text:
# Cross sections relevant to gamma-ray line emission in solar flares: 3He-induced reactions on 16O nuclei

## I Introduction

Solar flares have been historically divided into two classes, impulsive and gradual, based on the time duration of their soft X-ray emission (see rea99 ). They are, however, also well characterized by the abundances of the energetic particles accelerated in these events and detected in the interplanetary space. In particular, impulsive flares are generally associated with enormous enhancements of accelerated 3He: the measured 3He/4He abundance ratios are frequently 3–4 orders of magnitude larger than the corresponding value in the solar corona and solar wind where 3He/4He$``$5$`\times `$10-4 (see mas02 ). These solar energetic particle events have been the subject of many experimental and theoretical investigations aiming at the identification of the resonant acceleration mechanism causing the 3He enrichments (see pae03  and references therein).

Independent information on the accelerated particle composition and energy spectrum, as well as on solar ambient abundances, density and temperature, can be obtained from observations of the gamma-ray line emission produced by nuclear interactions of the energetic particles with the solar atmosphere (see sha01 ). The recent launch of the RHESSI satellite offers, in particular, the possibility of high-resolution spectroscopic analyses of this emission lin00 . Mandzhavidze et al. man97  pointed out that the reaction 16O(3He,$`p`$)18F leads to strong line emission at 937, 1042 and 1081 keV, which can be used as diagnosis for the presence and properties of accelerated 3He. The 937 keV line, as well as a significant line feature at $``$1.02 MeV have already been identified in data of the moderate-resolution gamma-ray spectrometers SMM/GRS and CGRO/OSSE sha98 . Analysis of these detections suggested that the flare-averaged 3He/4He abundance ratio could be $``$0.1 and that in some flares 3He/4He$``$1 sha98 ; man99 .

However, these analyses were based on gamma-ray production cross sections evaluated from partial laboratory data (see koz02 ): excitation functions for the production of the 937, 1042 and 1081 keV lines from the reaction 16O(3He,$`p`$)18F were measured for laboratory 3He energies ranging from 2.6 to 4 MeV only heg80 ; at higher energies, the gamma-ray cross sections were estimated from data on 18F total production, obtained through the detection of the $`\beta ^+`$ decays of this isotope ($`T_{1/2}`$=109.77 m).

We have measured the cross sections for the production of the 937, 1042 and 1081 keV lines in 3He+16O reactions, for 40 3He energies ranging from 3.7 to 36 MeV. In addition, we have considered the production of the 1887 keV line from deexcitation of the first excited state of 18Ne, which is populated by the reaction 16O(3He,$`n`$)18Ne. Indeed, we suggest that the detection in solar flares of this relatively strong line could allow one to obtain valuable information on the energy spectrum of the accelerated 3He, by comparing its intensity to that of the 937 keV line. This is discussed in section IV, together with the overall relevance of these measurements for gamma-ray spectroscopy of solar flares. The experiment and the data analysis are described in sections II and III, respectively.

## II Experimental procedure

The experiment was performed at the Tandem accelerator of the IPN-Orsay. Together with the cross sections for gamma-ray production from 3He+16O reactions, we studied in the same experiment the reaction 24Mg(3He,$`p`$)26Al, which is relevant to the production of 26Al in the early solar system dup03 . The 3He-induced reactions on 16O and 24Mg were successively studied at each beam energy by means of a multiple target holder, which was shifted in the vertical direction with a geared engine remote-controlled from the data acquisition room. For each 3He energy, the beam position and spot size were first controlled optically with an alumina foil mounted on the target holder. Then, the magnesium- and oxygen-containing targets were successively placed in the beam. The gamma-ray production cross sections were measured for 40 beam energies, in small steps of 250 to 500 keV from 3.7 to 15 MeV and at 18, 20, 21, 25, 30 and 36 MeV. The beam current was integrated in a Faraday cup located 1.4 m behind the target. Typical beam intensities were 10-20 nA.

Several target foils were used for the 3He+16O measurements. From $`E_{beam}`$=3.7 to 7.25 MeV and at 9 and 10 MeV, we used a tantalum-oxide target (chemical composition Ta2O5) of 800 $`\mu `$g/cm2 evaporated on a carbon foil backing of 90 $`\mu `$g/cm2. Above 7.25 MeV, we essentially used two Ta2O5 targets of 1.5 mg/cm2 evaporated on carbon foils of 130 $`\mu `$g/cm2, as well as two self-supporting Mylar foils (chemical composition C10H8O4) of 3.213 mg/cm2 (23 $`\mu `$m) for $`E_{beam}`$=12.5, 18, 21, 25, 30 and 36 MeV. The thicknesses of the Ta2O5 targets were chosen for the 3He energy loss in the targets to be similar to the beam energy steps of 250 keV below 10 MeV, in order to avoid significant gaps in the excitation functions. The reason of using Mylar targets instead of Ta2O5 targets at the highest energies was to avoid a too intense production of neutrons and gamma-rays from reactions with the Ta nuclei. Repeated measurements at the same energies allowed to ensure the stability of the various targets. After the experiment, the thickness of one of the Ta2O5 targets was checked by a Rutherford backscattering measurement performed at the ARAMIS accelerator of the CSNSM with a 4He beam of 3.085 MeV energy. From this measurement and the observed consistency of cross section data measured with different targets at the same energies, the uncertainty on the target thicknesses was estimated to be $`\pm `$10%.

The gamma-rays were detected with four large volume, high purity Ge detectors with BGO shielding for Compton suppression nol94 . The four detectors were placed horizontally in front of 2 mm-thick aluminum-windows of the reaction chamber and at the laboratory angles $`\theta _{lab}`$=90, 112.5, 135 and 157.5 with respect to the beam direction. The Ge crystals were located at about 37 cm far from the target. The detection efficiencies were measured at three different times by placing at the target position four radioactive sources calibrated in activities to 1.5%: 60Co, 88Y, 137Cs and 152Eu. These sources provide a dozen of gamma-ray lines of relatively high intensities from 122 to 1836 keV. The uncertainties in the absolute efficiencies were determined from these three measurements to be $`\pm `$7% for the detectors at 112.5, 135 and 157.5, and $`\pm `$15% for the detector at 90 due to an additional absorption of the gamma-rays in the target holder. The efficiencies at 1333 keV (60Co) were (1.67$`\pm `$0.25)$`\times `$10-4, (2.28$`\pm `$0.16)$`\times `$10-4, (1.90$`\pm `$0.13)$`\times `$10-4 and (1.97$`\pm `$0.14)$`\times `$10-4, for the detectors at 90, 112.5, 135 and 157.5, respectively.

Conventional electronic and computing techniques were used to translate the detector output signals into pulse height spectra. The dead time of the system was precisely determined with a set of pulsers which were fed into the Ge detector preamplifiers and into a scaler that was triggered by the data acquisition system. We assessed an error of $`\pm `$3% in the dead-time correction, which was $``$20% for most of the measurements, but as high as $``$60% for the highest beam energies.

Sample gamma-ray spectra are shown in Fig. 1 for the Ta2O5 target of 800 $`\mu `$g/cm2 on the carbon backing. We see a variety of lines produced by 3He-induced reactions on 16O and 12C nuclei. For this target, the 16O-to-12C number ratio is N(16O)/N(12C)=1.2$`\pm `$0.2, which is lower by a factor of $``$2 than the corresponding abundance ratio in the solar atmosphere \[N(16O)/N(12C)\]sol=2.4 and89 . The first and second escape peaks are almost invisible and the Compton background is strongly suppressed by the BGO anticoincidence system. For $`E_{beam}`$=4.75 MeV (lower spectrum in Fig. 1), all significant lines arise from the exothermic reactions 16O(3He,$`p\gamma `$)18F, 12C(3He,$`p\gamma `$)14N and 16O(3He,$`\alpha \gamma `$)15O.

Apart from the strong 511 keV emission, the most intense line is at 937 keV and originates from the deexcitation of the first excited level in 18F (Fig. 2). This line is relatively narrow because the mean-life of the 937 keV state, $`\tau `$=67.6$`\pm `$2.5 ps til95 , is greater than the slowing down time of the recoiling 18F ions in the target material, such that the gamma-ray emission happens predominantly near rest. The reaction 16O(3He,$`p\gamma `$)18F also produces four lines, at 1020, 1042, 1054 and 1081 keV, which could contribute to the $``$1.02 MeV line emission feature detected in solar flares with SMM/GRS and CGRO/OSSE sha98 .

The strongest lines from the reaction 12C(3He,$`p\gamma `$)14N are at 2313, 1635 and 5105 keV. It was not possible to extract reliable cross section data for 3He+12C reactions in this experiment, because the Ge detectors were not shielded enough from gamma-rays produced in the graphite material of the Faraday cup. In solar flares, these three lines are expected to be also significantly excited by inelastic scattering of protons and $`\alpha `$-particles on ambient 14N koz02 .

The most significant line from the reaction 16O(3He,$`\alpha \gamma `$)15O is at 5240 keV corresponding to the deexcitation of the second excited level in 15O (Fig. 2). The line at 5182 keV from the first excited level in 15O was observed to be significantly weaker.

For $`E_{beam}`$=9 MeV, three additional reactions can be identified in the gamma-ray spectrum shown in Fig. 1: the reaction 16O(3He,$`d`$$`\gamma _{495}`$)17F, the reaction 12C(3He,$`\alpha \gamma `$)11C producing two broad lines at 2000 and 4318 keV and the reaction 16O(3He,$`n\gamma `$)18Ne producing two narrow lines at 1489 and 1887 keV (Fig. 2). We see that the latter line is relatively strong, which motivated us to determine its production cross section. The relevance of this line for solar flare physics is discussed in section IV.

## III Data analysis and results

The cross sections for the production of the 937, 1042 and 1081 keV lines of 18F and the 1887 keV line of 18Ne have been derived from the yields of the full-energy peaks in the energy calibrated spectra. We used a Monte Carlo simulation of the gamma-ray line production in the targets (see kie01 ) to better estimate the peak shapes for the four detection angles. The background yields were determined by interpolation of the count rates below and above the peaks. For the 937 and 1887 keV lines, the systematic error due to the peak shape determination and the background subtraction was estimated to be comparable to the statistical error. For the weaker line at 1081 keV, this systematic error was typically 5% for the detectors at 90, 112.5 and 135, and 10-20% for the detector at 157.5. Photopeak integrations were indeed more uncertain for this latter detector, because of a higher gamma-ray background induced by nuclear reactions in the Faraday cup. The case of the 1042 keV line was complicated by the proximity of the 1054 keV line (see Fig. 1). For $`E_{beam}`$$`>`$5 MeV, these two lines were not fully resolved from each other and we estimated their relative intensities from fits by two Gaussian shaped lines. The associated systematic error was 5-15% for 5$`<`$$`E_{beam}`$$`<`$12 MeV and 15-35% above 12 MeV, as the two lines were almost impossible to distinguish for the highest beam energies. The total error in the gamma-ray line yields were obtained from the linear sum of this systematic error with the usual statistical error.

Examples of measured angular distributions of gamma-rays are shown in Fig. 3. The 1042 and 1081 keV line emissions are isotropics, because the gamma-rays depopulate 0+ and 0- levels, respectively. The 937 and 1887 keV lines are $`E2`$ transitions til95  and complete angular distributions were obtained by fitting the measured differential cross sections by the Legendre-polynomial expansion:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(\theta _{lab})=a_0+a_2Q_2P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{lab})+a_4Q_4P_4(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{lab}),$$
(1)
where $`P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{lab})`$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $`l`$ and $`Q_2`$ and $`Q_4`$ are the attenuation coefficients, which can be calculated analytically from the geometry of the detection setup (see fer65 ). We have estimated the corrections arising from the laboratory-to-center-of-mass transformation and from the finite beam spot size to be negligible in this experiment. The total cross section is simply given by

$$\sigma =4\pi a_0.$$
(2)
In Fig. 4-7, we show the excitation functions obtained from the fits of the measured differential cross sections. Energies at which cross sections and Legendre-polynomial coefficients are quoted are laboratory 3He energies at the middle of the targets, the horizontal error bars corresponding to the target thicknesses. Stopping powers were calculated with the computer code TRIM ziegl . The vertical error bars correspond to the 1$`\sigma `$-errors in the coefficients of the Legendre-polynomial fits, except for the 1042 keV line for which we took into account an additional error due to the contribution of the reaction 16O(3He,$`n`$)18Ne($`\beta ^+`$)18F (see below). In the determination of absolute cross sections, errors in the target thicknesses (10%), the beam current integration (5%) and the dead-time correction (3%) must also be included. The resulting overall uncertainties are 13-14% in $`\sigma `$(937 keV), 13-23% in $`\sigma `$(1042 keV), 14-16% in $`\sigma `$(1081 keV) and 13-17% in $`\sigma `$(1887 keV).

We see that the excitation functions vary with energy in a relatively smooth fashion. Only the cross section for the (3He,$`n`$) channel (Fig. 7) shows resonances corresponding to compound nuclear effects (see below). The lack of fine structures in the excitation functions is partly due to the use of relatively thick targets (160-330 keV thickness for $`E_{beam}`$=3.7-12 MeV).

The highest cross section is found for the reaction 16O(3He,$`p\gamma _{937}`$)18F, which reaches a maximum of 216$`\pm `$28 mb at 7.3 MeV (Fig. 4). The angular distributions of the 937 keV gamma-rays were found to be slightly anisotropic (see also Fig. 3) and to have little dependence on the 3He bombarding energy: the $`a_2`$/$`a_0`$ coefficient ratio is nearly constant and slightly positive (its mean value is 0.14$`\pm `$0.12) whereas all values of $`a_4`$/$`a_0`$ are compatible with zero. Because the 937 keV level of 18F has a relatively long mean-life, $`\tau `$=67.6$`\pm `$2.5 ps, and high magnetic dipole moment, $`\mu `$=+1.68$`\pm `$0.15 til95 , it is possible that its nuclear alignment was partly lost by hyperfine interactions in the target prior to the gamma emission.

In solar flares, production of the 1042 keV line includes a contribution from the reaction 16O(3He,$`n`$)18Ne($`\beta ^+`$)18F for 3He energies above the reaction threshold $`E_{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}^{\mathrm{Thres}}`$=3.80 MeV. For each $`\beta ^+`$ decay of 18Ne, 0.0783$`\pm `$0.0021 gamma-rays of 1042 keV are emitted til95 . The half-life of 18Ne, $`T_{1/2}`$=1672$`\pm `$8 ms, is too short for the (3He,$`n`$) and (3He,$`p`$) channels to be distinguished in solar flares. In this experiment, however, a small correction of the 1042 keV data had to be made to take into account the nondetection of some (3He,$`n`$) events due to the escape from the targets of some recoiling 18Ne ions prior to decay. To evaluate this correction, we first estimated the total cross section for the reaction 16O(3He,$`n`$)18Ne from the differential cross sections $`(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }_{cm})`$ measured by Adelberger and McDonald ade70  at $`E_{lab}`$=9, 9.5, 10.5, 11.5 and 12.5 MeV, and by Nero et al. ner81  at $`E_{lab}`$=13.8, 16.1 and 17.8 MeV, as well as from the 16O(3He,$`n\gamma _{1887}`$)18Ne excitation function measured in this experiment (Fig. 7). From this estimate, we found that the contribution of 18Ne production to the total 1042 keV line emission is lower than 25%. We then used the measured differential cross sections $`(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }_{cm})`$ ade70 ; ner81  to calculate the energy distributions of the recoiling 18Ne ions and performed TRIM simulations for each target to evaluate the fraction of escaping ions. The most important correction was found for the Ta2O5 target of 1.5 mg/cm2 bombarded at $`E_{beam}`$=15 MeV. For this data point, we estimated that $``$60% of produced 18Ne have escaped from the target and the corresponding correction was applied by multiplying the measured cross section by a factor 1.11$`\pm `$0.11. Corrections for the Mylar targets and for the Ta2O5 targets bombarded at lower energies were less important. The excitation function for the production of the 1042 keV line is shown in Fig. 5.

The lowest cross section measured in this experiment is that of the reaction 16O(3He,$`p\gamma _{1081}`$)18F, which reaches a maximum of only 31$`\pm `$4 mb at 5.4 MeV (Fig. 6). The $`\beta ^+`$ decay of 18Ne also populates the 1081 keV state of 18F, but with a negligible branching ratio of (2.07$`\pm `$0.28)$`\times `$10-5 til95 .

Results for the 16O(3He,$`n\gamma _{1887}`$)18Ne reaction are shown in Fig. 7. A broad resonancelike structure dominates the excitation function at $`E_{lab}`$$``$9.5 MeV, which corresponds to an excitation energy of $``$16.4 MeV in the compound nucleus. This broad resonance has already been reported in the yields of neutron production ade70 . A narrower resonance is also observed at $`E_{lab}`$$``$6.5 MeV, which could correspond to the 13.8 MeV level of 19Ne til95 . The Legendre-polynomial coefficients show a characteristic structure at $`E_{lab}`$$``$7 MeV, with a significant deep for $`a_4`$/$`a_0`$. Above $``$8.5 MeV, the $`a_2`$/$`a_0`$ and $`a_4`$/$`a_0`$ coefficient ratios do not significantly vary with energy and their mean values are 0.40$`\pm `$0.17 and -0.15$`\pm `$0.23, respectively.

Heggie et al. heg80  have measured the excitation functions for the production of the 937, 1042 and 1081 keV lines in the reaction 16O(3He,$`p`$)18F up to 4 MeV. Comparison of their results with the cross sections we obtained at the lowest energies show an overall agreement of $``$20%. The results of our gamma-ray production measurement can also be compared with the cross section for 18F total production from 3He+16O reactions, which has been extensively studied by an activation method (see fit77 ). The reported excitation function has a very similar overall shape to the one of the sum of the four excitation functions measured in our experiment and is $``$20% higher. The difference is due to the direct production of 18F and 18Ne in their ground states, as well as to their production in excited levels above 1081 keV (18F) and 1887 keV (18Ne) decaying directly to their ground states.

In order to provide data in a convenient form for gamma-ray astronomy, we have averaged the measured cross sections over 1-MeV energy intervals up to 15 MeV and over 5-MeV energy intervals at higher laboratory energies. The results are given in Table 1. Below 15 MeV, average values were generally obtained from linear interpolations between adjacent data points. At higher energies, we performed fits to the cross section data by polynomial or exponential curves (see Fig. 4-7). We estimated the uncertainty induced by this procedure to be generally negligible as compared with the overall errors in the measured cross sections, except for $`\sigma `$(1887 keV) at $`E_{lab}`$=6 and 7 MeV. For these two values, we quadratically added errors of 25% and 10%, respectively, due to the resonance at $``$6.5 MeV (Fig. 7).

## IV Discussion

To discuss the expected emission of the 3He-produced lines in solar flares, we show in Fig. 8 two calculated gamma-ray line spectra, assuming an accelerated particle composition with or without 3He. We used the code developed by Ramaty et al. ram79 ; koz02 , in which we incorporated the cross section values of Table 1. At higher 3He energies, we extrapolated the four cross sections assuming the same energy dependence as estimated by Kozlovsky et al. koz02  for the 16O(3He,$`p`$)18F reactions. In practice, we added two values for $`\sigma `$(937 keV), 3.4 mb at 60 MeV and 1.6 mb at 90 MeV, two values for $`\sigma `$(1042 keV), 3.6 mb at 30 MeV and 0.9 mb at 60 MeV, one value for $`\sigma `$(1081 keV), 1 mb at 30 MeV, and two values for $`\sigma `$(1887 keV), 2 mb at 60 MeV and 0.9 mb at 90 MeV. In Fig. 8, these extrapolations account for $`<`$3% of the 3He line strengths.

The calculations were performed in a thick target interaction model, in which the accelerated particles produce the nuclear reactions while they slow down in the solar atmosphere. Gamma-ray line spectroscopic analyses of solar flare emissions have shown that the composition of the gamma-ray production regions is generally close to coronal (see ram95 ): the abundances of the low FIP (first ionization potential) elements Mg, Si and Fe relative to the high FIP elements C and O are enhanced by a factor of 4–5 rea94  in comparison with photospheric abundances. We took the coronal abundances from Ref. rea94 , except for He/H for which we adopted the helioseismological value He/H=0.084 ric98 . For the accelerated particles, we used an impulsive-flare average composition obtained from solar energetic particle measurements rea95 , except for $`\alpha `$/$`p`$ for which we used an abundance ratio of 0.5. Such a relatively high concentration of accelerated $`\alpha `$-particles has been proposed to explain the intense $`\alpha `$-4He fusion lines observed in several flares (see sha98 ; man99 ). The two gamma-ray spectra shown in Fig. 8 were calculated for 3He/$`\alpha `$=0 (dotted line) and 3He/$`\alpha `$=0.5 (solid line). The latter value is typical of the 3He enrichment of the solar energetic particles accelerated in impulsive flares (see rea94 ). For the source energy spectrum of the fast ions, we took for all species a power law in kinetic energy per nucleon, $`Q(E)E^S`$, with $`S`$=4 (see ram96 ).

We see in Fig. 8 that the 937 keV line is relatively strong in comparison with other lines produced by accelerated protons and $`\alpha `$-particles. However, we also see from the gamma-ray spectrum calculated without accelerated 3He, that analysis of this line can be complicated by the proximity of another line at 931 keV, which is produced in the reaction 56Fe($`p`$,$`pn`$)55Fe man99 ; koz02 . In Fig. 9a, we show the fluence ratio of the 931 keV line to the 937 keV line, as a function of the power law spectral index of the accelerated particle energy spectrum. We used for $`\sigma `$(931 keV) the values supplied in table A3 of Ref. koz02 . The relative contribution of the 931 keV line rapidly diminishes for increasing $`S`$, because this line is produced for proton energies above the reaction threshold $`E_p`$=11.4 MeV, whereas $`\sigma `$(937 keV) peaks at significantly lower 3He energy per nucleon, $`E_{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}`$2.4 MeV/nucleon (see Table 1 and Fig. 4). Given the assumed coronal abundance ratio 56Fe/16O=0.16 and the adopted accelerated particle composition with 3He/$`p`$=0.25, the 931 keV line fluence is $`<`$5% of that of the 937 keV line for $`S`$$`>`$4.

As shown in Fig. 8, the 3He line at 1042 keV can also be blended with another significant line, which is produced from the reaction 56Fe($`\alpha `$,$`pn\gamma _{1049}`$)58Co man99 ; koz02 . Fig. 9b illustrates that the 1049 keV line should generally be considered, especially if the accelerated particle spectrum is hard (i.e. low values of $`S`$). In addition, the analysis of the 1042 keV line can be complicated –as in this experiment– by the proximity of the 1054 keV line also produced in the reaction 16O(3He,$`p`$)18F (see Fig. 1 and § III).

The 1081 and 1887 keV lines are expected to be separated from other important lines (Fig. 8). They are, however, weaker than the 937 and 1042 keV lines. The 1887 keV line is broader than the three other 3He lines, because it is produced at higher 3He energies. Fig. 9c shows the fluence ratio of the 1887 keV line to the 937 keV line, as a function of the spectral index $`S`$. We see that the calculated ratio decreases by one order of magnitude, from 0.4 for $`S`$=2 to 0.04 for $`S`$=6. Since both lines are produced from 3He-induced reactions on the same 16O target, this ratio is independent of the ambient medium and accelerated particle compositions. It depends only on the accelerated 3He energy spectrum, which is important in understanding the acceleration mechanism in impulsive solar flares (see pae03 ).

It is noteworthy that a significant synthesis of 18F nuclei in solar flares could also be identified through the characteristic, long living, 511 keV emission expected from the $`\beta ^+`$ decay of this isotope ($`T_{1/2}`$=109.77 m). The detection of this delayed emission, maybe with the RHESSI satellite, would furthermore provide a new insight into mixing and transport processes in the solar atmosphere.

In summary, the four cross sections measured in this experiment could allow one to determine with a good accuracy the abundance of 3He accelerated in solar flares and interacting in the solar atmosphere. The strongest of the gamma-ray lines from 3He-induced reactions is the one at 937 keV from the reaction 16O(3He,$`p`$)18F, which however, can overlap with a line at 931 keV, produced in the reaction 56Fe($`p`$,$`pn`$)55Fe. If observed, the 1887 keV line from the reaction 16O(3He,$`n`$)18Ne would furthermore provide unique information on the energy spectrum of the accelerated 3He.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank the operator crew of the Orsay Tandem accelerator for their engagement in the preparation of the experiment, as well as Frédérico Garrido, Claire Boukari, Jacques Chaumont and Catherine Clerc for their assistance in the RBS measurements.


format: text

text:
# THE GZK FEATURE IN THE SPECTRUM OF ULTRA HIGH ENERGY COSMIC RAYS

## 1 Introduction

Astrophysical proton sources distributed homogeneously in the universe produce a feature in the energy spectrum due to the production of pions off the CMB. This feature, consisting of a rather sharp suppression of the flux, occurs at energies above $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}7\times 10^{19}`$ eV, and it is now known as the GZK cutoff. Almost forty years after this prediction it is not yet clear if this effect is observed or not due to the discrepancy between the results of the two largest experiments measuring the spectrum of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs). AGASA reports a higher number of events above $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}`$ than expected while HiRes reports a flux consistent with the GZK feature. Here we report on a detailed investigation of the statistical significance of this discrepancy as well as the significance of the presence or absence of the GZK feature in the data. We find that neither experiment has the necessary statistics to establish if the spectrum of UHECRs has a GZK feature. In addition, a systematic error in the energy determination of the two experiments seems to be required in order to make the two sets of observations compatible in the low energy range, $`10^{18.5}10^{19.6}`$ eV, where enough events have been detected to make the measurements reliable. Taking into account the systematics, the two experiments predict compatible fluxes at energies below $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}`$ and at energies above $`E_{\mathrm{GZK}}`$ the fluxes are within $`2\sigma `$ of each other.

The detection or non-detection of the GZK feature in the cosmic ray spectrum remains open to investigation by future generation experiments, such as the Pierre Auger project and the EUSO and OWL experiments.

The paper is organized as follows: in § 2 we briefly describe the simulations used to propagate cosmic rays, in § 3 we illustrate the present observational situation, limiting ourselves to AGASA and HiResI, and compare the data to the predictions of our simulations. We conclude in § 4.

## 2 Cosmic Rays Propagation

We assume that UHECRs are protons injected in extragalactic sources with a power-law spectrum with slope $`\gamma `$ and an exponential cutoff at $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=10^{21.5}\mathrm{eV}`$, large enough not to affect the statistics at much lower energies. Based on the results of  we assume a spatially uniform distribution of sources and do not take into account luminosity evolution in order to avoid the introduction of additional parameters. We simulate the propagation of protons from source to observer by including the photo-pion production, pair production, and adiabatic energy losses due to the expansion of the universe. In each step of the simulation, we calculate the pair production losses using the continuous energy loss approximation given the small inelasticity in pair production ($`2m_\mathrm{e}/m_\mathrm{p}10^3`$). For the rate of energy loss due to pair production at redshift $`z=0`$, $`\beta _{\mathrm{pp}}(E,z=0)`$, we use the results from . At a given redshift $`z>0`$,

$$\beta _{\mathrm{pp}}(E,z)=(1+z)^3\beta _{\mathrm{pp}}((1+z)E,z=0).$$
(1)
Similarly, the rate of adiabatic energy losses due to redshift is calculated in each step using

$$\beta _{\mathrm{rsh}}(E,z)=H_0\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]^{1/2}$$
(2)
with $`H_0=75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

The photo-pion production is simulated in a way similar to that described in ref. . In each step, we first calculate the average number of photons able to interact via photo-pion production through the expression:

$$N_{\mathrm{ph}}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s}{l(E,z)},$$
(3)
where $`l(E,z)`$ is the interaction length for photo-pion production of a proton with energy $`E`$ at redshift $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ is a step size, chosen to be much smaller than the interaction length (typically we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=100\mathrm{kpc}/(1+z)^3`$).

We then sample a Poisson distribution with mean $`N_{\mathrm{ph}}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }s)`$, to determine the actual number of photons encountered during the step $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$. When a photo-pion interaction occurs, the energy $`ϵ`$ of the photon is extracted from the Planck distribution, $`n_{ph}(ϵ,T(z))`$, with temperature $`T(z)=T_0(1+z)`$, where $`T_0=2.728`$ K is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background at present. Since the microwave photons are isotropically distributed, the interaction angle, $`\theta `$, between the proton and the photon is sampled randomly from a distribution which is flat in $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Clearly only the values of $`ϵ`$ and $`\theta `$ that generate a center of mass energy above the threshold for pion production are considered. The energy of the proton in the final state is calculated at each interaction from kinematics. The simulation is carried out until the statistics of events detected above some energy reproduces the experimental numbers. By normalizing the simulated flux by the number of events above an energy where experiments have high statistics, we can then ask what are the fluctuations in numbers of events above a higher energy where experimental results are sparse. The fits are therefore most sensitive to the energy regions below $`E_{GZK}`$ and give a good estimate of the uncertainties in the present experiments for energies above $`E_{GZK}`$. In this way we have a direct handle on the fluctuations that can be expected in the observed flux due to the stochastic nature of photo-pion production and to cosmic variance.

The simulation proceeds in the following way: a source distance is generated at random from a uniform distribution in a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, a particle energy is assigned from a distribution that reflects the injection spectrum then this particle is propagated to the observer and its energy recorded. This procedure is repeated until the number of events above a threshold energy, $`E_{th}`$ is reproduced. With this procedure we can assess the significance of results from present experiments with limited statistics of events. There is an additional complication in that the aperture of the experiment usually depends on energy. This is taken into account by allowing the event to be detected or not depending upon the function $`H(E)`$ that describes the energy dependence of the aperture.

We only study the spectrum above $`10^{18.5}`$ eV where the flux is supposed to be dominated by extragalactic sources. For this energy range, we focus on the experiments that have the best statistics: AGASA and HiResI. For AGASA data, the simulation is stopped when the number of events above $`E_{th}=10^{19}`$ eV equals 866. For HiRes this number is 300. The statistical error in the energy determination is accounted for in our simulation by generating a detection energy chosen at random from a Gaussian distribution centered at the arrival energy $`E`$ and with width $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=30\%`$ for both experiments.

Our simulations reproduce well the predictions of analytical calculations, in particular at the energies where energy losses may be approximated as continuous (see  for a detailed comparison).

## 3 AGASA versus HiResI

The two largest experiments that measured the flux of UHECRs report apparently conflicting results. The data of AGASA and HiResI on the flux of UHECRs multiplied as usual by the third power of the energy are plotted in Fig. 1 (the squares are the HiResI data while the circles are the AGASA data).

The figure shows that HiResI data are systematically below AGASA data and that HiResI sees a suppression at $`10^{20}`$ eV that resembles the GZK feature while AGASA does not.

We apply our simulations here to the statistics of events of both AGASA and HiResI in order to understand whether the discrepancy is statistically significant and whether the GZK feature has indeed been detected in the cosmic ray spectrum. In order to understand the difference, if any, between AGASA and HiRes data we first determine the injection spectrum required to best fit the observations. The injection spectrum is taken to be a power law with index $`\gamma `$ between 2.3 and 2.9 with steps of 0.1. For each injection spectrum we calculated the $`\chi ^2`$ indicator (averaged over 400 realizations for each injection spectrum). The errors used for the evaluation of the $`\chi ^2`$ are due to the square roots of the number of observed events. It is important to note that the fits are dominated by the low energy data rather than by the poorer statistics at the higher energies.

If the data at energies above $`10^{18.5}`$ eV are taken into account for both experiments, the best fit spectra are $`E^{2.8}`$ for AGASA and $`E^{2.6}`$ for HiRes. If the data at energies above $`10^{19}`$ eV are used for the fit, the best fit injection spectrum is $`E^{2.6}`$ for AGASA and between $`E^{2.7}`$ and $`E^{2.8}`$ for HiRes. If the fit is carried out on the highest energy data ($`E>10^{19.6}`$ eV), AGASA prefers an injection spectrum between $`E^{2.5}`$ and $`E^{2.6}`$, while $`E^{2.8}`$ or $`E^{2.9}`$ fit better the HiRes data in the same energy region. Note that the two sets of data uncorrected for any possible systematic errors require different injection spectra that change with $`E_{th}`$.

In order to quantify the significance of the detection or lack of the GZK flux suppression, we calculate the mean number of events above two energy thresholds ($`10^{19.6}`$ eV and $`10^{20}`$ eV), $`N(E>E_{th})`$, for different injection spectra and compare them to the experimental results. We find that while HiResI is consistent with the existence of the GZK feature in the spectrum of UHECRs, AGASA detects an increase in flux, but only at the $`2.1\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ level. Here $`\sigma _{tot}=(\sigma _{sim}^2+\sigma _{obs}^2)^{1/2}`$ is the combined uncertainty from simulations and observed data.

A more graphical representation of the uncertainties involved are displayed in Fig. 2. These plots show clearly the low level of significance that the detections above $`E_{GZK}`$ have with low statistics. The large error bars that are generated by our simulations at the high energy end of the spectrum are mainly due to the stochastic nature of the process of photo-pion production: in some realizations some energy bins are populated by a few events, while in others the few particles in the same energy bin do not produce a pion and get to the observer unaffected. The large fluctuations are unavoidable with the extremely small statistics available with present experiments. On the other hand, the error bars at lower energies are minuscule, so that the two data sets (AGASA and HiResI) cannot be considered to be two different realizations of the same phenomenon. Instead, systematic errors in at least one if not both experiments are needed to explain the discrepancies at lower energies.

As seen in Fig. 1, the difference between the AGASA and HiResI spectra is not only in the presence or absence of the GZK feature: the two spectra, when multiplied by $`E^3`$, are systematically shifted by about a factor of two. This shift suggests that there may be a systematic error either in the energy or the flux determination of at least one of the two experiments. Possible systematic effects have been discussed in  for the AGASA collaboration and in  for HiResI. A systematic error of $`15\%`$ in the energy determination is well within the limits that are allowed by the analysis of systematic errors carried out by both collaborations.

In order to illustrate the difficulty in determining the existence of the GZK feature in the observed data in the presence of systematic errors, we split the energy gap by assuming that the energies as determined by the AGASA collaboration are overestimated by $`15\%`$, while the HiRes energies are underestimated by the same factor. In this case the total number of events above $`10^{19}`$ eV is reduced for AGASA from 866 to 651, while for HiResI it is enhanced from 300 to 367. We ran our simulations with these new numbers of events and repeat the statistical analysis described above.

For AGASA, the best fit injection spectrum is now between $`E^{2.5}`$ and $`E^{2.6}`$ above $`10^{19}`$ eV and above $`10^{19.6}`$ eV. For the HiRes data, the best fit injection spectrum is $`E^{2.6}`$ for the whole set of data, independent of the threshold. It is interesting to note that the best fit injection spectrum appears much more stable after the correction of the $`15\%`$ systematics has been carried out. Moreover, the best fit injection spectra as derived for each experiment independently coincides for the corrected data unlike the uncorrected case. This suggests that combined systematic errors in the energy determination at the $``$ 30% level may in fact be present.

As above in order to quantify the significance of the detection or lack of the GZK flux suppression, we calculate the mean number of events above two energy thresholds ($`10^{19.6}`$ eV and $`10^{20}`$ eV), $`N(E>E_{th})`$, for different injection spectra and compare them to the experimental results. We find that HiResI continues to be consistent with the existence of the GZK feature, while the discrepancy of the AGASA data is reduced at the level of $`1.5\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$.

In Fig. 3, we plot the simulated spectra for injection spectrum $`E^{2.6}`$ and compare them to the corrected data of AGASA (left plot) and HiResI (right plot).

## 4 Conclusions

We considered the statistical significance of the UHECR spectra measured by the two largest experiments in operation, AGASA and HiRes. The spectrum released by the HiResI collaboration seems to suggest the presence of a GZK feature. This has generated claims that the GZK cutoff has been detected, reinforced by data from older experiments . However, no evidence for such a feature has been found in the AGASA experiment. We compared the data with theoretical predictions for the propagation of UHECRs on cosmological distances with the help of numerical simulations. We find that the very low statistics of the presently available data hinders any statistically significant claim for either detection or the lack of the GZK feature.

A comparison of the spectra obtained from AGASA and HiResI shows a systematic shift of the two data sets, which may be interpreted as a systematic error in the relative energy determination of about $`30\%`$. If no correction for this systematic shift is carried out, the AGASA and HiResI data sets are best fit by two different injection spectra that depend on the threshold used for the fit. With the best fits to the injection spectrum the AGASA data depart from the prediction of a GZK feature by $`2.3\sigma `$ for $`\gamma =2.6`$. The HiRes data are fully compatible with the prediction of a GZK feature in the cosmic ray spectrum. It is clear that, if confirmed by future experiments with much larger statistics, the increase in flux relative to the GZK prediction hinted by AGASA would be of great interest. This may signal the presence of a new component at the highest energies that compensates for the expected suppression due to photo-pion production, or the effect of new physics in particle interactions (for instance the violation of Lorentz invariance or new neutrino interactions).

Identifying the cause of the systematic energy and/or flux shift between the AGASA and the HiRes spectra is crucial for understanding the nature of UHECRs. This discrepancy has stimulated a number of efforts to search for the source of these systematic errors including the construction of hybrid detectors, such as Auger, that utilize both ground arrays and fluorescence detectors. A possible overestimate of the AGASA energies by $`15\%`$ and a corresponding underestimate of the HiRes energies by the same amount would in fact bring the two data sets in agreement in the region of energies below $`10^{20}`$ eV. In this case both experiments are consistent with a GZK feature with large error bars. The AGASA excess is at the level of $`1.5\sigma `$. Interestingly enough, the correction by $`15\%`$ in the error determination implies that the best fit injection spectrum becomes basically the same for both experiments ($`E^{2.6}`$).

With the low statistical significance of either the excess flux seen by AGASA or the discrepancies between AGASA and HiResI, it is inaccurate to claim either the detection of the GZK feature or the extension of the UHECR spectrum beyond $`E_{GZK}`$ at this point in time. A new generation of experiments is needed to finally give a clear answer to this question. In Fig. 4 we report the simulated spectra that should be achieved in 3 years of operation of Auger (left panel) and EUSO (right panel). The error bars reflect the fluctuations expected in these high statistics experiments for the case of injection spectrum $`E^{2.6}`$. (Note that the energy threshold for detection by EUSO is not yet clear). It is clear that the energy region where statistical fluctuations dominate the spectrum is moved to $`10^{20.6}`$ eV for Auger, allowing a clear identification of the GZK feature. The fluctuations dominated region stands beyond $`10^{21}`$ eV for EUSO.


text:
# Quantum Error Correction in Globally Controlled Arrays

(August 4, 2004)

## Abstract

An interesting concept in quantum computation is that of global control (GC), where there is no need to manipulate qubits individually. It is known that one can implement a universal set of quantum gates on a one-dimensional array purely via signals that target the entire structure indiscriminately. But large-scale quantum computation requires more than this: one must be able to perform efficient error correction, which has requirements in terms of noise level, time, space (scaling) and in particular parallelism. Keeping in mind these requirements, we prove GC can support error-correction, by implementing two simple codes. We discuss the issues involved in extending our approach to full fault-tolerant computation with this type of architecture.

Typical proposals for a solid-state quantum computation (QC) demand a precise control of both the individual constituent qubits and the interactions between them. The Kane scheme Kane  is an archetypal example: in all such approaches one is required to switch individual interactions ‘on’ and ‘off’. An alternative is the idea of global control lloyd ; Controlunit ; SimonB ; SimonB.2 ; SimonB.2003 . In this approach, it is not necessary to individually address qubits. Instead one applies global signals, e.g. laser pulses, to the entire structure indiscriminately. With a suitable arrangement of qubits within the array, it is then possible to discover a sequence of such signals which have a net effect only at the desired points (i.e. only affecting specific qubits).

From an experimental standpoint, there are obvious advantages to such an approach. It can simplify the device structure, removing the need to have control elements (e.g. metallic electrodes) directed to each and every qubit. Moreover, in many otherwise promising QIP candidates, such as molecular scale structures, is it simply impossible to ‘plumb in’ qubit specific control elements. The global control paradigm may be the only option in such cases. Furthermore, even in rare cases where there is no technical obstacle to fabricating multiple control elements, there remains the issue that each such element is a potential decoherence source, typically ‘dangerously’ close to the qubits.

Lloyd’s original GC model lloyd ; Controlunit  involved a one-dimensional array of cells, each being a two-state system coupled to its nearest neighbors with an Ising type interaction. Lloyd employed a regular pattern of three cell types, $`ABCABC\mathrm{}`$, where each type has a distinct transition energy. He demonstrated that one can perform a universal set of gates with this type of structure, noting that only the cell on the end need be independently controlled. Subsequently, Benjamin SimonB  demonstrated that the same type of result can be achieved with only two types of cells, $`ABABAB..`$, and without the need to distinguish between the neighbors of a cell. More recently Benjamin has extended the approach to systems with Heisenberg interactions, initially assuming that interaction strengths can be collectively switched SimonB.2 , and subsequently dispensing with this condition SimonB.2003 ; SimonPreP .

In all these variants, there are costs associated with adopting the global control principle. Most obviously, they each employ an encoding that associates several physical (pseudo-)spins with each logical qubit. There is also a corresponding need for each logical gate operation to be rendered into several global pulses. The severity of these space/time costs increases as we consider systems with lower complexity (e.g. fewer cell types) or systems over which we have less control (e.g. no ability to switch interactions, even collectively). For one extreme case, namely a one-dimensional array of two alternating cell types with ‘always-on’ Ising interactions SimonB , the best known encoding requires at least eight physical spins for each logical qubit. However, a more profound cost is the loss of parallelism, as we discuss later.

The criteria for successful quantum error correction (QEC) Shor ; Steane3  and fault-tolerant computation Steane2  have been established in considerable detail. Steane Steane1  and others have shown that besides the basic per qubit error rate, factors like time (number of steps), space (e.g. the number of qubits used) and in particular the level of parallelism (number of logic gates performed simultaneously in the same computational step) must be considered as well. It is known that one-dimensional structures with nearest neighbor interactions can support QEC Ben-Or2 , but the issue of parallelism is crucial. Aharonov and Ben-Or Ben-Or  have employed an elegant analysis to prove that, in the presence of noise (error rate per quantum logic gate) QC requires a degree of parallelism which is better than logarithmic in device size. Their argument involved excluding classes of quantum system than can be simulated efficiently on a classical device, and which, therefore, are not interesting as quantum computers. So, it is a fundamental requirement that this level of parallelism should be exceeded in order to perform new quantum algorithms which are actually infeasible classically. Here we argue that, within certain reasonable assumptions, globally controlled architectures can implement error correction with a degree of parallelism that scales linearly with system size – thus exceeding their condition.

Our approach is suitable for all the schemes of Refs lloyd ; Controlunit ; SimonB ; SimonB.2 ; SimonB.2003 ; SimonPreP . When we wish explicitly to count the numbers of steps, etc, we will employ the scheme in Ref. SimonB  (depicted in Fig. 1(a)). All the schemes share a common tactic to localize quantum operations to one point (and hence one qubit) within the device despite the constraint that all control signals are sent indiscriminately to the entire structure. They employ a ‘control unit’ (CU) - not a physical device but rather a local pattern of states which (in the simplest schemes) occurs in only one place along the device. With an appropriate choice of representation for the qubits and for the CU, it is possible to find sequences of updates to perform a ‘toolbox’ of basic functions:

1. A sequence whose net effect is to move the CU with respect to the qubits, without disrupting those qubits. Then we can position our unique CU pattern anywhere within the set of qubits.
2. A sequence which has the net effect of transforming the qubit nearest to the CU, but no net effect on any other qubit. This allows single qubit gates to be implemented.
3. A third sequence, the least trivial to derive, which implements a gate operation as the CU moves back and forth between two qubits.

For initial state preparation and eventual readout, we may assume that the cell on one end of the device is independently controllable and readable (perhaps by being physically coupled to additional devices). Alternatively, we might perform readout by exploiting a dissipative decay, as mentioned later in connection with qubit erasure.

It is important to stress that the CU is a classical set of definite 0’s and 1’s (except when it is actively involved in performing a quantum gate, as described above). Therefore, one can employ a relatively crude form of error prevention for the CU - for example SimonB  we can cause the state of CU to collapse (effectively, to measure it) when we wish. This is important since an error in the CU pattern itself could be catastrophic to the scheme - much as a bit flip in program memory of a conventional computer could cause a crash. If a CU bit acquires a small element of superposition, due to a slightly imperfect EM pulse for example, a subsequent projection onto the 0/1 basis will recover the correct state with high probability. This can be thought of as a low level “Zeno” type of error correction zenoEffect . We can illustrate the idea with the following observation: in the scheme of Ref.SimonB , at times other than when a gate is actively being applied, it should never be the case that a ‘lone’ $`|1`$, i.e. a $`|1`$ with both neighbors as $`|0`$, exists anywhere on the device. Then we are free to frequently send pulses that have the effect, “If you are in state $`|1`$ and your neighbors are both $`|0`$, then dissipatively reset to $`|0`$”. Such measures can stabilize against bit-flips; since the CU is a classical state, it is an eigenstate of the Z operator and is thus already tolerant of phase-flips.

With this simple approach our device has become purely sequential, since updates have a net effect only at the location of the CU (Fig. 1(b)(i)). The obvious way to try and recover some degree of parallelism is to have numerous CU’s present at different locations. Since a parallel algorithm will involve varying distributions of simultaneous gates, we must somehow create/destroy CUs. Doing so directly by external intervention would require local control, so we must instead find a way to effectively disable a CU by processes internal to the device. Benjamin SimonB  proposed an elaborate scheme for doing so, which indeed recovers a high degree of parallelism: for a device containing $`N`$ basic qubits one introduces $`N`$ CUs, and $`N`$ uniquely labelled regions called ‘sub-computers’ to enable/disable those CUs (Fig. 1(b)(ii)). This interesting idea suffers from the high number of additional cells required. Each qubit would need $`\mathrm{log}_2(N)`$ label bits along with a number, $`R`$, of auxiliary bits. Taking account of the spacing, which doubles the number of cells needed, we have $`24(\mathrm{log}_2(N)+R)+10`$ cells needed for each subcomputer+CU+qubit. A device containing 80,000 cells, which in the simple architecture could support 10,000 qubits, can now support fewer than 900 qubits.

We propose a less costly process, related to this ‘sub-computer’ idea but optimized to produce a form of parallelism that is useful for QEC. We describe the process in detail for simple (non-concatenated) codes and then discuss an extension to fault tolerant scenarios. The basic concept is to exploit the fact that typical codes (such as the Steane \[\] code, or the Shor \[\] code) involve representing each “computational qubit” by encoding it into a block of $`L`$ adjacent basic qubits. Suppose that our device contains $`N`$ basic qubits (each possibly requiring several cells for its representation), and these basic qubits are used to represent a smaller number $`M`$ of encoded qubits. For simplicity of exposition, we assume that each encoded qubit corresponds to a distinct block, although this is not a requirement. During the error correction process, we will have $`M`$ CUs active in the entire device (Fig. 1(b)(iii)), one for each block simToLloyd . Note that the size of a block itself remains constant once the QEC code has been chosen, the number of adjacent qubits used to encode each computational qubit being the same for all of them. The number of computational qubits then scales linearly with the size of the array. More importantly, the number of pulses needed to perform any particular operation during the QEC process is independent of the actual array size, as the movement of the CU stays confined within each block of constant size (depicted in Fig. 3).

In this way, as we will discuss, we can correct all $`M`$ encoded qubits in constant time, independent of $`M`$. We then ‘switch off’ the majority of these CUs – in the simplest scheme, all but one. This reduced subset of CUs is used to perform step(s) of the actual quantum algorithm (a Shor factorization, say), before reactivating all $`M`$ CUs for another error correction cycle (Fig. 2(a)). The process of activating and deactivating the CUs takes place in regions which we will call ‘switching stations’ (SS) to differentiate from the more costly ‘sub-computers’ in Benjamin’s earlier proposal.

It may be helpful to note that during the periods when we are moving CUs around (eg the first three pulses in Fig. 2(b)), each pulse moves the CU though a distance of one unit - we are discretely ‘clocking’ the motion. (In fact, because Fig. 2 employs the particular scheme of RefSimonB , the qubits also necessarily move one unit in the opposite direction, so their separation is reduced by two units per pulse, but for clarity we simply speak of the CUs moving to their targets). The discrete, rather than ballistic, motion of these of these entities allows us to ‘choreograph’ the motion of complex processes, involving multiple qubits approaching multiple targets, without needing to be concerned about different entities meeting at slightly different times.

Consider first the simple case where we wish to switch between $`M`$ CUs in the device, and just one CU. This can be done with relatively little cost, either in time or cell count. Each SS occupies a small number of cells at the right side (say) of each $`L`$ qubit block, as shown in Fig. 2(a). All but one of the SS are identical: each contains a pattern of states that has the property that it will absorb, or deactivate, a CU when suitable global pulses are applied (Fig 2(b)). Relative to the CU, this pattern stays in the SS area and then can be viewed as static, like the qubits. The process must be reversible so that a CU is emitted, or reactivated, when the inverse sequence is applied. The remaining SS is exceptional: it does not act in this way and, in fact, it can simply be an empty region of the array. Thus when each of the $`M`$ CUs passes through the corresponding SS it will be deactivated - except for the CU passing though the ‘empty’ SS.

The details of exactly how the SS causes a deactivation of a CU will depend on the exact scheme. For completeness, we briefly describe some options relevant to the particular scheme of Ref. SimonB . The simple method mentioned above is to literally remove the CU from the device by using the ‘negating pattern’ shown in Fig. 2. Alternatively one could delay the CU, causing it to fail to ‘arrive’ at the target qubit SimonB . A third possibility, perhaps the most conceptually elegant, would exploit the fact that the scheme can easily implement gates with multiple control qubits (such as Control-Control-NOT for example). One would employ a single bit in the SS and use this bit as the control qubit in a conditional gate. Thus, an unconditional single qubit gate $`G`$ in the logical algorithm would become a Control-$`G`$ with the SS as the controlling bit, and similarly a Control-NOT would be implemented as a Control-Control-NOT, etc.

Having removed all but one of the CUs, we can now proceed to perform any manipulation we wish with the single remaining CU. In fact we will perform the next step of the overall quantum algorithm (a Shor factorization task, we have supposed). It will only be possible to perform a certain number of steps before it becomes necessary to apply another error correction cycle: then we simply apply the reverse of the deactivation process to recover all $`M`$ CUs. Ideally we would wish to have at least enough time between error correction cycles to perform an arbitrary two-qubit gate between remote qubits. Because we are assuming a 1D array with nearest neighbor interaction, the time required for this scales with $`N`$ \- thus for a very large device one might not be able to complete such a gate. In this case one could resort to performing a series of swaps, after successive EC cycles, to bring the qubits closer.

Within each error correction phase, the $`M`$ active CUs are each associated with one of the $`M`$ encoding blocks (Fig. 2(a) step 1). They simultaneously perform the same series of qubit operations within each block to implement the EC code (Fig. 3). Recalling that each block is also of constant size (for simple EC), and that $`M`$ is linearly proportional to the device size, we conclude that we need only apply a fixed number of pulses to accomplish the error correction over the entire device. That is, we achieve the ideal of linearly scaling parallelism which of course exceeds the condition on parallelism mentioned above.

Our global pulses necessarily cause exactly the same behavior within each block, whereas the errors (if any) that occur in each block will vary. However, this can be dealt with by internalizing the process of applying the ‘fix’ within the EC algorithm. Let us consider the quantum state $`|Q_P`$ of an encoded block, subject to decoherence from the environment. Such decoherence can always Nielsen  be characterized by the X (bit-flip) or Z (phase-flip) types of error, or a combination of the two (Y$``$ZX). In the following lines we neglect normalization for the sake of clarity. Note that a ‘collapse’ to a specific state of the environment can occur at any time without altering the result. The general process of interaction with the environment takes the initial state $`|Q_P|E_0`$ to

$$|Q_P|E_0+\delta _X|Q_X|E_1+\delta _Y|Q_Y|E_2+\delta _Z|Q_Z|E_3$$

At the beginning of the error correction process we introduce ancilla qubits, initially all in state $`|0`$, onto which the error syndrome is placed. This results in a particular auxiliary state for each of the different error types:

$`|Q_P|E_0|A_0+`$
$`\delta _X|Q_X|E_1|A_1+\delta _Y|Q_Y|E_2|A_2+\delta _Z|Q_Z|E_3|A_3`$
The circuits we are using here apply a specific correction conditional on the error syndrome given by the ancilla qubits. The original state is then recovered for each type of error syndrome:

$$|Q_P\left(|E_0|A_0+\delta _X|E_1|A_1+\delta _Y|E_2|A_2+\delta _Z|E_3|A_3\right)$$

Subsequently the ancilla qubits are erased back to $`|0`$, making them available for another syndrome extraction. There is thus no need for a syndrome ‘measurement’ in the commonly described sense Nielsen .

The behavior of the CU within a given block is shown explicitly in Figs. 4 and 5 for the Steane \[\] code and the Shor \[\]. These simple (non-fault tolerant) QECCs each correct a single error. The movement of the CU is indicated in order to show the importance of finding an efficient route. To formally minimize the path of the CU, one would need to specify the complexity of the various types of gate, which depends on the particular physical model lloyd ; Controlunit ; SimonB ; SimonB.2 ; SimonB.2003 .

Due to its movement through the block, the CU could be seen as potentially dangerous for the scheme if it carries any error, as this could be propagated to all the qubits. Here we should stress again the importance of the CU being a classical pattern of states, which makes it much more resilient to errors in that we can use dissipation to stabilize it. Thus we would aim to achieve a degree of stability in the CU more akin to that of conventional bits rather than qubits. Additionally, for the particular encoding scheme we have adopted here SimonB , there is a strong sense in which the CU moves transparently through the intervening qubits: this transparency is not ‘constructed’ by performing swap operations, for example, but occurs ‘naturally’ as the CU and qubit collide under the simple driving sequence (pulses $`A_0,B_0,A_0,B_0\mathrm{}`$). There is minimal interaction between the CU and any qubits passed, and consequently the risk of error propagation via the CU is also minimized.

In these simple circuits, and in more complex fault-tolerant procedures, it is crucially important to be able to reset (erase) qubits. Here we assume that this can be achieved by a mechanism analogous to the one proposed in Ref. SimonB  for efficient measurement. We envisage that at least one of the cell ‘types’ has an unstable third state $`|`$, which rapidly decays to the ground state. Then we can initiate an erasure via a special form of one-qubit gate operation (symbolized by an arrow in the circuits, Fig. 4 and 5) using:

$`𝐔=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ \\ 0& 1& 0\\ \\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ in the basis {$``$, $``$, $``$}.

The use of such auxiliary state(s) could potentially introduce problems of ‘leakage’ out of the computational subspace. In order to negate this risk, the third state must be chosen to be in a very distinct energy level, separated from the qubit states by an energy gap that prevents any spontaneous jump of the quantum states to this level. This state can then only be reached by a precise manipulation via the quantum logic gate U. As a physical example, one might consider the qubit states as the eigenstates of an electron spin in a quantum dot (or molecule) while the transient state is an optically excited state (e.g. an exciton) that can only be reached from one of the spin states due to Pauli blocking pazy . Such a state would decay extremely rapidly, and could not be “acidentally” excited by ambient thermal excitations, even at room temperature.

A physical process such as this will allow erasure of the ancilla qubits after the error syndrome has been successfully used to correct a bit/phase error (see for example rightmost of Fig. 5 (i)). Once reset to the ground state, they can be used again within a given EC process, thus reducing the total number of auxiliary qubits required per block. Figures 4 and 5 both include optimizations of this kind.

In Table 1 we make a comparison of the efficiency of the two codes illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5. However we should emphasize that the scheme we describe here is completely independent of the size of the chosen EC code, and then perfectly scalable to more complex or simpler ones. Indeed it would be highly desirable from an experimental perspective to start with a much simpler model of code (simply correcting bit-flip errors for example) to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the basic scheme. For the explicit pulse count, we assume the physical model in Ref. SimonB , since this is the ‘worst case’ in the number of cells per qubit. To get an idea of the time scale of a correcting process, the table gives a calculation of the number of pulses needed to perform all the quantum operations of each circuit, within one encoding block and with one CU. Erasure can be considered here as a particular one-qubit gate operation.

With the inclusion of the ancilla qubits, the Steane code is encoded on blocks of 10 qubits (requiring 80 cells), and the Shor code on blocks of 16 qubits (128 cells). A simple sketch of the global movement of the CU through the array is described in each circuit, designed to minimize its movements between the different gates. We must stress that the circuit design and the movement of the CU are not aggressively optimized for minimum pulse count - there are improvements that can ‘shave off’ a few pulses at the cost that the circuits become more cumbersome to illustrate. Therefore the figures in the Table should be regarded as characteristic rather than definitive. In Appendix II we make some remarks to illustrate the counting process that we employed. The Table shows a modest speedup of about 20 percent in favor of the Shor code, which is balanced by the fact this code needs more qubits per block to be implemented.

In the scheme described above, we switch between $`M`$ CUs for the error correcting phase, and just one CU for the algorithm phase (Fig. 2(a)). This allowed us to use trivially simple switching stations, that unconditionally deactivate, or reactivate, a CU (Figs. 1(b)(iii) & 2(b)). Consequently each SS can be a fixed small size, and they require a constant proportion of the entire device as it scales. In this respect the scheme is efficient: it does not require significant additional spatial resources versus the basic global control scheme. However, in another sense it is inefficient: during the algorithm phase we have only a single CU at our disposal, and therefore our potentially parallel device is acting as a purely serial computer. We can reach a better compromise between spatial and temporal efficiency by introducing a specialized form of the ‘labels’ concept mentioned in Ref. SimonB . Now each SS gains a binary label which we can exploit to differentiate it from neighboring stations (Fig. 1(c)). In the strong limit of using unique labels, this therefore requires Order($`M\mathrm{Log}_2(M)`$) additional cells in total (although shorter, repeating labels can be useful, as we demonstrate in Appendix I). The process of switching from the error correcting phase to the algorithmic phase is now less trivial, although the actual error correcting phase is not affected at all by the labelling. We apply a sequence of global pulses that causes each of the $`M`$ CUs to simultaneously move to a SS, and there to perform a small computation $`𝐂`$. The computation applied in each SS is of course identical, being driven by the same pulses, but the data on which the computation acts, i.e. the binary label, is unique. Therefore the outcome of the computation will vary from one SS to the next. This outcome is a binary variable represented by either altering, or not altering, the pattern of states responsible for (de)activating the CU. Then when the CU subsequently moves through this region (c.f. Fig 2(b)), it may or may not be deactivated, depending on $`𝐂`$ and the label of that SS. In this way we can switch from all $`M`$ CUs being active during the error correction phase, to some chosen subset of all $`M`$ CUs in the algorithmic phase. This is illustrated in Figure 6. Note that the time $`\tau `$ associated with the label computation must be less than O($`N`$) otherwise it would have been quicker to perform the parallel gates in series. One could not enable/disable a completely arbitrary sub-set of the $`M`$ CUs under this time constraint patExist , so our procedure does not efficiently implement a completely general arrangement of gates. However, there are a great many useful distributions of CUs which do correspond to fast $`\tau `$. Two examples are discussed in Appendix I.

We now discuss some of the issues involved in extending the above ideas to fully fault tolerant (FT) processing. The above arguments have demonstrated that a high degree of parallelism can be harnessed for EC; in fact this parallelism can also be optimally exploited for operating on concatenated codes. In Appendix I we give some explicit examples of how this can be achieved. We conclude, therefore, that 1D globally controlled structures can achieve adequate parallelism for FT processing. However a second issue is that of performing operations between encoded blocks in a robust way. Typically fault–tolerant implementation of such a gate involves performing a measurement over multiple qubits and applying an operation depending on the result Nielsen . To formally establish fault tolerance, it is necessary to show how to ‘internalise’ such operations with an algorithm, in much the same way as syndrome extraction and correction was performed with an algorithm. Fortunately Aharonov and Ben-Or have indeed shown (Theorem 4 of Ben-Or2 ) how to perform these gates for a subset of CSS codes. Importantly, they use only operations which are standard elements of computation, and require only the additional ability of adding and discarding qubits, which is equivalent to the qubit erasure process that we have described. As one might expect, operating without the measurement process increases the overhead in terms of the number of ancillas required and apparently results in a more severe error threshold (although it is emphasized that their result is not optimal). Hence, for a suitable choice of error correcting code, a globally controlled architecture not only has sufficient parallelism to allow fault tolerant quantum computation (which in turn allows a quantum algorithm to be run to arbitrary accuracy), but has known techniques that detail exactly how to perform such operations.

It is important to stress, however, that the CU must behave very reliably if is not to be an “Achilles’ heel” in an FT implementation. If a permanent error were to occur on a CU, then this could be catastrophic for the calculation since this would not only affect a single qubit in one level of concatenation, but would also affect every other level. However, as has already been noted, the CUs are classical states and can thus be stabilised against decoherence, e.g. by dissipation, more simply and effectively than quantum states can. We note that a temporary error in a CU would be less of a problem. In the worst case, a single encoded qubit at a given level of concatenation acquires an error. The QECC of the next level of concatenation can correct for this single error (once the error has been removed from the CU). Nevertheless, one must regard an error in the CU as being as potentially destructive as a bit error in the program of a conventional computer. Thus, in physical systems where the CU cannot be sufficiently stabilized (for example, any system in which flip errors are a dominant source of noise) the route to FT processing which we outline here would not be suitable. It is an interesting question whether some variant of the CU idea can be conceived, within which one could immediately detect and correct CU errors. This is perhaps a direction for future work.

The authors would like to thank Andrew Steane for useful conversations. This work was supported by the EPSRC and the DTI under the foresight LINK project. SCB acknowledges the support of the Royal Society.

Appendix I

Here we demonstrate the potential use of the ‘labelled switching station’ idea by describing two particularly interesting arrangements of control units, both of which are relevant to fault tolerant computation with so-called concatenated codes. In such codes the QECC is applied recursively to ‘encode the codes’, possibly through multiple levels. The first arrangement we discuss is the fundamental pattern for such processing, i.e. a pattern of one CU per block, where that block may now consist of a hierarchy of lesser blocks. The second pattern is a local group of CUs suitable for performing efficient ‘bit wise’ operations on encoded blocks, without decoding them.

For the basic, non-fault tolerant EC scenario described in the body of the paper, we were able to switch between a single CU and a CU for every block of qubits. Such a block consists of $`L`$ computational qubits (including the necessary ancillas, but not including the SS). Now however we wish to be able to choose whether we have a single CU or a CU every $`L^i`$ SSs, where $`i`$ denotes the level of concatenation of error correcting code ($`i0`$). This will be possible if we place a (non-unique) classical label in the region of each SS when initialising the quantum computer. Let us assume that we intend to use a total of $`p1`$ levels of concatenation of our QECCs. Then the number stored in the label of the $`i^{th}`$ SS is given by the prescription

$$SS_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p1}{}}R(i\text{ mod }L^j)$$

where the function $`R(x)`$ returns 1 if $`x=1`$ and 0 otherwise. The number $`p`$ is specially reserved to only be at a single location, which would otherwise have contained a $`p1`$ label – this will facilitate switching to a single CU when necessary. We emphasise that the above expression is not a calculation that is run on the quantum computer, it simply defines the label arrangement which is placed in regions of the computer during initialization. These states are then exploited during the subsequent computation.

Recalling that the algorithm is, at all times, ‘sent in’ by global pulses, at a given moment during error correction we will be operating at a certain level of the concatenation, say the $`b^{\mathrm{th}}`$ level, throughout the device. To switch on a CU every $`L^b`$ SSs ($`0bp1`$), we just run a program that returns 0 if the value of the label is less than $`b`$ and 1 otherwise. The result of this then determines whether or not to ‘deactivate’ a CU at that SS location. Earlier we discussed the various means by which a CU can be effectively deactivated. For the present discussion it is convenient to assume we are employing the third mechanism we outlined, namely making a single bit in the SS act as a control bit in subsequent qubit gates. We shall denote the number stored in the SS label by $`a`$, and the $`x^{th}`$ most significant bit of the number by $`a_x`$. Fig. 7 shows how to implement a suitable algorithm using ancillas, $`c`$ (which we regard as part of the label space). The binary label itself will be stored on $`\mathrm{log}_2(p)`$ bits and, given the qubit erasure process, $`U`$, then we only require 2 ancillas. We only require $`O(\mathrm{log}_2(p))`$ steps in the program to decide which CUs activate/deactivate (given that the program will run on every SS simultaneously). Recall that $`p`$ characterizes the total number of levels of encoding and therefore it must be a modest number in any plausible device – thus our running time of $`O(\mathrm{log}_2(p))`$ is very fast. The result of this algorithmic test of the label is the single classical ‘outcome’ bit in each SS, denoted by $`r`$ in Fig. 7. The algorithm shown in that figure is a general procedure that will work for any $`b`$. For specific $`b`$ it should be possible to customize the algorithm, making it yet more efficient.

The method presented here can be adapted to different patterns of CUs, by organising the numbers stored in the SSs differently. The only requirement is that there exists a hierarchy in the patterns of CUs such that, to switch between one pattern and another requires either the activation or deactivation of a subset of CUs, not both. We shall therefore use the same algorithm for the second desirable arrangement of control units, which we now discuss. Suppose we were able to activate and deactivate not just a single CU in a block, but some form of super-CU, a dense local patterning of control units capable of performing efficient bitwise operations on a single encoded qubit, and acting on all the constituent qubits simultaneously. For example, in the encoding shown in Fig. 5, this would mean leaving on 9 CUs, in the pattern of 3 on, 2 off, 3 on, 2 off, 3 on (nothing needs to be done to the ancillas). To generate this pattern at the level of individual qubits, we would need to provide a SS for every such qubit, so in fact it would be inefficient to implement this for a basic QECC. However, for concatenated codes, we can make use of the idea without additional resources.

We aim to create a single super-CU for each level of concatenation above the lowest. To do this, we set the labels on the switching stations equal to

$$SS_i=p\underset{j=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\delta (iL^j)\underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}R^{}(i\text{ mod }L^k,k)$$

where, in the case of the Shor code of figure 5, $`L=16`$ and $`R^{}(x,k)`$ returns $`1`$ for $`1+r\times L^{k1}x(r+3)\times L^{k1}`$, where $`r\{0,5,10\}`$. Note that since we have no super-CU at the lowest level of concatenation, each operation would need to be repeated 9 times, starting on the unencoded qubits $`1,2,3,6,7,8,11,12,13`$ each time. (This is however a small cost compared to the dramatic device size increase that would be required for a SS for each qubit.) The prescription for $`SS_i`$ is of the form $`pf(i)`$ because we now want to activate CUs as we go up the levels of concatenation, instead of deactivating them as we did in the previous example. Note that when we are computing on an encoded qubit, we also have to act on encoded ancillas (section 5.4 of Ben-Or2 ), so the 3-2-3-2-3 pattern of the Shor code needs to be carried over to all levels of concatenation.

We might also like to be able to manifest a repeating pattern of these super-CUs across the device, but such a pattern is not consistent with the requirements for the algorithm of Fig. 7. That is not to say that such an algorithm doesn’t exist. Any single pattern of CUs for concatenated codes can always be realised in a SS with $`p`$ qubits. The $`i^{th}`$ qubit simply indicates whether or not that particular SS should be switched on or off in the $`i^{th}`$ level of concatenation. This only takes up a constant proportion of the device size, and does not require a computation to be performed on the SS. Whether any encoding is possible should then be obvious from the ‘missing’ numbers. If all the numbers from 0 to $`2^p1`$ are present on different labels, then, obviously, no encoding of the labels will be able to store the required information more efficiently.

We cannot perform all operations in a bitwise fashion and so we also need to retain the ability to switch to the control of a single CU every $`L^i`$ SSs, and to having only a single CU. This is trivial to do, since all we need to do is have two labels (combining to form a single, larger label), using the two systems of label patterning already specified. Depending on what type of state we desire, we choose which half of the pattern to perform the algorithm on.

The discussion in this Appendix has simply highlighted two of the many possible uses of the labelled-SS concept. We hope that these examples suffice to show that the idea is a powerful one.

Appendix II

Here we make a few remarks to illustrate the counting method that we employed to obtain the pulse totals quoted in the Table. Recall that we are adopting the scheme of Ref. SimonB  since this is the ‘worst case’ in terms of size costs (a consequence of the extreme simplicity of the $`ABAB`$ model). We distinguish the “approach pulses”, which only move the CU from being adjacent to one qubit to being adjacent to another, from the “operation pulses” which modify the state of the qubit. For example, for a one-qubit logic gate, starting from the stage where a CU is next to the target qubit a total of 15 pulses are required: 8 pulses to perform the operation followed by the first 7 in reverse order to restore the CU pattern. In the case of a controlled operation between, say, the first (control) and the fourth (target) qubit, starting from a CU next to the control qubit, 5 pulses are needed for the CU to interact with the control. Several “approach pulses” (2\*4) follow to bring the CU next to the target. Then 9 pulses are needed to perform the operation, and we reapply the first 8 pulses in reverse order as before. We must then reapply the earlier pulses (approach+ encoding) in reverse to complete the process of restoring the CU to its original form. However, it is efficient to retain the altered form of the CU if several qubits are subject to the same control qubit: one can then move directly to those other targets. The circuits are designed to employ this optimization wherever possible.


text:
# A long, hard look at MCG–6-30-15 with XMM-Newton

## 1 Introduction

MCG–6-30-15 has received particular attention since ASCA observations revealed the presence of a broad, asymmetric emission feature between $`47\mathrm{keV}`$, identified with a highly broadened Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission line (). The line profile can be explained in terms of fluorescent emission from an accretion disc extending down to $`<6r_\mathrm{g}`$ about a black hole ($`r_\mathrm{g}GM/c^2`$). This is the relativistic ‘disc line’ model (). The broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ line therefore potentially offers a powerful diagnostic of the physical conditions in the immediate environment of the black hole (see  for a review).

However, modelling the spectrum poses considerable challenges. Along with many Seyfert galaxies, MCG–6-30-15 shows complex absorption in its X-ray spectrum. This complicates the process of identifying the correct underlying continuum and thereby measuring the superposed line emission. Indeed, the presence of relativistically broadened emission lines in the X-ray spectra of other Seyfert 1 galaxies has recently become something of a cause celebre (e.g. ).

The long ($`320\mathrm{ks}`$) XMM-Newton observation of MCG–6-30-15, taken in July–August 2001 simultaneously with BeppoSAX, is of great importance since MCG–6-30-15 offers the best established example of a relativistic line profile. The results have been discussed in a series of papers () and have been compared with the earlier XMM-Newton observation taken in 2000 ().

## 2 Results

The following are the primary observational results based on the XMM-Newton dataset.

$``$ The two XMM-Newton observations (taken in 2000 and 2001) sampled fairly typical ‘states’ of the source. The former observation sampled a period of lower flux than the latter. However, the long-term RXTE monitoring shows this can be attributed to short-term variability and does not imply a secular difference between the states of the source during the two observations ( and references therein).

$``$ The high energy spectrum obtained from BeppoSAX shows a strong Compton-reflection signature (), as did the earlier XMM-Newton/RXTE observation (). There was no evidence for a low energy cut-off or roll-over in the continuum out to $`100\mathrm{keV}`$.

$``$ The RGS spectrum shows complex absorption including O vii, O viii and Fe i and a range of other ions (; see Fig. 2). The opacity is concentrated mainly below $`2\mathrm{keV}`$ but still has an effect on the $`310\mathrm{keV}`$ spectrum (section 4.2 of ).

$``$ Even after accounting for absorption the fluorescent iron line is strong and broad (). The bulk of the line flux is resolved with EPIC. The emission peak concentrated around $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ is resolved with a width $`FWHM4.5\times 10^4`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, strongly indicating an origin within $`<100r_\mathrm{g}`$. There is also a significant, asymmetric extension to lower energies that indicates strong gravitational redshifts. In addition there is a weak, intrinsically narrow core to the line emission ().

$``$ The $`310\mathrm{keV}`$ EPIC spectrum was well fitted using a model comprising emission from the surface of a relativistic accretion disc. The strong reflection explains the strength of both the iron line and the Compton reflection continuum. The best fitting model includes emission down to $`1.8r_\mathrm{g}`$ ().

$``$ Previous observations with ASCA () and RXTE () showed the photon index of the $`210\mathrm{keV}`$ continuum to be correlated with its flux. The XMM-Newton observations confirm this and demonstrate the trend is reversed below $`1\mathrm{keV}`$, where the spectrum hardens with increasing flux (section 5 of ). The average variability amplitude is highest in the range $`12\mathrm{keV}`$, and is lowest at energies around the iron line.

$``$ The variable spectrum can be decomposed into two components, a variable Power-law component (PLC: Fig. 3, see ) and a relatively constant Reflection Dominated Component (RDC: Fig. 4, see ). The spectral variability (at least on timescales $`10\mathrm{ks}`$) can be explained almost entirely by variations in the relative strength of these two components, caused solely by changes in the normalisation of the PLC (). An analysis of the flux-flux plots () and the difference spectra () shows the slope of the PLC remains approximately constant with flux.

$``$ The EPIC spectrum indicates there is resonance absorption by ionised Fe at $`6.7\mathrm{keV}`$ (; Fig. 1). This was predicted based on the presence of soft X-ray warm absorption () and has been observed in at least one other high quality EPIC spectrum (NGC 3783; ). This resonance absorption appeared to vary between the two XMM-Newton observations (section 6 of ).

$``$ The variations in X-ray luminosity show many striking similarities with those seen in GBHCs such as Cygnus X-1 (; see Fig. 6). In particular, the Power Spectral Density (PSD) function is similar to that expected by simply re-scaling the high/soft state PSD of Cyg X-1. The continuum variations are energy dependent: the PSD is a function of energy and the hard variations are delayed with respect to the soft variations. Similar results have been found in other Seyfert 1s (e.g. McHardy’s article in these proceedings).

## 3 Conclusions

A long observation with XMM-Newton and BeppoSAX of MCG–6-30-15 in its typical state has again confirmed the presence of the broad, skewed iron line. The best-fitting model includes emission from within $`6r_\mathrm{g}`$, consistent with emission from a disk around a spinning black hole ().

The spectral variability can be explained in a phenomenological manner. The spectrum comprises the sum of two emission spectra modified by warm absorption (Fig. 5). The two emission spectra are a variable Power-Law Component (PLC) and a less variable Reflection Dominated Component (RDC). The relative constancy of the RDC causes variations above $`2\mathrm{keV}`$ (and particularly around the iron line) to be suppressed, and also variations below $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ are increasingly suppressed (). Such a two-component emission model therefore explains the well known correlation between $`210\mathrm{keV}`$ spectral slope and flux () and the relative lack of iron line variations (). However, the physics behind the reduced variability of the RDC is unclear. One intriguing possibility is that gravitational light bending, which may be strong if the disc extends to $`2r_\mathrm{g}`$, is (partially) responsible ().

Based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA).