text:
# Hall resistivity in unconventional spin density wave in (TMTSF)2PF6 below 𝑇=4.2K

## Introduction

Since the discovery of superconductivity in (TMTSF)2PF6 in 1979 , the Bechgaard salts or the highly anisotropic organic superconductors (TMTSF)2X (where TMTSF is tetramethyltetraselenfulvalene and X is anion PF4, AsF4, ClO4 …) are one of the most well studied systems . The quasi-one-dimensionality (1D) is a consequence of the crystal structure, where the TMTSF molecules are stacked in columns in the $`𝐚`$ direction (along which the highest conductivity occurs), and the resulting anisotropy in conductivity is commonly taken to be $`\sigma _a:\sigma _b:\sigma _c10^5:10^3:1`$. The rich phase diagram of (TMTSF)2X salts exhibits various low temperature phases under pressure and/or in magnetic field, among which the spin density wave (SDW), field induced SDW (FISDW) with quantum Hall effect and spin triplet superconductivity are very intriguing .

(TMTSF)2PF6 is metallic down to $`T_{\mathrm{SDW}}12`$K, where the transition into the semiconducting SDW takes place. It is known that SDW in (TMTSF)2PF6 undergoes another transition at $`T^{}T_{\mathrm{SDW}}/3`$ (at 3.5–4 K at ambient pressure) . The indication of the subphase was first seen by NMR , where $`T_1^1`$ diverges and the spin susceptibility changes at $`T^{}`$. The transition at $`T^{}`$ is preserved through the entire $`pT`$ phase diagram. Furthermore a calorimetric transition at 3.5 K with a large hysteretic phenomenons in the temperature range 2.5–4 K (caused by the sample history) has been observed and interpreted as an indication of a glass transition . On the other hand, the low frequency dielectric relaxation of SDW in (TMTSF)2PF6 did not show the existence of the glass transition . Since then the SDW state was widely investigated, but the nature of the subphase remained controversial. Recently we have studied the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis magnetoresistance (MR) of (TMTSF)2PF6 at ambient pressure and with magnetic field rotated within the $`𝐚\text{}𝐜^{}`$ plane. The MR has different behaviour for $`T>4`$K and $`T<4`$K . For $`T>4`$K MR is described in terms of the quasiparticle in a magnetic field, where the imperfect nesting term  plays the crucial role. However, in order to describe MR below 4 K we have introduced a rather artificial scattering term.

More recently, unconventional density waves (UCDW or USDW) have been proposed as a possible ground state in electronic systems in organic conductors and heavy fermions . Unlike the conventional DW, the UDW is defined as the DW where the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ depends on the quasi-particle momentum $`𝐤`$. In particular, UCDW appears to describe the striking angular dependent magnetoresistance (ADMR) found in the low temperature phase of $`\alpha `$(ET)2KHg(SCN)4 . On the other hand, we have shown that the remarkable features of ADMR in (TMTSF)2PF6 below $`T=4`$K (the decrease in the quasiparticle energy gap for $`B=0`$ and the sudden change in the angular dependence of the energy gap in the presence of magnetic field $`B`$ as the temperature crosses $`T=T^{}`$) can be described within the model SDW plus USDW using the USDW order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi `$, where $`\varphi =bk_2`$ with $`𝐐=(2k_F,\pi /2b,0)`$ .

In this paper we shall present the Hall resistivity data in (TMTSF)2PF6 for $`T>4`$K and $`T<4`$K and discuss them within the model of SDW+USDW.

## Hall resistivity

The Hall resistivity $`\rho _{xy}`$ in two crystals of (TMTSF)2PF6 with dimension $`3.51\times 0.61\times 0.28`$mm3 and $`3.53\times 0.54\times 0.25`$mm3 was measured with 6 contact method as shown in inset of Fig.1. The results shown and discussed here were obtained on one of them, and similar qualitative behaviour was observed on another sample, too. The measurements were performed between 2.0 K and 6.3 K, with magnetic field up to 9 T. The $`𝐚`$ direction of the monocrystal is the highest conductivity direction, the intermediate conductivity $`𝐛^{}`$ is perpendicular to $`𝐚`$ in the $`𝐚\text{}𝐛`$ plane and the lowest conductivity $`𝐜^{}`$ direction is perpendicular to the $`𝐚\text{}𝐛`$ (and $`𝐚\text{}𝐛^{}`$) plane.

The current flow was along the $`𝐚`$ axis, the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ along $`𝐜^{}`$ direction and the Hall voltage was detected along the $`𝐛^{}`$ axis.

The magnetic field dependence of the Hall resistivity is shown in Fig.1 ($`T<4`$K) and Fig.2 ($`T>4`$K).

The general $`T`$ and $`B`$ dependencies are consistent with earlier data by Uji et al. , although their main objective is the study of the rapid quantum oscillation. As is readily seen from Fig.1 and 2, the negative Hall resistivity is much smaller for $`T>4`$K than for $`T<4`$K. According to , the Hall resistivity in the quasi one dimensional system is given by

$$\rho _{xy}(B)=\frac{\sigma _{yx}}{\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}+(\sigma _{yx})^2}$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the conductivity tensor.

If we neglect the quantum Hall effect, which contributes a new term in $`\sigma _{xy}`$ , we obtain

$$\sigma _{ij}N_{\mathrm{qp}}e^{\beta E(B)},$$
(2)
where $`N_{\mathrm{qp}}`$ is the quasiparticle density and $`E(B)`$ is the quasiparticle energy gap in the presence of magnetic field $`B`$.

On the other hand, it is well known that $`\rho _{xx}(B)`$ has no activation form where $`x`$ is parallel to the $`𝐚`$ axis . A possible explanation is that the conductivity parallel to the $`𝐚`$ axis has another channel of which quasiparticle has no energy gap. A similar approach has been used in the quantitative analysis of $`\rho _{ij}(B)`$ in the FISDW state in (TMTSF)2PF6 under high pressure . Therefore, the fitting of our Hall data is done with

$$\rho _{xy}(B)=\frac{ABe^{\beta E(B)}}{1+CB^ne^{\beta E(B)}}$$
(3)
where $`A`$ and $`C`$ are temperature dependent constants, and

$$E(B)=\{\begin{array}{cc}21\text{K}\times (1+a_>|B|),\hfill & \text{for }T>T^{}\hfill \\ 20\text{K}\times \sqrt{1+a_<|B|},\hfill & \text{for }T<T^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
We took these expressions from , with $`a_>=0.048\text{T}^1`$ and $`a_<=0.027\text{T}^1`$. Here, we limit ourselves to the case $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$. The results of the fitting procedure are shown on both figures as the dotted lines (the values of $`A`$ and $`C`$ are given in Table 1). We have an excellent agreement with the experimental data. We note that $`A`$ is almost independent of temperature, while $`C`$ decreases as temperature decreases. The values of $`a`$’s used in the present fitting ($`a_<=0.011\text{T}^1`$ and $`a_>=0.010\text{T}^1`$) are somewhat smaller than the ones used earlier , but they are of the same order of magnitude. Also, the exponent $`n=1.3`$ is somewhat strange (naturally, we expect $`n=2`$), but the similar exponent has been found in fitting the diagonal component of the magnetoresistance tensor .

The agreement between the model and experimental data implies that the appearance of USDW below $`T=T^{}`$, over the preexisting SDW, with a new quasiparticle energy gap appears to describe the Hall resistivity consistently. In particular, the rapid increase of the Hall resistivity below $`T=T^{}`$ testifies the rapid change in the quasiparticle energy gap across $`T=T^{}`$. In order to further test the present model the Hall resistivity data with the magnetic field away from the $`𝐜^{}`$ axis are highly desirable.

## Conclusion

We have completed the study of the resistivity tensor in (TMTSF)2PF6 below $`T=T^{}`$. For $`𝐁𝐜^{}`$ we have shown that an approach with USDW+SDW below $`T^{}`$ gives an excellent fit of the Hall resistivity data. This further supports our proposal that USDW appearing on top of existing SDW in (TMTSF)2PF6 below $`T=T^{}`$ gives a consistent description of the resistivity tensor.

## Acknowledgments

This experimental work was performed on samples prepared by K. Bechgaard. We acknowledge the participation of N. Francetić in the experiment and useful discussions with B. Dóra, A. Virosztek and S. Tomić.

This paper is dedicated to memory of Michael J. Rice. His interest and support of our work and our friendship over many years have been important to us.


format: text

text:
# Measuring 4-local 𝑛-qubit observables could probabilistically solve PSPACE

## 1 Measuring $`k`$-local observables

A characteristic feature of quantum theory is that there exists an abundance of mutually incompatible observables (described by self-adjoint operators $`A`$) for every quantum system and it is by no means obvious how to implement measurement procedures for all these quantities. On a quantum computer one could in principle measure every observable $`A`$ as follows: Find a unitary transformation $`U`$ which diagonalizes $`A`$ with respect to the computational basis. Then $`A`$ is measured by implementing $`U`$ and measuring the logical state of each qubit. By identifying each binary word with the corresponding eigenvalue of $`A`$ this procedure reproduces all probabilities

$$p_j:=tr(\rho P_j)$$

correctly where $`\rho `$ is the density matrix of the quantum register and $`(P_j)`$ is the family of spectral projections of $`A`$.

However, the implementation of the diagonalizing operation $`U`$ will in general be hard. Therefore, one may restrict the attention to specific classes of observables. It is natural to consider observables with physical relevance. For example, the quantum observable “energy”, mathematically described by the self-adjoint operator $`H`$ (the Hamiltonian), is certainly one of the most important observables in physics. It determines the dynamical and thermodynamic behavior of the considered quantum system. Furthermore the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, the energy levels, are “directly” observable in many physical situations. For instance, in spectroscopy the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian determine the frequencies of emitted or absorbed photons. Nevertheless, the determination of the energy levels in interacting many-particle systems is in general a difficult task.

To explain this more explicitly, we need to describe the class of operators which is considered. First we note that physical interaction Hamiltonians usually satisfy some locality condition in the following sense. We call an $`n`$-qubit operator $`k`$-local if it is a sum of operators which act on at most $`k`$ particles non-trivially. For fundamental interactions between real physical particles one has more specific statements and may restrict the attention to pair-interactions. Nevertheless, $`k`$-local interactions among qubits are physically reasonable. They may describe effective Hamiltonians and there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between qubits and physical particles ($`l`$ qubits may, for instance, describe the state of one particle). The following results show that it is in general difficult to compute the spectrum of $`k`$-local Hamiltonians.

The problem of determining the lowest energy value of a (classical) spin-spin interaction of Ising type is known to be NP-complete . For interacting qubits determing the lowest energy value is even QMA-complete (“Quantum-NP”) if one allows $`3`$-local interactions only . Note that in these NP and Quantum-NP problems the task is not to determine the lowest eigenvalues with high precision. The demanded accuracy is only inverse polynomially in the number $`n`$ of interacting qubits. This has implications for the measurement procedure above:

The unitary $`U`$ that maps the eigenvectors of $`A`$ to the computational basis states is only helpful for measuring $`A`$ if the correspondence between computational basis states and the eigenvalues of $`A`$ is known. Therefore, this method would require to know the spectrum of $`A`$. For $`2`$-local or $`3`$-local observables one would need the solution of NP- and QMA-hard problems, respectively.

In this paragraph we will explain that measurements of $`k`$-local observables $`A`$ are possible up to inverse polynomial accuracy without using any knowledge on the spectrum of $`A`$.

Here we do not need a precise definition of accuracy, we only demand that the following condition is satisfied:

###### Postulate 1 (Measurement accuracy)

A measurement with accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ has the following property: For all density matrices $`\rho `$ the probability to obtain an outcome in the interval $`I:=[\lambda _j\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ,\lambda _j+\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ]`$ is at least $`(3/4)\mathrm{tr}(\rho P_j)`$.

Our result is not sensitive to the particular definition of accuracy. However, it is convenient to work with the formulation above.

Now we describe how to implement approximative measurements. The idea is that for every $`k`$-local $`A`$ (with $`k`$ constant) the corresponding time evolution $`U_t:=\mathrm{exp}(iAt)`$ (if $`A`$ is interpreted as a Hamiltonian $`H`$ of a quantum system) can be simulated efficiently in an approximative sense. Explicitly, it has been shown that the simulation of $`U_t`$ with elementary gates up to an error of $`ϵ`$ (with respect to the operator norm) requires $`O(t^2/ϵ)`$ gates . Now we can choose $`t`$ in such a way that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the eigenvalues of $`U_t`$ and $`A`$. This is the case whenever $`At\pi `$. An upper bound on the norm of a $`k`$-local operator is easy to get. We assume without loss of generality that each $`k`$-local term is upper bounded by the value $`1`$. There are at most

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)<n^k$$

$`k`$-local terms. Therefore, one has $`A=O(n^k)`$. For an appropriate value of $`t`$ we can implement measurements of the “observable” $`U_t`$ using111Note that also a unitary operator defines in a canonical way an observable by its spectral projections if one allows complex measurement outcomes. the quantum state estimation procedure . We will briefly sketch the idea. In the following we drop the index $`t`$.

The circuit for phase estimation is shown in Fig. 1. It acts on the registers $`R_S`$ and $`R_A`$. Controlled-$`U^j`$ gates are implemented in such a way that $`U^j`$ is performed on $`R_S`$ if and only if the ancilla register $`R_A`$ is in a state corresponding to the binary word $`j`$. This can be done by implementing controlled

$$U^{2^l}$$

gates which are applied if and only if the $`l`$th qubit of the ancilla register is in the state $`|1`$. The algorithm starts with an equally weighted superposition

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^m}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2^m}{}}|j,$$

of all ancilla register states where $`m`$ is the number of ancilla qubits. After applying the controlled $`U^j`$-operation the discrete Fourier transform of size $`2^m`$ is applied to the ancilla register. Then the eigenvalues of $`U`$ can be readout with an error of the order $`1/2^m`$. Now we consider the running time of this scheme (depending on the accuracy). Obviously, this depends on the running time for implementing the controlled-$`U^j`$ operations. The natural method to implement $`U^j=\mathrm{exp}(iAjt)`$ is to simulate the time evolution with Hamiltonian $`A`$ for the time $`tj`$. The substitution of the corresponding gates by controlled gates is straightforward. However, $`j`$ grows exponentially with $`m`$. Consequently, this method requires exponential running time for exponential accuracy. It is likely that all possible schemes for measuring $`A`$ precisely share this disadvantage.

For a black-box unitary $`U`$ it is clear that exponential accuracy requires exponential time since the black-box unitary $`U`$ has to be applied an exponential number of times. This can be seen by subjecting two state vectors to different unitaries $`U`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ with the same eigenstates but slightly different eigenvalues. Then $`U^l`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}^l`$ can only lead to distinguishable states for large $`l`$. In  it is described how to convert the time evolution $`\mathrm{exp}(iHt)`$ according to an unknown pair-interaction Hamiltonian $`H`$ to a controlled-$`\mathrm{exp}(iHt)`$ evolution. This shows that black-box settings for unknown $`A`$ do in principle make sense for energy measurements.

For non-black box interactions we cannot obtain lower bounds on the measurement complexity by similar arguments since the apparatus receives a classical description of the observable to be measured. However, the result of this paper suggests that even if the interaction is known there is no efficient measurement scheme with exponential accuracy. We show that measurements of $`4`$-local $`n`$-qubit observables $`A`$ could be used to solve PSPACE-problems in polynomial time provided that the accuracy is sufficient to distinguish between the different eigenvalues of $`A`$.

One may ask whether there may be any physical processes for measuring $`4`$-local observables that do not rely on quantum circuits (consisting of elementary gates). For instance, one may guess that a measurement of the energy of a system is simpler than a measurement of an arbitrary $`k`$-local observable because energy is a specific observable determining many physical aspects of the system. But note that the quantum version of the Strong Church-Turing Thesis (compare ) states that every problem that can be solved efficiently using some physical process can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer.

If there existed any efficient scheme for precise measurements of $`4`$-local observables this would imply either of the following statements:

1. The measurement process cannot efficiently be simulated on a quantum computer (in contrast to the strong quantum Church-Turing Thesis).
2. There are polynomial time algorithms to solve probabilistically PSPACE problems, i.e., PSPACE $`=`$ BQP.

Assuming that both implications are unlikely, our result strongly suggests limitations for future quantum measurement technology.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section we consider a class of quantum circuits with polynomial size. They could solve PSPACE problems if they were applied an exponential number of times on a polynomial number $`m`$ of qubits.

In Section 3 we describe how to construct a $`4`$-local observable corresponding to this circuit in such a way that precise measurements would solve PSPACE problems in polynomial time.

## 2 Characterizing PSPACE by circuits

The complexity class PSPACE is usually defined with respect to the Turing machine model . PSPACE is the class of all languages recognizable by polynomial space bounded deterministic Turing machines that halt on all inputs .

For our purposes we need a characterization of PSPACE with respect to quantum circuits. In particular, we need the result that every PSPACE language can be recognized by applying an appropriate circuit many times.

###### Theorem 1 (PSPACE)

For every language $`L`$ in PSPACE there is a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits $`(V_l)_l`$ consisting of $`s_l=poly(l)`$ elementary quantum gates and acting on $`m_l=poly(l)`$ many qubits. The circuit $`V_l`$ decides whether an input string $`x`$ of length $`l`$ is an element of $`L`$ in the following sense.

There is a polynomial-time computable natural number $`r_l`$ such that the $`r_l`$-fold concatenation of $`V_l`$ solves the corresponding PSPACE problem, i.e.

$$V_l^{r_l}(|x|y|00\mathrm{}0)=|x|yf(x)|00\mathrm{}0,$$

where $`f`$ is the characteristic function of $`L`$, i.e., $`f(x)=1`$ if $`xL`$ and $`f(x)=0`$ otherwise. The vector $`|x`$ is the basis state given by the binary word $`x\{0,1\}^l`$, the vector $`|y`$ is the state of the output qubit and $`|00\mathrm{}0`$ is the initial state of $`m_ll1`$ ancilla qubits.

Proof. In order to construct the circuit $`V_l`$ corresponding to a PSPACE problem we need to have an upper bound for the required space. This is, for instance, the case for the PSPACE-complete problem QBF (Quantified-Boolean Formulas). It can be solved within the space $`O(l^2)`$ where $`l`$ is the length of the input. This space bound determines $`m_l`$, the number of qubits.

Let $`M`$ be a Turing machine that solves QBF within space $`O(l^2)`$. Now we construct a quantum circuit $`V_l`$ that simulates the Turing machine $`M`$ for input length $`l`$. Since the computational steps of a quantum circuit are unitary (thus reversible), we have to work with a reversible Turing machine $`R`$ instead of $`M`$ (the latter could be irreversible). Each application of the constructed circuit simulates one or two steps of $`R`$.

Due to a result of Lange et al. (Theorem 3.3 in ) it is possible to simulate irreversible Turing machines by reversible ones without increasing the necessary space too much. More precisely, they give the simulation of a space-bounded Turing machine $`M`$ by a reversible Turing machine $`R`$ operating on the same space. In general, the reversible simulation by $`R`$ may have an exponential time overhead. The running time overhead is not relevant here because we can derive an upper bound on the running time of the reversible machine from the required number of qubits. In the following we work with the reversible Turing machine $`R`$.

The fact that every Turing machine can be simulated efficiently by circuits is standard . Here we need an explicit construction converting the reversible Turing machine into a circuit consisting of reversible gates.

The circuit acts on the following registers:

1. The register head encodes the internal state of the Turing machine.
2. The register tape\_index stores the current location of the head.
3. The register ACC is the accumulator (temporary storage).
4. The register tape corresponds to a sufficiently large region of the tape that is required for computation. It consists of cell $`1`$ to cell $`N_l`$ where $`N_l`$ is the space bound corresponding to the input length $`l`$.

Each step of the reversible Turing machine of Lange et al. is either a moving or read-and-write transition222This separation is useful in order to characterize reversibility of Turing machines .. A moving transition has the form $`p(q,\pm 1)`$. That means that in state $`p`$ the machine makes one step to the right ($`+1`$) (respectively to the left ($`1`$)) and changes into state $`q`$ without reading or writing any tape cell. A read-and-write transition has the form $`(p,a)(q,b)`$ meaning that in the state $`p`$ the machine overwrites the symbol $`a`$ with the symbol $`b`$ and changes into state $`q`$ without moving the head.

Furthermore, in our construction it is determined by the state of the head whether the system performs a moving or a read-and-write operation (and not by the state of the tape). In other words, the state set $`\widehat{Q}`$ of $`R`$ is the disjoint union of a set $`Q`$ of read-and-write states, a set $`Q^{}`$ of right-moving states and a set $`Q^{}`$ of left-moving states.

Due to reversibility of $`R`$ the moving transitions can be implemented as a unitary transformation on the registers head and tape\_index. A right-moving transition ($`pQ^{}`$) translates as follows:

$$|p_{\text{head}}|i_{\text{tape\_index}}|q_{\text{head}}|i+1_{\text{tape\_index}}.$$
(1)
Analogously, a left-moving transition ($`pQ^{}`$) translates as follows:

$$|p_{\text{head}}|i_{\text{tape\_index}}|q_{\text{head}}|i1_{\text{tape\_index}}.$$
(2)
Note that the operations on the register tape\_index are computed modulo $`N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of tape cells. Although the Turing machine will never move to the right when the head is at position $`N`$ and never to the left when it is at position $`1`$, this definition guarantees that eqs. (1) and (2) define unitary operators.

These transformations can be realized efficiently as a unitary transformation $`U_{\mathrm{moving}}`$ acting only on the registers head and tape\_index.

Again, due to reversibility of $`R`$ the read-and-write transitions can be realized by a unitary transformation. Let $`(p,a)(q,b)`$ be a read-and-write transition. There is a unitary transformation $`W_{\mathrm{r}/\mathrm{w}}`$ acting on the registers head and ACC realizing

$$|p_{\text{head}}|a_{\text{ACC}}|q_{\text{head}}|b_{\text{ACC}}.$$

We denote by SWAP(ACC,tape\[i\]) the unitary operation that swaps ACC and the $`i`$th cell of tape. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(U)`$ the controlled operation that performs $`U`$ if and only if tape\_index has the value $`i`$. Now we define $`U_{\mathrm{r}/\mathrm{w}}`$ as the concatenation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\left(\mathrm{SWAP}(\text{ACC},\text{tape[i]})\right)W_{\mathrm{r}/\mathrm{w}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\left(\mathrm{SWAP}(\text{ACC},\text{tape[i]})\right).$$

The transformation $`U=U_{\mathrm{r}/\mathrm{w}}U_{\mathrm{moving}}`$ is the transformation that corresponds to a moving and/or read-and-write transition of the reversible Turing machine $`R`$. (Note that if a read-write translation is followed by a moving transition then this $`U`$ performs both transitions.)

The constructed circuit $`U`$ does not satisfy all requirements of the theorem. The first problem is that we do not know the running time of the reversible Turing machine $`R`$. Consequently, we do not know how many times we have to perform the elementary circuit $`U`$ to obtain the solution. Even if we knew how many times we have to apply $`U`$, the corresponding transformation would in general change the state $`|x`$ and produce some garbage on the ancillas.

To circumvent the first problem we introduce some idle cycles to guarantee that the running time is an efficiently computable function $`r_l`$ of the input length $`l`$. The second problem is solved by uncomputing the operations carried out during the computational steps and the idle cycles.

In the step $`r_l/2`$ (proper computational steps and the idle cycles) the solution is copied to the register solution. In the following $`r_l/2`$ steps we uncompute the idle cycles and the computational steps. The computational steps are uncomputed by applying $`U^{}`$ corresponding to running $`R`$ backwards.

Now we construct the quantum circuit $`V`$ that circumvents both problems as explained. Note that we drop the index $`l`$ in the following. The circuit operates on the registers head, ACC, tape\_index,tape and the new registers solution, operation\_mode, idle\_counter, and counter (See Fig. 2).

The register operation\_mode indicates whether the current operation is $`U`$, idle cycle, reverse idle cycle, or $`U^{}`$. These $`4`$ subroutines of the whole circuit can be seen in Fig. 3.

The content of the register counter is incremented after each application of $`U`$ or idle cycle and decremented after each application of $`U^{}`$ or reverse idle cycle. Our construction uses the following upper bound on the number of necessary applications of $`U`$. Since the number of basis states of the register that $`U`$ acts on is $`2^m`$ it does not make sense to have $`r>2^m`$. Therefore the counter is incremented until the register has the result $`2^{m+1}1`$ in order to ensure that the number of required applications of $`U`$ is exceeded. As soon as this number is reached the result of the computation is copied to the register solution, i.e., the register is incremented by $`1`$ if and only if the answer is “true”. From this moment on the counter and the idle\_counter are decremented. As soon as the idle\_counter reaches $`0`$ the operation mode is changed such that the concatenated application of $`U^{}`$ is started. After the appropriate number of applications the initial state of all registers are restored except from the register solution which is incremented by $`1`$ if and only if the answer of the PSPACE problem is “true”.

Explicitly, one has the following rules:

1. operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟎𝟎}`$: perform the circuit $`U`$, increment counter
2. change operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}`$ if idle\_counter is $`00\mathrm{}0`$ and head is in a final state
3. operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}`$: increment counter and idle\_counter
4. increment solution if operation\_mode is $`01`$, counter is $`11\mathrm{}1`$ and the first tape cell is in a state indicating if the answer is true (we assume that this tape cell contains the result $`f(x)`$)
5. change operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ if counter is in $`11\mathrm{}1`$
6. operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$: decrement counter and idle\_counter
7. change operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$ if idle\_counter is in $`00\mathrm{}0`$ and head is in a final state
8. operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$: perform the circuit $`U^{}`$, decrement counter and idle\_counter
9. change operation mode $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathrm{𝟎𝟎}`$ if counter is in $`00\mathrm{}0`$

Note that the circuit $`V`$ has the following property: applied to the initial state $`|x|0\mathrm{}0`$ the orbit length is $`r=2(2^{m+1}1)`$ if the answer is “false” and $`2r`$ whenever the answer is “true”. $`\mathrm{}`$

The dependence of the orbit length on the solution is essential in the following section.

## 3 Constructing the observable

In this section we construct a family of observables $`(A_l)`$ in such a way that the spectral properties of $`A_l`$ reflect the length of the orbit $`(V_l^j|x|00\mathrm{}0)_j`$ for inputs of length $`l`$. The idea to construct Hamiltonians corresponding to quantum circuits already appeared in . In this article, the purpose was to show that a closed quantum (Hamiltonian) system can in principle implement a circuit without any external control operations. Similar constructions were also used in the context of complexity theory in order to show that determining the spectrum of physical Hamiltonians may be computationally hard . However, their constructions deal with quantum circuits of polynomial size. The whole sequence of gates is in some sense encoded into the Hamiltonian. The solution of a NP or QMA problem is then reflected in the least eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian. The fact that the determination of the least eigenvalue encompasses NP or QMA even if only inverse polynomial accuracy is required is due to the polynomial length of the program. Here we have typically an exponential number of applications and the solution of the problem is therefore encoded in the “hyperfine structure” of the spectrum.

Let $`V`$ be a quantum circuit as in Theorem 1 and $`s`$ be its size, i.e., the number of elementary two-qubit gates. We need a register clock indicating which gate is applied. It consists of $`s_l`$ qubits. The allowed states of the register clock are of the form $`|0\mathrm{}010\mathrm{}0`$ indicating which gate of $`V`$ is applied currently. We denote by $`V_j`$ the elementary gates of $`V`$ (in contrast to the preceeding section where the index denoted the input length).

We first define the forward-time operator

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`V_1|1_20|_2|0_11|_1+`$
$`V_2|1_30|_3|0_21|_2+`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`V_s|1_10|_1|0_s1|_s.`$
The operators $`V_j`$ operate on all registers of the preceding section. The operators $`|0_i1|_i`$ and $`|1_i0|_i`$ are annihilation and creation operators, respectively, on the $`i`$th qubit of the clock.

We denote the linear span of the vectors

$$F^j|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\text{for }j$$

with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0:=|x|00\mathrm{}0|100\mathrm{}0`$ as $`𝒪`$. All states of this orbit are orthogonal until one has recurrence to the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. This can be seen as follows: If the register clock is in an allowed state there is only one summand of $`F`$ that is relevant. Its action on the clock is simple since it moves the $`1`$ to the next qubit. Therefore it is clear that the first $`s1`$ states are orthogonal. The whole circuit $`V`$ is a classical logical operation which permutes basis states. Therefore the state $`F^s|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is either orthogonal to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ or both states coincide. Along the same line we argue that all states of the orbit are orthogonal until a state coincides with the initial state. Hence $`F`$ acts as a cyclic shift on $`𝒪`$.

The dimension of $`𝒪`$ is $`2sr`$ if $`f(x)=1`$ and $`sr`$ if $`f(x)=0`$. We denote the dimension by $`d`$.

Let $`\omega `$ be a primitive complex $`d`$-th root of unity. The eigenvalues of $`F`$ restricted to $`𝒪`$ are

$$\omega ^0,\omega ^1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega ^{d1}.$$

Furthermore, the initial state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is a superposition of all eigenvectors of $`F`$ restricted to $`𝒪`$ with equal weights. All this follows from properties of the cyclic shift operator.

The backward-time operator is defined as the adjoint of $`F`$. The observable $`A`$ is defined as the sum of the forward and backward time operators, i.e., $`A:=(F+F^{})/2`$. It is $`4`$-local since each $`V_j`$ is $`2`$-local and is coupled to a $`2`$-local propagator. The dynamics of the clock may be interpreted as a propagation of a spin-wave. Note that the idea of our construction is not to implement the quantum circuit $`V`$ by the autonomous time evolution $`\mathrm{exp}(iAt)`$. The aim is rather to obtain an observable such that its spectral properties correspond to the orbit length of the circuit.

Since $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ commute on $`𝒪`$ the eigenvalues of $`A`$ restricted to $`𝒪`$ are $`(\omega ^j+\overline{\omega }^j)/2=\mathrm{cos}(2\pi j/d)`$. The non-real eigenvalues are $`2`$-fold degenerated. Only the eigenvalues $`1`$ and $`1`$ have multiplicity $`1`$. In a hypothetical energy measurement applied to the initial state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ one would obtain all $`2`$-fold degenerated eigenvalues with probability $`2/d`$ each and the non-degenerated eigenvalues with probability $`1/d`$. Note that only the first case is relevant for large $`d`$ since there are at most two non-degenerated values.

Note that $`d`$ depends on the solution of the PSPACE problem. Explicitly, the possible measurement results are

1. either

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\pi j/(2sr)),j=0,\mathrm{},2sr1$$
2. or

$$\mathrm{cos}(2\pi j/(sr)),j=0,\mathrm{},sr1$$

depending on whether $`f(x)=1`$ or $`f(x)=0`$.

Note that a perfect energy measurement can distinguish between the two cases even after few samples: after applying the function “$`\mathrm{arccos}`$” we obtain values with distance $`2\pi /d`$ and all values occur with equal probability (if the non-degenerated values are neglected). Then it is easy to distinguish between the two cases $`d=rs`$ and $`d=2rs`$.

Now we examine what accuracy is sufficient to distinguish between the two cases. For doing so, we will restrict our attention to those measurement values which are between $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. This means that half of the measurement outcomes have to be ignored because the probability to obtain an outcome in this interval is about $`1/2`$. These values correspond to angles in the interval $`[\pi /4,3\pi /4]`$ and $`[5\pi /4,7\pi /4]`$.

In the following we assume that we have obtained a measurement value in this interval. For each outcome $`E`$ we chose $`j`$ such that $`|\mathrm{arccos}(E)2\pi j/(2rs)|`$ is minimal. If $`f(x)=1`$ then the probability of obtaining an odd value for $`j`$ is at least $`1/2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/4=3/8`$. If $`f(x)=0`$ then the probability of obtaining an even value for $`j`$ is at least $`1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/4=3/4`$. Therefore, the probability of odd value is at most $`1/4`$. This difference in probability allows to distinguish between the two cases. It is obvious that the error probability decreases exponentially with the number of measurements.

Note that the observable $`A`$ has spectral gaps that are considerably smaller than the required accuracy. This can already be seen if we consider the $`A`$-invariant subspace $`𝒪`$. The distance of the largest eigenvalue $`1`$ and the second largest eigenvalue $`\mathrm{cos}(2\pi /d)`$ of $`H`$ is approximatively given by $`(2\pi /d)^2`$ since the derivative of the cosinus function at $`0`$ is $`0`$.

Note that the required accuracy is directly connected with an upper bound on the running time $`T`$. In our setting the running time is the number $`r`$ of necessary applications of the circuit $`V`$ times the number $`s`$ of gates of $`V`$.

In the construction of the preceding section we obtained the upper bound on $`rs`$ from the required space. More generally, whenever we know that $`r`$ applications of $`V`$ are sufficient we need a measurement with accuracy of the order $`1/(rs)`$ to determine the solution of the PSPACE problem.

This discussion proves the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2 (Measurement precision vs. running time)

Let $`\{A_l\}`$ be a family of $`4`$-local observables corresponding to the family $`\{V_l\}`$ of quantum circuits in Theorem 1. Then every measurement in the sense of Definition 1 could be used to solve PSPACE problems in polynomial time whenever the accuracy is of the order of the spectral gaps of $`H`$. It is even sufficient to have an measurement error $`1/T_l`$, where $`T_l`$ is the running time of the algorithm based on the circuit $`V_l`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that every apparatus which implements precise measurements of $`4`$-local $`n`$-qubit observables would solve PSPACE problems. This conclusion does only hold for exponentially small errors of the measurement. On the other hand, we have argued that algorithms which measures with inverse-polynomial accuracy can be implemented efficiently. Provided that PSPACE problems cannot be solved efficiently, i.e., PSPACE $``$ BQP, the complexity of measurements depend on the required accuracy. The statement that exponential accuracy has stronger computational power is also well-known in classical analog computational models .

One may ask why one should try to measure general $`4`$-local observables. A possible motivation to develop a complexity theory of measurements is that some proposals for quantum algorithms use joint observables on the quantum register .

Another motivation is that one is interested in measurements for physically relevant joint observables like energy. The reader may object that the specific interactions constructed in this paper are rather unphysical for several reasons:

1. Most interactions in nature are pair-interactions and not $`4`$-local.
2. Our construction uses long-range interactions among distant qubit quadruples.
3. Interactions in natural many-particle systems have typically high symmetry. For instance, the interactions in solid states respect the translational invariance of the lattice.
4. There exist only a few fundamental interactions in physics.

We have already argued that pair-interactions between particles may correspond to $`k`$-local terms if some qubits encode the physical state of one particle. This refutes the first objection.

We conjecture that the solution of PSPACE problems would even be possible if the class of observables was restricted to those which appear as Hamiltonians of real many-particle systems. This conjecture is supported by the following ideas:

Quantum cellular automatons like the Hamiltonian dynamical system constructed in  are also computationally universal. Hamiltonians for those types of cellular automata have the property that every cell interacts only with some cells in its neighborhood. By merging some cells together to one cell we can always obtain a Hamiltonian with pair-interactions among qudits. This seems to indicate that neither the symmetry nor locality assumptions on the interactions prevents the Hamiltonian from corresponding to computationally universal networks. Due to the fact that computers exist it is clear that the structure of the fundamental interactions is general enough to allow universal systems. Therefore we guess that spectral properties of more realistic Hamiltonians encode PSPACE problems in a similar way as in our paper.

### Acknowledgements

Thanks to Jörn Müller-Quade and Markus Grassl for helpful discussions. This work has been supported by grants of the Landesstiftung Baden-Württemberg (project “Kontinuierliche Modelle der Quanteninformationsverarbeitung”).


text:
# Relativistic Wind Bubbles and Afterglow Signatures

## 1. Introduction

The recent observation of high linear polarization during the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission of GRB 021206 (Coburn & Boggs 2003) suggests that GRBs be driven by highly magnetized, rapidly rotating compact objects. Two popular scenarios for their birth are the merger of a compact binary or the collapse of a massive star (for a recent review see Mészáros 2002). In both scenarios, a rapidly rotating black hole surrounded by an accretion disk seems to be a common remnant (Narayan, Paczyński & Piran 1992; Woosley 1993; Mészáros & Rees 1997a; Paczyński 1998). However, a millisecond magnetar has also been argued as an alternative interesting product (Usov 1992; Duncan & Thompson 1992; Kluźniak & Ruderman 1998; Dai & Lu 1998; Spruit 1999; Ruderman, Tao & Kluźniak 2000; Wheeler et al. 2000). To explain the complex temporal feature, the burst itself, in some of these energy models, is understood to arise from a series of explosive reconnection events in a rising, amplified magnetic field because of the Parker instability. This in fact dissipates the differentially rotational energy and magnetic energy of the newborn magnetar or accretion disk.

After the GRB, the remaining object is reasonably assumed to be a millisecond magnetar or a rapidly rotating black hole surrounded by an accretion disk. For the latter object, the magnetic field in the disk could have been amplified initially by differential rotation to a magnetar-like strength of $`10^{15}`$ G, and particularly, within the framework of the collapsar/hypernova model, such a field could be kept, due to longevity (with days or longer) of the disk maintained by fallback of the ejecta. During the afterglow, the object at the center will directly lose its rotational energy by the magnetic dipole radiation or the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.

An energy outflow driven magnetically includes three components: low-frequency electromagnetic waves, a relativistic wind, and a toroidal magnetic field associated with the wind. The wind energy flux is unlikely to be baryon-dominated, because the initial explosion should have left a clean passage with very few baryon contamination for a subsequent outflow. The interaction of this outflow with an outward-expanding fireball implies a continuous injection of the stellar rotational energy into the fireball. Dai & Lu (1998, 2000), Zhang & Mészáros (2001) and Chang, Lee & Yi (2002) discussed the evolution of a relativistic fireball by assuming a pure electromagnetic-wave energy outflow, while Rees & Mészáros (1998), Sari & Mészáros (2000), Zhang & Mészáros (2002), and Granot, Nakar & Piran (2003) took into account a variable and baryon-dominated injection.

However, based on the successful models of the well-observed Crab Nebula (Rees & Gunn 1974; Kennel & Coroniti 1984; Begelman & Li 1992; Chevalier 2000), a realistic, continuous outflow during the afterglow is expected to be ultra-relativistic and dominated by the energy flux of electron-positron pairs. As in the Crab Nebula, even if an outflow from the pulsar is Poynting-flux-dominated at small radii, the fluctuating component of the magnetic field in this outflow can be dissipated by magnetic reconnection and used to accelerate the outflow, which is eventually dominated by the energy flux of e+e- pairs within a larger radius $`10^{17}`$ cm (Coroniti 1990; Michel 1994; Kirk & Skjæraasan 2003). In the case of an afterglow, therefore, it is natural to expect that the central object still produces an ultra-relativistic e+e--pair wind, whose interaction with the fireball leads to a relativistic wind bubble. This can be regarded as a relativistic version of the Crab Nebula.

In this paper, we explore the dynamics of such a wind bubble and its emission signatures. In §2 we present expressions of the luminosity of a relativistic wind from a highly magnetized, rapidly rotating object. In §§3 and 4 we discuss evolution of the wind bubble and temporal features of the radiation respectively. In the final section we summarize our findings and give a brief discussion on implications of the bubble.

## 2. The Luminosity of a Relativistic Wind

We assume that a burst itself arises from a series of explosive reconnection events. After the GRB, we are left with a highly magnetized, rapidly rotating compact object. Let’s first assume that it is a millisecond magnetar with period $`P`$, surface magnetic field strength $`B_s`$, moment of inertia $`I`$, radius $`R_\mathrm{M}`$, and angle between the rotation axis and magnetic dipole moment $`\theta `$. Since such a pulsar loses its rotational energy through the magnetic dipole torque, the luminosity of a resulting relativistic wind is given by

$$L_w4\times 10^{47}B_{,14}^2R_{\mathrm{M},6}^6P_{\mathrm{ms}}^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(1)
where $`B_{,14}=B_s\mathrm{sin}\theta /10^{14}\mathrm{G}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{M},6}=R_\mathrm{M}/10^6\mathrm{cm}`$, and $`P_{\mathrm{ms}}=P/1\mathrm{ms}`$. Because of spin-down, this luminosity will evolve with time as

$$L_w(1+t/T_{\mathrm{M},0})^2\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{const}.,\hfill & \mathrm{if}t<T_{\mathrm{M},0},\hfill \\ t^2,\hfill & \mathrm{if}t>T_{\mathrm{M},0},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the observer time in units of day, $`T_{\mathrm{M},0}=0.58B_{,14}^2I_{45}R_{\mathrm{M},6}^6P_{0,\mathrm{ms}}^2`$ days is the “initial” spin-down timescale of the magnetar at the onset of the afterglow, $`P_0=P_{0,\mathrm{ms}}\times 1\mathrm{ms}`$ is the rotation period at this time, and $`I_{45}=I/10^{45}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Usov (1992) also assumed that the early spin-down could be due to gravitational wave radiation besides magnetic dipole radiation. However, the luminosity for gravitational wave radiation depends on the stellar ellipticity which is poorly known, and so we neglected the effect of this mechanism on spin-down.

We now discuss another case in which the central object is a rapidly rotating black hole surrounded by an accretion disk. If the amplified magnetic field in the disk does not evolve significantly with time during fallback of the ejecta, the rotational energy of this black hole will be gradually extracted by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism, whose luminosity is approximated by

$`L_w`$ $`=`$ $`1.5\times 10^{51}B_{\mathrm{BH},15}^2(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/3M_{})^2a^2f(a)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (3)
$``$ $`3\times 10^{47}B_{\mathrm{BH},15}^2(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/3M_{})^2(a/0.2)^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,`$
where $`f(a)=1[(1+\sqrt{1a^2})/2]^{1/2}a^2/8`$ for the rotation parameter $`a1`$, $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the black-hole mass, and $`B_{\mathrm{BH},15}`$ is the disk field strength in units of $`10^{15}`$ G (Lee, Wijers & Brown 2000). We note that a typical value ($`10^{47}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) of the wind luminosity in equations (1) and (3) has been invoked by Rees & Mészáros (2000) to explain the observed iron lines from some GRBs within the framework of the collapsar/hypernova model. Considering the rotational energy of the black hole $`E_{\mathrm{BH}}=f(a)M_{\mathrm{BH}}c^2(a^2/8)M_{\mathrm{BH}}c^2`$ for $`a1`$ (Lee et al. 2000), and assuming $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{BH}}=L_w`$, we find that the Blandford-Znajek mechanism yields spin-down, similarly to the magnetar case, if the accreted angular momentum is neglected because its rate seems to be below the torque driven by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism at time of days after the burst for typical parameters in the collapsar/hypernova model. Thus, we obtain a crude evolution law of the above luminosity,

$$L_w(1+t/T_{\mathrm{BH},0})^2\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{const}.,\hfill & \mathrm{if}t<T_{\mathrm{BH},0},\hfill \\ t^2,\hfill & \mathrm{if}t>T_{\mathrm{BH},0},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`T_{\mathrm{BH},0}=1.0B_{\mathrm{BH},15}^2(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/3M_{})^1(a_0/0.2)^2`$ days is the “initial” spin-down time of the black hole and $`a_0`$ is the “initial” rotation parameter. One can easily see that equations (2) and (4) are similar, which implies that our discussion of a relativistic wind bubble in the remaining text for magnetars should be valid for black holes.

## 3. The Bubble Dynamics in the Thin-Shell Approximation

Similarly to the Crab Nebula, a rotating magnetar at the center of an afterglow generates a highly relativistic wind dominated by the energy flux of e+e- pairs, with bulk Lorentz factor of $`\gamma _w10^410^7`$. Atoyan (1999) argued that the Crab pulsar initially had $`\gamma _w10^4`$ to interpret the measured radio spectrum of the Crab Nebula. We adopt $`\gamma _w=10^4`$ as a fiducial value in our calculations. Because $`\gamma _w`$ is much larger than the Lorentz factor of the medium swept up by the fireball, this wind passes through a shock front and decelerates to match the expansion velocity of the swept-up medium. Therefore, a relativistic wind bubble, as a result of interaction of the wind with the medium, should include two shocks: a reverse shock that propagates into the cold wind and a forward shock that propagates into the ambient medium. Thus, there are four regions separated in the bubble by these shocks: (1) the unshocked medium, (2) the forward-shocked medium, (3) the reverse-shocked wind gas, and (4) the unshocked cold wind, where regions 2 and 3 are separated by a contact discontinuity. For simplicity, we here assume that two initially-forming forward shocks during interactions of the fireball both with the medium and with the wind have eventually merged to one forward shock, and also neglect effects of the baryon loading whose mass is much less than the swept-up mass, when the observer time far exceeds the initial deceleration timescale.

We denote $`n_i`$ and $`P_i^{}`$ as the baryon number density and pressure of region “$`i`$” in its own rest frame respectively, and $`\gamma _i`$ is the Lorentz factor of region “$`i`$” measured in the local medium’s rest frame. We derive the relative Lorentz factor of region 3 measured in the rest frame of region 4 as $`\gamma _{34}(1/2)(\gamma _w/\gamma _3+\gamma _3/\gamma _w)\gamma _w/(2\gamma _3)1`$ for $`\gamma _w\gamma _31`$, implying a relativistic reverse shock. Because the electron number density in the rest frame comoving with the unshocked wind is $`n_4=L_w/(4\pi r^2\gamma _w^2m_ec^3)`$ (where $`r`$ is the radius of region 3 and $`m_e`$ is the electron mass), according to the jump conditions for a relativistic shock (Blandford & McKee 1976), the pressure of region 3 is calculated by

$$P_3^{}=\frac{4}{3}\gamma _{34}^2n_4m_ec^2\frac{L_w}{12\pi r^2\gamma _3^2c}.$$
(5)
Neglecting the presence of the reverse shock and the radiative energy loss of region 2, and assuming an ambient interstellar medium with constant density of $`n_1`$, the properties of the shocked medium in region 2 should satisfy the Blandford-McKee adiabatic self-similarity solution with the similarity variable at any radius $`r`$,

$$\chi =(1+16\gamma _2^2)\left(1\frac{r}{ct_l}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\gamma _2\gamma _2(R)`$ is the Lorentz factor of the shocked medium just behind the forward shock whose radius is denoted as $`R`$, and $`t_l=(R/c)[1+1/(16\gamma _2^2)]`$ is the time measured in the local medium’s rest frame. The radius $`r`$ can thus be expressed as function of $`\chi `$ by

$$r=R\left(1+\frac{1}{16\gamma _2^2}\right)\left(1\frac{\chi }{1+16\gamma _2^2}\right),$$
(7)
which implies $`rR`$ as long as $`\chi 16\gamma _2^2`$ for an ultrarelativistic forward shock. This justifies the thin-shell approximation, in which the width of region 2 is insignificant as compared to the shock radius $`R`$.

According to Blandford & McKee (1976), the pressure and Lorentz factor of the shocked medium at radius $`r`$ are given by

$`P_2^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}n_1m_pc^2\gamma _2^2\chi ^{17/12},`$ (8)
$`\gamma _2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2\chi ^{1/2},`$ (9)
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. Along the contact discontinuity, $`\gamma _3=\gamma _2(r)`$ and $`P_3^{}=P_2^{}(r)`$, which yield

$$\gamma _3=\gamma _2\chi ^{1/2},$$
(10)
$$\chi ^{17/12}=\frac{L_w}{16\pi n_1m_pc^3\gamma _2^2\gamma _3^2R^2},$$
(11)
where the thin-shell approximation $`rR`$ has been considered. For an ultrarelativistic, adiabatic forward shock, Blandford & McKee (1976) found its total energy,

$$E_0=\frac{16\pi n_1m_pc^2\gamma _2^2R^3}{17}.$$
(12)
In deriving the temporal laws of the similarity variable at the location of the contact discontinuity and the Lorentz factors of regions 2 and 3, we should note one crucial effect that the photons that are radiated from regions 2 and 3 at the same time in the local medium’s rest frame will be detected at different observer times. This is because the Lorentz factor of region 3 is smaller than $`\gamma _2(R)`$ by a factor of $`\chi ^{1/2}`$ so that for a same time interval in the local medium’s rest frame, $`R/c`$, the emission from region 3 will reach the observer at time,

$$t\frac{R}{4\gamma _3^2c},$$
(13)
and the emission from region 2 will reach the observer at time,

$$t\frac{R}{4\gamma _2^2c}.$$
(14)
Using equations (12) and (14), the Lorentz factor of the shocked medium (i.e., region 2) just behind the forward shock is found to evolve with time as

$$\gamma _2=\left(\frac{17E_0}{1024\pi n_1m_pc^5t^3}\right)^{1/8}.$$
(15)
From equations (10)-(13), we have the similarity variable at the location of the contact discontinuity,

$$\chi =\left(\frac{4L_wt}{17E_0}\right)^{12/17}=3.1\left(\frac{L_{w,47}t}{E_{52}}\right)^{12/17},$$
(16)
and the Lorentz factor of region 3,

$`\gamma _3`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(4L_w)^{12/17}(17E_0)^{5/17}}{1024\pi n_1m_pc^5t^{39/17}}}\right]^{1/8}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`5.3L_{w,47}^{3/34}E_{52}^{5/136}n_1^{1/8}t^{39/136}`$
where $`L_{w,47}=L_w/10^{47}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`E_{52}=E_0/10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$, and $`n_1`$ and $`t`$ are in units of $`1\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and 1 day respectively.

Letting $`\chi =1`$, we define a critical time

$$t_{\mathrm{cr}}=4.9E_{52}L_{w,47}^1\mathrm{days}.$$
(18)
At this time, the injection energy to the fireball significantly exceeds its initial energy. For $`t<t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the similarity variable $`\chi >1`$. It should be emphasized that the dynamics denoted by equation (17) is simply calculated by equating the pressures of the two-sided shocked fluids at the contact discontinuity. In this derivation, we have neglected any work done on region 2 by region 3 because the pressure of region 3 is much less than $`P_2^{}(R)`$ at $`t<t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$.

Once the observer’s time exceeds $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the similarity variable $`\chi =1`$. At this stage, the total kinetic energy of region 2 is approximated as $`E_{\mathrm{kin},2}=(\gamma _2^21)M_{\mathrm{sw}}c^2`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{sw}}=(4\pi /3)R^3n_1m_p`$ is the swept-up medium mass. Energy conservation requires that any increase of kinetic energy of region 2 should be equal to work done by region 3,

$$dE_{\mathrm{kin},2}=\gamma _3P_3^{}dV_3^{},$$
(19)
where $`dV_3^{}=4\pi R^2dR^{}=4\pi R^2(dR/\gamma _3)`$ is the volume change of region 3 in its own rest frame. Since regions 2 and 3 should keep velocity equality along the contact discontinuity (viz., $`\gamma _2=\gamma _3`$), we rewrite equation (19) as

$$\frac{d\gamma _2}{dR}=\frac{4\pi R^2[P_3^{}(\gamma _2^21)n_1m_pc^2]}{2\gamma _2M_{\mathrm{sw}}c^2}.$$
(20)
Considering equation (5) and the shock radius $`R4\gamma _2^2ct`$, the solution of equation (20) becomes

$$\gamma _2=\gamma _3=\left(\frac{L_w}{128\pi n_1m_pc^5t^2}\right)^{1/8},$$
(21)
where the dependence of $`\gamma _2`$ on $`t`$ is consistent with the one derived for a pure electromagnetic energy injection by Dai & Lu (1998).

We next discuss the dynamics of a relativistic wind bubble: In the case of $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}>T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$ (viz., $`E_{52}>0.46I_{45}P_{0,\mathrm{ms}}^2`$), the wind bubble should evolve based on equations (15) and (17); for $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$ (viz., $`E_{52}<0.46I_{45}P_{0,\mathrm{ms}}^2`$), however, the Lorentz factors of the wind bubble decay initially as $`\gamma _2t^{3/8}`$ and $`\gamma _3t^{39/136}`$ at $`t<t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (stage I), subsequently as $`\gamma _2=\gamma _3t^{1/4}`$ at $`t(t_{\mathrm{cr}},T_{\mathrm{M},0})`$ (stage II), and finally again as $`\gamma _2t^{3/8}`$ at $`t>T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$ (stage III). It should be pointed out that this discussion assumes a negligible radiative loss of region 3. However, no matter whether region 3 is at stage I or II, and once it enters the fast cooling regime at some time, its pressure will begin to become much smaller than that of region 2 and then the Lorentz factor of region 2 will decay as equation (15).

## 4. Synchrotron Radiation and Light Curves

In this section we discuss light curves of the emission from a relativistic wind bubble, assuming $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$. The dynamics above determines the bulk Lorentz factor and the thermal Lorentz factors of the accelerated electrons of each region as function of time. We consider synchrotron radiation from each region at different stages. According to the standard afterglow model (Mészáros & Rees 1997b; Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998), the spectrum consists of four power-law segments separated by three break frequencies: the self-absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$, the characteristic frequency $`\nu _m`$, and the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$, with the peak flux $`F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}`$. To calculate them, we assume that for region 3 the electron and magnetic field energy densities are fractions $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ of the total energy density behind the reverse shock (where $`ϵ_e+ϵ_B=1`$), but for region 2, fractions $`\xi _e`$ and $`\xi _B`$ of the total energy density behind the forward shock (where $`\xi _e+\xi _B<1`$). One may expect that $`ϵ_e\xi _e`$ and/or $`ϵ_B\xi _B`$, as suggested in some recent studies (Coburn & Boggs 2003; Zhang, Kobayashi & Mészáros 2003; Kumar & Panaitescu 2003). In addition, we assume that the spectral index of the electron energy distribution is $`p`$ for region 3 and $`q`$ for region 2.

At stage I ($`t<t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$), the break frequencies and peak flux of region 3 are derived as

$`\nu _{m,3}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`6.8\times 10^{12}g_p^2ϵ_e^2ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}\gamma _{w,4}^2`$ (22)
$`\times L_{w,47}^{5/34}E_{52}^{5/34}n_1^{1/2}t^{5/34}\mathrm{Hz},`$
$`\nu _{c,3}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`3.0\times 10^{14}ϵ_{B,1}^{3/2}L_{w,47}^{27/34}`$ (23)
$`\times E_{52}^{5/17}n_1^1t^{22/17}\mathrm{Hz},`$
$`F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max},3}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`88ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}\gamma _{w,4}^1L_{w,47}^{45/34}E_{52}^{5/68}`$ (24)
$`\times n_1^{1/4}D_{L,28}^2t^{39/68}\mathrm{mJy},`$
where $`g_p=(p2)/(p1)`$, $`ϵ_{B,1}=ϵ_B/0.1`$, $`\gamma _{w,4}=\gamma _w/10^4`$, and $`D_{L,28}`$ is the luminosity distance to the source in units of $`10^{28}`$ cm. We here considered only the characteristic frequency and the cooling frequency for the optical to X-ray emission discussed in this paper. In our derivation, we used equations (8), (10) and (17) to obtain the energy density of region 3, $`e_3^{}=4n_1m_pc^2\gamma _2^2\chi ^{17/12}=4n_1m_pc^2\gamma _3^2\chi ^{5/12}=0.11L_{w,47}^{8/17}E_{52}^{15/68}n_1^{3/4}t^{19/68}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and the magnetic field strength, $`B_3^{}=(8\pi ϵ_Be_3^{})^{1/2}=0.52ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}L_{w,47}^{4/17}E_{52}^{15/136}n_1^{3/8}t^{19/136}`$ G. We define a cooling time $`t_{0,3}^\mathrm{I}`$ through $`\nu _{m,3}^\mathrm{I}=\nu _{c,3}^\mathrm{I}`$ as

$`t_{0,3}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`14(g_pϵ_eϵ_{B,1}\gamma _{w,4})^{68/49}`$ (25)
$`\times L_{w,47}^{32/49}E_{52}^{15/49}n_1^{51/49}\mathrm{days}.`$
From equations (22) and (23), we find that region 3 is in the slow-cooling regime for $`t<t_{0,3}^\mathrm{I}`$ but in the fast-cooling regime for $`t>t_{0,3}^\mathrm{I}`$, in contrast to the standard afterglow model (Sari et al. 1998). A larger value of $`\gamma _w`$ would imply fast cooling in region 3 earlier on, in which case region 2 could still stay at stage I. For region 2, the break frequencies and peak flux are given by

$`\nu _{m,2}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`1.6\times 10^{13}g_q^2\xi _{e,1}^2\xi _{B,1}^{1/2}E_{52}^{1/2}t^{3/2}\mathrm{Hz},`$ (26)
$`\nu _{c,2}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`8.5\times 10^{13}\xi _{B,1}^{3/2}E_{52}^{1/2}n_1^1t^{1/2}\mathrm{Hz},`$ (27)
$`F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max},2}^\mathrm{I}`$ $`=`$ $`35\xi _{B,1}^{1/2}E_{52}n_1^{1/2}D_{L,28}^2\mathrm{mJy},`$ (28)
where $`g_q=(q2)/(q1)`$, $`\xi _{e,1}=\xi _e/0.1`$, and $`\xi _{B,1}=\xi _B/0.1`$ (Sari et al. 1998).

At stage II ($`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<t<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$), since $`\gamma _2t^{1/4}`$, we obtain the break frequencies and the peak flux for region 3,

$$\nu _{m,3}^{\mathrm{II}}t^0,\nu _{c,3}^{\mathrm{II}}t^1,F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max},3}^{\mathrm{II}}t^{1/2},$$
(29)
and for region 2,

$$\nu _{m,2}^{\mathrm{II}}t^1,\nu _{c,2}^{\mathrm{II}}t^1,F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max},2}^{\mathrm{II}}t^1.$$
(30)
We define another cooling time $`t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ at which $`\nu _{m,3}^{\mathrm{II}}=\nu _{c,3}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ as follows

$$t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}=22(g_pϵ_eϵ_{B,1}\gamma _{w,4})^2L_{w,47}^{1/2}n_1^{3/2}\mathrm{days}.$$
(31)
Equation (29) is valid only for $`t<\mathrm{min}(t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}},T_{\mathrm{M},0})`$. Otherwise, once region 3 enters the fast-cooling regime or the wind luminosity weakens obviously, its pressure becomes insignificant as compared to that of region 2 and thus evolution of the wind bubble comes back to $`\gamma _2t^{3/8}`$.

We assume $`t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$. If $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<t<t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}`$, then region 3 is adiabatic and its emission spectrum is determined by equation (29). If $`t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}<t<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$, region 3 becomes fast cooling, and the break frequencies and the peak flux for region 2 evolve as $`\nu _{m,2}^{\mathrm{II}}t^{3/2}`$, $`\nu _{c,2}^{\mathrm{II}}t^{1/2}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max},2}^{\mathrm{II}}t^0`$. At stage III, the emission flux of region 3: $`F_{\nu ,3}^{\mathrm{III}}\nu ^\beta t^{(2+\beta )}`$, where $`\beta `$ is the spectral index at $`t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ (Kumar & Panaitescu 2000).

On the other hand, $`t_{0,3}^{\mathrm{II}}>T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$ is assumed. If $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<t<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$, the spectrum and light curves for regions 3 and 2 are obtained by using equations (29) and (30), respectively. But if $`t>T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$ (stage III), because of adiabatic expansion of region 3, the break frequencies and the peak flux decay as $`\nu _{m,3}^{\mathrm{III}}t^{73/48}`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{cut},3}^{\mathrm{III}}t^{73/48}`$ and $`F_{\nu ,\mathrm{max},3}^{\mathrm{III}}t^{47/48}`$ (Sari & Piran 1999).

According to the derived scaling laws of the break frequencies and peak flux with time at three stages, we can obtain the light curve indices for different frequency bands in the case of $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$ (see Table 1). As an example, Figure 1 presents R-band light curves for typical values of the model parameters: $`I_{45}=3`$, $`P_{0,\mathrm{ms}}=1`$, $`\gamma _{w,4}=1`$, $`L_{w,47}=1`$, $`p=q=2.5`$, $`ϵ_e=0.9`$, $`ϵ_B=\xi _e=\xi _B=0.1`$, $`E_{52}=1`$, $`n_1=1\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and $`D_{L,28}=1`$. We can see that the emission flux from region 2 decays rapidly at time $`<t_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, subsequently fades more slowly at time $`(t_{\mathrm{cr}},T_{\mathrm{M},0})`$, and finally declines based on the initial evolution law (Dai & Lu 1998). More importantly, the emission from region 3 dominates the afterglow emission, which leads to a bump in the afterglow light curve.

## 5. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on the successful models of the Crab Nebula, we discuss the dynamics of a relativistic wind bubble and its emission signatures. Such a wind bubble is naturally expected when an ultrarelativistic e+e--pair wind from a highly magnetized, rapidly rotating object at the center of an afterglow interacts with an outward-expanding fireball, regardless of whether this object is a millisecond magnetar or a Kerr black hole. We find that when the injection energy significantly exceeds the initial energy of the fireball, the bulk Lorentz factor of the wind bubble declines more slowly than before. In addition, the reverse-shock emission could dominate the afterglow emission, which leads to a bump in afterglow light curves. In this paper, we discuss the case of $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}<T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$. However, even if $`t_{\mathrm{cr}}>T_{\mathrm{M},0}`$, a bump in Figure 1 still appears for some parameter space as we move the late-time light curve of region 3 to early times.

Bump features have been detected in some events (e.g., GRBs 970508, 000301C, 021004, and 030329). To interpret these features, some other models invoked the microlensing event (Garnavich, Loeb & Stanek 2000), density-jump medium (Dai & Lu 2002; Lazzati et al. 2002; Dai & Wu 2003), pure Poynting-flux injection (Dai & Lu 1998; Zhang & Mészáros 2001), baryon-dominated injection (Rees & Mészáros 1998; Sari & Mészáros 2000; Zhang & Mészáros 2002; Granot, Nakar & Piran 2003), and two-component jet (Berger et al. 2003; Huang et al. 2003). The magnetic field in the reversely-shocked region of the wind bubble seems to consist of two components: a toroidal field and a random field. The latter may be naturally generated by the relativistic two-stream instability (Medvedev & Loeb 1999). If the toroidal field dominates over the random component, one would expect high polarization of the bump emission, which could be used to distinguish between our wind-bubble model and other explanations. It is well known that the degree of linear polarization of synchrotron radiation from the reversely-shocked wind is about $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{syn}}=(p+1)/(p+7/3)`$ for a large-scale toroidal magnetic field. Thus, the polarization of an afterglow in our model could be as high as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{syn}}70\%`$ for $`p2`$ when the reverse shock emission dominates the afterglow emission during an obvious bump. Even if the total afterglow flux is dominated by the forward shock emission, and the reversely-shocked wind provides only a small fraction of the total flux, $`\zeta `$, then the shocked pair wind could still dominate the polarized flux with linear polarization of $`\mathrm{\Pi }\zeta \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{syn}}=7\%(\zeta /0.1)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{syn}}/0.7)`$. This value is larger than the currently observed data of GRBs 021004 and 030329 ($`23\%`$, Rol et al. 2003; Lazzati et al. 2003; Greiner et al. 2003). If, on the other hand, the random-field strength exceeds the toroidal component, the calculated degree of linear polarization is significantly less than that estimated above.

We have considered a spherical wind bubble in our paper. However, there is evidence that GRBs are collimated into narrow jets, whose kinetic energy is clustered at $`E_{\mathrm{jet}}10^{50}10^{51}`$ ergs (Frail et al. 2001; Panaitescu & Kumar 2002; Berger, Kulkarni & Frail 2003; Bloom, Frail & Kulkarni 2003). On the other hand, relativistic winds from millisecond magnetars are roughly isotropic and their total energy is $`10^{53}`$ ergs. Beaming correction gives an injection energy of $`10^{51}`$ ergs within the initial solid angle of a jet. This energy is of the same order as $`E_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Actually, the jet can get more energy from its central magnetar due to sideways expansion. This would favor our model.

The author thanks the referee and B. Zhang for valuable comments and suggestions, and Y. F. Huang, X. Y. Wang, D. M. Wei and X. F. Wu for useful discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 10233010 and 10221001) and the National 973 Project (NKBRSF G19990754).


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

As a preliminary step in the investigation using tensor methods of $`1+1`$-dimensional factorized $`S`$-matrices with exceptional $`𝐠`$ (and Yangian $`Y(𝐠)`$) invariance, we investigate the case $`𝐠=g_2`$. The factorized $`S`$-matrix for the seven-dimensional representation $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ of $`g_2`$ was constructed by Ogievetsky , and we use this to construct the $`g_2\times g_2`$-invariant $`S`$-matrix, applicable in the principal chiral model (PCM). We may choose the $`S`$-matrix to have a bootstrap pole for the self-coupling of the $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ multiplet, and the bootstrap applied to this process constrains the CDD factor.

We then investigate the corresponding solutions of the boundary Yang-Baxter equations and the boundary $`S`$-matrices for the $`g_2`$ PCM — that is, the extension to $`g_2`$ of the calculations carried out for classical $`𝐠`$ in . The spectral decomposition is precisely that expected from the $`Y(g_2,a_1\times a_1)`$ symmetry .

The method used is the diagrammatic technique of Cvitanovic . We denote the cubic antisymmetric invariant of $`g_2`$ as , then construct the $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ of $`g_2`$ by taking the defining representation of $`SO(7)`$ and restricting to those $`\text{}SO(7)`$ such that $`\text{}=\text{}`$. Here satisfies the identities

(1.1)
$$\text{}\text{}=6\text{},\text{}+\text{}=2\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{},$$

and it is (sometimes repeated) application of these which is needed to carry out the calculations. If we take the tensor product

$$\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

then the projectors onto the irreducible $`g_2`$-representations are

$$P_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{}+\text{}\right)\frac{1}{7}\text{}\text{},P_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{}\text{}\right)+\frac{1}{6}\text{},$$

$$P_\mathrm{𝟕}=\frac{1}{6}\text{},P_\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{1}{7}\text{}\text{}.$$

## 2. The bulk $`S`$-matrix

The following $`g_2`$-invariant $`S`$-matrix satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation  :

$$S_{(1,1)}(\theta )=S(\theta )=\sigma (\theta )\left(P_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}+[2]P_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}+[8]P_\mathrm{𝟕}+[2][12]P_\mathrm{𝟏}\right),$$

where $`\sigma (\theta )`$ is a scalar prefactor and

$$[y]=\frac{\frac{yi\pi }{12}+\theta }{\frac{yi\pi }{12}\theta }.$$

Imposing $`R`$-matrix unitarity on the $`S`$-matrix gives $`\sigma (\theta )\sigma (\theta )=1`$, and imposing hermitian-analyticity gives $`\sigma (\theta )=\sigma (\theta ^{})^{}`$. We rewrite the $`S`$-matrix as

(2.1)
$$S(\theta )=\omega (\theta )\left(\text{}\frac{6\theta }{i\pi }\text{}+\frac{2\theta }{(i\pi \theta )}\text{}\text{}+\frac{\theta }{(\frac{2i\pi }{3}\theta )}\text{}\right),$$

where $`\sigma (\theta )=(1\frac{6\theta }{i\pi })\omega (\theta )`$, and impose crossing symmetry,

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega (\theta )\left(\text{}\frac{6\theta }{i\pi }\text{}+\frac{2\theta }{(i\pi \theta )}\text{}\text{}+\frac{\theta }{(\frac{2i\pi }{3}\theta )}\text{}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\omega (i\pi \theta )\left(\text{}\text{}\frac{6(i\pi \theta )}{i\pi }\text{}+\frac{2(i\pi \theta )}{\theta }\text{}+\frac{(i\pi \theta )}{(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\right).\end{array}$$

Using $`\text{}=\text{}+2\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}`$ we find that this is satisfied if

$$\omega (\theta )=\omega (i\pi \theta )\frac{(i\pi \theta )(\frac{2i\pi }{3}\theta )}{\theta (\frac{i\pi }{3}\theta )}\sigma (\theta )=\sigma (i\pi \theta )\frac{(i\pi \theta )(\frac{2i\pi }{3}\theta )(\frac{i\pi }{6}\theta )}{\theta (\frac{i\pi }{3}\theta )(\theta \frac{5i\pi }{6})}.$$

To solve for $`\sigma (\theta )`$ we first introduce

$$\mu _a(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}+\frac{1}{2}\right)},$$

which satisfies $`\mu _a(\theta )\mu _a(\theta )=1`$ and, for real $`a`$, $`\mu _a(\theta )=\mu _a(\theta ^{})^{}`$. Further,

$$\frac{\mu _a(\theta )}{\mu _a(i\pi \theta )}=\frac{(\frac{ai\pi }{6}\theta )}{(\theta i\pi +\frac{ai\pi }{6})}=\frac{\mu _{6a}(i\pi \theta )}{\mu _{6a}(\theta )}.$$

We seek a minimal $`S`$-matrix, with no poles on the physical strip. The factor $`\mu _a(\theta )`$ has simple poles at $`\theta =2i\pi n\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$, $`\theta =2i\pi n+i\pi +\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$ and simple zeroes at $`\theta =2i\pi n+\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$, $`\theta =2i\pi ni\pi \frac{ai\pi }{6}`$ for $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Thus, to cancel the poles in (2.1), we are led to

$$\sigma (\theta )=\mu _0(\theta )\mu _1(\theta )\mu _3(\theta )\mu _4(\theta ),$$

so that

$$\sigma (\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{7}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{3}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{5}{6}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{3}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{7}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{3}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{5}{6}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{1}{3}\right)}$$

(in fact we may choose plus or minus this – our choice of the positive sign will not affect the $`S`$-matrix). Thus we have established a minimal $`S`$-matrix which is $`g_2`$ invariant.

The $`g_2`$ PCM $`S`$-matrix acts on multiplets which are representations of $`g_2\times g_2`$, and is constructed from two minimal $`S`$-matrices together with a CDD factor $`X(\theta )`$:

$$S_{(1,1)}^{PCM}(\theta )=X_{(1,1)}(\theta )\left(S(\theta )_LS(\theta )_R\right).$$

In order that $`S_{(1,1)}^{PCM}(\theta )`$ satisfy $`R`$-matrix unitarity and crossing-symmetry we require

$$X_{(1,1)}(\theta )X_{(1,1)}(\theta )=1\mathrm{and}\frac{X_{(1,1)}(\theta )}{X_{(1,1)}(i\pi \theta )}=1.$$

To construct $`X`$ we use

$$(y)=(y)_\theta =\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\theta }{2}+\frac{yi\pi }{24})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\theta }{2}\frac{yi\pi }{24})};$$

this satisfies

$$(y)_\theta (y)_\theta =1,\frac{(y)_\theta }{(y)_{i\pi \theta }}=(2y)_{2\theta }\mathrm{and}(y)=(y+24).$$

The natural choice might be $`X=(2)(4)(8)(10),`$ where we have allowed two $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$s to fuse (via simple poles with positive residues) to form either a $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ (at $`\theta =2i\pi /3`$) or a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (at $`\theta =i\pi /6`$, yielding a multiplet of mass $`2\mathrm{cos}(\pi /12)=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{6}+\sqrt{2})`$ times the mass of the $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$). We must then check that the bootstrap equations are satisfied for the scattering of a $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ off a fused $`\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟕}`$ (an intricate calculation requiring much repeated application of (1.1)). The minimal $`S`$-matrix is consistent with this, but the CDD factor requires an extra factor $`(6)^2`$, and we must have

$$X_{(1,1)}(\theta )=(2)(4)(6)^2(8)(10).$$

The apparent double pole at $`i\pi /2`$ thus introduced is spurious: it is cancelled by a simple zero in each minimal $`S`$.

## 3. The boundary $`S`$-matrix

We now consider the half-line case. Following , we try a minimal boundary $`S`$-matrix of the form

$$K(\theta )=\frac{\tau (\theta )}{(1c\theta )}(\text{}+c\theta \text{}).$$

The conditions of boundary $`R`$-matrix unitarity and hermitian analyticity impose the constraints

$$(\text{})^{}=\text{},\text{}\text{}=\text{},ci,\tau (\theta )=\tau (\theta ^{})^{}\mathrm{and}\tau (\theta )\tau (\theta )=1.$$

We must also impose crossing-unitarity,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta ))}\left(\text{}+c(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )\text{}\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\omega (i\pi 2\theta )\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}{(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta ))}\left(\text{}\text{}\frac{6(i\pi 2\theta )}{i\pi }\text{}+\frac{(i\pi 2\theta )}{\theta }\text{}+\frac{(i\pi 2\theta )}{(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\right)\left(\text{}+c(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )\text{}\right).\end{array}$$

After applying (1.1) we find that this implies

$$\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=\frac{\omega (i\pi 2\theta )(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta ))(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}{(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta ))(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\left(14+2i\pi c\text{}+\frac{i\pi }{\theta }+4\left(c\text{}+\frac{6}{i\pi }\right)\theta \right),$$

$$\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=\frac{\omega (i\pi 2\theta )(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta ))(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})(i\pi +2\theta )}{(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta ))(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\left(\frac{\alpha }{(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}+\frac{1}{\theta }\frac{12}{i\pi }\right),$$

together with (for non-trivial ) $`\text{}\text{}=\pm \text{}`$ and $`\text{}\text{}=\alpha \text{}`$ for some constant $`\alpha `$. Comparing the two expressions we find $`\alpha =0`$ and

$$c\text{}=\frac{6(1\pm 1)}{i\pi }.$$

However, $`\text{}=0`$ together with $`\text{}\text{}=\text{}`$ has no solutions in odd dimensions (the eigenvalues of such a matrix are $`\pm 1`$, an odd number of which cannot sum to zero). We thus have $`(\text{})^t=\text{}`$ and

$$\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=\frac{\omega (i\pi 2\theta )(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta ))(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})(i\pi +2\theta )}{(1c(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta ))(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\left(\frac{1}{\theta }\frac{12}{i\pi }\right),$$

or

$$\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=[6]\left[\frac{12}{ci\pi }6\right]\sigma (2\theta ),(\text{})^t=\text{}\mathrm{and}c\text{}=\frac{12}{i\pi }.$$

Last we have to impose the boundary Yang-Baxter equation (bYBe). After some algebra we find that this is satisfied if

$$\text{}+\text{}\text{}=\frac{ci\pi }{12}\text{}\text{}\text{}.$$

Now using (1.1) we find

$$\text{}\text{}\text{}=\text{}+\frac{12}{ci\pi }\text{}.$$

Thus, putting these two results together,

$$\text{}\text{}=\frac{ci\pi }{12}\text{}\text{}\text{}=\frac{ci\pi }{12}\text{}.$$

Consequently we must have $`c=\pm \frac{12}{i\pi }`$, with $`\text{}=\pm \text{}`$ and $`\text{}=1`$.

In summary, we have shown that the conditions of $`R`$-matrix unitarity, hermitian analyticity, crossing unitarity and the bYBe are satisfied by a minimal boundary ‘$`K`$’-matrix

$$\frac{\tau (\theta )}{(1\frac{12\theta }{i\pi })}\left(\text{}\pm \frac{12\theta }{i\pi }\text{}\right)=\tau (\theta )\left(P_{}[\pm 1]P_+\right),\left(P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\text{}\pm \text{})\right),$$

where

$$(\text{})^{}=\text{},(\text{})^t=\text{},\text{}\text{}=\text{},\text{}=\pm \text{},\text{}=1,$$

$$\tau (\theta )\tau (\theta )=1,\tau (\theta )=\tau (\theta ^{})^{},\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=[6]\left[\pm 16\right]\sigma (2\theta ).$$

In fact, since $`[1]_{\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta }/[1]_{\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta }=[7]/[5],`$ the choice of sign is redundant – both choices give the same minimal $`K`$-matrix. We can write it as

$$\frac{\tau (\theta )}{(1\frac{12\theta }{i\pi })}\left(I+\frac{12\theta }{i\pi }E\right)=\tau (\theta )\left(P_{}[1]P_+\right),\left(P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(I\pm E)\right),$$

where $`E=QXQ^1`$, $`QG_2`$, $`X=`$diag$`(1,1,1,1,1,1,1)`$. This is clearly a subspace of the symmetric space $`SO(7)/S(O(3)\times O(4))`$; in fact we have

$$E\frac{G_2}{SU(2)\times SU(2)},$$

the space of quaternionic subalgebras of the octonions, as may be seen by considering the action of $`G_2`$ on a basic triple of octonions .

The following constraints are imposed on $`\tau (\theta )`$:

$$\tau (\theta )\tau (\theta )=1,\tau (\theta )=\tau (\theta ^{})^{},\frac{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\tau (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=[6]\left[5\right]\sigma (2\theta ).$$

To solve these we note that

$$\frac{\mu _a(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\mu _a(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=[2a6],$$

and we define

$$\eta _a(\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}+\frac{1}{4}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\theta }{2i\pi }+\frac{a}{12}+\frac{1}{4}\right)},\mathrm{so}\mathrm{that}\frac{\eta _a(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\eta _a(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=\mu _{2a6}(2\theta ).$$

This leads us to

$$\tau (\theta )=\mu _{1/2}(\theta )\mu _6(\theta )\eta _{7/2}(\theta )\eta _{9/2}(\theta )\eta _5(\theta )\eta _6(\theta ).$$

The simple poles of $`\eta _a(\theta )`$ are at $`\theta =2i\pi n+\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$ and $`\theta =2i\pi n\frac{i\pi }{2}\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$, while the simple zeroes are at $`\theta =2i\pi n\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$ and $`\theta =2i\pi n+\frac{i\pi }{2}+\frac{ai\pi }{6}`$, and so the $`K`$-matrix is minimal.

The final piece we require for the complete PCM $`K`$-matrix is the factor $`Y_1(\theta )`$, which must satisfy

$$\frac{Y_1(\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{Y_1(\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}=X_{(1,1)}(i\pi 2\theta )=X_{(1,1)}(2\theta ).$$

We make use of the fact that

$$\frac{(y)_{\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta }}{(y)_{\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta }}=(2y)_{i\pi 2\theta }=(2y+24)_{i\pi 2\theta }.$$

Thus the most natural choice is

$$Y_1(\theta )=(1)(2)(9)^2(8)(7)(6).$$

This has a physical strip simple pole at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{12}`$ at which the minimal $`K`$-matrix projects onto the subspace associated with $`P_+`$ (the smaller one, and the $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ of $`a_1\times a_1`$ as found in ). The simple pole at $`\theta =\frac{i\pi }{6}`$ corresponds to an on-shell diagram which is possible precisely when the bulk three-point coupling of $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$s exists.

We should also check the simpler trial solution of  for a minimal $`K`$-matrix, namely

$$K(\theta )=\rho (\theta )\text{}.$$

Imposing crossing-unitarity gives

$$\frac{\rho (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\rho (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}\text{}=\omega (i\pi 2\theta )\left(\frac{4(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}{(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\text{}+\frac{4(i\pi 2\theta )(i\pi 3\theta )}{i\pi (2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}+\frac{(i\pi 2\theta )(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}{\theta (2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}+\frac{(i\pi 2\theta )}{(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\right)\text{},$$

which implies

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\rho (\frac{i\pi }{2}\theta )}{\rho (\frac{i\pi }{2}+\theta )}\text{}=\hfill \\ \hfill \omega (i\pi 2\theta )\left(\frac{4(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}{(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\text{}+\frac{4(i\pi 2\theta )(i\pi 3\theta )}{i\pi (2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}+\frac{(i\pi 2\theta )(\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}{\theta (2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\text{}+\frac{(i\pi 2\theta )}{(2\theta \frac{i\pi }{3})}\text{}\text{}\right).\end{array}$$

For non-trivial we must have $`\text{}=0`$, $`(\text{})^t=\pm \text{}`$ and $`\text{}\text{}=\alpha \text{}`$. But, as pointed out earlier, the constraint $`\text{}=0`$ is inconsistent with $`\text{}\text{}=\text{}`$. Thus there are no non-trivial solutions of this form.

Acknowledgments: NJM would like to thank Tony Sudbery for a helpful discussion of the octonions, and BJS would like to thank the UK EPSRC for a PhD studentship.


text:
# A non constructive proof of the existence of a maximal irreducibility measure.

## Abstract.

We deduce the existence of a maximal irreducibility measure for a Markov chain using Zorn’s lemma.

Let $`𝐗:=\{X_n\}_{n_0}`$ be a Markov Chain with values in space $`(𝒮,𝔖)`$. A measure $`\varphi `$ on $`(𝒮,𝔖)`$ is called an *irreducibility measure* for $`𝐗`$, if for all $`A𝔖`$,

(1)
$$\varphi (A)>0(x𝒮)L(x,A)>0.$$

Here $`L(x,A):=P_x\{\tau _A<\mathrm{}\}`$, for $`\tau _A:=inf\{n0:X_nA\}`$. In general, there will be many irrducibility measures for the given chain. These measures tell us about the structure of the space $`(𝒮,𝔖)`$ as seen by $`𝐗`$. So which measure is the best?

We have not said anything about the reverse implication in (1). It is natural to question when the reverse implication is true. The reverse implication is true for the *maximal irreducibility measure*, and is in fact a characterising feature. So when does such a measure exist? As long as there is *at least one* irreducibility measure for $`𝐗`$, there is a maximal irreducibility measure.

Note that if $`\mu \psi `$ is another measure, then $`\mu `$ is also an irreducibility measure. This is so because, if $`\mu (A)>0`$ then $`\varphi (A)>0`$, but then $`L(x,A)>0`$ for all $`x`$. We can now state the ()

###### Theorem 1.

If there exists an irreducibility measure $`\varphi `$ on $`𝔖`$ for the chain $`𝐗`$, then there exists a unique maximal irreducibility measure $`\psi `$ on $`𝔖`$ such that

1. $`\psi `$ is an irreducibility measure for $`𝐗`$,
2. $`\mu `$ is an irreducibility measure for $`𝐗`$ if and only if $`\mu \psi `$, and,
3. if $`A𝔖`$ is such that $`\psi (A)=0`$, then $`\psi \{x:L(x,A)>0\}=0`$.

This theorem also defines a maximal irreducibility measure.

###### Proof.

The uniqueness follows from (2) above. For if $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ are maximal irreducibility measures, $`\psi \psi ^{}`$ and $`\psi ^{}\psi `$, since they are also irreducibility measures. Hence $`\psi \psi ^{}`$.

Let $`𝔐`$ be the set of all irreducibility measures on $`𝔖`$ for $`𝐗`$. Impose the order $``$ ($``$) by $`\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi \varphi ^{}`$.

Claim: Every chain has an upper bound.

###### Proof of claim.

Let $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}`$ be a chain. Define the upper bound $`\varphi `$ as follows.

(2)
$$A𝔖,\varphi (A):=\underset{n}{lim}\varphi _n(A)$$

If we can show that $`\varphi `$ is a measure on $`𝔖`$, then $`\varphi `$ will be the required upper bound. For the $`\varphi _m`$ form a chain, $`\varphi _m(A)\varphi _{m+1}(A)`$ and so the sequence of numbers $`\varphi _m(A)`$ is increasing, and so, $`\varphi (A)=lim_k\varphi _k(A)\varphi _m(A)`$ for all $`m`$. Hence, if $`\varphi (A)=`$, then $`\varphi _m(A)=`$ for all $`m`$. This implies that $`\varphi \varphi _m,m`$.

To show that $`\varphi `$ is a measure, we must prove that

1. $`\varphi (\mathrm{})=0`$,
2. $`A,B𝔖:AB\varphi (A)\varphi (B)`$,
3. and, $`\{A_n\}_n𝔖`$ then $`\varphi (_nA_n)_n\varphi (A_n)`$

To this end, note that $`\varphi (\mathrm{})=lim_n\varphi _n(\mathrm{})=lim_n0=0`$, and for $`AB`$, $`\varphi (A)=lim_n(A)lim_n\varphi _n(B)=\varphi (B)`$. Similarly, $`\varphi (_kA_k)=lim_n\varphi _n(_kA_k)lim_n_k\varphi _n(A_k)=_klim_n\varphi _n(A_k)=_k\varphi (A_k)`$, where the interchange of the sum and the limit is allowed since all the terms are positive.

This shows that $`\varphi `$ is indeed a measure. ∎

Thus we have shown that every chain has an upper bound. Since there exists *some* irreducibility measure, the set of elements ordered by $``$ is well not empty. So by Zorn’s lemma, there exists a maximal element. This element is the maximal irreducibility measure.


text:
# Chapter 1 Calibration of the Pierre Auger fluorescence detector

## Chapter 1 Calibration of the Pierre Auger fluorescence detector

### Abstract

The absolute calibration of an air fluorescence detector (FD) is an important element in correctly determining the energy of detected cosmic rays. The absolute calibration relates the flux of photons of a given wavelength at the detector aperture to the electronic signal recorded by the FD data acquisition system. For the Auger FDs, the primary absolute calibration method uses a diffusive surface which is placed in front of a telescope aperture to uniformly illuminate the telescope field of view with a known light signal. This single-wavelength measurement (375 nm) will be made at intervals of several months until the stability of the telescopes is determined. The relative wavelength dependence of the calibration is determined through independent measurements. The error in absolute calibration at a single wavelength is estimated to be less than 10%. Two other absolute calibration methods are used to provide an independent verification of the primary measurement. The stability of the calibration with time is monitored nightly by a relative calibration system. In this paper we will provide descriptions of the absolute and relative calibration methods used by the Auger air fluorescence observatory. Results from the calibration of the Auger Engineering Array telescopes will also be presented.

### 1. Introduction

The absolute calibration of the Auger fluorescence detectors is determined by the wavelength dependent photon detection efficiency of the FD optical system. The components of this system are described in detail in . The interaction between these components makes it difficult to determine the calibration of the system by measuring the efficiencies of individual components. Two “end to end” methods, described below, are used to determine the absolute calibration. Also described are the relative calibrations which monitor the time and wavelength variability in the calibration.

### 2. The “Drum” calibration

The drum calibration is designed to provide an end to end calibration of the FD using an illuminated surface covering the entrance aperture of an FD telescope. Ideally, each part of this surface would be uniformly illuminated and would emit as a Lambertian source over the angular range viewed by the camera (21). The mechanical structure of the drum is made from a lightweight aluminum frame 2.8 m in diameter and 1.5 m deep. The frame supports the illuminated front surface of the drum, the reflective back and side surfaces of the drum and the light source. The frame has coupling points that accurately position and hold the drum over the telescope aperture during calibration measurements. The illuminated front surface of the drum is made from 0.38 mm thick Teflon and has a diameter of 2.5 m. The light source consists of 2 pulsed UV LEDs ($`375\pm 12`$ nm). The LEDs are embedded in a Teflon cylinder that sits on top of a 15 cm disk of diffusively reflective Tyvec. A UV enhanced silicon detector at the top of the Teflon cylinder monitors the relative light output of the LEDs and also prevents the direct illumination of the drum by light from the Teflon cylinder. The Tyvec disk is held by struts on the inside of the drum near to the front surface but facing to the back of the drum. The light from the disk illuminates the back and sides of the drum, also made of Tyvec, which diffusively reflect light on to the front surface of the drum.

The angular and spatial uniformity of the drum front surface were measured by powering the UV LEDs continuously and measuring the surface brightness with a CCD camera. The illumination of the area of the surface corresponding to the telescope aperture was found to be spatially uniform to $`\pm `$1%. The angular dependence of the surface brightness followed the expected cosine (viewing angle) dependence to within $`\pm `$2%. The reference standard for the calibration of the drum was a UV-enhanced Si detector (UDT sensors UV100 photodiode) calibrated at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). This device was not sensitive enough to detect the pulsed LED signal from the drum so it was used to calibrate a light source which in turn was used to calibrate a photomultiplier tube (PMT) and its readout ADC. This PMT/ADC was used to measure the light flux from the drum front surface.

A drum calibration of telescopes 4 and 5 of the Los Leones Engineering Array FD was made during February/March of 2002. The calibration of telescope 4 was found to be 4.0$`\pm `$0.3 photons at the front of the aperture per FADC count. For telescope 5 the calibration was found to be 5.6$`\pm `$0.4 photons at the front of the aperture per FADC count. A complete description of the prototype drum and of the calibration of the Los Leones Engineering Array telescopes can be found in . A number of new drums are being built to calibrate the FDs of the full Auger Observatory. The physical construction of the drums has been changed to provide a more robust mechanical structure that can be transported easily between sites within the Auger Observatory. The drums will be used to calibrate the telescopes of the Auger FD observatories as they come on line starting mid-2003. Initially, each telescope of each observatory will be calibrated every 2-3 months. The time interval between drum calibrations will be adjusted according to the stability of the calibration. There is currently a development effort underway to make the drums a multi-wavelength calibration source. The LED light sources will be replaced with optical fibers which bring light from a monochromator.

### 3. Atmospheric laser scattering calibration

Artificial tracks, generated from a 355 nm laser located 3-4 km from the FD, are used to confirm the FD calibration obtained by the drum. If the energy and polarization state of the laser beam are well known, Rayleigh scattering from the molecular atmosphere provides an accurately calculable flux of photons arriving at a telescope aperture from each part of the track. An advantage of this calibration method over the drum calibration is that it produces a track image that is very similar to the cosmic ray tracks measured by the FD. A description of a laser system used for this type of measurement can be found in  . A set of laser measurements was made on March $`17^{th}`$ 2002 to calibrate telescope 4 of the Engineering Array FD at Los Leones. An analysis of these laser shots gave a calibration for telescope 4 of 4.1$`\pm `$0.5 photons at the front of the aperture per FADC count at 355 nm. The two main sources of uncertainty are the measurement of the absolute energy of the laser shots and the contribution of aerosol scattering and extinction to the measurement. The absolute calibration of the laser energy , traceable to NIST standards, is better than 10%. The calibration value found by the laser method agrees very well with that of the drum measurement made two weeks earlier. Although the drum and laser calibrations were made at different wavelengths, the wavelength dependence of the FD filters and that of the PMTs cancel almost exactly between 375 nm and 355 nm. A full description of the March $`17^{th}`$ laser calibration can be found in .

A new roving laser system is being built for use with the Auger Observatory which will have smaller uncertainty in laser energy than the prototype laser system. It is planned to use the laser beam calibration as an occasional cross-check of the drum calibration. If serious discrepancies are found between the drum and laser calibrations a more comprehensive program of laser calibrations will be undertaken.

### 4. Monitoring of the wavelength and time dependence of the calibration

The relative wavelength dependence of the calibration will be determined through “piece by piece” measurements of samples from components of the FD telescopes. Using a ray tracing simulation of the FD optics these measurements can also be used to estimate the absolute calibration of the FD. Preliminary measurements have shown that this calibration is consistent with measurements made by the drum and laser methods, but the uncertainty is large ( 20%).

To monitor changes in the FD response, a relative calibration system has been implemented. This relative calibration system uses 3 xenon flash light sources located at each FD site. Light from each source (denoted A,B or C) is distributed to the six telescopes through optical fibers. Light from the A source goes to a diffuser at the center of each mirror and directly illuminates the camera. The A source includes a broadband Johnson-U filter and a filter wheel with 5 different neutral density filters. The wavelength dependence of the Johnson-U filter transmission is roughly matched to that of the FD. The purpose of the A source is to measure the stability and linearity of the camera system. Light from the B source is reflected from the mirror on to the camera to monitor the combined stability of the mirror reflectivity and camera gain. The B source also includes a Johnson-U filter. Light from the C source illuminates diffusively reflective Tyvec targets on the inside of the telescope doors. The light from the Tyvec goes through the aperture to the mirror and on to the camera. The C light source includes 5 narrow band interference filters at wavelengths of 330 nm, 350 nm, 370 nm, 390 nm and 410 nm. This light source monitors the end-to-end stability of the telescopes at all 5 wavelengths. The A,B and C calibrations are made at least once for each night that the FD takes data. Calibration data taken during the running of the FD Engineering Array has shown that the overall stability of the camera gain, as well as pixel to pixel variation in relative gain, is better than 5%. Further details of the relative wavelength and time dependent calibrations can be found in .

### 5. Conclusion

The absolute calibration of the Engineering Array FD telescopes has been measured using three independent techniques: drum calibration, laser calibration and piece by piece calibration. Within the estimated uncertainties the calibration of FD telescopes measured by all three techniques agree.

1. Brack, J., Meyhandan, R. and Hofman, G. 2002, Auger GAP note GAP-2002-033

2. Matthews, J. A. J. 2002, in Proc. SPIE conference on Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation, 22-28 August

3. Matthiae G. 2001, in Proc. Hamburg ICRC, Vol. 2 p 733

4. Roberts, M., Sommers, P. and Fick, B. 2003, Auger GAP note GAP-2003-010