text:
# Precision study of positronium and precision tests of the bound state QED

## 1 Introduction

Positronium is a very specific two-body atomic system, which in some respects is similar to hydrogen, but some its features are quite different from those of the hydrogen atom. In particular, positronium is an unstable atom and the lifetime of its ground state is about $`10^7`$ or $`10^{10}`$ sec depending on its spin. Because of that any experiments with positronium are much more complicated than those with hydrogen and considerably less precise. In this brief overview of positronium studies we will try to demonstrate that despite the existing experimental problems positronium is worth studying.

The theory which describes simple atomic systems is bound state Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and the questions we are trying to answer in this paper are

* Why do we have to study and test bound state QED?
* What are essential problems of present-day bound state QED?
* What is specific with positronium tests of QED?

Bound state QED is Quantum Electrodynamics for the bound states and a problem of the bound states is a complicated one even in the case of classical physics. The bound state QED theory has been mainly developed to describe two-body and three-body atoms. Even in the case of free mass-shell particles, QED as a theory of interactions between leptons (electrons and muons) and photons is indeed incomplete. It faces a lack of pure QED description of the nucleon structure, hadronic vacuum polarization and other hadronic effects. Such effects are unavoidable while calculating the spectrum of hydrogen, muonium and most of other simple atoms . For some applications the weak interaction is also involved into calculations, but in such a case it can often be done ab initio, while strong interaction effects require model-dependent evaluations, experimental data and phenomenological approaches.

QED cannot predict a number to be compared with some experimental value, producing instead some expressions which need appropriate values of fundamental constants. These constants as well as a number of auxiliary nuclear parameters should be determined experimentally. Measurements of the constants and parameters are apparently a problem beyond QED. For most of the so called tests of bound state QED the accuracy is usually limited by factors related to non-QED phenomena and the actual goal of the study is rather to determine the constants and nuclear properties.

A progress of theory is required if one intends to separate nuclear and QED effects in order to determine the nuclear parameters (like e.g. the proton charge radius). It is also needed to improve the accuracy of the fundamental constants obtained this way (like the Rydberg constant, the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ etc.).

Presently QED calculations have some essential problems to be solved. Those are related to the bound-state effects of atomic states. Theory involves a number of small parameters such as the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$, the Coulomb strength $`Z\alpha `$, the electron-to-nucleus mass ratio $`m/M`$ etc. Because of that no calculation can be exact and some effective expansion over small parameters is involved. Higher order corrections become more and more complicated and at any time there are some which cannot be calculated because of their complicated analytic structure, huge amount of diagrams, numerous lengthy computations etc. That faces the basic problem of real QED, how to estimate the corrections we cannot calculate? The problem exists for both QED of a free particle and the bound state QED. However, in the case of the bound state problem the expansion over $`Z\alpha `$ and $`m/M`$ is not analytic and involves large logarithmic factors and big numerical coefficients. The front line of the today calculations is the study of three kinds of corrections:

* the higher-order two-loop corrections of order $`\alpha ^2(Z\alpha )^6m`$ crucial for theory of the hydrogen Lamb shift;
* radiative-recoil corrections of order $`\alpha (Z\alpha )^6m^3/M^2`$ which are critical contributions to the muonium hyperfine structure (HFS);
* pure recoil corrections of order $`(Z\alpha )^7m^3/M^2`$ which are to be calculated to improve the accuracy of the muonium HFS.

Since for most of simple atoms any precision test of the bound state of QED involves numerous effects beyond QED, it should be of great interest to develop some test which will be related to a pure QED quantity. Positronium is one of very few atoms which offer such an opportunity. Few features of positronium make it a very useful system to test the bound state QED. Like muonium, it is a pure leptonic atom with no nuclear structure. However, in contrast to muonium, the electron-to-nucleus mass ratio is unity and that allows to study accurately higher order recoil effects performing relatively low accuracy experiments. E.g. a study of the recoil contributions to the positronium HFS in order $`\alpha (Z\alpha )^6m^3/M^2`$ and $`(Z\alpha )^7m^3/M^2`$ with the same precision as for muonium ($`m/M1/200`$) requires a fractional accuracy two orders of magnitudes below that for muonium. The relatively low accuracy offers a possibility to perform all calculations and measurements at the level above 1 ppm and to separate QED problems from a problem of the determination of the fine structure constant. The latter is related to the level of accuracy significantly below 1 ppm. Absence of any serious problems with the accurate determination of fundamental constants is a significant advantage of positronium studies.

One further advantage is a great variety of quantities which can in principle be investigated with high accuracy. A number of spectral values can be measured ($`1S2S`$ interval, fine structure at $`n=2`$ and $`1S`$ HFS and some others) and they are not sensitive to any new physics beyond the Standard Model. That is a direct result of the lightness of the nuclear mass (positronium mass) which does not allow any high momentum in any virtual effects. However, physics beyond the Standard model can be studied within non-spectral experiments with positronium, particularly in the case of exotic decay modes. A possibility to clearly separate quantities insensitive and possibly sensitive to the new physics is another advantage of the positronium studies.

## 2 Present status of precision physics of positronium

About ten years ago the experimental accuracy was essentially better than the theoretical one for most of the quantities under study. The last decade delivered a great theoretical improvement. We have collected most of important theoretical references in Table 1 and will briefly describe the recent progress in this section. In the case of the positronium spectrum the critical contributions to the $`1S`$ HFS and to the $`1S2S`$ interval are of the order $`\alpha ^6m`$ and their calculation was completed some years ago. Some results were obtained numerically and later improved by analytic calculations (see e.g. Refs. ). However, minor shifts (even equal to few standard deviations of the numerical integration) did not affect the final results because considerably higher uncertainty arose because of another effect related to uncalculated higher-order terms. It was an exception related to the so called pure recoil spin-dependent $`\alpha ^6m`$ contribution, calculated by several authors with contradicting results. The later analytic calculations  confirmed the numerical result from Ref. .

The uncertainty of any theoretical calculation is determined by a possible value of unknown higher-order corrections which are expected to have large coefficients. There is a number of corrections enhanced by a big double logarithmic factor $`\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha 24`$  and the higher-order terms should be studied to better understand the accuracy of theory. It is also necessary to investigate terms beyond the leading logarithms. The higher-order terms have been known only in part.

In the case of decay theoretical problems are related to corrections of the relative order $`\alpha ^2`$ which were calculated only recently. The calculation of the $`\alpha ^3`$ contributions is now in progress and they are known in the logarithmic approximation.

We collected all theoretical predictions in Table 2. The results were published and presented in different compilations. What we would like to underline here is our estimation of uncertainty. For most of the quantities not only the leading logarithmic corrections (e.g. in the case of spectrum that is $`\alpha ^7m\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$) are known, but also the next-to-leading term ($`\alpha ^7m\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$). However, that cannot reduce the uncertainty because the leading term originates from a single source and its magnitude is characteristic of the correction, while the next-to-leading term used is a result of cancelation between different contributions and can be sometimes small. But that smallness is misleading and the constant following the single logarithm is not small. Our estimation of the uncertainty is based on a value of the double logarithmic term in any case (see Ref.  for more detail).

## 3 Summary of positronium study

Studies of the spectrum and decay rates of positronium provide us with a number of the strong tests of bound state QED, some of which are among the most accurate. Some theoretical predictions from Table 2 can be compared with accurate experimental data, a review of which can be found in Refs. . The most accurately measured spectroscopic data are related to the $`1S2S`$ interval (see Fig. 2) and to the ground state HFS (see Fig. 1). There are some minor discrepancies between experimental and theoretical data.

The current experimental situation with the orthopositronium decay (see Fig. 3) is not acceptable at all. The main problem is inconsistency of various experiments. Note that we included a new result from Tokyo  and corrected a gas value from Ann Arbor according to the preliminary analysis in Ref. . In contrast, theory and experiment are in a fair agreement for the parapositronium decay (see Fig. 4). References to experimental results can be found in Refs. . These two papers also review experiments on the fine structure in positronium performed at $`2^3S_12P`$ intervals which were less accurate than experiments at $`1S`$ HFS and $`1s2S`$ intervals.

## 4 What we can learn from positronium?

To understand the role of positronium tests of the bound state QED, let us have a look at crucial contributions which can be studied in different tests. They are collected in Table 3. One sees that a spectroscopic study with positronium allows a few high-precision tests for higher-order recoil effects needed for other atoms. Positronium theory is a good training field for a number of other atomic systems. First of all, let us note that the positronium is in some sense an only ‘true’ two-body atom among all hydrogen-like QED systems. In the case of hydrogen, muonium and others most of the calculations are performed for an electron bound by an external Coulomb field, and only for a few corrections the two-body effects are significant. In contrast, for positronium, the two-body phenomena are essential from the very beginning of any calculation. Due to that positronium studies have been important for understanding higher-order QED effects in helium, a system which can mainly be treated as a system of two electrons in an external field.

Development of the bound state QED is also fruitful for a better understanding of hadronic systems, like deuteron (proton-neutron system) and mesons (quark-antiquark systems). In both cases a consideration of the $`m/M`$ value close to unity is of particular interest.

Successful development of theory during the last decade has made it more accurate than the experiment and we hope that some progress from the experimental side will come. That is in particular related to the fine structure at $`n=2`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

Recently, Eisenstein et al  have observed the quantum Hall conductivity quantized at $`\nu =`$7/2 and 5/2. On high field side of 7.2 the fraction 10/3 is cleanly visible. Similarly, 11/3 is seen at low field side. As we have explained 10/3 and 11/3 are particle-hole Kramers conjugates . The fractions 16/5 and 19/5 are also clearly visible which require a suitable explanation. It has been noted that there is a spin branching. We make an effort to understand these fractions and the spin branching. Some of the data is obtained by illuminating the sample with a red light emitting diode. After a finite time, the diode is switched off and then the resistivity is recorded in the Hall geometry. The effect of light is therefore to populate some of the excited states which affect the resistivity.

In this paper, we interpret the fractions 7/2, 10/3, 11/3, 16/5 and 19/5 and their particle-hole symmetry and hence the spin branching. We also look at 1998-2001 issues of the Phys. Rev. Lett. to see if there are any contractions between our theory and the data. It is found that in all of the cases our theory is in agreement with the data.

## 2 Summation process.

In our theory the conductivity is quantized in fractions determined by two series . One of the series is the same as half of the Lande’s g value and the other series is obtained by reversing the sign of the spin in the Lande’s formula. Therefore, the theory is sufficiently simple, free of errors and exact. The resistivity is obtained from the spectrum. Therefore, the plateau width is related to the line width in the spectrum which arises from the many-body interactions. The half of the Lande’s g-value gives one series,

$$\nu _+=\frac{l+1}{21+1}$$
(1)
and the other series obtained by using negative sign for the spin is

$$\nu _{}=\frac{l}{2l+1}.$$
(2)
Usually for conduction electrons only $`l=0`$ is taken. However we have to take many finite values of $`l`$ so that,

| $`l`$ | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | $`\mathrm{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\nu _+`$ | 1 | 2/3 | 3/5 | 4/7 | 5/9 | 1/2 |
| $`\nu _{}`$ | 0 | 1/3 | 2/5 | 3/7 | 4/9 | 1/2 |

predicts all of the fractions. As the fractions give energies, $`n\nu _\pm `$ are also possible, where $`n`$ is an integer. We can identify $`n`$ as the Landau level quantum number,$`n`$. The values $`\nu _+`$ and $`\nu _{}`$ are Kramer’s congugate states. Multiplying the above numbers by $`n`$ gives all of the integers when we multiply 1 by $`n`$ which is the case for $`\nu _+`$ with $`l=0`$. This is of course the usual conduction band which gives the quantum Hall step at 1, for which the resistivity is $`h/e^2`$. The $`l\mathrm{}`$ limit of the two series is 1/2. When we multiply this value by $`n`$ we get $`n/2`$. This value is symmetric in the sense that one series is on the high-field side of $`n/2`$ and the other series is on the left. Thus for any given value of $`n`$ we have both the series and the patterns of a center with left and right sides is repeated for all other values of $`n`$. All these predicted features are the same as found experimentally in Fig. 18 of Stormer . Therefore, it is believed that the theory is correct. In fact Willett et al  have used our series but did not give reference to our paper. We will now explain how the above two series can be added to derive the experimentally observed values. We consider $`ø_1+ø_2`$ type summation process so that $`ø_1+nø_2`$ type frequencies can also be observed. In order to generate 2 in the denominator we make use of $`n/2`$. Now we take $`ł\mathrm{}`$ limit and multiply it by 7 which gives 7/2. The fraction 1/3 has negative spin from above. Therefore, we obtain, 3+(1/3)=10/3 which is observed on the right hand side of 7/2. The positive spin gives 2/3 for $`l=1`$ in the $`\nu _+`$ series and hence we predict, 3+(2/3)=11/3 which is observed on the left hand side of 7/2. Therefore, 10/3 and 11/3 are the Kramers particle-hole conjugate states with spin reversed. This provides the explanation for 11/3, 7/2 and 10/3 in terms of values as well as the symmetries. The difference between 11/3 and 7/2 and that between 7/2 and 10/3 is exactly equal so that 7/2 is in the centre of 10/3 and 11/3. The fraction 10/3 uses 1/3 which has negative spin while 11/3 uses 2/3 which has positive spin. Therefore, we are able to identify the spin branch correctly as displayed in Fig. 1.

Let us now look at 16/5 which may be written as 3+(1/5). For $`l=2`$ for $`\nu _+`$ we have 3/5 and for $`\nu _{}`$ we have 2/5. The difference between 3/5 and 2/5 is 1/5. For $`\nu =3`$ we obtain $`ø_3`$, for 3/5 we have $`ø_{3/5}`$ and for 2/5 we have $`ø_{2/5}`$. The difference $`ø_{3/5}ø_{2/5}`$ generates $`ø_{1/5}`$ and hence $`3+\frac{1}{5}`$ is generated by $`ø_3+(ø_{3/5}ø_{2/5})`$. In this case the spin is mixed and it is not generated from 7/2.

We consider the next fraction 19/5 at which there is a plateau in the transverse resistivity. This fraction may be written by taking $`\nu _{}=2/5`$ so that the spin is negative. For $`l=2`$, we obtain this value which we multiply by $`n=2`$ which means that we have a level at $`n=2,l=2`$ with spin negative so that we get $`n\times 2/5=4/5`$. We consider the frequency due to $`\nu =3`$ and add $`ø_3+ø_{4/5}`$ to obtain 3+4/5=19/5. In this way we are able to assign the spin to 19/5 and also understand it in terms of a summation process. Thus our theory explains 16/5 as well as 19/5.

## 3 Angular momentum.

The theory given in ref. 3 thus gives the same values for the fractions as those experimentally observed by Stormer  and Willett et. al . It gives the spin value and hence couples the spin with charge by use of Bohr magneton. It also describes the Kramers particle-hole symmetry. We have compared this theory with a lot of experimental data and found that in all cases the fractions tabulated in ref. 3 are the same as found in the experimental data . The high Landau levels are easily explained by this theory . In fact, the theory of ref. 3 works so well in terms of getting agreement with the experimental data that many of its features are described in a book . The interpretation of high Landau levels 5/2, 7/3 and 8/3 has been obtained and 7/3 and 8/3 are found to be particle-hole conjugate states . The relative change in resistivity is given by ,

$$\frac{\delta R_{xx}}{R_{xx}}=4\pi \chi ^{\prime \prime }Q$$
(3)
where $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ is the imaginary part of the susceptibility and $`Q`$ is the quality factor. The imaginary part of the susceptibility resonates with the relaxation rate $`T_2`$ and resonance frequency $`ø_o`$ as

$`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^{}i\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ (4)
$`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _o}{2}}ø_oT_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(øø_o)^2T_2^2}}.`$ (5)
As one goes from one level to another, the peaks of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ appear as peaks in the resistivity. The frequency $`ø`$ is obviously proportional to the magnetic field. In fact, the table of $`\nu _\pm `$ given above predicts a soft mode of zero frequency so that we expect a Goldstone mode to emerge when the magnetic length is equal to the separation between two layers of a semiconductor . When the sample are first illuminated by a red diode and the resistivity is recorded after switching off the light, considerable changes occur in the populations of the excited states which affect the resistivity data. In some cases, this type of experiment results into improved resolution . The theoretical work predicts that there is a small correction to the value of the Bohr magneton . The polarization of the half-filled Landau level is also well explained .

## 4 Discussion and the list of 1998-2001 prl papers.

We have to consider if our theory agrees with Laughlin’s theory of fractional charge. Unfortunately, the problem depends on the flux quantization so that the field multiplied by an area is a constant,

$$B.A=\frac{hc}{e}$$
(6)
replacing $`e`$ by $`(1/3)e`$ is exactly equivalent to replacing area $`A`$ by $`(1/3)A`$. Therefore, it is not necessary to change $`e`$ to $`(1/3)e`$. This problem is hidden in Laughlin’s theory of an area operator. Since the product $`eA`$ occurs, Laughlin could have chosen the (1/3) of the area rather than (1/3) of the charge. Hence, Laughlin’s theory is of no relevance to the experimental data of quantum Hall effect .

There are non-Abelian theories \[16-18\] and topology  has been applied. In the Maxwell equations apparently it is possible to make a correction to the vector potential if a correction is also made to the scalar potential. These corrections are called Chern-Simon fields which shift the magnetic field \[20-21\]. Many problems related to charging have been reported \[22-31\]. The scaling theory have been discussed \[32-40\]. There are discussions of spin-orbit interaction \[41-42\]. As the resistivity oscillates between low and high values, the high values are associated with the terminology of an insulator and metal-insulator transition has been discussed \[43-53\]. Detailed work on conductivity \[34-61\] with specific fractions, integers \[62-65\] as well as (1/2)-fractions \[66-73\] is available. A large amount of theoretical work has been published to search for the correct interpretation of data but there is not much success. In one case theory of fractals , is applied to the curves of the resistivity but this theory neither agrees with the data nor is relevant in any way but the effort goes on. In any case quantum Hall effect is not represented by fractals. In the composite fermion (CF) theory \[75-96\], “even number” of fluxes are attached to the electron, i.e., two flux quanta are attached to one electron to explain the plateau in the Hall resistivity at $`\nu =1/3`$. The magnetic field becomes $`B^{}=B2\rho \varphi _o`$ where $`\varphi _o=hc/e`$ and $`\rho `$ is the charge density. The correct way to quantize the field $`B`$ is $`BA=n\varphi _o`$ and not by $`B^{}`$, where $`A`$ is an area and $`n`$ an integer. When we make a coil with a current passing through the coil, a magnetic field is produced. This is called the Biot and Shavart’s law in classical electrodynamics as shown in Fig. 2a. If a flux is attached to the electron it will affect the field and the Biot and Shavart’s law will be modified as shown in Fig. 2b. We also show the even number of fluxes attached to one electron in Fig. 2c. The idea of attaching the flux tubes to electrons was considered by Wilczek . The experimental data does not show the “even number” quantization. As far as the statistics is concerned, we find  that the composite fermions actually have a component of bosons whereas the theory of “composite fermions” demands that there quasiparticles be fermions. It is clear that composite fermions do not obey the Biot and Shavart’s law. Some experimentalists have actually claimed to find agreement between the composite fermions and the data. These experimental claims are obviously deceptive or incorrect. The composite fermion theory is not a physically observable theory and it is of no relevance to the experimental data on quantum Hall effect. It should be made clear that fluxes are not attached to the electrons which is another way of saying that the composite fermions are not observed.

Several workers have measured \[99-106\] the nuclear magnetic resonance near the magnetic field value where plateaus occur in the quantum Hall effect. These experiments are able to find the polarization from the Kinght shift . It is clear that the temperature at which the paramagnetic electrons become ferromagnetic is zero. Therefore, the ferromagnetic phase is not found. There are several theories \[107-115\] of ferromagnetic phase in the quantum Hall effect but these theoretical claims of finding ferromagnetic phase in the quantum Hall effect are not correct because the Curie-Weiss critical temperature is zero. There is a considerable effort to understand edges \[116-128\] and stripes \[129-193\]. A Goldstone mode has been found \[134-135\] experimentally at half-filled Landau level for which several theorists have constructed \[136-150\] their models but due to lack of good foundation their ideas are fragmentary and hence not applicable to the data. The correct theory of the Goldstone mode in accordance with the experimental data, is given by Shrivastava . The half-filled Landau level presents some analogy with the Bose-Einstein condensation \[151-158\] and levitating states have been reported .

The spin and charge fluctuations in the fluid are subject to exchange interaction which can lead to a ferromagnetic state. There is a phase transition when the Lande’s $`g`$ value approaches zero. The quasiparticles in this limit are called “skyrmions” . An effort has been made to suggest that “skyrmions” are important for the quantum Hall effect \[157-163\]. However, the experimental evidence is not in favour of exchange interaction which gives a Curie temperature. The effect of spin has been considered but the theories are not in accord with the data \[164-172\]. Some authors \[173-177\] are arguing in favour of spin-charge decoupling in which the fermions and bosons are exchanged so that the statistics is mixed in one dimension but there is no experimental evidence in favour of such a phenomenon. The low field high integer Landau levels have been discussed and considerable effort has been made to find the interpretation \[178-181\]. In this case the angular momentum theory is in agreement with the experimental data . The problem of dimensionality has been discussed. Although the electron gas is two dimensional, the quantum Hall effect appears to require three dimensions \[182-184\]. Our theory  also does not use the dimensionality explicitly. The emission of phonons has been studied in the quantum Hall effect \[185-186\] and the relaxation is the result of phonon emission and absorption. Light scattering experiments \[187-188\] gave the usual results and evidence was found to support fractionally charged quasiparticles. The experimental measurements of mass and $`g`$ values \[189-190\] show that some of the masses are equal. We have explained that this equality arises from the particle-hole symmetry . There is emphasis on the anisotropy of the currents \[191-192\] but the polynomials which determine the anisotropy have not yet been determined. The tunneling current \[193-194\] magnetization \[195-196\] and the drag effects have been discussed \[197-198\]. There are some indications of rotations \[199-200\]. An accurate measurement of the Planck’s constant has been reported .

## 5 Conclusions.

There are a large variety of experimental measurements in the quantum Hall effect. In all the cases our theory of angular momentum first published in ref. 3 gives the correct interpretation of the experimental data. The apparent fractional charge is determined in terms of spin and orbital angular momenta. There is no need of a wave function of a fractionally charged quasiparticle as it is clear that fractionally charged quasiparticles do not occur in the quantum Hall effect.

## 6 References.

1. J.P. Eisenstein, K.B. Cooper, L.N. Pfeiffer and K.W. West, arXiv; Cond-mat/0110477.
2. K.N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. 13, 1087 (1999).
3. K.N. Shrivastava, Phys. Lett. A113, 435 (1986); 115, 459(E) (1986).
4. H.L. Stormer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 875 (1999).
5. R.L. Willett, K.W. West and L.N. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2988 (1995) \[This paper used the same series as in ref. 3\].
6. K.N. Shrivastava, in Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 4, edited by B.G. Sidharth and M.V. Altaisky, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Pub. New York 2001.
7. K.N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. B14, 1009 (2000).
8. K.N. Shrivastava, Superconductivity: Elementary Topics, World Scientific, New Jersey 2000.
9. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0103604.
10. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0104577.
11. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0106445.
12. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0109407.
13. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0104004.
14. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0106160.
15. R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B27, 3383 (1983).
16. E. Ardonne and K. Schoutens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5096 (1999).
17. K. Schoutens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1929 (1998).
18. D.A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001).
19. M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1535 (2000).
20. F. Faure, B. Zhilinskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 960 (2000).
21. A. Le Clair, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1292 (2000).
22. D.H. Cobden, C.H.W. Barnes and C.J.B. Ford, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4695 (1999).
23. E. Yahel, A. Tsukernick, A. Palevski and H. Shtrikman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5201 (1998).
24. J. Ye and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5409 (1998).
25. N. Freytag, Y. Tokunaga and M. Horvatic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 136801 (2001).
26. T.G. Griffiths, E. Comforti, M. Heiblum, A. Stern and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3918 (2000).
27. J.P. Watts, A. Usher, A.J. Matthews, M. Zhu, M. Elliott, W. G. Herrenden-Harker, P. R. Morris, M. Y. Simmons and D. A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4220 (1998).
28. G. Yusa, H. Shtrikman, I. Bar-Joseph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 216402 (2001).
29. M. Kataoka, C.J.B. Ford, G. Faini,D. Mailly, M. Y. Simmons, D. R. Mace, C. T. Liang and D. A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 160 (1999).
30. T.H. Oosterkamp, J.W. Janssen, L.P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, T. Honda and S. Tarucha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2931 (1999).
31. L. Gravier, M. Potemski, P. Hawrylak, and B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3344 (1998).
32. J.J. Mares, J. Kristofik and P. Hubik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4699 (1999).
33. I.A. Gruzberg, A.W.W. Ludwig and N. Read, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4524 (1999).
34. N.Q. Balaban, U. Meirav, I. Bar-Joseph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4967 (1998).
35. D.N. Sheng and Z.Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 580 (1998).
36. J.E. Moore, A. Zee and J. Sinova, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 046801 (2001).
37. J.B. Marston and S.W.T. Sai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4906 (1999).
38. S. Kettemann and A. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3689 (1999).
39. M.A. Eriksson, A. Pinczuk, B.S. Dennis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2163 (1999).
40. D.N. Sheng, Z.Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 144 (1999).
41. V.I. Fal’ko and S.V. Iordanskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 127 (2000).
42. E.N. Bulgakov, K.N. Pichugin, A.F. Sadreev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 376 (1999).
43. G. Xiong, S.D. Wang, Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 216802 (2001).
44. R.T.F. Van Schaijk, A. de Visser, S.M. Olsthoorn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1567 (2000).
45. R.J. Nicholas, K. Takashina, M. Lakrimi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2364 (2000).
46. X-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3950 (2000).
47. B. Huckestein, M. Backhaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5100 (1999).
48. L.P. Pryadko, A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1253 (1999).
49. L.B Rigal, D.K. Maude, M. Potemski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1249 (1999).
50. D.G. Polyakov, K.V. Samokhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1509 (1998).
51. V. Kagalovsky, B. Horovitz, Y. Avishai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3516 (1999).
52. S.C. Dultz, H.W. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4689 (2000).
53. M.Y. Simmons, A.R. Hamilton and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 2489 (2000).
54. F. Hohls, U. Zeitler, R.J. Haug, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5124 (2001).
55. I. Safi, P. Devillard, T. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4628 (2001).
56. A.M.C. Valkering, P.K.H. Sommerfeld, R.A.M. Van de Ven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5398 (1998).
57. B. Jovanovic and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2767 (1998).
58. H. Yi, H.A. Fertig, R. Cote, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4156 (2000).
59. S.B. Isakov, T. Martin, S. Ouvry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 580 (1999).
60. E. Shimshoni, A. Auerback, A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3352 (1998).
61. Y. Hatsugai, K. Ishibashi, Y. Morita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2246 (1999).
62. G. Murthy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1954 (2000).
63. M. Onoda, T. Mizusaki, T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3942 (2000).
64. B. Paredes, C. Tejedor, L. Brey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2250 (1999).
65. Y-Q. Song, B.M. Goodson, K. Maranowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2768 (1999).
66. X.Y. Lee, H.W. Jiang, W.J. Schaff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3701 (1999).
67. T. Morinari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3741 (1998).
68. W. Pan, J-S. Xia, V. Shvarts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3530 (1999).
69. K. Ishikawa, N. Maeda, T. Ochiai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4292 (1999).
70. R.H. Morf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1505 (1998).
71. R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3946 (2000).
72. W. Pan, R.R. Du, H.L. Stormer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 820 (1999).
73. D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4745 (1998).
74. C. Albrecht, J.H. Smet, K. Von Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 147 (2001).
75. J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 199 (1989).
76. K. Park and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4200 (1998).
77. R.K. Kamilla, X.G. Wu and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1332 (1996).
78. K. Park and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4237 (1998).
79. J.K. Jain and R.K. Kamila, Int. J. Mod. Phys.11, 2621 (1997).
80. K. Park and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5576 (2000).
81. G. Murthy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 350 (2000).
82. H.-S. Sim, K.J. Chang, G. Ihm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 596 (1999).
83. S. Curnoe, P.C.E. Stamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3312 (1998).
84. A.D. Mirlin, D.E. Polyakov, P. Wolfle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2429 (1998).
85. F.V. Oppen, A. Stern, B.I. Halperin, 80, 4494 (1998).
86. N.K. Wilkin, J.M.F. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6 (2000).
87. I.V. Kukushkin, K.v. Klitzing, K. Eberl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3665 (1999).
88. N.E. Bonesteel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 984 (1999).
89. J.H. Smet, K.v. Klitzing, D. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4538 (1998).
90. S. Zelakiewicz, H. Noh, T.J. Gramila, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1942 (2000).
91. S.D.M. Zwerschke, R.R. Gerhardts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2616 (1999).
92. J.H. Smet, S. Jobst, K.v. Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2620 (1999).
93. R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2382 (1999).
94. K. Park, N. Meskini, J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1486 (1999).
95. R.H. Morf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1485 (1999).
96. I. Ussishkin, A. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3932 (1998).
97. F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 957 (1982).
98. K.N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0105559 (29 May 2001).
99. A.M. Song, P. Omling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3145 (2000).
100. I.V. Kukushkin, J.H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3688 (2000).
101. P. Khandelwal, N.N. Kuzma, S.E. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 673 (1998).
102. S. Kronmuller, W. Dietsche, K. von Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4070 (1999).
103. S. Kronmuller, W. Dietsche, J. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2526 (1998).
104. V.T. Dolgopolov, A.A. Shaskin, J.M. Broto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5566 (2001).
105. S. Melinte, N. Freytag, M. Horvatic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 354 (2000).
106. A.E. Dementyev, N.N. Kuzma, P. Khandelwal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5074 (1999).
107. A.G. Green, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5104 (1999).
108. T. Jungwirth, S.P. Shukla, L. Smrcka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2328 (1998).
109. K. Muraki, T. Saku, Y. Hirayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 196801 (2001).
110. J.H. Smet, R.A. Deutschmann, W. Wegscheider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2412 (2001).
111. V.I. Fal’ko, S.V. Iordanskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 402 (1999).
112. N.R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4554 (1998).
113. T. Jungwirth, A.H. Mac Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 216801 (2001).
114. H.B. Chan, R. C. Ashoori, L.N. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3258 (1999).
115. F.G. Monzon, H.X. Tang, M.L. Roukes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5022 (2000).
116. K. Ino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5908 (1998).
117. S. Takaoka, K. Oto, S. Uno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4700 (1998).
118. M. Grayson, D.C. Tsui, L.N. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2645 (2001).
119. H.-C. Kao, C.-H. Chang, X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev Lett. 83, 5563 (1999).
120. U. Zulicke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5330 (1999).
121. Y.Y. Wei, J. Weis, K.v. Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1674 (1998).
122. K. Ino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1078 (1998).
123. L.P. Pryadko, K. Chaltikian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 584 (1998).
124. A.V. Shytov, L.S. Levitov, B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 141 (1998).
125. V.J. Goldman, E.V. Tsiper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5841 (2001).
126. K. Sengupta, H.-J. Kwon, V.M. Yakovenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1094 (2001).
127. C. Wexler, A.T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 620 (1999).
128. O.G. Balev, P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1481 (1998).
129. E.H. Rezayi, F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4685 (2000).
130. F.v. Oppen, B.I. Halperin, A. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2937 (2000).
131. H.A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3693 (1999).
132. A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 817 (1998).
133. S.-Y. Lee, V.W. Scarola, J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 256803 (2001).
134. I.B. Spielman, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 036803 (2001).
135. I.B. Spielman, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5808 (2000).
136. E. Demler, C. Nayak, S.D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1853 (2001).
137. L. Balants, L. Radzihavsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1825 (2001).
138. A. Sawada, Z.F. Ezawa, H. Ohno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4534 (1998).
139. L. Radzihavsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 236802 (2001).
140. Y.N. Joglekar, A.H. Mac Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 196802 (2001).
141. K. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 056802 (2001).
142. A. Stern. S.M. Girvin, A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1829 (2001).
143. J. Schliemann, S.M. Girvin, A.H. Mac Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1849 (2001).
144. M.M. Fogler, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1833 (2001).
145. J. Schliemann, A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4437 (2000).
146. J. Kyriakidis, D. Loss, A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1411 (1999).
147. L. Brey, E. Demler, S.D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 168 (1999).
148. E. Demler, S.D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3895 (1999).
149. S.P. Shukla, Y.W. Suen, M. Shagegan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 693 (1998).
150. M. Troyer, S. Sachdev. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5418 (1998).
151. T.L. Ho. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 060403 (2001).
152. B. Paredes, P. Fedichev and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 010402 (2001).
153. N.R. Cooper, N.K. Wilkin, J.M.F. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120405 (2001).
154. Th. Koschny, H. Potempa, L. Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3863 (2001).
155. T.H.R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 226, 521 (1954).
156. S.L. Sondhi, A. Karlhede, S.A. Kivelson and E.H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B 47, 16419 (1993).
157. P. Khandelwal, A.E. Dementyev, N.N. Kuzma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5353 (2001).
158. J.D. Naud, L.P. Pryadko, S.L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5408 (2000).
159. K. Moon, K. Mullen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 975 (2000).
160. Z.F. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3512 (1999).
161. A.J. Nederveen, Y.V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 406 (1999).
162. Yu.V. Nazarov, A.K. Khaetskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 576 (1998).
163. S. Melinte, E. Grivei, V. Bayot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2764 (1999).
164. K. Ino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3526 (1999).
165. K. Ino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 882 (2001).
166. H. Chao, J.B. Yang, W. Kang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2522 (1998).
167. N. Dupuis, V.M. Yakovenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3618 (1998).
168. J. Cardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3507 (2000).
169. A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3262 (1999).
170. W. Apel, Yu. A. Bychkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3324 (1999).
171. A.V. Khaetskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 049701 (2001).
172. B.W. Alphenaar, H.O. Muller, K. Tsukagoshi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5628 (1998).
173. A.M. Chang, M.K. Wu, C.C. Chi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 143 (2001).
174. M. Grayson, D.C. Tsui, L.N. Pfeifter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1062 (1998).
175. M. Hilke, D.C. Tsui, M. Grayson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 186806 (2001).
176. K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 184 (1998).
177. P. Sharma, C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 096401 (2001).
178. B. Huckestein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3141 (2000).
179. T.D. Stanescu, I. Martin, P. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1288 (2000).
180. N. Shibata, D. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5755 (2001).
181. F.D.M. Haldane, E.H. Rezayi, K. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5396 (2000).
182. S.S. Murzin, A.G.M. Jansen, P.v.d. Linden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2681 (1998).
183. D. Haude, M. Morgenstern, I. Meinel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1582 (2001).
184. M. Koshino, H. Aoki, K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1062 (2001).
185. S. Roshko, W. Dietsche, L. J. Challis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3835 (1998).
186. L. Balicas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1960 (1998).
187. M. Kang, A. Pinczuk, B.S. Dennis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 546 (2000).
188. J.E. Avron, A. Elgart, G.M. Graf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 236601 (2001).
189. A.S. Yeh, H.L. Stormer, D.C. Tsui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 592 (1999).
190. D. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 886 (1999).
191. W. Pan, T. Jungwirth, H.L. Stormer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3257 (2000).
192. M.P.Lilly, K.B. Cooper, J.P. Eisenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 824 (1999).
193. Z. Wang, S. Xiong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 828 (1999).
194. I.J. Maasilta, V.J. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1776 (2000).
195. I. Meinel, T. Hengstmann, D. Grundler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 819 (1999).
196. L. Brey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4692 (1998).
197. X.G. Feng, S. Zelakiewicz, H. Noh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3219 (1998).
198. F.v. Oppen, S.H. Simon, A. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 106803 (2001).
199. M. Kang, A. Pinczuk, B.S. Dennis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2637 (2001).
200. U. Zeitler, A.M. Devitt, J.E. Digby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5333 (1999).
201. E.R. Williams, R.L. Steiner, D.B. Newell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2404 (1998).

Figure Captions

The transverse resistivity data as a function of magnetic field showing 7/2 with 10/3 with negative spin and 11/3 with positive spin.

(a) The correct Biot and Shavert’s law, (b) one flux attached to one electron and (c) two fluxes attached to one electron. The cases (b) and (c) are the modifications called the “composite fermions” (CF). It is obvious and (b) and (c) are not consistent with (a).


text:
# The Current Performance of the Third Interplanetary Network

## I Introduction

The 3rd IPN began with the launch of Ulysses in November 1990. Ulysses is in a heliocentric orbit roughly perpendicular to the ecliptic, with perihelion of about 1.5 AU and an aphelion of about 5 AU. Until 1992, the network had Ulysses and Pioneer Venus Orbiter (PVO) as its distant points, and utilized many near-Earth spacecraft such as the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO) as its third point. PVO entered the atmosphere of Venus in 1992, and it was to be replaced in the IPN by NASA’s Mars Observer, which was lost during insertion into Martian orbit. Finally, in 1999, the network was completed by the X- and Gamma-Ray Spectrometer experiment aboard the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft. In this configuration, the IPN operated quite successfully until NEAR landed on the asteroid Eros in February 2001. Figure 1 summarizes some of the results. The Mars Odyssey mission, launched in April of that year, contains two experiments which have been modified for gamma-ray burst detection, the Gamma-Ray Spectrometer (GRS) and the High Energy Neutron Detector (HEND). As the GRS will not be turned on permanently until the spacecraft completes its aerobraking maneuver, we will discuss the results obtained with HEND.

## II Some IPN results to date

HEND has an effective area of about 40 cm2 of CsI and operates in the energy range above 40 keV. It transmits data continuously with a time resolution of 0.25 s, so that ”triggering” is done with ground software. In addition, whenever a burst is recorded by Konus, the BeppoSAX GRBM, Ulysses, or HETE-II, HEND data are extracted for the appropriate crossing window and transmitted to Goddard and Berkeley for analysis. HEND was been on for a large fraction of the cruise phase, and has detected many cosmic, solar, and soft gamma repeater (SGR) events, some of which are listed in table 1.

This table is neither exhaustive, since we have not been able to analyze all the data yet, nor representative, since there were numerous solar flare particle events which raised the backgrounds and reduced the sensitivities of some IPN experiments. (Solar activity will be decreasing in the years to come.) Thus in about 4.5 months, HEND detected 21 confirmed cosmic or SGR events. HEND is now on almost continuously, but in an eccentric orbit which leads to a variable background rate. The orbit is gradually being circularized by aerobraking. In figure 1 we show an example of a HEND burst. Although the GRS has been on only sporadically during cruise, it too has detected several bursts.

## III The future of the IPN

The Mars Odyssey mission will collect data for at least one Martian year. The nominal end of mission will be around early 2004. Ulysses is currently funded through at least the start of 2004, with a slight extension possible. However, the decay of the radioactive power system probably precludes operation past the end of 2004. The Wind mission is funded through 2002 at least. The BeppoSAX is presently funded until April 2002, but it may be extended until it re-enters. HETE-II is funded through 2002 at least, and possibly for two years beyond.

The INTEGRAL mission is due to be launched into a highly elliptical orbit in October 2002. It will therefore either replace or complement the near-Earth spacecraft, depending on whether they remain operational or have been terminated by that time. Finally, Swift should be launched in late 2003. Thus, we expect to maintain a viable three-spacecraft IPN for a minimum of about 2.5 years.

## IV Expected results

This new IPN is similar in many respects to one which was in operation when NEAR was in the network. Between December 1999 and January 2001, that IPN localized 57 GRBs and circulated their positions to the wide astronomical community via the GRB Coordinates Network (GCN). Of the 25 bursts which were followed up with long-wavelength observations, counterparts were found for 9. The success rate, 9/25 or 36%, is consistent with the overall success rate for bursts, which is about 40%.

There are factors which will both increase and decrease the performance of the new IPN compared to the old one. We first list the ”increase” factors.

1. In the old network, the Earth-Ulysses distance varied between 2.3 and 4.4 AU, while the Earth-NEAR distance varied between 0.8 and 2.1. In the new network, the Earth-Ulysses distance will vary between 2 and 6 AU, while the Earth-Mars distance will vary between 0.45 and 1.8 AU. Thus the average baselines, and hence the annulus widths, will be slightly better.

2. In the old network, the NEAR XGRS experiment had a time resolution of 1 second. In the new network, the time resolution will be between 0.031 s (for GRS) and 0.250 s (for HEND), resulting in a gain in accuracy of the cross-correlations and thus narrower annuli.

3. In the old network, the XGRS detector had a lower energy threshold of 150 keV. The other experiments in the network have energy ranges of 25-150 keV. Since GRB time histories are energy-dependent, this led to increased uncertainty in the cross-correlations and thus wider annuli. HEND operates in an energy range which is better matched to those of the other IPN instruments.

4. Based on the number of bursts observed with HEND during the cruise phase (21 in 4.5 mo), and taking into account the facts that HEND was not on continuously, and that all the data have not been examined, the burst detection rate, 4.7/month, was greater than that of the old network.

The following are ”decrease” effects:

1. Once MO is in a circular orbit, HEND will have an unobstructed field of view of about 2 pi sr, or a factor of about 2 less than in the cruise phase. This decrease should be offset by two other factors, however. First, bursts arriving from the anti-planet hemisphere should still be detectable in some cases, since they will either penetrate the material behind the detectors, and/or backscatter off the Martian atmosphere. Second, GRS will be on continuously, and due to its different detection efficiency, energy range, and field of view, it will detect some bursts that HEND does not.

2. The future tracking efficiencies (that is, the length of time between telemetry passes) of some spacecraft in the network are unknown. This applies particularly to Konus-Wind and to Mars Odyssey. Longer periods between downlinks translate to later error boxes, which must be searched more deeply for counterparts.

All these effects are difficult to quantify, but our expectation is nevertheless that the performance of this network will closely resemble that of its predecessor.

## V Conclusions

In the 2.5 year MO mission, we expect to detect and localize over 100 GRBs and circulate their positions rapidly to astronomers around the world for multiwavelength counterpart studies. This should lead to the observation of numerous afterglows and the determination of many GRB redshifts.

KH is grateful for IPN support under JPL Contract 958056.


text:
# Fidelity of Single Qubit Maps

thanks: to whom correspondence should be addressed at the Clarendon Laboratory

## Abstract

We describe a simple way of characterizing the average fidelity between a unitary (or anti-unitary) operator and a general operation on a single qubit, which only involves calculating the fidelities for a few pure input states, and discuss possible applications to experimental techniques including Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR).

In quantum information theory divincenzo00  it is often useful to compare the effects of two processes applied to a quantum system. The basic building blocks of quantum information processing are transformations (maps) on two level quantum systems known as quantum bits or qubits. Ideally, we would like to be able to compare any two single qubit maps, but unfortunately this is not always straightforward. The comparison is, however, much simpler if one map is unitary or anti-unitary. A natural approach to compare two maps is to calculate the state fidelity of their output states given identical inputs. The Uhlmann state fidelity of two density operators ($`\rho _1,\rho _2`$) is given by uhlmann76

$$F(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\left(\text{Tr}\left(\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho _1}\rho _2\sqrt{\rho _1}}\right)\right)^2.$$
(1)
This may be interpreted as the maximal overlap of all purifications of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. Under a unitary or anti-unitary transformation, a pure input state maps to a pure output state and in this case we can simplify the state fidelity (1) to smolin98

$$F(|\psi \psi |,\rho )=\text{Tr}\left(|\psi \psi |\rho \right).$$
(2)
The state fidelity of a unitary (or anti-unitary) map $`U`$ and a general linear, trace-preserving, transformation $``$ acting on an initially pure state $`|\psi \psi |`$ is given by

$$F_{|\psi \psi |}=\text{Tr}\left(U|\psi \psi |U^{}\left[|\psi \psi |\right]\right).$$
(3)
The average map fidelity can then be defined by integrating over all pure input states,

$$\overline{F}=\frac{1}{4\pi }F_{|\psi \psi |}\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(4)
(where the integral is over the surface of the Bloch sphere) and this definition is widely used hardy01 ; song01 ; fiurasek01 ; moor01 . There is, however, a simplification: using the fact that $`|\psi \psi |`$ can be written in terms of the Pauli spin matrices and the identity matrix zoller97 ,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\psi _{\theta ,\varphi }\psi _{\theta ,\varphi }|& =\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\varphi }\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\varphi }& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _0+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \sigma _x+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \sigma _y+\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _z)\hfill \\ & =\underset{j=0,x,y,z}{}c_j(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{\sigma _j}{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
we can now express equation (4) as,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{F}& =\frac{1}{4\pi }_{\theta =0}^\pi _{\varphi =0}^{2\pi }\text{Tr}\left(U\left[\underset{j}{}c_j(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{\sigma _j}{2}\right]U^{}\left[\underset{k}{}c_k(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{\sigma _k}{2}\right]\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta \text{d}\varphi \text{d}\theta \hfill \\ & =\underset{jk}{}\left(\frac{1}{4\pi }_\theta _\varphi c_jc_k\mathrm{sin}\theta \text{d}\varphi \text{d}\theta \right)\text{Tr}\left(U\frac{\sigma _j}{2}U^{}\left[\frac{\sigma _k}{2}\right]\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where we have used the linearity of $`U`$ and $``$. When integrated over the Bloch sphere the coefficients of the off-diagonal terms go to zero, while the diagonal terms survive bowdrey01 , leaving

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{F}& =\underset{jk}{}\left(\frac{2\delta _{j0}\delta _{k0}+\delta _{jk}}{3}\right)\text{Tr}\left(U\frac{\sigma _j}{2}U^{}\left[\frac{\sigma _k}{2}\right]\right)\hfill \\ & =\text{Tr}\left(U\frac{\sigma _0}{2}U^{}\left[\frac{\sigma _0}{2}\right]\right)+\frac{1}{3}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\text{Tr}\left(U\frac{\sigma _j}{2}U^{}\left[\frac{\sigma _j}{2}\right]\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\text{Tr}\left(U\frac{\sigma _j}{2}U^{}\left[\frac{\sigma _j}{2}\right]\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where we have used the unit trace of $`\sigma _0`$ and the fact that $``$ is trace-preserving.

Expressing the average fidelity in this form may not seem helpful as the Pauli spin matrices do not represent proper states. However, in NMR experiments where the states are highly mixed, single qubit states can be represented by $`\{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _x,\frac{1}{2}\sigma _y,\frac{1}{2}\sigma _z\}`$ ernst ; cory97 ; jones01  and therefore we can use equation (7) directly. One application of this approach is to characterise the behaviour of composite rotation sequences freeman97 ; levitt86 , which are widely used in NMR to reduce the effects of systematic errors. In conventional NMR experiments freeman97  composite rotations are used to effect particular motions on the Bloch sphere (such as inversion, which takes a spin from $`+z`$ to $`z`$), and it suffices to determine the point-to-point fidelity, but when used in NMR implementations of quantum computation cummins00  the initial state is unknown. One approach used to date is Levitt’s quaternion fidelity levitt86 ; cummins00  but this has the major disadvantage that it can only be used to asses the theoretical behaviour of a rotation sequence and cannot be determined by experiment. The average fidelity approach outlined above provides a simple approach which can be used for *both* theoretical *and* experimental studies.

For experimental and theoretical work with pure state techniques we require a more appropriate form and so we use the substitutions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\sigma _j}{2}& =\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}+\sigma _j}{2}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{2}=\rho _j\rho _0\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{2}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma _j}{2}=\rho _0\rho _j,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\rho _{\pm j}`$ represents a pure state in the $`\pm j`$-direction and $`\rho _0`$ is the maximally mixed state. This gives the two equivalent expressions

$$\overline{F}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\left(\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _0\right]\right)\right)$$
(9)
$$\overline{F}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\left(\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _0\right]\right)\right),$$
(10)
and taking the average of (9) and (10) yields,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{F}& =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\left(\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)+\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)\text{Tr}\left(U(\rho _j+\rho _j)U^{}\left[\rho _0\right]\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\left(\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)+\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)2\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _0U^{}\left[\rho _0\right]\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{6}\underset{j=x,y,z}{}\left(\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)+\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)1\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{6}\underset{j=\pm x,\pm y,\pm z}{}\left(\text{Tr}\left(U\rho _jU^{}\left[\rho _j\right]\right)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Hence, the fidelity of the map $``$ with the unitary or anti-unitary map $`U`$ can be calculated by simply averaging the fidelities of the six axial pure states on the Bloch sphere, $`\{\rho _{+x},\rho _x,\rho _{+y},\rho _y,\rho _{+z},\rho _z\}`$. We note that the average map fidelity ($`\overline{F}`$) can in fact be characterized by only four pure states, $`\{\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(+\sigma _x+\sigma _y+\sigma _z)),\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\sigma _x\sigma _y+\sigma _z)),\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\sigma _x+\sigma _y\sigma _z)),\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(+\sigma _x\sigma _y\sigma _z))\}`$. Indeed, the fidelity can be characterized using any four pure states forming a regular tetrahedron, or any six forming a regular octahedron; however the pure states at the six cardinal points provide a particularly natural approach.

An obvious application of this result is to compare a desired unitary operation with its actual implementation that (due to experimental imperfections) may be more closely represented by a superoperator. A practical advantage of characterizing the fidelity by just testing six states is that this approach provides a simple means to verify the map fidelity by experiment. Similarly, we can also use this result to calculate the fidelity of a unitary or superoperator approximation to an anti-unitary map hardy01  in a convenient and intuitive manner.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank E. Galvão and L. Hardy for helpful conversations. M.D.B. and A.J.S thank EPSRC (UK) for financial support. D.K.L.O. thanks CESG (UK) and QAIP (contract IST-1999-11234) for financial support. K.B. thanks EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053) for financial support. J.A.J. is a Royal Society University Research Fellow. This is in part a contribution from the Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, which is supported by the UK EPSRC, BBSRC, and MRC.


text:
# Analytical approach to viscous fingering in a cylindrical Hele-Shaw cell

## I INTRODUCTION

When a fluid is pushed by a less viscous one in a narrow space between two parallel plates (a device known as Hele-Shaw cell), the Saffman-Taylor instability arises . This hydrodynamic instability results in the complex evolution of the moving interface between the fluids, producing a wide range of patterns . Since the pioneering work of Saffman and Taylor , these visually striking, viscous fingering patterns have been extensively studied, both theoretically and experimentally .

One noteworthy distinction between experimental and theoretical work on the Saffman-Taylor problem is that the measurements usually reveal disturbances associated with friction at the sidewalls of the Hele-Shaw cell, while most theoretical studies sidestep this problem by assuming periodic boundary conditions. In principle, rigid-wall boundary conditions would be closer to an experimental realization of the problem. However, the use of periodic boundary conditions, as opposed to rigid-wall ones in theoretical investigations of the Saffman-Taylor problem has been a matter of interest and debate during the last few decades .

In the early 1990’s an attempt to measure the flow in a cell which approximates the periodic boundary conditions of the theory has been performed by Zhao and Maher . Their interesting experimental work considered gravity-driven viscous flow within a cylindrical Hele-Shaw cell (two coaxial cylinders separated by a small gap) of large radius of curvature. To drive the system gravitationally they allowed the fluids to form a stable flat interface, and then invert the cell to put the denser fluid on the top. The fluids used in  had almost the same viscosity (low viscosity contrast), such that the process of finger competition leads to a nearly up-down symmetric interface. The main goal in Ref.  was to directly compare viscous fingering flow in a cylindrical cell with flow in a conventional, flat, rectangular cell, and verify if the rigid sidewalls could be viewed as having been replaced with periodic boundary conditions.

Comparison of the pattern evolution observed in the cylindrical cell experiment  with similar measurements in rectangular cells with sidewalls , shows that periodic boundary conditions yield few differences of results. Moreover, the cylindrical cell patterns also look very similar to computer simulation results obtained by Tryggvason and Aref , who used periodic boundary conditions in a flat rectangular cell.

The experimental results presented in  suggest that, for large radius of curvature and low viscosity contrast, there are no significant changes made in the statistical properties of the Saffman-Taylor flow by friction at the boundaries. In other words, it seems that the boundaries affect the dynamics in much the same way whether they are provided by periodic boundary conditions or by the presence of physical sidewalls. Although the majority of flow features survive the elimination of sidewall friction, the authors in Ref.  were not able to perform a meaningful test of growth rates in the linear regime due to experimental disturbances other than rigid-wall ones, related to the inversion of the cell. It is worth noting that sidewall effects are more prominent in cases with higher viscosity contrast .

Despite the relevance and simplicity of the experimental work carried out in Ref. , a theoretical analysis of the viscous fingering instability in a cylindrical Hele-Shaw cell is lacking in the literature. A theoretical study of flow in cylindrical cells, could yield new insigth into the possible causes that may contribute to the few differences of results detected in . In this work, we examine flow in cylindrical cells analytically. We consider the general case of arbitrary viscosity contrast and cell radius. In section II, we derive a generalized version of Darcy’s law suitable to describe flow in cylindrical cells. This Darcy’s law introduces a correction factor, which depends on the ratio between the cell’s thickness and radius. This result enables us to express the differences of behavior between flow in rectangular and cylindrical cells in quantitative terms. In section III we investigate the consequences of such differences in the flow dynamics by performing a mode-coupling analysis of the problem. We examine both linear and slightly nonlinear stages of evolution, and explicity show how linear growth rates and the dynamical process of finger competition are influenced by cylindrical geometry. The absence of finger tip-splitting in cylindrical cells is briefly discussed. Section IV presents our final remarks.

## II DARCY’S LAW IN CYLINDRICAL ENCLOSURES

In this section we present the physical system of interest and derive a generalized Darcy’s law which is suited to bringing out the geometrical aspects related to viscous fluid flow in cylindrical passages. Consider two immiscible, incompressible, viscous fluids, flowing in a narrow gap of thickness $`b`$, between two long coaxial, thin right circular cylinders (cylindrical Hele-Shaw cell). The radius of curvature of the cylindrical cell is $`a`$ (see Fig. 1). Denote the densities and viscosities of the lower and upper fluids, respectively as $`\rho _1`$, $`\eta _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$, $`\eta _2`$. The flows in fluids $`1`$ and $`2`$ are assumed to be irrotational, and between them there exists a surface tension $`\sigma `$. The acceleration of gravity is represented by $`𝐠`$, and points downward along the direction of cylinders’ common axis.

In order to derive a generalized version of Darcy’s law, adjusted to describe flow in such confined cylindrical environment, it suffices to focus on a single fluid. The starting point of our calculation is a coordinate-free representation of the continuity equation for an incompressible fluid

$$𝐮=0,$$
(1)
and the Navier-Stokes equation

$$\rho \left[\frac{𝐮}{t}+(𝐮)𝐮\right]=p+\eta ^2𝐮+\rho 𝐠,$$
(2)
where $`𝐮`$ denotes the three-dimensional fluid velocity and $`p`$ is the hydrodynamic pressure.

We consider cylindrical coordinates $`(r,\phi ,z)`$, where the $`z`$ axis coincides with that of the two cylinders. Specializing to the case of flow in the $`z`$ direction $`𝐮_z(r,z)=u_z(r,z)\widehat{\mathrm{z}}`$, the continuity equation (1) leads to $`(ru_z)/z=0`$. Consequently, the velocity can be written is a function of $`r`$ only

$$𝐮_z=u(r)\widehat{z},$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{z}`$ denotes the unit vector along the $`z`$ axis.

Following the standard approach in Hele-Shaw problems, we restrict our attention to small velocity flows of viscous fluids, and neglect the inertial terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (2). Under such circumstances, we use the solution (3) to rewrite the Navier-Stokes equation as

$$\frac{p}{z}\rho g=\frac{\eta }{r}\frac{}{r}\left[r\frac{u(r)}{r}\right].$$
(4)
Since the left-hand side is a function of $`z`$, and the right-hand side involves only $`r`$, Eq. (4) can be satisfied only if each side is equal to a constant of common value $`B`$. Imposing the no-slip boundary conditions at the solid cylindrical shells $`u(a)=u(a+b)=0`$, we find the solution of the radial equation

$$u(r)=\frac{B}{4\eta }\left[r^2C\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)a^2\right],$$
(5)
where $`C=[(a+b)^2a^2]/\mathrm{log}(1+b/a)`$. In contrast to flow in usual flat, rectangular cells, observe that the velocity profile Eq. (5) is not rigorously parabolic (or, Poiseuille-like) due to the presence of a logarithmic term. The profile is very close to a parabola for $`r/a1`$, but deviates from parabolic shape for larger values of $`r/a`$.

Averaging the three-dimensional velocity $`𝐮`$ with respect to the transverse, radial direction, defining $`v(1/b)_a^{a+b}u(r)𝑑r`$, leads to the equation for the mean flow velocity of the fluid

$$v=\frac{b^2F(b/a)}{12\eta }\left[\frac{p}{z}\rho g\right],$$
(6)
where

$$F(b/a)=3\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^3\left\{\frac{\frac{b}{a}\left[1\left(1+\frac{b}{a}\right)^2\right]}{\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{b}{a}\right)}\frac{2}{3}\left[1\left(1+\frac{b}{a}\right)^3\right]\right\}.$$
(7)
Equation (6) is Darcy’s law for flow in cylindrical Hele-Shaw cells. The function $`F(b/a)1+(1/30)(b/a)^2+𝒪[(b/a)^3]`$ introduces a correction factor which measures the deviation from the flat, rectangular case ($`a\mathrm{}`$). Equation (6) recovers the usual Darcy’s law for flow in flat cells with corrections of higher order in $`b/a`$, introduced by $`1F(b/a)2`$ .

Darcy’s law is the governing equation for Hele-Shaw-type flows . Therefore, quantitative comparisons between dynamical behavior of flow in rectangular and cylindrical cells must take into account the corrections introduced by Eq. (6), in addition to those caused by sidewall effects and cell inversion . In contrast to the unavoidable disturbances mentioned in Ref. , which are hard to quantify accurately, Eq. (6) allows precise determination of intrinsic, purely geometrical effects.

Based on Eq. (7) we can start understanding why the differences of results detected in Ref.  were so small. In Ref.  the authors used a cylindrical cell of radius of curvature $`a=18\mathrm{mm}`$ and thickness $`b=1\mathrm{mm}`$, such that $`b/a5.6\times 10^2`$. From Eq. (7) this means a small correction of 0.01 $`\%`$ with respect to the flat cell case ($`a\mathrm{}`$). In practical terms, we estimate that a ratio of roughly $`b/a10^3`$ would be enough in order for curvature effects to be considered negligible.

## III LINEAR AND SLIGHTLY NONLINEAR DYNAMICS

In this section we investigate the consequences of the changes introduced by the generalized Darcy’s law (6) in both linear and weakly nonlinear stages of the interface evolution. We focus on two general questions: (i) on the linear level, what is the effect of Eq. (6) on linear growth rates? (ii) concerning the onset of nonlinear effects, how do finger competition, up-down interfacial symmetry, and finger tip-splitting are influenced by Eq. (6)?

To study these issues we derive a second order mode-coupling differential equation for the interface perturbation amplitudes. We express the fluid-fluid interface as a Fourier series

$$\zeta (\phi ,t)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\zeta _n(t)\mathrm{exp}(in\phi ),$$
(8)
where $`\zeta _n(t)`$ denotes the complex Fourier mode amplitudes and $`n`$=0, $`\pm 1`$, $`\pm 2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the discrete azimuthal wave number.

We exploit the irrotational flow condition to define the velocity potential $`𝐯_j=\varphi _j`$ in fluids $`j=1`$ and $`j=2`$. Using the velocity potential, we evaluate Darcy’s law (6) for each of the fluids on the interface, subtract the resulting expressions from each other, and divide by the sum of the two fluids’ viscosities to get the equation of motion

$$A\left(\frac{\varphi _1|_\zeta +\varphi _2|_\zeta }{2}\right)\left(\frac{\varphi _1|_\zeta \varphi _2|_\zeta }{2}\right)=F(b/a)\left[Uz+\kappa \right]|_\zeta .$$
(9)
Note the presence of the correction factor (7) on the right-hand side of Eq. (9). To obtain (9) we used the pressure boundary condition $`p_2p_1=\sigma \kappa `$ at the interface $`z=\zeta `$, where $`\kappa =(1/a^2)(^2\zeta /\phi ^2)[1+(\zeta /\phi )^2]^{3/2}`$ is the interfacial curvature. The viscosity contrast A=$`(\eta _2\eta _1)/(\eta _2+\eta _1)`$, and $`U=b^2g(\rho _2\rho _1)/[12(\eta _1+\eta _2)]`$ is a characteristic velocity. In Eq. (9) we introduced dimensionless variables, scaling all lengths by the gap size $`b`$, and all velocities by $`\sigma /12(\eta _1+\eta _2)`$. From now on we work, unless otherwise stated, with the dimensionless version of Eq. (9).

Following steps similar to those performed in , we define Fourier expansions for the velocity potentials

$$\varphi _j=\underset{n0}{}\varphi _{jn}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[in\phi +(1)^{j1}\frac{|n|}{a}z\right],$$
(10)
which obey Laplace’s equation and vanish as $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$. We express $`\varphi _j`$ in terms of the perturbation amplitudes $`\zeta _n`$ by considering the kinematic boundary condition for flow in a cylindrical cell. As in the flat cell case, the kinematic condition $`𝐧𝐯_1|_{z=\zeta }=𝐧𝐯_2|_{z=\zeta }`$ refers to the continuity of the normal velocity across the fluid-fluid interface. Substituting these relations into Eq. (9), and Fourier transforming, yields the mode coupling equation of the Saffman-Taylor problem in a cylindrical Hele-Shaw cell

$$\dot{\zeta }_k=\lambda (k)\zeta _k+\underset{k^{}0}{}G(k,k^{})\dot{\zeta }_k^{}\zeta _{kk^{}}+𝒪(\zeta _k^3),$$
(11)
conveniently written in terms of the characteristic wave number $`k=n/a`$. The overdot denotes total time derivative, and

$$\lambda (k)=F(b/a)|k|[Uk^2]$$
(12)
is the dimensionless linear growth rate. The function

$$G(k,k^{})=A|k|\left[1sgn(kk^{})\right]$$
(13)
is the second order mode-coupling term, where the $`sgn`$ function equals $`\pm 1`$ according to the sign of its argument.

Based on mode coupling Eq. (11) we now discuss some noteworthy features of both linear and weakly nonlinear regimes. Start with the linear growth rate (12): it is written as the product of the correction factor $`F(b/a)`$ by $`\lambda (k)_{rect}=|k|[Uk^2]`$, which incidentally, is the linear growth rate for the flat, rectangular case . This last observation indicates that, for fixed gap thickness $`b`$, there is a slight decrease of linear growth for increasingly larger radius of curvature $`a`$. The linear solution to Eq. (11) is purely exponential $`\zeta _k^{lin}(t)=\zeta _k(0)\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (k)t]`$, and introduces the correction factor $`F(b/a)`$ into the linear, rectangular solution . At the linear level, this correction becomes more and more important as time progresses and when $`b/a1`$.

From Eq. (12) we can extract two relevant parameters: (i) the critical wave number $`k_c=1/\sqrt{U}`$ \[defined by setting $`\lambda (k)=0`$\], beyond which all modes are linearly stable; and (ii) the fastest growing mode $`k^{}=k_c/\sqrt{3}`$ which maximizes $`\lambda (k)`$, and dominates the initial dynamics of the interface. Note that $`k_c`$ and $`k^{}`$ show no dependence on the radius of curvature $`a`$. This behavior is illustrated in Fig. 2 that depicts the linear growth rate (12) as a function of $`k`$, in the flat cell limit (dashed curve) and for a cylindrical cell with $`ab`$ (solid curve). Note that for both cases the peak location and width of the band of unstable modes remain unchanged, independently of the value of $`a`$. Differences in behavior between flow in cylindrical and flat cells are more pronounced around $`k^{}`$. These facts can be interpreted as follows: since $`k=n/a`$, if one increases the cell’s radius of curvature $`a`$, the number of fingers $`n`$ at the two-fluid interface is also increased in order to keep the fastest growing $`k`$ constant.

Now we turn our attention to the weakly nonlinear flow stage. We begin by discussing finger competition dynamics. It is well known that the viscosity contrast $`A`$ has a crucial role in determining interfacial behavior for flow in flat rectangular cells . For low viscosity contrast ($`A0`$) the interface is nearly up-down symmetric, and increasingly larger asymmetry is observed for larger values of $`A`$ ($`A\pm 1`$). Consequently, $`A`$ has great influence on the dynamics of finger competition and pattern selection. In cylindrical cells, in addition to the parameter $`A`$, it is of interest to examine how finger competition dynamics is affected by radius of curvature $`a`$ (or correspondingly, by the correction factor $`F(b/a)`$).

In order to investigate finger competition we consider the influence of a fundamental mode, on the growth of its sub-harmonic. To do that we rewrite the net perturbation (8) in terms of cosine and sine modes, where the cosine $`a_k=\zeta _k+\zeta _k`$ and sine $`b_k=i\left(\zeta _k\zeta _k\right)`$ amplitudes are real-valued. Then, for consistent second order expressions, we replace the time derivative terms $`\dot{a}_k`$ and $`\dot{b}_k`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (11) by $`\lambda (k)a_k`$ and $`\lambda (k)b_k`$, respectively. We consider a dominant fundamental of wave number $`k_f=k^{}`$, and a sub-harmonic of wave number $`k_s=k_f/2`$ and relatively weaker amplitude. Without loss of generality we may take $`a_{k_f}>0`$ and $`b_{k_f}=0`$. Under these circumstances, we obtain the following equations of motion for sine and cosine sub-harmonic

$$\dot{a}_{k_s}=\lambda (k_s)[1+Ak_sa_{k_f}]a_{k_s},$$
(14)
$$\dot{b}_{k_s}=\lambda (k_s)[1Ak_sa_{k_f}]b_{k_s}.$$
(15)
Note that if $`A>0`$ and $`a_{k_f}>0`$, the fundamental accelerates the growth of the sub-harmonic cosine and inhibits the sub-harmonic sine mode. This causes increased variability among the lengths of fingers of less viscous fluid 1 penetrating more viscous fluid 2. This effect describes finger competition. As was in flat cells, interface asymmetry and finger competition are enhanced to a degree proportional to $`A`$.

Although the second order term $`G(k,k^{})`$ (see Eq. (13)) has no explicit dependence on $`a`$, the coupling between modes $`k_f`$ and $`k_s`$ makes the interface dynamics sensitive to the background cylindrical geometry. From equations (14) and (15) we see that for a given $`A`$, the degree of competition and up-down asymmetry depend on the overall multiplicative term $`\lambda (k_s)`$, which in turn is proportional to the correction factor $`F(b/a)`$. To illustrate the combined influence of $`A`$ and $`a`$ on finger competition, we plot in Fig. 3 the effective growth rate $`\lambda _{eff}=\lambda (k_s)[1+Ak_sa_{k_f}]`$, taken from Eq. (14), as a function of viscosity contrast $`A`$. In Fig. 3 the dashed line corresponds to the flat cell limit, while the solid line expresses behavior for a cylindrical cell with $`ab`$. We see from Fig. 3 that the discrepancies between flow in cylindrical and flat cells are more noticeable for increasingly larger values of both $`A`$ and $`b/a`$. Therefore, with respect to finger competition, the flow will be more stable with the increase of the cylindrical cell radius $`a`$. Geometrically speaking, we can say that the mean curvature $`H=(1/2a)`$ of the cylindrical cell intensifies the competition among fingers in comparison with that of rectangular, planar flow.

We conclude this section by briefly discussing the possibility of occurrence of finger tip-splitting in cylindrical cells. Tip-splitting is related to the influence of a fundamental mode $`k_f`$ on the growth of its harmonic $`k_h=2k_f`$ . By rewriting Eq. (11) in terms of sine and cosine modes, and considering the coupling between $`k_f`$ and $`k_h`$, we verify that the harmonic mode cannot be influenced by the fundamental. Therefore, at second order, there is no tendency for the fingers to split in cylindrical cells. Tip-splitting is absent for any value of the cell’s radius of curvature $`a`$, including the flat cell limit $`a\mathrm{}`$. This fact may be interpreted in geometric terms as follows: unlike finger competition behavior, which depends on, and varies with the cylinder’s mean curvature $`H`$, finger tip-splitting is controlled by Gaussian curvature  which is zero for a cylinder. In this sence, the absence of tip-splitting in cylindrical cells was expected.

## IV Conclusions and perspectives

In this paper we investigated viscous flow in cylindrical Hele-Shaw cells analytically. The study of flow in such geometry requires modification of Darcy’s law equation. A generalized version of Darcy’s law was derived from first principles. It introduces pertinent corrections to usual Darcy’s law in flat, rectangular geometry. We used a mode-coupling approach to examine the fluid-fluid interface evolution. Arbitrary viscosity contrast $`A`$ and cell radius $`a`$ have been considered. We deduced the following general results: on the linear level, there is an inhibition of growth for increasingly larger radius of curvature $`a`$; and, for sligthly nonlinear stages, we found that finger competition and interface asymmetry are enhanced for flow in cylindrical cells. In addition, we explained the absence of tip-splitting events in cylindrical cells.

The study of geometry-related corrections $`F(b/a)`$ for the case $`b/a>1`$ could be interesting to study in the future. Within this limit, and following the lines of recent work by Ruyer-Quil  and by Meignin et al. , it would be of interest to study inertial corrections to the generalized Darcy’s law (6), and examine gap size effects for the Saffman-Taylor instability in cylindrical cells. Experimental study in this direction could use, and take advantage of already existing, very good cylindrical Taylor-Couette cells. In addition, a thorough investigation of fully nonlinear flow stages in cylindrical cells, through extensive computer simulations, may reveal additional corrections and new dynamic behavior. Such numerical studies could provide a more meaningful confrontation between experiment and theory in cylindrical cells.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank CNPq and FINEP (through its PRONEX Program) for financial support. Helpful discussions with Fernando Parisio and Claudio Furtado are gratefully acknowledged.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG. 1: Schematic configuration of viscous flow in a cylindrical Hele-Shaw cell. The dashed curve represents the unperturbed interface $`z=0`$ and the solid undulated curve depicts the perturbed interface $`z=\zeta (\phi ,t)`$. All other relevant quantities are defined in the text.

FIG. 2: Variation of the dimensionless growth rate (12) as a function of $`k`$, for $`U=1`$: in the flat cell limit $`b/a0`$ (dashed curve), and in the cylindrical case $`b/a1`$ (solid curve). Note that for both situations $`k_c=1`$ and $`k^{}=1/\sqrt{3}`$.

FIG. 3: Variation of the effective growth rate $`\lambda _{eff}=\lambda (k_s)[1+Ak_sa_{k_f}]`$, from Eq. (14), as a function of $`A`$, for $`U=1`$ and $`a_{k_f}=1`$: in the flat cell limit $`b/a0`$ (dashed line), and in the cylindrical case $`b/a1`$ (solid line). For a given value of viscosity contrast $`A`$, finger competition increases for larger values of $`b/a`$.


text:
# How is the Reionization Epoch Defined ?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

At a redshift of $`z1100`$ the intergalactic medium (IGM) recombined and remained neutral until the first sources of ionizing radiation formed. While the distribution and evolution of these sources are unknown, the overall process of IGM reionization is fairly well understood, and can be divided into three phases. First, individual HII regions developed around the sources. Then, these ionized regions grew in number and size until they overlapped, producing a sudden increase of the photon mean free path. Finally, when all underdense regions and voids were completely ionized, photons penetrated into overdense clumps and filaments, bringing the reionization process to completion at a “reionization redshift.”

It is clear that the mystery of the nature and evolution of the ionizing sources is intimately tied with the time scale over which these phases took place. Thus there is a great deal of physical information that could be gathered if the reionization redshift, $`z_i`$, and its duration, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, can be firmly established.

Apart from the study of the (HI and HeII) Gunn-Peterson effect, which has not yet yielded conclusive results (Becker et al. 2001; Gnedin 2001; Theuns et al. 2001), measurements of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies have the greatest potential for constraining these important quantities (Griffiths et al. 1999). The scattering of CMB photons by free electrons damps the angular power spectrum of primary anisotropies by a factor of $`e^{2\tau }`$ for large angular multipoles $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{>}{}100`$ (Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2000), where $`\tau `$ is the Thomson optical depth. Using the currently available data, consistency with the lack of Gunn-Peterson trough and with the observed peak in the angular power spectrum at $`\mathrm{}200`$ (De Bernardis et al. 2000; Hanany et al. 2000; Padin et al. 2001) is able to constrain $`0.02\tau 0.44`$ (De Bernardis et al. 1997; Griffiths et al. 1999; Tegmark et al. 2001; Griffiths & Liddle 2001), although these results are somewhat dependent on the cosmological model assumed. Much better constraints are expected from polarization studies to be carried out by future satellites such as SPOrt111http://sport.tesre.bo.cnr.it and PLANCK222http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck.

A second method of quantifying reionization is to examine $`z_i`$, and several recent studies have attempted to use the CMB to derive this redshift directly, using codes that assume a sudden epoch of reionization (e.g, Hu et al. 95; Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996). For example, Schmalzing et al. (2000) use MAXIMA data in combination with cosmological parameters from independent measurements of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and X-ray cluster data to constrain $`z_i`$. By performing a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis, they conclude that $`z_i>15(8)`$ at the 68% (95%) confidence level. Similarly, Naselsky et al. (2001), in addition to providing support to Schmalzing et al. results, showed that polarization spectra are very sensitive to the reionization redshift.

An important caveat is implicit in these applications however, namely the assumption of prompt reionization. While taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$ is a reasonable first step, more detailed simulations show that this approach paints a picture of reionization in only the broadest of strokes. This is particularly true as the onset of reionization raises the overall temperature of the IGM, suppressing the further formation of objects that are too weakly bound gravitationally to overcome the drastic increase in thermal pressure (Barkana & Loeb 1999). Thus recent numerical simulations of reionization (Ciardi et al. 2000, hereafter CFGJ; Bruscoli et al. 2000; Gnedin 2000; Benson et al. 2000) have shown that the evolution of the mean ionization fraction is slow, has a nonlinear dependence on redshift, and occurs in an extremely patchy manner. All of these details may considerably affect the determination of $`z_i`$.

In this paper, we aim to clarify the effects of realistic reionization scenarios on the observables typically used to examine the reionization epoch. To this end we have modified the most heavily relied on theoretical code for computing CMB fluctuations, CMBFAST (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996), to allow the treatment of such reionization histories, helping to clarify the best approach in trying to quantify and define the epoch of reionization.

The structure of this work is as follows. In §2 we discuss numerical models of reionization and how these have been incorporated into the CMBFAST code. In §3 we apply these techniques to study the impact of these models on the temperature and polarization spectrum of the CMB, and conclusions are given in §4.

## 2 Reionization history from simulations

To assess the effects of more physical reionization histories on the determination of $`z_i`$, we have modified the Boltzmann code CMBFAST such that the redshift evolution of the volume-averaged mean hydrogen ionization fraction, $`x_e(z)`$, can be specified, reading in data from more detailed simulations of reionization.333A copy of this version of CMBFAST is publicly available at http://www.arcetri.astro.it/science/cosmology/CMB Our modified version of CMBFAST is then able to consider three types of reionization histories: (i) prompt reionization models in which the total optical depth, $`\tau `$, is chosen (ii) prompt models in which the reionization redshift, $`z_i`$, is fixed, and (iii) models in which $`x_e(z)`$ is read from an external file.

As in Bruscoli et al. (2000), we consider a set of reionization simulations studied in CFGJ, which model reionization from stellar sources, including Population III objects. These simulations were developed in a critical density CDM universe with cosmological parameters $`h=0.5`$, $`\sigma _8=0.6`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.06`$ (where $`h`$ is the Hubble constant in units of $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\sigma _8`$ is the rms variation of density perturbations at the $`8h^1`$ comoving Mpc length scale, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is the baryonic density in units of the critical density) but span a large range of model parameters, and thus are suitable for drawing conclusions as to the effect of extended reionization in more general cosmologies.

The spatial distribution of the sources and ionized regions at various cosmic epochs and the overall evolution of $`x_e(z)`$ are obtained from high-resolution cosmological simulations within a periodic box of comoving length $`L=2.55h^1`$ Mpc. The source properties are calculated taking into account a self-consistent treatment of both radiative feedback from ionizing and H2–photodissociating photons and stellar feedback regulated by supernovae from massive stars. There are two main free parameters in the simulations: the fraction of total baryons converted into stars, $`f_b`$, and the escape fraction of ionizing photons from a given galaxy, $`f_{esc}`$. A critical discussion of these parameters is given in CFGJ, and here we examine four different models, fixing ($`f_b=0.012,f_{esc}=0.2`$) in run A, (0.004, 0.2) in run B, (0.15, 0.2) in run C , and (0.012, 0.1) in run D. As run A, in which $`z_i11`$, gives the best agreement between the derived evolution of the cosmic star formation rate and observations at $`z\stackrel{<}{}4`$ (Steidel et al. 1998, CFGJ), we choose this as our fiducial model, and rely on runs $`B`$, $`C`$, and $`D`$ to study the effects of model uncertainties on our conclusions.

## 3 Prompt vs. Simulated Reionization

Equipped with this more general tool, we now quantitatively contrast the prompt reionization $`x_{e,p}(z)`$ with the one derived from the simulations, $`x_{e,s}(z)`$. As CMBFAST can be run either by assigning $`z_i`$ or $`\tau `$, we are able to examine both these cases separately.

### 3.1 Assigning the Reionization Redshift

In Fig. 1 we plot the redshift evolution of the hydrogen ionization fraction and the Thomson optical depth for the prompt and simulated cases, choosing in the prompt case the same value of $`z_i=10.9`$ as deduced from run A. In this plot, the smoother, nonlinear increase of $`x_{e,s}(z)`$ is evident, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z15`$. Note also that the optical depth for the two reionization histories are quite different, and that $`\tau _s=0.08`$ for run A and $`\tau _p=0.04`$ for prompt reionization. If we define the discrepancy between the prompt and simulated visibility functions $`g(z)`$ as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g}{g}=\frac{|g_s(z)g_p(z)|}{g_s(z)},$$
(1)
where $`g(z)`$ is the probability that a photon reaching the observer last scattered in the redshift range $`z`$ and $`z+dz`$, then we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }g/g5\%`$ for a large range of redshifts between recombination and the beginning of reionization ($`25\stackrel{<}{}z\stackrel{<}{}1000`$).

The most important comparison between the prompt and fiducial cases, however, is made in terms of the different resulting CMB temperature and polarization angular power spectra, $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$, as these are the observable quantities. These are shown in the upper left panel of Fig. 2, in which differences are particularly evident in the polarization spectra, which are more sensitive to the reionization history. Reionization introduces a characteristic bump in the lower multipoles ($`\mathrm{}=510`$) that tends to shift to higher $`\mathrm{}`$’s when $`\tau `$ is increased. The amplitude of the bump in the $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ spectrum decreases with $`\tau `$ and therefore the signal is weaker for the prompt reionization case. In particular the bump amplitude in the angular spectrum $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is roughly proportional to $`\tau ^2`$ (for $`\tau \stackrel{<}{}1`$), while its position scales as $`\mathrm{}_{peak}z_i^{1/2}`$ (Zaldarriaga 1997; Fabbri 1999).

To highlight these differences, we plot the normalized discrepancy of temperature and polarization angular spectra \[defined analogously to eq. (1)\] between the models in the lower left panel. Here find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}<0.07`$ while, around $`\mathrm{}10`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{\mathrm{}}/P_{\mathrm{}}1`$. These results make it clear that although the prompt and simulated reionization histories share the same value of $`z_i`$, they produce noticeably different angular power spectra, and thus correct constraints on the reionization redshift cannot be obtained by equating $`z_i`$ in the prompt and simulated runs.

### 3.2 Assigning the Optical Depth

An alternative approach is to compare our fiducial run with a prompt model that differs in its $`z_i`$ but has the same Thomson optical depth, $`\tau =0.08`$. This results in a value for the prompt reionization redshift of $`z_{i,p}=17.1`$. Note that this value is much larger than the simulated redshift of reionization $`z_{i,s}=10.9`$, and corresponds to the redshift at which the simulated ionization fraction is only $`x_{e,s}0.5`$.

Comparing these two runs we find, however, that the discrepancy between the two visibility functions is only $`\mathrm{\Delta }g/g10^4.`$ This small change in the visibility function results in an equally small change in the observed CMB anisotropies. This can be seen on the top right panel of in Fig. 2 in which the angular power spectra are almost indistinguishable. Indeed, the fractional discrepancy between these runs is only $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{<}{}0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{\mathrm{}}/P_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{<}{}0.06`$ as shown in the bottom right panel in this figure.

Thus the two different reionization models produce comparable angular power spectra if $`\tau `$ is specified rather than $`z_i`$. In fact if we try to recover the reionization redshift from the standard formula $`z_i=8.9(\tau /h\mathrm{\Omega }_b)^{2/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{1/3}`$ (Peebles 1993, Tegmark et al. 2000) we get $`z_i=17.1`$, again a redshift at which $`x_e0.5`$. It is clear then that by analyzing CMB power spectra using a prompt model, one can draw reasonable conclusions as to the overall Thomson optical depth, whereas the reionization redshift is much more uncertain.

### 3.3 Quantification of Errors & Tests of Our Approach

In order to quantify the difference between the fiducial model and the prompt model with the same optical depth further, we plot in Fig. 3 the quantity

$$\chi ^2(\mathrm{}_{max})=\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}_{max}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}}{C_{\mathrm{}}})^2f_{sky}$$
(2)
as a function of the multipole number $`\mathrm{}_{max}`$ assuming full sky coverage, $`f_{sky}=1`$. For multipole values greater than 100, $`\chi ^2`$ exceeds unity, the value corresponding to the cosmic variance error of $`2C_{\mathrm{}}^2/(2\mathrm{}+1)`$. This means that one can find a statistically significant difference between the prompt and fiducial models only by looking at angular multipoles with $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{>}{}100.`$ However, in Fig. 2 we saw that the largest differences between the two histories occur at lower multipole values ($`\mathrm{}=2040`$). Thus although these reionization histories are considerably different, it is almost impossible to discriminate between them observationally.

Finally, we extend our analysis to the runs B, C, and D of CFGJ, comparing them with prompt runs with equal values of $`\tau _s`$. These results are summarized in Table 1. As in run A, the values of $`z_{i,p}`$ found for these models correspond to times at which $`x_{e,s}0.5`$, when the IGM was in the midst of changing from a neutral state to an ionized one.

Is is clear from this table that it is not possible to put a constraint on the reionization redshift directly from CMBFAST. In fact, as can be easily seen in Table 1, the differences between $`z_{i,s}`$ and $`z_{i,p}`$ cannot be easily parameterized because they depend on several effects that influence the duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_s`$ of the reionization process. These effects include radiative and stellar feedbacks, the star formation efficiency, the photon escape fraction, the spatial and mass distribution of the ionizing sources, and even the clumpiness of IGM, which is beyond the scope of the CFGJ simulations.

We have conducted a number of checks and convergence tests to assess the robustness of our approach. Our first check was to examine the overall, numerical value of the optical depth, which differs slightly from the input value due to the finite integration time step. Here we found that the output $`\tau `$s differ by less than $`5\times 10^5`$ from the specified values. This corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{<}{}10^4`$, i.e. $`30`$ times smaller than the actual difference between the simulated and prompt runs.

Next, we carried out a series of convergence tests, to ascertain the effects of $`k`$-mode sampling on our results. Here we restrict our tests to run A for which we increased the $`k`$ resolution by $`50\%.`$ A comparison between the original and resampled simulated runs showed that at most angular scales $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{\mathrm{}}/P_{\mathrm{}}`$ are within $`0.1\%`$; larger differences (up to $`0.7\%`$) are found at higher multipole numbers ($`\mathrm{}\stackrel{>}{}700`$). Comparing the resampled run A with a resampled prompt run with equal input optical depth, we found $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{\mathrm{}}/P_{\mathrm{}}`$ values that were virtually indistinguishable from those obtained with low $`k`$ resolution runs.

Finally, we examined the effect of time sampling at both $`k`$ resolutions, comparing two prompt runs with equal optical depth and $`k`$ resolution, but forcing one of them to the same time step as in simulated run A. Again, we found $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{\mathrm{}}/P_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}10^4`$, far smaller than the discrepancies between the prompt and simulated runs.

## 4 Conclusions

One of the first stages of nonlinear structure formation, reionization marked an important transition from a dark and relatively simple universe to one filled with a dazzling array of stars, galaxies, quasars, and other nonlinear objects. And although one of our best probes of this transition is through the measurement of CMB fluctuations, the process of reionization itself is much more dependent on the complicated astrophysical issues important at low redshifts than the linear issues important at $`z1100.`$

In this work, we have explored this transition, quantifying the impact of realistic scenarios of reionization on the angular power spectrum of the Comic Microwave Background. While standard estimates assume prompt reionization, we have considered instead a range of simulated models, each with a prolonged reionization epoch. We find that equating the redshift of full IGM ionization between these simulations and models that assume instantaneous reionization leads to widely discrepant temperature and polarization spectra. On the other hand, equating prompt and extended models with the same overall optical depth leads to differences in anisotropies that are nearly undetectable. In this case the redshift of complete ionization is lost in the complicated details of the phase transition, and comparisons yield $`z_i`$ values corresponding to roughly the point of 50% ionization in the simulations, although even this value is model dependent. It is clear then that while $`z_i`$ is useful as schematic tool, it is the total optical depth that is most accurate in providing a definition of the reionization epoch.

MB thanks M. Zaldarriaga for discussions and hospitality at IAS, Princeton where part of this work has been carried out. ES has been supported in part by an NSF MPS-DRF fellowship.