text:
# Steady state velocity distributions of an oscillated granular gas

## I introduction

A dilute gas in thermal equilibrium is sufficiently characterized by the pressure and temperature and is described by a simple relation, the equation of state. However, when a gas is far from equilibrium, there is no general, finite set of variables specifying the state. The single particle distribution function $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ is often sufficient to characterize the statistical properties of a dilute nonequilibrium gas when correlations are negligible. Given this function, other quantities, such as moments of the distribution and transport coefficients, can be evaluated. Dilute granular materials subject to an external forcing exhibit gaseous behaviors that share many analogies with a molecular gas, and they are often called granular gases. Such a granular gas is always far from equilibrium due to the dissipative collisions, and the deviation of $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ from the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) distribution has been of great interest in recent years warr95 ; olafsen98 ; losert99 ; kudrolli00 ; rouyer00 .

The velocity distributions of a vibro-fluidized granular gas were first measured by Warr et al. warr95 ; they studied the distribution functions of grains confined between two transparent plates and concluded that the distribution was consistent with the MB distribution function. Recently, the same system has been studied by Rouyer et al. rouyer00 , who found a universal distribution function of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(B|𝐯|^{1.5})`$ for the entire range of velocities studied, where $`B`$ was a parameter. The authors reported that this functional form fit their measurements for a wide range of oscillation parameters for various materials; thus the granular temperature, the second moment of the distribution, was the only parameter of the distribution function.

There have been numerical studies of vibrated inelastic hard disks, subject to a saw-tooth type oscillation, in the presence of gravity brey03  and in the absence of gravity barrat02 . Such forcing is often used in theoretical studies as a simplification of the sinusoidal oscillation used in experiments, assuming that the asymptotic behavior of the hydrodynamic fields far from the plate is the same; however, it is not known a priori how far from the oscillating plate one must be in order for this assumption to be valid.

In this paper, we perform a simulation that is as close as possible to three-dimensional experiments on vertically oscillated granular gases. We use a previously validated molecular dynamics (MD) simulation bizon98 ; moon02a . The hydrodynamic fields are oscillatory near the plate, and their oscillatory behavior decays with height. Above some height, the fields are not correlated with the oscillation of the plate and are essentially time-invariant. We study the distribution functions in this nonequilibrium steady state region. To focus on the distributions due to the intrinsic dynamics of the granular gas, we do not impose sidewalls or include air. We also study how the distribution changes with the friction. In many theoretical or numerical studies of granular fluids, granular materials are modeled as frictionless inelastic hard disks or spheres; however, no granular materials are frictionless, in the same way that none of them are elastic. We check if the role of friction can be incorporated into the inelasticity by adjusting the value of the normal coefficient of restitution. In this paper we discuss the distributions only in the steady state region; those in the oscillatory region near the plate will be discussed in a separate paper moon03vdf2 .

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, the system under consideration, the data analysis method, and the collision model are described. Results are presented in Section III and discussed in Section IV.

## II method

### II.1 System and data analysis

We use both a frictional and frictionless, inelastic hard sphere MD simulation. We consider 133 328 monodisperse spheres of unit mass and of diameter $`\sigma =165\mu `$m in a container with square bottom of area 200$`\sigma \times 200\sigma `$ (the average depth of the layer at rest is approximately 3$`\sigma `$), where periodic boundary conditions are imposed in both horizontal directions. We choose the same particle size as in Ref. bizon98 , as the patterns were quantitatively reproduced for a wide range of oscillation parameters with this particle size; however, as long as the collision model is valid, all the length scales can be normalized by $`\sigma `$. We assume the bottom plate of the container is made of the same material as grains; we use the same material coefficients for the inelasticity and the friction as grains. The bottom plate is subject to a vertical sinusoidal oscillation with an amplitude $`A`$ and a frequency $`f`$. We vary the oscillation parameters in the range of $`3\sigma <A<10\sigma `$ and $`40\mathrm{Hz}<f<170\mathrm{Hz}`$, which approximately corresponds to $`0.35\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}<V_{max}(=2\pi fA)<0.75\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ and $`15g<a_{max}[=A(2\pi f)^2]<90g`$, where $`g`$ is the acceleration due to gravity. We check that with our parameters no mean flow develops and that grains rarely reach to the top, which is fixed at 300$`\sigma `$.

Hydrodynamic fields and the distribution functions are analyzed by binning the box into horizontal slabs of height $`\sigma `$, as the system is invariant under the translation in both horizontal directions, in the absence of any mean flow. We use the granular volume fraction $`\nu `$ for the density, which is the ratio of the volume occupied by grains to the volume of each horizontal slab. We consider the following three granular temperatures separately:

$`T_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(v_xv_x\right)^2+\left(v_yv_y\right)^2,`$ (1)
$`T_z`$ $`=`$ $`(v_zv_z)^2,`$ (2)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|𝐯𝐯|^2`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(2T_x+T_z\right),`$ (4)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are horizontal directions that are indistinguishable, $`z`$ is the vertical direction, v is a velocity vector for each grain, and the ensemble average $``$ is taken over the particles in the same bin at the same phase angle during 40 cycles, after initial transients have decayed. We define the scaled horizontal velocity to be

$$c_x=(v_xv_x)/\sqrt{2T_x}.$$
(5)
### II.2 collision model

We implement the collision model that was originally proposed by Maw et al. maw , simplified by Walton walton , and then experimentally tested by Foerster et al. foerster . This model updates the velocity after a collision according to the three parameters, the normal coefficient of restitution $`e`$ ($`[0,1]`$), the coefficient of friction $`\mu `$, which relates the tangential force to the normal force at collision using Coulomb’s law and then determines the tangential coefficient of restitution $`\beta `$ ($`[1,1]`$), and the maximum tangential coefficient of restitution $`\beta _0`$, which represents the tangential restitution of the surface velocity when the colliding particles slide discontinuously at the contact point.

At collision, it is convenient to decompose the relative colliding velocities into the components normal ($`𝐯_n`$) and tangential ($`𝐯_t`$) to the normalized relative displacement vector $`\widehat{𝐫}_{12}(𝐫_1𝐫_2)/|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$, where $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ are displacement vectors of grains 1 and 2, and the same notation is used for $`𝐯`$:

$`𝐯_n`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐯_{12}\widehat{𝐫}_{12})\widehat{𝐫}_{12}v_n\widehat{𝐫}_{12},`$ (6)
$`𝐯_t`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝐫}_{12}\times (𝐯_{12}\times \widehat{𝐫}_{12})=𝐯_{12}𝐯_n.`$ (7)
The relative surface velocity at collision, $`𝐯_s`$, for monodisperse spheres of diameter $`\sigma `$ is

$$𝐯_s=𝐯_t+\frac{\sigma }{2}\widehat{𝐫}_{12}\times (𝐰_1+𝐰_2)v_s\widehat{𝐯}_s,$$
(8)
where $`𝐰_1`$ and $`𝐰_2`$ are the angular velocities of grains 1 and 2, respectively.

For monodisperse spheres of diameter $`\sigma `$ and unit mass, the linear and angular momenta conservations and the definitions of the normal coefficient of restitution $`ev_n^{}/v_n`$ and the tangential coefficient of restitution $`\beta v_s^{}/v_s`$ (post-collisional velocities are indicated by superscript $``$, and pre-collisional values have no superscript) give the changes in the velocities at the collision:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐯_{1n}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐯_{2n}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+e\right)𝐯_n,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐯_{1t}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐯_{2t}={\displaystyle \frac{K\left(1+\beta \right)}{2\left(K+1\right)}}𝐯_s,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐰_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐰_2={\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\beta \right)}{\sigma \left(K+1\right)}}\widehat{𝐫}_{12}\times 𝐯_s,`$ (11)
where $`K=4I/\sigma ^2`$ is a geometrical factor relating the momentum transfer from the translational degrees of freedom to rotational degrees of freedom, and $`I`$ is the moment of inertia about the center of the grain. For a uniform density sphere, $`K`$ is $`2/5`$.

We use a velocity-dependent normal coefficient of restitution as in Ref. bizon98 , to account for the viscoelasticity of the real grains:

$$e=\mathrm{max}[e_0,1(1e_0)\left(\frac{v_n}{\sqrt{g\sigma }}\right)^{3/4}],$$
(12)
where $`e_0`$ is a positive constant less than unity. Since we impose high forcing ($`V_{max}>0.35`$ m/s while $`\sqrt{g\sigma }=0.04`$ m/s) the collision probability for relative colliding velocities $`v_n`$ less than $`\sqrt{g\sigma }`$ is small, and using a velocity-independent $`e`$ does not result in any noticeable difference, compared to using a velocity-independent one $`e=e_0`$; the same was true in Ref. bougie02 . We use the symbol $`e`$ for $`e_0`$ hereafter.

In collisions of real granular materials, not only is the relative surface velocity reduced, but also the stored tangential strain energy in the contact region can often reverse the direction of the relative surface velocity. To account for this effect, the tangential coefficient of restitution $`\beta `$ could be positive, leading to the range of $`\beta `$ as $`[1,1]`$. There are two kinds of frictional interaction at collisions, sliding and rolling friction, which are accounted for by the following formula for $`\beta `$:

$$\beta =\mathrm{min}[\beta _0,1+\mu \left(1+e\right)\left(1+\frac{1}{K}\right)\frac{v_n}{v_s}],$$
(13)
where $`\beta _0`$ is the maximum tangential coefficient of restitution. For sliding friction, the tangential impulse is assumed to be the normal impulse multiplied by $`\mu `$. When $`\beta `$ is identically negative unity (or simply $`\mu =0`$), this model reduces to the frictionless interaction. For the special case $`v_s=0`$, the collision is treated as frictionless. This friction model is still a simplification of the real frictional interaction; there is no clear-cut distinction between the two types of frictions for real grains, and even a transfer of energy from the rotational to translational degrees of freedom, which results in $`e`$ larger than unity, has been observed louge . However, this collision model is accurate enough to reproduce many phenomena, including standing wave pattern formation in vertically oscillated granular layers, when the parameters are properly chosen. In Refs. bizon98  and moon02a , $`e=0.7,\beta _0=0.35`$, and $`\mu =0.5`$ were used.

## III results

### III.1 Hydrodynamic fields and steady state

Due to the oscillatory boundary forcing, the hydrodynamic fields, the volume fraction $`\nu `$ and the granular temperatures ($`T,T_x`$, and $`T_z`$), depend on height $`z`$ and time $`t`$ (Fig. 1) near the oscillating plate; the temperatures exhibit stronger oscillatory behaviors than the density. Since the energy is injected mainly through the vertical velocities, the granular temperature is anisotropic, as illustrated in Fig. 1; $`T_z`$ is larger than its horizontal counterpart $`T_x`$, and the former is significantly larger near the bottom plate, where the hydrodynamic fields are oscillatory. The vertical temperature increases almost linearly with height for $`z/\sigma >35`$; however, the temperature $`T`$ increases slower than linearly, as the slope of $`T_x`$ decreases with height and $`T_x`$ levels off for $`z/\sigma >120`$ (Fig. 1). A similar increase of the temperature with height was observed in an open system of frictionless inelastic hard disks or spheres subject to a thermal bottom heating soto99  and a saw-tooth type vibration brey01 . We characterize the oscillation parameters only by $`V_{max}`$, as we observe for the parameters in our study that the hydrodynamic fields in the steady state are nearly the same for the same $`V_{max}`$, even for different combinations of $`a_{max}`$ and $`f`$; such scaling behavior was also observed in Ref. lee95 .

During each cycle, a normal shock forms at the impact from the bottom plate and propagates upward bougie02 . As the shock propagates, it decays and becomes undetectable above some height ($`z/\sigma 35`$), rather than propagating up through the entire granular media (which was the case in Ref. bougie02 ). Above this height, the hydrodynamic fields are invariant in time, and the granular gas forms a nonequilibrium steady state (Fig. 2), where about 20% of the grains are contained in this case; this fraction depends on the oscillation parameters.

With the parameters used in this paper the granular temperatures are nonzero throughout the cycle, as grains do not solidify after the shock passes through, in contrast to the case in Ref. bougie02 . As a result, when the bottom plate moves down, the granular gas expands, and an expansion wave propagates downward (see the temperature peaks near the plate for $`ft>0.4`$ in Fig. 1).

We count the number of grain-grain collisions per grain during a cycle ($`N_{coll}`$ in Fig. 3), and find that $`N_{coll}`$ is less than unity in the steady state region; the granular gas in the steady state is nearly collisionless. We estimate the mean free path using the formula for a gas of hard spheres $`\lambda (z)/\sigma =(2\sqrt{2\pi }n\sigma ^3)^1=\sqrt{\pi }/(12\sqrt{2}\nu )`$ (where $`n`$ is the number density) huang , which ranges between 5 and 280 for $`40<z/\sigma <100`$ (Fig. 4). When we estimate the mean free path using the measured collision frequency and the thermal speed, we get a similar result. We fit the density with piecewise exponential functions \[$`\mathrm{exp}((zz_0)/l_\nu )`$\] in the steady state region, and obtain a hydrodynamic length scale $`l_\nu /\sigma `$ between 12 and 15 for $`40<z/\sigma <100`$. We obtain a similar length scale from piecewise linear fitting of the temperature $`T`$ in the same region. We calculate the Knudsen number $`Kn`$, defined as the ratio of the mean free path to the length scale of the macroscopic gradients kogan69 , using $`\lambda (z)`$ and $`l_\nu `$; $`Kn`$ ranges from 0.5 to 20 in the region $`40<z/\sigma <100`$ (Fig. 4).

### III.2 Height-independence of the distribution

The distribution of scaled horizontal velocities should be symmetric as a consequence of the symmetry of the system. We calculate the skewness of the distribution, $`\gamma _3=_3/_2^{3/2}`$, where $`_n`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ moment of the distribution

$$_n=c_x^nf(c_x)𝑑c_x,$$
(14)
and check that $`|\gamma _3|`$ is less than 0.01 for all the distributions we study. The lowest order deviation from the MB distribution is characterized by the flatness of the distribution, which is called the fourth cumulant or the kurtosis. It was used to quantify the deviation from the MB distribution of the homogeneously cooling state vannoije98 ; brilliantov00 ; nie02 , the homogeneously heated state vannoije98 ; moon01 , and granular gases subject to a boundary forcing brey03 ; blair01 . The kurtosis $`\gamma _4`$ ($`_4/_2^23`$) is defined so that it vanishes for the MB distribution, and we find that it also does not change in time above some height (Fig. 5). Further, in the steady state region, $`\gamma _4`$ is nearly independent of the height, even though both the density and the temperature change; the distributions at different heights in the steady state region are hardly distinguishable (Fig. 6). Also, the kurtosis in the steady state region does not vary much for a wide range of the oscillation parameters: for $`0.35\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}<V_{max}<0.75\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ (and other parameters fixed), $`\gamma _4`$ changes less than 10%. A similar absence of height dependence of the velocity distribution function was found in a recent experiment on a vertically oscillated quasi-2d granular gas vanzon .

### III.3 Velocity distributions

We first examine the dependence of the distribution on $`e`$; we measure $`\gamma _4`$ for three different values of $`e`$, while $`\beta _0`$ and $`\mu `$ are kept at 0.35 and 0.5, respectively. We find that $`\gamma _4`$ significantly decreases with increasing $`e`$ in the oscillatory state, however, it decreases only slightly in the steady state region (Fig. 7).

Now we compare our results with the MB distribution of variance $`1/\sqrt{2}`$,

$$f_{MB}(c_x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(c_x^2).$$
(15)
The steady state distributions obtained for the parameters in Fig. 7 are overpopulated in the high energy tails and underpopulated at small velocities (Fig. 8), compared to $`f_{MB}`$. The differences of the distributions for various $`e`$’s are hardly noticeable both on linear and logarithmic scales (Fig. 8), but on a double logarithmic scale plot the tails of the distributions are described by different functions (Fig. 9). We investigate the functional form of the distributions by fitting them (after the normalization by the value at $`c_x=0`$) with a stretched exponential function $`\mathrm{exp}(c_x^\alpha )`$. We find that the exponent $`\alpha `$ changes from 1.9 (indicated by dashed lines) to some smaller value (solid lines), depending on $`e`$, as the velocity increases. We have not investigated lower values of $`e`$ to avoid issues such as cluster formation.

We now keep $`e`$ and $`\beta _0`$ at 0.9 and 0.35, respectively, and change the value of $`\mu `$. The profile of $`\gamma _4`$ in the oscillatory region changes significantly with $`\mu `$, however, it is nearly unchanged in the steady state region (Fig. 10). The velocity distributions in this region for three different values of $`\mu `$ in Fig. 10 are also hardly distinguishable. We observe that the distribution function depends also on the density, as in Refs. moon01 ; barrat02 ; brey03 ; however, we do not investigate this dependency systematically.

### III.4 Frictionless inelastic hard sphere model

In theoretical and numerical studies, granular materials are often modeled as smooth (frictionless) inelastic hard disks or spheres, assuming that the friction is a secondary effect that can be neglected or that both the inelasticity and the friction can be incorporated together into a so-called effective coefficient of restitution. In this Section, we discuss how the velocity distribution changes when the friction is not included, and we show that the frictionless model exhibits qualitative differences from the frictional model.

The rotational kinetic energy is two orders of magnitude smaller than its translational counterpart for the cases studied in this paper. However, the presence of the friction reduces the expansion of the granular gas significantly, because the friction reduces the mobility of the grains and increases the collision frequency moon03fric . The mean height of frictional inelastic hard spheres exhibits a different scaling behavior with the plate velocity from that of frictionless spheres. Only the frictional sphere model reproduces the experimental observations moon03fric ; luding95 .

The $`\gamma _4`$’s obtained from the simulations of frictionless particles for the same forcings as in Fig. 7 are illustrated in Fig. 11. In the absence of friction, the layer expands much more, and the steady state occurs at greater height, $`z/\sigma >100`$. In both the oscillatory and the steady state regions, values of $`\gamma _4`$ are smaller than those of frictional spheres (compare Fig. 11 with Figs. 7 and 10); the distribution deviates from $`f_{MB}`$ only slightly. The kurtosis decreases with increasing $`e`$, and the difference among the distributions for the three $`e`$’s are small. These distributions have four crossovers with $`f_{MB}`$; they are overpopulated both at very small and high velocities and are underpopulated in between, compared to $`f_{MB}`$. We fit them with a stretched exponential function, and find that $`\alpha `$ is 2.0 for small velocities, and that it depends on $`e`$ for the high energy tails (Fig. 12), as in frictional hard spheres.

Since the functional form of the distribution depends on $`e`$, we can get a similar distribution function for the steady state by adjusting $`e`$. For instance, for $`\mu =0`$, $`e=0.7`$, and $`V_{max}=0.55`$ m/s (the same forcing as in Fig. 7), we obtain $`\gamma _40.5`$ for the steady state region; the steady state distribution is similar to the one in Fig. 7 for $`e=0.9`$ and $`\mu =0.5`$. However, we find that no single value of $`e`$ mimics the hydrodynamic fields or the distribution function of frictional hard spheres, both in the oscillatory and steady state regions; the effect of friction cannot be taken over by an adjusted normal coefficient of restitution. The difference between the results of the two models is illustrated in Fig. 13, where velocities are not rescaled for better comparison. The outermost contour lines in both models become similar when $`e`$ in the frictionless model is adjusted as a free parameter \[compare Figs. 13(a) and (c), or (b) and (d)\]; however, the overall shape of the density contours cannot be matched by adjusting only $`e`$. Note that the density changes rapidly with height and $`\nu >1.5\times 10^3`$ at $`z/\sigma 10`$ near $`v_zv_x0`$ in the frictional model, whereas in the frictionless model, the particles spread more smoothly in height, and there is no region for $`\nu >1.2\times 10^3`$.

## IV conclusions

We have studied the horizontal velocity distribution function of vertically oscillated dilute granular gas, using a molecular dynamics simulation of frictional, inelastic hard spheres. The hydrodynamic fields are oscillatory in time near the oscillating bottom plate due to a shock wave and an expansion wave. However, the fields are nearly stationary above some height, thus constituting a granular gas in a nonequilibrium steady state. The steady state region forms a granular analog of a nearly collisionless Knudsen gas (Figs. 3 and 4). We find that the dependence of the distribution functions in this granular Knudsen gas regime on the forcing and material parameters is very weak, even though the distributions in the collisional bulk at lower heights depend strongly on the forcing and material parameters (Figs. 7 and 10). The behavior of an ordinary Knudsen gas is determined by boundary conditions kogan69 . Although we do not know whether boundary conditions or collisions are dominant in determining the behavior of our granular Knudsen gas, we note that this gas does not depend much on the properties of its only boundary, which is the oscillatory region close to the plate.

The functional form of the horizontal velocity distribution in the steady state region is nearly independent of height, when velocities are scaled by horizontal temperature (Fig. 6), even though the hydrodynamic fields continue to change. The distribution function is broader than the MB distribution, being underpopulated at small velocities and overpopulated in the high energy tails (Fig. 8). We do not observe a universal functional form for the distribution function (Fig. 9). The functional form of the high energy tail changes with the dissipation parameters ($`e`$ and $`\mu `$) and the oscillation parameter ($`V_{max}`$). The dependence on $`\mu `$ in the steady state region is very weak (Fig. 10).

Our conclusions regarding the absence of a universal distribution function differ from that of Ref. rouyer00 , because: (1) We studied the local distribution function, while in Ref. rouyer00  the authors obtained the distribution by averaging over space and time; they assumed that the spatial and temporal variation was negligible near the center of the oscillating box, based on their observation of a weak dependence of the density. We find that the time dependence of the density is weak, but that of the temperature is strong in the oscillatory state region (Figs. 1 and 2). Note that if a distribution is averaged over different temperatures, even the MB distribution function leads to a different resultant distribution function. (2) Our system is different from that in Ref. rouyer00 : we do not have either air or sidewalls, and our container is much taller, so that the bottom plate is the only energy source in our case. How air and sidewalls affect the dynamics of a granular gas is yet to be clarified.

We also studied the velocity distributions of frictionless inelastic hard spheres, and examined the possibility of including frictional effects using an effective normal coefficient of restitution. We found that no single effective restitution coefficient could describe the frictionless gas at different heights.

Velocities of a granular gas, even in the dilute limit, are strongly correlated, and the correlations depend on the density and the coefficient of restitution moon01 . The dependence of the distribution on the density implies that the single particle distribution of a dilute granular gas cannot play a role equivalent to that in a dilute ordinary gas; it is not sufficient to specify statistical properties of the gas. However, the knowledge of the single particle distribution of this complex nonequilibrium gas is still of great importance for the purpose of the first approximation.

The authors thank J. Bougie, D. I. Goldman, E. Rericha, and J. van Zon for helpful discussions. This work was supported by DOE Grant DE-FG-0393ER14312 and Texas Advanced Research Program Grant ARP-055-2001.


format: text

text:
# How significant are the known collision and element distinctness quantum algorithms?

## I Background

The quantum search algorithm gave a means of searching $`N`$items in only $`\sqrt{N}`$ steps grover96 . Unlike most computer science applications, this did not require the problem under consideration to have any structure that the algorithm could make use of.

It is easy to see that any classical algorithm, whether probabilistic or deterministic, would need $`O(N)`$ oracle queries for unstructured searching - it had generally been assumed that $`O(N)`$ steps would be required by any algorithm. However, quantum mechanical systems can be in multiple states simultaneously and there is no clearly defined bound on how rapidly they can search. It was proven through subtle properties of unitary transformations that any quantum computer would need at least $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ queries to search $`N`$ items bbbv . Subsequently it was shown that the number of queries required by the algorithm was optimal; it can not be improved even by one zalka .

The technique behind the algorithm is very general and through the amplitude amplification principle amp ; BBHT , the algorithm has been applied to a number of different *structured* problems, where it has yielded the best known algorithms. In many of these settings the algorithm requires additional hardware in the form of memory registers.

## II Parallelized Quantum Searching

If we have to search $`N`$ items for a target state, the quantum search algorithm takes $`O\left(\sqrt{N}\right)`$ operations. Alternatively, we could divide the $`N`$ items into $`P`$ groups of $`\frac{N}{P}`$ items each and hand each group to an independent quantum processor each of which runs an independent quantum search in $`O\left(\sqrt{\frac{N}{P}}\right)`$ steps. This division gives a speedup of $`\sqrt{P}`$ over the quantum search algorithm by using $`P`$ processors. Zalka proved that this was the best possible speedup for the quantum search algorithm using parallelization. His proof was for unstructured problems. It leaves open the possibility for better parallel speedups for structured problems. However, as we show in this critique, *many well known algorithms fail to meet this simple benchmark*, i.e. the speedup they get is $``$ $`\sqrt{P}.`$

## III Quantum Hardware: Processors & Memory

In traditional classical computing, there are considerable differences between the requirements that information processors and information storers (memory) necessarily satisfy. As such, the physical realizations of these components can be quite distinct - e.g. transistors make good processors, oriented magnetic domains make good memory. Memory is normally “cheaper”. Consequently, it is common to treat these components as completely different resources within classical computer science.

Within quantum computing, however, the distinction between the two types of component is much more blurred. A qubit register that must act as quantum memory (to hold the output of some computation say) is generally required to remain coherent with the other systems comprising the quantum computer. In fact, within the standard quantum computational model they must not merely remain coherent - they must be capable of dynamically coupling to other quantum systems within the computer via coherent unitary evolution. A distinction between “memory” and “computer” qubits could perhaps be artificially imposed by dictating that memory qubits can only undergo controlled-NOT or Toffoli gates - this does not, however, seem pragmatically justifiable. Most realizations of a quantum computer are more easily capable of single qubit unitary evolution than these two or three qubit gates, and thus such memory qubits could be trivially extended to processing qubits.

Thus it seems clear to us that analysis of the space/time complexity of quantum algorithms is best served by simply treating all required qubits as available for running any aspect of the algorithm under consideration.

## IV Element distinctness & Collision Problems

### IV.1 Problem description

Two problems that contain some structure, and that therefore could potentially be solved on a quantum computer better than by exhaustive searching, are the *collision* and *element distinctness* problems. We focus here on the simplest versions of these problems.

In the (two-to-one) collision problem, we are given a (black box) function $`F(x)`$ with a domain of (even) cardinality $`N,`$ and we are asked to determine whether $`F`$ is *one-to-one* or *two-to-one.* That is, we know that either every item in the domain maps onto a unique point or exactly one pair of items map onto every point in the range - we need to know which it is*.* This is an important problem - it is used quite widely in cryptography. Also a logarithmic time algorithm for this would solve the graph isomorphism problem.

The element distinctness problem is similar to the collision problem, except that now we have to determine whether there is *any* pair of inputs $`x,y`$ to the function, such that $`F(x)=F(y).`$

### IV.2 Algorithms & bounds in terms of query complexity

#### IV.2.1 Collision:

A well known classical algorithm (based on the birthday paradox) can find a collision in $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ steps, and in space $`O(\sqrt{N}).`$ This is because with a high probability there will be at least one collision if we examine $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ random items. Naive quantum searching requires the same amount of time, but can reduce the space complexity to a constant factor. To see this, note that we could search every pair of points in the domain for a possible collision, there are $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{2}^{}`$ items to be searched for $`N`$ target items where there could be a collision. Quantum searching would require $`O\left(\sqrt{\frac{{}_{}{}^{N}C_{2}^{}}{N}}\right)`$ which is $`O\left(\sqrt{N}\right)`$ steps. This is the same amount of time as it would take classically, but the space required has been reduced to a constant.

The first lower bound for the collision problem was obtained by Aaronson scott , refinements by Shih shih , Kutin kutin  and Ambainis ambainis  have shown that there is a $`\mathrm{\Omega }(N^{1/3})`$ lower bound on the number of queries (calls to $`F`$) for any quantum algorithm. This bound matches the algorithm of BHT , which is discussed in detail below.

#### IV.2.2 Element distinctness:

Classically, it is possible to check whether or not every item in the domain maps onto a unique item, by sorting the items according to their function values and then checking adjacent items. This sorting and checking would take $`O(N)`$ steps (up to logarithmic factors) and $`O(N)`$ memory. If we were to use the quantum search algorithm naively, we could search every pair of points in the domain to check whether or not the function assumed distinct values, there are $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{2}^{}`$ items to be searched for a single target item. Quantum searching would require $`O\left(\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{N}C_{2}^{}}\right)`$ which is $`O\left(N\right)`$ steps. This is the same amount of time as it would take classically, but the space required has been reduced to a constant. The algorithm of buhrman , discussed in detail below, achieves a complexity $`O(N^{3/4}),`$ while Ambainis has recently discovered an algorithm which needs $`O(N^{2/3})`$ steps. Quantum mechanically, the best known lower bound is $`\mathrm{\Omega }(N^{2/3})`$ on the number of queries any quantum algorithm must make; this is matched by Ambainis’ algorithm.

We see that for both problems the lower bounds on the number of queries required are matched by known algorithms - this may lead to the belief that both problems are effectively closed.

## V Three Algorithms

We now discuss three well known algorithms for the above problems. As we will show, these algorithms fail to achieve more than a square-root factor speedup over the number of available processing qubits. Thus they fail the simple criteria we propose for determining whether an algorithm makes meaningful use of problem structure.

### V.1 Collision algorithm

In 1997, in one of the first significant applications of the search algorithm, Brassard et al discovered an $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ step algorithm for the collision problem BHT . The algorithm selects $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ random items, evaluates $`F`$ and sorts the outputs in $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ memory. Then it randomly selects $`O\left(N^{2/3}\right)`$ items from the remainder. It may be shown that with a high probability these selected items will have at least one collision with the sorted items. If the quantum search algorithm is run on these $`O\left(N^{2/3}\right)`$ items, it will find the collision in $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ queries. Each query takes only a logarithmic number of time steps since the $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ items have been sorted. Thus the total number of time steps required by the algorithm is $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ steps to do the sorting plus $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ steps to do the searching which is $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ steps in all.

This algorithm achieves an $`O\left(\frac{N^{1/2}}{N^{1/3}}\right)=O\left(N^{1/6}\right)`$ speedup over what a simple quantum search would take, but at the cost of using $`O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ quantum hardware in the form of memory registers. This is exactly the same speedup that would be obtained by using parallel processors to run standard quantum searching.

### V.2 Element distinctness algorithms

#### V.2.1 Algorithm (i)

A quantum algorithm that took only $`O\left(N^{3/4}\right)`$ time steps is given in buhrman . This used a two level quantum search. At the top level, it divided the $`N`$ items into $`\sqrt{N}`$ groups of $`\sqrt{N}`$ items each and it ran a quantum search on the $`\sqrt{N}`$ groups which took $`O(N^{1/4})`$ queries. In each query, the algorithm sorts the $`\sqrt{N}`$ items in the group and then runs a quantum search on all $`N`$ items to check if any of the $`\sqrt{N}`$ items has the same function value as any of the $`N`$ items. Since the $`\sqrt{N}`$ items have been sorted, each check takes only a logarithmic number of steps. Therefore each top level query takes $`O\left(N^{1/2}\right)`$ steps to do the sorting plus $`O\left(N^{1/2}\right)`$ steps to do the searching which is $`O\left(N^{1/2}\right)`$ steps in all.

This algorithm achieves an $`O\left(\frac{N}{N^{3/4}}\right)=O\left(N^{1/4}\right)`$ speedup over what a simple quantum search would take, but at the cost of using $`O\left(N^{1/2}\right)`$ quantum hardware in the form of memory registers. This is the same speedup that would be obtained by using parallel processors to run standard quantum searching.

#### V.2.2 Algorithm (ii)

Recently Ambainis has discovered an algorithm for element distinctness which we believe takes $`O\left(N^{2/3}\right)`$ time steps and requires $`O\left(N^{2/3}\right)`$ memory registers vaz . We do not know the details of this, however based on these parameters this algorithm achieves an $`O\left(\frac{N}{N^{2/3}}\right)=O\left(N^{1/3}\right)`$ speedup over what a simple quantum search would take but at the cost of using $`O\left(N^{2/3}\right)`$ quantum hardware in the form of memory registers. Once again, this is exactly the same speedup that would be obtained by using parallel processors to run quantum searching as discussed above.

### V.3 Optimality of the algorithms?

How fast could these algorithms possibly run? As indicated previously, there are lower bounds known on how many time steps are required. These are derived by lower bounding the number of queries that an algorithm would need. This is because the number of queries is generally considered the most convenient parameter to use for analyzing the behavior of an algorithm. However, query complexity is simply one way of characterizing the algorithmic difficulty of a problem - the bottom line is the time it takes and the hardware it uses. The algorithms above saturate the known *query complexity* lower bounds for the particular problems. As we have seen, if we characterize these algorithm in terms of more general space/time tradeoffs, they demonstrate no advantage over parallel quantum searching.

## VI CONCLUSION

We have argued that three well known algorithms for the collision and element distinctness problems do not, in any meaningful way, make algorithmic use of the problem structure to go beyond the standard quantum searching paradigm. We therefore leave the reader with the following:

Challenge 1: *Find an algorithm for collision and/or element distinctness which gives a searching speedup greater than merely a square-root factor over the number of available processing qubits.*

Challenge 2: *Find ‘physically significant’ lower bounds for collision and/or element distinctness - i.e. lower bounds in terms of the total hardware/total time required as opposed to the less meaningful bounds in terms of number of queries.*

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was partly supported by NSA & ARO under contract no. DAAG55-98-C-0040.


text:
# Precise method for the determination of the neutron electric form factor based on a relativistic analysis of the process 𝑑(𝑒,𝑒'𝑛)𝑝

## Abstract

We generalize the recoil polarization method for the determination of the proton form factor to the case of the disintegration of vector polarized deuterons by longitudinally polarized electrons, $`\stackrel{}{d}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)p`$. We suggest to measure for this reaction, in the kinematics of quasi-elastic $`en`$-scattering, the ratio $`R_{xz}=A_x/A_z`$ of the asymmetries induced by the $`x`$\- and $`z`$-components of the deuteron vector polarization. In the framework of the relativistic impulse approximation the ratio $`R_{xz}`$ is sensitive to $`G_{En}`$ in a wide interval of momentum transfer squared, whereas it depends weakly on the details of the $`np`$-interaction and on the choice of the deuteron wave function. Moreover, in the range $`0.5Q^2`$1.5 GeV2, the ratio $`R_{xz}`$ shows a smooth dependence on $`Q^2`$, making the analysis simpler.

In the present work we are interested in the deuteron as a source of information on the neutron, in particular on its electromagnetic interaction, where the isotopic invariance is strongly violated. The most evident example is the neutron electric form factor, $`G_{En}`$, which shows a very different behavior when compared with $`G_{Ep}`$. Note in this respect the deviation of the last precise data on $`G_{Ep}`$ Jo99 ; Ga02  from the ’standard’ dipole dependence on the momentum transfer squared. For a better understanding of the physics of the nucleon electromagnetic structure, more precise data about $`G_{En}`$ are required in a wide region of momentum transfer squared. The non-triviality of the neutron electromagnetic structure appears also in the time-like region of momentum transfer Bi90 ; Ba94 ; An94 ; An98 , where an unusual behavior of the cross section of the $`e^+e^{}`$-annihilation processes has been observed:

$$\sigma (e^++e^{}\overline{n}+n)>\sigma (e^++e^{}\overline{p}+p)\text{ for }2E=1.88÷2.45\text{ GeV }.$$

This letter is devoted to the theoretical analysis of specific polarization phenomena in the deuteron electrodisintegration, $`e+de+n+p`$, which are sensitive to $`G_{En}`$ at relatively large momentum transfer. Two kinds of polarization experiments for $`e+de+n+p`$ are especially interesting for this aim: the scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons by a vector polarized deuteron target, $`\stackrel{}{d}(\stackrel{}{e},en)p`$, with detection of the scattered electron and neutron PAB ; ZAA , and the scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons by an unpolarized deuteron target, with measurement of the neutron polarization, $`d(\stackrel{}{e},e\stackrel{}{n})p`$ TE ; CH ; MO . These experiments have been performed or are planned at Mainz and JLab, at momentum transfer squared spanning from $`Q^2=0.5`$ to $`2`$ GeV2.

A correct and effective extraction of $`G_{En}`$ from such data needs an adequate theoretical interpretation of the reaction mechanism in $`e+de+n+p`$. First of all, the main symmetry properties of electromagnetic hadron interaction have to be taken into account, such as the conservation of the hadronic electromagnetic current (for the subprocess $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$, where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is a virtual photon), i.e. the gauge invariance of the electromagnetic interaction and the relativistic invariance. At these values of momentum transfer relativistic effects cannot be considered as corrections, as the three-momentum of the elastically scattered nucleon is comparable with its mass.

The description of the final state $`np`$-interaction (FSI) has also to be properly taken into account. In order to decrease the model dependence of FSI , one should avoid approaches based on the concept of non-relativistic NN-potentials. Instead of NN-potentials, a model independent description of FSI in $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ can be derived from the phases of NN-scattering, which are available from the phase-shift analysis of the huge amount of data about the NN-interaction.

The relativistically invariant impulse approximation (RIA) RGR89 , with subsequent unitarization of the corresponding multipole amplitudes U ; Re94 , seems the most appropriate model for the description of $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$.

But what about the relativistic description of the deuteron structure, which can be done in terms of wave functions? Note, in this respect, that only the kinematical region for $`e^{}+de^{}+n+p`$, which corresponds to quasi-elastic $`e^{}+n^{}e^{}+n`$ scattering ($`n^{}`$ is a virtual neutron), is especially sensitive to neutron form factors. This region corresponds to the emission of the neutron along the three-momentum of the virtual photon, when $`Q^2W^2M_d^2`$, where $`M_d`$ is the deuteron mass and $`W`$ is the effective mass of the produced $`np`$-system. In such conditions the virtuality of the neutron is small, therefore the argument ($`p`$) of the deuteron wave function (in impulse representation) is also small. In conditions of evidently nonrelativistic momentum $`p`$, the standard S- and D-components of the deuteron wave function (DWF), derived from the existing NN-potentials, can be safely used. Therefore, the possible four-components of the relativistic DWF can be related with good accuracy to the nonrelativistic S- and D-components BG .

Note that the considered kinematical regime in $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$, which is the most convenient for the determination of $`G_{En}`$, corresponds to nonperturbative QCD at any value of momentum transfer squared $`Q^2`$, so that all the prescriptions of QCD such as helicity conservation, quark counting rules, formalism of reduced deuteron form factors or reduced nuclear matrix elements cannot be applied here. Moreover, existing experimental data, including polarization effects, concerning different processes with deuteron target: $`e^{}+de^{}+d`$ Ab00 , $`\gamma +dd+\pi ^0`$ Sc01 , and $`\gamma +dn+p`$ Me99  do not confirm the pQCD predictions at JLab energies.

The main aim of this paper is to show that, in the reaction $`\stackrel{}{d}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)p`$ (with a vector polarized deuteron target and longitudinally polarized $`e^{}`$ beam), the information on $`G_{En}`$ can be obtained in a simple and precise way from the ratio $`A_x/A_z`$, where $`A_{x,z}`$ are the corresponding asymmetries for the $`x`$\- and $`z`$-components of the deuteron polarization (in the $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ reaction plane). A similar procedure, firstly suggested in Re68 , has been recently realized for the processes $`\stackrel{}{e}+pe+\stackrel{}{p}`$ Jo99 ; Ga02 , $`d(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n}p)`$ CH ; MO , where the ratio of the $`x`$\- and $`z`$-components of the nucleon polarization has been measured, and for the $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}He}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)pp`$-process as well (for the ratio of the $`x`$\- and $`z`$\- components of the $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$ polarization Me94 .

The above mentioned ratios (in impulse approximation) for $`d`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ targets, is essentially determined by the ratio of the electric and magnetic form factors $`G_{En}/G_{Mn}`$. From the experimental point of view its measurement is very convenient as many systematic errors essentially cancel and the analysis is simplified.

It is evident that in the case of polarized nuclear targets, such as $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ or $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}He}`$, the ratios of target asymmetries (or final neutron polarizations) contain various nuclear effects, as well as other corrections (FSI, etc).

In the present work we update and adapt the formalism developed in RGR89 . Such formalism takes rigorously into account important nuclear ingredients such as the Fermi motion of the nucleons in the target and the possible Wigner rotation of the vectors of the nucleon polarization. All numerical estimations are based on a relativistic treatment of the nucleon electromagnetic structure and of the FSI effects.

The main observable discussed here is the ratio of two $`T`$even asymmetries for $`\stackrel{}{d}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)p`$, $`A_x`$ and $`A_z`$, induced by the $`P_x`$ and $`P_z`$ components of the deuteron vector polarization (in the $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ reaction plane, with the $`z`$-axis along the direction of the $`\gamma ^{}`$ three-momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$). This ratio does not depend on the electron helicity. In conditions of quasi-elastic $`en`$-scattering, i.e. for $`Q^2=W^2M_d^2`$ and $`\vartheta ^{}180^{}`$ ($`\vartheta ^{}`$ is the angle of the emitted proton with respect to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the center of mass system of $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$), we show that the ratio $`R_{xz}=A_x/A_z`$ is sensitive to the ratio of the neutron form factors, $`G_{En}/G_{Mn}`$. This has been analytically proved for elastic $`ep`$-scattering Re68 . In the case of a deuteron target the situation is more complicated due, on one side, to the Fermi motion of bound nucleons, and from another side, to the Wigner rotation of the nucleonic spin. The final $`np`$interaction plays also a role. All these aspects of the deuteron physics should be carefully taken into account for the extraction of $`G_{En}`$ from polarization observables in $`e+de+n+p`$.

The asymmetries ratio can be written as follows RGR88 :

$$R_{xz}=\frac{A_x}{A_z}=\frac{\sqrt{1+ϵ}A_x^{(0)}+\sqrt{2ϵ}A_x^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\sqrt{1+ϵ}A_z^{(0)}+\sqrt{2ϵ}A_z^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}\varphi },$$
(1)
$$ϵ^1=1+\frac{2\stackrel{}{q}^2}{Q^2}\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{\theta _e}{2}\right),$$

where $`\theta _e`$ is the electron scattering angle in the laboratory (Lab) system, and $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the electron scattering plane and the reaction plane.

The specific dependence of $`R_{xz}`$ on $`ϵ`$ and $`\varphi `$ is a model independent result, which is based on the following properties of the hadron electromagnetic interaction:

* the validity of the one-photon-exchange mechanism for $`e+de+n+p`$;
* the conservation of the electromagnetic current for $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ (the gauge invariance);
* the P-invariance of hadron electrodynamics;
* the validity of QED for the description of the $`\gamma ee`$-vertex.

The quantities $`A_x^{(0,1)}`$ and $`A_z^{(0,1)}`$ (the structure functions ) are real functions of three independent kinematical variables, $`Q^2`$, $`W`$, and $`\vartheta ^{}`$. Their dependence on the nucleon electromagnetic form factors can be predicted in the framework of a definite model for the process $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$.

Note that $`A_x^{(0)}`$ and $`A_z^{(0)}`$ are determined by quadratic combinations of the transversal components of the electromagnetic current for $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$, whereas $`A_x^{(1)}`$ and $`A_z^{(1)}`$ are driven by the interference of the longitudinal and the transversal components of this current. Moreover, $`A_x^{(0)}`$ and $`A_z^{(1)}`$ vanish at $`\vartheta ^{}=0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$, due to the helicity conservation for collinear kinematics in $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$. These results are also model independent.

However, considering the one-nucleon contributions of the electromagnetic current for $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$, one can expect that its longitudinal component is determined by $`G_{En}`$ and the transversal one by $`G_{Mn}`$, at least in the Breit system. Therefore, the contributions $`A_{x,z}^{(1)}`$, in Eq. (1), should contain terms proportional to the product $`G_{En}G_{Mn}`$.

The presence of two contributions in both asymmetries, $`A_x`$ and $`A_z`$, results from the specific character of the deuteron dynamics for $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ and their relative role is determined by the corresponding model.

A realistic model has to be relativistic, due to the fast rising of the emitted nucleon momentum, $`p_N`$, with increasing $`Q^2`$, which can be written in the Lab system as:

$$\frac{p_N}{m}=2\sqrt{\tau (1+\tau )},\tau =\frac{Q^2}{4m^2},$$

in quasi-elastic kinematics (see Fig. 1), where $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. Therefore, the corresponding impulse approximation can be realized by means of the Feynman technique, in which all particles are treated relativistically, namely: the nucleons are described by the four-components Dirac spinors, and deuteron - by the polarization 4-vector $`U_\mu `$. The diagrams illustrated in Fig. 2 determine the amplitude in RIA. Comparing with a nonrelativistic approach, the diagrams (a) and (b) represent the relativized description of the one–nucleon–exchange mechanism (which are equally important in both models). The deuteron–exchange (c) as well as the contact diagram (d) insure the electromagnetic current conservation in $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$. The contact diagram can be related to the contribution of the meson–exchange currents. Of course, this diagram is not comprehensive of all variety of these currents, but for its structure and origin it falls into this class. The deuteron diagram can be also related to the $`np`$-interaction in definite states, with the quantum numbers of the deuteron.

The deuteron structure (which, in the nonrelativistic approach, corresponds to DWF) is described here by the relativistic form factors of the $`dnp`$ vertex with one virtual nucleon BG . In order to calculate the dependence of these form factors on the nucleon virtuality we use the relation between them and nonrelativistic DWF.

The RIA amplitude for $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ reaction can be unambiguously calculated for any values of the kinematic variables $`Q^2`$, $`W`$ and $`\vartheta ^{}`$.

In the case of the nonrelativistic description of the deuteron electrodisintegration the situation is somewhat different. The standard nuclear approach to the investigation of the electron scattering by deuterons and other nuclei requires the knowledge of the operator of the electron–nucleon interaction. This operator cannot contain the antinucleon contribution which is inevitably present in the covariant description of the $`eN`$\- scattering (with one virtual nucleon). The method based on the Foldy-Wouthoysen transformation is usually applied. It allows to obtain this operator in the form of the expansion over the powers of $`\sqrt{Q^2}/m`$. Naturally, this method is not valid at $`Q^2m^2`$, but such values of momentum transfer are currently accessible. Therefore, a relativistic description of the $`e^{}+de^{}+n+p`$ reaction is more appropriate. FSI have also to be taken properly into account. Instead of the nonrelativistic concept of $`NN`$-potential (in any form), which is typically assumed for nuclear processes, even at large $`Q^2`$, it is more straightforward to use the phases of $`NN`$-scattering, which are available now up to E=0.8 GeV for $`np`$-scattering. Generalizing the Fermi-Watson approach, we will use the following unitarization procedure:

$$f_{[A]}^{(0)}(Q^2,W)f_{[A]}^{(0)}(Q^2,W)exp(i\delta _{[A]}(W)),$$
(2)
where $`f_{[A]}^{(0)}(Q^2,W)`$ is an RIA multipole amplitude for the process $`\gamma ^{}+dn+p`$ leading to the production of the $`np`$ system in a state with quantum numbers $`[A]=J`$ (total angular momentum), $`L`$ (orbital angular momentum), $`S`$ (total spin), and $`I`$ (total isotopic spin), while $`\delta _{[A]}(W)`$ is the NN phase shift in the state with quantum numbers $`[A].`$ This expression is strictly valid in the energy range $`2mW(2m+m_\pi )`$ at any value of $`Q^2`$ in the region of space-like momentum transfers.

The substitution given by Eq. (2) is performed only for those multipole amplitudes that describe the production of the $`np`$ system with nonzero phase shift $`\delta _{[A]}(W)`$. This means that, at each energy $`W`$, there exist the maximum angular–momentum value $`J=J_m(W)`$ (more precisely, maximum value of $`L`$ for the $`np`$ system) that limits the number of those multipole amplitudes that are modified by the unitarization. A similar ”cut” on $`L`$ is imposed by a finite (and small) range of $`NN`$ interaction. Even despite this constrain, it is necessary to consider and modify a rather large number of multipole amplitudes. At $`J=0(J=1)`$, there are 3 (14) independent transitions, so that it is necessary to modify $`18(J1)+14+3=18J1`$ independent multipole amplitudes. For $`J_m6`$ their number exceeds one hundred. The unitarization procedure is carried out in a relativistic approach, without any restrictions on $`Q^2`$.

The nucleon electromagnetic current is described in terms of the Dirac ($`F_1`$) and Pauli ($`F_2`$) form factors. For the $`np`$ phase shifts, we took the results from Bys , where the phases have been found up to $`W`$ 2.24 GeV.

We calculated the ratio $`R_{xz}`$ for the electron kinematics reported in Table I, which correspond (at $`Q^2`$=0.5 and 1 GeV2 to the kinematical conditions of the experiment E93-026 recently performed at JLab Day . Note that $`ϵ1`$ for the quasi-elastic regime.

We consider the $`\vartheta ^{}`$-dependence of $`R_{xz}`$ in the interval $`\vartheta ^{}=180\pm 20^0`$, and use the relation $`W^2=Q^2+M_d^2`$ to determine the variable $`W`$ in the quasi-elastic $`en`$-region. The nucleon electromagnetic form factors are taken as follows:

$$G_{Ep}(Q^2)=G_{Mp}(Q^2)/\mu _p=G_{Mn}(Q^2)/\mu _n=G_D=(1+Q^2/0.71\text{ GeV}^2)^2,$$

$$G_{En}=G^G=\tau \mu _nG_D/(1+5.6\tau ),$$

where $`\mu _p(\mu _n)`$ is the magnetic moment of the proton (neutron).

In Fig. 3 the results for $`R_{xz}`$ are shown at $`Q^2`$ =0.5, 1, and 1.5 GeV2. The calculation corresponding to the Paris DWF La80  and to the Galster parametrization for $`G_{En}`$ Ga71  is shown as solid line. The calculations corresponding to $`G_{En}=0.5G^G`$ (dashed line) and $`G_{En}=1.5G^G`$ (dotted line) are also reported, in order to show the large sensitivity of the ratio $`R_{xz}`$ to $`G_{En}`$, in the considered $`Q^2`$ and $`\vartheta ^{}`$ range. Only at $`Q^2=0.5`$ GeV2 a small effect of FSI and DWF appears at $`\vartheta ^{}160^{}`$, where the cross section is smaller than in the quasi-elastic region. At larger $`Q^2`$, the effects of FSI and DWF are negligible, making simpler the extraction of $`G_{En}`$ from experimental data on $`R_{xz}`$ .

The relative role of the two possible contributions to $`A_x`$ and $`A_z`$ (see Eq. (1)) is shown in Fig. 4. For $`\vartheta ^{}180^{}`$ these contributions are comparable for $`A_x`$, being negative for $`\vartheta ^{}<180^{}`$. For $`A_z`$, the transversal contribution $`A_z^{(0)}`$ , related to $`G_{Mn}^2`$, is essentially larger in comparison to $`A_z^{(1)}`$.

In conclusion, the suggested method for the determination of $`G_{En}`$, at relatively large $`Q^2`$, from the ratio $`R_{xz}=A_x/A_z`$ of the T-even asymmetries in $`\stackrel{}{d}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)p`$, measured in the kinematical conditions of quasi-elastic $`en`$\- scattering, seems promising and may be comparable in accuracy with the measurements of $`G_{Ep}`$ through the recoil polarization method. The nuclear effects, such as the Fermi motion and the Wigner rotation of the nucleon polarization, can be taken rigorously into account through a formalism based on RIA. The final $`np`$–interaction and the choice of the deuteron wave function do not influence the suggested procedure.

This method would be especially useful when the direction of the target polarization can be done rapidly, allowing a simultaneous measurement of the two asymmetries. It is the case of internal gas targets Bates .

For external targets, the procedure of rotating the target polarization may involve complicated manipulations of the magnets and the experimental supplies, making the measurements with the two polarization states of the target sequential in time. Although, in this case some parameters may change, the ratio of the asymmetries seems more reliable for the extraction of $`G_{En}`$, as it is less sensitive to the models than the individual asymmetries.

Three of us, (G.I.G., A.P.R., and M.P.R.) acknowledge the kind hospitality of Saclay, where this work was done. Thanks are due to D. Day for useful discussions and remarks.