text:
# Characterizing the combinatorics of distributed EPR pairs for multi-partite entanglement

## 1 Introduction

Quantum entanglement is one of the most remarkable aspects of quantum physics. Two particles in an entangled state behave in some respects as a single entity even if the particles are physically separated by a great distance. The entangled particles exhibit what physicists call non-local effects. Such non-local effects were alluded to in the famous 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen  and were later referred to as spooky actions at a distance by Einstein . In 1964, Bell  formalized the notion of two-particle non-locality in terms of correlations amongst probabilities in a scenario where measurements are performed on each particle. He showed that the results of the measurements that occur quantum physically can be correlated in a way that cannot occur classically unless the type of measurement selected to be performed on one particle affects the result of the measurement performed on the other particle. The two particles thus correlated maximally are called EPR pairs or Bell pairs. Non-local effects, however, without being supplemented by additional quantum or classical communication, do not convey any signal and therefore the question of faster than light communication does not arise.

Entanglement is a key resource for quantum information processing and spatially separated entangled pairs of particles have been used for numerous purposes like teleportation , superdense coding  and cryptography based on Bell’s Theorem , to name a few. An EPR channel (a bipartite maximally entangled distributed pair of entangled particles) can be used in conjunction with a classical communication channel to send an unknown quantum state of a particle to a distant particle. The original unknown quantum state is destroyed in the process and reproduced at the other end. The process does not copy the original state; it transports a state and thus does not violate the quantum no-cloning theorem . This process is called teleportation and was proposed by Bennett et al. in their seminal work . In teleporation, a quantum communication channel is simulated using a classical channel and an EPR channel. A classical channel can also be simulated using a quantum channel and an EPR channel using superdense coding as proposed by Bennett and Wiesner . Two cbits (classical bits) are compressed in to a qubit and sent through an EPR channel to the distant party, who then recovers the cbits by local operations.

The use of EPR pairs for cryptography was first proposed by Ekert in 1991 . He proposed a protocol based on generalized Bell’s theorem for quantum key distribution between two parties. The two parties share an EPR pair in advance. They do a computational basis measurement on their respective qubits and the mesurement result is then used as the one bit shared key. While the measurement result is maximally uncertain, the correlation between their results is deterministic. Based on similar principles, a multiparty quantum key distribution protocol using EPR pairs in a distributed network and its proof of unconditional security has been proposed by Singh and Srikanth . Apart from these applications, entanglement has been used in several other applications such as cheating bit commitment , broadcasting of entanglement  and testing Bell’s inequalities .

Just as two distant particles could be entangled forming an EPR pair, it is also possible to entangle three or more separated particles. One example (called GHZ state) is due to Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger ; here three particles are entangled. A well-known manifestation of multipartite entanglement is in testing nonlocality from different directions . Recently, it has also been used for many multi-party computation and communication tasks  and multi-party cryptography  and . Buhrman, Cleve and van Dam , make use of three-party entanglement and demostrate the existence of a function whose computation requires strictly lesser classical communication complexity compared to the scenario where no entanglement is used. Brassard et al. in , show that prior multipartite entanglement can be used by $`n`$ agents to solve a multi-party distributed problem, whereas no classical deterministic protocol succeeds in solving the same problem with probability away from half by a fraction that is larger than an inverse exponential in the number of agents. Buhrman et al.  solves an $`n`$-party problem which shows a separation of $`n`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Theta }(n\mathrm{log}n)`$ bits between quantum and classical communication complexity. For one round, three-party problem this article also proved a difference of $`(n+1)`$ versus $`((3/2)n+1)`$ bits between communication with and without intial entanglement. In , Pal et al. present a fair and unbiased leader election protocol using maximal multi-partite entanglement.

Quantum teleportation strikingly underlines the peculiar features of the quantum world. All the properties of the quantum state being transfered are retained during this process. So it is natural to ask whether one qubit of an entangled state can be teleported while retaining its entanglement with the other qubit. The answer is, not surprisingly, in the affirmative. This is called entanglement swapping. Yurke and Stoler  and Zukowski et al  have shown that through entanglement swapping one can entangle particles that do not even share any common past. This idea has been generalized to the tripartite case by Zukowski et al. in  and later to the multipartite case by Zeilinger et al.  and Bose et al. . Zeilinger et al. presented a general scheme and realizable procedures for generating GHZ states out of two pairs of entangled particles from independent emissions. They also proposed a scheme for observing four-particle GHZ state and their scheme can directly be generalized to more particles. To create a maximally entangled state of $`(n+m1)`$ particles from two groups, one of $`n`$ maximally entangled particles and the other of $`m`$ maximally entangled particles, it is enough to perform a controlled operation between a particle from the first group and a particle from the second group and then a measurement of the target particle. We observe that if particles are distributed in a network then a single cbit of communication is required for broadcasting the mesurement result to construct the desired $`(n+m1)`$ maximally entangled state using local operations. In , Bose et al. have generalized the entangled swapping scheme of Zukowski et al. in a different way. In their scheme, the basic ingredient is a projection onto a maximally entangled state of $`N`$ particles. Each of the $`N`$ users needs to share a Bell pair with a central exchange. The central exchange then projects the $`N`$ qubits with it on to an $`N`$ particle maximally enatngled basis, thus leaving the $`N`$ users in an $`N`$ partite maximally entangled state. However, we note that in order to get a desired state, the measurement result obtained by the central exchange must be broadcast so that the end users can appropriatly apply requisite local operations. This involves $`N`$ cbits of communication.

In this paper, we consider the problem of creating pure maximally entangled multi-partite states out of Bell pairs distributed in a communication network from a physical as well as a combinatorial perspective. We investigate and characterize the minimal combinatorics of the distribution of Bell pairs and show how this combinatorics gives rise to resource minimization in long-distance quantum communication. We present protocols for creating maximal multi-partite entanglement. The first protocol (see Theorem 2.1) enables us to prepare a GHZ state using two Bell pairs shared amongst the three agents with the help of two cbits of communication and local operations with the additional feature that this protocol involves all the three agents dynamically. Such a protocol with local dynamic involvement in creating entanglement may find applications in cryptographic tasks. The second protocol (see Theorem 3.3) entails the use of $`O(n)`$ cbits of communication and local operations to prepare a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state in a distributed network of Bell pairs; the requirement here is that the pairs of nodes sharing EPR pairs must form a connected graph. We show that a spanning tree structure (see Theorem 3.2) is the minimal combinatorial requirement for creating multi-partite entanglement. We also characterize the minimal combinatorics of agents in the creation of pure maximal multi-partite entanglement amongst the set $`N`$ of $`n`$ agents in a network using apriori multi-partite entanglement states amongst subsets of $`N`$. This is done by generalizing the EPR graph representation to an entangled hypergraph and the requirement here is that the entangled hypergraph representing the entanglement structure must be connected.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present our protocol I to prepare a GHZ state from two Bell pairs involving all the three agents dynamically and compare our protocol in the light of existing schemes. Section 3 is devoted to characterizing the spanning tree combinatorics of Bell pairs for preparing a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state. We develop our protocol II for this purpose. In Section 4 we generalize the results of Section 3 to the setting where subsets of agents in the network share apriori pure multi-partite maximally entangled states. Finally in Section 5 we compare our scheme of Section 3 with the multipartite entanglement swapping scheme of Bose et al. , observe the similarity between Helly-type theorems and the combinatorics developed in Sections 3 and 4 and conclude with a few remarks on open research directions.

## 2 Preparing a GHZ state from two EPR pairs shared amongst three agents

In this section we consider the preparation of a GHZ state from two EPR pairs shared amongst three agents in a distributed network. We establish the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.1

If any two pairs of the three agents $`A`$ (Alice), $`B`$ (Bob) and $`C`$ (Charlie) share EPR pairs (say the state $`(|00+|11)/\sqrt{2}`$) then we can prepare a GHZ state $`(|000+|111)/\sqrt{2}`$ amongst them with two bits of classical communication, while involving all the three agents dynamically.

Proof: The proof follows from the Protocol I.

The Protocol I: Without loss of generality let us assume that the sharing arrangement is as in Figure 2.1. $`A`$ shares an EPR pair with $`B`$ and another EPR pair with $`C`$ but $`B`$ and $`C`$ do not share an EPR pair. This means that we have the states $`(|0_{a1}0_b+|1_{a1}1_b)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`(|0_{a2}0_c+|1_{a2}1_c)/\sqrt{2}`$ where subscripts $`a1`$ and $`a2`$ denote the first and second qubits with $`A`$ and subscripts $`b`$ and $`c`$ denote qubits with $`B`$ and $`C`$, respectively.

Our aim is to prepare $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_c)/\sqrt{2}`$ or $`(|0_{a2}0_b0_c+|1_{a2}1_b1_c)/\sqrt{2}`$. We need three steps to do so.

Step 1: $`A`$ prepares a third qubit in the state $`|0`$. We denote this state as $`|0_{a3}`$ where the subscript $`a3`$ indicates that this is the third qubit of $`A`$.

Step 2: $`A`$ prepares the state $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3})/\sqrt{2}`$ using the circuit in Figure 2.2.

Step 3: $`A`$ sends her third qubit to $`C`$ with the help of the EPR channel $`(|0_{a2}0_c+|1_{a2}1_c)/\sqrt{2}`$. A straight forward way to do this is through teleportation. This method however, does not involve both of $`B`$ and $`C`$ dynamically. By a party being dynamic we mean that the party is involved in applying the local operations for the completion of the transfer of the state of third qubit to create the desired GHZ state.

We use our new and novel teleportation circuit as shown in Figure 2.3 where both $`B`$ and $`C`$ are dynamic. The circuit works as follows. $`A`$ has all her three qubits with her and can do any operation she wants to be performed on them. Initially the five qubits are jointly in the state $`|\varphi _1`$. $`A`$ first applies a controlled NOT gate on her second qubit controlling it from her third qubit changing $`|\varphi _1`$ to $`|\varphi _2`$. Then she measures her second qubit yielding measurement result $`M_2`$ and bringing the joint state to $`|\varphi _3`$. She then applies a Hadamard gate on her third qubit and the joint state becomes $`|\varphi _4`$. A measurement on the third qubit is then done by her yielding the result $`M_1`$ and bringing the joint state to $`|\varphi _5`$. She then applies a NOT (Pauli’s X operator) on her first qubit, if $`M_2`$ is 1. Now she sends the measurement results $`M_2`$ to $`B`$ and $`M_1`$ to $`C`$. $`B`$ applies an $`X`$ gate on his qubit if he gets 1 and $`C`$ applies a $`Z`$ gate (Pauli’s $`Z`$ operator) if he gets 1. The order in which $`B`$ and $`C`$ apply their operations does not matter. The final state is $`|\varphi _7`$. The circuit indeed produces the GHZ state between $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ as can be seen from the detailed mathematical explanation of the circuit given below. It can be noted that this protocol requires two cbits of communication.

The above circuit can be explained as follows:

$$|\varphi _1=(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3})(|0_{a2}0_c+|1_{a2}1_c)/2,$$

$$|\varphi _2=[|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}(|0_{a2}0_c+|1_{a2}1_c)+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}(|1_{a2}0_c+|0_{a2}1_c)]/2.$$

Case 1: $`M_2=0`$

$`|\varphi _3`$ $`=`$ $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}0_{a2}0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}0_{a2}1_c)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`=`$ $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}1_c)|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2},`$
$`|\varphi _4`$ $`=`$ $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}0_c+|0_{a1}0_b1_{a3}0_c+|1_{a1}1_b0_{a3}1_c|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}1_c)|0_{a2}/2`$
$`=`$ $`[(|0_{a1}0_b0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|0_{a3}+(|0_{a1}0_b0_c|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|1_{a3}]|0_{a2}/2.`$
When $`M_1=0`$,

$$|\varphi _5=(|0_{a1}0_b0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|0_{a3}|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _6=(|0_{a1}0_b0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|0_{a3}|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _7=(|0_{a1}0_b0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|0_{a3}|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2}.$$

When $`M_1=1`$,

$$|\varphi _5=(|0_{a1}0_b0_c|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|1_{a3}|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _6=(|0_{a1}0_b0_c|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|1_{a3}|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _7=(|0_{a1}0_b0_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_c)|1_{a3}|0_{a2}/\sqrt{2}.$$

Case 2: $`M_2=1`$

$`|\varphi _3`$ $`=`$ $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}1_{a2}1_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}1_{a2}0_c)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`=`$ $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}1_c+|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}0_c)|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2},`$
$`|\varphi _4`$ $`=`$ $`(|0_{a1}0_b0_{a3}1_c+|0_{a1}0_b1_{a3}1_c+|1_{a1}1_b0_{a3}0_c|1_{a1}1_b1_{a3}0_c)|1_{a2}/2`$
$`=`$ $`[(|0_{a1}0_b1_c+|1_{a1}1_b0_c)|0_{a3}+(|0_{a1}0_b1_c|1_{a1}1_b0_c)|1_{a3}]|1_{a2}/2.`$
When $`M_1=0`$,

$$|\varphi _5=(|0_{a1}0_b1_c+|1_{a1}1_b0_c)|0_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _6=(|1_{a1}1_b1_c+|0_{a1}0_b0_c)|0_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _7=(|1_{a1}1_b1_c+|0_{a1}0_b0_c)|0_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2}.$$

When $`M_1=1`$,

$$|\varphi _5=(|0_{a1}0_b1_c|1_{a1}1_b0_c)|1_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$$|\varphi _6=(|1_{a1}1_b1_c|0_{a1}0_b0_c)|1_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2},$$

$`|\varphi _7`$ $`=`$ $`(|1_{a1}1_b1_c|0_{a1}0_b0_c)|1_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2}`$
$`=`$ $`(|1_{a1}1_b1_c+|0_{a1}0_b0_c)|1_{a3}|1_{a2}/\sqrt{2}.`$
The roles of $`B`$ and $`C`$ are symmetrical. Nevertheless, there is a condition on what operations they should perform when they get a single cbit from $`A`$. $`B`$ performs an $`X`$ and $`C`$ performs a $`Z`$ operation, as required. We set a cyclic ordering $`ABCA`$. Let $`A`$ be the one sharing EPR pairs with the other two; $`A`$ is the first one in the ordering. The second one is $`B`$, and he must perform an $`X`$ operation when he gets a single cbit from $`A`$. The third one is $`C`$, and he must perform a $`Z`$ operation on his qubit when he gets a single cbit from $`A`$. If $`B`$ is the one sharing EPR pairs with the other two then $`C`$ applies an $`X`$ on his qubit after getting a cbit from $`B`$ and, $`A`$ applies $`Z`$ on her qubit after getting a cbit from $`B`$ and so on.

As we mentioned in the introduction, methods for creating a GHZ state from Bell pairs have also been discussed by Zukowski et al.  and Zeilinger et al. . First one uses three Bell pairs for this purpose, therefore our protocol seems better than theirs in the sense that it uses only two Bell pairs. The later, however, uses only two Bell pairs and only one cbit of communication and seems to be better than our method at first sight. However, the most interesting fact and the motivation for developing our protocol is the dynamic involvement of both $`B`$ and $`C`$ which was lacking in the above methods. It might me highly desired in many multi-party interactive quantum protocols and multi-party cryptograhy (viz. secret sharing) that both $`B`$ and $`C`$ take part actively, say for fairness. By fairness we mean that every party has an equal chance for participating and effecting the protocol in probabilistic sense. It should be interesting to implement this in practical situation.

## 3 Preparing a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state from EPR pairs shared amongst $`n`$ agents

Definition 1 (EPR graph): Suppose there are $`n`$ agents. We denote them as $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_n`$. Construct an undirected graph $`G=(V,E)`$ as follows:

$$V=\{A_i:i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},n\},$$

$$E=\{\{A_i,A_j\}:A_i\text{and}A_j,\text{share an EPR pair,}1i,jn;ij\}.$$

We call the graph $`G=(V,E)`$, thus formed, the EPR graph of the $`n`$ agents.

Our definition should not be confused with the entangled graph proposed by Plesch and Buzek . In entangled graph edges represent any kind of entanglement and not neccessarily maximal entanglement and therefore there is no one to one correspondence between graphs and states. EPR graph is unique up to different EPR pairs. Moreover, we are not concerned with classical correlations which are also represented by different kind of edges in entangled graphs. In an EPR graph, two vertices are connected by an edge if and only if they share an EPR pair.

Definition 2 (spanning EPR tree): We call an EPR Graph $`G=(V,E)`$ as spanning EPR tree when the undirected graph $`G=(V,E)`$ is a spanning tree .

We are now ready to develop protocol II to create the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state $`(|000\mathrm{}0+|111\mathrm{}1)/\sqrt{2}`$ along a spanning EPR tree. The protocol uses only $`O(n)`$ cbits of communication and local operations. We do not use any qubit communication after the distribution of EPR pairs to form a spanning EPR tree.

Protocol II: Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be the spanning EPR tree. Since $`G`$ is a spanning EPR tree, it must have a vertex say $`T=A_t`$ which has degree one (the number of edges incident on a vertex is called its degree). Note that vertices of $`G`$ are denoted $`A_i`$, where $`1in`$. Let $`S=A_s`$ be the unique vertex connected to $`T`$ by an edge in $`G`$ and $`L`$ be the set of all vertices of $`G`$ having degree one. The vertex $`T`$ and its only neighbor $`S`$ are vertices we start with. We eventually prepare the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state using the three steps summarized below. In the first step, one cbit (say 1) is broadcasted by $`S`$ to signal other $`(n1)`$ parties that the protocol for the preparation of the $`n`$-partite entangled state is about to commence. The second step creates the GHZ state between $`S=A_s`$, $`T=A_t`$ and another neighbour $`R=A_r`$ of $`S`$. The third step is the main inductive step where multi-partite entanglement states are created in a systematic manner over the spanning EPR tree. At the end of step 3, when the $`n`$-partite entangled state is ready, one cbit of broadcating from all the $`(k1)`$ elements of $`L\{T\}`$ (terminal or degree one vertices of $`G`$) is expected. The $`(k1)th`$ such cbit indicates that the protocol is over and that maximally entangled state is ready. The details are stated below.

Step 1: $`S`$ broadcast one classical bit to signal the other $`(n1)`$ agents that the preparation of an $`n`$-partite entangled state is going to be started and they must not use their EPR pairs for a qubit teleportation amongst themselves. In other words, they must save their EPR pairs in order to use them for the preparation of the $`n`$-partite entangled state.

Step 2: Clearly $`S`$ must be connected to a vertex $`R`$ (say $`A_r`$) other than $`T`$ by an edge in $`G`$, otherwise $`G`$ will not be a spanning EPR tree. A GHZ state among $`S`$, $`T`$ and $`A_r`$ is created. The GHZ state can be prepared either by using usual teleportation circuit, the symmetric circuit of protocol I or by the Zeilinger et al. scheme. Thus using the EPR pairs $`(|0_{s,t}0_{t,s}+|1_{s,t}1_{t,s})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`(|0_{s,r}0_{r,s}+|1_{s,r}1_{r,s})/\sqrt{2}`$, we prepare the GHZ state $`(|0_{s,t}0_{t,s}0_{r,s}+|1_{s,t}1_{t,s}1_{r,s})/\sqrt{2}`$. Here the double subscript $`i,j`$ denotes that in preparing the given state, EPR pairs among the agents $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$ have been used. Here, $`A_s=S,A_r=R`$ and $`A_t=T`$.

Step 3: Suppose we are currently at vertex $`A_i`$ and we have already prepared the $`m`$-partite maximally entangled state, say

$$(|0_{i1,j1}0_{i2,j2}0_{i3,j3}\mathrm{}0_{im,jm}+|1_{i1,j1}1_{i2,j2}1_{i3,j3}\mathrm{}1_{im,jm})/\sqrt{2},$$

where $`i1=s,j1=t,i2=t,j2=s,i3=r,j3=s`$ and $`i=ir`$ for some $`1rm`$.

The vertex $`A_i`$ starts as follows. As soon as he gets two cbits from one of his neighbors, he completes the operations required for the success of teleportation and starts processing as follows. If $`A_iL`$ then $`A_i`$ broadcast a single cbit. Otherwise, (when $`A_iL`$) let $`A_{k1},A_{k2},\mathrm{},A_{kp}`$ be the vertices connected to $`A_i`$ by an edge in $`G`$ such that k1, k2,…, kp are not in the already entangled set with vertex indices $`\{i1,i2,i3,\mathrm{},im\}`$. $`A_i`$ takes an extra qubit and prepares this qubit in the state $`|0`$ denoted by $`|0_i`$. He then prepares the state

$$(|0_{i1,j1}0_{i2,j2}0_{i3,j3}\mathrm{}0_{im,jm}0_i+|1_{i1,j1}1_{i2,j2}1_{i3,j3}\mathrm{}1_{im,jm}1_i)/\sqrt{2}$$

using the circuit in Figure 3.4. Finally, he teleports his extra qubit to $`A_{k1}`$ using the EPR pair $`(|0_{i,k1}0_{k1,i}+|1_{i,k1}1_{k1,i})/\sqrt{2}`$, thus enabling the preparation of the $`(m+1)`$-partite maximally entangled state:

$$(|0_{i1,j1}0_{i2,j2}0_{i3,j3}\mathrm{}0_{im,jm}0_{k1,i}+|1_{i1,j1}1_{i2,j2}1_{i3,j3}\mathrm{}1_{im,jm}1_{k1,i})/\sqrt{2}.$$

$`A_i`$ repeats this until no other vertex, which is connected to it by an edge in $`G`$, is left.

Step 3 is repeated until one cbit each from the elements of $`L`$ (except for $`T`$) is broadcasted, indicating that all vertices in $`L`$ as well as in $`VL`$ have got entangled.

Note that more than one vertex might be processing Step 3 at the same time. This however does not matter since local operations do not change the reduced density matrix of other qubits. Moreover, while processing the Step 3 together, such vertices will no longer be directly connected by an edge in $`G`$.

Now we determine the communication complexity of protocol II, the number of cbits used in creating the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state. Step 1 involves one cbit broadcast by $`S`$ to signal the initiation of the protocol. To create the GHZ state in Step 2, atmost $`2`$ cbits is required. In Step 3, teleportation is used to create an $`(m+1)`$-partite maximally entangled state from that of $`m`$-partite. Such $`(n3)`$ teleportation steps are used in this Step entailing $`2(n3)`$ cbits of communication. Finally, $`(k1)`$ cbits are broadcast by terminal vertices (except $`T`$). Thus the total cbits used in protocol II is $`1+2+2(n3)+k1=2n+k42n+n14=3n5=O(n)`$.

Protocol II leads to the following interesting theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1

If the combinatorial arrangement of distributed EPR pairs amongst $`n`$ agents forms a spanning EPR tree, then the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state $`(|000\mathrm{}0+|111\mathrm{}1)/\sqrt{2}`$ can be prepared amongst them with $`O(n)`$ bits of classical communication.

Theorem 3.1 thus gives a sufficient condition for preparing a maximally entangled $`n`$-partite state in a distributed network of EPR pairs. In order to prove this sufficiency, we have also developed two more protocols which require $`O(n)`$ cbits of communication. The first two steps of these protocols are essentially the same as that of Protocol II. The first protocol involves all the agents already entangled in each iteration in Step 3, where, a circuit very similar to the symmetric teleportation circuit (Figure 2.3) of Protocol I is used. The classical communication cost is $`(2n4)`$ bits. The second protocol uses a generalization of the method of Zeilinger et al. in each iteration of Step 3 and requires $`(2n3)`$ cbits of communication. In this paper we have presented only Protocol II instead of these two protocols because of simplicity and the direct use of teleportation.

The question of interest now is that of determining the minimal structure or combinatorics of the distribution of EPR pairs neccessary for creating the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state. In other words, we wish to characterize neccessary properties to be satisfied by the EPR graph for this purpose. We argue below that the EPR graph, indeed, must contain a spanning EPR tree, and must therefore be connected. We assume for the sake of contradiction that the EPR graph $`G`$ is not connected. Then, it must have at least two components, say $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. No member of $`C_1`$ is connected to any member of $`C_2`$ by an edge in $`G`$. This means that no member of $`C_1`$ is sharing an EPR pair with any member of $`C_2`$. Suppose a protocol $`P`$ can create a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state starting from the disconnected EPR graph $`G`$ of $`n`$ agents. If we are able to create an $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state using protocol $`P`$ with this structure using only classical communication and local operations, it is easy to see that we will also be able to create an EPR pair between two parties that were not earlier sharing any EPR pair, using just local operations and classical communication. This can be done as follows. Let $`A`$ be the first party that posseses all the qubits of his group (say $`C_1`$) and $`B`$ be the second party that possesses all the qubits of his group (say $`C_2`$). Now the protocol $`P`$ is run on this structure to create the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state. Then, $`A`$ ($`B`$) disentangles all of his qubits except one by reversing the circuit in Figure 3.4; this leaves $`A`$ and $`B`$ sharing an EPR pair. This means that two parties which were never sharing an EPR pair are able to share it just by local operations and classical communication (LOCC). This is forbidden by fundamental laws in quantum information theory (LOCC cannot increase the expected entanglement ), hence $`G`$ must be connected. Note that no qubit communication is permitted after the formation of EPR graph $`G`$. We present this neccessary condition in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.2

A necessary condition that the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state $`(|000\mathrm{}0+|111\mathrm{}1)/\sqrt{2}`$ be prepared in a distributed network permitting only EPR pairs for pairwise entanglement between agents is that the EPR graph of the $`n`$ agents must be connected.

It can be noted that after the preparation of the state $`(|000\mathrm{}0+|111\mathrm{}1)/\sqrt{2}`$, any other pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state can also be prepared by just using local operations. We also know that any connected undirected graph contains a spanning tree . Thus a connected EPR graph will contain a spanning EPR tree. With this observations, we combine the above two theorems in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.3

Amongst $`n`$ agents in a communication network permitting only pairwise entanglement in the form of EPR pairs, a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state can be prepared if and only if the EPR graph of the $`n`$ agents is connected.

## 4 Entangling a set of agents from entangled states of subsets: Combinatorics of general entanglement structure

In the previous section we have presented the necessary and sufficient condition for preparing a pure multi-partite maximally entangled state in a distributed network of EPR pairs (see Theorem 3.3). However, agents may not be connected by EPR pairs in a general network. We assume that subsets of agents may be sharing pure maximally entangled states. So, some triples of agents may be GHZ entangled, some pairs of agents may share EPR pairs and some subsets of agents may share even higher dimensional entangled states.

Now we develop the combinatorics of multi-partite entanglement within subsets of agents required to prepare multi-partite entanglement between all the agents. When we were dealing only with EPR pairs in the case of EPR graphs or spanning EPR trees, we used the simple graph representation. Now subsets of the set of all agents may be in multi-partite entangled states and therefore we use a natural representation for such entanglement structures with hypergraphs as follows.

Let $`S`$ be the set of $`n`$ agents in a communication network. Let $`ES`$, $`|E|=k`$. Suppose $`E`$ is such that the $`k`$ agents in $`E`$ are in a $`k`$-partite pure maximally entangled state. Let $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, …, $`E_m`$ be such subsets of $`S`$, each having a pure maximally entangled shared state amongst its agents. Note that the sizes of these subsets may be different. Consider the hypergraph $`H=(S,F)`$  such that $`F=\{E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_m\}`$. We call such a hypergraph $`H`$, an entangled hypergraph of the $`n`$ agents. In standard hypergraph notation the elements of $`F`$ are called hyperedges of $`H`$. Now we present the necessary and sufficient condition for preparing a $`n`$-partite pure maximally entangled state in such networks, given entanglements as per the entangled hypergraph. We need the definition of a hyperpath in a hypergraph: a sequence of $`j`$ hyperedges $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, …, $`E_j`$ in a hypergraph is called a hyperpath from a vertex $`a`$ to a vertex $`b`$ if (i) $`E_i`$ and $`E_{i+1}`$ have a common vertex (agent) for all $`1ij1`$ (ii) $`a`$ and $`b`$ are agents in $`S`$ (iii) $`aE_1`$ and (iv) $`bE_j`$. If there is a hyperpath between every pair of vertices of $`S`$ in a hypergraph $`H`$ then we say that $`H`$ is connected.

###### Theorem 4.1

Given $`n`$ agents in a communication network and an entangled hypergraph, a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state can be prepared amongst the $`n`$ agents if and only if the entangled hypergraph is connected.

The proof of this theorem is based on the following Protocol III.

The Protocol III: We assume without loss of generality that $`n>|E_1||E_2|\mathrm{}|E_m|`$. We maintain the set $`F`$ and $`R=SF`$ where $`F`$ contains the agents already entangled in the $`|F|`$-partite pure maximally entangled state. Initially, $`F=E_1`$ and $`R=\{E_2,E_3,\mathrm{},E_m\}`$. We repeat the following steps until $`F=S`$. Choose $`E_iR`$ with minimum $`i`$ such that $`F`$ and $`E_i`$ have at least one common agent and $`E_i`$ is not in $`F`$; let the smallest index common element between $`E_i`$ and $`F`$ be the agent $`A_j`$. (Since the entangled hypergraph is connected, there is always such a hyperedge $`E_i`$.) We can now use the method of Zeilinger et al. to create an $`(N+M1)`$-partite maximum entangled state from two groups, one containing $`N=|F|`$ agents and the other containing $`M=|E_i|`$ agents. The measurement is processed by $`A_j`$. So, an $`(|F|+|E_i|1)`$-partite entanglement state is prepared from amongst the members of $`F`$ and $`E_i`$. If $`F`$ and $`E_i`$ share only one common agent then we are done. Otherwise, each member common to $`F`$ and $`E_i`$ other than $`A_j`$ will have two qubits each from the $`|F|+|E_i|1`$ entangled qubits. These qubits must be disentangled using a circuit same as the reverse of circuit in Figure 3.4. Now the members of $`F`$ and $`E_i`$ remain entangled in $`(|F|+|E_i||FE_i|)`$-partite state, each holding exactly one qubit. Finally, we set $`F=FE_i`$ and $`R=RE_i`$.

The proof of necessity is similar to that of the proof of necessity in Theorem 3.2. For the sake of contradiction assume that the entangled hypergraph $`H`$ is not connected. Then there is no hyperpath between two agents (say $`a`$ and $`b`$), implying the existence of at least two components $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ in $`H`$, with no member of $`C_1`$ sharing a hyperedge of entanglement with any member of $`C_2`$. Suppose a protocol $`P`$ can create a pure $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state starting from the disconnected entangled hypergraph $`H`$ of $`n`$ agents. If we are able to create an $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state using protocol $`P`$ with this structure using only classical communication and local operations, it is easy to see that we will also be able to create an EPR pair between two parties that were not earlier sharing any EPR pair, using just local operations and classical communication. This is forbidden by fundamental laws in quantum information theory (LOCC cannot increase the expected entanglement ). Hence $`H`$ must be connected. This completes the proof of Theorem 4.1.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We compare our method (Protocol II) of generating multipartite maximally entangled states with that of Bose et al. . The scheme of Bose et al. works as follows. Each agent needs to share a Bell pair with a central exchange in the communication network of $`n`$ agents. The central exchange then projects the $`n`$-qubits with him, on to the $`n`$-partite maximally entangled basis. This leaves the $`n`$ agents in a $`n`$-partite maximally entangled state. Thus, the two basic requirements of their scheme are a central exchange and a projective measurement on a multi-partite maximally entangled basis. The central exchange essentially represents a star topology in a communication network and allows certain degree of freedom to entangle particles belonging to any set of users only if the necessity arises. However, a real time communication network may not always be a star network, in which case, we may need to have several such central exchanges. Of course, one will also be interested in setting up such a network with minimum resources, especially in the case of a long distance communication network. Issues involved in the design of such central exchanges such as minimizing required resources, are of vital interest while dealing with real communication networks. Such networks may be called Quantum Local Area Network (Q-LAN or Non-LAN, a Non-Local LAN) or Quantum Wide Area Network (Q-WAN or Non-WAN). Our scheme presented in Section 3 adresses these issues. We have shown in Theorem 3.3 that the spanning EPR tree is the minimal combinatorial requirement for this purpose. The star topology is a special case of the spanning EPR tree where the central exchange is one of the agents. It is therefore clear that the star network requirements of the scheme of Bose et al. provides a sufficient condition where as the requirement in our spanning EPR tree scheme is the most general and minimal possible structure.

Our scheme also helps in minimizing resources. Our spanning tree topology has been used by Singh and Srikanth  for this purpose. They assign weights to the edges of the EPR graph based on the resources (such as quantum repeaters, etc.) needed to build that particular edge. Then, a minimum spanning EPR tree represents the optimized requirement. They also use this topology for multi-party quantum cryptography to minimize the size of the sector that can be potentially controlled by an evesdropper. Thus our topology seems to be a potential candidate for building a long distance quantum communication network (such as in a Non-LAN or Non-WAN).

The second basic ingredient of the scheme of Bose et al. is the projection on a multipartite maximally entangled basis. As they point out, the circuit for such a measurement is an inverse of the circuit that generates a maximally entangled state from a disentangled input in the computational basis. In a communication network involving a large number of agents, this entails a lot of work to be done on part of the central exchange while the agents are idle. In our scheme, work is distributed amongst the agents. Moreover, the $`n`$-qubit joint measurement on the entangled basis in the scheme of Bose et al. seems to be well high impossible from a practical standpoint given the current technology, whereas all the practical requirements of our scheme (Protocol II) can be met using current technology (using telecom cables to distribute entanglement etc).

The projection used by the central exchange in the scheme of Bose et al. may lead to any of the $`2^n`$ possible $`n`$-partite maximally entangled states. For practical purposes, one might be more interested in a particular state. To get the desired state, the measurement result must be broadcast by the central exchange. The $`2^n`$ possible states can be represented by a $`n`$ bit number and thus the communication complexity involved in their scheme is $`n`$ cbits, essentially the same as that of ours asymptotically. Therefore, our scheme is comparable to their scheme also in terms of communication complexity. It can also be noted at this point that, in our topology, even the method of Zeilinger et al. for creating $`(m+1)`$-partite maximally entangled state from a $`m`$-partite maximally entangled state becomes applicable. The use even reduces the communication complexity by some cbits but still requires $`2n3`$ cbits which is $`O(n)`$. As it can be observed, all these schemes require $`O(n)`$ cbits of communication. Whether there is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ lower bound on the cbit communication complexity for preparing $`n`$-partite a pure maximally entangled state given a spanning EPR tree remains open for further research.

The results in Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.1 are similar to the classical theorem by Helly  in convex geometry. Helly’s theorem states that a collection of closed convex sets in the plane must have a non-empty intersection if each triplet of the convex sets from the collection has a non-empty intersection. In one dimension, Helly’s theorem ensures a non-empty intersection of a collection of intervals if each pair of intervals has a non-empty intersection. In our case (Theorems 3.3 and 4.1), there is similar combinatorial nature; if $`n`$ agents are such that each pair has a shared EPR pair, then (with linear classical communication cost) a pure $`n`$-partite state with maximum entanglement can be created entangling all the $`n`$ agents. As stated in Theorem 3.1, the case is stronger because just $`(n1)`$ EPR pairs suffice. Due to this similarity in combinatorial nature, we call our results in Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 4.1 quantum Helly-type theorems.

Acknowledgments: We thank R. Srikanth, K. Mitra and S. P. Khastigir for a thorough reading of the manuscript and for their comments.


format: text

text:
# Chandra observation of the core of the galaxy cluster AWM 7

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recent Chandra and XMM-Newton data have shown with their advanced imaging and spectroscopic capabilities rather complex features in the cores of rich clusters, including the brightest objects such as M87, Centaurus, and Perseus clusters. The newly emerging properties of the cluster core are roughly summarized into three aspects: the complex brightness structure often correlated with radio lobes, the lack of cool gas with temperatures below 1–2 keV, and the interesting metallicity profiles sometimes characterized by high-metallicity rings. The Chandra images show both filamentary structures and holes that coincide with radio lobes in some clusters. Clear examples are the Perseus cluster (Fabian et al., 2000; Schmidt, Fabian, & Sanders, 2002), and Hydra A (McNamara et al., 2000; David et al., 2001). The lack of the cool gas which was expected from radiative cooling raises a problem of heat source and heating mechanism (e.g. Fabian et al., 2001; Böhringer et al., 2002), which are still an unsolved question. Various possible heat sources have been proposed, but none of the existing models seems to explain the observed thermal structure of the cluster gas in a plausible way. The metal-abundance profile increases simply toward the center in M 87 (Matsushita et al., 2002), while the metallicity profiles in Perseus, Centaurus (Sanders and Fabian, 2002) and Abell 2199 (Johnstone et al., 2002) clusters show a peak at a certain radius from the cluster center. The precise origin of these “high-metallicity rings” is not understood yet.

AWM 7 is a nearby, X-ray bright cluster at a redshift of $`z=0.0173`$ (Koranyi & Geller, 2000). The ROSAT data show a moderate cooling flow of $``$ 60 M yr-1, and a temperature drop at the center associated with the central cD galaxy, NGC1129 (Neumann and Böhringer, 1995). The ASCA mapping observation revealed an isothermal intracluster medium (ICM) with a temperature of 4 keV (Furusho et al., 2001), and a Mpc-scale abundance gradient from the central 0.5 solar to about 0.2 solar in the outer region (Ezawa et al., 1997). These results suggest that this cluster as a whole has been in a dynamically relaxed state. The ICM distribution, however, is not circularly symmetric but elliptically elongated in the east-west direction. The X-ray peak of the cD galaxy in the PSPC image is shifted from the center of the whole cluster by 30 kpc, and from the optical center of the cD galaxy by 3 kpc (Neumann and Böhringer, 1995; Koranyi & Geller, 2000). AWM 7 therefore is thought to be still in an early stage in the cD cluster evolution. No detection of CO emission from the cD galaxy was reported with an upper limit for the mass of molecular gas to be $`<4\times 10^8M_{}`$ (Fujita et al., 2000). The NRAO image at 1.4 GHz does not show any significant radio emission from the cD galaxy (Burns et al., 1980).

In this paper, we report on the high spatial resolution X-ray image of AWM 7, along with the temperature and abundance profiles. This relatively young cD cluster is the best target to look into the processes taking place during the evolution of cD clusters and to make comparison with other systems.

We use $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0.5`$, indicating 29 kpc for $`1^{}`$ and 0.49 kpc for $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ at AWM 7. The solar number abundance of Fe relative to H is taken as $`4.68\times 10^5`$ (Anders & Grevesse, 1989).

## 2 OBSERVATION AND DATA REDUCTION

The core of AWM 7 was observed with Chandra on 2000 August 19 for 47,850 s using the ACIS-I detector. The center of the cluster was focused on the center of ACIS-I3 with an offset of $`Y3.7`$ and $`Z+3.7`$ arcmin from the on-axis position, and we limit here our analysis to the I3 chip only. The data were taken with the Faint mode, and the CCD temperature was $`120^{}`$C. In order to check if significant flares may affect the data, we produced a light curve for the ACIS chips I0–2 which observed the sky region with relatively higher background contribution than the I3 chip using events in the 0.3–10 keV energy band. We found there was no flare-like time variation. We applied the data screening to keep the count rates within $`\pm 10\%`$ of the average of 4.7 count s-1, and it resulted in a slight reduction in the usable exposure time to 47,731 s.

## 3 THE CD GALAXY REGION

### 3.1 X-ray Image

A smoothed image of the central $`1^{}\times 1^{}`$ region of AWM 7 in the 0.5–7 keV band is shown in Figure 1a. The image is smoothed by a Gaussian function with $`\sigma =2^{\prime \prime }`$, and corrected for exposure. The X-ray image appears to mainly consist of the diffuse ICM and three emission components. The bright central emission corresponds to the cD galaxy, NGC 1129. The point-like weak emission at $`27^{\prime \prime }`$ (13 kpc) southwest of the center is identified as a small galaxy, VV085b, which is more clearly seen in the 2MASS (The Two Micron All Sky Survey) infrared image in Figure 2c. The third component is a very faint extended feature near the cD galaxy with a separation $`13^{\prime \prime }`$ (6 kpc) in the southeast of the cD. This component has no cataloged counterpart either in NED or SIMBAD. The image also shows signs of blobs or filamentary structures around the cD galaxy, and possible small X-ray holes at $`17^{\prime \prime }`$ east and $`18^{\prime \prime }`$ west of the center, such as those seen in other major cD clusters more distinctly.

Figure 1b shows a color-coded X-ray image of the same region, in which X-ray photon energy is shown in three colors. The energy assignments for the 3 colors are 0.5–1.5 keV for red, 1.5–2.5 keV for green, and 2.5–8 keV for blue, respectively. There is an extended yellow region seen near the center, and the shape may be an unresolved small filament like the one seen in the Centaurus cluster (Sanders and Fabian, 2002). The southeast faint structure (hereafter hard sub-peak) in the cD galaxy is obviously bluer compared with the central region of the cD galaxy. X-ray color of the galaxy VV085b is red. The temperature of this galaxy is lower than the level of NGC 1129, however this source is too faint for a quantitative temperature determination with spectral fits.

In order to look into energy dependent structures, we create the soft (0.5–2.0 keV) and hard (2.0–10.0 keV) band images separately as shown in Figures 2a and 2b. The images are adaptively smoothed ith a minimum significance of $`3\sigma `$. In these figures, the dotted lines indicate the cutout region whose intensity profiles are plotted in Figure 2d. The images are again for the central $`1^{}`$ square region. The hard sub-peak in the southeast region marked by a cross appears very clearly in the hard band image, while it is hardly seen in the soft band. The X-ray flux of this hard sub-peak is very close to the peak at the cD galaxy, as seen in the 2–10 keV band profile (filled circles) in Figure 2d. Since the cluster center was focused on the I3 chip center with an offset of $`5^{}`$ from the optical axis, the PSF at the hard sub-peak is wider than the on-axis PSF. The spatial extent of the sub-peak, more than $`8^{\prime \prime }`$, however, is wider than the PSF width at the sub-peak position as shown by the dashed curve in Figure 2d. Therefore, this sub-peak emission is unlikely to be from a single point source. The distance between the sub-peak and the cD galaxy center ($`13^{\prime \prime }`$ or 6 kpc) is much smaller than the isophotal radius $`r_e`$ of NGC 1129: $`48^{\prime \prime }`$ (23 kpc) (Bacon et al., 1985). This sub-peak is thought to be an internal structure of the cD galaxy, if it is not either a foreground or a background source. It is remarkable that the 2MASS image of the cD galaxy shows no sign of a structure in the same position (Figure 2c).

We also notice that, in the hard-band image shown in Figure 2b, there are fainter blob-like features seen just in the northwest and possibly a hole or filament in the west of the cD galaxy. The 1-dimensional profile in Figure 2d in fact shows a peak at $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ in the opposite side of the hard sub-peak. Furthermore, this hard band image shows a marked deviation from the spherical symmetry. The brightness shows a fairly sharp cutoff in the north to east direction of the cD, while it is more diffusively extended in the west to south direction. This morphology suggests that the hotter gas component in the central region may be moving to the northeast direction, creating a rather sharp edge in the front and a tailing feature behind. This rather complex nature of the central hot gas, which is only seen in the hard energy band ($`>2`$ keV) is an entirely new finding in the present analysis. Note that the boxes in Figure 2b show regions where spectra were extracted as described in §3.3.

We find another small structure in the very center of the cD galaxy. The X-ray peak in the 0.5–2 keV band is shown by a filled triangle in Figure 2a-c. We derived the peak position from the true data. The soft peak position, (R.A., decl.)J2000 = ($`2^\mathrm{h}54^\mathrm{m}27^\mathrm{s}.51`$, $`+41^{}34^{}46^{\prime \prime }.29`$), is slightly shifted to southeast from the 2MASS image center of NGC 1129, (R.A., decl.)J2000 = ($`2^\mathrm{h}54^\mathrm{m}27^\mathrm{s}.34`$, $`+41^{}34^{}46^{\prime \prime }.20`$), by $`1.9^{\prime \prime }`$ (1 kpc) with a statistical error of $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ as shown in Figure 2c. This feature has been noted by Koranyi & Geller (2000) who reported that the peak of the PSPC image was $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ offset from the nominal position of NGC 1129. In the 2–10 keV band, coordinate of the X-ray peak at the cD galaxy is (R.A., decl.)J2000 = ($`2^\mathrm{h}54^\mathrm{m}27^\mathrm{s}.40`$, $`+41^{}34^{}46^{\prime \prime }.93`$), which is $`1.0^{\prime \prime }`$ (0.5 kpc) away from the 2MASS image center. However, the statistical error in this band is $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$ so the uncertaintly range covers both the 2MASS and the soft peaks. Figure 2d shows one-dimensional profiles from southeast to northwest running through the hard sub-peak, and the center of the cD galaxy. The peak of the soft-band profile (open circles) is offset by a few arcsec, but the hard band one (filled circles) takes the maximum almost at the cD center.

### 3.2 Fe Blobs

The left panel of Figure 3 shows an image by limiting the data in a narrow energy band 6–7 keV, which includes the Fe-K line, for the central $`1^{}`$ region. The image shows two blob-like features symmetrically located around the cD galaxy center in the northeast and southwest directions. The two blobs contain 25 and 33 counts in the 6–7 keV band, while the surrounding regions of the same size have 9 and 13 counts, respectively. Interestingly, the angle of the line connecting the two blobs is perpendicular to that connecting the cD galaxy center and the hard sub-peak as seen in the 2–10 keV intensity contours. To confirm the enhanced Fe abundance, we calculated hardness ratios between fluxes in 6–7 keV and 2–6 keV for all positions and plotted them in the right panel of Figure 3, by converting them into the abundance values. Since the ICM temperature at $`r=10^{\prime \prime }20^{\prime \prime }`$ is fairly constant within 20 % in this region, the hardness ratio should show us the approximate equivalent width of Fe-K line excluding the very center. We took running means over $`16^{\prime \prime }\times 16^{\prime \prime }`$ for each data point, because the photon statistics in the 6–7 keV band was too low to draw a pixel-by-pixel image. The region with good statistics is encircled by the white line, in which the statistical errors are less than 30%. The hardness map also indicates high-abundance regions around the two blobs seen in the left panel. As shown in the spectral fit in §4.3, the abundance value of the Fe blobs is 1.5–2.0 solar. We also note that in both panels of Figure 3 the southeast hard sub-peak has a very low Fe abundance, although the statistical errors are large.

### 3.3 Spectral Analysis

We first extracted pulse-height spectra for the central three regions, which correspond to the hard peak (cD center), soft peak, and the hard sub-peak as shown in Figure 2b. The region sizes are $`7^{\prime \prime }\times 14^{\prime \prime }`$, $`7^{\prime \prime }\times 14^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`10^{\prime \prime }\times 10^{\prime \prime }`$, respectively. The data were corrected for CTI using the software provided by Townsley 111http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/townsley/cti/install.html, which significantly improved residuals of the spectra around Fe-K line. We have created background spectra using the blank sky data described by Maxim Markevitch 222http://asc.harvard.edu/cal. Response matrices and effective area files were made for multiples of $`32\times 32`$ pixels, and averaged with a weight of the number of photons in the region using “mkrmf” and “mkarf” in the CIAO software package distributed by the CXC. Since the response for the ACIS spectrum has a problem below 1 keV in determining the accurate absorption due to the material accumulated on the ACIS optical blocking filter, we added the acisabs absorption model 333http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/models/acisabs.html available in XSPEC, and fixed the absorption at the Galactic value of $`9\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. The parameter Tdays was set to 392, and the rest of the parameters were kept at their default values. We fit the spectra with an absorbed single temperature MEKAL model in the energy band 1–9 keV, excluding the 1.8–2.2 keV interval around the mirror Ir edge to minimize the effects of calibration uncertainties.

The spectra and resulting best-fit parameters are shown in Figure 4 and Table 1. The normalizations of the spectra are arbitrarily scaled to lay-out the spectra separately. The spectra of the soft and hard peaks, where most part of the emission comes from the NGC 1129 center, show the temperatures of 1.8 and 2.0 keV. They are consistent with the previous PSPC value of $`kT=1.8`$ keV at the cluster center (Neumann and Böhringer, 1995) and are about half of the ICM temperature in the outer region. The luminosity of the cD galaxy, by adding the former two regions, is derived to be $`2.6\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1 in the 0.5–10 keV band. The temperature of the hard sub-peak is about 3 keV, higher than the former two regions just as expected from the color X-ray image (Figure 1b). Since the spectrum of the sub-peak contains the hot ICM component along the line of sight, a spectral fit with an additional MEKAL component with a fixed temperature of 2.8 keV, which is roughly an average temperature at $`r=10^{\prime \prime }20^{\prime \prime }`$ as shown in Figure 6, was carried out and resulted in the sub-peak temperature to be higher than about 5 keV with the best-fit metallicity value of zero solar. The metal abundance of the sub-peak is significantly lower compared with the other 2 regions and the surrounding ICM (see §4.2). Accordingly, the data also allows a power-law spectrum for the sub-peak component, with the best-fit photon index 1.2 and the 90% error range to be 0–2.5. However, the statistical quality of the data is poor and it is difficult to constrain the actual nature of the sub-peak emission. The estimated luminosity of the sub-peak excluding the ICM component is $`1.2\times 10^{40}`$ erg s-1, which is close to the levels of small elliptical galaxies.

To evaluate the significance of the enhanced Fe abundance, we also created a pulse-height spectrum for the sum of the two Fe blob regions and compared it with the one in the surrounding region. The actual regions where the data were accumulated are shown by the white ellipses in Figure 3a for the Fe blobs, and the surrounding low-metal region was an annular region with $`r=5^{\prime \prime }20^{\prime \prime }`$ excluding the Fe blobs. Figure 5 shows the resultant spectra for the Fe blobs and the surrounding region. A prominent Fe-K line is indeed recognized in the blob spectrum. We fit the spectra in the same way as we did for the central spectra, i.e. single temperature MEKAL model with a fixed $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ value. The Fe blob region shows the metal abundance to be 1.57 (1.03–2.10) solar, compared with 0.73 (0.52–1.04) solar for the surround region, with the values in parentheses showing 90% confidence limits for a single parameter. We looked into the difference in the $`\chi ^2`$ values for two spectral fits, one with a common abundance for the two spectra and the other with separate abundance parameters, and it turned out to be 8.1 (138.8 and 146.9). The reduction of the $`\chi ^2`$ value is more than 2.7 for one additional model parameter, which indicates that the two regions have different metal abundance at the 90% confidence (Malina, Lampton, & Bowyer, 1976).

## 4 THE SURROUNDING ICM REGION

### 4.1 Surface Brightness Profile

The top panel of Figure 6 shows the radial distribution of the X-ray surface brightness within a radius of $`r<2^{}`$(60 kpc) in the 0.5–10 keV band. Point source candidates were subtracted, and the exposure was corrected for. We center on the X-ray peak of the 0.5–10 keV image, which is the same position as the soft-band peak because the photons below 2 keV are dominant even in the full band image. The X-ray emission from the cD galaxy within a radius of $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ is smoothly connected to the ICM without significant jump or edge features. The profile as a whole is very well fitted by a single $`\beta `$ model with the parameters derived as $`\beta =0.28\pm 0.01`$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}=1.4^{\prime \prime }\pm 0.2`$ (0.7 $`\pm `$ 0.1 kpc). Errors denote the 90% confidence limits for a single parameter. The $`\beta `$ value is slightly larger than the previous HRI results which showed $`\beta =0.25\pm 0.01`$, and the core radius is smaller than the HRI value, $`r_\mathrm{c}=6^{\prime \prime }16^{\prime \prime }`$ (Neumann and Böhringer, 1995). The difference is reasonably explained by the higher spatial resolution of the Chandra data. The $`\beta `$ value obtained here is much lower than those in typical cD galaxies ($`\beta =12`$) or field elliptical galaxies ($`\beta =0.40.6`$). The central density is obtained to be $`n_0=0.053\pm 0.010`$ cm-3, which is consistent with the value derived from the HRI observation.

### 4.2 Temperature and Abundance Profiles

We have created annular spectra with a width of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ and fitted them with an absorbed MEKAL model. The point source candidates are subtracted. We have created background spectra in the same way as we performed for the spectra of the central region in §3.3. Each annular spectrum can be fitted well by an absorbed single temperature model with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of mostly 0.9–1.2. The middle panel of Figure 6 shows the resulting temperature profile. We fit the spectra for two different energy bands, 1–9 keV and 2–9 keV, as indicated by crosses and diamonds in the lower two panels of Figure 6. The best-fit temperatures for these two energy bands are slightly different in each ring by about 0.5 keV. The tendency that the temperature gradually drops toward the center from around 4 keV is the same for both fits. The central temperature is 2 keV, about half of the average ICM temperature in the outer region. Similar features are seen in most cD clusters with ASCA (Ikebe 2001), and is also similar for a universal temperature profile for relaxed lensing clusters reported by Allen, Schmidt, & Fabian (2001).

The bottom panel of Figure 6 shows the radial profile of metal abundance. The abundance increases toward the center from 0.5 solar to 1.5 solar at $`r=7`$ kpc. The peak value exceeding 1 solar is much higher than the previous ASCA result (Ezawa et al., 1997) which is indicated by the dotted line. The abundance feature was not resolved by the large point spread function of the ASCA X-ray mirror. The central abundance falls back to 0.7 solar with the single temperature fit in the 1–9 keV band, leaving the ring-like metallicity peak at $`r=7`$ kpc. The similar profile is observed in other cD clusters, such as in the Centaurus cluster (Sanders and Fabian, 2002), Abell 2199 (Johnstone et al., 2002), and Abell 2052 (Blanton, Sarazin, & McNamara, 2003). To take the projection effect into account, we also fitted the central spectrum with a two-temperature model with fixed parameters of the projected ICM component as shown with the thick crosses. The resulting best-fit abundance is about 1.2 solar, which is still lower than the peak value. However, the errors now allow the curve to be flat, or a metal concentration at the center is allowed if one takes the result (1.6 solar) for the 2–9 keV fit. The deprojected abundance profile of M 87 shows the same result, which decreases to the center in the whole band fit, but increases to the very center in the fit above 2 keV (Matsushita et al., 2002). Unfortunately, the smaller core of AWM 7 with rather low surface brightness, compared with the one of Centaurus, M 87, etc, makes confirmation of the low abundance at the very center of AWM 7 difficult.

### 4.3 Two-dimensional Map

Since the radial profile always suppresses fine angular structures, we studied the spectra in 4 azimuthal directions separately for the central $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ region in steps of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=10^{\prime \prime }`$. We fit the spectra with a single temperature model in the 1–9 keV band. Figure 7 shows the resulting 2-dimensional maps of temperature and abundance. The map shows that the temperature in the west half is almost isothermal with $`kT=3.03.5`$ keV excluding the central region with $`r<20^{\prime \prime }`$. The southeast region is hotter than the average by 1.0 keV, while the surface brightness distribution is very smooth and symmetric. The abundance map again shows the high metallicity regions in the northeast of the second ring and the southwest of the third ring. These two regions exactly correspond to the two blobs described in §3.2. The best-fit abundances of the northeast and southwest blobs are $`1.9\pm 0.5`$ solar and $`2.8_{0.9}^{+0.5}`$ solar, respectively, while the surrounding regions show 1.0–1.4 solar with typical errors of 0.2–0.4 solar. The abundance distribution is almost uniform with $`Z=0.70.9`$ solar in the four directions outside the Fe blobs.

## 5 DISCUSSION

We have analyzed the Chandra data of the galaxy cluster AWM 7, which brought us the X-ray view of the cluster center with the best spatial resolution ever achieved. In particular, the 2–10 keV image showed interesting structures in the cD galaxy. We found an extended emission with fairly hard spectrum ($`kT>3`$ keV) at a position 6–7 kpc off from the cD center. This source has no optical counterpart. Other weaker blob-like features are also seen in the 2–10 keV image in the central region. Based on the Fe band intensity map and the hardness ratio map, we found two extended regions with strong Fe-K line emission almost symmetrically aligned with respect to the cD center. The directions of these Fe blobs from the cD center are perpendicular to that of the hard sub-peak. We derived radial profiles of the surface brightness, temperature, and metal abundance for the surrounding ICM within a radius of $`2^{}`$, which showed some common X-ray features with other cD clusters. Below, we will discuss about the implications of these new and interesting results.

### 5.1 Hard Sub-Peak and Hot Blobs

The sub-peak recognized in the hard band image has a spatial extent of about 4 kpc if it belongs to AWM 7, and it is certainly more extended than the PSF. The X-ray luminosity at the distance of AWM 7 is estimated to be $`1.2\times 10^{40}`$ erg s-1, which is comparable to those of elliptical galaxies. Other fainter blobs which are suggested in the hard band image (Figure 2b) have lower luminosities by several factors. Here, we examine the possibility whether this hard sub-peak really belongs to AWM 7 or not. The observed properties of this source, i.e. an extended X-ray emission with a temperature $`>3`$ keV (or nonthermal) and the lack of optical counterpart, makes the possibility of foreground or background object very unlikely. Possible extragalactic objects with extended emission are elliptical or starburst galaxies, or distant clusters, but the absence of optical counterpart is a severe problem. Furthermore, the complex structure seen in the hard-band image strongly suggest that the whole feature is the emission of AWM 7 itself and that the hard sub-peak is simply the brightest blob among the other fainter ones. With these consideration, we may conclude that the sub-peak feature is a gas cloud residing in the core region of AWM 7. We note that a number of X-ray blobs with a similar size (3 kpc) have been found in the core region of the cluster 2A 0335+096 (Mazzotta et al., 2003), in which blob luminosities are several times $`10^{41}`$ erg s-1. A notable difference is that the blob temperatures in 2A 0335+096 ($`1.5`$ keV) are similar to the surrounding ICM level, while in AWM 7 the blobs seem to be hotter or the emission is nonthermal.

Let us look into the nature of the hot blobs. If the emission is thermal, the temperature of the sub-peak is higher than 3 keV and the metal abundance is relatively low at $`<0.3`$ solar. These properties are quite unique, and do not match the gas properties of either elliptical galaxies or surrounding ICM. Since there is no radio emission observed at the cluster core, non-thermal pressure such as due to magnetic field is unlikely to be a major source to confine the hot gas in the sub-peak component. In that case, the hard sub-peak and other fainter blobs may not be in pressure equilibrium with the surrounding gas. The sound crossing time to smooth out the density structure is $`t_{\mathrm{cross}}=9\times 10^6`$ yr, which is shorter than either the conduction time of $`1.3\times 10^7`$ yr, or the cooling time of $`t_{cool}=7\times 10^8`$ yr. If there is indeed no external pressure which stops the structure dissipating away, these hot blobs have to be created very recently, within 1–10 Myr. If major part of the hot gas in the central region is moving, as suggested from the sharp-edge feature in Figure 2b, the blobs may be continuously created in the turbulence.

### 5.2 Metal Distribution

The projected radial profile of the metal abundance shows a steep gradient, reaching about 1.5 solar. The abundance may fall back at the center, and apparently creates a high metallicity ring at $`r=10^{\prime \prime }20^{\prime \prime }`$ (5–10 kpc). The off-center peak in the abundance profile was found in some major cD cluster cores. The radius of the metallicity peak is, however, smaller in AWM 7 than those in other clusters, such as $`r=15`$ kpc for Centaurus (Sanders and Fabian, 2002), $`r=30`$ kpc for Abell 2199 (Johnstone et al., 2002), and $`r=60`$ kpc for Perseus (Schmidt, Fabian, & Sanders, 2002). Morris & Fabian (2003) suggests that the central abundance begins to decrease with the thermal evolution of ICM with a non-uniform metal distribution, which can account for the smaller peak radius of the rather young cluster AWM 7.

Our 2-dimensional hardness analysis showed that the observed high metallicity peak was mainly caused by the two Fe blobs symmetrically located around the cD center. The angles of the Fe blobs from the cD center are perpendicular to hard sub-peak direction. This configuration suggests that the high metallicity gas may have been expelled from the cD galaxy due to some pressure invoked along the northwest to southeast direction. The hard sub-peak and the fainter one on the other side may be causing such a pressure, for example, by falling into the cD galaxy on both sides. If this is the case, the relatively higher temperature of the blobs can be explained as due to shock or compressional heating.

The total mass of Fe contained in the Fe blobs is estimated to be $`2\times 10^4M_{}`$. The star formation rate of NGC 1129 is $`0.04M_{}`$ yr-1 within $`r=1.6`$ kpc (McNamara & O’Connell, 1989). Assuming that 1 solar mass of Fe is injected into ICM when a total of 100 solar mass of the stars are formed, then $`M_{Fe}=4\times 10^5M_{}`$ has been produced within 1 Gyr. Only 5% of the total Fe mass is enough to account for the Fe blob. Therefore, at least the amount of Fe in the Fe blobs can be explained by the metal production in the cD galaxy, even though the reason why metal injection occurs in a directional way is not clear.

### 5.3 Gas Heating in the cD Galaxy

The radial temperature distribution shows a smooth and monotonic decrease from 4 keV to 2 keV at the cluster center. The temperature decrease toward the cluster core has been previously recognized as cooling flows, but the data from XMM-Newton showed that the low-temperature gas with $`kT<1`$ keV is missing in many cD clusters. In AWM 7, the radiative cooling time at the center is estimated to be $`t_{cool}=3\times 10^8`$ yr, which is shorter than the cluster age. However, the central temperature seems to be maintained at 2 keV, which is about half of the gas temperature in the outer region. This situation is similar to the feature seen in many other cD cluster centers observed with Chandra and XMM-Newton (e.g. Peterson et al., 2002). It seems that in AWM 7 also, the thermal structure in the cluster center is determined by a certain balance between radiative cooling and some heat source. We note that the same problem about the unknown heat source so far recognized in cooling flow systems is also met in this relatively poor cluster.

Several scenarios to account for the heat source in cluster cores are proposed by several authors. One of the heating scenario is to invoke radio jets from the central AGNs (Böhringer et al., 2002). In the case of AWM 7, however, no radio activity has been observed in NGC 1129, which makes the AGN jets unlikely to be the heat source. Another possibility to suppress the cooling is the heat input through thermal conduction from the surrounding hotter ICM gas. The necessity for unrealistic fine tuning of the heat conductivity over a wide region is found in explaining the observed temperature distribution (Kitayama & Masai, 2003). Therefore, heat conduction is difficult as the heating mechanism.

In the present case, we consider that the gas motion in the central region may be at least related to the heat source. As already shown earlier, there are hot blobs which are hotter than the gas in the cD center. We also discussed that these blobs may have been created by a possible bulk motion of the gas in the central region, as suggested by the morphology in the hard energy band. Although we do not know the detailed feature and the exact cause of such a motion, it is enough to heat up a considerable fraction of the gas up to $`>3`$ keV as seen in the sub-peak spectrum. If this energy is brought in to the central cool gas, it would certainly be able to compensate the energy carried away by the radiative cooling.

The position of the soft X-ray peak shows a significant offset by $`1\pm 0.2`$ kpc from the 2MASS position of the cD galaxy center, whereas the X-ray peak in the hard band suggests a smaller offset by $`0.5\pm 0.8`$ kpc. The offset between the soft X-ray and the 2MASS peaks suggests that there is a relative motion between the hot gas and the galaxy core. In the optical band, there is a chain of four small galaxies extending in the southwest direction, so the galaxy distribution is out of symmetry around the cluster core. Peletier et al. (1990) reported that there is a large twist in the position angle of NGC 1129 at a radius of $`10^{\prime \prime }20^{\prime \prime }`$ in the optical band. They suggest that this twist could be a result of a galaxy merger. With these optical features as well as the offset of the soft X-ray peak, we may consider that the central region of AWM 7 is fairly dynamic and that it may well connected with the unidentified heat source.

Since ASCA showed a Mpc-scale abundance gradient and isothermal gas distribution, it has been thought that AWM 7 has not experienced cluster-scale mergers nor significant mixing. The present Chandra data revealed kpc-scale structures and suggested that the central region can be dynamic. Further direct information about the dynamical motion of the gas blobs (hard sub-peak and Fe blobs) will give us clearer view about the actual physical process occurring in the cluster core. X-ray imaging spectroscopy facilitated by a new technique, such as microcalorimeters on Astro-E2, will bring us rich information about the evolution of cD galaxies and clusters.

We would like to thank Dr. Y. Ikebe, and the referee for useful comments. T. F. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad. This work was partly supported by the Grants-in Aid for Scientific Research No. 12304009 from JSPS. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA and the SIMBAD data base is operated by the Centre de Donnes astronomiques de Strasbourg.


text:
# Reply to Marinatto’s comment on “Bell’s theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers”

## Abstract

It is shown that Marinatto’s claim \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 258901 (2003)\] that the proof of “Bell’s theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers” \[A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)\] requires four spacelike separated observers rather than two is unjustified.

In his Comment Marinatto03 , Marinatto claims that the proof of Bell’s theorem without inequalities in Cabello01a  requires four spacelike separated observers rather than two, as asserted in Cabello01a . Marinatto’s claim is based on the fact that to test some of the properties used in the proof, for instance the property

$$P_\psi (B_2=B_4|A_1A_3=+1)=1,$$
(1)
one of the observers (Bob) must measure the spin along one direction of his particle $`2`$, $`B_2`$, and also the spin along one direction of his particle $`4`$, $`B_4`$. Marinatto argues that, since both measurements are not spacelike separated, then measuring $`B_2`$ could disturb $`v(B_4)`$ (the element of reality corresponding to $`B_4`$), and measuring $`B_4`$ could disturb $`v(B_2)`$ (the element of reality corresponding to $`B_2`$). Therefore, he maintains that, to avoid such possible disturbances, both measurements should be spacelike separated.

However, such a prevention is not needed, because it can be demonstrated that measuring $`B_2`$ does not disturb $`v(B_4)`$, and measuring $`B_4`$ does not disturb $`v(B_2)`$. Let us recall Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s (EPR) criterion for elements of reality: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity” EPR35 . In the scenario described in Cabello01a , Alice, by means of a spacelike separated measurement of the spin along one direction of her particle $`1`$, $`A_1`$, can use the property

$$P_\psi (A_1=B_2)=0$$
(2)
to predict with certainty the element of reality $`v(B_2)`$. Analogously, she, by means of a spacelike separated measurement of $`A_3`$ on her particle $`3`$, can use the property

$$P_\psi (A_3=B_4)=0$$
(3)
to predict with certainty the element of reality $`v(B_4)`$. Note that, according to EPR’s criterion, what allows Alice to conclude that there is an element of reality, for instance $`v(B_2)`$, is the fact that the result of Bob’s measurement of $`B_2`$ can be predicted with certainty. The fact that close to particle $`2`$ there could exist (or not) a second particle (in this case particle $`4`$) on which Bob could perform one measurement or other does not invalidate Alice’s prediction, since, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics (presumably corroborated by any conceivable experiment), the presence (or absence) of particle $`4`$ close to particle $`2`$, or the fact that Bob performs one experiment or other on particle 4, do not change the result for $`B_2`$ predicted by Alice (otherwise this effect could be used to transmit information between spacelike separated regions). Therefore, I must conclude that Marinatto’s argument does not justify the need for more spacelike separated observers. Indeed, the proof of Bell’s theorem without inequalities using four qubits Cabello01a  can be transformed into a proof using only two particles Cabello03 ; CPZBZ03 .


text:
# Diameter dependence of ferromagnetic spin moment in Au nanocrystals.

## I Introduction

Bulk Au metal is chemically stable and has diamagnetic properties. However, Au particles show ferromagnetism at the nanoscale(nm) Teranishi1 ; HoriPLA ; HoriNATO ; Li . Such ferromagnetic spin polarization is surprisingly unique and the polarization mechanism is quite interesting. It should be emphasized that these magnetic effects are important phenomena that emerge only at the nanoscale. The Au atom has the electron configuration \[Xe-core\] $`(4f)^{14}(5d)^{10}(6s)^1`$. Application of the electron gas model to the 6$`s`$ electrons in bulk Au metal is considered appropriate because the $`d`$-band is deep enough below the Fermi level and $`s`$-$`d`$ hybridization is negligibly smallAshcroft . The molecular orbits in which electrons move around whole atoms in a nanoparticle correspond to the conduction band in the bulk state. The energy levels of the molecular orbits in a nanoparticle are discrete in a spatially narrow potential. These molecular orbits are believed to correspond to the conduction electron states in the bulk metal when energy gaps of less than $`10`$ K ($`0.001`$ eV) can be ignored. In the present work, the electron in a molecular orbit is referred to as a “conduction electron” in the nanoparticle.

For the last few decades, the problem of ferromagnetic polarization in a free electron gas has been discussed as a basic physical problem related to the Fermi hole effect. However, no ferromagnetism has been observed to date. In connection with the Fermi hole effect, ferromagnetic spin correlation near the surface has been discussed theoretically Harbola ; Juretschike . A unique characteristic of nanoparticles is the large proportion of surface atoms. In fact, the ratio is about 45 at% at a diameter of 2.5 nm. Thus, we expect i) the emergence of spin polarization resulting from the Fermi hole effect ii) a diameter dependence of magnetization in the case nanoparticles. However, no theoretical studies have been conducted so far. It is against this background that the present study investigates the diameter dependence of magnetism in Au nanoparticles. The results are assessed under the assumption of surface ferromagnetism.

## II Experimental procedure

### II.1 Sample preparation and characterization

Isolated nanoparticle are considered to be stable in free space. In a cluster, however, they spontaneously form large particles (diameter $`>10`$ nm) to reduce their surface energy. Protective agents provide a practical means of preventing this cohesion. Much research has been devoted to developing protective agents for various nanoparticles. For Au nanoparticle, protective agents such as polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyallyl amine hydrochloride (PAAHC), polyvinyl pyrolidone (PVP) and dodecane thiol (DT) have been reported Teranishi2 . The question of how these agents influence the electronic state of nanoparticles has largely been neglected except in the case of DT. Moreover, nanoparticles encapsulated in protective agents are magnetically isolated from each other, even in the case of DT. HoriPLA .

The diameter distribution of the sample was observed under a transmission electron microscope (TEM). Figure 1 shows a typical example of the diameter distributions observed in the present study. The crystalline layer structure of a Au nanoparticle is visible in the close-up image (d). The lattice plane spacing revealed in Fig. 1 corresponds to the fcc structure of the bulk metal. The estimated lattice spacing of 0.24 nm in the nanoparticles is consistent with that of the bulk metal and the X-ray diffraction data show that the lattice constant does not change, at least for diameters above 2.5 nm, as seen in Fig. 2.

No edge distortion or deformation of the lattice layer is observed in the close-up image of the nanoparticle. This means that the nanoparticle exhibits a crystal structure consisting of a stack of lattice planes and that the crystal symmetry of the bulk Au metal is retained within the nanoparticle. The surface is highly important in nanoparticles: the surface potential has a major influence on the electron wave function. Indeed, what distinguishes nanoparticles from bulk metal are the surface-induced effects observed in the former. The anomalous ferromagnetic polarization observed in Au nanoparticles is presumably also related to these surface effects.

Figure 3 shows the effect of protective agents on magnetization of Au nanoparticles with a mean diameter of 2.5 nm. It is noteworthy that the saturation magnetization is remarkably small in the case of DT. The most characteristic property of a Au nanoparticle in DT is the strong covalent bond between the thionic group and Au Teranishi2 ; Hostetler . This covalent bond is presumed to cause the reduction in magnetization by inducing a spin-singlet state. The singlet state electrons are presumably localized around the interface between the Au surface and the sulfur in thionic groups, assuming that the distance dependence governing the formation of the singlet state is similar to the usual exchange interaction. Although nanoparticles in PAN, PAAHC and PVP form coordinate bonds and large reductions in magnetization are not observed, a slight difference of saturation moments in Fig. 3 is noticeable. This difference may be explained by the presence of a weak covalent bond in addition to the main coordinate bond.

Despite the marked reduction in magnetization of Au nanoparticles in DT, the field and temperature dependencies are both consistent with those for other protective agents when comparing normalized saturation magnetizations. In the case of PAAHC, for example, the peak in the Magnetization-Diameter curve is observed at a diameter of 2.7 nm, although the data are scattered because of the broad diameter distribution. This peak corresponds to the peak observed at 3 nm in the case of DT. Because many Au atoms in the surface layer form a covalent bond in DT and generate localized spin singlet states, they modulate the surface potential. Thus, the new surface to the free electron system is formed just inside the covalent bonding region. On the other hand, the large reduction in saturation moment strongly supports the model of surface ferromagnetism in nanoparticles.

Despite the moment reduction, the protective agent DT has the following favorable properties: 1) Wide range diameter control from 1.5 to 10 nm. 2) Sharp diameter distribution is easily realized. 3) Despite the large modulation in surface potential, electron gas properties are retained within the interface region of the nanoparticle. 4) Almost all magnetic properties of Au nanoparticles in DT correspond to properties observed in other protective agents, provided the saturation magnetizations are normalized.

Thus, all samples in the present study were prepared using DT. These samples were used to investigate the diameter dependence of magnetization over a wide diameter range. Such an investigation is important in that it helps elucidate the origin of ferromagnetism in Au nanoparticles given that the diameter range in the present study is on the order of the Fermi hole diameter.

### II.2 Magnetization measurement

Magnetization was measured by a SQUID magnetometer. The spontaneous spin polarization of Au atoms in Au nanoparticles has recently been confirmed using X-ray MCD Yamamoto . These X-ray MCD measurements were performed in the SPring-8 facility in Japan. Low temperature experiments were conducted to estimate the saturation magnetization. If the Au nanoparticles exhibited diamagnetism or Pauli paramagnetism, the field dependence would have been a straight line. But in the original data, a nonlinear curve is superimposed on a negative linear dependence. The diamagnetic contribution of the protective agent (DT) and sample holder were previously measured. Subtracting these contributions yields the magnetization curve. The curve can be represented by the Langevin function, which exhibits quasi-paramagnetic field and temperature dependences. This quasi-paramagnetism of nanoparticles is referred to as “superparamagnetism”. Figure 4 shows the diameter dependence of the magnetic moment of the nanoparticles. For samples with a largely asymmetric diameter distribution, the data points are fairly scattered. Thus, the present study used samples with a relatively symmetric distribution.

Original magnetization data obtained at liquid helium temperatures include a certain “inherent linear field dependence of magnetization”. Because diamagnetism is temperature independent and superparamagnetism vanishes at high temperatures, a diamagnetic moment is observed at room temperature. Figure 5 shows the diameter dependence of the inherent diamagnetic moment of the nanoparticle.

## III Results and Discussion

### III.1 Results of magnetization measurement

The ferromagnetic moment of each nanoparticle can be estimated by the Langevin function, assuming a sharp diameter distribution. Although the magnetization data in Fig. 4 are scattered, the peak at about 3 nm is clearly visible. The diamagnetic moment increases with decreasing diameter, as shown in Fig. 5. The typical equation for diamagnetic susceptibility $`\chi _{\text{atom}}`$ in the case of neutral atoms is:

$$\chi _{\text{atom}}=\frac{\mu _0Z}{6m}<r^2>,$$
(1)
where $`Z`$, $`<r^2>`$, $`m`$ and $`\mu _0`$ are electron number, mean square of the electron orbit radius, mass of electron and magnetic permeability of vacuum, respectively. According to this equation, the diamagnetic susceptibility of the nanoparticle should increase with the electron orbit diameter, which is contradicted by the experimental results shown in Fig. 5.

### III.2 Possible model

The Fermi hole effect and Hund’s rule are two possible mechanisms whereby ferromagnetic spin polarization may arise in nanoparticles. The spin correlation of the “Fermi hole effect” near the surface region of a free electron gas system has been discussed Harbola . Each electron spin in the Fermi hole state is spherically surrounded by oppositely directed spins and the diameter of the sphere is related to the Fermi wavelength of $`1/k_\text{F}`$ where $`k_\text{F}`$ is the Fermi wave number. Despite these spin correlations, up and down spins are totally cancelled in usual metals, resulting in zero net spin polarization. However, an imbalance may occur near the surface. Indeed, Okazaki and Teraoka have theoretically predicted the existence of ferromagnetism in thin films Okazaki . An imbalance between the up and down spins is expected to emerge in the case of nanoparticles with a diameter smaller than the Fermi hole, however, there are no clear theoretical predictions so far. Such an imbalance would lead to ferromagnetic spin polarization. The spin correlation length from the surface is given by $`\pi /k_\text{F}`$ and the numerical value for Au is approximately 1.5 nm Harbola .

Hund’s rule is the origin of spin polarization in atoms and ions. The applicability of Hund’s rule to the nanoparticle has been discussed for the diameter range of up to 5 nm by use of the Hatree-Fock approximation Asari . The Fermi hole effect and Hund’s rule appear to be independent concepts. However, in the case of nanoparticles, Hund’s rule should be continuous with the Fermi hole effect for large diameters because both concepts are derived from the Pauli Principle as applied to the many electron system in the three-dimensional (3D) well-type potential. Thus, the only difference between the two concepts is that they apply at different size scales. Otherwise, they are consistent with one another: it is speculated that the outermost shell in the 3D well potential has spin polarization and the shell thickness is on the order of the Fermi wavelength. Moreover, the closed shell core might correspond to the inside of the nanoparticle.

### III.3 Diameter dependence of magnetization

The magnetization data in Fig. 4 is proportional to the magnetic moment per Au atom. The diameter at maximum magnetization (3 nm) is twice the surface spin correlation depth $`\pi /k_\text{F}`$. If Au atoms in the nanoparticle are uniformly magnetized, it is hard to find a clear and consistent explanation for the appearance of the Magnetization-Diameter curve. If the surface magnetism model is applied, the experimental data is easily explained under the following assumptions: 1) depth of spin-correlated surface region is also about $`\pi /k_\text{F}`$ in the nanoparticle and this region mainly contributes to the spin polarization. 2) At nanoparticle diameters larger than $`\pi /k_\text{F}`$, the spin-correlation region is limited to within the shell of surface atoms and the core of the particle contributes little to the ferromagnetism. These assumptions are justifiable based on the results presented above.

The data in Fig. 6 show the diameter dependence of magnetization per nanoparticle surface area. Figure 6 suggests that the degree of imbalance increases linearly with decreasing diameter. The figure also indicates that spin polarization virtually vanishes at a diameter of about 4 nm. Above this critical diameter, the moment of the Au nanoparticle is consistent with that of the bulk metal.

The diamagnetic component of Au nanoparticle shows anomalous diameter dependence as shown in Fig. 5. To validate the surface model for the ferromagnetism observed in Au nanoparticles, the model is used to analyze the diameter dependence of diamagnetism in Fig. 5.

Generally, the total susceptibility $`\chi `$ of bulk Au is theoretically given Okazaki  by:

$$\chi =\chi _{\text{Pauli}}+\chi _{\text{Band}}+\chi _{\text{ion}};$$
(2)
$$\chi _{\text{Pauli}}\frac{3N\mu _\text{B}^2}{2\epsilon _\text{F}},\chi _{\text{Band}}\frac{N\mu _\text{B}^2}{2\epsilon _\text{F}}\left(\frac{m}{m^{}}\right)^2$$
(3)
where $`\chi _{\text{Band}}`$, $`\chi _{\text{ion}}`$ and $`\chi _{\text{Pauli}}`$ are diamagnetic susceptibilities of the conduction electron and ion core and the Pauli paramagnetic susceptibility, respectively. $`N`$, $`\mu _\text{B}`$, $`\epsilon _\text{F}`$, $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are electron density, Bohr magneton, Fermi energy, electron mass and effective mass, respectively. These susceptibilities were numerically estimated using the standard theory Takahashi . In particular, the diamagnetic susceptibility of $`\chi `$$`_{\text{ion}}`$ of Au is larger than the Pauli paramagnetism in bulk state. Thus, $`\chi `$$`_{\text{ion}}`$ mainly contributes to the diamagnetism of bulk Au metal and the diamagnetism is reduced by Pauli paramagnetism.

Pauli paramagnetism also reduces the diamagnetic moment of the core of nanoparticles. The surface diamagnetism, however, is not reduced, because spins corresponding to Pauli paramagnetism contribute to the ferromagnetism, manifesting themselves as the ferromagnetic component. Thus, the driving force for reduction in diamagnetism vanishes in small nanoparticles. According to Fig. 6, the net diamagnetic moment of a nanoparticle should increase with decreasing diameter. The result is qualitatively consistent with the model of the surface spin correlation based on the Fermi hole effect. The possibility of such a simple and clear interpretation of the experimental results strongly supports the model used in the present work.

## IV Conclusion

The following anomalous experimental results were observed in Au nanoparticles: diameter dependence of ferromagnetism and an increase in diamagnetic moment with decreasing diameter. The Magnetization-Diameter curve exhibited a peak at a diameter of about 3 nm. The standard magnetization mechanisms fail to provide a consistent explanation for these nanoparticle-related phenomena. The Fermi hole effect borrowed from thin film theory, however, allows a consistent explanation. Thus, even though its applicability has yet to be confirmed, the mechanism of spin polarization based on the Fermi hole effect is probably at work in nanoparticles.

Once the surface ferromagnetism model is applied to nanoparticles, our seemingly anomalous experimental results can be fully explained. In particular, the peak in the Magnetization-Diameter curve can be accounted by the difference in diameter dependency of the decrease in surface magnetism and increase in spin polarized electron number. It should be noted that, at diameters larger than 4 nm, the magnetism reverts back to that of bulk state Au. This spin polarization mechanism is completely different from the ferromagnetism in transition metals with the spin correlation in the $`d`$-band. It is only at the nanoscale that the spatially restricted electron gas generates an imbalance in spin polarization. Thus, the ferromagnetism observed in the present work is thought to constitute a fundamental nanophysical phenomenon.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Government of Japan (MONBUKAGAKUSHO).