence of these localized states undermines the QW radiative emission process. As further evidence of the role of inhomogeneities in the 23% sample, note the long-lived induced absorption at the barrier energies, also due to carriers localized in traps after 10 ps.

For the 23% sample, then, localization in material inhomogeneities plays a greater role in the carrier redistribution and relaxation processes. A larger percentage of carriers are trapped by the inhomogeneities at the barriers and in the localized states below the SE ($``$QW) energy, making them energetically unavailable to participate in the refilling process required to sustain SE. The increased importance of non-radiative relaxation produces carrier decay times at the QW band edge that are remarkably faster for the 23% than for the 12% sample. The combination of these effects leads to a greater variety of carrier relaxation channels and a commensurate increase of Ith(23%) over Ith(12%). These observations reconcile the apparently conflicting findings of Kwon et al. and Yablonskii et al. regarding the dependence of Ith on the QW depth. In the former case, which concerns GaN/InxGa1-xN MQWs with $`x<13.3\%`$, $`I_{th}`$ is low, as reported here, because of the (reduced) material inhomogeneities. However, $`I_{th}`$ was found to increase with decreasing $`x`$ because of the increasing role of other non-radiative pathways. In the latter case, emission from MQWs with unknown but larger $`x`$ exhibits the same sort of increase in $`I_{th}`$ with $`x`$ as reported here. They similarly conclude that non-radiative processes involving (increased) inhomogeneities is responsible. The transition for $`I_{th}`$ behavior appears to occur at a critical value for $`x`$ ($``$0.20), above which inhomogeneities, Stokes-like shifts, and radiative decay times are known to increase rapidly.

This work was partially supported by ARO grant DAAG55-98-D-0002-0007.