text:
# Excitonic complexes in quantum Hall systems

## 1 Introduction

The transport, optical, and spin properties of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) in a high magnetic field have been intensively studied both experimentally  and theoretically  over more than a decade. Some of these studies have demonstrated that a common scenario of the formation of what can generally be called an excitonic complex occurs in various seemingly different physical situations. The excitonic complexes, consisting of a small number of appropriate elementary charged excitations (positively and negatively charged quasiparticles of various type depending on a particular form of the electron–electron correlations in the underlying 2DEG), can often be considered as nearly free particles with well defined single-particle properties. These properties, such as electric charge, characteristic size, longitudinal or angular momentum, spin, binding energy, or oscillator strength for a particular type of quasiparticle–antiquasiparticle recombination process, determine the response of the 2DEG to the experimental perturbation. In particular, being weakly coupled to one another or to the electrons, excitonic complexes recombine obeying simple selection rules that result from their geometric (2D translational) or dynamical (particle–hole) symmetries. These simple symmetries often persist under experimental conditions despite complicated electron–electron correlations or such typical symmetry-breaking mechanisms as disorder or collisions, and greatly simplify the measured response of the entire system. Sometimes, such simplification is even undesirable as it can make the experiment sensitive only to the simple properties of the excitonic complexes, and quite insensitive to the specific properties of the underlying 2DEG.

For example, it has long been predicted that the photoluminescence (PL) spectrum in an infinitely high magnetic field contains no information about the electron–electron correlations (e.g., the presence or charge of Laughlin quasiparticles in the fractional quantum Hall regime) regardless of possible disorder . Instead, the spectrum is reduced to a single discrete transition corresponding to the recombination of a neutral exciton in the zero momentum ground state, and either decreasing the magnetic field in order to allow interactions to admix higher Landau levels (LL’s) or applying an electric field to spatially separate electrons and holes is needed for PL to become a useful tool for studying electron–electron interactions.

Another example is related to a prediction  that the most strongly bound complex involving conduction electrons ($`e`$) and a valence hole ($`v`$) in very high magnetic fields is a triplet state of the charged exciton ($`X^{}=2e+v`$). This state is nonradiative because of both geometrical and dynamical symmetry, and has not been experimentally confirmed in earlier experiments in high magnetic fields , but only quite recently , when special measures were taken to detect its weak PL signal. While breaking of the dynamical, particle–hole symmetry in a finite magnetic field is by no means surprising, the fact that collisions of an $`X^{}`$ with the surrounding electrons do not relax the geometrical selection rule associated with the angular momentum conservation is a nice demonstration of Laughlin correlations of the $`X^{}`$ with other negative charges . As a result of these correlations, at small values of the filling factor $`\nu `$, the $`X^{}`$’s remain spatially isolated and avoid high energy collisions with one other or with electrons to become true quasiparticles of a 2DEG containing additional valence holes .

In the following sections of this article we will review a few examples of excitonic complexes that form in electronic quantum Hall systems: interband excitonic complexes in Sec. 3, anyon excitons in Sec. 4, skyrmions in Sec. 5, and skyrmion excitons in Sec. 6. We will discuss the similarities and differences between all these complexes, and show the role they play in experimental studies of the 2DEG, particularly in PL.

## 2 Model

The numerical results presented here are obtained by exact numerical diagonalization of the interaction Hamiltonian of a finite number $`N`$ of electrons (and, sometimes, one or more valence holes) confined on a spherical surface of radius $`R`$. In this model, the radial magnetic field $`B`$ is due to a monopole placed in the center of the sphere . The monopole strength $`2Q`$ is defined in the units of elementary flux $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$, so that $`4\pi R^2B=2Q\varphi _0`$ and the magnetic length is $`\lambda =R/\sqrt{Q}`$. The single-particle states are the eigenstates of angular momentum $`l`$ and its projection $`m`$ and are called monopole harmonics. The energies $`\epsilon `$ fall into $`(2l+1)`$-fold degenerate angular momentum shells separated by the cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$. The $`n`$-th ($`n0`$) shell (LL) has $`l=Q+n`$ and thus $`2Q`$ is a measure of the system size through the LL degeneracy. Due to the spin degeneracy, each $`l`$-shell is further split by the Zeeman gap, $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$.

Using a composite index $`i=[nm\sigma ]`$ ($`\sigma `$ is the spin projection), the Hamiltonian of interacting particles can be written as $`H=c_{i\alpha }^{}c_{i\alpha }\epsilon _{i\alpha }+c_{i\alpha }^{}c_{j\beta }^{}c_{k\beta }c_{l\alpha }V_{ijkl\alpha \beta }`$, where $`c_{i\alpha }^{}`$ and $`c_{i\alpha }`$ create and annihilate particle $`\alpha `$ (conduction electron $`e`$ or valence hole $`v`$, reversed-spin electron $`e_\mathrm{R}`$ or spin hole $`h`$, etc.) in state $`i`$ with energy $`\epsilon _{i\alpha }`$, and $`V_{ijkl\alpha \beta }`$ are the interaction (Coulomb) matrix elements. Hamiltonian $`H`$ is diagonalized in the basis of Slater determinants. The result of the diagonalization procedure is the set of many-body eigenenergies and eigenvectors. The energies $`E`$ will be shown as a function of the conserved orbital ($`L`$ and $`L_z`$) and spin ($`S`$ and $`S_z`$) quantum numbers. To interpret the results obtained in the spherical geometry for the infinite planar system, $`L`$ and $`L_z`$ must be appropriately translated into the corresponding planar quantities . For example, for the (charge or spin) wave eigenstates that carry no net charge, angular momentum $`L`$ must be replaced by wave vector $`k=L/R`$, while for the eigenstates corresponding to charged excitations $`L`$ and $`L_z`$ are connected with planar angular momentum projection $``$ and its center-of-mass component $`_{\mathrm{CM}}`$. The eigenvectors $`|\psi `$ are needed to calculate spectral functions to describe PL or other decay processes, $`\tau _{if}^1=|f\left|𝒫\right|i|^2`$, where $`\psi =i`$ or $`f`$ are the initial and final states, respectively, and $`𝒫`$ is the appropriate transition operator.

## 3 Neutral and charged interband excitons

An $`X^{}=2e+v`$ consists of only three particles. The energy spectra of this simple system are shown in Fig. 1 for a GaAs symmetric quantum well of width $`w=11.5`$ nm and for $`B=13`$, 30, and 68 T.

The effects of LL mixing, finite well width, anisotropy of the hole mass and its dependence on $`B`$, and the realistic Zeeman gap $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$ have all been included . The energy $`E`$ is measured from the exciton energy $`E_\mathrm{X}`$, so that for the bound $`X^{}`$ states it gives the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_\mathrm{X}E`$, and both singlet and triplet electron spin configurations are shown.

Because the emission of a photon does not change angular momentum of the (envelope) electron wave function, and because the electron left in the lowest LL after the radiative $`X^{}`$ recombination has $`l=Q`$, only those $`X^{}`$ states at $`L=Q`$ are optically active. Of all bound $`X^{}`$ states in Fig. 1, three are of particular importance. The $`X_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ (singlet) and $`X_{\mathrm{tb}}^{}`$ (triplet-bright) are the only strongly bound radiative states, while $`X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$ (triplet-dark) has by far the lowest energy of all non-radiative states. The relative energy of different $`X^{}`$ states depends on experimentally variable parameters (e.g., $`B`$, $`w`$, or $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$), and indeed, the transition between the $`X_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ and $`X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$ states can be seen in Fig. 1(b). The binding energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and oscillator strengths $`\tau ^1`$ of the three $`X^{}`$ states, extrapolated to the $`R/\lambda =\sqrt{Q}\mathrm{}`$ limit, have been plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of $`B`$.

The $`X_\mathrm{s}^{}X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$ transition is found at $`B30`$ T, and the $`X_{\mathrm{tb}}^{}`$ state is about two times “brighter” than $`X_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ (although both are considerably “darker” than the $`X`$).

Even in dilute systems, one might expect that collisions with surrounding electrons can affect the $`X^{}`$ recombination and in particular allow for weak emission from $`X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$. The surprising experimental fact that the effect of such collisions is minimal  results from Laughlin correlations between $`X^{}`$ and electrons in the fractional quantum Hall regime . In Fig. 3 we plot the energy spectra of $`3e+v`$ systems, in which the lowest bands of states describe repulsion of different $`e`$$`X^{}`$ pairs.

The dependence of pair interaction energy $`V`$ on pair angular momentum $`L`$ is the interaction pseudopotential, which completely determines correlations in a degenerate LL. It is known that if $`V(L)`$ is “superharmonic” ($`V`$ decreases more quickly than linearly as a function of separation $`r^2`$ when $`L`$ is decreased), then Laughlin correlations occur . It turns out that $`e`$$`X^{}`$ pseudopotential is superharmonic (similar to the $`e`$$`e`$ pseudopotential in the lowest LL). The resulting Laughlin correlations between an $`X^{}`$ and the electrons mean that one or more $`e`$$`X^{}`$ pair states of highest repulsion are maximally avoided, or in other words, that the high energy $`e`$$`X^{}`$ collisions do not occur.

In Figs. 4 and 5 we plot the oscillator strengths $`\tau ^1`$ and emission energies $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ for the $`3e+v`$ eigenstates corresponding to an $`X^{}`$ interacting with an electron.

In both figures, the horizontal axes give pair angular momentum $`L`$ which in a Laughlin correlated system is simply related to the LL filling factor $`\nu `$ (only the $`Ll_X^{}+l_e\mu `$ pair states occur at $`\nu \mu ^1`$). As expected, for small $`L`$ (i.e., very dilute 2DEG) both $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`\tau ^1`$ converge to the values appropriate for single $`X^{}`$’s plotted in Fig. 2, meaning that there is no significant effect of the $`e`$$`X^{}`$ interactions on the $`X^{}`$ recombination at small $`\nu `$. Somewhat surprisingly, the Laughlin correlations prevent considerable increase of the $`\tau _{\mathrm{td}}^1`$ through interaction with electrons even at $`\nu \frac{1}{3}`$. This justifies a simple picture of PL in a dilute 2DEG, according to which emission occurs from isolated, well-defined bound complexes ($`X`$ and $`X^{}`$’s), and hence it is virtually insensitive to $`\nu `$. In particular, this explains the absence of an $`X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$ peak even in the PL spectra  showing strong recombination of a higher-energy triplet state $`X_{\mathrm{tb}}^{}`$ (although the $`X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$ emission has been eventually detected at very low temperatures ). An interesting feature in Fig. 5 is also merging of $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{tb}}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{td}}`$ which has actually also been observed experimentally at $`\nu \frac{1}{3}`$ .

## 4 Anyon excitons

The fractionally charged “anyon excitons” have been predicted to form in strongly asymmetric quantum wells or heterostructures, in which the perpendicular electric field produced by the doping layer spatially separates conduction electron ($`e`$) and valence hole ($`v`$) layers by a distance $`d\lambda `$ . In such situation, the $`v`$$`e`$ attraction becomes too weak on the characteristic 2DEG correlation energy scale and the resolution of the attractive Coulomb potential of the hole becomes too low on the characteristic 2DEG length scale, and the 2DEG retains its original Laughlin correlations even in the presence of the hole injected optically in a PL experiment. Unlike in symmetric structures, because of the reversed ordering of the $`e`$$`e`$ and $`v`$$`e`$ energy scales, the charge of the hole $`v`$ injected into the 2DEG is no longer screened with “real” electrons $`e`$, but with the fractionally charged Laughin quasielectrons (QE’s)  or reversed-spin quasielectrons (QER) .

The energy spectra of $`9e+v`$ systems at different values of the monopole strength $`2Q`$ corresponding to $`N_{\mathrm{QE}}=1`$, 2, and 3 QE’s in the Laughlin $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$ state of 9 electrons interacting with the hole have been shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8 for different values of the $`v`$$`e`$ layer separation, $`d=0`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`2\lambda `$.

These spectra have been calculated for a very ideal situation, without taking into account the LL mixing or finite well width, so $`d/\lambda `$ must be regarded as an effective parameter controlling the strength and resolution of the perturbation potential introduced in the 2DEG by the presence of the hole, rather than as an actual displacement of $`e`$ and $`v`$ wave functions in an experimental system .

In Fig. 6 ($`d=0`$; the “strong coupling” regime), the $`X_{\mathrm{td}}^{}`$, which is the only bound $`X^{}`$ state in the lowest LL, is the most stable quasiparticle, and the anyon excitons do not form. The open circles mark the so-called “multiplicative” states in which the $`L=0`$ exciton decouples from the remaining 8 electrons due to the “hidden” symmetry (the exact $`e`$$`v`$ particle–hole symmetry in the lowest LL) . All other, non-multiplicative low-energy $`9e+v`$ states contain an $`X^{}`$ interacting with the remaining 7 electrons. These states can be well described within the generalized composite fermion model  for the two-component ($`7e+X^{}`$) Laughlin liquid. Depending on the value of $`2Q`$ that varies between 24 and 21, the lowest-energy $`7e+X^{}`$ states contain between zero and three quasiholes (QH’s) analogous to Laughlin quasiholes of a one-component electron liquid. The residual QH–$`X^{}`$ attraction whose pseudopotential can be extracted from the $`X^{}+\mathrm{QH}`$ band marked in frame (d), leads to the formation of $`X^{}\mathrm{QH}`$ and $`X^{}\mathrm{QH}_2`$ very weakly bound states and of an excited (unstable) $`X^{}\mathrm{QH}_3`$ states, identified in frames (b), (c), and (d), respectively.

In Fig. 7 ($`d=\lambda `$; intermediate-coupling regime), new low-energy bands of states emerge in addition to those containing the $`X`$ or $`X^{}`$’s. We interpret these new states as the anyon exciton states. In some cases the two type of states occur in the same spectrum. For example, the $`v`$QE2–QE band in Fig. 7(c) coexists with the $`X`$ state and the $`X^{}`$–QH band. In other cases, the low-lying $`X`$ or $`X^{}`$ states occur at the same $`L`$ as the low-lying anyon exciton states, and the transition between the two is continuous. For example, $`v`$QE2 is mixed with $`X^{}`$QH2 in Fig. 7(b), and $`v`$QE is mixed with $`X^{}`$QH3 in Fig. 7(a).

In Fig. 8 ($`d=2\lambda `$; weak-coupling regime), well developed anyon exciton bands occur. The isolated $`v`$QE, $`v`$QE2, and $`v`$QE3 states are the ground states in the spectra corresponding to $`N_{\mathrm{QE}}=1`$, 2, and 3, respectively. Their angular momenta $`l_{\mathrm{AX}}`$ are obtained by adding $`l_h=Q`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{QE}}=Q^{}+1`$, where $`2Q^{}=2Q2(N1)`$ is the effective monopole strength in the composite fermion picture and $`2Q=3(N1)N_{\mathrm{QE}}`$. Similarly, the angular momenta of states containing an anyon exciton and the excess QP’s result from adding $`l_{\mathrm{AX}}`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{QP}}`$.

In Fig. 9 we show similar spectra for the $`7e+v`$ system, but now including the possible electron spin excitations .

In addition to the spinless anyon excitons $`v`$QE and $`v`$QE2, the “reversed-spin anyon excitons” $`v\mathrm{QE}_\mathrm{R}`$, and $`v\mathrm{QE}_\mathrm{R}\mathrm{QE}`$, and $`v(\mathrm{QE}_\mathrm{R})_2`$ can be identified, in which one or more QE’s are replaced by the reversed-spin quasielectrons, QER’s.

Similarly as it was for $`X^{}`$’s, the translational symmetry of an isolated anyon exciton leads to the conservation of its $`L`$ and $`L_z`$ in the emission process. This leads to the strict optical selection rules that can only be broken by collisions or disorder. The recombination of an anyon exciton state formed in a Laughlin $`\nu =(2p+1)^1`$ electron liquid occurs through annihilation of a well defined number of QE’s and creation of an appropriate number of QH’s . It turns out that the processes involving more than the minimum number of QP’s all have negligible intensity, which for $`p=1`$ ($`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$) leaves only the following four possible recombination events: $`v+n\mathrm{QE}(3n)\mathrm{QH}+\gamma `$, where $`n=0`$, 1, 2, or 3, and $`\gamma `$ denotes the photon. When the angular momentum conservation law is applied to the above recombination events, we obtain  that the only radiative anyon excitons are $`v`$QE\* (the first excited state of a $`v`$–QE pair), $`v`$QER, and $`v`$QE2, while all others (including $`v`$QE) are “dark.”

Because the formation of radiative anyon excitons depends on the presence of QE’s or QER’s in the 2DEG, the magneto-PL spectrum is expected to change discontinuously at $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$. Such anomalous behavior has actually been observed experimentally .

## 5 Spin waves and skyrmions

The integral quantum Hall system near $`\nu =1`$ with spin excitations contains a small number of reversed-spin electrons $`e_\mathrm{R}`$ and spin holes $`h`$, and it is very similar to the dilute system of conduction electrons $`e`$ and valence holes $`v`$ in the lowest LL. The important difference is that the energy of a $`k=0`$ spin wave (which plays the role of an interband exciton) is equal to the electron Zeeman splitting, $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$, which can be made small compared to the characteristic interaction energy, $`e^2/\lambda `$. Therefore, it is possible to achieve experimentally the situation in which the skyrmions (the $`e_\mathrm{R}`$$`h`$ analogues of interband $`X^{}`$’s) are truly stable ground states of the system , with infinite lifetimes which are not limited by radiative recombination.

In Fig. 10 we present the low energy spectra of the $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =1^{}`$ (a single spin hole in $`\nu =1`$) states.

In this and all other spectra, only the lowest state at each $`L`$ and $`S`$ is shown and $`K=\frac{1}{2}NS`$ counts the number of spin flips away from the fully polarized ground state.

In Fig. 10(a), the ground state is the ferromagnetic integral quantum Hall $`\nu =1`$ state at $`L=K=0`$. Because the Zeeman energy $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$ is omitted, this state is degenerate with many other states with the same $`L=K=0`$ but with different values of $`S_z`$, and corresponding to a number $`SS_z`$ of $`k=0`$ spin waves, each having energy $`E_\mathrm{Z}=0`$ and decoupled from one another and from the underlying $`\nu =1`$ state (the analogues of the $`e`$$`v`$ “mutiplicative” states). Remarkably, the low-energy excited states in Fig. 10(a) form a linear band with $`L=K=1`$, 2, …. These states contain a number $`K`$ of spin waves each with $`L=1`$ and moving in the same direction so as to build up the maximum total $`L=K`$. The linear dependence of $`E`$ on $`K`$ within this band can be also interpreted as decoupling of so correlated $`L=1`$ spin waves from one another, although different from decoupling of $`k=0`$ spin waves . In particular, note that a pair of $`L=1`$ spin waves can be in two states of total angular momentum $`L=0`$ or 2, and only the latter is noninteracting.

The $`e_\mathrm{R}`$$`h`$ annihilation process analogous to the $`e`$$`v`$ radiative emission can be achieved by hyperfine coupling of a 2DEG to localized nuclear spins. However, the selection rule for such process is completely different from that governing PL. The appropriate spectral function $`\tau ^1(k)`$ for the spin wave creation/destruction is shown in Fig. 10(c). It has a maximum at $`k\lambda 1`$, corresponding to the characteristic size of the electron cyclotron orbit .

In Fig. 10(b) for $`\nu =1^{}`$ the band of states with $`L=S=QK`$ and $`E<0`$ appears. These are the (anti)skyrmion states, $`S_K^+=Ke_\mathrm{R}+(K+1)h`$, analogous to the interband charged excitons $`X_K^{}`$ in the lowest LL . These states are not only truly long-lived (provided that $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$ can be made sufficiently small, e.g., by application of pressure or appropriate doping), but unlike the $`X_K^{}`$ states they are connected with one another through a sequence of spin-flip transitions induced by the hyperfine interaction with a nuclear spin . The $`S_K^{}S_{K+1}^{}`$ spin-flip transitions are the analogues of the photon emission for the $`X_K^{}`$ states. However, the different selection rule described by the spectral function $`\tau ^1(k)`$ the inset (instead of a strict $`k=0`$ rule for the interband emission) allows these transitions in contrast to the forbidden PL of the $`X_K^{}`$ states in the lowest LL. Actually, the $`S_K^{}S_{K+1}^{}`$ process is believed to be largely responsible for the nuclear spin relaxation in quantum Hall systems.

In Fig. 11 we show similar spectra to Fig. 10, but for the fractional quantum Hall regime, near $`\nu =\frac{1}{3}`$.

Again, despite different character of the constituents – elementary charge excitations (QER and QH replacing $`e_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`h`$), the same type of bound excitonic complexes are identified. These are spin waves $`\mathrm{QE}_\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{QH}`$, skyrmions $`S_K^{}=(K+1)\mathrm{QE}_\mathrm{R}+K\mathrm{QH}`$, and antiskyrmions $`S_K^+=K\mathrm{QE}_\mathrm{R}+(K+1)\mathrm{QH}`$.

## 6 Skyrmion excitons

When a valence hole $`v`$ is introduced into a quantum Hall system with a small value of $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$, it seems possible that it might substitute for one of the spin holes $`h`$ in a skyrmion or antiskyrmion bound state to form yet another type of excitonic complexes, a skyrmion exciton . Such a complex shares the properties of both pure interband and pure spin excitonic complexes, and for example it might both recombine radiatively via photon emission and couple to nuclear spins via hyperfine interaction. It also has a richer energy spectrum as the two kinds of holes, $`h`$ and $`v`$ become distinguishable under actual experimental conditions. Unlike in a dilute $`e`$$`v`$ system with spin excitations where also three kinds of particles ($`e`$ could have two different spins) were involved in a $`X_\mathrm{s}^{}`$ state, different orbitals of $`h`$ and $`v`$ holes (e.g., due to different effective masses or different response to the electric field) make the $`e`$$`h`$ and $`e`$$`v`$ interactions different. This prevents the mapping of a $`h`$$`v`$$`e_\mathrm{R}`$ system on a simple two-(iso)spin $`e`$$`e`$$`v`$ system with (iso)spin-symmetric interactions.

One possible scenario for the skyrmion exciton creation might be the following. When a $`v`$ is added to a quantum Hall state at $`\nu 1`$, there are no negatively charged excitations it could bind. But if $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$ is sufficiently small, $`v`$ may induce and bind one or more spin waves to form a skyrmion exciton, $`vvhev(he)_2\mathrm{}`$. The binding energies of these mixed complexes are shown in Fig. 12(a) as a function of the $`eh`$$`v`$ layer separation $`d`$ (note that we skip subscript “R” in symbol $`e_\mathrm{R}`$ in this figure).

The situation is different and quite more complicated at $`\nu >1`$, in the presence of free reversed-spin electrons or skyrmions. Being negatively charged, they are attracted to the added hole $`v`$, and, depending on $`E_\mathrm{Z}`$, $`d`$, and other parameters, they can bind to it to form a rich variety of neutral or negatively charged $`h`$$`v`$$`e_\mathrm{R}`$ states, some of which have been indicated in Fig. 12(b). The fact that the binding energy for the $`ve_\mathrm{R}+he_\mathrm{R}vh(e_\mathrm{R})_2`$ process remains negative for $`d1.35\lambda `$ suggests that in symmetric structures the attraction between $`v`$ and $`S_1^{}=h(e_\mathrm{R})_2`$ (or a larger skyrmion) causes breakup of the latter and emission of free spin waves: $`v+e_\mathrm{R}(he_\mathrm{R})_Kve_\mathrm{R}+K\times he_\mathrm{R}`$. This would make the equilibrium PL signal come from the same excitonic complex, $`ve_\mathrm{R}`$, regardless of the size of the skyrmions present in the 2DEG before illumination. On the other hand, the $`ve_\mathrm{R}`$ exciton might attract a second $`e_\mathrm{R}`$ or $`S^{}`$ to acquire charge and become able to induce and bind one or more spin waves. So far these ideas have only been tested in an ideal system (only lowest LL included, no disorder, and zero well width), and more realistic calculation will be needed to verify their significance in actual PL experiments.

## Acknowledgment

The authors wish to acknowledge partial support from the Materials Research Program of Basic Energy Sciences, US Department of Energy. AW acknowledges partial support from the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) grant 2P03B05518.

## References


format: text

text:
# New search strategy for high z intervening absorbers: GRB 021004, a pilot studyBased on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile; proposal no. 270.A-5016

## 1 Introduction

Identification of the objects responsible for the high redshift intervening absorption systems in QSO spectra, such as Damped Ly$`\alpha `$ (DLA) and Mg ii absorbers, has been the expressed goal of a large number of observing programmes over the past 2 decades (e.g. Smith et al. 1989; Deharveng et al. 1990; Le Brun et al. 1997; Guillemin & Bergeron 1997; Warren et al. 2001; Kulkarni et al. 2001; Colbert & Malkan 2002). Even though many such programmes have been successful in detecting objects at (or near) the absorption redshift, a doubt does in almost all cases persist as to whether the identified object is indeed the absorber or if there could be another object hidden inside the glare of the QSO itself at much smaller impact parameter. It was only realized very late that this problem is seriously exacerbated by the strong bias of the absorption cross-section selection which picks out mostly objects with the smallest impact parameters (Fynbo et al. 1999; Schaye 2001; Møller et al. 2002b). The discovery of bright, high-redshift optical transients (OTs) of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) has now made it possible to completely eliminate this last doubt. GRB OTs, like QSOs, allow identification of high-redshift absorbers, but the OTs, unlike QSOs, fade away completely within a few months leaving the spectroscopically investigated sightline open for extremely deep imaging studies.

The current status concerning the galaxy counterparts is the following. For the high-z (z$`>`$2) DLA sample, the debate has been between advocates for large, disk-forming galaxies (Wolfe et al. 1986; Prochaska & Wolfe 2001) and faint and small, gas-rich dwarfs (Tyson 1988; Haehnelt et al. 1998). In three cases DLA absorbing galaxies have been identified as faint blue Ly$`\alpha `$ emitting galaxies at impact parameters ranging from 0.99 to 2.51 arcsecs (8–19 kpc), supporting the view that DLA galaxies at z$`>`$2 are faint blue dwarf galaxies (Møller et al. 2002b). In the range from $`z`$=0 to $`z`$=1.2, Guillemin & Bergeron (1997) reported that galaxy counterparts of Mg ii absorbers with equivalent widths larger than 0.6 Å predominantly are spirals with luminosities similar to present-day L galaxies. The impact parameters of the identified galaxies were found to correlate with the luminosities of the galaxies, such that bright galaxies are found at larger impact parameters. In a flux limited study, objects below the given detection limit will fail to be identified, and because of the correlation with impact parameter this will tend to bias all identifications both towards brighter objects and towards larger impact parameters. An indication that this may be the case for the MgII studies is the clear tendency for higher redshift absorbers to be identified as brighter galaxies with larger impact parameters (around 110 kpc at $`z`$=1.1) than those at lower redshifts (around 20 kpc at $`z`$=0.1). The actual absorbers may therefore still be hiding at small impact parameters below the detection limit.

GRB 021004 is the third brightest afterglow detected so far, with R=15.4 only 4 minutes after the burst (Fox et al. 2003). Spectroscopic observations (e.g. Chornock & Filippenko 2002) found a host galaxy redshift of $`z`$=2.33. In addition two other systems were identified with absorption lines of Mg i, Mg ii (both systems with equivalent widhts larger than 0.6 Å), and Fe ii at $`z`$=1.38 and $`z`$=1.60 (e.g. Møller et al. 2002a). In this pilot study we present observations in narrow- and broad-band filters to search for emission lines from the galaxy counterparts of these absorbers. The emission-line imaging technique that we employ allows identification of the foreground absorber, even when it would be located exactly along the line of sight to the GRB and its host galaxy. Throughout the paper we assume $`\mathrm{H}_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ = 0.3 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ = 0.7.

## 2 Observations

At $`z`$=1.38, \[O iii\] $`\lambda `$5007 is redshifted to 1.19 $`\mu `$m, and at $`z`$=1.60, H$`\alpha `$ emission is shifted to 1.71 $`\mu `$m. These wavelengths correspond to the central wavelengths of two ISAAC narrow-band filters. Imaging in these two filters and in the Js and H band allows identification of the intervening systems if they are star-forming galaxies. In Fig. 1 we show the filter transmission curves for the four filters.

The observations were carried out in service mode with UT1/ISAAC of ESO’s Very Large Telescope on the nights of December 17/18 and 19/20, 2002, for a total effective exposure time of 51 and 105 minutes in the narrow-band filters NB 1.19 and NB 1.71, respectively. To enable continuum subtraction, we also observed the field in the broad-band filters Js and H, each for 11 minutes. Table 1 shows the log of the observations. The ISAAC short-wavelength detector is a Rockwell 1024x1024 chip, with a gain of 4.5 electrons/ADU, a read noise of 11 electrons and a pixel-size of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$148.

From the raw images possible ghosts of especially bright objects were removed with the ECLIPSE (Devillard 2001) routine ghost. After dark subtraction, the flat-field for each image was constructed using the ECLIPSE routine twflat. After flat-fielding and removal of bad pixels using the fixpix task within IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation., the sky was determined for each image from the adjacent images on either side. In the case of the narrow-band filters, we used four images on either side, and for the broad-band filters we used as many as possible (10). We performed two sky passes. In the first pass all object images of a particular Observation Block (OB) are sky subtracted. These images are registered with a shift only (i.e. no scaling nor rotation) to the coordinate system of the first image of the OB using about 5 bright objects in the field, and combined. From this image we make an object mask using the optional output image from SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996), which returns the pixels above the noise of the detected objects. With imreplace in IRAF, these objects were transformed into a bad pixel mask, making them larger by a few pixels. Then we perform another sky run, this time with all objects masked while average-combining the adjacent sky images. Again we register the images, and now combine them using the sigclip rejection in imcombine within IRAF, which excludes possible cosmic rays and bad pixels that were missed. Finally, residuals left from bias variations and possible horizontal jumps were removed by subtracting the median of each row and/or column of the image using ECLIPSE routines. This median was determined from the final image with the objects masked. The final reduced images were trimmed to a size of 2′ by 2′, which is the part of the image that was exposed in each sub-exposure (the size of the original images is 2$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5 by 2$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5, while we set the jitter box width to 30″).

We used observations of the NICMOS standard 9123 (S427-D) (Persson et al. 1998) to calibrate the narrow bands and observations of the UKIRT faint standards FS6 and FS32 (Hawarden et al. 2001) to calibrate the Js and H bands. For the broad bands, no correction for a colour term was attempted. We corrected for atmospheric extinction assuming an extinction of 0.06 mag per unit airmass. We estimate that the uncertainties on the zero-points are 0.04 and 0.10 for Js and H respectively. The zeropoints for the narrow-band filters are determined by integrating the spectrum of S427-D over the filter transmission curves to obtain the flux in erg s-1 cm-1 outside the atmosphere.

## 3 Emission-line candidates

Inspection of the images reveals no emission in any of the filters at the location of the early-time afterglow of GRB 021004. To select emission-line candidates we follow a method similar to the one outlined in Fynbo et al. (1999). We let SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) detect objects using a very low threshold, i.e. requiring that 2 adjacent pixels are at least 1.5 sigma above the sky. For all detected sources we perform aperture photometry with the phot routine in IRAF, after which we reject all objects with a signal-to-noise ratio less than 5. The aperture is set to a radius of 6 pixels (0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$9 on the sky) for all images. This roughly corresponds to 1.5 times the size of the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the average image point-spread function (PSF). The local sky was determined in an annulus 10 pixels wide, at a distance of 10 times the image FWHM (about 40 pixels) from the object centre. The coordinates of the objects found on the narrow-band images were transformed to the broad-band images, and at these locations aperture photometry was performed in exactly the same manner, irrespective of an object being present or not.

In both narrow-band images we detect a number of emission-line candidates (6 in NB 1.19 and 4 in NB 1.71 above 5$`\sigma `$), but almost all at very large impact parameters ($`>`$30″). Only one candidate in the NB 1.19 image, i.e. \[O iii\] at $`z`$=1.38, has a small enough impact parameter to be a possible galaxy counterpart of the absorber consistent with the sample identified by Guillemin & Bergeron (1997). It is located at 16″ from the GRB line-of-sight and can be seen at the western edge of the section of the field shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3 we show the spectral energy distributions of the seven continuum objects named A–F in Fig. 2 and of the \[O iii\] emission-line candidate named O iiia. Although the emission-line nature of this object is clear, follow-up spectroscopy is needed to verify the redshift.

The NB 1.19 emission-line flux of O iiia is 8.1 $`\times `$ 10-17 erg s-1 cm-2, while its continuum 3$`\sigma `$ upper limit, estimated from the Js and H upper limits, is 2.1 $`\times `$ 10-17 erg s-1 cm-2 in the NB1.19 filter. Under the assumption that the emission line is indeed \[O iii\], the candidate is at a luminosity distance of 3.0 $`\times `$ 1028 cm and has an \[O iii\] luminosity of L$`_{[\mathrm{O}\text{iii}]}`$ = 7 $`\times `$ 1041 erg s-1. Using the empirical flux ratio \[O iii\]/H$`\alpha `$ of 1/2 (based on Table 5 of Guillemin & Bergeron (1997)), we obtain an estimated H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of 1.4 $`\times `$ 1042 erg s-1. This corresponds to a star-formation rate (SFR) of 13$`\pm 2`$ M yr-1 (Kennicutt 1998). The error given here is the measurement error; an additional error of order 30% originates from the uncertainty in the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity to SFR conversion factor (Kennicutt 1998).

Our observations are sensitive to a limiting luminosity (5$`\sigma `$ with an aperture radius of 6 pixels, and assuming the continuum contribution in the narrow-band filters is negligible compared to the emission line) of L$`_{[\mathrm{O}\text{iii}]}`$ = 3.6 $`\times `$ 1041 erg s-1 at $`z`$=1.38, and L = 9.7 $`\times `$ 1041 erg s-1 at $`z`$=1.60. The H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is about 0.13 L relative to the Schechter parametrisation of the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity function of galaxies at similar redshifts of Yan et al. (1999). These luminosity limits correspond to star-formation rates of SFRz=1.38=5.7 M yr-1 and SFRz=1.60=7.7 M yr-1 (Kennicutt 1998).

## 4 Discussion

The 16″ impact parameter of the NB 1.19 candidate corresponds to 135 kpc at $`z`$=1.38. The sample of quasar absorption-line systems identified with galaxies by Guillemin & Bergeron (1997) were found to have separations of 1.9–23″ which, in the cosmology that we assume, correspond to 12–127 kpc. Our candidate is therefore consistent with, but in the upper range of, the impact parameters of the Mg ii systems previously studied. However, we find 9 emission-line objects down to a limiting SFR of 7.7 M yr-1 in two fields each of angular size 2′$`\times `$2′, so there is a priori 50% chance that one of those objects would be found within an impact parameter of 16″ in one of the fields.

In conclusion, this pilot study is consistent with the result of Guillemin & Bergeron (1997) that the typical Mg ii absorber is an L galaxy at an impact parameter of 100 kpc. In our case the candidate absorber is less luminous, but in the upper end of the impact parameter distribution. In their intermediate redshift (0.7–1.2) sample, Guillemin & Bergeron identified 10 of 16 absorbers but failed to find counterparts to the remaining 6. We find one but fail to identify a candidate in the other field, while our star-formation limit (see above) compared to theirs (SFRz=0.7-1.3=0.7–43 M yr-1) is such that we would have expected to detect half of the objects they identified.

The question therefore remains open whether these large galaxies are really the absorbers, or if they are merely the brightest neighbour to dwarf galaxy absorbers. For DLA absorbing galaxies at higher redshifts impact parameters are found to be of order 10 kpc rather than 100 kpc (Møller et al. 2002b), and the SFRs of order 5–7 M yr-1. This is just below the 5$`\sigma `$ limit of our current data. A future larger study of GRB intervening Mg ii and DLA absorbers should aim at reaching at least a factor of three deeper (in SFR) in order to answer the question if we are still missing a population of faint absorbers at low impact parameters, and if Mg ii absorbers are in fact related to dwarf galaxies of the DLA type.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to the ESO staff in Garching and Paranal, in particular to Mario van den Ancker and Rachel Johnson, for allowing prompt execution of our proposal. PMV is also thankful to John Willis, Chris Lidman and Sara Ellison for very helpful discussions. JPUF gratefully acknowledges support from the Carlsberg Foundation.


text:
# Implementation for Solving Random Satisfiability Problems through CNOT-based circuits in a NMR Quantum Processor

## I Introduction

A SAT problem, associated with the combinatorial search problem, is well known as one of the most difficult nondeterministic polynomial (NP) problems. As the first problem to be shown NP-complete, the SAT problem is a central problem in combinatorial optimization. On conventional computers, one expects that no efficient algorithm to solve random SAT problem in polynomial time can be found, whereas quantum computers can simultaneously evaluate all search states (quantum parallelism) which endows quantum computation with the extraordinary capabilities superior to its conventional counterpart. As a result, of pratical interest is whether the computational resources for NP problems can be reduced on quantum computers. The most striking results so far were obtained for certain NP and some difficulty problems. For instance, Hogg put forward a highly structured quantum algorithm to solve a 1-SAT and maximally constrained $`k`$-SAT problem in a single step with probability 100% on a ground state input $`|00\mathrm{}0,`$ which have been experimentally implemented in NMR ensemble quantum computing.

In standard quantum computation, quantum computers are machines that operate and control pure quantum states according to quantum mechanics. In turn, the proposals of NMR ensemble quantum computing involve manipulations of highly mixed states, i.e., pseudo-pure states, and has achieved rapid devolopment in recent years. At the beginning of the proposals, it has been proved that an expectation value quantum computer (EVQC) (e.g., a NMR quantum computer) is capable of solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time, such as the SAT problems. Such an EVQC can not only judge if the SAT formula is satisfiable but also count the number of satisfying assignments. Furthermore, in 1998, Knill et al. proposed the “one-qubit” model of quantum computation where the initial state is a truly mixed state, i.e., the first qubit is 0 and the other qubits are completely random, and described the power of this model. In the same year, Madi et al. presented a parallelization scheme for quantum computation with mixed superposition states by using the operators in spin Liouville space, which has been utilized to solve certain SAT problems when only the existence of a solution is considered.

In this paper, a general method is given to construct quantum circuits for random SAT problems with Cn-NOT and NOT gates. The size of the circuit is evaluated to be approximately the size of the given SAT formula. Analogous to the “one-qubit” model of quantum computation, we present a parallelization scheme of solving random SAT problems through these constructed circuit with a truly mixed state. The information contained in the line-splittings is used to extract the explicit knowledge of satisfying assignments from inspection of multiplet of just one qubit. In principle, hence, a NP-complete SAT problem is solved in polynomial time on a NMR quantum information processor which invokes quantum parallelism. Meanwhile, we have experimentally implemented several typical SAT problems on a 3- or 4-qubit NMR quantum information processor by this scheme. These experiments exclude the extreme difficulty of the pseudo-pure state preparation because truly mixed superposition states for parallelizaion acts as inputs instead of pure states. In practice, this analogous parallelization scheme can be applied to other problems of intrest.

## II Scheme

### A The Satisfiability Problem and Quantum Circuit

A SAT problem is described in terms of a logic formula $`F`$ in conjunctive normal form (CNF), consisting of $`m`$ logical clauses $`\left\{C_\mu \right\}_{\mu =1,\mathrm{},m}`$ over a set of $`n`$ Boolean variables $`\left\{x_i=0,1\right\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ with $`0=FALSE`$ and $`1=TRUE`$. Each clause is the logic OR connection ($``$) of some chosen variables or their negations, e.g., $`C_\mu =\left(x_i\overline{x_j}\mathrm{}x_k\right)`$. The logic formula $`F`$ can be expressed as the logical AND connection ($``$) of all clauses, i.e.,

$$F(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=_{\mu =1}^mC_\mu .$$
(1)
A solution to the SAT problem is an assignment $`\left\{x_i\right\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}`$ by specifying a value for each variable $`x_i`$, satisfying the formula $`F`$, that is, $`F(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=1`$. An important restricted case of SAT is $`k`$-SAT when all the clauses have exactly $`k`$ variables, which is NP-complete for $`k3`$. An example of the 3-SAT problem with three variables ($`n=3`$)and three clauses ($`m=3`$) is the propositional formula $`\left(x_1x_2x_3\right)(x_1x_2\overline{x_3})\left(\overline{x_1}x_2x_3\right)`$. This problem has five solutions, e.g., $`\left\{x_3=1,x_2=1,x_1=0\right\}`$, an assignment with the bit representation 110. The study of random $`k`$-SAT problems for $`k3`$ has played a major role in both classical and quantum computational sciences.

From the achievements of quantum computing, it is possible to convert the Boolean operations into a sequence of unitary transformations by designing a resultant reversible gate

$$U_{FCNOT}:U_{FCNOT}|x,x_0=0=|x,F\left(x\right)$$
(2)
where the input $`|x=|x_n|x_{n1}\mathrm{}|x_1`$ is the control registe and a work one-bit $`I_0`$ whose initial state $`|x_0=|0`$ is the target qubit to store the computational output of the formula $`F`$. Here, variable $`x_i`$ is viewed as the $`i`$-th bit $`I_i`$ whose state is represented by $`|x_i`$ which can be equal to either $`|0FALSE`$ or $`|1TRUE`$. Ref.  gives a practical method of constructing quantum Boolean circuits (QBC) for Boolean functions by using NOT and general multi-bit controlled-NOT gates. The Toffoli gate has been shown to a well-known reversible gate sufficient to implement all Boolean functions. For example, the operation of ($`x_ix_j`$) is performed by a Toffoli gate (see Figure 1(a)), while an alternative, simple performance of ($`x_ix_j`$) is to combine a Toffoli gate with NOT gates (see Figure 1(b)) because the NOT gate is itself reversible.

Therefore, the $`U_{FCNOT}`$ gate for the CNF formula $`F`$ of Eq. (1) can be easily constructed with QBCs. Due to the OR connection of some variables in each clause, the unitary transformation to compute every clause is realized by one generalized multi-bit controlled-NOT gate $`CNOT(\left\{I_i\right\},I_{s_\mu })`$ sandwiched by NOT gates as

$`U_{C_\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{x_j\left\{\overline{x_j}\right|C_\mu \}}{}}N_{x_j}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{x_i\left\{all\text{ }x_i\right|C_\mu \}}{}}N_{x_i}\right)CNOT(\left\{I_i\right\},I_{s_\mu })`$ (4)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{x_i\left\{all\text{ }x_i\right|C_\mu \}}{}}N_{x_i}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{x_j\left\{\overline{x_j}\right|C_\mu \}}{}}N_{x_j}\right)\left(N_{s_\mu }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{x_k\left\{x_k\right|C_\mu \}}{}}N_{x_k}\right)CNOT(\left\{x_i\right\},I_{s_\mu })\left({\displaystyle \underset{x_k\left\{x_k\right|C_\mu \}}{}}N_{x_k}\right)\left(N_{s_\mu }\right)`$ (5)
where $`\left\{I_i\right\}`$ is a set of the control bits which includes the $`i`$-th bit iff variable $`x_i`$ or $`\overline{x_i}`$ appears in the clause $`C_\mu `$, $`I_{s_\mu }`$ is the target bit whose state $`|s_\mu `$ is initialized into $`|0`$ as an additional scratchpad to store the value of the clause $`C_\mu `$, and $`N_{x_i}`$ represents the NOT gate on the i-th bit. The first pair of $`_{x_j\left\{\overline{x_j}\right|C_\mu \}}N_{x_j}`$ on the bits $`I_j`$ are used to realize the $`\overline{x_j}`$ operations in the clause $`C_\mu `$ with the second $`_{x_j\left\{\overline{x_j}\right|C_\mu \}}N_{x_j}`$ restoring the input to its original value for the next use. Whereas the second pair of $`_{x_i\left\{all\text{ }x_i\right|C_\mu \}}N_{x_i}`$ on the bits $`I_i`$ are the requirement of the OR operation in the clause in the light of Figure 1 (b). In general, $`m`$ additional qubits $`s_\mu `$ are required. The $`U_{FCNOT}`$ gate to realize the SAT formula $`F`$ is obtained by multiplying all clause gate $`U_{C_\mu }`$ followed by one $`CNOT(\left\{I_{s_\mu }\right\},I_0)`$ gate to perform the AND operation of all $`m`$ clauses, i.e.,

$$U_{FCNOT}=CNOT(\left\{I_{s_\mu }\right\},I_0)\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{m}{}}U_{C_\mu }$$
(6)
where $`\left\{I_{s_\mu }\right\}`$ is a set of all scratchpad bits $`I_{s_\mu }`$ storing the results of $`m`$ clauses, respectively, as the control bits and the value of the CNF formula $`F`$ is given through the work bit $`I_0`$ whose initial state $`|x_0`$ is set to $`|x_0=|0`$. Thus a SAT problem can be simulated by CNOT-based circuits. For example, the QBC to simulate a 3-SAT mentioned above is shown in Figure 2 (a). Usually, this $`U_{FCNOT}`$ gate in Eq. (4) originally generated by this construction can be further simplified to get the most effecient circuit by some logic rules .

In the circuit model of computation, the number of elementary gates of a circuit and the number of time steps required are often checked to evaluate the size of the circuit so as to determine its complexity. We first concetrate on the $`k`$-SAT problem because of its importance.

For the simplest case of 1-SAT problems, the gate sequence to simulate a given 1-SAT formula $`F_1`$ with $`m`$ clauses can be simplified as

$$U_{FCNOT}=\left(\underset{x_j\left\{\overline{x_j}\right|F_1\}}{}N_{x_j}\right)CNOT(\left\{I_i\right\}_{\left\{all\text{ }x_i\right|F_1\}},I_0)\left(\underset{x_j\left\{\overline{x_j}\right|F_1\}}{}N_{x_j}\right),$$
(7)
which requires one Cm-NOT gate and several NOT gates. Llikewise for $`k`$-SAT problems with one clause $`C_1`$,

$$U_{FCNOT}=\left(\underset{x_k\left\{x_k\right|C_1\}}{}N_{x_k}\right)CNOT(\left\{I_i\right\}_{\left\{all\text{ }x_i\right|C_1\}},I_0)\left(\underset{x_k\left\{x_k\right|C_1\}}{}N_{x_k}\right)N_{x_0},$$
(8)
which requires one Ck-NOT gate and several NOT gates. Since it is proved that the two-qubit C-NOT gate and single-qubit gates consist of a set of univeral quantum logic gates, we use them to investigate the size of these circuits. Iterating the construction of Cm-NOT from Cm-1-NOT, the overall $`7(m1)`$ gates including $`3(m1)`$ C-NOT and $`4(m1)`$ single-qubit gates are needed to obtain a Cm-NOT gate. Accordingly, plusing at most $`2m`$ NOT gates, the overall circuit complexity is $`O(m)`$. Similarly, the quantum circuit for a $`k`$-SAT problem with one clause needs only $`O(k)`$ gates. In these two cases of SAT, $`k`$ and $`m`$ are of the same order $`O(n)`$ so that these QBCs can simulate such a SAT problem with the polynomial computational cost in a single run.

According to the circuit configuration of Eqs. (3) and (4), the QBC for random $`k`$-SAT problem with $`m`$ clauses ($`m>1`$) requires $`m`$ Ck-NOT, one Cm-NOT and at most $`km`$ NOT gates, so that its size of $`O(km)`$ is almost equal to the size of the $`k`$-SAT formula. For instance, a NP-complete 3-SAT needs $`3(3m2)`$ C-NOT, $`4(3m1)`$ single-bit and at most $`3m`$ NOT gates. However, such a QBC has to involve $`m`$ additional qubits as the scratchpads which would waste vast space and increase the difficulty of this procedure. Economizing on space is also an important aspect to investigate the efficiency of the circuit. The simplification by the logic rules might reduce the complexity of the QBC and optimize its space at some extent. It is also possible to decrease the number of scratch-pad qubits by the “refreshed” scheme. Concretely, we can divide the computation into smaller steps of roughly equal size, run each step, copy the output, then run this step backward to clear up the scratch-pad qubits which can be used in the next steps due to the reversibility of quantum circuit. The requirement of the step division is to remain the input unchanged before and after each step, which can easily satisfied in our QBC construction. So the computation can proceed to completion by constructing a ‘recursive’ procedure to generate the minimal amount of scratch-pad bits. Further, random SAT problems are analogous to random $`k`$-SAT problems and their circuit sizes are less than the corresponding $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$-SAT where $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximal number of variables in clauses.

Therefore, random SAT problems can be simulated by quantum circuits. Using qubits instead of bits, we give a paralleization scheme for solving random SAT problems through these QBCs with truly mixed states as the inputs other than pseudo-pure states in a NMR quantum processor.

### B Quantum Parallelization scheme for SAT Problems with truly mixed states

In NMR quantum computing, n spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ nuclei are chosen as computational qubits $`I_1`$,$`I_2`$…,$`I_n`$ representing n variables in the SAT problems, one as the work qubit $`I_0`$ and some additional qubits as scratchpad qubits $`I_{s_\mu }`$ if needed. Just as the general computation, our scheme is divided into three steps: (1) the preparation of the initial state; (2) the process of computation; and (3) the measurement of the computational results.

Step 1. We prepare the NMR ensemble into a mixed superposition state $`\rho _{in}`$ of $`2^n`$ equally populated states $`I_n^{\alpha /\beta }\mathrm{}I_2^{\alpha /\beta }I_1^{\alpha /\beta }`$ multiplied by $`I_0^\alpha I_{s_n}^\alpha \mathrm{}I_{s_1}^\alpha I_{s_m}^\alpha `$:

$`\rho _{in}`$ $`=`$ $`I_0^\alpha I_{s_1}^\alpha I_{s_2}^\alpha \mathrm{}I_{s_m}^\alpha (I_n^\alpha \mathrm{}I_2^\alpha I_1^\alpha +I_n^\alpha \mathrm{}I_2^\alpha I_1^\beta +\mathrm{}+I_n^\beta \mathrm{}I_2^\beta I_1^\beta )I_0^\alpha I_{s_m}^\alpha \mathrm{}I_{s_2}^\alpha I_{s_1}^\alpha `$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=0\mathrm{}0}{\overset{1\mathrm{}11}{}}}\left(|xx||x_0=0x_0=0||0\mathrm{}000\mathrm{}00|\right)`$ (10)
if the QBC for a given SAT problem involves m scratchpad qubits $`I_{s_\mu }`$. Here, we adopt the convenient representation of the $`i`$-th spin polarization operators in Liouville spin space:

$`I_i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`|00|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1_2+I_{iz}\right)`$ (11)
$`I_i^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`|11|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1_2I_{iz}\right)`$ (12)
which represent the spin-up and spin-down states, respecitvely, where $`1_2`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix and $`I_{iz}`$ is the z component of Pauli operators of the $`i`$-th spin. Note that the work qubit $`I_0`$ and all scratchpad qubits $`I_{s_\mu }`$ are in the $`|0`$ state and all computational qubits $`I_i`$ are random states includes all $`2^n`$ assignments of n variables, neither pure nor pseudo-pure states. When no scratchpad qubits are involved in the circuit constructed, such as the 1-SAT and k-SAT with one clause, the “one-qubit” model of quantum computation proposed by Knill et al. is obtained.

Step 2. The $`U_{FCNOT}`$ gate for the QBC constructed above is carried out on such an input state $`\rho _{in}`$ of Eq. (8) which is transformed to the output state $`\rho _{out}`$:

$`\rho _{out}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{FCNOT}\rho _{in}U_{FCNOT}^{}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`U_{FCNOT}\left({\displaystyle \underset{x=0\mathrm{}0}{\overset{1\mathrm{}11}{}}}\left(|xx||x_0=0x_0=0||0\mathrm{}000\mathrm{}00|\right)\right)U_{FCNOT}^{}.`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x=0\mathrm{}0}{\overset{1\mathrm{}11}{}}}\left(|xx||x_0=F\left(x\right)x_0=F\left(x\right)||C_m\left(x\right)\mathrm{}C_2\left(x\right)C_1\left(x\right)C_m\left(x\right)\mathrm{}C_2\left(x\right)C_1\left(x\right)|\right)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\left\{x\right|F\left(x\right)=0\}}{}}\left(|xx||x_0=0x_0=0||C_m\mathrm{}C_2C_11\mathrm{}11C_m\mathrm{}C_2C_11\mathrm{}11|\right)`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{x\left\{x\right|F\left(x\right)=1\}}{}}\left(|xx||x_0=1x_0=1||C_m\mathrm{}C_2C_1=1\mathrm{}11C_m\mathrm{}C_2C_1=1\mathrm{}11|\right).`$
Becuase of the AND operation between clauses, the values of all clauses $`C_1,C_2,\mathrm{},C_m`$ stored in the states of m scratchpad qubits $`I_{s_\mu }`$ have to be equal to 1 in order to satisfy the formula $`F`$. It can be seen from Eq. (9) that, the solutions of the SAT formula $`F`$, i.e., those states $`|x\left\{|x\text{ }|\text{ }F\left(x\right)=1\right\}`$, are labelled by the state of the work qubit $`I_0`$ $`|x_0=|1`$. To see the proper performance of these QBCs, let me see a simple 1-SAT with the formula $`F=\overline{x_1}x_2x_3`$, through $`U_{FCNOT}`$ consisting of a C3-NOT gate and two NOT gates with no scratchpad qubits,

$$\rho _{out}=\underset{x110}{}\left(|xx||x_0=0x_0=0|\right)+|110110||x_0=1x_0=1|,$$
(18)
which demonstrates that the solution of the 1-SAT is $`|110`$.

Step 3. The last step of computation is to extract efficiently the results of computation stored in the work qubit $`I_0`$. Quantum strong measurement prohibits such a successful process. However, in some special cases, ensemble weak measurements ever considered as disadvantages in NMR quantum computing can be advantageous. According to the spectral implementation of a quantum computer, 2n logic states of n computational qubits are assigned to individual spectral resonance lines of the work qubit $`I_0`$ when all resonance lines are distinguishable. Moreover, it can be recoginized from Eq. (9) that after a $`\pi /2`$ detection pulse on spin $`I_0`$ the $`I_0^\alpha `$ ($`|x_0=0`$) state gives a positive absorptive peak in a NMR spectrum with properly set reciever phase settings, while the $`I_0^\beta `$ ($`|x_0=1`$) state gives a negative peak. As a result, we label the positive domain as the FALSE space and the negative TRUE space. All scratchpad qubits $`I_{s_\mu }`$ should be decoupled during the measurement because the solutions are irrelevant to these qubits. The result is put into evidence by the sign of the resonance of spin $`I_0`$, i.e., the solutions of a SAT problem corresponding to the positive resonance lines of spin $`I_0`$ after a $`\pi /2`$ detection pulse should be found in the TRUE space if there exists the solution. It is, of course, necessary to obtain a reference signal against which the phases of other signals of interst can be determined, but this is easily achieved by acquiring a NMR signal from thermal equilibrium $`I_{0z}`$ of spin $`I_0`$.

## III Experiments

The physical system used in our experiments is the carbon-13 labeled alanine $`NH_3^+C^\alpha H(C^\beta H_2)C^{^{}}O_2^{}`$ dissolved in $`D_2O`$. All experiments were performed on a Varian INOVA500 spectrometer with a probe tuned at 500.122MHz for 1H and at 125.768MHz for 13C. The measured NMR parameters are listed in Table 1. Three 13C nuclear spins of 99% abundance were chosen as a 3-qubit system with decoupling all protons, while three 13C and one 1H nuclear spins as a 4-qubit system with decoupling the methyl protons. In both of the two separate systems, spin Cα was chosen as the work qubit $`I_0`$ due to its well-resolved scalar $`J`$ couplings to all other spins. Spins C, Cβ and 1H being directly joined with Cα, representing qubits $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$. Their reference spectra of thermal equilibrium are shown in Figure 3.

The key of sucessful experiments is how to implement effeciently the Cn-NOT gates which are elementary operations in these QBCs for SAT problems. The Cn-NOT gate can be implemented in many ways. In all experiments, the C-NOT gate was accomplished via the appropriate rotation and delay with selective refocusing schemes, while the Cn-NOT gate when $`n2`$ by a single low-power transition-selective pulse which are very efficient and reliable on our parallelization scheme becuase the input state remains always along z axis when applying these transition-selective pulses. In all experiments, we employed a low-power Gaussian pulse of length 80$`ms`$ to selectively excite an individual transition. A technique was used to realize a Cm-NOT gate in a more-qubit ($`n>m+1`$) system, i.e., decoupling the irrelevant qubits only when applying the line-selective pulse. For example, to implement the C2-NOT gate with spins C and Cβ as the control qubits and spin $`I_0`$ as the target qubit in a 4-qubit system, we first decoupled spin 1H, then realized the C2-NOT gate just like that in a 3-qubit system and finally recoupled spin 1H.

Begin with some simple speical cases of modified SAT problems such as $`x_1\overline{x_1}`$ and $`x_1\overline{x_1}`$. As the AND or OR operation connects the same variable or their negation, a scratchpad qubit $`I_2`$ is introduced in the circuit to store their values by a C-NOT gate. Then the scheme described in Sec. II was performed. First the mixed state $`I_0^\alpha I_2^\alpha `$ was prepared from thermal equilibrium by this following pulse sequence: $`Y_1\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)Y_2\left(\frac{\pi }{3}\right)G_zY_0\left(\frac{\pi }{4}\right)\left(\frac{1}{8J_{02}}\right)X_1\left(\pi \right)\left(\frac{1}{8J_{02}}\right)\overline{X_1}\left(\pi \right)X_0\left(\frac{\pi }{4}\right),`$ where $`Y_i(\theta )`$ and $`\overline{Y_i}(\theta )`$ denote $`\theta `$ and $`\theta `$ rotations about $`\widehat{y}`$ axis on spin $`i`$ and so forth, $`\left(\frac{1}{8J_{02}}\right)`$ describes a time evolution of $`1/8J_{02}`$ under the scalar coupling between spins $`I_0`$ and $`I_2`$ with the selective refocusing $`\pi `$ pulses $`X_1\left(\pi \right)`$ and $`\overline{X_1}\left(\pi \right)`$ and $`G_z`$ represents a pulsed-field gradient (PFG) along z-axis. The experimental results are shown in Figure 4, (a) and (c) for the number of variables $`n=1`$ (on the left column) on the 3-qubit homonuclear system; (b) and (d) for $`n=2`$ (on the right column) on the 4-qubit system with qubit $`I_3`$ as the variable $`x_2`$. Due to the experimental limitation, we artificially subtract the information related to spin $`I_2`$ by removing its relevant resonance lines. There is no corresponding resonance lines in the TRUE space for the case of $`V_1\overline{V_1}`$ (see figure 4 (a) and (b)), indicating that no solutions exists in the problem of $`x_1\overline{x_1\text{ }}`$(i.e., $`x_1\overline{x_1}0`$), but for $`x_1\overline{x_1}`$ (see Figure 4(c) and (d)), all resonance lines appear in the TRUE space, indicating that the logic expression $`x_1\overline{x_1}1`$. Furthermore, we also experimentally tested other two cases: $`x_1x_1x_1`$ and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_1}\overline{x_1}`$. As shown in Figure 4 (e)-(h), the resonance lines related to the solutions are separated from the FALSE space, appearing in the TRUE space, which are in good agreement with the theoretical expectations. In the same way, we can test these simple formulas on a larger number of variables ($`n>2`$), i.e., to search assignments satisfying these formulas in a larger database.

In addition, all the logic formulas of 1-SAT of two and three variables, and the $`k`$-SAT with one clause were experimentally implemented on such a 3-qubit or 4-qubit NMR quantum processor. Qubits $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ are viewed as the variables $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ and $`x_3`$, respectively. The initial input state $`I_0^\alpha `$ from thermal equilibrium was more easily prepared by applying radio-frequency (rf) $`\pi /2`$ pulses on all other qubits except for $`I_0`$, followed by a PFG. Figure 5 shows the spectra of spin $`I_0`$ after the execution of these quantum circuits for all 1-SAT and 2-SAT of one clause with two variables. Figures 6 and 7 show the experimental results of the partial problems for 1-SAT, 2-SAT and 3-SAT of three variables. From these figures one can see that the solutions of a given SAT problem are achieved from the resonance lines in the TRUE space, as theoretically expected. Accordingly, the parallel computation for SAT problems with mixed states succeeds in NMR ensemble quantum computing.

Besides, from these figures, we can also see the small but significant distortions of the phases arising from the difficulty of implementing perfect selective pulses and inhomogeneity of the static magnetic field. It can be also seen that the distortions become larger as the system size is increased. In addition, the signal decay is mainly due to the relaxation effect of the low-power, long-duration transition-selective excitation.

## IV Conclusion

In summary, we give a general construction of QBCs for random SAT problems by using Cn-NOT and NOT gates and present a parallelization scheme for solving them with mixed states on a NMR quantum information processor. This model is an extension of “one-qubit” quantum computation. The present model uses quantum parallelism to perform computation in an essential way and then uses the topological nature of the NMR spectrum to obtain the computational results by monitoring spin $`I_0`$ with a single detection pulse, which in principle makes random NP-complete SAT problems be solved in polynomial time. Meanwhile, we have experimentally implemented the scheme for several typical SAT problems on a 3-qubit or 4-qubit NMR quantum processor. The experimental results are well consistent with the theoretical expectations. Compared to Hogg’s algorithm, this present scheme with a truly mixed input state avoids the pseudo-pure state preparation in NMR quantum computing so as to simplify the process of the whole experiment to solve such a problem. Moreover, its feasibility is not limited in the restricted case of SAT (e.g., Hogg’s algorithm for 1-SAT and maximally constrained $`k`$-SAT), but for random SAT problems. However, it will require some additional qubits as scratchpads, which may increase the potential difficulty of finding a suitable sample. In principle, we can build up a recursive (“refresh”) procedure to minimize the number of scratchpads for saving space and the run-time cost. In order that all database can be distinguishable, the chosen sample is required to have a spin which has resolved scalar $`J`$ couplings to all other computational spins. Though liquid-state NMR faces the difficulty of the scalability, the scheme of effectively finding the solutions to random SAT problems with a great many variables presented in this paper can not only be realized in NMR quantum processors with a few qubits, but also might be feasible or instructive for other scalable quantum-processor implementations with similar features to the liquid-state NMR counterpart.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Prof. D. Suter’s suggestion for Hogg’s algorithm with mixed states. We also thank Hanzeng Yuan, Zhi Ren and Xiaowen Fang for help in the course of experiments. This work is supported by the National Fundamental Research Program (2001CB309300) and National Nature Sciences Foundation of China (10274093).

Table 1. Measured NMR parameters for alanine dissolved in $`D_2O`$ on a Varian INOVA500 spectrometer with respect to transmitter frequencies of 500.122MHz for 1H and 125.768MHz for 13C.

| nuclei | $`\nu /Hz`$ | $`J_C^{^{}}/Hz`$ | $`J_{C^^\alpha }/Hz`$ | $`J_{C^\beta }/Hz`$ | $`J_H/Hz`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`C^{}`$ | $`4320`$ |  | $`34.94`$ | $`1.2`$ | $`5.5`$ |
| $`C^\alpha `$ | $`0`$ | $`34.94`$ |  | $`53.81`$ | $`143.21`$ |
| $`C^\beta `$ | $`15793`$ | $`1.2`$ | $`53.81`$ |  | $`5.1`$ |
| $`H`$ | $`1550`$ | $`5.5`$ | $`143.21`$ | $`5.5`$ |  |

Figure Captions

Figure 1.Quantun circuit of implementing the AND and OR gate by a Toffolli gate. The top two bits ($`x_i,x_j`$) represent the inputs, while the third bit $`x_0`$ is initially prepared in the $`|0`$ state as the target bit to record the outputs. $``$ denotes the modulo 2 addition (i.e., a NOT gate) and the controlling operation on a spin being in the $`|1`$ state is represented by a filled circle.

Figure 2. Quantum circuits for a 3-SAT problem with the formula being $`\left(x_1x_2x_3\right)(x_1x_2\overline{x_3})\left(\overline{x_1}x_2x_3\right)`$. Note two NOT gates in the dashed boxes can be canceled out pairwise. DEC at the end of the circuit denotes that the qubit is decoupled in the signal acquisition.

Figure 3. The reference spectra of spin $`I_0`$ in thermal equilibrium for (a) a 3-qubit system and (b) a 4-qubit system. Split peaks are observed due to spin-spin couplings. The labels of the peaks represent the states of the other spins (see the text). All spectra in Figures 3-7 were recorded by a single $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse on spin $`I_0`$.

Figure 4. The experimental spectra of spin $`I_0`$ to investigate four simple cases of modified SAT: $`x_1\overline{x_1}`$, $`x_1\overline{x_1}`$, $`x_1x_1`$ and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_1}`$ from the top to the bottom for $`n=1`$ (on the left column) and $`n=2`$ (on the right column).

Figure 5. The experimental spectra of spin $`I_0`$ for all 1-SAT and 2-SAT with one clause of two variables: (a) 1-SAT with $`m=1`$, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1`$, $`\overline{x_1\text{,}}`$ $`x_2`$and $`\overline{x_2}`$; (b) 1-SAT with $`m=2`$, the corresponding the logic formula are $`x_1x_2`$, $`\overline{x_1}x_2`$, $`x_1\overline{x_2}`$and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}`$; (c) 2-SAT with $`m=1`$, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1x_2`$, $`\overline{x_1}x_2`$ $`x_1\overline{x_2}`$and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}`$; from left to right, respectively.

Figure 6. The experimental spectra of spin $`I_0`$ for the partial 1-SAT problems of three variables: (a) $`m=3`$, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1x_2x_3`$, $`x_1x_2\overline{x_3}`$, $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}x_3`$ and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}\overline{x_3}`$; (b) $`m=2`$, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1x_2`$, $`\overline{x_1}x_2`$ $`x_1\overline{x_2}`$and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}`$; (c) $`m=1`$, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$, $`x_3`$and $`\overline{x_1}`$; from left to right, respectively.

Figures 7. The experimental spectra of spin $`I_0`$ for all 3-SAT and the partial 2-SAT of three variables with $`m=1`$: (a)-(h) 3-SAT, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1x_2x_3`$, $`\overline{x_1}x_2x_3`$, $`x_1\overline{x_2}x_3`$, $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}x_3`$, $`x_1x_2\overline{x_3}`$, $`\overline{x_1}x_2\overline{x_3}`$, $`x_1\overline{x_2}\overline{x_3}`$ and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}\overline{x_3}`$; (i)-(l) 2-SAT, the corresponding logic formulas are $`x_1x_2`$, $`\overline{x_1}x_2`$, $`x_1\overline{x_2}`$ and $`\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}`$, respectively.


text:
# Untitled Document

About Possibility for Examination of Gravity Theories Using the Precise Measurement of Particle Lifetime

Kh.M. Beshtoev

Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Joliot Curie 6, 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia

Abstract

An approach for examination of gravitational theories using precision measurements of particle lifetime is proposed. The expressions describing dependence of particle lifetime on gravitational potential in Einstein’s and Newton’s gravity theories are obtained. In the case of Newton’s gravity there is a dependence of the particle velocity direction from the direction of matter location, which creates the gravitational potential. If the external gravitational field is spherical symmetric then there would be no possibility to distinguish these types of gravity. It is found that the deposit of gravitational potential of the Universe (in the case of uniformly distribution of matter in the Universe) in particle lifetime is approximately one percent. On the basis of the available experimental data it is found that deposit of asymmetric gravitational field is $`\frac{\phi }{c^2}210^4`$, i.e., if the experimental precision of particle lifetime measurements will be several units of $`10^4`$, then we could see this effect.

In reality, the lifetime of elementary particles can be defined by effective masses of these particles in the external gravitational field. The expressions for effective masses of particles in the external gravitational field for two gravity type theories are obtained. These masses can be used at computation of the decay probability (or lifetime) of particles by standard methods. It is shown that in this case it is also possible to distinguish these two types of gravity theories

I. Introduction

Probably, brain of scientists has already settled the idea that gravitational interactions are connected with space curvature and our space is a curved one . Nevertheless, this problem demands a subsequent investigation.

a). Gravitational Red Shift.

In the work  it was shown, that radiation spectrum (or energy levels) of atoms (or nuclei) in the gravitational field has a red shift since the effective masses of radiant electrons (or nucleons) change in this field. This red shift is equal to the red shift of the radiation spectrum in the gravitational field measured in existing experiments . The same shift must arise when the photon (or $`\gamma `$ quantum) is passing through the gravitational field if it participates in gravitational interactions. Then, on experiments one must detect double red shift. Absence of the double shift in the experiments means that photons (or $`\gamma `$ quanta) are passing through the gravitational field without interactions (see also Ref. ).

b). Advance of Perihelion of Planets.

It is necessary to note that in the work  expression for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury was obtained in the case of flat space, which is mathematically equivalent to the Einstein’s expression.

c). Photon Deflection in Gravitational Field.

It is well known, that only massive bodies and particles participate in the Newton’s theory of gravitation (i.e. body and particle having the rest mass). Since the photons have no rest mass, the usage of the ”mass” $`m_{ph}`$ obtained in the formula

$$m_{ph}=\frac{E_{ph}}{c^2}=\frac{h\nu }{c^2},$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
is a hypothesis to be checked of. The check has shown (see above or  ) that there are no photons (or $`\gamma `$ \- quanta) red shift when they pass through the gravitational field. It is obvious, that since they have no rest masses (or a gravitational charge), they cannot participate in the gravitational interactions. Then, the deflection of photons in gravitational fields must not exist either. The question arises: How could the deflection of photons appear in the gravitational field, if they do not participate in these interactions? It is clear that this question calls for an answer. Let’s note, that the given question has been discussed in work  (see also references in ), where it was shown that from the available experimental data it is not impossible to come to a conclusion that photons are deflected in the gravitational field.

Probably, in order to clarify these problems it is necessary to perform some experiments. I would like to indicate yet one more experimental possibility for examination of the idea of connecting gravitational interactions with space curvature (the Einstein’s theory of gravity).

II. About Possibility for Examination of Gravitational Theories by Using Precise Lifetimes of Relativistic Particles

If particle’s lifetime depends on gravity field (potential) in the decay points, then we have a chance to examine how its lifetime change in dependence of gravitational potential and velocity of the particle. Further on, we will obtain an expression for particle lifetime depending on gravitation potential and its velocity in the framework of Einstein’s and Newton’s theory gravity. It is necessary to stress that in this case we use the gravitational potential in the point of particle location and it includes the masses ($`M`$) of all objects, which create this potential, i.e., in this approach will be used potential but not potential gradient (see ).

II. 1. The Proper $`\tau `$ and World $`x^o`$ Times

In the General relativistic theory , it is supposed that influence of gravitation is reduced to appearance of a space-time curvature described by the curvature tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta };\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,3`$, and the source of gravitational field is the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$. In case of a weak gravitational field $`\phi /c^2<<1`$ from this curved space, we may come to flat (quasi-flat) space, where gravitational field contribution is determined by the potential $`\phi (x)`$ . Naturally, the $`\phi `$ is equivalent to the Newton gravitational potential. Particularly simple expressions are obtained in the case of stationary (time independent) gravitational field. In this case the nondiagonal terms of curvature tensor are equal to zero, and

$$g_{oo}=1+2\phi /c^2.$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
We will consider the case of stationary field since it presents interest to us. Then connection between proper time $`\tau `$ (i.e., time when we take into account the gravity) and the world time $`x_o/c`$ (the time without the gravity) is determined by the following expression:

$$x_o=\frac{\tau }{\sqrt{g_{oo}}}c=inv,$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
or

$$\tau =\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{g_{oo}}x_o.$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
In the case of weak gravitational fields from (4), we come to the following expression:

$$\tau =\frac{x_o}{c}\left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right).$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
For the photon frequency $`\omega `$ in the external gravitational field $`\phi `$ we have the following expression

$$\omega =\omega _o\left(1\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right),$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
where $`\omega _o`$ is photon frequency in the absence of gravitational field.

We will work in the framework of the method which is used in  (L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz) where $`\phi >0`$ and in the case of necessity it needs to change on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ which may be either positive or negative.

Since in the flat space the time $`x_o`$ duration is identical to time $`x_o^{}`$ duration in the proper reference system of a physical object, then the relativistic transformation between them has the standard form

$$x_o^{}=\gamma x_o,$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
and the general formula for the proper time of relativistic object in gravitational field takes the form

$$x_o^{}=\gamma \left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right)x_o.$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
Then for

$$\tau ^{}=\frac{x_o^{}}{c},\tau _o=\frac{x_o}{c},$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
we have

$$\tau ^{}=\gamma \left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right)\tau _o.$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
The expression (10) describes duration of time for identical physical processes of moving and a resting objects in the given reference system in presence of gravity.

We will consider $`\tau ^{}`$ as a lifetime (or decay time) of the particle with velocity $`v`$ in the stationary external gravitational field $`\phi `$.

The photon frequency transformation, emitted by relativistic object in gravitational field, is determined in a similar way (however see Ref. ).

In the Newton’s gravity case the analogous expression for time duration has the following form:

$$\tau ^{}=\gamma \left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+sin^2\theta \left(\gamma ^21\right)}}\right)\frac{x_o}{c},$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
where angle $`\theta `$ is angle between direction of the particle velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and unity vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ to the center of gravitational system.

From Exp. (10) we can see that in Einstein’s case the $`\frac{\tau ^{}}{\gamma }`$

$$\frac{\tau ^{}}{\gamma }=\left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right)\frac{x_o}{c}=inv,$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
is invariant. But in the Newton’s case the value $`\frac{\tau ^{}}{\gamma }`$

$$\frac{\tau ^{}}{\gamma }=\left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+sin^2\theta \left(\gamma ^21\right)}}\right)\frac{x_o}{c},$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
is not invariant and depends on $`\gamma `$ and velocity direction.

Now we have to discuss a question related to the required precision for measurement of particles lifetime. For this purpose we must know the estimation of value $`\frac{\phi }{c^2}`$ created by Universe matter in the experimental point (i.e. at the Earth surface).

Let us fulfill estimation of $`\frac{\phi }{c^2}`$ of our Universe. For estimation of average value of $`\phi `$ we can use the following expression:

$$d\phi =G\frac{dM}{R}=G4\pi \rho \frac{R^2dR}{R}=4\pi \rho RdR,$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
where $`G`$ is gravitational constant, $`\rho `$ is average matter density of the Universe. Then

$$\overline{\frac{\phi }{c^2}}=4\pi G\rho _0^{R_o}R𝑑R=2\pi G\rho R_o^2,$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
where $`\rho 3.010^{31}g/cm^3`$ is the Universe matter density, $`R_o`$ is the Universe radius and $`R_o10^{10}`$ years  (we presume that $`c`$ the light velocity equal to one). And then the average value of $`\frac{\phi }{c^2}`$ is

$$\overline{\frac{\phi }{c^2}}1.2510^2.$$
$`\left(16\right)`$
Obviously, in the modern experiments we can principally reach one percent precision and to measure the effects connected with the gravitational field of the Universe matter. However, in previous considerations we presumed that the matter is distributed symmetrically in the Universe, and then we cannot distinguish the Einstein’s and Newton’s gravity (see Exp. (11), (13)). In order to distinguish, which of these gravity theories is realized in Nature, the matter distribution in the Universe must be asymmetrical. In any case there is an asymmetry since the Earth is not placed in the center of the Universe. At present, there are found such asymmetries  and estimation of the gravitational potential of this one gives that it is order of (if we take into account the dark matter, i.e. neutrino masses and et cetera)

$$\frac{\phi }{c^2}210^4.$$
$`\left(17\right)`$
From the Exp. (17), we can see that the experimental precision of decay time measurements must be several units of $`10^4`$ in order to see this effect.

II.2. Lifetime of Elementary Particles in a Stationary Gravitational Field

In reality, the lifetime of elementary particles can be defined by effective masses of these particles in external gravitational field. In this case we must use particle effective masses, computing their lifetimes by the standard methods.

Expression for energy of a physical object in Einstein’s theory (when the object is moving along the world line) has the following form :

$$E_o=m_oc^2g_{oo}\frac{dx^o}{ds}=m_oc^2\frac{dx^o}{\sqrt{g_{oo}}\left(dx^o\right)^2dl^2}.$$
$`\left(18\right)`$
Introducing the object velocity $`v`$ (i.e., observer time)

$$v=\frac{dl}{d\tau }=\frac{cdl}{\sqrt{g_{oo}}dx^o},$$
$`\left(19\right)`$
into the reference system of the observer, we obtain expression of energy of the object in the given system

$$E_o=\frac{m_oc^2\sqrt{g_{oo}}}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}.$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
At $`\frac{\phi }{c^2}<<1`$

$$\sqrt{g}_{oo}1+\frac{\phi }{c^2},$$
$`\left(21\right)`$
and we get

$$E_o\frac{mc^2\left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right)}{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{m_o\phi }{\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}.$$
$`\left(22\right)`$
From Exp. (22) we can come to a conclusion that effective mass of an object $`M^{}`$ (or a particle) in external stationary gravitational field is

$$M^{}=M\left(1+\frac{\phi }{c^2}\right).$$
$`\left(23\right)`$
As we have already stressed above, in reality the lifetime of elementary particles can be defined by effective masses of these particles in the external gravitational field. In this case, we should use particle effective masses while computing their lifetimes. Naturally, this effect can be observed in experiment.

For example, lifetime $`\tau (\pi )`$ of $`\pi ^\pm `$ mesons at their lepton decays ($`\pi l+\overline{\nu }_l`$) is described by the following expression:

$$\tau \left(\pi \right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\pi \right)},$$
$`\left(24\right)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\pi \right)=\frac{G_F^2f_\pi ^2cos^2\theta m_l^2m_\pi }{8\pi }\left(1\frac{m_l^2}{m_\pi ^2}\right)^2,$$
$`\left(25\right)`$
and $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant, $`G_F`$ is Fermi constant, $`\theta `$ is mixing angle, $`m_l`$ is lepton mass, $`m_\pi `$ is pion mass.

The lifetime of relativistic pion is defined by usage of standard relativistic transformations. From Exp. (22), (23) it is well seen that in the case of the Einstein’s gravity, there must not be any dependency of the lifetime of elementary particle on the external gravitational potential, i.e., there must not be a visible effect.

In the case of Newton’s gravity, in contrast to the case of Einstein’s gravity, there must be dependence of external gravitational potential as well as direction and value of particle velocity, determined by Exp. (13).

III. Conclusion

This work proposes an approach for examination of gravitational theories taking use of the precision lifetime measurements of elementary particles. We obtained expression for dependence of particle lifetimes of external gravitational potential in the case of Einstein’s and Newton’s gravity. In the case of Newton’s gravity, there is a dependence of velocity direction from the direction of matter location, which creates a gravitational potential. If the external gravitational field is spherical symmetric then there is no possibility to distinguish between these types of gravity. It is found that the deposit of gravitational potential of the Universe (in the case of uniformly distribution of matter in the Universe) in particle lifetime is about one percent. On basis of the available experimental data it is found that deposit of asymmetric gravitational field is $`\frac{\phi }{c^2}210^4`$, i.e., if the experimental precision of particle lifetime measurements is several units of $`10^4`$, then we could see this effect and it would be the confirmation of Newton’s theory gravity (see Introduction of this work).

In reality, the lifetime of elementary particles can be defined by effective masses of these particles in the external gravitational field. The expressions for effective masses of particles in the external gravitational field for two gravity type theories are obtained. These masses can be used at computation of the decay probability (or lifetime) of particles by standard methods. It is shown that in this case it is also possible to distinguish these two types of gravity theories.

The author expresses his gratitude to A. Sapogov, a co-author of the work , for discussions.

References

1. A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 49, 769, (1916);

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Field Theory, M., Nauka, 1988, p.324.

2. Kh. Beshtoev, Physics Essays 13, N3, (2000).

3. R.V. Pound, G.A. Rebka, Phys. Rev. Let. 4, 337, (1960);

R.V. Pound, J.L. Snider, Phys. Rev. 140, 788, (1965).

4. J.L. Snider, Phys. Rev. Let. 28, 853, (1972).

5. P. Marmet, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity versus Classic

Mechanics, Newton Physics Books, Canada, 1997.

6. P. Marmet, Physics Essays 12, N3, (1999).

7. Kh. Beshtoev, JINR Communication E2-2001-107, Dubna, 2001.

8. P. Marmet and C. Couture, Physics Essays 12, 162,(1999).

9. W. C. Saslaw, Gravitational Physics of Stellar and Galactic Systems, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.

A. Dressler, Scientific American N11, 1987.

10. Kh Beshtoev et all., JINR Communication E2-2003-18, 2003, Dubna.