text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quasi-phase-matched interactions of light waves as well as phase-matched interactions provide the realization of an effective energy exchange between interacting waves (see, for example, the reviews ) and the possibility to obtain nonclassical light . Quasi-phase-matched interactions are implemented in crystals with the periodic modulation of nonlinear susceptibility. These are crystals with the regular domain structure or periodically-poled nonlinear crystals (PPNC). In such crystals, the mismatch of wave vectors $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ of interacting waves is compensated by an inverse-lattice vector $`\kappa `$ of nonlinear susceptibility’s modulation

$$\kappa =2\pi m/\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the modulation period and $`m`$ is the quasi-phase-matching order.

The conventional approach for implementing parametric interactions in PPNC consists in a choice of the domain-structure period $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in view of the expression

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\pi /|\mathrm{\Delta }k|,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ is the phase mismatch between interacting waves. The period $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is usually determined from the analysis of the second-harmonic generation . At the coherence length $`l_c=\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$, the second-harmonic intensity reaches the maximum value and the phase (related to the phase mismatch and equal to $`\pi `$) compensates the change of the nonlinearity sign in the neighboring layer (domain) due to the optical-axis inversion.

While nonlinear optical interactions are calculated analytically, PPNC is replaced by a homogeneous crystal with an effective nonlinear coefficient $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ distinguished from a value $`\beta `$ for the homogeneous crystal by the factor $`2/\pi m`$, so that

$$\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{2}{\pi m}\beta .$$

However, such approach to the optical-parametric-amplification process is not always valued. As it is known, in a parametric process the transition to a steady state of the optimum phase relation essentially depends on the pumping intensity . Recently, the spatial dynamics of intensity and phase of the parametrically amplified wave in PPNC was investigated in detail . In particular, it was shown that at the transition from layer to layer the sign of derivative in the phase relation is changed. The change of the signal wave intensity in PPNC also differs from the homogeneous crystal case. In the present paper, the simple “step-by-step” approach to the analysis of quasi-phase-matched optical parametric amplification is presented. The knowledge of transmission factors of the layers is the basis of this approach. For the definition of transmission factors, the matrix approach elaborated in  is used. For an arbitrary number of layers with thickness equal to the coherence length, expressions for the signal intensity and variance of quadrature components for an initial random signal phase are derived.

The paper is organized as follows.

In Sec. 2 the equations for degenerate optical parametric amplification in PPNC are presented in generic form using undepleted pump approximation. Section 3 contains the solution of differential equation for the optical parametric amplification in PPNC in matrix form. In Sec. 4 the solution obtained is analyzed for the case satisfying the condition of quasi-phase-matched interactions. In Sec. 5 the possibility to generate the quadrature-squeezed light is considered when classical fluctuations are suppressed. The results obtained are summarized in Sec. 6.

## 2 Basic Equations

The optical parametric amplification process in PPNC of a wave with frequency $`\omega `$ in the pumping-wave field with frequency $`2\omega `$ is determined by the following equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{dA}{dz}=i\beta g(z)A_pA^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }kz),\hfill \\ \frac{dA_p}{dz}=i\beta g(z)A^2\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }kz),\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`A`$ and $`A_p`$ are the complex amplitudes of the signal and pumping waves, respectively, $`\beta `$ is the modulus of nonlinear wave coupling coefficient, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=k2k_p`$ is the phase mismatch, and $`g(z)`$ is the periodic function equal either to $`+1`$ or to $`1`$ at the thickness of a separate layer, being dependent on the nonlinear-coefficient sign. In the general case, it is impossible to solve the set of equations (1) analytically.

Within the framework of undepleted pump approximation, the process under consideration is described by the equation

$$\frac{dA}{dz}=i\beta g(z)A_pA^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }kz),$$
(2)
where $`A_p`$ is the constant value. Equation (2) makes it possible to get an analytical solution on each layer for given $`g(z)`$. However, the solution for arbitrary number of layers, cannot be cast into a suitable for the application form. In this connection, to solve Eq. (2), we use the matrix method, which allows one to obtain the solution in a convenient form. Firstly we rewrite Eq. (2) introducing a reduced length $`\zeta =z/L_{\mathrm{nl}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dA}{d\zeta }=ig(\zeta )A^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\delta \zeta ),\hfill \\ A(\zeta =0)=A_0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`L_{\mathrm{nl}}=1/\beta |A_p|`$ is the so-called nonlinear length, $`\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }kL_{\mathrm{nl}}`$ is the normalized phase mismatch, and $`A_0`$ is the signal amplitude at the PPNC input.

## 3 Matrix Differential Equation and Its Discrete Solution

Equations (3) by means of the substitution

$$A=B\mathrm{exp}(i\delta \zeta /2)$$
(4)
are reduced to the following system of equations:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dB}{d\zeta }=\frac{i\delta B}{2}ig(\zeta )B^{},\hfill \\ \frac{dB^{}}{d\zeta }=\frac{i\delta B^{}}{2}+ig(\zeta )B,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
which can be presented in matrix form

$$\frac{dC}{d\zeta }=DC,$$
(6)
with the initial values $`C=C_0`$. In Eq. (6) $`C_0`$ is the value of the matrix $`C`$ at $`\zeta =0`$

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{c}B\\ B^{}\end{array}\right),C_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}B_0\\ B_0^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
and $`D`$ is the matrix determined by the expression

$$D(\zeta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\delta /2& ig(\zeta )\\ ig(\zeta )& i\delta /2\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The function $`g(\zeta )`$ takes the value either $`+1`$ or $`1`$. One introduces matrices $`D_\pm `$ associated with these values

$$D_\pm =\frac{i}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta & 2\\ \pm 2& \delta \end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Let PPNC have layers with the length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/2`$. It is just the case used for repolarization of a nonlinear crystal. Let $`g(\zeta )=1`$ in the first layer. Then the solution of Eq. (6) reads

$$C(\zeta )=\mathrm{exp}(D_+\zeta )C_0,$$
(10)
where the exponential function of matrix $`D_+\zeta `$ is nothing else as the transmission factor for the layer and it is introduced as follows:

$$\mathrm{exp}(D_+\zeta )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(D_+\zeta )^k}{k!}.$$
(11)
In accordance with (10), at the output of the first layer, we have

$$C(\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)=\mathrm{exp}(D_+\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)C_0.$$
(12)
In order to obtain the signal at the output of the second layer, we need to suppose $`D=D_{}`$ and take into account the fact that the output of the first layer is simultaneously the input of the second layer. As a result, the signal at the output of the second layer is determined by the expression

$$C(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{exp}(D_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)C(\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)=\mathrm{exp}(D_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)\mathrm{exp}(D_+\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)C_0.$$
(13)
For $`N`$ layer pairs, Eq. (13) reads as follows:

$$C(N\mathrm{\Lambda })=\left[\mathrm{exp}(D_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)\mathrm{exp}(D_+\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)\right]^NC_0=Q^NC_0,$$
(14)
where the matrix $`Q`$ is

$$Q=\mathrm{exp}(D_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }/2)\mathrm{exp}(D_+\mathrm{\Lambda }/2).$$

Thus, the matrix $`Q^N`$ defines the signal transformation from the PPNC input to its output. The solution constructed by such a way is based on the assumption that PPNC has a discrete structure. Due to this, we call such approach the step-by-step approach.

## 4 Quasi-Phase-Matched Interaction

Now we calculate the matrix $`Q`$ in the case where the quasi-phase-matching condition is realized and the modulation period $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2l_c`$. The exponential matrix can be presented in a compact form

$$\mathrm{exp}(D_\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }/2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c+i\delta s& 2is\\ \pm 2is& ci\delta s\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
where functions $`c(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ read

$$c(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{cos}(\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }/4),s(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mu ^1\mathrm{sin}(\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }/4),$$
(16)
with

$$\mu =\sqrt{\delta ^24}=2\sqrt{I_{\mathrm{cr}}/I_p1}.$$

In these relations, $`I_p=|A_p|^2`$ is the pumping intensity, $`I_{\mathrm{cr}}=(\mathrm{\Delta }k/2\beta )^2`$ is the so-called critical intensity of the pumping wave or the parametric-trapping intensity. To use PPNC for the optical parametric amplification makes sense at $`I_p<I_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. In this case, the signal wave inside a separate layer oscillates. By multiplying the exponential matrices $`D_\pm `$, the matrix $`Q`$ can obtained in the form

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4s^2+(c+is\delta )^2& 4s^2\delta \\ 4s^2\delta & 4s^2+(cis\delta )^2\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2l_c=2\pi /|\delta |`$, the functions (16) are

$$c(l_c)=\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mu }{\delta }\right),s(l_c)=\mu ^1\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mu }{\delta }\right).$$
(18)
At $`|\delta |2`$ ($`I_{\mathrm{cr}}I_p`$), $`\mu /|\delta |1`$, therefore, we arrive at

$$Q\frac{1}{\mu ^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}4\delta ^2& 4|\delta |\\ 4|\delta |& 4\delta ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
Raising the matrix (19) to $`N`$th power, we obtain

$$Q^N=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^N+\alpha ^N& \alpha ^N\alpha ^N\\ \alpha ^N\alpha ^N& \alpha ^N+\alpha ^N\end{array}\right),\alpha =\left(\frac{|\delta |+2}{|\delta |2}\right).$$
(20)
Taking into account expressions (7) and (14), we arrive at the following result for $`B`$:

$$B=\frac{1}{2}\left[(\alpha ^N+\alpha ^N)B_0+(\alpha ^N\alpha ^N)B_0^{}\right].$$
(21)
Now in view of the relations

$$A_0=a_0e^{i\phi _0}\text{ and}I_0=|A_0|^2,$$

we obtain the following expression for the signal wave intensity $`I_N=|B|^2=|A|^2`$ at the PPNC output:

$$I_N=\left[\alpha ^{2N}\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _0+\alpha ^{2N}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi _0\right]I_0.$$
(22)
One can see that it is just the well-known property of phase sensitivity of degenerate parametric amplification. From Eq. (22) follows that the largest amplification takes place at the signal phase $`\phi _0=\pm (\pi /2)`$. The largest signal suppression is achieved at the signal phase $`\phi _0=\pm \pi `$. For number of layer pairs $`N1`$, at $`|\delta |2`$ expression (22) can be transformed into the following one:

$$I_{hc}=\left[\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)\mathrm{cos}(2\phi _0)\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }L)\right]I_0,$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(4/\pi )\beta |A_p|`$ is the parametric amplification increment and $`L=2Nl_c`$ is the total length of PPNC. It is worthy to compare expression (23) with the analogous one for the case of a homogeneous crystal under the phase-matching condition. In the latter case, the parametric amplification increment is equal to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2\beta _0|A_p|`$ (see, for example, ), where $`\beta _0`$ is the nonlinear wave coupling coefficient for the homogeneous crystal. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(2/\pi )\beta /\beta _0`$ shows the difference between the optical parametric amplification in PPNC and in the homogeneous crystal. In the case $`\beta =\beta _0`$, we obtain the well-known result $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2/\pi `$.

Thus, at the quasi-phase-matched-wave interaction, the intensity of parametrically amplified signal wave under the conditions mentioned above varies in the same way as in the homogeneous crystal with the effective nonlinear coefficient $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=(2/\pi )\beta `$. It should be noted that the same value $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for PPNC can be obtained, if truncated equation (2) is averaged over the modulation period of nonlinear-wave-coupling coefficient. However, in the latter case the conditions of applicability of the equations obtained are not evident.

Using formula (22) we have calculated curves presented in Figs. 1 and 2 for $`\phi _0=\pi /2`$. Figure 1 shows the dependence of the signal intensity on the interaction length at the quasi-phase-matched parametric amplification in PPNC. Figure 2 demonstrates the dependence of the parametric amplification increment on the interaction length at different relations between the pumping intensity and its critical value. From these figures, one can see that, at the same pumping intensity and given interaction length, the signal wave intensity increases when the pumping intensity approaches its critical value. Therefore, the replacement of PPNC by the homogeneous crystal with the effective nonlinear coefficient provides less value for the signal intensity. This difference grows up when the pumping intensity $`I_p`$ approaches to $`I_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Comparison of the conversion efficiency for the parametric amplification in PPNC and in the homogeneous crystal with nonlinear coefficient $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is done in Fig. 3. Note that at $`I_pI_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ we have used general formula (17).

## 5 Quadrature Components

We turn now to the analysis of quadrature components $`X`$, $`Y`$ of the signal wave in PPNC:

$$X(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left[A(z)+A^{}(z)\right],Y(z)=\frac{1}{2i}\left[A(z)A^{}(z)\right].$$
(24)
According to Eq. (21), one has for $`X`$-quadrature

$$X(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left[(\alpha ^N+\alpha ^N)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{}+(\alpha ^N\alpha ^N)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _+\right],$$
(25)
where the phase $`\varphi _\pm =\phi _0\pm \delta \zeta /2`$.

To obtain a signal with suppressed fluctuations of one of the quadrature components, the random signal with a uniform distribution function for the initial phase $`\phi _0`$ is worthy to consider

$$w(\phi _0)=\frac{1}{2\pi },\pi \phi _0\pi .$$
(26)
Then the mean value $`X(z)=0`$ and the variance of quadrature component $`X^2(z)=\overline{X^2(z)}(\overline{X}(z))^2`$ is given by the expression

$$X^2(z)=\frac{1}{2}a_0^2\left[\alpha ^{2N}+(\alpha ^{2N}e^{2N})\mathrm{cos}^2(\delta \zeta /2)\right].$$
(27)
At $`\delta \zeta =\mathrm{\Delta }kL=2\pi n`$ ($`n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$), $`X`$-quadrature fluctuations are reduced, namely,

$$X^2(z)_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}a_0^2\alpha ^{2N}.$$
(28)
In the case $`\delta \zeta =\pi (1+2n)`$, the variance reaches the maximum value:

$$X^2(z)_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{1}{2}a_0^2\alpha ^{2N},$$
(29)
i.e., fluctuations of quadrature components are amplified.

Thus, in PPNC the spatial changing of the variance of signal’s quadrature components is determined by the power functions as well as the signal intensity. However, if number of layer pairs $`N1`$, expressions (27)–(29) can be transformed into the forms similar to the ones for the homogeneous crystal:

$$X^2(z)_{\mathrm{min}/\mathrm{max}}=X^2(0)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }L}.$$
(30)
It is not difficult to draw a conclusion, in view of formulas (28) and (30), that suppression of fluctuations in PPNC occurs more effectively than in the homogeneous optical crystal with the effective nonlinear coefficient.

## 6 Conclusions

The application of step-by-step matrix approach allows one to calculate the optical parametric amplification in periodically-poled nonlinear crystals without analysis of the spatial dynamics inside a separate layer. The method can be applied to analysis of the processes in PPNC at an arbitrary period of the crystal repolarization and arbitrary relation of the critical intensity to the pumping intensity. In other words, the method is not restricted to the conditions $`I_pI_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`N1`$ which are necessary for the correct analysis in the traditional-approach case where PPNC is replaced by an homogeneous crystal with effective nonlinear coefficient. This circumstance allows one to use this method for both analytical and numerical  calculations.

The spatial dynamics of the signal intensity and quadrature components was analyzed versus the ratio $`I_p/I_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and the interaction length. It was shown that at the pumping intensity less than the critical value, the spatial distribution of the signal intensity inside a separate layer exhibits an oscillatory character and changing of the signal intensity and variance of quadrature components from layer to layer follow the power function dependences. In the case of larger number of layers and $`I_pI_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, these dependences can be reduced to well-known formulas for homogeneous nonlinear crystals. Notice that the requirement $`I_pI_{cr}`$ corresponds to the parametric trapping in the homogeneous crystal.

It should be emphasized that our analyze has shown that the quasi-phase-matched optical parametric process in PPNC occurs, generally speaking, more effectively than the parametric process in the homogeneous crystal with the nonlinear coupling coefficient equal to the effective nonlinear coefficient for PPNC. The generalization of the approach presented here onto the case of quasi-phase-matched consecutive wave interactions and nonstationary parametric interactions is in progress.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to I. V. Golovnin, G. D. Laptev, E. Y. Morozov, and A. A. Novikov for helpful discussions.

The work was partially supported by INTAS under Project No. 01-2097.


format: text

text:
# Gibbs attractor: a chaotic nearly Hamiltonian system, driven by external harmonic force

## I Introduction

The Brownian motion of a particle of mass $`m`$ in the static potential $`U(𝐫)`$ can be described by the system of Langevin equations

$$m\ddot{𝐫}+\gamma \dot{𝐫}+U\left(𝐫\right)=𝐟\left(t\right),$$
(1)
where $`\gamma `$ is the viscous damping parameter and $`𝐟(t)`$ is the random force (white noise) with Gaussian distribution and mean values

$$f_i\left(t\right)=0,f_i\left(t\right),f_j\left(t^{}\right)=2D\delta _{ij}\delta \left(tt^{}\right);$$
(2)
here $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker symbol and $`\delta (x)`$ is the Dirac delta-function K75 . The damping term and the random force provide a phenomenological description of the interaction of the particle (in the potential) with its environment, that is frequently called a heat bath. The dynamical system determined by Eqs. (1) with $`\gamma =0`$ and $`D=0`$ will be called isolated.

The ensemble of Brownian particles eventually will come to an equilibrium with the stationary probability distribution in the phase space given by the equation

$$Q(𝐩,𝐫)=N\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{H(𝐩,𝐫)}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right),$$
(3)
where $`𝐩=m\dot{𝐫}`$ is the particle momentum, $`H(𝐩,𝐫)=𝐩^2/2m+U\left(𝐫\right)`$ is the Hamiltonian function of the isolated system, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=D/\gamma `$ is the temperature, and $`N`$ is the normalization constant. The distribution Eq. (3) is known as the canonical, or Gibbs, distribution; it serves as a central point of the equilibrium statistical physics LL95 . From Eq. (3) follows the equilibrium energy distribution,

$$Q\left(E\right)=N\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right),$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right)=\delta \left(EH(𝐩,𝐫)\right)𝑑𝐩𝑑𝐫$$
(5)
is the energy density of the phase volume on the energy surface $`H(𝐩,𝐫)=E`$.

The canonical distribution Eq. (3) holds for the equilibrium state of the system Eq. (1) irrespectively of dimensionality of the configuration space $`d`$ and regardless of the nature of motion of the isolated system, be it regular (periodic, quasiperiodic) or chaotic.

Let’s replace the random force $`𝐟(t)`$ by a regular one that depends on time harmonically; the equations of motion will take the form

$$m\ddot{𝐫}+\gamma \dot{𝐫}+U\left(𝐫\right)=𝐅\mathrm{sin}\omega t.$$
(6)
If the motion of the isolated system is strongly chaotic, that is, nearly ergodic on the energy surfaces in a wide range of energy values, then we can expect that the motion of weakly perturbed system ($`\gamma `$ and $`F`$ are small) will be chaotic too. In parallel with the physical picture of the Brownian motion given above, the external force $`𝐅\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$ will slowly change the energy of the system, whereas the damping $`\gamma `$ will provide a sink for the excessive energy, thus creating a possibility for the equilibrium.

The dissipative non-autonomous system Eq. (6) may demonstrate the chaotic motion on a strange attractor, that has much in common with the canonical distribution Eq. (3). For this reason it will be called the Gibbs attractor.

The main purpose of this paper is to give an example of a system with the Gibbs attractor and to describe its main features. They mostly depend on the kinetics of energy exchange between the perturbation and the isolated system, that can be described as a process of energy diffusion.

The problem that we have formulated is on a crossroad of several lines of research in nonlinear dynamics and non-stationary statistical physics. First, it is linked to the theory of chaos in non-autonomous Hamiltonian systems. In this theory the concept of energy (or action) diffusion is used for description of the infinite chaotic motion above the threshold of its onset - in the models like periodically kicked rotator Ch79  or a hydrogen atom in the microwave field DKSh83 ; CCh+87 . Unlike our problem, in these models the strong periodic perturbation is the source that thrusts chaos on the system. Secondly, our problem is related to the theory of energy absorption by chaotic systems with parametric modulation, that is usually developed (both in quantum and classical approaches) for models of billiards with varying form J93 ; C99 . As opposed to our problem, the main concern here is the study of slow variations, whereas we are interested in the perturbation with frequencies that are comparable to the characteristic frequencies of the unperturbed systems. Furthermore, in both aforementioned theories the damping is completely neglected. Thirdly, our problem has relation to the actively developing theory of the Brownian motion under the influence of colored noise MAR00 ; QH00 ; MA+01 ; B01 , since one may consider the harmonic perturbation as a limiting (monochromatic) case of the narrow-band noise. In contrast to our problem, in this theory the unperturbed motion is mainly one-dimensional, thus regular, and damping is considered strong. Lastly, we note a connection to the issue of the effects of weak noise and damping on the Hamiltonian systems, that was discussed recently in the context of the problem of decay of metastable chaotic states PK99 ; PFE02 .

The rest of the text is organized as follows. In Sec. II the main equation for the energy diffusion is deduced in two ways. Sec. III consists of the description of the unperturbed model, the Pullen - Edmonds nonlinear oscillator, and main features of its chaotic motion. Sec. IV comprises the description of main properties of the Gibbs attractor in the model - its limits in the phase space, energy distribution, conditions of existence and character of the energy correlation. Sec. V contains the concluding remarks.

## II Energy diffusion

We will study the evolution of the distribution of energy values $`Q(E,t)`$ for the Hamiltonian chaotic system, perturbed by small damping and small harmonic force. For the derivation of the equation of evolution for $`Q(E,t)`$ we at first neglect the damping (we shall restore it later, in Subsec. C).

### II.1 The quantum approach

The simplest approach is to start from the quantum model of the unperturbed system. Let’s assume that at the initial moment the system is in a stationary state $`|n`$ with the energy $`E`$. The external harmonic force will induce transitions with absorption (+) and emission ($``$) of the quanta $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. If the motion of the classical system is chaotic and the power spectrum of the active coordinate $`x`$ is continuous, then for its quantum counterpart in the quasiclassical case the density of final states with allowed transitions is high, and the rate of these transitions can be described by the Fermi golden rule. With the account of dependence of matrix elements and density of states on the energy within the transition range, we can obtain for the rate of transitions the expression

$$\dot{W}_\pm \left(E\right)=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{F^2}{4}\left[S\pm \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left(S^{}+S\frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }\right)\right],$$
(7)
where $`S=S_x(E,\omega )`$ is the power spectrum of the coordinate $`x`$ and $`\rho =\rho \left(E\right)`$ is the density of states of the isolated system, both taken at the energy $`E`$, and dashes mean differentiating in energy ESh96 .

The resonant absorption and emission of quanta populate narrow bands of levels, that are located on the energy scale around values $`E^{}=E\pm k\mathrm{}\omega `$ with integer $`k`$. We denote the probability of finding the system in such band of states as $`Q(E^{})`$. With the account of one-photon transitions we can write the balance equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ\left(E\right)}{dt}}=Q\left(E\right)\left(\dot{W}_++\dot{W}_{}\right)`$ (8)
$`+Q\left(E+\mathrm{}\omega \right)\dot{W}_++Q\left(E\mathrm{}\omega \right)\dot{W}_{}.`$
Assuming $`Q(E,t)`$ to be a smooth function of $`E`$, we can expand the arguments in the second and third terms in the RHS of Eq. (8) to the order of $`\mathrm{}^2`$ inclusive. This yields the equation in partial derivatives, that describes the energy diffusion in the Hamiltonian system under the influence of the external harmonic field:

$$\frac{Q}{t}+\frac{}{E}\left(AQ\right)\frac{}{E}\left(D\frac{Q}{E}\right)=0.$$
(9)
Here the coefficients of drift $`A`$ and of diffusion $`D`$ are given by the expressions

$$A(E,\omega )=\frac{\pi }{2}\omega ^2F^2S\frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho },D(E,\omega )=\frac{\pi }{2}\omega ^2F^2S.$$
(10)
It is essential that in the quasiclassical case, when the density of states could be expressed by the Weyl formula

$$\rho \left(E\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right)}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^d},$$
(11)
the coefficients $`A`$ and $`D`$ do not depend on Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$. The analogous derivation of the equation for the energy diffusion in the conservative one-dimensional system under the influence of white noise was used in ER01 .

### II.2 The classical approach

The equation Eq. (9) does not depend on Planck’s constant, but the condition of its applicability does. The Fermi golden rule is based on the assumption of the resonant character of the transitions, which is justified only when the transition rate $`\dot{W}`$ is much smaller then the perturbation frequency $`\omega `$. Thus the diffusion coefficient must obey the strong inequality

$$D\mathrm{}^2\omega ^3,$$
(12)
that is too restrictive for small $`\mathrm{}`$.

However, we can rederive Eq. (9) classically. In the zeroth approximation we neglect the influence of the external force on the law of motion $`x(t)`$. Then the instantaneous rate of the energy change is $`\dot{E}=\dot{x}(t)F(t)`$. Variation of the energy (for the time interval $`T`$), $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$, in this approximation vanishes on the average for symmetry reasons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=0`$, whereas its averaged square is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(T\right)=\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}B_v\left(t_1t_2\right)F\left(t_1\right)F\left(t_2\right)𝑑t_1𝑑t_2,$$
(13)
where $`B_v(\tau )`$ is the correlation function of the $`x`$-component of velocity. If the unperturbed motion is ergodic, then the correlation function is determined by the microcanonical average

$$B_v\left(\tau \right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right)}\dot{x}\left(0\right)\dot{x}\left(\tau \right)\delta \left(EH(𝐩,𝐫)\right)𝑑𝐩𝑑𝐫,$$
(14)
where $`x(0)`$ and $`x(\tau )`$ are taken on the trajectory that starts at $`t=0`$ at the phase point $`\{𝐩,𝐫\}`$. For times $`T`$ much larger than the time of decay of velocity correlations $`\tau _c`$, we can rewrite Eq. (14) in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(T\right)=\frac{F^2}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}𝑑\theta \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_v\left(\tau \right)\mathrm{cos}\omega \tau d\tau .$$
(15)
The internal integral is proportional to the power spectrum of velocity, $`S_v(E,\omega )`$. Since $`S_v(E,\omega )=\omega ^2S_x(E,\omega )`$, we obtain for the coefficient of energy diffusion the expression $`D(E,\omega )=(\pi /2)\omega ^2F^2S_x(E,\omega )`$, that coincides with the one given above in Eq. (10).

Let’s assume that in the initial state the system has the energy $`E_0`$ and denote $`Q_0(E,t)`$ the energy distribution with this initial condition, $`Q_0(E,0)=\delta (EE_0)`$. The equation Eq. (15) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(T\right)=2\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}D\left(E_0\right)𝑑\theta .$$
(16)
The distribution $`Q_0`$ spreads with time, including energy surfaces with different densities $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and different diffusion coefficients $`D`$. In the first approximation we can take this into account by averaging of these functions with the evolving distribution $`Q_0(E,t)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(t\right)=2\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{d\theta }{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E_0\right)}𝑑EQ_0(E,\theta )G\left(E\right)$$
(17)
where $`G\left(E\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right)D\left(E\right)`$. In the time interval in which the distribution $`Q_0(E,t)`$ can be considered narrow, the function $`G(E)`$ can be expanded in the Taylor series to the first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }=EE_0`$. Thus we come to the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(t\right)=2\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\left(D(E_0)+\frac{G^{}(E_0)}{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E_0\right)}\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\theta \right)\right)𝑑\theta .$$
(18)
If the system on the average changes its energy with a constant rate, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(t\right)=\alpha t`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(t\right)=\alpha ^2t^2+2Dt`$. Substituting this expressions in Eq. (18), we obtain

$$D=D(E_0),\alpha =\frac{G^{}\left(E_0\right)}{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E_0\right)}.$$
(19)
The average rate of the energy variation in the state with given distribution $`Q(E,t)`$ can be obtained from the equation Eq. (9):

$$\dot{E}=\left(A+D^{}\right)Q(E,t)𝑑E.$$
(20)
From Eqs. (19) and (20) for the drift coefficient we obtain the expression $`A(E,\omega )=D(E,\omega )(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left(E\right)/\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right))`$, that coincides with the one given above in Eq. (10), since the density of states is proportional to the density of the phase volume (see Eq. (11)).

In the classical derivation of Eq. (20) we have assumed that the spreading of the initially localized energy distribution during the correlation time $`\tau _c`$ is such that the corrections to the diffusion coefficient are small in comparison with its zero order value, $`\sqrt{D\tau _c}D^{}<<D`$. Estimating the derivative as $`D^{}D/E`$, where $`E`$ is a characteristic energy of the system, we obtain the condition of applicability of the classical equation of energy diffusion,

$$D\frac{E^2}{\tau _c},$$
(21)
which is much more tolerant than Eq. (12). Bridging the gap between Eq. (12) and Eq. (21) remains a challenge for the quantum theory.

### II.3 The account of damping

Now we turn to the account of damping. For systems in which the logarithmic rate of energy damping is constant, $`\dot{E}=\gamma E`$, the energy distribution could be written as

$$Q(E,t)=e^{\gamma t}\psi \left(Ee^{\gamma t}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\psi (z)`$ is an arbitrary positive integrable function. This functional form can be expressed by the equation in partial derivatives

$$\frac{Q}{t}=\gamma \frac{}{E}\left(EQ\right).$$
(23)
By combining Eqs. (9) and (23) we obtain the equation of energy diffusion in the perturbed chaotic system with damping:

$$\frac{Q}{t}\frac{}{E}\left(\gamma EQAQ+D\frac{Q}{E}\right)=0.$$
(24)
Its stationary solution is given by the formulas

$`Q(E)`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{\Phi }\left(E\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[R(E,\omega )\right],`$ (25)
$`R(E,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{E}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{D(\epsilon ,\omega )}}𝑑\epsilon ,`$ (26)
where $`N`$ is the normalization constant. The stationary distribution could be canonical, Eq. (6), only in the special case when the diffusion coefficient is exactly proportional to energy.

## III The model

The equations Eqs. (25,26) could be checked by direct numerical solution of the system Eq. (6) for any given potential $`U(𝐫)`$. The calculation of $`Q(E)`$ is relatively easy; however, the estimation of the integral in the RHS of Eq. (26) is much more demanding, since at every integration step in $`\epsilon `$ the power spectrum $`S_x(\epsilon ,\omega )`$ has to be calculated with sufficient accuracy. Instead of this computation we will proceed with analytical approaches workable with a special choice of the model.

We take the Pullen - Edmonds oscillator PE81 , that describes the two-dimensional motion of a particle in the quartic potential, as the model for the isolated system. The Hamiltonian of this system is

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(p_x^2+p_y^2\right)+\frac{m\omega _0^2}{2}\left(x^2+y^2+\frac{x^2y^2}{\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(27)
In the following we use the particle mass $`m`$, the frequency of small oscillations $`\omega _0`$, and the nonlinearity length $`\lambda `$ as unit scales, and write all equations in dimensionless form.

The properties of chaotic motion of the Pullen - Edmonds model are thoroughly studied M86 ; VZ87 ; EK89 . With the increase of energy the system becomes more chaotic both in extensive (that is characterized by the measure of the chaotic component $`\mu _s(E)`$ on the surface of Poincare section) and in intensive (that is measured by the magnitude of the Lyapunov exponent $`\sigma (E)`$) aspects. For values of energy $`E>2.1`$ the measure $`\mu _s>0.5`$, and chaos dominates in the phase space; for $`E>5`$ the chaotic motion of the system is approximately ergodic M86 .

For the selected model Eqs. (6) have the form

$`\ddot{x}+\gamma \dot{x}+x\left(1+y^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`F\mathrm{sin}\omega t,`$
$`\ddot{y}+\gamma \dot{y}+y\left(1+x^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0;`$ (28)
the external force is chosen to be directed along the $`OX`$ axis. It may be noted that it is sufficient to couple the external force to only one dynamical variable, as opposed to the Langevin forces given by Eq. (2): in chaotic system the interaction between vibrational modes will secure the redistribution of energy.

For a particle in a two-dimensional potential the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(E)`$ is proportional to the area $`\varphi (E)`$ of the region that is bound by the equipotential line $`U(x,y)=E`$, namely $`\mathrm{\Phi }(E)=2\pi \varphi (E)`$. For the Pullen - Edmonds model

$$\varphi \left(E\right)=4\underset{0}{\overset{\sqrt{2E}}{}}\sqrt{\frac{2Ex^2}{1+x^2}}𝑑x.$$
(29)
This integral can be calculated analytically:

$$\varphi \left(E\right)=4\sqrt{2E+1}\left[\text{K}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2E}{2E+1}}\right)\text{E}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2E}{2E+1}}\right)\right],$$
(30)
where $`\text{K}(x)`$ and $`\text{E}(x)`$ are complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kinds correspondingly. For $`E1`$ this function has the asymptotic form

$$\varphi \left(E\right)\sqrt{32E}\left[\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{32E}1\right].$$
(31)
The approximate expression for the power spectrum of coordinate $`x`$ for the Pullen - Edmonds model was obtained in Ref. EK89  from the assumption of ergodicity of motion and in the ”frozen frequencies” approximation:

$$S_x(E,\omega )=\frac{2}{3\varphi (E)}\left(2E+1\omega ^2\right)^{3\mathrm{/}2}\omega ^2\left(\omega ^21\right)^{1\mathrm{/}2},$$
(32)
for $`1<\omega <\sqrt{2E+1}`$ and $`S_x(E,\omega )=0`$ outside of this range. The comparison of this formula with the numerically found spectrum is shown in Fig. 1.

It can be seen that the main body of spectrum, apart from a small interval of frequencies around $`\omega =1`$, is described satisfactorily.

## IV The Gibbs attractor

In this section we study different properties of the motion on the Gibbs attractor. For the numerical calculation we will mainly use the following set of parameters: $`\gamma =210^3`$, $`F=0.3`$ and $`\omega =1.1`$, that corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Theta }=103`$. Later it will be referred to as a standard set.

1. The motion of our model on the Gibbs attractor is chaotic: numerical computation gives for its Lyapunov exponent $`\sigma =0.65(2)`$. From the Kaplan - Yorke conjecture KY79 ; LL92  it follows that the fractal dimensionality of the attractor $`D_F`$ will differ from the dimensionality of the phase space $`d_p=4`$ by a quantity of the order $`\gamma \mathrm{/}\sigma =310^3`$. This difference is hardly noticeable: from the practical point of view the Gibbs attractor densely fills the phase space, in resemblance with the canonical distribution.

2.  The energy distribution on the Gibbs attractor can be determined by substitution of Eq. (32) into Eq. (26); thus we get

$$R(E,\omega )=\frac{3\gamma \sqrt{\omega ^21}}{\pi F^2}\stackrel{E}{}\frac{\epsilon \mathrm{\Phi }\left(\epsilon \right)}{\left(2\epsilon +1\omega ^2\right)^{3\mathrm{/}2}}𝑑\epsilon .$$
(33)
It is convenient to introduce the temperature parameter

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{\pi F^2}{3\gamma \sqrt{\omega ^21}},$$
(34)
that is similar to the temperature of the equilibrium created by white noise heat bath and viscous damping, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=D/\gamma `$: it scales as the square of the force amplitude and as the inverse value of the damping parameter.

For values of frequency $`\omega 1`$, after the substitution of the asymptotic form Eq. (32) in the numerator and disregard of the quantity $`(\omega ^21)`$ in the denominator, the integration in Eq. (33) yields the simple formula:

$$R(E,\omega )=\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left(\mathrm{ln}E+\mathrm{ln}323\right).$$
(35)
In the derivation of Eq. (24) we have assumed that the energy damping in the absence of the external force is governed by the equation $`\dot{E}=\gamma E`$. For the Pullen - Edmonds model this relation must be corrected. The exact equation for the energy damping has the form $`\dot{E}=2\gamma T`$, where $`T`$ is the kinetic energy (properly averaged), but the virial ratio $`v(E)=2T/E`$ in general case depends on the energy. From the virial theorem for the homogeneous potentials of the power $`k`$ LLI88  it follows that $`v(E)=\mathrm{const}=2k/(k+2)`$. For small energies, $`E1`$, the quartic term in the potential $`U(x,y)`$ is negligible, and $`v(E)1`$, but in the domain $`E1`$, that we are interested in, this term becomes important. For purely quartic potential we have $`v(E)=4/3`$. Thus we may expect that for $`E1`$ in the Pullen - Edmonds model $`1<v(E)<4/3`$; a naive interpolation leads to value $`v(E)=7/6`$. The numerical calculation shows that the asymptotic value of $`v(E)`$ for high energies is very close to this value indeed, with the accuracy not worse than 2% for $`E>20`$. Therefore for very large values of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ we can improve the expression for $`R(E,\omega )`$ just by multiplying it by the factor 7/6; the corrected value of the damping parameter will be denoted as $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$.

Comparison of the theoretical form of the probability distribution $`Q(E)`$ (with the virial correction included) with its values found numerically is shown in Fig. 2

The relaxation time $`\tau _r`$ for the diffusion process can be estimated as the ratio of the square of the characteristic width of the stationary distribution (e.g. the variance of the distribution $`V_E=E^2E^2`$) to the average value of the diffusion coefficient: $`\tau _r=V_E/D`$. For the standard set of parameters theoretical estimate based on Eqs. (10), (31) and (32) gives $`V_E=420`$, $`D=0.67`$ and $`\tau _r=620`$, whereas the numerical calculation gives $`V_E=315`$, $`D=0.42`$ and $`\tau _r=740`$. In our numerical experiments we have used the time averaging over the intervals about $`1.710^5230\tau _r`$, that ensures high accuracy of the stationary distribution.

3. In opposition to the canonical distribution, the Gibbs attractor is limited in the phase space. From the equation for the energy dissipation the average rate of energy loss due to damping in the state with the energy $`E`$ is

$$P_{}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }E.$$
(36)
The maximal rate of increase of the energy due to the influence of the external force (for $`F1`$) is reached when the particle moves along the $`OX`$ axis with its velocity in phase with the external force, and equals to

$$P_+=\sqrt{\frac{E}{2}}F.$$
(37)
Balancing these quantities we find that the energy of the system can not exceed the value

$$E_+=\frac{F^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^2}.$$
(38)
For the standard set $`E_+=8.310^3=80\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The probability to exceed this value with the energy distribution given by Eqs. (25,26) is about $`\mathrm{exp}(750)`$; thus the upper limit is not observable.

On the other hand, the attractor is not limited in the energy from below. The basic approximation of nearly ergodic motion is not applicable in this range. However, the system that at some moment is at rest, in the state with $`E=0`$, can be driven by the external force to the energies as high as

$$E_0=\frac{F^2\left(3\omega ^2+1\right)}{2\left(\omega ^21\right)^2}$$
(39)
(in harmonic approximation). For the standard set $`E_0=4.72`$. Thus in our case the efficient communication between states with negligibly small energies and those in the nearly ergodic domain is possible.

4. The motion of the system Eq. (III) with the standard set of parameters is found to be chaotic up to the maximal available times of numerical calculation ($`t=1.710^5`$ for 10 different initial conditions). The time-averaged value $`\overline{E}`$ of the energy of this motion is $`\overline{E}26`$. Changes in parameters $`\{\gamma ,F,\omega \}`$ that lead to diminution of the average energy of motion on the attractor, such as the increase of damping, or lessening of the amplitude of the harmonic force, or driving this force out of resonance with the chaotic unperturbed motion, eventually suppress the chaotic motion. For some initial conditions the system, after more or less prolonged interval of transient chaotic motion with $`\overline{E}1`$ (we note in passing that main results of our theory are applicable to long-living transient chaos as well as to the perpetual one), rapidly turns to regular motion on a limit cycle or a torus with $`\overline{E}1`$. This behaviour can have two explanations.

(A) The Gibbs attractor turns into a semiattracting set that supports a metastable chaotic motion.

(B) The Gibbs attractor endures, but its basin of attraction shrinks, thus ceding larger parts of the phase space to basins of regular attractors.

At present we can not choose between these alternatives.

We can establish the border of the domain of the apparent presence of the Gibbs attractor conventionally, as the surface in the parameter space at which for 80% of randomly chosen initial conditions the commencement of the regular motion takes less than $`310^4`$ units of time. The detailed definition of this surface is a laborious task, so we have restricted ourselves by variation of each parameter in turn, with the other two being fixed at the standard values.

With the increase of damping the domain of presence of the Gibbs attractor is limited by the value $`\gamma =510^3`$, where the transient chaotic motion has $`\overline{E}11`$. With diminishing $`\gamma `$ the chaos persists: even for $`\gamma =0`$ the system displays chaotic motion, accompanied by unlimited spread of the energy distribution with time.

With the decrease of the amplitude of the force the domain of presence of the Gibbs attractor is limited by the value $`F0.11`$ where the transient chaotic motion has $`\overline{E}6`$. The increase of the force $`F`$ up to values far beyond $`F1`$ does not bring any noticeable changes in the character of motion.

This can be explained as follows. The magnitude of the external force $`F`$ must be compared to the averaged (absolute) value of the force in the same direction, created by the static potential, $`F_U=\left|U\mathrm{/}x\right|`$. On the energy surface $`E`$ it can be calculated by integration:

$$F_U=\frac{4}{3\varphi \left(E\right)}\underset{0}{\overset{\sqrt{2E}}{}}x\frac{3+2Ex^2}{1+x^2}\sqrt{\frac{2Ex^2}{1+x^2}}𝑑x.$$
(40)
For large $`E`$ this expression has the asymptotics $`F_UE/\mathrm{ln}E`$. The temperature parameter can be written as $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\kappa F^2`$ with $`\kappa 1`$, and the average energy of chaotic motion in the domain of existence of the Gibbs attractor, $`\mathrm{\Theta }1`$, depends on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as $`E\mathrm{\Theta }/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Thus for the average potential force we have the estimate $`F_U\kappa ^2F^2\mathrm{ln}^2\kappa F`$, and for the ratio $`F/F_U`$ we get

$$\frac{F}{F_U}\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\kappa F}{\kappa ^2F}.$$
(41)
This quantity is always small and, moreover, decreases with growth of $`F`$. In physical terms, the harmonic force, albeit large in comparison with the scales of the unperturbed model, heats the system to the level of the energy content, at which it becomes relatively small in comparison with the average potential force, thus maintaining the energy diffusion picture adequate.

Finally, on the frequency scale the domain of presence of the Gibbs attractor is limited by the band from $`\omega 0.93`$ where the transient chaotic motion has $`\overline{E}7`$, to $`\omega 1.6`$ where $`\overline{E}11`$.

5.  Since the energy of the system in our approach is the main dynamical quantity, it is appropriate to study its correlation function,

$$B_E\left(\tau \right)=E\left(0\right)E\left(\tau \right)E^2.$$
(42)
The first term in the RHS of this equality could be expanded in the Taylor series in the time shift $`\tau `$ and written as

$$E\left(0\right)E\left(\tau \right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_n\frac{\tau ^n}{n!},$$
(43)
where the coefficients $`K_n`$ are equal to the products of the initial energy and of the initial value of energy’s $`n`$-th time derivative, averaged with the stationary distribution,

$$K_n=E\left(0\right)\frac{d^nE}{dt^n}\left(0\right).$$
(44)
From Eq. (24) for the local rate of the energy change we have $`\dot{E}=\gamma E+A+D^{}`$ and

$$K_1=E\dot{E}=\gamma E^2+AE+D^{}E.$$
(45)
The higher time derivatives of $`E`$ can be found by consequent differentiation of Eq. (24) in time, recurrent substitutions and integrations by parts. For example, $`K_2=E\ddot{E}`$, where

$$\ddot{E}=\left(\gamma EAD^{}\right)\left(\gamma A^{}D^{\prime \prime }\right)+\left(A^{\prime \prime }+D^{\prime \prime \prime }\right)D.$$
(46)
The normalized correlation function of energy $`b_E\left(\tau \right)=B_E\left(\tau \right)\mathrm{/}B_E\left(0\right)`$, found in the numerical calculation, is compared to the theoretical estimate in Fig. 3.

The rate of decay of the energy correlations is determined by a competition of the absorption, that dominates in the lower energy range, and of the loss of energy through damping, that prevails in the upper range; they are balanced by the stationarity equation $`\dot{E}=0`$. The dependence of this rate on the parameters of the model is rather complicated.

## V Conclusion

The study of the system of the type Eq. (8) may be important, since for many experimentally relevant Hamiltonian models one can indicate some mechanism of relaxation, that could be approximated by the viscous damping terms at least qualitatively.

The obvious candidates for the further studies of the Gibbs attractors are chaotic billiards. Our equations permit us to get some simple estimates for this case. Since a billiard per se has only two dimensional parameters, the particle mass $`m`$ and some characteristic size $`a`$, the scale of time depends on the initial conditions and is proportional to $`E^{1/2}`$. Thus the power spectrum of the coordinate can be written (with $`m`$ and $`a`$ as units) in the scaling form

$$S_x(E,\omega )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{E}}g\left(\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{E}}\right),$$
(47)
where $`g(z)`$ is some positive integrable function. From discontinuities of velocity for the law of motion $`x(t)`$ it follows that the high frequency asymptotics of the power spectrum has the form $`S_x(E,\omega )\omega ^4`$. Combining this formula with Eqs. (10), (26) and (47), we obtain the approximate form of the exponent in the stationary distribution:

$$R(E,\omega )\frac{\sqrt{E}}{\mathrm{\Theta }},$$
(48)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=cF^2\gamma ^1\omega ^2`$ and $`c`$ is a numerical constant that depends on the specific form of the billiard. This estimate is valid for $`E\omega ^2`$ for billiards of any dimensionality.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the ”Russian Scientific Schools” program (grant # NSh - 1909.2003.2).


text:
# Reopening the TNOs Color Controversy: Centaurs Bimodality and TNOs Unimodality

## 1 Introduction

A large population of small icy bodies exists beyond the orbit of Neptune. First speculated by Leonard (1930); Edgeworth (1943, 1949) and Kuiper (1951), their existence was observationally confirmed by Jewitt & Luu (1993) only eleven years ago. Considered as remnants from the formation of the solar system, these Trans–Neptunian Objects (TNOs) constitute the Edgeworth–Kuiper Belt (EKB), therefore also frequently known as Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs). Currently, more than 700 of them have been detected. A different class of objects, the Centaurs, was found by Kowal & Gehrels (1977); to date, more than 40 of these objects are known. Orbiting mainly between Jupiter and Neptune, a strict dynamical definition does not exist and frequently some objects are both classified as Centaurs and Scattered Disk Objects (SDOs). Centaurs are believed to be ex–TNOs in a transition phase between the EKB and the Jupiter–family comets (Fernandez 1980; Duncan et al. 1988). Their exact origin location in the EKB has not yet been identified. While it is currently believed Centaurs originate from the Scattered Disk Objects (Duncan & Levison 1997) — a “fuzzy” subclass of TNOs with highly eccentric and inclined orbits — an origin in the Plutinos (TNOs in a 3:2 mean motion orbital resonance with Neptune) has also been hypothesized (Yu & Tremaine 1999).

Since the very beginning of the first photometric measurements of these objects their visible color distribution always been very controversial. Tegler & Romanishin (1998, 2000) – hereafter TR98 and TR00, respectively – reported the identification of two separated color groups (blue–gray, i.e., solar like, and very red) from samples of 16 and 37 objects respectively. Other groups stated a continuous color spreading such as the precursor works by Luu & Jewitt (1996); Green et al. (1997); Barucci et al. (1999), and subsequent studies (see the review by Doressoundiram 2004, for a summary). Jewitt & Luu (2001) analyzed the statistical significance of this bimodality on TR98 and TR00 data samples and also on their own dataset of 28 objects. They concluded that both results were formally consistent with derivation from a uniform color distribution, i.e. unimodality. With 21 objects, measured in BVRIJ bands, Barucci et al. (2001) reported the identification of four groups with a quasi–continuous spreading. However this grouping is seen only with $`VI`$ and $`VJ`$ color information and becomes marginal with $`BV`$ and $`VR`$ colors. Finally, Tegler & Romanishin (2003) – hereafter TR03 – claimed the resolution of the TNOs color controversy, now with an enlarged sample of 55 objects (50 objects with measured $`BV`$ and $`VR`$ colors, and 5 with $`VR`$ only). Furthermore, with Monte Carlo simulations they showed that with typical error bars of $`0.05`$ magnitude other teams would not see any clear “gap” between their two detected groups, concluding that observational methodologies leading to smaller error bars are the basis for these color groups findings.

Whereas it is physically difficult to understand the existence of two groups of colors, several explanations have been proposed to describe the continuous color range of TNOs. First, TNOs might have real intrinsic differences. Gomes (2003) proposed a migration model explaining the present composition of the EKB as the mixing of bodies formed in very different parts of the Solar System. Luu & Jewitt (1996) explored a surface evolution mechanism: a competition between reddening space weathering and bluishing collisional resurfacing, which causes the continuous color spreading. However this model predicts a surface color variation with the objects rotation (e.g. within a few hours) that has never been observed to date (Jewitt & Luu 2001); it also implies color–orbital parameters correlations very different from observations (Thébault & Doressoundiram 2003). Nevertheless, modeling is still in progress: Gil–Hutton (2002), with a more detailed space weathering process, proposed a new version of this mechanism but of difficult testing. Delsanti at al. (2003) revisited the model by Luu & Jewitt (1996) testing an additional resurfacing process: cometary activity, which is compatible with a surface homogeneity.

## 2 Two color groups’ analysis

In the first work on TNOs bimodality (TR98), the two color groups seemed very clear. However, statistics were performed on too few objects to be really significant. Later, with an enlarged data sample, the separation between the two presumed color groups was much more tiny, even though still apparent (TR00). We should nonetheless notice that in Tegler and Romanishin’s analysis Centaurs were mixed with TNOs. The irradiative and collisional environment of Centaurs should be very different of that of TNOs, hence conclusions based on the colors of both populations altogether should be taken with great care. There are few statistical tests for the detection of more than one mode (group) in a distribution. Tests based on bins, as used by TR03, should be regarded with prudence as they are too dependent on the bin’s choice. We will use only the Dip Test (Hartigan & Hartigan 1985; Hartigan 1985), a distribution–free test that computes the maximum difference (“dip”) between the empirical distribution function and the unimodal distribution function that minimizes the differences.

If we first restrict ourselves to the 32 objects with known $`BR`$ colors and $`q<40AU`$ of TR03 — a sample for which they found two groups —, the dip test confirms a bimodality for $`BR`$ colors with a significance level ($`SL`$) of $`99.7\%`$. However, if we remove the Centaurs from this sample we have bimodality only at $`SL55\%`$ for the 22 objects left, while for the 10 Centaurs alone we see it at $`SL=94.7\%`$. Even if the obtained $`SL`$ is too low and the number of objects is too small to make strong conclusions, these results suggest that the bimodality found is most probably dictated by the Centaurs colors and can not be stated as general for TNOs (see figure 1). It should be noted also that, on TR03, these two groups were found without the inclusion of the “red cluster” of TNOs with perihelia distances above $`40AU`$. These “red cluster” objects with $`q>40AU`$ are also characterized by a low inclination orbit and they most probably constitute a separate group (Levison & Stern 2001; Brown 2001) However, they appear as a red cluster while compared to the full color distribution of all other TNOs, that continuously range from neutral to red. If TNOs with $`q<40AU`$ divide in two groups one neutral and another red, we can no longer consider the “red cluster” as a separate group (based on color differences) since it is apparently equal to the red one found for $`q<40AU`$. Consequently, TR03 are implicitly dealing, in their work, with not two but three groups of objects: neutral and red TNOs with $`q<40AU`$, and red TNOs with $`q>40AU`$. When all objects are included in the analysis, the bimodality disappears ($`SL36\%`$). If Centaurs are removed the significance level goes down to $`9\%`$ (see figures 2 and 3). Thus, while it does not seem justifiable to ignore the “red cluster” in the statistics, including those does “destroy” the evidence for bimodality, even with the inclusion of Centaurs. We will therefore investigate the possibility that the conclusion for two color groups is in fact being misguided by the superposition of a bimodal Centaur distribution over a continuous spread of colors of TNOs with $`q<40AU`$ and a separate group of exclusively red TNOs with $`q>40AU`$ or, globally, an unimodality for TNOs colors with an excess of red objects.

We therefore took all Centaurs with available quasi–simultaneous observations of $`BV`$, $`VR`$ and $`BR`$ colors, building a data sample of 20 objects which represents almost $`50\%`$ of all known Centaurs. Eight objects were obtained under the “ESO Large Program on Centaurs and TNOs”, six from Peixinho et al. (2003) and two from Boehnhardt et al. (2002) and another six drawn from the “Meudon Multicolor Survey” (Doressoundiram et al. 2002). Six more were added from the compiled MBOSS database of Hainaut & Delsanti (2002), since their average color indexes were computed from literature using only simultaneous magnitudes (see table 1). While TR03 observational methodology also monitored the absence of significant magnitude variations, all their Centaurs were also independently measured by the previously quoted works. The dip test on our 20 objects data sample reveals bimodality for $`BR`$ colors with $`SL=99.5\%`$. Furthermore, by testing $`BV`$ and $`VR`$ colors separately, we see that the bimodal behavior is dominated by the $`VR`$ color index, since there is evidence for two $`VR`$ color groups at $`SL=97.7\%`$ while for $`BV`$ alone it is inexistent. All dip test results are summarized in table 2. We conclude that Centaurs’ population is indeed composed by two separate $`BR`$ color groups with strong evidence for a dominating $`VR`$ bimodality.

In the color evolution model by Delsanti at al. (2003), TNOs are resurfaced by a competition of 1) reddening by irradiation; 2) bluishing by non-disruptive collisions between TNOs; 3) bluishing by cometary activity (i.e. uniform redeposition of neutral-colored dust lifted by gas outbursts). Simulations using known Centaurs orbits lead to very red objects regardless of the size. In the spaces between giant planets, reddening by irradiation is the dominant process while collisions are scarce; cometary activity outbursts (triggered by collisions) are also possible but with a very low probability. Observed blue Centaurs colors (like for 2060 Chiron) are compatible with a surface being recovered by the bound coma detected by Meech et al. (1997). It has been suggested that some short period comets and Centaurs should be the fragments of objects ejected from the EKB (Farinella & Davis 1996). Such fragmentation would expose some fresh, volatile rich interior that would be compatible with the existence of active and/or blue Centaurs. Delsanti at al. (2003) concluded that very red Centaurs are old, fully irradiated objects (with a thick, dark irradiated mantle that prevents from spontaneous – i.e. non collision-induced – cometary activity outbursts), while blue centaurs might be fresh fragments recovering from an ejection from the EKB. Unfortunately, their model does not currently predict the proportion of blue vs red Centaurs. However, following this formalism, one can expect it is more likely to observe red Centaurs. We see with the sample used that the two groups (red/blue) are equally distributed. Assuming that the “excess” of blue objects is not an observational bias, we will have to invoke an injection of new blue Centaurs from the EKB. Yu & Tremaine (1999) suggested that evolution of Plutinos onto Neptune–crossing orbit may dominate the flux of Jupiter–family comets. Consequently, Centaurs’ population may be mainly populated by ex–Plutinos. An excess of blue Plutinos within the same size range as Centaurs is reported by Peixinho et al. (2003) as also similar color–color correlations for Centaurs and Plutinos in opposition to SDOs correlations. These results give plausibility to our hypothesis. Nevertheless, different origins for the Centaurs population, or part of it, as an explanation of the two color groups can not be discarded.

## 3 Conclusions

In this work, we revisited the TNOs color controversy with a different and necessary twofold approach. First we argue that the dip test we used is a more appropriate tool to investigate the uni- or bi-modal distribution of colors. And second we suggest that the Centaur population has not to be mixed with TNO population in statistical studies since both populations are experiencing very different degrees of surface processing. We combined new and published datasets to show that the Centaur color distribution is bimodal while the TNO color distribution is definitively unimodal. As Centaurs are presumed escapees from the EKB, this new scheme is still compatible with evolution processes (Delsanti at al. 2003). Moreover, our results support a Plutino origin for the Centaurs. However, given the uncertainties on the transfer mechanisms of Centaurs from the EKB, we cannot rule out the possibility of true compositional diversity of Centaurs as an explanation of their color dichotomy.

###### Acknowledgements.

N.P. acknowledges funding from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and for Technology (FCT-SFRH:BD/1094/2000).


text:
# Spatial Localization and Relativistic Transformation of Quantum Spins

## I Introduction

One of the most nontrivial and striking observations of relativistic thermodynamics b1  is that probability distributions can depend on frames. Consequently, entropy and information may change if viewed from different reference frames r0 . Recently, relativistic quantum information theory has attracted particular interests r1 ; r2 ; r3 ; r4 ; r5 ; r6 ; r7 . Current investigations show that a single quantum spin is not covariant under Lorentz transformations r1 , and maximal entanglement between spins in the rest frame will most likely degrade due to mixing with the momentum if viewed from a moving frame r2 ; r3 , depending on the initial momentum wave function. For many quantum information protocols b5 , coherence and entanglement are extremely important and expensive. The observation that coherence and entanglement of the reduced state for spins may degrade when viewed in moving frames implies that there are particular problems for relativistic quantum information processing, particularly for relativistic quantum communication.

It is known that, for a single quantum spin, if and only if we consider the momentum eigenstates (plane waves), can the reduced density matrix for the spin be covariant under Lorentz transformations. But momentum eigenstates are not localized so they may be difficult in feasible applications r1 . The similar difficulties exist for multipartite states ft1 .

In this paper, we investigate the Lorentz boost-induced decrease in the purity of the reduced density matrix for spins, when a state which has pure reduced state for spins in the rest frame is viewed from a moving reference frame. Taken to the leading order, the decrease in spin purity observed in the moving frame is linear with respect to the momentum mean square deviation observed in the rest frame, which according to the position-momentum uncertainty relationship can be reasonably regarded as a measure of how much the spacial wave package is localized. We also present numerical studies as instance of our general analysis. Furthermore, we prove that, for any localized pure state with separable spin and momentum in the rest frame, its reduced density matrix for spins cannot be covariant under any Lorentz boosts, i.e. it inevitably appears to be mixed when viewed from a moving reference frame. Considering that in practical applications states should be localized, our results may have important consequences for relativistic quantum information processing.

## II General Relationship between the Boost-induced Spin Depurification and the Spatial Localization

### II.1 A Simple Example: Single Spin-$`1/2`$ Massive Particle

We start by briefly recalling Peres et al.’s paper r1 . Consider a spin half massive particle (of mass $`m`$) that is prepared with spin in the $`z`$ direction. The spin state can be represented by the Bloch vector $`𝐧=(n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ with $`n_x=n_y=0`$ and $`n_z=1`$. The momentum wave function is a Gaussian $`g(𝐩)\mathrm{exp}(𝐩^2/2w^2)`$. When viewed by an observer moving in the $`x`$ direction, the Lorentz-transformed Bloch vector is $`𝐧^{}=(n_x^{},n_y^{},n_z^{})`$ with $`n_x^{}=n_y^{}=0`$ yet $`n_z^{}<1`$. It is shown in Ref. r1  that $`1n_z^{}w^2`$ to the leading order of $`w/m1`$. By denoting the Lorentz-transformed density matrix for spin as $`\rho ^{}`$, the Lorentz boost-induced decrease in its purity is $`1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)w^2`$. Meanwhile, for this particular case the momentum mean square deviation is $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_\mu ^2w^2`$ ($`\mu =x,y,z`$), hence $`1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }p_\mu ^2`$. According to the position-momentum uncertainty relationship $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }p_\mu ^2\mathrm{}^2/4`$, the smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mu ^2`$ is, the larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_\mu ^2`$ is and so is $`1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)`$. This suggests that the more the wave package is localized in space, the more the boost-induced decrease in spin purity is when viewed in a moving frame.

### II.2 Generalization to Multiple Massive Particles with Arbitrary Spins

The above observation can indeed generalize to states of multiple massive particles with arbitrary spin quantum number. Consider a pure quantum state with separable spin and momentum in the rest frame. The system consists of $`N`$ massive particles, labelled by $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The spin quantum number of particle $`k`$ is $`s_k`$, and mass $`m_k>0`$. The reduced density matrix for spins viewed from the rest frame is denoted by $`\rho `$, which is pure with $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)=1`$. The normalized momentum wave function in the rest frame is denote by $`g(𝒫)`$, where $`𝒫:=(p_{1x},p_{1y},p_{1z},\mathrm{})`$ for compactness of notation. To a moving observer Lorentz transformed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$, the state appears to be transformed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^N`$. Because the Lorentz-transformed state viewed in the moving frame differs from rest-frame one by unitary transformations, the purity will not change provided we do not trace out a part of the state. However, in looking at spins, tracing out over the momentum degrees of freedom is implied. To the Lorentz-transformed observer, the spin and momentum may appear to be entangled, thus the purity of spins may appear to degrade viewed by this observer.

The reduced density matrix for spins viewed by the moving observer is r1 ; r2 ; r3

$$\rho ^{}=\left|g(𝒫)\right|^2U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫)\rho U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝒫)\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝒫,$$
(1)
where, for compactness, we define $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫):=U^{s_1}(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩_1)\mathrm{}U^{s_N}(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩_N)`$ with $`U^s(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)`$ being the spin-$`s`$ representation of the Wigner rotation $`R(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)`$ b3 . $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝒫:=\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝐩_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝐩_N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝐩_k`$is the Lorentz invariant integration measure (defined in Ref. b3 ). We represent the Lorentz-transformed spin purity by $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)`$, which can be calculated by

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)=\left|g(𝒫)\right|^2\left|g(𝒫^{})\right|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝒫\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝒫^{}.$$
(2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{}):=\mathrm{tr}[U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫)\rho U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝒫)U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫^{})\rho U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝒫^{})].$$
(3)
Denoting $``$ as the mean value (observed in the rest frame), we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^{()}:=p_{k\mu }^{()}p_{k\mu }^{()}`$ ($`\mu =x,y,z`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^{()}=𝒫^{()}𝒫^{()}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})`$ can be expanded into power series with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^{}`$, noting that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫^{},𝒫)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})=1\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒰& 𝒱^T\\ 𝒱& 𝒰\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^T\\ \mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^T\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{},$$
(4)
where $`3N`$-dimensional matrices $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ are real functions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\rho `$. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }=\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^{}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})`$ reaches its maximum, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫)=1`$. So in the r.h.s. of Eq. (4), the zero-order term is $`1`$, the first-order terms vanish, and $`𝒰`$ is positive-semidefinite. Terms of higher than second orders are not explicitly presented here. Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }=\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫𝒰\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^T=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^{}𝒰\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^T`$, we see that the boost-induced decrease in spin purity, to the leading order, is

$$1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫𝒰\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫^T.$$
(5)
The matrix $`𝒰`$ can be diagonalized as $`𝒰=𝒟^T`$, where $``$ is real and orthogonal, $`𝒟=diag(𝒟_1,\mathrm{},𝒟_{3N})`$ with $`𝒟_\lambda 0`$ ($`\lambda =1,\mathrm{},3N`$) due to that $`𝒰`$ is positive-semidefinite. By denoting $`𝒬=𝒫`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬=𝒬𝒬=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫`$, we have

$$1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{3N}{}}𝒟_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2.$$
(6)
Inspired by $`[\widehat{x}_{k\mu },\widehat{p}_{k^{}\mu ^{}}]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{kk^{}}\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}`$, we define $`𝒳=(x_{1x},x_{1y},x_{1z},\mathrm{})`$ so that $`[\widehat{𝒳}_\lambda ,\widehat{𝒬}_\lambda ^{}]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$, leading to the uncertainty relationship $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳_\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2/4`$. Hence from Eq. (6) we obtain

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)1\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{3N}{}}\frac{𝒟_\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳_\lambda ^2}.$$
(7)
Here we shall note that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳_\lambda ^2`$ are observed in the rest frame, while $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)`$ is the purity observed in the moving frame. In addition, $`𝒟`$ and $``$ are functions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\rho `$. For any $`\rho `$, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ degenerate to a pure three-dimensional rotation, we can see in Eq. (3) that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})=1`$ and then in Eq. (6) that $`𝒟_\lambda =0`$ for all $`\lambda `$, hence obviously $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)=1`$. Equation (7) also indicates that the purity of the Lorentz-transformed reduced spin state is (to the leading order) bounded by its spatial localization properties.

Equations (6) and (7) dictate the intrinsic relation between the boost-induced decrease in spin purity (observed in the moving frame) and the spatial localization of the wave package (observed in the rest frame). Indeed, $`𝒳_\lambda `$ is a linear combination of $`(x_{1x},x_{1y},x_{1z},\mathrm{})`$. The more the wave package is localized (the less $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳_\lambda ^2`$ is), the more mixed the reduced state for spins becomes when viewed in a moving reference frame. According to the uncertainty relationship $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳_\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2/4`$, $`_{\lambda =1}^{3N}𝒟_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2`$ can be reasonably regarded as a measure of how much the wave package is localized in space.

We shall note that $`𝒟`$ and $``$ do not explicitly depend on the momentum wave function (the implicit dependence is through the mean value $`𝒫`$ because $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒫=𝒫𝒫`$). When the state is not strongly localized, whatever the momentum wave function as long as the localization is the same (i.e. $`_{\lambda =1}^{3N}𝒟_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2`$ is the same), the same reduced state for spins suffers the same amount of boost-induced decrease in spin purity when viewed from the moving frame. This provides a general and feasible method to possibly estimate how mixed the reduced spin state would appear by the spatial localization properties, which might be useful in practical relativistic quantum information processing. In addition, for multipartite states whose spins are not entangled, position (momentum) coordinates of different particles will not be mixed in $`𝒳_\lambda `$ ($`𝒬_\lambda `$). The r.h.s. of Eq. (6), as well as that of Eq. (7), turns out to be a sum over each individual particles. While interestingly, if the spins are entangled, position (momentum) coordinates of different particles will in general be mixed in $`𝒳_\lambda `$ ($`𝒬_\lambda `$). This implies that, for the present case, in measuring how much the spatial wave package is localized, the correlation (entanglement) between the spins needs also to be taken into account.

### II.3 A Further Illustration: Two Spin-$`1/2`$ Massive Particles

As an illustrative example, we numerically study the case of two spin half particles (of mass $`m`$) with momentum wave function being the “entangled Gaussian” as presented in Ref. r3 :

$`g(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)`$
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖭}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1^2+𝐩_2^2}{4\sigma ^2}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1^2+𝐩_2^22x𝐩_1𝐩_2}{4\sigma ^2\left(1x^2\right)}}\right]},`$ (8)
where $`𝖭`$ is the normalization, $`\sigma 0`$ is the “width” and $`x[0,1)`$. The Lorentz transformation is chosen to be a pure boost $`L(𝝃)`$ in the $`z`$ direction, where $`𝝃`$ is the rapidity and denote $`\xi =|𝝃|`$, as defined in Ref. r3 . For this particular momentum wave function, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^2`$ is the same for any $`k`$ and $`\mu `$. Moreover, when $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k^{}\mu ^{}}^2`$ are relatively small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k^{}\mu ^{}}`$ is (if not zero) proportional to $`[\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^2\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k^{}\mu ^{}}^2]^{1/2}`$, with the proportion depending upon $`x`$. Thus for this particular case, Eq. (6) reduces to $`1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩_1^2`$. Figure 1 depicts the relation between $`1\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩_1^2`$, for the spin parts being $`|\psi ^{}`$ and $`|\psi ^+`$. When the momentum mean square deviation is relatively small, the relation can be well described by linearity, confirming the validity of Eq. (6). As the momentum mean square deviation increases, corresponding to stronger localization, the boost-induced decrease in spin purity increases monotonously. The deviation from linearity is due to terms of higher than second orders, such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{k\mu }^4`$ etc. However, such terms can also be regarded in some sense as measures of the spatial localization of the wave package.

### II.4 A Theorem

In the remaining part of this paper, we prove the following theorem.

Theorem: When a pure state with separable spin and momentum in the rest frame is viewed from a moving reference frame, its reduced density matrix for spins necessarily appears to be mixed if its spatial wave package is localized.

Here we shall first specify the meaning of being localized. We regard a state localized in the sense that its position wave function could be commonly normalized, i.e. it is square-integrable. This requirement excludes nonlocalized states, such as momentum eigenstates and the singular ones presented in Ref. r3 . Since momentum wave function is the Fourier transformation of position wave function, being localized means that, in our case, $`g(𝒫)`$ is square-integrable, i.e. $`G(𝒫):=|g(𝒫)|^2\stackrel{~}{\text{d}}𝒫/\text{d}𝒫0`$ is integrable on $`^{3N}`$ in the sense of Lebesgue integration, and it is normalized as $`G(𝒫)\text{d}𝒫=_{supp(G(𝒫))}G(𝒫)\text{d}𝒫=1`$, where $`supp(G(𝒫)):=\{𝒫G(𝒫)>0\}`$ is the support of $`G(𝒫)`$.

We denote $`𝒦=(𝒫,𝒫^{})^{6N}`$, $`𝒯(𝒦)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫,𝒫^{})[0,1]`$, and $`𝒢(𝒦)=G(𝒫)G(𝒫^{})0`$ for compactness. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g=supp(𝒢(𝒦))=\{𝒦𝒢(𝒦)>0\}=supp(G(𝒫))\times supp(G(𝒫^{}))`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=\{𝒦𝒯(𝒦)=1\}`$, and $`m()`$ be the Lebesgue measure in $`^{6N}`$. The integral in Eq. (2) now turns to be the Lebesgue integral over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$: $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}𝒢(𝒦)𝒯(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦.`$

Since the state is localized, $`𝒢(𝒦)`$ must be integrable. In addition, $`_{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}𝒢(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦=[_{supp(G(𝒫))}G(𝒫)\text{d}𝒫]^2=1`$ implies that $`𝒢(𝒦)`$ is bounded almost everywhere. Hence one must have $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_g)>0`$ b4 . Otherwise supposing $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_g)=0`$, one necessarily encounters the contradiction that $`_{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}𝒢(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦=0`$ and $`_{supp(G(𝒫))}G(𝒫)\text{d}𝒫=0`$.

Denote $`x=(𝐩_2,\mathrm{},𝐩_N,𝐩_1^{},\mathrm{},𝐩_N^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t(x)=\{𝐩_1(𝐩_1,x)\mathrm{\Omega }_t\}`$. It can be easily verified that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t(x)`$has Lebesgue measure zero in $`^3`$ for any given $`x`$ when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ does not degenerate to a pure three-dimensional rotation. Then, using the Tonelli’s theorem b4 , one obtains $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_t)=m^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_t(x))\text{d}x=0`$ \[$`m^{}()`$ is the Lebesgue measure in $`^3`$\]. Physically, this observation is intuitive. If there is $`𝒦_0=(𝒫_0,𝒫_0^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$, then $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(𝒫_0)U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒫_0^{})`$ must have an eigenstate to be exactly $`\rho `$ (the rest-frame reduced density matrix for spins). All such $`(𝒫_0,𝒫_0^{})`$ occupy only a low dimensional subset in $`^{6N}`$ for any pure $`\rho `$ and nondegenerate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, thus $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_t)=0`$.

Proof of the Theorem: Because $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_g)>0`$ while $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_t)=0`$, we have $`_{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}()\text{d}𝒦_{\mathrm{\Omega }_g/\mathrm{\Omega }_t}()\text{d}𝒦`$. Therefore

$`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}}𝒢(𝒦)𝒯(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_g/\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}𝒢(𝒦)𝒯(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦`$
$`<{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_g/\mathrm{\Omega }_t}}𝒢(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_g}}𝒢(𝒦)\text{d}𝒦=1,`$
where the inequality is due to that $`𝒯(𝒦)`$ is strictly less than $`1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g/\mathrm{\Omega }_t`$. Now that $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)<1`$ immediately gives that $`\rho ^{}`$ is mixed. $`\mathrm{}`$

The fact that for localized states $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_g)>0`$ is essential. Its meanings can be further clarified by reviewing Eq. (6). If $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^2)=1`$, we must have $`𝒟_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_\lambda ^2=0`$ for all $`\lambda `$. Supposing there is $`\lambda _0`$ so that $`𝒟_{\lambda _0}0`$, consequently we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_{\lambda _0}^2=0`$. Due to that $``$ is orthogonal, there is $`\sigma _0`$ so that $`_{\sigma _0\lambda _0}0`$. Supposing $`\sigma _0`$ corresponds the position coordinate labelled by $`\mu _0`$ of particle $`k_0`$, we obtain that $`[\widehat{x}_{k_0\mu _0},\widehat{𝒬}_{\lambda _0}]=i\mathrm{}_{\sigma _0\lambda _0}`$, which leads to that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{k_0\mu _0}^2\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_{\lambda _0}^2\mathrm{}^2_{\sigma _0\lambda _0}^2/4`$. However because $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_{\lambda _0}^2=0`$ here, we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{k_0\mu _0}^2\mathrm{}`$. On the one hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒬_{\lambda _0}^2=0`$ implies that $`g(𝒫)`$ is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{𝒬}_{\lambda _0}`$ and consequently $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_g)=0`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{k_0\mu _0}^2\mathrm{}`$ implies that the (reduced) wave package of particle $`k_0`$ is nonlocalized. Inversely, $`m(\mathrm{\Omega }_g)>0`$ guarantees that $`g(𝒫)`$ is not an eigenstate of any $`\widehat{𝒬}_\lambda `$, so the state can be localized because all $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{k\mu }^2`$ can be finite.

## III Discussion and Conclusion

We would like to note that the present paper adopts the same notion of spins as in Ref. r1 ; r2 ; r3 . Beside, there are other possible notions (e.g. see Ref. r4 ). It would be interesting to see that when “spin” is defined with respect to projection of Pauli-Lubanski’s vector in a principal null direction of the Lorentz transformation, the reduced density matrix for spins viewed by the moving observer does not depolarize r4 . However, since establishing a perfect shared reference frame requires infinite communication even in non-relativistic situations srf , it might be extremely difficult to acquire precise information about a Lorentz transformation. We argue that in practical applications spin may be defined independently of the particular Lorentz transformation that defines the relative motion between the observers, and the transformation law of such spins would then in general depend upon momentum. Indeed, our results would hold for all such notions of spin, including those adopted in Refs. r1 ; r2 ; r3 , but Ref. r4 .

In conclusion, states one can prepare in real experiments are necessarily localized. Nonlocalized states, e.g. momentum eigenstates and the singular ones presented in Ref. r3 , are not practical in reality, although they are useful in theories. We show that, in relativistic applications reduced spin state which is pure in the rest frame unavoidably appears to be mixed whenever viewed from moving reference frames. How much such boost-induced decrease in purity is depends on how much the spatial wave package is localized. The more the spatial wave package is localized, the more the purity of the reduced spin state decreases when viewed from moving frames. This observation may be important for relativistic quantum information processing, particularly for relativistic quantum communication.

Although our investigations are based on massive particles, the generalize to massless cases, such as to photons r6 , should be analogous. This may be of interest since most of current experiments in quantum communication are based on photons b5 . Another interesting problem might be to determine how our results generalize to accelerated frames r7 .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank S.X. Yu and Z.B. Chen for useful discussion. This work was supported by the Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 10075041), the National Fundamental Research Program (Grant No. 2001CB309300), and the ASTAR Grant No. 012-104-0040 & R-144-000-071-305.


text:
# Fe II lifetimes and transition probabilities

## 1 Introduction

We developed an improved apparatus to measure lifetimes below 5 ns more accurately with the time-resolved laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) technique. The improvements include a more sophisticated evaluation procedure accounting for saturation in the LIF signals. Additionally a linear radio-frequency ion trap (Paul trap) was designed to improve the signal–to–noise ratio in the lifetime measurements. Up to now the most accurate lifetime measurements in Fe II were performed using the fast beam–laser technique (Biémont et al., (1991), Guo et al., (1992)). Our improvements to the time-resolved LIF technique now enable a critical comparison of experimental lifetimes derived from both techniques.
A radiative lifetime provides an absolute scale to the branching fractions of that level. The result of this combination is a set of absolute transition probabilities (Huber and Sandeman, (1986) and Kock, (1996)). In Kroll, (1985), Kroll and Kock, (1987) and Heise and Kock, (1990) we used lifetimes with high uncertainties of 10 % to calibrate our experimental branching fractions in the Fe II spectrum. These lifetimes were also affected by a systematic error, since they proved to be systematically too large. The recent improvements in lifetime measurements enable us to report a much more reliable set of Fe II transition probabilities of 140 Fe II lines in the wavelength range 220–780 nm. 13 of these lines have already been used for a solar iron abundance determination (Schnabel et al., (1999)).

## 2 Lifetime Measurement

The time-resolved laser-induced fluorescence (TRLIF) is a standard technique for measuring radiative lifetimes of excited atomic states. The excitation is done with short laser pulses, ideally much shorter than the radiative lifetime under investigation. The LIF signal is recorded over a time scale more than ten times of the radiative lifetime by a fast photo-multiplier in conjunction with a digitizing oscilloscope. Provided that a sufficiently large number of atoms is available, a complete decay curve can be obtained from a single laser pulse. TRLIF therefore is a single–shot method.

In recent papers (Schnabel and Kock, 2000a , Schnabel and Kock, 2000b ) we examined in detail the TRLIF method by including for the first time saturation in laser excitation quantitatively. This was done by using a rate equation model for a two-level and for a three-level atom, respectively. We were able to show that a natural lifetime, which is shorter than the laser pulse, can still be measured with an uncertainty of a few percent. Systematic error sources due to saturation or a non–ideal response of the detection system could be eliminated.

The rate equation model is adequate as long as the atoms are not coherently excited. In this regard we have to consider vertical coherences (Rabi oscillations) as well as horizontal coherences (polarization, alignment of sublevels). Overlapping modes in the multimode laser beam produce a broadband excitation and coherence times shorter than the relevant nanosecond time scale of our experiment. Horizontal coherences are produced by the anisotropic excitation of the polarized laser light. In the present experiment we used low saturation parameters, i. e. weak laser pumping, although saturation is hard to avoid completely without severe loss in signal-to-noise ratio. With low saturation observation of LIF under the angle of 54.7 with respect to the axis of laser polarization (magic–angle arrangement) ensured a time-resolved LIF signal comparable to isotropic excitation experiments (Hannaford and Lowe, (1983)). However, we could not find any anisotropy in the LIF signals when varying the polarization axis of the laser, indicating an internal depolarization mechanism of the trapped ions. This has been confirmed by experiments as discussed by Schnabel and Kock, 2000b .

As a particle source, we used a high–current hollow cathode combined with a linear Paul trap. This apparatus was designed and optimized for pulsed laser spectroscopy on large numbers of metal ions in their ground state or in metastable states (van Lessen et al., (1998)).

The Paul trap was operated as an ion guide. Whereas the neutral particles expanded effusively, ionized species were collimated onto the axis due to their charge/mass ratio. The ion trap/guide arrangement consisted of four copper cylindrical rods as guiding electrodes. The thermal population of metastable states inside the discharge was conserved and exploited successfully (Schultz-Johanning et al., (1999)).

Two different laser systems were at our disposal. At the Lund Laser Centre (LLC), stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS) was used to generate short laser pulses below 1 ns (Li et al., 1999b , Norin, (1998)). Compressed second–harmonic pulses of an injection–seeded Nd:YAG laser were used to pump a dye laser. In the present experiment we obtained linearly polarized pulses of 0.5 ns duration (FWHM) with a repetition rate of 10 Hz in the wavelength range 210-270 nm. At our department longer lasting laser pulses of 2 to 3 ns ns duration, also linearly polarized and with a repetition rate of 10 Hz, are used. The third harmonic of our Quanta Ray DCR 11–3 Nd:YAG laser pumps a Lambda Physik LPD 3002 dye laser. Overlapping laser modes provided a broadband excitation of the Doppler–broadened ionic lines. We estimated the transition line width of the cooled ions inside the trap to be smaller than 2 GHz.

The Fe II ions in the collimated beam were excited resonantly at a distance of 4 cm or 15 cm, respectively, measured from the small exit aperture. Perpendicular to the laser beam the fluorescence photons were imaged by a lens system onto the photo detector. The crossing of atom beam and laser beam was located in the center of a Helmholtz coil. Magnetic fields of up to 2 mT could be superimposed to check the influence of quantum beats. Also the polarization axis of the laser was varied to investigate anisotropy in the LIF signals. Both effects could not be observed in this experiments on Fe II, although observed previously on different species (cf. Schnabel and Kock, (1997) and Schnabel and Kock, 2000a ).

Fluorescence photons were recorded time-resolved using a fast photo detector in combination with a fast digitizing oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS 680 B). We used two different photo detectors. At LLC a Hamamatsu 1564U micro-channel plate (MCP) with a rise-time of 200 ps was at our disposal. Additionally we used a Hamamatsu R2496 photomultiplier with a rise-time of 700 ps. In both cases the response function of the detector system, including signal cable and oscilloscope was measured separately and entered our evaluation procedure Schnabel and Kock, 2000a . Our oscilloscope had an analog bandwidth of 1 GHz and a real–time scanning rate of 2 $`\times `$ 5 Gigasamples/s.

The time-resolved nonlinear LIF technique requires recording of the temporal and spatial intensity distributions of the laser pulses. The temporal shape was measured with a fast photo tube (Hamamatsu R1328U–52) simultaneously with the measurement of the LIF signal using the second channel of the oscilloscope. This signal was also used to trigger the fluorescence measurement. The rise-time of that detection system was (330 $`\pm `$ 20) ps measured with femtosecond laser pulses and was mainly limited by the oscilloscope. The spatial photon distribution of the laser pulses was measured with a 2/3 inch CCIR Standard CCD chip with 756 $`\times `$ 583 pixels of 11 $`\mu `$m size. For each single laser pulse an 8–bit histogram of the intensity was recorded. This procedure was fast enough to handle the 10 Hz repetition rate of our experiment. For the evaluation procedure an averaged 15–bit histogram was calculated from the single shots. The temporal fluorescence was also averaged over the single shots. A typical single lifetime measurement lasted over 100 s (1000 laser pulses). The measured averaged spatial and temporal laser pulse profiles were used to solve the rate equations for a three-level atom. The result was a temporal process of expected fluorescence intensity which was convoluted with the response function of the detection system and then fitted to the measured signal. For the result we derived the level lifetime which was one of four fitting parameters. For more detailed information we refer to Schnabel and Kock, 2000a  and Schnabel and Kock, 2000b .

## 3 Branching Fraction Measurement

In the present paper we use branching fractions from previous publications, the PhD thesis of Kroll, (1985), and the journal papers by Kroll and Kock, (1987) and Heise and Kock, (1990). In all cases branching fractions were determined by means of emission spectroscopy. Additionally Kroll used dispersion (hook) measurements to check the emission measurements to be free from systematic errors. The hook measurements also allowed a consistency check of lifetime data, thereby allowing an optimization of lifetime values which were available from literature. For all emission measurements we used our large-scale hollow cathode lamps. The iron spectra were recorded by our 2 m McPherson monochromator with a plane grating of 2400 lines per mm and by the 1 m Fourier-transform spectrometer at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona. A detailed description of the experimental procedures used can be found in the three references given above.

## 4 Results and Discussion

As already said above, absolute transition probabilities are derived from independent measurements of lifetimes and full sets of branching fractions. Both experimental procedures involve different techniques and are subject to systematic and statistical uncertainties of different size. In the following paragraphs we therefore discuss our lifetime and branching fraction data separately.

Table 1 summarizes the results of our lifetime measurements. Here error bars are given in absolute values and represent a $`1\sigma `$ standard deviation derived from up to 20 independent lifetime measurements. Systematic errors have been estimated to be negligible. Comparing our set with accurate literature data we find excellent agreement confirming the absence of systematic error sources in both measuring techniques, the fast beam–laser technique (Biémont et al., (1991), Guo et al., (1992)) and the time-resolved non-linear LIF technique used in this work. Since we used an ion guide our work was not effected by possible blends and misidentifications due to Fe I lines. Misidentifications due to Fe II lines were excluded by using more than one excitation wavelength for the upper levels. This was done for more than half of the levels giving us a sufficient absolute wavelength calibration for all the laser dyes used.

In Table 2 we present our branching fractions which are re-separated from the absolute data given in Kroll, (1985), Kroll and Kock, (1987) and Heise and Kock, (1990). Possible transitions which were not found in the spectra have been estimated with the data of Kurucz and Bell, (1995) to contribute less than $`2\%`$ and have been accounted for in Table 2. We compare our branching fractions with experimental data from Bergeson et al., (1996). In the last row of Table 2 our lifetime data is used for a new absolute scaling of our experimental branching fractions. For two levels, lifetime values have been taken from literature.

In Table 2 all error bars are given in $`\%`$. The error bars of our data include statistical and estimated systematic uncertainties. For the transitions at 430.317 nm and 523.462 nm we found different results in our investigations, here we quote the values as given in Heise and Kock, (1990). For a quantitative comparison with data from Bergeson et al., (1996), we quote their error bars including a 5 % calibration uncertainty as given in that paper. For virtually $`90\%`$ of all the lines measured, a good common agreement within the mutual error bars has been found. The comparison shows no runaways, however, the sets of Bergeson et al. are far from complete.

Considering now the absolute data in Table 2, we find our new transition probabilities to be increased by about 10$`\%`$ on average compared with our values published earlier. This corresponds to the new lifetime values applied. The uncertainties in our absolute data are slightly reduced due to the higher accuracy of the lifetimes. Although not explicitly given in Table 2, we also compared the absolute transition probabilities. Again good agreement is found for the cases where accurate data are available from literature (Bergeson et al., (1996)). Comparing our absolute data with the subset we used for a solar iron abundance determination in Schnabel et al., (1999), we find 4 values to be decreased by about 4 % and 4 other values to be increased by 2 %. The reasons are slightly changed estimated contributions by unknown lines. Altogether there is no effect on our published solar iron abundance of logN(Fe)$`=7.42\pm 0.09`$.

Our data sets are suitable for a reliability check of theoretical data. We refer to theoretical data that can be found in Kurucz and Bell, (1995), Raassen and Uylings, 1998a  and Raassen and Uylings, 1998b . The consistency with our data is generally quite good although the comparison is not provided in Table 2. In cases where no experimental data is available yet it is generally quite difficult to estimate the quality of theoretical data. The completeness and the accuracy of our data might help theorists to derive such an estimation, taking into account the details of their theoretical codes and the experimental data used for semi-empirical approaches.

In conclusion, we have presented 140 Fe II transition probabilities. Given the high degree of completeness of the sets and the accuracy of the lifetime values used, Table 2 presents one of the most reliable values at present. A substantial improvement in accuracy can only be achieved in the branching fraction data. Although an independent technique to measure strong branches has been demonstrated recently (Schnabel and Kock, 2000b ) it remains challenging to reduce systematic and statistical uncertainties in branching fraction measurements.

## 5 Acknowledgment

This work was partly supported by the TMR Programme “Access to Large Scale Facilities”, Contract No. ERBFMGECT950020 (DG12) and by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). We thank the colleagues from Lund Laser Centre (LLC) at Lund University for hospitality and the possibility to use their laser system.