text:
# version 20 Elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at √𝑠__{𝑁𝑁}=130 GeV

## Abstract

Elliptic flow from nuclear collisions is a hadronic observable sensitive to the early stages of system evolution. We report first results on elliptic flow of charged particles at midrapidity in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=130`$ GeV using the STAR TPC at RHIC. The elliptic flow signal, $`v_2`$, averaged over transverse momentum, reaches values of about $`6\%`$ for relatively peripheral collisions and decreases for the more central collisions. This can be interpreted as the observation of a higher degree of thermalization than at lower collision energies. Pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow are also presented.

The goal of the ultrarelativistic nuclear collision program is the creation of a system of deconfined quarks and gluons . If this system is created, its evolution should be governed by the physics of deconfined matter. The elliptic flow observable, which is sensitive to the early evolution of the system, is the anisotropic emission of particles “in” or “out” of the reaction plane defined for non-central collisions by the beam direction (z-axis) and the impact parameter direction (x-axis). Elliptic flow is usually characterized in terms of particle momenta by $`v_2=(p_x^2p_y^2)/(p_x^2+p_y^2)`$, the second harmonic Fourier coefficient in the azimuthal distribution of particles with respect to the reaction plane . Elliptic flow has its origin in the spatial anisotropy of the system when it is created in a non-central collision, and in particle rescatterings in the evolving system which convert the spatial anisotropy to momentum anisotropy. The spatial anisotropy in general decreases with system expansion, thus quenching this effect and making elliptic flow particularly sensitive to the early stages of the system evolution . Being dependent on rescattering, elliptic flow is sensitive to the degree of thermalization of the system  at this early time. Hydrodynamic models, which are based on the assumption of complete local thermalization, predict the strongest signals .

Elliptic flow in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions was first discussed in Ref.  and has been studied intensively in recent years at AGS  and SPS  energies. These studies have found that elliptic flow at high energies is “in-plane”, $`v_2>0`$, as expected from most models, and the pion elliptic flow for relatively peripheral collisions increases with beam energy  from about 2% at the top AGS energy  to about 3.5% at the SPS . From transport cascade models for the full RHIC energy, a peak elliptic flow value of 1.5% is predicted by UrQMD  calculations and 2.5% by RQMD v2.4  calculations . Hydrodynamic models predict $`v_2`$ as high as 10% . Details of the $`v_2`$ dependence on beam energy and centrality are thought to be sensitive to the phase transition between confined and deconfined matter  (see also  and references therein).

We report here the first results on elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=130`$ GeV. The Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC (STAR)  consists of several detector sub-systems in a large solenoidal magnet. For first year data taking, the setup consists of the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) which covers the pseudorapidity range $`|\eta |<1.8`$ for collisions in the center of the TPC, and has complete azimuthal coverage, which is desirable for the study of azimuthal correlations. In the first year, the TPC is operated with a 0.25 Tesla field, allowing tracking of particles with $`p_t>75`$ MeV/c. Two Zero Degree Calorimeters  which measure fragmentation neutrons are used in coincidence for the trigger. The TPC is surrounded by a scintillator barrel which measures the charged particle multiplicity, and is used in studies of the trigger performance and vertex reconstruction efficiency.

The relative multiplicity distribution for events with a reconstructed primary vertex is shown in Fig. 1. An analysis of the trigger performance and vertex reconstruction efficiency, together with comparisons with Hijing , show that the events in Fig. 1 are hadronic Au+Au interactions corresponding to about 90% of the geometric cross section, the losses being due to vertex reconstruction inefficiency for low-multiplicity events. This vertex finding inefficiency is not included in the normalization of Fig. 1. The multiplicity is the number of primary tracks which pass within 3 cm of the vertex and have $`|\eta |<0.75`$. The distribution shown is not corrected for tracking efficiency; it is used in this analysis only to estimate centralities.

For this analysis, 22 k events were selected with a primary vertex position within 75 cm longitudinally of the TPC center and within 1 cm radially of the beam line. Tracks were selected with $`0.1<p_t2.0`$ GeV/c in order to have a tracking efficiency constant to within $`\pm 10\%`$. They also passed within 1 cm of the primary vertex, had at least 15 space points, and $`|\eta |<1.3`$. For the determination of the event plane we required $`|\eta |<1.0`$. Also, the ratio of the number of space points to the expected maximum number of space points for that particular track was required to be greater than 0.52, largely suppressing split tracks from being counted twice. However, the analysis results are not sensitive to these cuts.

The analysis method  involves the calculation of the event plane angle, which is an experimental estimator of the real reaction plane angle. The second harmonic event plane angles, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, are calculated for two subevents, which are groups of independent particles from the same event. In order to see whether these planes are correlated, the mean cosine of the difference in their event plane angles is calculated. Although the STAR detector has good azimuthal symmetry, small acceptance effects in the calculation of the event plane angle were removed by the methods of shifting or weighting . This correction, by either method, is negligible for the second harmonic.

The subevents have been chosen in three different ways: 1) Assigning particles with pseudorapidity $`0.05<\eta <1`$ to one subevent and particles with $`1<\eta <0.05`$ to the other subevent. The “gap” between the two regions ensures that short range correlations, such as Bose-Einstein correlations or Coulomb final state interactions, contribute negligibly to the observed correlation. 2) Dividing all particles randomly into two subevents. 3) Assigning positive particles to one subevent and negative particles to the other. Fig. 2 shows the results for correlation of the event planes of subevents assigned by the pseudorapidity method. The two other methods give similar results. Non-flow effects (not correlated with the reaction plane) would contribute differently for these different subevent choices. The shape of the centrality dependence of the second-harmonic signal is characteristic of anisotropic flow and quite different from possible non-flow sources.

Most commonly discussed non-flow sources of azimuthal correlations are: 1) Momentum conservation, which can affect directed flow when each subevent is not symmetric about mid-rapidity, does not affect elliptic flow measurements. 2) Coulomb and Bose-Einstein correlations , which are eliminated by the construction of the subevents in Fig 2. 3) Resonance decay , whose effect on the subevent correlation would be independent of centrality, unlike what is observed for the second harmonic. 4) Jets, when calculated using Hijing  for the cuts used in the current analysis, do not contribute beyond the systematic errors for $`v_2`$ quoted below. Also, if jets or resonances contribute to $`v_2`$ they would contribute to the directed flow measurements in comparable amount. The first harmonic correlation, which is shown in Fig 2, and the higher harmonics, are about an order of magnitude weaker than the elliptic flow at mid-centrality. This sets an upper limit for the contribution of all non-flow effects to the elliptic flow and is the basis of the estimate below of the systematic errors.

The analysis method involves correlation of the azimuthal angle, $`\varphi `$, of each particle with an event plane angle, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and then averaging over all events. In this paper we have used three particle correlation methods: 1) Correlating the particles from one hemisphere with the event plane of the subevent in the other hemisphere. 2) Correlating each particle with the event plane of all the other particles. 3) Correlating particles of one charge sign with the event plane of the opposite charge sign. The observed elliptic flow comes from the second harmonic Fourier coefficient of the particle azimuthal distribution with respect to the event plane, which is simply $`\mathrm{cos}[2(\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_2)]`$. The elliptic flow relative to the real reaction plane, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$, the plane defined by the impact parameter and the beam, can be evaluated by dividing the observed signal by the resolution, $`\mathrm{cos}[2(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_R)]`$, of the event plane. The resolutions calculated from the correlation of subevent planes were somewhat different for the different subevent selections, but the resultant $`v_2`$ values were the same within statistical errors. The resolutions for the full events reach 0.7 for the centrality at the peak in Fig. 2, while in NA49 at the SPS they only reached 0.4. A resolution of the event plane angle of 0.7 is sufficiently close to the ideal value of 1.0, to correlate other quantities, such as two-particle correlation measurements (HBT) with the event plane. Since we do not measure the correlation with the first harmonic plane, we cannot determine the sign of $`v_2`$.

Our analysis procedures have been tested with simulated data to which a known amount of flow has been added. The simulated data were filtered by a GEANT model of STAR and reconstructed in a way similar to that used for the data. For 2% and 10% elliptic flow added to the simulations, the flow extracted was $`(2.0\pm 0.1)\%`$ and $`(9.7\pm 0.2)\%`$, respectively.

Fig. 3 shows $`v_2`$ as a function of centrality of the collision. Although this figure was made with the subevents chosen as in Fig. 2, the same results within errors were obtained with the other correlation methods. Restricting the primary vertex $`z`$ position to reduce TPC acceptance edge effects also made no difference. From the results of the study of non-flow contributions by different subevent selections and the maximum magnitudes of the first and higher-order harmonics, we estimate a systematic error for $`v_2`$ of about 0.005, with somewhat smaller uncertainty for the mid-centralities where the resolution of the event plane is high. The systematic errors are not included in the figures.

In the hydrodynamic limit, elliptic flow is approximately proportional to the initial space anisotropy, $`ϵ`$, which is calculated in Ref. . The transformation to the multiplicity axis in Fig. 3 was done using a Hijing  simulation, taking into account the above mentioned vertex-finding inefficiency for low multiplicity events. In comparing the flow results to $`ϵ`$, no unusual structure is evident which could be attributed to the crossing of a phase transition while varying centrality. The $`ϵ`$ values in Fig. 3 are scaled to show the range of hydrodynamic predictions for $`v_2/ϵ`$ from 0.19 to 0.25. The data values for the lower multiplicities could indicate incomplete thermalization during the early time when elliptic flow is generated . On the other hand, for the most central collisions, comparison of the data with hydrodynamic calculations suggest that early-time thermalization may be complete. The $`v_2`$ values peak at more peripheral collisions than RQMD predictions , but in qualitative agreement with hydrodynamic models .

The differential anisotropic flow is a function of $`\eta `$ and $`p_t`$. For the integrated results presented here, all $`v`$ values should first be calculated as a function of $`\eta `$ and $`p_t`$, and then averaged over either or both variables using the double differential cross sections as weights. Since we do not yet know the cross sections, we have averaged using the observed yields. Fig. 4 shows $`v_2`$ as a function of $`p_t`$ for a minimum bias trigger. The $`\eta `$ dependence (not shown), which is averaged over $`p_t`$ from 0.1 to 2.0 GeV/c, is constant at a value of $`(4.5\pm 0.5)`$% for $`|\eta |1.3`$. We have assumed that the efficiency (yield/cross section) is constant in the $`p_t`$ range where the yield is large. This is borne out by studies of the effects of different track quality cuts on the observed $`p_t`$ spectra. For the $`p_t`$ dependence the data are not very sensitive to the assumption of constant efficiency as a function of $`\eta `$ because $`v_2`$ appears to be independent of $`\eta `$ in the range used, $`|\eta |<1.3`$. Mathematically the $`v_2`$ value at $`p_t=0`$, as well as its first derivative, must be zero, but it is interesting that $`v_2`$ appears to rise almost linearly with $`p_t`$ starting from relatively low values of $`p_t`$. This is consistent with a stronger “in-plane” hydrodynamic expansion of the system than the average radial expansion. Note that the results shown in Fig. 3 were obtained by taking the average over both $`\eta `$ and $`p_t`$, weighted by the yield. Although Fig. 4 is for approximately minimum bias data the general shapes are the same for data selected on centrality, except that the slopes of the $`p_t`$ curves depend on centrality. Fig. 4 was made using pseudorapidity subevents, although the same results within errors were obtained using the other two methods.

We conclude that elliptic flow at RHIC rises up to about 6% for the most peripheral collisions, a value which is more than 50% larger than at the SPS , indicating stronger early-time thermalization at this RHIC energy. Elliptic flow appears to be independent of pseudorapidity in the region $`|\eta |1.3`$. Its $`p_t`$ dependence is almost linear in the region $`0.1<p_t<2`$ GeV/c. Comparing to estimates  based on transport cascade models, we find that elliptic flow is underpredicted by RQMD by a factor of more than 2. Hydrodynamic calculations  for RHIC energies overpredict elliptic flow by about 20-50%. This is just the reverse of the situation at the SPS where RQMD gave a reasonable description of the data and hydrodynamic calculations were more than a factor of two too high . Also in contrast to lower collision energies, the observed shape of the centrality dependence of the elliptic flow is similar to hydrodynamic calculations and thus consistent with significant thermalization. The values for elliptic flow compared to hydrodynamic models indicate that early-time thermalization is somewhat incomplete for peripheral collisions but perhaps complete for the more central collisions.

Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the RHIC Operations Group at Brookhaven National Laboratory for their tremendous support and for providing collisions for the experiment. This work was supported by the Division of Nuclear Physics and the Division of High Energy Physics of the Office of Science of the U.S.Department of Energy, the United States National Science Foundation, the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung of Germany, the Institut National de la Physique Nucleaire et de la Physique des Particules of France, the United Kingdom Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and the Russian Ministry of Science and Technology.

Deceased


format: text

text:
# Resonant capture by inward migrating planets

## 1 Introduction

Giant planets are found orbiting nearby stars with semimajor axes as small as 0.04 AU (Schneider (2000)). The difficulty of forming planets so close to a star has led to the suggestion that these planets formed at larger radii and migrated inwards, perhaps through gravitational interactions with the gaseous protoplanetary disk or planetesimal disk (Lin, Bodenheimer & Richardson (1996); Murray et al. (1998)).

When massive planets migrate, they can capture smaller bodies in mean-motion resonances. Resonant capture in the solar system was invoked by Goldreich (1965) to explain the frequent occurrence of commensurable periods among planetary satellites; in this case the satellites are migrating outwards due to tidal friction (see Peale (1999) for a review). Similarly, the outward migration of Neptune probably led to the capture of Pluto and many Kuiper-belt objects (“Plutinos”) into the 2:3 resonance with Neptune (Malhotra 1993, 1995).

All known examples of resonant capture in the solar system involve outward migration. However, the compact orbits of exosolar planets are believed to result from inward migration. The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the novel features of resonant capture during inward migration.

We shall use the Delaunay elements,

$$L=(M_{}a)^{1/2},G=L(1e^2)^{1/2},H=G\mathrm{cos}i,\mathrm{},g=\omega ,h=\mathrm{\Omega };$$
(1)
here $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the star in units where the gravitational constant is unity, $`a`$, $`e`$, and $`i`$ are the semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination; $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the mean anomaly, argument of periastron, and longitude of the ascending node; $`G`$ is the specific angular momentum and $`H`$ is the $`z`$-component of the angular momentum. In these variables the Kepler Hamiltonian is

$$H_K(L)=\frac{M_{}^2}{2L^2},$$
(2)
and the mean motion $`n=H_K/L=M_{}^2/L^3=(M_{}/a^3)^{1/2}`$.

For simplicity we shall consider only the case of a test particle that is captured by a massive body on a circular orbit with zero inclination. We shall call this body “Jupiter”; its mass, semimajor axis, and mean motion are denoted by $`M_J`$, $`a_J`$, and $`n_J`$.

## 2 Analytic results

A $`(p,q)`$ mean-motion resonance occurs when $`pn(p+q)n_J`$, where $`p>0`$ and $`q>p`$ are integers. We distinguish inner resonances, which lie inside Jupiter ($`a<a_J`$, $`n>n_J`$, $`q>0`$), from outer resonances ($`a>a_J`$, $`n<n_J`$, $`q<0`$).

The Hamiltonian of the test particle can be written in the form

$$H_K(L)+\underset{p,q,m}{}A_{pqm}(L,G,H)\mathrm{cos}[p\mathrm{}+(p+q)(g+h\varphi _J)2mg];$$
(3)
here $`\varphi _J(t)=n_J(t)𝑑t`$ is the azimuth of Jupiter, and $`p`$, $`q`$, and $`m`$ are integers. The angles $`h`$ and $`\varphi _J`$ can only appear in the combination $`h\varphi _J`$ because the Hamiltonian is invariant to changes in the origin of the azimuth. The restriction that the coefficient of $`g`$ must be an even integer $`2m`$ arises because the planetary potential is symmetric about the equatorial plane, so that the Hamiltonian must be invariant under the transformation $`hh+\pi `$, $`gg+\pi `$. For low-eccentricity, low-inclination orbits, $`|A_{pqm}|(M_J/M_{})e^{|q2m|}i^{|2m|}`$ for $`p,q0`$. The terms with $`p+q=0`$ can also contain a contribution from an additional axisymmetric potential, due for example to a protoplanetary disk or the equatorial bulge of the central star. Terms with $`p=q=0`$ are sometimes called the secular Hamiltonian since they do not depend on either the mean anomaly $`\mathrm{}`$ or the azimuth of Jupiter $`\varphi _J`$ and thus are time-independent for Keplerian motion.

Each $`(p,q)`$ mean-motion resonance is represented in the Hamiltonian (3) by an infinite series in $`m`$. We can isolate the slowly varying resonant angle by a canonical transformation to new momenta and coordinates $`(𝐑,𝐫)`$ defined by the mixed-variable generating function

$$S(𝐑,\mathrm{},g,h)=R_1\mathrm{}+R_2g+R_3[p\mathrm{}+(p+q)(g+h\varphi _J)].$$
(4)
We have

$$L=\frac{S}{\mathrm{}}=R_1+pR_3,G=\frac{S}{g}=R_2+(p+q)R_3,H=\frac{S}{h}=(p+q)R_3,$$
(5)
$$r_1=\frac{S}{R_1}=\mathrm{},r_2=\frac{S}{R_2}=g,r_3=\frac{S}{R_3}=p\mathrm{}+(p+q)(g+h\varphi _J).$$
(6)
Near the resonance, $`r_1`$ varies much more rapidly than $`r_2`$ or $`r_3`$, so we can average the Hamiltonian over the fast variable $`r_1`$ at fixed $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$. The conjugate action $`R_1`$ is a constant of motion in the averaged Hamiltonian and an adiabatic invariant of the original Hamiltonian. Therefore

$$C_{pq}(p+q)R_1=(p+q)LpH=(M_{}a)^{1/2}[(p+q)p(1e^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}i]$$
(7)
is adiabatically invariant.

The averaged Hamiltonian has two degrees of freedom. The nature of the trajectories in the averaged Hamiltonian depends on the relative strength of the secular and resonant Hamiltonians. If the secular Hamiltonian is either large or small compared to the resonant Hamiltonian, the timescales for libration or circulation of the associated coordinates $`r_2`$ and $`r_3`$ are well-separated, and the problem can be reduced to one degree of freedom by a second averaging. In the intermediate case, resonances with different $`m`$ can overlap, leading to chaotic motion. All three regimes are present in various solar-system contexts.

Despite these complexities, some of the principal features of resonant capture can be deduced directly from the adiabatic invariant $`C_{pq}`$ (eq. 7). Suppose that the test particle is initially on a circular, equatorial orbit at semimajor axis $`a_i`$. Then $`C_{pq}=(M_{}a_i)^{1/2}q`$. Once the particle is captured into resonance, its semimajor axis will migrate along with Jupiter’s to preserve the mean-motion resonance, thereby pumping up the test particle’s eccentricity and/or inclination. The adiabatic invariance of $`C_{pq}`$ then requires that

$$\kappa (1e^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}i=1+\frac{q}{p}\left[1(a_i/a)^{1/2}\right].$$
(8)
The quantity on the left is initially unity (since $`e=i=0`$) and can only decrease. For an outer resonance ($`q<0`$) this requires that $`a_i/a<1`$; in other words capture into an outer resonance can only occur if the perturber migrates outward. If the perturber migrates a long way outwards, then $`a_i/a0`$ and $`\kappa \kappa _{\mathrm{}}=1+q/p`$. Note that $`0<\kappa _{\mathrm{}}<1`$ since $`p>0`$, $`p<q<0`$; thus captured orbits never achieve radial ($`e=1`$) or polar ($`i=\frac{1}{2}\pi `$) orbits.

Similarly, capture into an inner resonance ($`q>0`$) can only occur if the perturber migrates inward. However, in this case the eccentricity and inclination evolution is more dramatic. The quantity $`\kappa 0`$ when $`a=q^2a_i/(p+q)^2`$; in other words, by the time Jupiter has migrated inward by a factor of $`q^2/(p+q)^2`$ after capture, the test particle has been driven onto either a radial or a polar orbit. If migration continues past this point and the test particle remains in resonance, it must be driven onto a retrograde orbit ($`\kappa <0`$). The minimum possible value of $`\kappa `$ is $`1`$ (for $`e=0`$, $`i=\pi `$). This is attained when Jupiter has migrated inward by a factor of $`q^2/(2p+q)^2`$ since capture; if migration continues past this point the test particle cannot remain in resonance.

These simple considerations suggest that inward migration of a planet can excite small planets or planetesimals into high-eccentricity, high-inclination, or retrograde orbits. In the remainder of this paper we shall investigate the evolution and fate of these objects numerically.

## 3 Numerical integrations

In our integrations we use units in which the gravitational constant, Jupiter’s initial semimajor axis $`a_{Ji}`$ and orbital period are all unity, so $`M_{}=4\pi ^2`$. Jupiter’s mass is $`M_J=0.001M_{}`$. Jupiter is assumed to follow a circular orbit that migrates inward according to the rule

$$a_J(t)=a_{Jf}+(1a_{Jf})\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau ),$$
(9)
where $`a_{Jf}=0.1`$ and $`\tau =1000`$. The test-particle integrations were carried out in regularized coordinates.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of a test particle initially on a zero-inclination, circular orbit with semimajor axis $`a_0=0.59`$. The test particle is captured into the 2:1 resonance ($`p=q=1`$) with Jupiter at $`t/\tau =0.073`$. Thereafter its orbit shrinks and its eccentricity grows, as predicted by the adiabatic invariant $`\kappa `$ (eq. 8). Eventually at $`t/\tau =1.90`$, when the semimajor axis has shrunk by a factor of $`q^2/(p+q)^2=4`$ since capture, the orbit is nearly radial ($`1e10^4`$). In typical planetary systems, a small body in this high-eccentricity phase would be vaporized by or collide with the star, but we shall continue to follow the dynamical evolution assuming that the particle survives. At this point the inclination flips rapidly from $`0`$ to $`\pi `$ (recall that inclination is undefined for radial orbits). Once the inclination is $`\pi `$ the eccentricity shrinks as the orbit continues to shrink, again as predicted by adiabatic invariance. Finally, at $`t/\tau =5.40`$, when the semimajor axis is a factor of $`(1+2p/q)^2=9`$ smaller than at capture, the test particle is released from the resonance on a retrograde, equatorial, near-circular orbit.

Figure 2 shows the final states of an ensemble of test particles, on initially circular, zero-inclination orbits with initial semimajor axes $`a_i`$ between 0.26 and 0.6. The planet migrates from $`a_{Ji}=1`$ to $`a_{Jf}=0.1`$, so the 2:1 resonance migrates from $`a_{Ri}=0.6300`$ to $`a_{Rf}=0.0630`$. According to equation (8), particles will be captured into resonance during the migration if $`a_i>a_{Rf}`$, flipped onto retrograde orbits if $`a_i>(1+p/q)^2a_{Rf}=4a_{Rf}=0.2520`$, and released from resonance on nearly circular, retrograde orbits if $`a_i>(2p/q+1)^2a_{Rf}=9a_{Rf}=0.5670`$. For particles with $`4a_{Rf}<a_i<9a_{Rf}`$ the eccentricity is given by

$$a_i=a_{Rf}\left[2+(1e_f^2)^{1/2}\right]^2,$$
(10)
which is plotted as a dotted line. All of these predictions agree very well with the results shown in the Figure.

The evolution is more complicated when the test particles have non-zero eccentricities and inclinations. Figure 3 shows the final states of test particles with the same range of initial semimajor axes as in Figure 2, but with eccentricities and inclinations chosen from the Schwarzschild or Rayleigh distribution,

$$n(e,i)dedi\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{e^2}{2e_0^2}\frac{i^2}{2i_0^2}\right)edeidi.$$
(11)
At the end of the integration, most of the particles are found in one of three final states:

* The particles shown as filled circles are in retrograde ($`i\pi `$) orbits trapped in the 2:1 resonance, like those shown in Figure 2. If migration had continued, these would eventually be released from resonance on nearly circular orbits, after their semimajor axis had migrated by a factor 9 since capture (this has already happened for two particles, marked by open circles). These particles typically have small initial eccentricities and inclinations, $`e_i0.05`$, $`i_i5^{}`$.
* The particles marked by crosses are on escape orbits, or chaotic orbits that are likely to escape in the future. In most cases these particles are pumped onto high-eccentricity orbits, released from resonance, and then suffer a close encounter with Jupiter, leading to a random walk in semimajor axis and eventual escape. The evolution of the orbital elements in a typical case is shown in Figure 4. These particles typically have initial eccentricities $`e_i0.05`$. Note that the final eccentricity and inclination for the escaping orbits are given in the center-of-mass frame, while all other orbital elements in this and other Figures are given in the star-centered frame.
* The particles marked by open triangles were trapped in the 2:1 resonance and later released on nearly polar orbits ($`i\frac{1}{2}\pi `$). These particles have high eccentricities and arguments of perihelion $`\omega `$ that librate around $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\pi `$. This secular resonance protects high-eccentricity orbits from close encounters with Jupiter, so the particle orbits are stable on the timescale of our integrations ($`1\times 10^4`$ initial orbital periods of Jupiter). These orbits typically have initial inclination $`i_i5^{}`$. An example is shown in Figure 5.

## 4 Discussion

Giant planets are found orbiting close to many nearby stars. Because the conditions in the inner parts of protoplanetary disks are unfavorable to planet formation, it is likely that these planets formed at much larger radii and migrated inward. Moreover, because the characteristic evolution times in a protoplanetary disk are longer at larger radius, it is likely that planetesimals and small planets had already formed interior to this giant planet before it began its inward journey. In these circumstances resonant capture by the inward migrating planet is likely to occur at the 2:1 mean-motion resonance.

We have shown that small bodies that are captured from circular, equatorial orbits into the 2:1 resonance will be excited onto nearly radial orbits by the time their semimajor axis has shrunk by a factor of four, and released from the resonance on nearly circular retrograde orbits when the semimajor axis has shrunk by a factor of nine. In most of the known planetary systems, these small bodies would be consumed by the central star during this high-eccentricity phase. Thus, substantial migration of a giant planet is likely to pollute the outer parts of the star with most of the mass in the interior planetesimal disk: specifically, if the planet migrates from $`a_{Ji}`$ to $`a_{Jf}<\frac{1}{4}a_{Ji}`$, then the planetesimals with initial semimajor axes in the range $`2.520a_{Jf}<a<0.630a_{Ji}`$ will be excited to high-eccentricity orbits and are likely to be vaporized by or collide with the central star.

Bodies that do not collide with the star will eventually be released from resonance as migration continues. Some of these will be ejected, but some are protected from ejection by secular resonance and can survive on polar, high-eccentricity orbits. Others are released from resonance on circular and equatorial but retrograde orbits, and will survive if the migration stops before the giant planet reaches their semimajor axis. Thus, if the captured planets survive the high-eccentricity phase, their post-migration configuration may not be planar; if the orbits are coplanar, they may not all orbit in the same direction. If multiple bodies formed from a single disk (“planets”) are not necessarily on coplanar orbits, they may be difficult to distinguish from bodies formed from fragmentation of a collapsing gas cloud (“stars”). Radial-velocity observations cannot directly measure the relative inclinations of planets in multi-planet systems; this determination requires astrometric measurements such as those planned for the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM).

This preliminary study has not addressed many important issues, including the effects of an eccentric planet orbit, the stability of these resonances to gravitational noise from other planets and massive planetesimals, or migration in systems containing two or more giant planets.

This research was supported in part by NASA Grant NAG5-7310.


text:
# Tools for RHIC: Review of Models Invited talk at the 5th International Conference on Strangeness in Quark Matter

## 1 Introduction

Although very interesting data have been collected during the SPS program of heavy ion physics, no clear quantitative conclusions can be drawn concerning the formation (or not) of a quark gluon plasma. A well established theory exists (QCD), however, technical difficulties prevent a direct application of the theory to understand data. Effective theories have been proposed to overcome these difficulties, as well as very simple qualitative models, which might as best be called “theory inspired”. On the other hand, the so-called “event generators” or “Monte-Carlo codes” have been introduced, which by definition provide randomly generated “events”, characterized by a certain number of particles of different types with given momenta. One aim of this paper is to discuss general strategies how such event generators should be constructed in order to provide useful tools to understand experimental data.

There is some effort to be done, but it is worth it, because finally MC codes are absolutely necessary to understand data. As an illustration, we plot in fig. 1 yields of different hadrons as a function of the hadron mass for different reactions: electron-positron annihilation at 91 GeV, pp scattering at 17 GeV, and AuAu scattering at 200 GeV. The curves are arbitrarily normalized. We observe a very interesting and unexpected result: all the spectra are roughly exponential, and the spectra for heavy ion collisions agree with the result for electron-positron. Here, all the results are based on calculations, and so we know that the dynamics of electron-positron annihilation is completely different to the one in heavy ion collisions. So one cannot draw any conclusion concerning a plasma formation based on the fact that strange particles and in particular (multi-) strange baryon production is enhanced, since the same effect may be due to a completely different mechanism (as in electron-positron annihilation).

## 2 OSCAR Philosophy

Monte-Carlo simulations are often criticized of not being well documented, having no clear physical basis, being constantly modified, being not publicly available, and so on, which makes all evaluation of the quality of such an approach impossible. In order to improve the situation, OSCAR was founded a couple of years ago, which is first of all a series of workshops, hold every one or two years, as well as working groups and a permanently updated WEB page111 http://nt3.phys.columbia.edu/OSCAR . In the working groups, mainly technical issues have been discussed, like standards for input/output, test for individual moduls, and so on. The first two workshops were held in Brookhaven in 97 and 99, organized by Y. Pang and M. Gyulassy, the third one took place in Nantes in 2000, organized by Y. Schutz and K. Werner.

At the first two workshop the general philosophy was still based on the fact that MC models can hardly be defined by equations, they were mostly defined in a algorithmic way, and therefore the only way to control these codes is good documentation, definition of standards, accessibility, modular structure, all this in particular to allow intensive testing of these codes.

Starting with the third workshop a new philosophy has been discussed, in an attempt to make the event generators much more transparent, and thus to provide really useful tools for analyzing data. So the model should be simply defined by equations, and the computer code should be just the technical means to solve these equations, briefly:

> model = equations,
>
> MC code = solution of the equations.

It is clear that these equations building the basis of the MC code will (probably) never be directly derived from first principles, this is also not necessary. One may construct some effective theory which may be simply inspired by the “true” theory, but the next step, the MC implementation, has to rigorous. The advantage is obvious: is is difficult to have any meaningful discussion about some code where the physical basis is not well defined. When the code however is nothing but the numerical treatment of some very well defined (even if not fundamental) effective theory, one is at least able to have some physics discussion, develop further promising developments, and eliminate those ones based on wrong physical ideas. There was very little progress in this direction during the past years.

## 3 The Different Stages of Heavy Ions Collisions

Unfortunately there does not exist a single formalism being able to account for a complete nucleus-nucleus collision. Rather we have to – at least for the moment – to divide the reaction into different stages

(see fig. 2) and try to understand the different stages as good as possible.

There is first of all the primary interaction when the two nuclei pass through each other. Since at very high energies the longitudinal size is due the gamma factor almost zero (of the order 0.1 fm at RHIC), all the nucleons of the projectile interact with all the nucleons of the target instantaneously. In such a primary interaction many partons are created, which interact (in the pre-equilibrium stage) before reaching an equilibrium, referred to as quark-gluon plasma. The system the expands, passing via phase transition (or sudden crossover) into the hadron gas stage. The density decreases further till the collision rate is no longer large enough to maintain chemical equilibrium, but there are still hadronic interactions till finally the particles “freeze out”, i.e. they continue their way without further interactions.

Different theoretical approaches have been proposed, which are valid only for certain stages of the collision, as indicated in fig. 3. We will present the details in the following sections. This discussion will certainly be quite incomplete, with few exceptions we restrict ourselves to topics having been discussed at OSCAR 3.

## 4 The primary interaction

### 4.1 Longitudinal Excitation

Let us start the discussion with a approach which is widely used today to simulate the primary interactions, but which is definitely wrong: the longitudinal excitation. At low energy nucleon-nucleon scattering, a typical reaction is the excitation of nucleon resonances via the exchange of a meson.

So one might me tempted to generalize this mechanism to high energies: two nucleons interact via the exchange of “something” which causes the two nucleons to be excited to strings, the latter ones considered to be the high energy generalization of excited nucleon states. However, such an extrapolation from low to high energies is simply wrong, due to kinematical reasons. Let us consider two-body kinematics: two incoming particles with four-momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ interact in an non-specified way and produce two outgoing particles with momenta $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$. The transferred momentum is defined to be $`q=p_1p_3`$. A short calculation shows:

$$q^2=q_{}^2+O(\frac{1}{s}),$$

where $`q_{}`$ is the transverse component of the transferred momentum, orthogonal to $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. At high energies ($`s1`$ GeV2), the transferred momentum is consequently purely transverse, there is no transfer of longitudinal momentum. String excitation, on the other hand, requires a transfer of longitudinal momentum in order to allow for string with non-zero mass.

All this has been known since forty years, which does not prevent people from coming up with models based on this wrong idea, or using such models in trying to understand data.

### 4.2 Yang-Mills Equations

For very large nuclei and correspondingly high parton densities screening will be most effective, and therefore soft physics can be completely accounted for by assuming random color sources moving along the light cones, the latter ones generating chromoelectric fields calculable by solving the corresponding classical Yang-Mills equations .

This is an interesting theoretical idea, although it is not clear how to construct an “event generator” based on such an approach, so we do not want to discuss any details here.

### 4.3 The Parton Model

The parton model approach to nucleon-nucleon scattering amounts to presenting the partons of projectile and target by momentum distribution functions, $`f_i`$ and $`f_j`$, and calculating inclusive cross sections for the production of parton jets as a convolution of these distribution functions with the elementary parton-parton cross section $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}/dp_{}^2`$, where $`i,j`$ represent parton flavors.

This simple factorization formula is the result of cancelations of complicated diagrams (AGK cancelations) and hides therefore the complicated multiple scattering structure of the reaction, which is finally recovered via eikonalization procedure. The latter one makes the approach formally equivalent to the Gribov-Regge one, to be discussed later. Generating events and particle production is not at all evident in this approach. The Pythia-method  amounts to generating the first elementary interaction according to the inclusive differential cross section, then taking the remaining energy for the second one and so on. In this way, the event generation will reproduce the theoretical inclusive spectrum for hadron-hadron interaction (by construction).

Concerning nucleus-nucleus collisions, one usually assumes the proton-proton cross section for each individual nucleon-nucleon pair of a $`AB`$ system. Nuclear screening effects may be taken into account by using $`A`$-dependent parton distribution functions, $`f_i^A`$ and $`f_j^A`$, rather than the ones used for nucleon-nucleon scattering (this is usually referred to as shadowing).

The HIJING model  is constructed along these lines, with the additional feature of considering the energy loss of partons due to final state interactions.

### 4.4 Gribov-Regge Theory

Gribov-Regge theory (GRT) has been developed well before QCD, but it is even today more relevant than ever, with HERA giving the opportunity to test and verify the different aspects of this approach. There is no strict derivation from first principles, one can just follow some “QCD inspired arguments” to write down an expression for the elastic scattering amplitude for nucleon-nucleon scattering in terms of many elementary scatterings, which easily generalizes to nucleus-nucleus scattering. From there on, one uses strictly the rules of quantum mechanics to obtain a multiple scattering approach for particle production. The key ingredient is the fact that the cross section is obtained from squaring the amplitude, so one obtains partial contributions as shown in fig.5.

In the example shown in the figure, we have a diagram with two inelastic interactions (symbolically shown as “comb”) interfering with the diagram with two inelastic and one elastic scattering (symbolically shown as “ladder”). So we have classes of interfering contributions, which have to be summed up. Ignoring energy conservation, one obtains a simple formula for the inelastic cross section:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{inel}}(s)=d^2b\underset{m}{}\frac{f(s,b)^m}{m!}e^{f(s,b)}.$$
(1)
The function $`f`$ is related to the inclusive cross section as

$$f(s,b)=\sigma _{\mathrm{incl}}(s)A(b),$$
(2)
with some function $`A`$ representing the impact parameter dependence. The equations (1, 2) provide the link between the parton model and GRT: since the parton model only provides inclusive cross sections, one uses these formulas to introduce multiple scattering. Or one may say it the other way round: GRT models introduce hard scattering via inclusive cross sections calculated in the parton model.

Models based on the Gribov-Regge approach are QGS , DPM , VENUS .

### 4.5 String Fusion

Colliding heavy nuclei at very high energies will produce a large number of strings, which can certainly not be considered completely independent as in standard GRT. A phenomenological approach consists of considering string fusion, whenever pairs of strings are coming close to each other . Fused strings are assumed to behave like ordinary strings simply with a increased string tension. This will, for example, lead to an enhanced production of multi-strange particles.

### 4.6 Nuclear Shadowing

There exists also a formally well defined treatment of high density effects via the so-called enhanced diagrams, which amounts to a generalization of the basic Gribov-Regge theory by taking into account Pomeron-Pomeron interactions. This is responsible not only for nuclear shadowing, but also for diffractive scattering in $`pp`$ but also in deep inelastic scattering. In fact it is very important to have a consistent picture of $`pp`$ and DIS, in general and in particular for diffractive scattering . The latter one reveals a reduction of the Pomeron flux compared to a naive expectation from GRT, which then leads to a reduced screening. To say it differently, one has to go beyond simple lowest order enhanced diagrams (triple Pomerons).

### 4.7 Proper Energy Sharing in GRT

Although GRT is a useful starting point to describe high energy hadronic and nuclear scattering, there are serious drawbacks. As pointed out in , GRT is lacking a consistent picture for the calculation of the cross section formulas and for particle production. The problem is the energy sharing between the individual scatterings. Doing this properly makes the approach considerably more complicated, and therefore the standard approach is to ignore energy sharing at this level, and considering it later when it comes to particle production. This is clearly not consistent, and in fact the error due to neglecting the energy sharing is quite large: the width for the distribution of the number of multiple scatterings is roughly doubled when energy conservation is ignored. This can be compensated by making a second mistake which amounts to ignoring the increase of multiplicity fluctuations due to cutting enhanced diagrams properly. A new model neXus has been proposed recently, where energy conservation is treated properly on all levels. In addition, lowest order enhanced diagrams are considered. Soft and hard scattering is treated such that there is a smooth transition between the two regimes, and in particular a dependence on some transverse momentum cutoff $`p_0`$ can be avoided.

## 5 Pre-Equilibrium

The partons created in the primary interactions are certainly far from equilibrium, and is desirable to understand microscopically the equilibration of the system, in other words the formation of a quark gluon plasma. This is a difficult task, since for example at RHIC energies there is still a large soft component. Nevertheless it is useful to study the evolution of partonic systems based on pQCD, ignoring soft physics.

### 5.1 Parton cascade

A parton cascade amounts to considering partons as classical particles which move on straight line trajectories, where binary interactions are defined via parton-parton cross sections calculated in the framework of perturbative QCD .

One has to carefully regard the range of validity of this approach: it is not meant to treat the primary interactions, where quantum mechanical interference should play a crucial role, so one may start the calculation once a system of incoherent classical partons have been established. On the other end, one should not stretch the perturbative treatment too far: perturbative calculations require large momentum transfer which is not any more guaranteed if the interaction energy is getting too low.

A parton cascade is often referred to as the solution of a Boltzmann equation. In this case one has to work with test particles rather than real particles and one has to make sure that the number of test particles is sufficient to really provide a solution of the equation  (which is in accordance with the OSCAR principle “code = solution of equation”). It turns out that the number of test particles has to be much larger than the number of real particles, which prevents a cascade of real partons to be considered as a solution of a Boltzmann equation. Other than this “particle subdivision test” other tests like “box tests” should be performed to make sure than a cascade algorithm solves really a transport equation.

### 5.2 Parton equilibration

There are also analytical approaches attempting to understand parton equilibration . Starting from a parton density given by the parton model with some cutoff $`p_0`$, one calculated the evolution of the system based on a transport equation of the type

$$pf=\frac{pu}{\tau }(ff_{\mathrm{eq}}),$$

with $`\tau `$ being the relaxation time, which is given as $`\tau =1/\sigma n`$, with $`\sigma `$ being the in-medium cross section, and $`n`$ the parton density. Comparing RHIC and LHC results, the density will be of course bigger for LHC, and in both cases decreasing with time. Due to the larger screening, the cross section will be smaller for LHC compared to RHIC, and in both cases increasing with time. Taking all together one obtains the time dependence of the relaxation time which peaks around 1.5 fm, with the LHC value being somewhat bigger than the RHIC one. One finds a free streaming up to around 1.5 fm, then the equilibration starts.

### 5.3 Parton Energy Loss

Partons created in hard primary interactions will lose energy when traversing matter, the latter one being projectile or target nuclei or quark matter . The formulas for the energy loss obtained so far where obtained in the limit of either large or small system sizes ($`L`$). New developments have been reported , which allow a calculation of the energy loss for arbitrary $`L`$, by using a systematic expansion in opacity ($`L/\lambda `$), where $`\lambda `$ is the mean free path of the parton. It turns out that the expansion converges rapidly, with the second order already being a very small correction compared to the first order one.

## 6 Equilibrium and Post-Equilibrium

We are now discussing the final stage of the collision, consisting of QGP phase, the hadron gas phase, and the very final stage where the hadrons still interact, but they do not form an equilibrated system any more. We do not treat these three stages individually, because the models to be discussed latter treat usually more than just one stage.

### 6.1 Hydrodynamics

The final aim of all the efforts in the field of ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions is the creation of a thermalized system of quarks and gluons. Provided such an equilibrium has been established, one may use hydrodynamics, which is a macroscopic approach based on energy-momentum conservation and local thermal equilibrium. Hydrodynamical calculations have been used since a long time, either assuming particular symmetries and using analytical methods , or full 3-dimensional calculations numerical calculations . Recently a new technique has been proposed, the so-called smoothed particle hydrodynamics , where fields $`\rho (x)`$ are represented by particles as $`\rho _P(x)=_b\nu _b\delta (xx_b)`$, and then smoothed:

$$\rho (x)\rho _{SP}(x)=\rho _P(x)W(xx^{})𝑑x^{}=\underset{b}{}\nu _bW(xx_b),$$

with some smoothing kernel $`W`$. The advantage is that the hydrodynamical equations are transformed into a system of ordinary differential equations, which can be solved by applying standard methods. In this way one may perform 3-dimensional calculations much faster than with traditional methods.

### 6.2 Hadronization

There are several attempts to treat at least the region around the phase transition in a microscopic way. A possibility is to apply transport theory based on the NJL model , which is an effective theory with a point-like interaction between two quarks (gluons are not considered explicitly). The model allows also for hadron production like quark plus anti-quark goes into meson plus meson. The dynamics is crucially affected by the density and temperature dependence of quark and hadron masses, one observes for example the formation of droplets of quark matter rather than homogeneous matter of lower density, since the latter one would imply higher quark masses.

A completely different hadronization scenario has been proposed based on the confinement mechanism , again ignoring gluons. Quarks are considered to be classical particles, their dynamics being determined by a classical Hamiltonian. The latter one contains a string potential and color factors which force the quarks to form resonances, which subsequently decay into hadrons.

Another alternative approach is the hadronization via coalescence . Again, starting from a quark-anti-quark plasma, hadronic resonances are formed based on coalescence, with a subsequent decay into hadrons.

### 6.3 Hadronic Transport Theory

Once a purely hadronic system has been established, a microscopic treatment based on binary hadronic interactions is feasible. Here, hadrons propagate on classical trajectories and interact according to hadron-hadron scattering cross sections. If possible, parameterizations of measured cross sections are used. A couple of models have been constructed along these lines, like UrQMD , ART , JAM . Unfortunately, not all the necessary cross sections have been measured to a sufficient precision, and correspondingly the above-mentioned approaches differ by using different model assumptions for the cross sections. We emphasize again that hadronic transport codes are a useful tool to treat the final stage of a heavy ion collision, but not for the primary interaction.

## 7 Outlook

Historically, most models have been first developed for a certain aspect of the collision, and have later been extended to include more and more features in order to give a complete description of the collision. This is not a good way to proceed, since in this way the models have “strong parts” and “weak parts”, and the whole approach is not very reliable. A better way is to consider “moduls” , describing just one aspect of the collision in the most realistic fashion, and combine such moduls. Examples, which have been discussed at the OSCAR3 workshop, are a combination of hydrodynamics and a hadronic cascade (hydro+UrQMD ) or a combination of a primary interaction model and hydrodynamics (neXus+SPheRIO).


text:
# Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two RebitsThe author ordering on this paper is dictated by CAF’s adherence to alphabetical ordering. CMC, operating under equally valid, but less strongly held principles, would have preferred, in this case, inverse alphabetical ordering.

## I Introduction

One of the key distinguishing features of quantum mechanics, not found in classical physics, is the possibility of entanglement between subsystems. The significance of this phenomenon is now unquestioned, as it lies at the core of several of the most important achievements of quantum information science , such as quantum teleportation  and quantum error correction . Yet can we say that we understand the distinction between those physical theories with entanglement and those without? It is difficult to claim such understanding, as our most well studied foil theory to date—namely, classical physics—is completely devoid of the phenomenon. This paper, in a small way, contributes to filling that gap by studying entanglement in real vector spaces, where though there is entanglement, it is different from the entanglement in the complex vector spaces of standard quantum theory.

Our specific objective here is to analyze entanglement for states of two “rebits,” a rebit being a two-state system whose Hilbert space is defined over the field of real numbers. In particular, we give an explicit formula for the entanglement of formation of an arbitrary (mixed) state of two rebits. This formula is similar in some structural ways, but not identical to Wootters’s formula for the entanglement of formation of two qubits . The reason for our considering real vector spaces is just the reason described above: they provide an easy, well defined foil with which to compare standard quantum theory; indeed, they have already been fruitful in that regard . A quantum theory that uses real vector spaces is similar to, but not identical to the standard theory . In general, we follow the philosophy of Weinberg in Ref.  in the hope that this exercise will help identify those aspects of entanglement that are unique, those that are accidental, and those that are necessary to the standard theory.

To state our main result, we must build some concepts and notation. Consider a bipartite composite system, made up of subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$. A density operator $`\rho ^{AB}`$ of the composite system, pure or mixed, is said to be separable if it can be thought of as arising from an ensemble of product states, i.e.,

$$\rho ^{AB}=\underset{j}{}p_j\rho _j^A\rho _j^B.$$
(1)
A separable pure state is itself a product state. The reason this definition is interesting is because a separable state can be created by procedures that are local to each subsystem, whereas a nonseparable state cannot be created by any local means.

Taking the matrix transpose of any density operator relative to some orthonormal basis—this is the same as taking the complex conjugate in that basis—yields another density operator, i.e., another positive semi-definite operator with unit trace. Similarly, if a state of a bipartite system is separable, taking the partial transpose on system $`B`$ in any basis also yields another density operator. If, however, taking the partial transpose leads to an operator that is not positive semi-definite, one can be sure that the original state was an entangled state. This is the partial transpose condition of Peres . Unfortunately, for subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ of arbitrary Hilbert-space dimensions, the converse of the Peres condition is not true—the partial transpose of an entangled state can give another positive semi-definite operator. Thus the Peres condition does not provide a general criterion for testing entanglement. For $`2\times 2`$ systems (two qubits) or $`2\times 3`$ systems (a qubit and a qutrit), however, the Peres condition does provide a criterion for entanglement: a state of such a composite system is entangled if and only if its partial transpose is a nonpositive operator, i.e., has at least one negative eigenvalue .

The chief resource-based measures of entanglement are the entanglement of formation and the distillable entanglement . For two $`d`$-dimensional systems, the pure state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|e_j^A|e_j^B,$$
(2)
where $`|e_j^A`$ and $`|e_j^B`$ are orthonormal bases for the two subsystems, is maximally entangled in the sense that it can be used to teleport the state of another $`d`$-dimensional system. The degree of entanglement of such a maximally entangled state is $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$, the marginal entropy of each subsystem. Suppose that starting with $`m`$ such maximally entangled states, one has a procedure, involving only local operations and classical communication between subsystems, for creating $`n`$ copies of an arbitrary state $`\rho ^{AB}`$. The entanglement of formation, $`E(\rho ^{AB})`$, is defined to be $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ times the asymptotic ratio $`m/n`$ for an optimal procedure, i.e., one that has the smallest such ratio. Similarly, suppose that starting with $`n`$ copies of the state $`\rho ^{AB}`$, one has a procedure, again involving only local operations and classical communication, for distilling $`m`$ maximally entangled states. The distillable entanglement, $`D(\rho ^{AB})`$, is defined to be $`\mathrm{log}_2d`$ times the asymptotic ratio $`m/n`$ for an optimal procedure, i.e., one that has the largest such ratio.

A separable state has no entanglement of either sort, whereas a nonseparable state necessarily has a nonzero entanglement of formation. For pure states, the formation process is reversible, so the entanglement of formation and the distillable entanglement are the same. For mixed states, however, the distillable entanglement is generally less than the entanglement of formation, reflecting the irreversibility of the formation process. Interestingly, a state with a positive partial transpose has no distillable entanglement . For $`2\times 2`$ and $`2\times 3`$ systems, all entangled states have a nonpositive partial transpose, as noted above, and they also have a nonzero distillable entanglement. For $`3\times 3`$ and higher-dimensional systems, however, there are entangled states that have positive partial transpose; though these states have nonzero entanglement of formation, they have no distillable entanglement. This kind of entanglement, from which no pure-state entanglement can be distilled, is called bound entanglement .

The entanglement of formation of a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a bipartite system is given by the entropy of the marginal density operators, $`\rho ^A`$ and $`\rho ^B`$:

$$E(\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^A\mathrm{log}_2\rho ^A)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^B\mathrm{log}_2\rho ^B).$$
(3)
For a bipartite mixed state the entanglement of formation is more complicated. A mixed state $`\rho ^{AB}`$ has an ensemble decomposition in terms of pure states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$, with probabilities $`p_j`$, if it can be written as

$$\rho ^{AB}=\underset{j}{}p_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j|.$$
(4)
Modulo a presently unanswered question about the super-additivity of the entanglement of formation , the entanglement of formation of $`\rho ^{AB}`$ is given by the minimum average entanglement of formation of the pure states in an ensemble ,

$$E(\rho ^{AB})=\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{j}{}p_jE(\mathrm{\Psi }_j),$$
(5)
where the minimum is taken over all possible ensemble decompositions. For two qubits, Wootters has given an explicit formula for the entanglement of formation in terms of what he calls the concurrence of the joint density operator  \[see Eq. (16) for Wootters’s concurrence expression\]. There are no known explicit formulae for distillable entanglement, even for $`2\times 2`$ systems. We now have all the facts about entanglement we need for posing the questions addressed in this paper.

Let us turn now to issues relevant for distinguishing the theory of real quantum mechanics from standard complex quantum mechanics. The vector space of operators on a $`d`$-dimensional vector space (real or complex) is the direct sum of two natural subspaces, the space $`𝒮`$ of real, symmetric matrices, which has dimension $`\frac{1}{2}d(d+1)`$, and the space $`𝒜`$ of real, antisymmetric matrices, which has dimension $`\frac{1}{2}d(d1)`$. If the vector space is over the real numbers, all the quantum states and observables lie in the symmetric subspace. For a complex vector space, the states and observables are described by Hermitian operators; the (real) vector space $``$ of Hermitian operators takes advantage of both the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces, it being the direct sum $`=𝒮i𝒜`$.

This is of significance for entanglement for the following reason. Suppose one combines two systems, with dimensions $`d_A`$ and $`d_B`$, to make a composite system with dimension $`d_Ad_B`$. In the complex case, the composite vector space of Hermitian operators, of dimension $`d_A^2d_B^2`$, is the tensor product of the corresponding spaces for $`A`$ and $`B`$, i.e., $`_{AB}=_A_B`$. In contrast, the composite space of symmetric matrices, of dimension $`\frac{1}{2}d_Ad_B(d_Ad_B+1)`$, is not just the tensor product of the symmetric spaces of $`A`$ and $`B`$, but rather is given by the direct sum

$$𝒮_{AB}=(𝒮_A𝒮_B)(𝒜_A𝒜_B).$$
(6)
Joint states that have a component in the doubly antisymmetric space, $`𝒜_A𝒜_B`$, are necessarily entangled relative to the real vector space, since product states cannot have a component in $`𝒜_A𝒜_B`$.

Since any operation in the real vector space can be used in the associated complex vector space, an optimal real procedure, either for entanglement of formation $`E`$ or for distillable entanglement $`D`$, is never better than an optimal complex procedure. The consequence is that for a joint state $`\rho ^{AB}`$ in the real vector space, the real ($`R`$) and complex ($`C`$) entanglement measures satisfy the following inequalities:

$$E_R(\rho ^{AB})E_C(\rho ^{AB})D_C(\rho ^{AB})D_R(\rho ^{AB}).$$
(7)
These ideas are made concrete by considering rebits. The three-dimensional space of real, symmetric matrices is spanned by the unit matrix $`I`$ and two Pauli matrices, $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _z`$, whereas the one-dimensional space of real, antisymmetric matrices is spanned by $`i\sigma _y`$. For two rebits, the nine-dimensional space $`𝒮_A𝒮_B`$ is spanned by the matrices

$$\begin{array}{ccc}II& \sigma _xI& \sigma _zI\\ I\sigma _x& \sigma _x\sigma _x& \sigma _z\sigma _x\\ I\sigma _z& \sigma _x\sigma _z& \sigma _z\sigma _z\end{array},$$
(8)
but the entire symmetric subspace $`𝒮_{AB}`$ includes one additional basis matrix,

$$i\sigma _yi\sigma _y=\sigma _y\sigma _y.$$
(9)
Any state of the composite system that contains a $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ component is necessarily entangled relative to the real vector space, simply because tensor products of real states can never sum up to give a $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ component.

In Sec. II we show that the entanglement of a two-rebit state is determined entirely by the $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ component of the state: a state $`\rho ^{AB}`$ is separable if and only if $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^{AB}\sigma _y\sigma _y)=0`$. Furthermore, there is a concurrence, defined by

$$C(\rho ^{AB})|\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^{AB}\sigma _y\sigma _y)|,$$
(10)
which gives the two-rebit entanglement of formation in the same way that Wootters’s concurrence gives the two-qubit entanglement of formation. In a concluding section (Sec. III), we discuss implications of our main result.

For the present, however, it should be noted that the expression in Eq. (10) does not correspond to Wootters’ concurrence formula for qubits simply restricted to real density operators. This point is nicely illustrated by the real density operator

$$\rho ^{AB}=\frac{1}{4}\left(II+\sigma _y\sigma _y\right).$$
(11)
This state is a separable state relative to complex vector space, as can be checked by the partial transpose condition or by noting that it can be derived from an ensemble of two product states:

$$\rho ^{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}(I+\sigma _y)\frac{1}{2}(I+\sigma _y)+\frac{1}{2}(I\sigma _y)\frac{1}{2}(I\sigma _y)\right).$$
(12)
In this (eigen)decomposition, the density operator $`\rho ^{AB}`$ looks like it comes from the mixture of two spin states: both particles pointing in the $`+y`$ direction or both pointing in the $`y`$ direction.

In contrast to this, the ensemble decomposition in Eq. (12) is not allowed relative to real vector space quantum mechanics. The real concurrence, Eq. (10), of this state is in fact $`C=1`$, which means that the state is maximally entangled relative to real vector space. Perhaps more interestingly, this state is also a bound entangled state relative to the reals. This follows because it is separable relative to the complex numbers, i.e., it has no complex entanglement of formation, and hence, by the chain of inequalities in Eq. (7), it has no real distillable entanglement.

## II Two-Rebit Entanglement of Formation

In this section we first review Wootters’s spin-flip operation and how it leads to the real concurrence (10), and we then prove our main result, an explicit formula for the real entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two rebits.

The spin-flip operation for a single qubit is the anti-unitary operator $`𝒮=i\sigma _y𝒞`$, where $`𝒞`$ denotes complex conjugation in the eigenbasis of $`\sigma _z`$. For a quantum state $`\rho `$ of a bipartite system—we now drop the superscript $`AB`$ to reduce clutter in the notation—the spin-flipped density operator, distinguished by a tilde, is

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _y\sigma _y)𝒞(\rho )(\sigma _y\sigma _y).$$
(13)
The concurrence of a bipartite pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is defined to be

$$C(\mathrm{\Psi })|\mathrm{\Psi }|𝒮|\mathrm{\Psi }|.$$
(14)
Defining the concurrence of a mixed state $`\rho `$ by

$$C(\rho )\underset{\{p_j,|\mathrm{\Psi }_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{j}{}p_jC(\mathrm{\Psi }_j),$$
(15)
where the minimum is taken over all possible ensemble decompositions of $`\rho `$, Wootters  showed that $`C(\rho )`$ is given by the explicit expression

$$C_W(\rho )=\mathrm{max}(0,\sqrt{\lambda _1}\sqrt{\lambda _2}\sqrt{\lambda _3}\sqrt{\lambda _4}),$$
(16)
where the $`\lambda _i`$ are the (positive) eigenvalues of the operator $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ (or of the operator $`\sqrt{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\rho }\sqrt{\rho }`$) listed in order of decreasing magnitude.

For rebit states, the complex conjugation has no effect, and the spin flip simplifies to $`i\sigma _y`$, i.e., a $`180^{}`$ rotation about the $`y`$ axis. The differences between concurrence and entanglement of formation for rebits and qubits can ultimately be traced to the fact that the spin flip for qubits is an anti-linear, as opposed to a linear operator. Hence, for a single-rebit pure state $`|\psi `$, the spin-flipped state is

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }i\sigma _y|\psi .$$
(17)
For a joint pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of two rebits, we again define the concurrence to be the overlap between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the spin-flipped state $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\sigma _y\sigma _y|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, i.e,

$$C(\mathrm{\Psi })|\mathrm{\Psi }|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|=|\mathrm{\Psi }|\sigma _y\sigma _y|\mathrm{\Psi }|,$$
(18)
and also define the concurrence of a mixed state according to Eq. (15).

The joint pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be written in terms of a Schmidt decomposition,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=a_1|e_1|f_1+a_2|e_2|f_2,$$
(19)
where $`|e_j`$ and $`|f_j`$ are the (real) orthonormal eigenvectors of the marginal density operators for systems $`A`$ and $`B`$, and $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are the (positive) square roots of the corresponding eigenvalues. It is easy to verify that the concurrence of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`C(\mathrm{\Psi })=2a_1a_2`$. Thus, as noted by Wootters, the concurrence itself can serve as a measurement of entanglement, varying smoothly from $`0`$ for product pure states to $`1`$ for maximally entangled pure states. Indeed, the entanglement of formation of the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be expressed in the form

$$E(\mathrm{\Psi })=H(a_1^2)=H\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}\right)[C(\mathrm{\Psi })],$$
(20)
where

$$H(x)x\mathrm{log}_2x(1x)\mathrm{log}_2(1x)$$
(21)
is the binary Shannon entropy. The function $`(C)`$ is monotonically increasing and convex on the interval $`0C1`$.

Before proceeding to the problem at hand, let us delineate a few facts about ensemble decompositions of density operators in a real Hilbert space quantum mechanics. Consider a mixed state $`\rho `$, defined on a real Hilbert space of dimension $`d`$, whose eigendecomposition is

$$\rho =\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mu _j|\widehat{e}_j\widehat{e}_j|=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|e_je_j|.$$
(22)
Here the vectors $`|\widehat{e}_j`$ are the orthonormal eigenvectors of $`\rho `$, with corresponding eigenvalues $`\mu _j`$, and the vectors $`|e_j\sqrt{\mu _j}|\widehat{e}_j=\rho ^{1/2}|\widehat{e}_j`$ are subnormalized eigenvectors. In Eq. (22) the sum includes only eigenvectors with nonzero eigenvalues, $`nd`$ thus being the rank of $`\rho `$. We can restrict attention to the support of $`\rho `$, the subspace of dimension $`n`$ spanned by eigenvectors with nonzero eigenvalue. On this subspace $`\rho `$ has a well defined inverse.

Consider now an arbitrary pure-state ensemble decomposition of $`\rho `$,

$$\rho =\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}p_j|\widehat{w}_j\widehat{w}_j|=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}|w_jw_j|.$$
(23)
The ensemble includes $`mn`$ normalized vectors $`|\widehat{w}_j`$, with probabilities $`p_j`$. The vectors $`|w_j\sqrt{p_j}|\widehat{w}_j`$ are subnormalized, their lengths giving the probabilities. The real version of the pure-state decomposition theorem for density operators  says that a set of subnormalized vectors gives a decomposition of $`\rho `$ if and only if the vectors can be written as

$$|w_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}O_{kj}|e_k,j=1,\mathrm{},m,$$
(24)
where $`O`$ is an $`n\times m`$ matrix whose $`n`$ rows are real $`m`$-dimensional orthonormal vectors. We can always extend $`O`$ to be an $`m\times m`$ orthogonal matrix by adding additional rows.

Now notice that the projector onto the support of $`\rho `$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\rho ^{1/2}|w_jw_j|\rho ^{1/2},$$
(25)
where

$$\rho ^{1/2}|w_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}O_{kj}|\widehat{e}_k,j=1,\mathrm{},m.$$
(26)
By adding additional orthonormal vectors $`|\widehat{e}_k`$ for $`k=n+1,\mathrm{},m`$, we can define $`m`$ orthonormal vectors in an extended Hilbert space,

$$|\overline{w}_j\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}O_{kj}|\widehat{e}_k,j=1,\mathrm{},m.$$
(27)
Notice that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }|\overline{w}_j=\rho ^{1/2}|w_j,$$
(28)
which implies that

$$|w_j=\rho ^{1/2}|\overline{w}_j.$$
(29)
The extension of the resolution of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in Eq. (25) to a set of orthonormal vectors in a higher-dimensional space is called a Neumark extension .

Now we apply these concepts to a two-rebit state $`\rho `$ having the pure-state decomposition (23). The average concurrence of this decomposition satisfies the inequality

$$C=\underset{j}{}p_jC(\widehat{w}_j)=\underset{j}{}p_j|\widehat{w}_j|\sigma _y\sigma _y|\widehat{w}_j|\left|\underset{j}{}p_jc(\widehat{w}_j)\right|=|c|,$$
(30)
where, following Wootters, we define the preconcurrence of the pure state $`|\widehat{w}_j`$ without the absolute value signs that make the concurrence positive:

$$c(\widehat{w}_j)\widehat{w}_j|\sigma _y\sigma _y|\widehat{w}_j.$$
(31)
The attractive feature of the preconcurrence is that its average value is independent of the ensemble decomposition, being given by

$$c=\underset{j}{}w_j|\sigma _y\sigma _y|w_j=\underset{j}{}\overline{w}_j|\rho ^{1/2}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{1/2}|\overline{w}_j=\mathrm{tr}(\tau ),$$
(32)
where

$$\tau \rho ^{1/2}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{1/2}$$
(33)
is a real, symmetric operator.

We now show that there is a pure-state ensemble whose average concurrence achieves the lower bound, $`|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|`$. We actually show something stronger, using the approach introduced by Wootters: there is a pure-state ensemble such that the preconcurrence of every member of the ensemble is $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$ and, hence, the concurrence of every member of the ensemble is $`|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|`$. This stronger result becomes important when we consider the entanglement of formation. To construct the desired ensemble, start with the eigendecomposition of $`\rho `$. If the eigendecomposition has only one member, then we are dealing with a pure state whose preconcurrence is $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$, and nothing further needs to be done. If the eigendecomposition has more than one member, consider the states with the largest and smallest preconcurrences. Since the average preconcurrence is $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$, the largest preconcurrence must be greater than or equal to $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$, and the smallest must be less than or equal to $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$. Consider the continuous sequence of two-dimensional orthogonal matrices that range from the identity matrix to the matrix that exchanges the subnormalized vectors for the states with the largest and smallest preconcurrences. Somewhere along this sequence, the state with the largest preconcurrence is transformed into one whose preconcurrence is $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$. Adopt the resulting ensemble decomposition. Now iterate this procedure, always choosing the states with the largest and smallest preconcurrences and transforming the state with the largest preconcurrence to one with preconcurrence equal to $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$. The result is an ensemble decomposition all of whose members have preconcurrence equal to $`\mathrm{tr}(\tau )`$, as promised.

So far in this section we have shown that for a two-rebit density operator $`\rho `$, the minimum average concurrence over all the pure-state ensembles for $`\rho `$ is

$$C_{\mathrm{min}}\underset{\{p_j,|\widehat{w}_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{j}{}p_jC(\widehat{w}_j)=|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|=|\mathrm{tr}(\rho \sigma _y\sigma _y)|.$$
(34)
This justifies calling $`|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|`$ the concurrence of $`\rho `$, as in Eq. (10).

The entanglement of formation for a two-rebit state now follows with very little further work, since it satisfies the following chain of relations:

$$E(\rho )\underset{\{p_j,|\widehat{w}_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{j}{}p_j[C(\widehat{w}_j)]\underset{\{p_j,|\widehat{w}_j\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left(\underset{j}{}p_jC(\widehat{w}_j)\right)=(C_{\mathrm{min}})=[|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|].$$
(35)
The inequality follows from the convexity of the function $`(C)`$, and the immediately following equality follows from the monotonicity of $`(C)`$. To saturate the inequality requires an ensemble all of whose members have a concurrence equal to $`C_{\mathrm{min}}=|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|`$. Having just constructed an ensemble, we conclude that the entanglement of formation of a two-rebit state $`\rho `$ is given by

$$E(\rho )=(|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|)=[C(\rho )].$$
(36)
## III Discussion

To conclude, we reiterate that we now possess a complete expression for the entanglement of formation of two rebits:

$$E(\rho ^{AB})=H\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2(\rho ^{AB})}}{2}\right),$$
(37)
where

$$C(\rho ^{AB})=|\mathrm{tr}(\tau )|=|\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^{AB}\sigma _y\sigma _y)|.$$
(38)
In particular, this expression implies that $`\rho ^{AB}`$ is separable relative to real vector space if and only if $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^{AB}\sigma _y\sigma _y)=0`$. Notice that this separability condition is equivalent to saying that $`\rho ^{AB}`$ is real separable if and only if it is unchanged by partial transposition, i.e.,

$$\rho ^{AB}=(\rho ^{AB})^{T_A}=(\rho ^{AB})^{T_B},$$
(39)
where $`T_A`$ ($`T_B`$) denotes partial transposition of system $`A`$($`B`$) in any orthonormal basis.

It is worth stressing the difference between the expression (38) for the concurrence in a real vector space and the Wootters formula (16) for concurrence in standard quantum theory. If we let $`\nu _j`$ be the eigenvalues of $`\tau `$, ranked in order of decreasing absolute value, the real concurrence is

$$C(\rho ^{AB})=|\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3+\nu _4|.$$
(40)
In contrast, for the Wootters concurrence, one first finds the eigenvalues of $`\tau \tau ^{}=\tau ^2`$, these being given by $`\lambda _j=\nu _j^2`$; then the Wootters concurrence is

$$C_W(\rho ^{AB})=\mathrm{max}(0,|\nu _1||\nu _2||\nu _3||\nu _4|)C(\rho ^{AB}).$$
(41)
This difference is illustrated by the class of real states of the form

$$\rho ^{AB}=\frac{1}{4}\left(II+\alpha (\sigma _y\sigma _y)\right),$$
(42)
where $`\alpha `$ is a positive real number that ranges from 0 to 1. For these states, the operator $`\tau `$, given by

$$\tau =\frac{1}{4}\left(\alpha (II)+\sigma _y\sigma _y\right),$$
(43)
has doubly degenerate eigenvalues $`\frac{1}{4}(\alpha \pm 1)`$. The real concurrence is $`C=\alpha `$, whereas the Wootters concurrence is $`C_W=0`$. Thus these states are complex separable, but real entangled, except for $`\alpha =0`$. Moreover, because these states are complex separable, they have no distillable entanglement, so their real entanglement is bound.

Our results can be considered a first step toward getting a better understanding of which features of quantum entanglement are unique to standard quantum mechanics and which are more generic across various foil theories. As just shown, the states (42) show that bound entanglement is sometimes nothing more than separability with respect to a larger field (in this case the complex numbers of standard quantum mechanics). One might ask to what extent this is true of bound entanglement in standard quantum mechanics. How many bound entangled states in standard quantum mechanics are bound because they are separable with respect to a quaternionic theory ?

Another interesting fact is how the regions of entangled vs. separable states within the full set of quantum states differ in going from real to complex quantum mechanics. In the complex theory, the maximally mixed state $`\rho =\frac{1}{4}I_4`$ of two qubits is surrounded by an open set of separable states . In the real theory, however, the states (42) demonstrate that there are entangled states arbitrarily close to the maximally mixed state.

Where all this will lead, we are not quite sure, but in general it forms part of a larger effort to understand the nature of entanglement in our quantum world.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Patrick Hayden and Barbara Terhal for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Office of Naval Research (Grant No. N00014-00-1-0578).