text:
# References

The author would like to thank the SPIRES group, and in particular the Scientific Database Manager Travis Brooks and the previous Scientific Database Manager Heath O’Connell, for the kind help in linking this manuscript to the related literature.

The last three years have seen a large amount of progress in String Theory , and the subject itself has undergone a change of scope. This is well reflected in the content of the talks that have preceded this one.

Much of the recent progress in String Theory can be traced to a precise strategy: a careful study of the few models known since the beginnings of the subject, and the abstraction from them of basic properties that one would like to demand from other models. This could be termed a set of “model-building rules”. The approach corresponds to the fact, often a source of embarrassment to specialists, that String Theory, born as a set of rules rather than as a set of principles, has long resisted attempts to reduce it to a logically satisfying structure.

The first property is two-dimensional conformal invariance. This is the motive behind the machinery that has become known as Two-Dimensional Conformal Field Theory . Conformal invariance entered the subject long ago, as the cure to the unitarity problems of the bosonic model, by necessity defined in terms of oscillators of Minkowski, rather than Euclidean, signature. Conformal invariance is responsible for a transverse spectrum of states, all of positive norm, and embodies the projective invariance (duality) of the originally known amplitudes. Conformal invariance is reflected, in the context of the closed bosonic string, in the invariance under two mutually commuting Virasoro algebras.

Conformal Field Theory is an algebraic, and thus non-perturbative, framework for the description of all models that share this property of invariance under two distinct Virasoro algebras. The algebraic description proceeds via “primary fields” (tensors of the conformal group), and entails the encoding of the two-dimensional dynamics in the coefficient functions of the operator product algebra. The operator product coefficients are somewhat reminiscent, in their role, of the structure constants in ordinary Lie algebras. Like structure constants, they are subject to quadratic constraints. These embody the duality properties of amplitudes. In principle, these data are sufficient to reconstruct the correlators of the fields, and thus the scattering amplitudes of String Theory. The closed bosonic string in 26 dimensions is built out of a particular two-dimensional conformal field theory, one consisting of 26 copies of a free massless bosonic field. This model has a distinctive feature: the value of the central charge is 26 for each of the two independent Virasoro algebras. In modern terms, this compensates the contribution (equal to -26) of the conformal field theory of the reparametrization ghosts, to give a resulting model which is exactly conformally invariant, i.e. characterized by a total central charge equal to zero . Alternatively, this property is linked to the absence of local anomalies in the two-dimensional field theory. Generalizations of the bosonic model are to retain this property, if they are to describe a space time of Minkowski signature, and a suitable generalization is needed to deal with (possible) super-partners of the string coordinates, in the form of super-conformal invariance.

The second property is modular invariance. It is essentially the statement that the theory be a theory of closed strings. This property was identified long ago , again in the context of the bosonic model. In modern language, following Polyakov , one would correct the tree amplitudes of String Theory by the addition of terms where the Conformal Field Theory lives on surfaces of increasing genera. For simplicity, let us restrict our attention to the vacuum amplitude, since this is supposed to capture the essence of the matter anyway , and let us consider the first correction to the “tree” amplitude. In this case the parameter space has the topology of the torus. The complex structure of the torus, the one datum that a truly conformally invariant model feels, can be described via a two-dimensional lattice, of sides $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where one can take $`IM(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to be positive (fig. 1). $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the “period matrix” of the torus. The crucial point is that doubly periodic (elliptic) functions, such as the bosonic string coordinates, have to way to distinguish between the two sides of the cell, and in general between choices of fundamental cell related by the familiar redefinition

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+1\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Omega }1/\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(1)
In this respect, the bosonic model is a bit too simple. In proceeding to the closed superstring, one is forced to consider conformal fields that are no more doubly periodic along the two homology cycles of the torus (in modern terms, they are sections of line bundles, rather than functions, on the torus). So, if one starts with proper (i.e. doubly anti-periodic, or Neveu-Schwarz) fermions, and if one insists on the symmetries of a theory of closed strings (i.e. modular invariance), one is forced to add more contributions. The way to do so is not unique, but a very suggestive possibility is to complete separately the contributions of left and right movers (i.e. the portions depending analytically and anti-analytically on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). The result is the GSO projection , which leads to the ten-dimensional closed superstrings. So, at times one has to work harder to attain modular invariance, and this occurs precisely when one is dealing with sections of nontrivial bundles.

It was the great contribution of  (see also ) to extend the consideration of sections of nontrivial bundles also to the case of bosons. The resulting constructions, recognized as orbifolds of toroidal models, have turned into a fundamental way of exploring the structure of two-dimensional Conformal Field Theory. It is remarkable that all known constructions based on free fields can be understood in these terms. Indeed, this possibility for the closed superstrings was pointed out in , and served as a motivation for the orbifold construction.

Armed with the principles of conformal invariance and modular invariance, one can proceed to explore the set of conformal field theories. Even restricting oneself to just twisting boundary conditions of free fields, one finds a huge number of possibilities, and the long-standing limitations on the dimensionality of space time in String Theory fall apart .

The extent of the confidence on the properties of closed strings, and the corresponding amount of progress, have to be contrasted with the situation for open strings. Again, the content of the previous talks makes this point hardly in need to be stressed. Apart from some occasional mention, open strings have been completely left out. This is rather peculiar, because on the one hand String Theory was born in the form of the Veneziano amplitude for open strings, and on the other hand the resurgence of a wide interest in the subject was triggered by the discovery of the Green-Schwarz mechanism, originally motivated by an analysis of open-string amplitudes. The excuses that have been given over the times for the neglect of open strings can be traced to two main points. First of all, the way symmetry groups originally entered open string models is via the Chan-Paton ansatz . This consists in multiplying amplitudes by traces of suitable matrices (including those of the fundamental representations of the $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$, $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ and $`\mathrm{USp}(2N)`$ Lie algebras ). The whole thing looks rather ad hoc, to be contrasted with the neat role played by Kac-Moody algebras  in the construction of the heterotic string . Moreover, the open (and closed) bosonic model is rather complicated, and thus somewhat clumsy to deal with. It involves many more diagrams that the closed (extended Shapiro-Virasoro) model, and often delicate divergence cancellations between them. Furthermore, it is usually felt, not without regret, that modular invariance is lost in this case, and that to check for the consistency of open-string models all one can do is appeal to anomaly cancellations, whenever possible. This last point is made particularly dubious by the recent recognition that, in analogy with the special role played by the group $`\mathrm{SO}(32)`$ in the type-I superstring in 10 dimensions, the group $`\mathrm{SO}(8192)`$ selects a special bosonic model in 26 dimensions .

The rest of this talk is devoted to remedying these inconveniences. My aim will be convincing the reader, as well as I hope to have convinced the listener, that the known open-string models in 26 and 10 dimensions have to be understood as parameter-space orbifolds of corresponding left-right symmetric closed models. The $`Z_2`$ twist involved mixes left and right movers. In more geometrical terms, it symmetrizes between the two sides of the parameter surfaces. So, the open Veneziano model in 26 dimensions is seen to descend from the closed (extended) Shapiro-Virasoro model. The same pattern is followed in ten dimensions, where the type-I superstring can be seen to descend from the chiral type-IIb superstring. It should be noticed that the orbifold construction requires symmetry between left and right waves. This means a chiral spectrum for the superstring, since the two Ramond vacua must have the same chirality. The same point I will try to make is that the size of the Chan-Paton group is determined by modular invariance, by which I mean that the orbifold projection, applied to the surfaces with automorphisms that admit it, fixes the weights of the diagrams, and explains the very emergence of open strings. Open strings are the “twisted” sector of the construction. Therefore, their vertex operators sit at the fixed points. This is familiar stuff. After all, we all knew for ages that open strings are emitted from boundaries! The powers of two that build up the “magic numbers”, 32 and 8192, can be related to the sizes of the fixed-point sets. Actually, for these models, Neil Marcus and I showed that the group theory can be generated by means of free fermions valued on the boundaries of the parameter surfaces . This corresponds to the long-held picture of “quarks at the ends of strings”. From the point of view advocated here, one should keep in mind the analogy with the zero modes of the Ramond sector in the orbifold construction of the superstring.

Let me start by reviewing how Chan-Paton factors  originally entered the game. The crucial observation was that the cyclic symmetry of “tree” open-string amplitudes (what we would now call the “disk contribution”) is compatible with the multiplication by a trace of matrices. The cyclic symmetry (planar duality) is the remnant, in the open-string case, of the total symmetry (non-planar duality) of closed-string amplitudes. Demanding that these (Chan-Paton) factors respect the factorization properties of amplitudes imposes severe constraints. These are somewhat relaxed if, following Schwarz , one takes into account the twist symmetry, i.e. the simple behavior of open-string amplitudes under world-sheet parity. The result is an infinite number of constraints, solved long ago by Neil Marcus and myself , by appealing to a classic result in the theory of Algebras. This classifies the simple associative algebras over the real numbers . These arguments lead to exclude the exceptional groups from the original open-string models in 26 and 10 dimensions .

The Chan-Paton ansatz can actually be replaced by a dynamical construction in terms of currents , somewhat reminiscent of the corresponding construction for the heterotic string. However, open string currents are valued on the boundaries of the parameter surfaces. They are described, in the simplest of ways, in terms of one-dimensional fermions, quantized anti periodically along boundaries. This implements the old intuitive idea of “quarks at the ends of strings”, but for a few subtleties. First of all, in order to attain a degeneracy of order $`2^{[D/2]}`$, one needs but $`D`$ “quarks”. Second, these “quarks” have no space-time attributes. Thus modifying the usual actions by adding

$$S_{group}=\frac{i}{4}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑s\beta ^I\frac{d\beta ^I}{ds}$$
(2)
produces all the right multiplicities for empty boundaries. A corresponding modification of the vertex operators includes the $`\beta `$ fields, and produces the trace factors. This is all good and well, but it would be nice to predict the number of $`\beta `$ fields, especially since it turn out that one needs as many of them as the string coordinates. Indeed, ten fermions give $`\mathrm{SO}(32)`$, while 26 give $`\mathrm{SO}(8192)`$.

It has been known for a while that boundaries affect the conformal properties of two-dimensional models. For instance, in ref.  it is shown that further divergences are introduced, proportional to the lengths of boundaries, and that the theory “feels” the geodesic curvature of boundaries. In ref.  we noticed that the “smooth doubling” of surfaces forces the boundaries to be geodesics, which can be taken as a boundary condition on the intrinsic metric. Thus, for each boundary, one is left with a (non-logarithmic) divergence proportional to the length, with a coefficient proportional to the number of space-time coordinates, and of the right sign to cancel against the divergence introduced by the boundary fermions. The divergence being not logarithmic, its cancellation is fraught with ambiguities. Moreover, showing that the cancellation takes place requires adding contributions coming partly from the parameter surface and partly from its boundary. This involves standard ways of dealing with integrals of Dirac’s delta functions over half of the real axis. This was all known to Neil Marcus and myself at the time of writing , but it is not stressed there, since it can capture in different amounts one’s interest, due to the ambiguities mentioned above. Still, if one takes the cancellation seriously, and if the boundaries are taken to be geodesics, the open-string models with proper groups ($`\mathrm{SO}(32)`$ and $`\mathrm{SO}(8192)`$) exhibit the same divergence structure as closed string models. Then, are they really to be regarded as closed-string models all the way?

A related observation is that the order of both $`\mathrm{SO}(32)`$ and $`\mathrm{SO}(8192)`$ is a power of two. More simply, empty boundaries contribute a factor of two for each space-time coordinate. Such factors are familiar. There are at least two instances where they arise. One is the Ramond sector of the superstring. In this case one has gamma matrices and, after all, the quantization of the one-dimensional fermions of ref.  also gives gamma matrices. The other case is apparently quite different. It is the $`Z_2`$ orbifold of a “square” torus, described by Jeff Harvey at this School. There the powers of two can be traced to the size of the fixed-point set of the involution that defines the orbifold. This encourages one to look for the same structure in the known open-string models in 26 and 10 dimensions.

As usual, it is simple and instructive to consider the genus-one contribution. For simplicity, I will do so for the bosonic string in 26 dimensions. There are then four diagrams, with parameter surfaces having, respectively, the topology of the torus, the Klein bottle, the annulus and the Möbius strip. They can be conveniently described in terms of lattices in the complex plane (figs. 1 and 2). In addition, the latter three surfaces are conveniently described in terms of their “doubles”, which are all tori . $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the “period matrix” of the doubles. It is purely imaginary for both the Klein bottle and the annulus, but not for the Möbius strip. It should be noticed that the torus contribution is the same as for the closed bosonic string, apart from a factor of two. Thus, it is modular invariant by itself. Moreover, the Klein bottle is seen by inspection of figure 2 to be invariant under $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }+2`$. The resemblance between what one has so achieved and the untwisted sector of the $`Z_2`$ orbifold described by Jeff Harvey at this School is striking. The tricky point is that now the twist affects the parameter surface. Thus, in looking for the analogue of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ transformation, one better think of what this transformation is meant to achieve. Then it is seen from figure 2 that the annulus contribution is precisely what is needed, since the twist is rotated by 90 degrees with respect to the Klein bottle. Finally, the Möbius strip symmetrizes the twisted sector. Actually, I have gone a bit too fast here. First of all, the two involutions that lead to the Klein bottle and to the annulus are different. One results into two cross-caps, and the other into two boundaries. Moreover, the “shift” in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that leads from the annulus to the Möbius strip is just $`\frac{1}{2}`$, not $`1`$. The clue is noticing that the involutions act in the same way on the homology basis, and this is all the string integrand “feels”. On the other hand, the zero modes result in the same contribution only if one works in terms of the modulus of the double. However, the “proper time” for the Klein bottle is half the modulus of its covering torus, which is again half the “proper time”. Expressing amplitudes in terms of “proper time” exhibits the spectrum, and gives a relative factor of $`2^D`$ between Klein bottle and annulus. This is the square of the multiplicity factor when the gauge group has order $`2^{[d/2]}`$! In the same way, symmetrization in the twisted (open) sector required adding $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which refers to the double, and generates precisely the modulus of the Möbius strip. The oscillator description accommodates the orbifold idea very nicely. Open strings take values over “one half” of the parameter surfaces, and are closed modulo the doubling of the parameter surfaces.

Actually, the preceding discussion has left out an important point. This is the choice of projection in the ground state of the twisted sector. In ref.  it was pointed out that a twist-even ground state, and thus the group $`\mathrm{SO}(8192)`$ rather than $`\mathrm{USp}(8192)`$, leads to the elimination of some divergences via a principal part prescription. The divergences manifest themselves in the small-$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ limit of the amplitudes corresponding to figure 2. We were inspired by a similar phenomenon discovered by Green and Schwarz in the $`\mathrm{SO}(32)`$ superstring, and responsible for both finiteness and anomaly cancellation. The last result in discussed at length in ref. . Actually, even for the superstring the same can be seen to occur directly at the level of the partition function, if one refrains from using the “aequatio” of Jacobi, which sets to zero the contributions of the individual diagrams, due to supersymmetry. The cancellations found by Weinberg  in the scattering amplitudes of the $`\mathrm{SO}(8192)`$ theory can be traced to the same phenomenon.

The picture that emerges from the foregoing discussion has several facets. One the one hand, it is particularly satisfying to see the structure of Conformal Field Theory at work again. One the other hand, one looses the need to consider open-string models as separate entities (or oddities). Everything fits into theories of closed strings, once one allows the possibility of twists mixing left and right-movers, which have been systematically avoided in discussions of orbifolds so far. The “magic rule” of modular invariance is recovered, and this should allow model building with open strings as well. These points clearly deserve a fuller discussion, which will be presented elsewhere.

I am grateful to Giorgio Parisi and to the Organizers for making it possible for me to come to Cargese. I am also grateful to Dan Friedan for a stimulating discussion, and for his interest in the ideas presented in this talk. Finally, the participants to the joint Mathematics-Physics seminar of the two Universities of Rome, and in particular Massimo Bianchi, Emili Bifet and Gianfranco Pradisi, contributed to making my stay in Rome both pleasant and fruitful.


format: text

text:
# Entanglement of two atomic samples by quantum non-demolition measurements.

## I Introduction

The population of an atomic state $`|1`$ can be probed by a phase shift measurement on a field that couples $`|1`$ non-resonantly to another atomic state. This implies that for an atomic sample with all atoms populating two long lived states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, it is possible to count non-destructively the number $`n_1`$ of atoms in $`|1`$. The state vector or density matrix of the sample with, e.g., an initial binomial distribution of populations $`n_1`$ will be modified, as the quantum mechanical uncertainty of the number $`n_1`$ is reduced during the measurement kuz98 ; moelmer99 ; bouchoule02 . This effect has been demonstrated experimentally kuz99 ; Kuz00 , and further theoretical proposals Duan00  have addressed the possibility to entangle pairs of samples by performing joint phase shift measurements, where light is propagated through both samples and thus provides information about total occupancies of various states. In particular it has been possible to prepare EPR-correlated samples juls01  where the entanglement could be experimentally proven by a quantitative test involving spin noise measurements ciracgauss ; simongauss .

The theoretical analysis in Duan00 ; juls01  addresses the behavior of collective atomic spin operators due to their interaction with the field operators (in the Heisenberg picture). Following the analysis in bouchoule02 , in the present paper we present wave function simulations, in which we display how the sequence of photo-detection events gradually modifies the state vector of the samples. The two approaches are of course equivalent, but they may provide different insights, and in addition the present state vector approach does not rely on the atomic operators being approximated by harmonic oscillators, i.e., we can treat cases where the mean polarization changes significantly in the samples, which is not practically possible in the operator formulation.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce our physical model for the measurement of optical phase shifts, and we present the formal description of the state vector evolution conditioned on the photo-detection record. In Sec. III, we show results of simulations where the atoms are first all prepared in superposition states of the two internal states prior to detection of the number of atoms in state $`|1`$. We show that the resulting state vector is entangled, and we show that a subsequent spin rotation of all atoms followed by new measurements will lead to stronger entanglement. In Sec. IV, we show simulations where the atomic samples are subject to continuous spin rotation during measurement, corresponding to the experimental situation of Ref.juls01 . In Sec. V, we present an analysis and interpretation of the results, and Sec. VI concludes the paper.

## II Optical phase shift measurements

In our model we are considering clouds of atoms whose relevant level structure consists of three levels: two degenerate ground states, $`|1`$ and $`|2`$, and an exited state, $`|3`$. We suppose that the only permitted transition is $`|1|3`$, excited by the laser beam passing through the cloud and followed by spontaneous decay with emission rate $`\gamma `$, cf., Fig. 1.

Our scheme is based on the detection of photons passing through the clouds. The scheme only requires classical input fields, since the state reduction following every single photodetection event, a posteriori, extracts the effect of the interaction of a single photon with the atomic samples. There are different possibilities to create a detection scheme that measures the population of a single atomic state, or the population difference between two atomic states. One can use light with two polarization components that interact differently with the two internal states, and hence the different phase shifts lead to a polarization rotation signal; or, one can use frequency modulated light, where one frequency component is closer to resonance than the other, and hence a phase difference between the two results from the interaction between the atoms. For ease of presentation, we follow the description in bouchoule02 , and imagine an interferometric setup, where a field is split in two paths, one that interacts with the atomic samples and one that propagates through free space. This experimental set-up is schematically shown in Fig. 2. A phase difference between these two fields due to the atoms can be resolved by the intensities measured by photo-detectors $`D_+`$ and $`D_{}`$ in the two output ports of the interferometer. We may enclose the atomic samples in optical cavities to enhance the interaction with the atoms by passing the light through each sample many times. This will also reduce the effect of spontaneous scattering which will hence be omitted from the present analysis. As shown in bouchoule02  wave function simulations can incorporate spontaneous scattering, and it can also be estimated in the operator formulation Duan00 .

Let us introduce the atomic transition operators $`\sigma _{ij}^n=|i_nj|`$, where $`i(j)=1,2,3`$ and $`n`$ enumerates the atoms. In the dipole and rotating wave approximation, the interaction Hamiltonian is:

$$H_I=\underset{n}{}g(\sigma _{13}^na_L^{}+\sigma _{31}^na_L)$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the atom-photon interaction strength, and $`a_L`$ is the annihilation operator for the field component interacting with the atoms.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the detuning between the light field and the atomic transition frequency $`(E_3E_1)/\mathrm{}`$, the second order transition amplitude for the interaction process is:

$$_{fi}=\frac{g^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}}i\frac{g^2\frac{\gamma }{2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{\gamma ^2}{4}}$$
(2)
where the indices $`i`$ and $`f`$ represent the initial and final state of the process, which in our case is the same state of an atom in $`|1`$ and one photon of the radiation field.

In the case of off resonant scattering, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$, we get

$$_{fi}=\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(3)
which is just the energy shift of state $`|1`$ due to the absorbed and re-emitted photon. Hence, the time evolution of the atom-photon state assumes the form $`|1|n_L=1\stackrel{\tau }{}e^{i\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\tau }|1|n_L=1`$.

Defining $`\chi =\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, we can write an effective Hamiltonian describing the interaction between a single mode light field and a gas of $`N`$ atoms:

$$H_{eff}\underset{n}{}\chi |1_n1|a_L^{}a_L=\underset{n}{}\chi \sigma _{11}^na_L^{}a_L.$$
(4)
By introducing the atomic spin operators for the ground states

$`j_{nz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma _{22}^n\sigma _{11}^n\right)`$ (5)
$`j_{n+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{21}^n`$ (6)
$`j_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{12}^n,`$ (7)
the effective Hamiltonian (4) becomes

$$H_{eff}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\chi \left(\frac{1}{2}j_{nz}\right)a_L^{}a_L.$$
(8)
In an ensemble of atoms, where each atom is initially prepared in the same state, and where the interaction with the surroundings is identically the same for all atoms, the collective atomic state retains the full permutation symmetry, and it is convenient to expand this collective state on eigenstates for the effective collective angular momentum:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}𝒜_M|J,M,$$
(9)
where $`J=\frac{N}{2}`$ is the total angular momentum, and $`M=\frac{1}{2}\left(n_2n_1\right)`$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $`J_z=_n^Nj_{nz}`$. Collective raising and lowering operators, and the corresponding cartesian $`x`$\- and $`y`$\- components of the collective angular momentum, are defined as similar sums over all atoms in the sample.

A photon incident on the interferometer splits as a superposition of a photon in the upper path and a photon in the lower path, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|U_{ph}+|L_{ph})`$, and the time evolution of the collective atomic state due to the interaction with this photon for a duration $`\tau `$ is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )_{ph+at}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i_{n=1}^N\chi \left(\frac{1}{2}j_{nz}\right)a_L^{}a_L\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|U_{ph}+|L_{ph})|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_M}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|U_{ph}+e^{i\left(\frac{N}{2}M\right)\chi \tau }|L_{ph}\right)|J,M,`$
where $`\left(\frac{N}{2}M\right)=\left(\frac{n_1+n_2}{2}\frac{n_2n_1}{2}\right)=n_1`$. Hence, as claimed above, the phase shift of the single photon state $`|L_{ph}`$ is proportional to the total population of state $`|1`$.

### II.1 Entanglement due to measurement

In bouchoule02  the interaction with a single sample is analyzed in detail, and the possibility to achieve spin squeezing due to the interaction with the atoms is analyzed. We now turn our attention to a system of two atomic ensembles of $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ atoms, respectively. Within each sample we assume permutation symmetry among the atoms, i.e., each sample is represented by the collective spin states, introduced above.

The state vector of the samples can be expanded on product state wave functions of the two ensembles

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{M_1,M_2}{}𝒜_{M_1,M_2}|M_1,M_2,$$
(11)
where $`|M_1,M_2|J_1=N_1/2,M_1|J_2=N_2/2,M_2`$, and where we assume an initial product state $`𝒜_{M_1,M_2}=𝒜_{M_1}𝒜_{M_2}`$ before we submit the system to the incident field. The photon interacts with each of the ensembles in the lower arm of the interferometer, and the state of the system after the interaction, but before the photo-detection, is

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )_{ph+at}=\underset{M_1,M_2}{}𝒜_{M_1,M_2}\left(\frac{|U_{ph}+e^{i\left[\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(M_1+M_2\right)\right]\chi \tau }|L_{ph}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)|M_1,M_2$$
(12)
The detectors $`D_+`$ and $`D_{}`$ click, when they detect a photon in one of the states $`|\pm _{ph}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|U_{ph}\pm |L_{ph}\right)`$, and associated with this detection event the photon is destroyed by the action of one of the annihilation operators $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$. It is thus useful to rewrite the photon-atom state explicitly in terms of the two components distinguished by the photodetectors:

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )_{ph+at}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}𝒜_{M_1,M_2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{i\left[\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(M_1+M_2\right)\right]\chi \tau }}{2}}\right)|M_1,M_2|+_{ph}`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}𝒜_{M_1,M_2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{i\left[\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(M_1+M_2\right)\right]\chi \tau }}{2}}\right)|M_1,M_2|_{ph}.`$
The probabilities that the photon is detected in state $`|+_{ph}`$ or in state $`|_{ph}`$, are

$`\pi _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}\left|𝒜_{M_1,M_2}\right|^2`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_1+N_2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1+M_2}{2}}\right)\chi \tau \right],`$
$`\pi _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}\left|𝒜_{M_1,M_2}\right|^2`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_1+N_2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1+M_2}{2}}\right)\chi \tau \right].`$
Thus, after the detection of a photon, the state of the two ensembles of atoms is projected, with probability $`\pi _+`$ and $`\pi _{}`$ respectively, into one of the following states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{C_+}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{M_1,M_2}}{2}}`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1+e^{i\left[\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(M_1+M_2\right)\right]\chi \tau }\right)|M_1,M_2`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{C_{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_{M_1,M_2}}{2}}`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1e^{i\left[\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(M_1+M_2\right)\right]\chi \tau }\right)|M_1,M_2,`$
where $`C_\pm `$ are normalization factors. From Eqs. (16) and (17) we observe the entanglement between the two atomic ensembles emerge.

The detection procedure, and the corresponding wave function updating, is repeated for a number $`N_{ph}`$ of photons, being detected one at a time. Hence, by defining the following *entangling* factors

$$_\pm (M_1+M_2)=\left(\frac{1\pm e^{i\left[\frac{N_1+N_2}{2}\left(M_1+M_2\right)\right]\chi \tau }}{2}\right),$$
(18)
after $`N_{ph}`$ detected photons, of which $`N_+`$ are detected by $`D_+`$ and $`N_{}=N_{ph}N_+`$ are detected by $`D_{}`$, the state vector of the samples is

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{N_{ph}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{C}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_1,M_2}{}}𝒜_{M_1}𝒜_{M_2}\left[_+(M_1+M_2)\right]^{N_+}`$ (19)
$`\times \left[_{}(M_1+M_2)\right]^{(N_{ph}N_+)}|M_1,M_2.`$
The square norm of the entangling factor in equation (19) is

$`(M_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{NM_{12}}{2}}\chi \tau \right)\right]^{2N_+}`$ (20)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{NM_{12}}{2}}\chi \tau \right)\right]^{2(N_{ph}N_+)},`$
where $`M_{12}=M_1+M_2`$, and where, for simplicity, we assume the same number of atoms in each sample $`N=N_1=N_2`$. For large $`N_{ph}`$ this function is very peaked with maxima at values $`M_{12}=\overline{M}`$ obeying

$$\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{N\overline{M}}{2}\right)\chi \tau =\pm \sqrt{\frac{N_{ph}N_+}{N_+}}.$$
(21)
Equation (21) has multiple solutions for $`\overline{M}`$, due to both the periodicity of the $`tan`$-function and the double sign in the right hand side, but we can remove this ambiguity in the solutions if we ensure that only a single maximum is compatible with the initial distribution of the two samples in $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. Calculating the second derivative of $`(M_{12})`$ around the maximum values, we get an estimate of the width of the peak in $`M_{12}`$

$$_{M_{12}}^2(M_{12})|_{M_{12}=\overline{M}}=(\chi \tau )^2N_{ph}(M_{12}).$$
(22)
If the number of atoms is large enough, we can approximate $`(M_{12})`$ with a Gaussian, and with this approximation we obtain the r.m.s width

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{12}=\frac{1}{\chi \tau \sqrt{N_{ph}}}.$$
(23)
Thus, the more photons that are detected, the more peaked is the distribution in $`M_{12}`$.

## III Numerical simulation, consecutive measurements of $`J_{z1}+J_{z2}`$ and $`J_{y1}J_{y2}`$

In this section, the detection model described in the previous section will be implemented in a numerical simulation in which the two samples have the same, not very large, number $`N`$ of atoms and the initial state is the eigenstate of the operator $`J_{x1}+J_{x2}`$ with eigenvalue $`J_1+J_2=2J=N`$, i.e., all the atoms are initially prepared in the superposition state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1+|2)`$. The corresponding amplitudes in the basis eigenstates of the $`z`$-component of the collective angular momentum operators $`|J,M_i`$ are

$$𝒜_{M_i}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^J\sqrt{\frac{(2J)!}{(J+M_i)!(JM_i)!}},$$
(24)
where $`i=1,2`$. Expressed in terms of the number of atoms in state $`|1`$ in each sample, $`n_1^i`$, the square of the amplitude (24) is $`|𝒜_{M_i}|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^N\frac{N!}{(Nn_1^i)!(n_1^i)!}`$. This means that in each ensemble the atoms are distributed in state $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ according to a binomial distribution with probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$.

Beginning with an initial state characterized by amplitudes (24), we proceed with a series of photo detections that project the state of the system according to Eqs. (16) and (17). After a large number of photons $`N_{ph}`$ has been detected, the uncertainty in $`M_{12}`$ is reduced, i.e., we are almost in one of the eigenstates of $`J_{1z}+J_{2z}`$. Fig. 3 shows the behavior of the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(J_{1z}+J_{2z})`$ as a function of the number of detected photons for three different simulation records. It is evident that when the number of detected photons is large enough, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(J_{1z}+J_{2z})`$ goes to zero, i.e we have a definite value of $`\overline{M}=M_1+M_2`$. In the simulations we assume a phase angle $`\chi \tau =0.24`$. Such a large phase shift on the atomic state due to interaction with a single photon is not realistic in experiments with freely propagating fields. In our simulations a smaller value of $`\chi \tau `$ just implies that more photons have to be detected to achieve the same reduction in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(J_{1z}+J_{2z})`$, c.f., (23).

To quantify the entanglement between the two samples we apply the definition by Bennett et al bennett96  of the entanglement between two systems in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$=Tr(\rho _1\mathrm{log}_2\rho _1)=Tr(\rho _2\mathrm{log}_2\rho _2),$$
(25)
where $`\rho _1=Tr_2|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ is the reduced density matrix of system 1. (Similarly for $`\rho _2`$). If $`N`$ is the number of atoms in each sample, and we restrict ourselves to states which are symmetric under permutations inside samples, the quantity $``$ takes values between zero for a product state, and $`\mathrm{log}_2(N+1)`$ for a maximally entangled state of the samples.

Fig. 4 shows the behavior of the entropy in three different simulations. The left hand side of each figure, for $`N_{ph}<500`$ corresponds to the detection, analyzed above. To prove that the samples are entangled and not just classically correlated, in the experiments of juls01  a second observable was introduced, for which the quantum mechanical uncertainty was similarly reduced, and measurements on both sets of observables conclusively demonstrate the entanglement ciracgauss ; simongauss . In our theoretical calculation, we know of course already that the state is entangled, but as we shall see, we can increase the entanglement by taking a second round of measurements.

Thus, after the detection of 500 photons, we apply opposite rotations to the atomic samples, and we proceed with similar measurements as before, which effectively measure $`J_{1y}J_{2y}`$ in the non-rotated frame. After the rotations, the full permutation symmetry of the system is broken, i.e the total angular momentum $`J^2=J_x^2+J_y^2+J_z^2`$ is not conserved. The final state of the two samples is still an eigenstate of both $`J_1^2`$ and $`J_2^2`$, but with different values of the total $`J`$. Our formalism (25,26) is already prepared to handle that situation, since the basis vectors in the expansion are kept on the form of product states rather than angular momentum coupled states of the two samples.

As illustrated by the right hand parts of the panels in Fig. 4, the entanglement had essentially saturated after the first 500 detection events, but after the rotation, it grows again to saturate, typically, at a higher level. In Fig. 4(a) we show an example of the evolution of the entropy in which the final value ($`_{N_{ph}}=4.3193`$) is very close to that of the maximally entangled state ($`\mathrm{log}_2(20+1)=4.3923`$). In Fig. 4(c), however, we show a case in which the final entropy value is reduced by the second set of rotations. In Sec. V, we shall return to an analysis of these findings. Finally, Fig. 4(d) presents the average of the entropy over 50 simulations.

## IV Measurements with continuous rotation of spin components

As we just saw that measurements of two different sets of operators typically lead to an increase of the amount of entanglement, it is natural to consider a continuous change between these operators. In fact, in the experimental work by Julsgaard et al juls01 , such a continuous rotation was induced for purely practical reasons (so that the relevant signal could be picked up in the absence of technical noise at a high frequency). In this section we present the results of simulations in which continuous opposite rotations are applied to the atomic spins of the two samples as the photo detection proceeds. If $`𝒜_{M_1M_2}^{N_{ph}}`$ is the wave function amplitude of the system after $`N_{ph}`$ photo detections, the updated state vector rotated by the angle $`\pm \theta `$ prior to the subsequent detection is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{N_{ph}}=\underset{M_1^{^{}},M_2^{^{}}}{}\underset{M_1,M2}{}𝒟_{M_1M_1^{^{}}}^{J_1}\left(\theta \right)𝒟_{M_2M_2^{^{}}}^{J_2}\left(\theta \right)𝒜_{M_1M_2}^{N_{ph}}|M_1^{^{}},M_2^{^{}},$$
(26)
where $`D_{M_iM_i^{^{}}}^{J_i}\left(\theta \right)=M_i,J_i\left|e^{iJ_{ix}(\theta )}\right|J_i,M_i^{^{}}`$ is the rotation matrix element for sample $`i=1,2`$. The wave function updating algorithm has the same structure as described in section II. In a realistic experimental situation, one would detect photons according to a Poisson process, and with a constant rotation frequency, induced, e.g., by application of opposite DC magnetic fields onto the atoms, this would lead to small rotation angles with an exponential distribution law. For simplicity, however, we apply the same small rotation angle $`\theta `$ between each detection event.

In Fig. 5 we show realizations of the detection scheme with small rotations. The rotation angle between subsequent photodetection events is $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{5}`$. Fig. 5(a) shows a case where the entropy evolves to the maximum value: $`_{N_{ph}}=4.3923`$. In Fig. 5(b) and 5(c) we present ’typical’ and ’worst case’ results of the simulations, while in Fig. 5(d) we provide the average over 50 simulations.

We observe in these figure that compared to the results shown in the previous section, there is a faster increase of the entanglement towards an almost constant level, which varies from one simulation to the other.

## V Analysis and interpretation

In order to interpret the results obtained in the previous sections, let us first address the achievements of probing two operators rather than a single one. The improvement is quite easily understood, if one notes that the detection of $`J_{z1}+J_{z2}`$ effectively produces an approximate eigenstate of this operator. This state has amplitudes on different $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ states with $`M_1+M_2`$ fixed by the measured value, but the eigenspace is degenerate, and the amplitudes are simply proportional to the ones in the initial state. Due to the initial binomial distribution on $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, the distribution over, e.g., $`M_1`$ will therefore have a width of approximately $`\sqrt{N}`$. The reduced density matrix has the corresponding number of non-vanishing populations, suggestive of $`\mathrm{log}_2\sqrt{N}=0.5\mathrm{log}_2N`$, half of the maximal value. This argument accounts for the first plateau reached in Fig. 4.

The measurement of the $`z`$-components causes a broadening of the distribution on $`J_y`$ eigenstates beyond the initial distribution, which was also binomial in that basis. The subsequent measurement of $`J_{y1}J_{y2}`$ will produce a state with $`M_{1y}M_{2y}`$ fixed by the measurement, but within the degenerate space of states with this fixed value the distribution on $`M_{1y}`$ of the reduced density matrix is broader than $`\sqrt{N}`$, and the entanglement is correspondingly larger. This accounts for the increase of entanglement seen in most simulations.

For large collections of atoms with large mean values of the collective $`J_x`$ operators, the orthogonal spin components $`J_z`$ and $`J_y`$ are well approximated by effective position and momentum operators, and for two particles, the pair of combinations of position and momentum operators $`x_1+x_2`$ and $`p_1p_2`$ commute, i.e., they can both be measured with high precision. But, this is not an exact replacement, and in our simulations with fewer atoms, we see significant deviations from this picture. The commutator of $`J_{z1}+J_{z2}`$ and $`J_{y1}J_{y2}`$ is proportional to the operator $`J_{x1}J_{x2}`$ which does not vanish, and in general, measurements sensitive to one of these operators are complimentary to measurements sensitive to the other one. It is possible, however, to find a single joint eigenstate of the operators wang02 :

$`(J_{1x}J_{2x})|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (27)
$`(J_{1y}J_{2y})|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (28)
Rewriting these equations as

$`(J_{1+}J_{2+})|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (29)
$`(J_1J_2)|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (30)
it is easy to check that the solution is the maximally correlated state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2J+1}}\underset{M=J}{\overset{J}{}}|M,M$$
(31)
Note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ also satisfies $`(J_{1z}+J_{2z})|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$, and in fact, all spin components have vanishing mean values in this state.

When we simulate the detection of phase shifts proportional to $`J_{1z}+J_{2z}`$ and $`J_{1y}J_{2y}`$, or combinations of these operators, there is a chance, that the state vector is gradually projected onto $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, and this state is unaffected by all future photodetection events. Indeed, in some of our simulation records, we precisely see the robust generation of the maximally entangled state, cf., Fig. 5(a).

If one has not collapsed into $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ after a large number of photons have been detected, the state vector is instead orthogonal to that state, and one will never arrive at the maximally entangled state. The insets of the figures show the wave function overlap with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, and in all simulations this quantity converges to either unity, as in Fig. 5(a), or to zero, as in Fig. 5(b). The overlap between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and our initial state suggests that in one out of $`N+1`$ realizations of the experiment, one should produce that particular state, and this is confirmed by our simulations.

There are no other joint eigenstates of the pair of collective operators, and hence state vectors orthogonal to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ do not evolve into any specific state: measurements on the system have different outputs which affect the state vector in different ways. We do note, however, that fairly strong entanglement is observed in many realizations, and that this entanglement is almost constant over time. This is suggestive of families of states with relatively well defined values of the operators $`J_{1z}+J_{2z}`$ and $`J_{1y}J_{2y}`$, which is allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation as long as the expectation value of the operator $`J_{1x}J_{2x}`$ is small. Figs. 6-8 present the three mean values of $`J_{1x}J_{2x}`$, $`J_{1y}J_{2y}`$ and $`J_{1z}+J_{2z}`$ for the evolution leading to the maximally entangled state, a very entangled state and a less entangled state studied in Fig. 5 (a-c). The picture is precisely as expected: the maximally entangled state does not change with time and the mean values vanish forever, a strongly entangled non-stationary state performs almost regular oscillations in a limited part of Hilbert space restricting the mean values to a similar small oscillatory behaviour, and states with little entanglement show more dramatic time dependence and the mean values explore a wide range of values. It was unexpected that the non-maximally entangled states seem to be consistently much entangled or little entangled for long detection sequences. Further studies of this dynamics would be very interesting.

## VI Conclusion

We have presented a quantitative wave function analysis of the entanglement created by total population measurements on separate atomic samples by means of optical phase shifts. The analysis included wave function simulations where small samples were exposed to interaction with the optical fields in an interferometric set-up. We recall that more realistic experimental set-ups can be made , but they will be treated by the same formalism and lead to the same results. Our choice of parameters (only 20 atoms, high atom-field coupling) was not meant to correspond to a specific experiment, but it brings out results, that we may translate also to realistic experimental regimes. Note, however, that the present work should be extended to include also spontaneous emission by the atoms, if one wants to model experiments, where this has significant effects on the dynamics.

The entanglement protocol has already been implemented experimentally juls01 , and a theoretical analysis under an harmonic oscillator approximation has been presented. On one side our analysis supplements this existing analysis with a state vector perspective, and on the other hand it provides an analysis valid beyond the oscillator approximation, where in particular the emergence of a single maximally entangled state, and families of non-stationary states with different degrees of entanglement were identified. Since the experimentalist in principle knows the state vector conditioned on the outcome of the detection, it seems interesting to introduce feed-back thomsen02 , either by just resetting the system and start over again if an only weakly entangled state is prepared, or by suitably hitting the system during measurements.


text:
# Universality and RG-improved gauge actions

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In the last years the lattice comunity made a big effort in the improvement of both fermionic and gauge actions. Concerning the latter, the tree-level and one-loop improved action were introduced in the Symanzik framework . Iwasaki  and the QCD-TAR0 collaboration  followed another approach based on the renormalization group (RG); the improvement is obtained estimating the renormalized trajectory, in  through perturbation theory, in  using a Schwinger-Dyson method.
The Iwasaki action has been used by the CP-PACS collaboration  for the most advanced computation of the light hadron spectrum; moreover, the RG-improved actions have been considered as candidates to be used in the next simulations on Ginsparg-Wilson/domain wall fermions, due to the suppression of small instantons and dislocations and a possible remedy of the problem of residual chiral symmetry breaking for domain wall fermions .
This motivates more investigations about their properties, in particular the universality between the Iwasaki and the standard plaquette action, the scaling properties and the potential problem in the evaluation of the physical observables due to the violation of physical positivity.

## 2 IMPROVED GAUGE ACTIONS AND LOSS OF PHYSICAL POSITIVITY

We will consider improved gauge actions of the form

$$S_\mathrm{G}=\frac{\beta }{3}\left(\underset{x;\mu <\nu }{}(18c_1)P_{\mu \nu }^{1\times 1}+c_1\underset{x;\mu \nu }{}P_{\mu \nu }^{1\times 2}\right),$$
(1)
where $`P_{\mu \nu }^{1\times 1}`$ is the usual plaquette term and $`P_{\mu \nu }^{1\times 2}`$ contains all loops enclosing two coplanar plaquettes. The coefficient $`c_1`$ takes different values for various choices of the improved actions

$$c_1=\{\begin{array}{cc}1/12\hfill & \text{Symanzik, tree level impr.}\hfill \\ 0.331\hfill & \text{Iwasaki, RG}\hfill \\ 1.4088\hfill & \text{DBW2 (QCD-TAR0), RG}\hfill \end{array}$$

In general, adding operators of dimension 6 to the standard Wilson action violates the physical positivity at finite lattice spacing.
A transfer matrix, $`𝕋`$, can be nevertheless defined, but complex eigenvalues may occur and there are contributions in the spectral decomposition of two-point functions with negative weight . Near the continuum limit, positivity is only lost at energies of the order of the cutoff: if we restrict ourselves to the states with small energy relative to the cutoff the physical positivity is completely restored. Perturbative and free field calculations suggest there exists a $`0<ϵ<1`$ such that independently of the cutoff all spectral values $`\lambda `$ of $`𝕋`$ with $`|\lambda |ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are real and positive, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the largest eigenvalue of $`𝕋`$. These eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ can be interpreted as energy values through

$$E=\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda /\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(2)
An estimate of $`ϵ`$ can be obtained in weak coupling perturbation theory by determining the location of unphysical (but gauge independent) poles in the propagator. The general solution will be $`w(k_1,k_2,k_3)=𝔢(w)+i𝔪(w)`$, with $`(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ Brillouin zone. In Fig. 1 the solutions for different improved actions are shown;

for $`𝔢(w)<E_{max}`$ one has $`𝔪(w)=0`$ for all solutions at a given momentum. The value $`aE_{max}=\mathrm{ln}(ϵ)`$ is related to the parameter $`c_1`$ by the relation:

$$aE_{max}=2\text{arcsinh}\left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2c_1}}\right).$$
(3)
One estimates that the contribution of the unphysical states in asymptotic decay of euclidean 2-point functions can then be neglected if

$$t/at_{min}/a=\frac{1}{aE_{max}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.485\hfill & \text{Symanzik}\hfill \\ 0.860\hfill & \text{Iwasaki}\hfill \\ 1.703\hfill & \text{DBW2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
This turns out to play a rôle also in MC simulations; Fig. 2 shows the effective potential at a fixed distance $`rr_0`$ for the different actions. The APE smearing procedure  was used, and the smearing level considered in the plot is the one estimated to be optimal for the Wilson plaquette action . Negative contributions at small $`t/a`$ are strong and they can be a problem for the applicability of the variational method  to extract the mass spectrum. That procedure is well defined only for positive definite correlation functions, but this is verified only if $`tt_{min}`$, where the statistical fluctuations can be large. Moreover, although one can observe a plateau in Fig. 2, it is clear that for the improved actions there is no unambiguous criterion for the choice of the smearing operators.

## 3 SCALING OF $`T_cr_0`$

The deconfinement transition occurs at the critical temperature

$`T_c=\frac{1}{N_ta(\beta _c)}.`$ (5)
For known values of $`\beta _c`$ at given $`N_t`$ for different actions one can refer to . Expressing the critical temperature in units of the string tension, the following results were obtained

$$T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.630(5)(N_t=\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{Wilson}\text{[12]}\hfill \\ 0.650(5)(N_t=\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{Iwasaki}\text{[13]}\hfill \\ 0.6301(65)(N_t=6)\hfill & \text{DBW2}\text{[14]}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
For the Iwasaki and the Wilson action a difference of the order 4$`\sigma `$ in the continuum results is observed. It is unrealistic that the origin of the discrepancy is a violation of the universality; the most natural explanation is that the string tension is difficult to determine, above all at small lattice spacings. We decided to evaluate instead the Sommer scale $`r_0`$  defined through the force between a pair of static quarks, $`F(r_0)r_0^2=1.65`$, at $`\beta _c`$. For the Wilson action a parametrization formula for $`5.7\beta 6.57`$  which relates $`r_0/a`$ to $`\beta `$ can be used; for the Iwasaki and DBW2 action there is no available evaluation of $`r_0`$, so it was measured from Wilson loop correlation matrices, using

$$\frac{V(r)V(ra)}{a}=\{\begin{array}{cc}F\left(r\frac{a}{2}\right)\hfill & \text{naive definition}\hfill \\ F(r_I)\hfill & \text{tree-level improved},\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`r_I`$ is defined through the scalar lattice propagator in 3 dimensions,

$$(4\pi r_I^2)^1=[G(r,0,0)G(ra,0,0)]/a.$$

The operator corresponding to the best smearing for the Wilson action was considered; due to the negative contributions in the correlation functions and the previous discussion, we decided to avoid the variational method.
The results for $`T_cr_0`$, together with the continuum extrapolation, are shown in Fig. 3.

For the Iwasaki action there is no appreciable difference between the results obtained with $`r_{naive}`$ and $`r_I`$; the data show better scaling properties in comparison to the Wilson action and moreover the universality is confirmed. Also for the $`DBW2`$ action the scaling properties are improved, although only using $`r_I`$ instead of $`r_{naive}`$. A constrained fit

$$T_cr_0=T_cr_0|_{a=0}+s\left(\frac{a}{T_c}\right)^2,\text{with}N_t6$$
(8)
for Iwasaki and Wilson action yields the continuum result

$$T_cr_0=0.7498(50).$$
(9)
At $`N_t=6`$ the Wilson action shows scaling violations for $`r_0T_c`$ of about $`1.5\%`$, while they are $`0.3\%`$ for the Iwasaki action.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

The loss of physical positivity can be a serious problem for the extraction of the physical observables, in particular the variational technique is not easily applicable. For the Iwasaki and the Wilson action the universality of $`T_cr_0`$ is demonstrated. In general the lattice artefacts seem to be reduced for the Iwasaki action; it would be anyhow useful to have more investigations on the scaling behavior, for example evaluating glueball masses.


text:
# Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.7 ppm

## Abstract

A higher precision measurement of the anomalous $`g`$ value, $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$, for the positive muon has been made at the Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, based on data collected in the year 2000. The result $`a_{\mu ^+}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}204}(7)(5)\times 10^{10}`$ (0.7 ppm) is in good agreement with previous measurements and has an error about one half that of the combined previous data. The present world average experimental value is $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}203}(8)\times 10^{10}`$ (0.7 ppm).

The study of magnetic moments has played an important role in our understanding of sub-atomic physics. Precision measurements of the electron anomalous magnetic moment, together with those of the hyperfine structure of hydrogen and the Lamb shift, stimulated the development of modern quantum electrodynamics and have since provided stringent tests of this theory. In this Letter we report a new measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the positive muon, $`a_\mu =(g2)/2`$, with a relative precision of 0.7 parts per million (ppm), nearly two times better than our previous work Carey et al. (1999); Brown et al. (2000, 2001). This measurement comes from data collected in the year 2000. At this level, $`a_\mu `$ is sensitive to QED, weak, and hadronic virtual loops and provides an important constraint on extensions to the standard model.

The principle of the experiment and previous results have been given in earlier publications Carey et al. (1999); Brown et al. (2000, 2001). Also, detailed descriptions of the $`(g2)`$ superconducting inflector magnet, storage ring magnet, fast kicker, NMR system, and calorimeters have been published Danby et al. (2001).

The quantity $`a_\mu `$ is determined from

$$a_\mu =\frac{\omega _a}{\frac{e}{m_\mu c}B}.$$
(1)
The magnetic field $`B`$ weighted over the muon beam distribution is measured by proton NMR. The difference frequency $`\omega _a`$ between the muon spin precession and orbital angular frequencies is determined by counting the number $`N(t)`$ of decay positrons with energies larger than an energy threshold,

$$N(t)=N_0(E)e^{t/(\gamma \tau )}\left[1+A(E)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _at+\varphi _a(E))\right].$$
(2)
The normalization $`N_0`$, asymmetry $`A`$, and phase $`\varphi _a`$ vary with the chosen threshold. The time dilated lifetime is $`\gamma \tau 64.4\mu \mathrm{s}`$. For muons with $`\gamma =29.3`$, the angular difference frequency $`\omega _a`$ is not affected by electrostatic focusing fields in the ring.

New aspects of the 2000 data taking period include: the operation of the AGS with 12 beam bunches, contributing to a 4-fold increase in data collected as compared to 1999; a new superconducting inflector magnet, which improved the field homogeneity in the muon storage region; the installation and operation of a sweeper magnet in the beamline, which reduced AGS background; and additional muon loss detectors, which enable an improved determination of the time dependence of muon losses. Most other experimental aspects of the data taking in 2000 were the same as in 1998 and 1999.

The magnetic field value was obtained from NMR measurements of the free proton resonance frequency. A trolley with 17 NMR probes was used to measure the field throughout the muon storage ring, typically every three days. The trolley probes were calibrated to an accuracy of 0.15 ppm with respect to a standard spherical $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ probe, which has an absolute calibration known to 0.05 ppm. The probes were intercalibrated during the data taking period using a single, movable probe plunged into the storage region. Interpolation of the magnetic field between trolley measurements was based on the continual readings of about 150 fixed NMR probes distributed around the ring in the top and bottom walls of the vacuum chamber. Figure 1 shows a magnetic field profile averaged over azimuth.

The improved field homogeneity obtained with the new inflector relaxes the demands on the knowledge of the muon beam distribution.

The field $`B`$ averaged over the muon beam distribution in space and time was obtained from two complete and largely independent analyses, whose results were found to agree to within 0.05 ppm. Its final value is expressed in terms of the free proton resonance frequency and is given by $`\omega _p/(2\pi )=\mathrm{61\hspace{0.17em}791\hspace{0.17em}595}(15)\mathrm{Hz}`$ (0.2 ppm). Table 1 lists the uncertainties.

The frequency $`\omega _a`$ was obtained from the time distribution of decay positron counts. The positrons were detected with 24 lead/scintillating fiber calorimeters on the inside of the storage ring, whose photomultiplier signals had a typical FWHM of 5 ns. The signals were recorded with 400 MHz, 8-bit waveform digitizers (WFD). Pulses above a preset energy threshold of about 1 GeV triggered the WFD to record at least 16 ADC samples (40 ns). Pulses with energies below the hardware threshold were recorded if they appeared within the sampling window around a trigger pulse. The positron arrival times and energies were reconstructed offline from the WFD recordings using two independent implementations of our pulse reconstruction algorithm.

The large positron sample and 30% higher instantaneous count rates than in 1999 required careful consideration of distortions to the spectrum in Eq. 2. As in the analysis of our 1999 data, we have considered (1) positron pulses overlapping in time (pileup), (2) coherent betatron oscillations, (3) beam debunching, (4) muon losses, and (5) detector gain and time instability.

(1) Pileup of positron signals distorts the time spectrum because of misidentification of the number, energies, and times of the positrons. The pileup spectrum can be constructed from the data using the extended pulse sampling by the WFD described above, and can effectively be subtracted from the data prior to fitting Brown et al. (2001).

(2) As in earlier data taking periods, the weak focusing storage ring was operated with a field index $`n=0.137`$, well away from beam and spin resonances. The phase space for betatron oscillations defined by the acceptance of the storage ring was not filled, which resulted in coherent betatron oscillations (CBO) — betatron oscillations of the beam as a whole. Since the acceptance of a calorimeter varies with the radial muon decay position in the storage ring and the momentum of the produced decay positron, the observed positron time and energy spectra are modulated with the CBO frequencies. The most important modulation is the horizontal one with frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}=\left(1\sqrt{1n}\right)\omega _c=2\pi 466`$ kHz, where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency. At injection time, this modulation affects the terms $`N_0`$, $`A`$, and $`\varphi _a`$ in Eq. 2 at the level of 1%, 0.1%, and 1 mrad, respectively.

For $`n=0.137`$, the frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}`$ is approximately twice as large as $`\omega _a`$ and, hence, the interference frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}\omega _a`$ is close to $`\omega _a`$. Modulations of the asymmetry and phase with frequencies $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}2\times \omega _a`$ may, unlike the modulation of observed counts, manifest themselves as sizable, artificial shifts in the fitted frequency value $`\omega _a`$, when not taken into account in the function fitted to the data. These shifts are as large as 4 ppm for individual calorimeter time spectra, and mostly cancel in the summed spectra owing to the circular symmetry of the experiment design.

The existence of CBO and their effect on the positron time spectra can be seen from Fig. 2, showing the Fourier amplitudes of residuals from fits to the data based only on muon decay and spin precession (Eq. 2).

The Fourier amplitudes at the interference frequencies $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}\pm \omega _a`$ differ by about 20% because of the aforementioned modulation of the observed phase. The characteristic CBO decay times were $`100\mu `$s.

(3) The injection of the beam in narrow bunches into the storage ring resulted in a strong modulation of the initial part of the positron time spectrum with the 149.2 ns cyclotron period. This effect was removed from the analyses by uniformly randomizing the recorded start time for each beam pulse over one cyclotron period.

(4) Losses of muons during the data collection were minimized by controlled scraping Brown et al. (2000) of the beam before the data collection started. The time dependence of small, residual losses was determined by forming triple coincidences from scintillating detectors mounted to the face of three adjacent calorimeters. Corrections were made for accidental coincidences and proton background. The time spectrum of lost muons was measured, up to a normalization, at five locations in the storage ring.

(5) Average calorimeter timing shifts were determined with a pulsed UV laser system to be typically smaller than 4 ps over the first 200 $`\mu `$s of data taking. Detector gain changes are determined from the average observed positron energy as a function of time after beam injection. ¿From 50 $`\mu `$s on, 5 $`\mu `$s after the last of the calorimeters was gated on in 2000, the gains of all but 2 of the calorimeters were stable to within 0.2% over the 10 dilated muon lifetimes of data collection.

The event sample collected in the year 2000 amounts, after data selection, to $`410^9`$ positrons with energies greater than 2 GeV in the time region 50 $`\mu `$s to 600 $`\mu `$s following muon injection into the storage ring. A statistical uncertainty in the fitted frequency $`\omega _a`$ of about 0.7 ppm results. To assess systematic uncertainties to an adequate precision, distortions of the decay positron spectrum in Eq. 2 have been studied in the full range of observed energies. In addition, the time spectrum for positron energies exceeding 2 GeV has been studied, as well as two representations of the time spectra that suppress periodic distortions with frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}`$ and slow distortions, respectively. In total, four independent and complete analyses of $`\omega _a`$ were performed.

In the first analysis the data were fitted in 0.2 GeV energy intervals in the range 1.4–3.2 GeV for each detector separately. This results in 198 independent fits. The pileup contribution to each spectrum was determined from the WFD recordings using a variant of the technique used before. For each energy interval and each calorimeter station, pileup was statistically constructed and fitted to an appropriate functional form. The resulting parameters were then incorporated into the fitting function used to describe the positron time spectra. Horizontal CBO were incorporated in the function fitted to the data through modulation of the observed number of counts, asymmetry, and phase. The function fitted to the calorimeter data in each energy interval is given by

$$N(t)=N_0(t;E)e^{t/(\gamma \tau )}\left[1+A(t;E)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _at+\varphi _a(t;E))\right],$$
(3)
in which the time dependences of $`N_0`$, $`A`$, and $`\varphi _a`$ are all modulated as $`1+𝒜_i(t)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}t+\varphi _i)`$, where $`i`$ stands for any of the three separate modulations of $`N_0`$, $`A`$, and $`\varphi _a`$. The modulation amplitudes were determined empirically from the data and follow primarily an exponential with a characteristic decay time of approximately 100 $`\mu `$s. Muon losses were constrained to the shape of the measured losses. The spectrum described by Eq. 3 is multiplied by a time-dependent factor which accounts for these losses. Fit start times for each calorimeter station and energy interval were chosen at times after which the quality of fit has become constant. Slowly vanishing distortions of the exponential, due to imperfectly corrected energy scale variations, pileup, or muon losses, are thereby removed.

In the second analysis the time spectrum of all positrons with energies larger than 2 GeV and arrival times in the region 49 $`\mu `$s to 600 $`\mu `$s after muon injection was considered. The pileup contribution to the spectrum was determined from the data and corrected for as in Ref. Brown et al. (2001). The effects of horizontal CBO were incorporated as modulations of the observed number of counts and asymmetry, whereas the modulation of the observed phase was neglected in the fitting function. The CBO modulation envelope was determined by partial Fourier integration and confirmed from the modulation of the observed average energies for equal phases of the $`(g2)`$ oscillation. The time dilated muon lifetime $`\gamma \tau `$ was fixed to the expected value. The treatment of muon losses followed the one described above. Slowly vanishing distortions of the positron spectra were parametrized empirically, and were included in the fitting function to improve the overall quality of fit. Their correlation with the fitted frequency $`\omega _a`$ is weak.

In the third analysis, as in the second analysis, $`\omega _a`$ was determined from a multiparameter fit to the summed time spectrum of positrons detected with all calorimeters. Alternative methods were used to assess systematic uncertainties. In particular, to study the systematics associated with CBO, the data were strobed at fixed phases of the horizontal CBO modulation. Since $`\omega _{\mathrm{cbo},\mathrm{h}}>2\times \omega _a`$, the $`(g2)`$ signal can be fully determined from the resulting spectra. Eq. 2 was fitted to the spectra after strobing, giving a result for $`\omega _a`$ which is less sensitive by a factor of about three to CBO modulations of the asymmetry and phase than results from fits to the unstrobed spectrum.

In the fourth analysis the ratio introduced in Eq. 6 of Ref. Brown et al. (2001), $`r(t)A(E)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _at+\varphi _a(E))`$, was fitted. The ratio is largely insensitive to changes of observed counts on time scales larger than $`\tau _a=2\pi /\omega _a4\mu \mathrm{s}`$. The effects of asymmetry and phase modulation were not explicitly included in the fitting function. This analysis used summed calorimeter spectra, in which the asymmetry and phase modulation effects are suppressed by an order of magnitude as compared to summed results from fits to individual calorimeter spectra. The suppression originates in the symmetry of the experiment design, and has been studied extensively by including the effects in the fits, by determining the energy modulation, and by Monte Carlo simulations.

The internal consistency of the results was verified in various ways. For all analyses the fitted frequency $`\omega _a`$ was found constant with the fit start-time, up to statistical fluctuations. The Fourier transform of residuals from fits incorporating asymmetry and phase modulation exhibits none of the CBO related interference structure in Fig 2. Fig. 3a shows the results for fits to the spectra from individual detectors from the analysis described first. Fig. 3b shows the results on $`\omega _a`$ versus positron energy.

The results from the analyses are found to agree, on $`\omega _a`$ to within 0.4 ppm. This is within the statistical variation of 0.5 ppm expected from the use of slightly different data selections and the different treatment of the data in the respective analyses. Each of the analyses gives results with comparable total uncertainties in $`\omega _a`$. The analysis which incorporates asymmetry and phase modulation in the fitted function results in the smallest systematic uncertainty, primarily since CBO related systematic uncertainties are at the level of 0.05 ppm in this approach. The trade-off is a slightly enlarged statistical uncertainty, since more CBO related parameters are fitted. The systematic uncertainty due to CBO is larger than our 1999 estimate Brown et al. (2001) which did not include the effects from asymmetry and phase modulation. Neither the 1999 value of $`a_\mu `$, nor its total uncertainty, were changed by this improved estimate. Other uncertainties are comparable or smaller.

We combine the present results to $`\omega _a/(2\pi )=\mathrm{229\hspace{0.17em}074.11}(14)(7)\mathrm{Hz}`$ (0.7 ppm), which includes a correction of +0.76(3) ppm for contributions to Eq. 1 caused by vertical oscillations and, for muons with $`\gamma 29.3`$, by horizontal electric fields. The stated uncertainties account for strong correlations among the individual results, both statistical and systematic. Table 2 lists the systematic uncertainties in the combined result with these correlations taken into account.

After the $`\omega _p`$ and $`\omega _a`$ analyses were finalized separately and independently, $`a_\mu `$ was evaluated. The result is

$$a_{\mu ^+}=\frac{R}{\lambda R}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}204}(7)(5)\times 10^{10}\text{(0.7\hspace{0.17em}ppm)},$$
(4)
in which $`R=\omega _a/\omega _p`$ and $`\lambda =\mu _\mu /\mu _p=\mathrm{3.183\hspace{0.17em}345\hspace{0.17em}39}(10)`$ Groom et al. (2000). This new result is in good agreement with previous measurements Bailey et al. (1979); Carey et al. (1999); Brown et al. (2000, 2001), and reduces the combined uncertainty by about half. The present world average experimental value is

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}203}(8)\times 10^{10}\text{(0.7\hspace{0.17em}ppm)},$$
(5)
which is driven by our determinations of $`a_\mu `$ in Refs. Brown et al. (2000, 2001) and Eq. 4, and accounts for correlations between systematic uncertainties.

The theoretical value of $`a_\mu `$ in the standard model (SM) is determined from $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})+a_\mu (\mathrm{had})+a_\mu (\mathrm{weak})`$, in which $`a_\mu (\mathrm{QED})=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}658\hspace{0.17em}470.57}(0.29)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ (0.025 ppm) Mohr and Taylor (2000) and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{weak})=15.1(0.4)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ (0.03 ppm) Czarnecki and Marciano (2001). The hadronic contribution $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had})`$ receives its leading contribution from $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},1)`$, which is currently evaluated to be $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},1)=692(6)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ (0.6 ppm) Davier and Höcker (1998). The two more recent, published evaluations Narison (2001); De Troconiz and Yndurain (2002) used recent, preliminary data from Novosibirsk which have since been superseded Akhmetshin et al. (2002), so we choose not to use their values for comparison. Higher order contributions include $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},2)=10.0(0.6)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ Krause (1997) and the contribution from hadronic light-by-light scattering, which we now take to be $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},\mathrm{lbl})=8.6(3.2)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ Knecht et al. (2002). The chiral perturbation calculation of Ref. Ramsey-Musolf and Wise (2002) provides an estimate with larger uncertainty. Hence, the value of $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$ is currently evaluated to be,

$$a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}177}(7)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}(0.6\mathrm{ppm})$$
(6)
Additional data on $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions Akhmetshin et al. (2002); Zhao (2000) and on $`\tau `$-decay Anderson et al. (2000) have been published, and are being considered in future evaluations of $`a_\mu (\mathrm{had},1)`$. New data can be expected from the Frascati $`\varphi `$ factory and from the $`B`$ factories.

The three most recent measurements of $`a_\mu `$ along with the above standard model prediction are shown in Fig. 4. The present experimental uncertainty is about half the size of the weak contribution to $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$.

The difference of $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})`$ and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$ is about 2.6 times the combined experimental and stated theoretical uncertainty.

In 2001 data on $`\mu ^{}`$ were obtained. Approximately $`3\times 10^9`$ decay electrons were observed. Field focusing indices $`n=0.122`$ and $`n=0.142`$ were used. Measurement of $`a_\mu ^{}`$ will provide a sensitive test of CPT violation and also an improved value of $`a_\mu `$. We plan further data-taking with $`\mu ^{}`$ to obtain an additional $`6\times 10^9`$ counts.

We thank T. Kirk, D.I. Lowenstein, P. Pile, and the staff of the BNL AGS for the strong support they have given this experiment. We thank J. Bijnens, A. Czarnecki, M. Davier, S.I. Eidelman, A. Höcker, F. Jegerlehner, T. Kinoshita, W. Marciano, and E. de Rafael for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. National Computational Science Alliance, the German Bundesminister für Bildung und Forschung, the Russian Ministry of Science, and the U.S.-Japan Agreement in High Energy Physics. M. Deile acknowledges partial support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. F.E. Gray was supported in part by a General Electric Fellowship, and C.S. Özben by the Scientific and Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).


text:
# 1 Overview

## 1 Overview

This contribution is first a status report, in which we summarize recent results on the theory and numerical simulation of the Accretion-Ejection Instability (AEI), and on detailed observations of the properties of the low-frequency Quasi-Periodic Oscillation of microquasars, for which we believe that it provides a convincing explanation. This progress has been made in complementary directions (see the contributions of Peggy Varnière and Jerôme Rodriguez, these proceedings):

* Theory: We have  computed what was only shown approximately in the original description of the AEI , and justifies the ‘E’ in its name: its unique ability to send upward, as Alfvén waves propagating in the corona, the accretion energy and angular momentum it extracts from the disk. We find that this mechanism is highly efficient, so that a large fraction of the accretion energy can be converted into Alfvén waves. Future work should show how this energy can be deposited in the corona to energize a wind or jet.
* Numerical simulation: We have improved the numerical simulations presented by S. Caunt  at the last workshop. A simple model of heating and thickening of the disk at the spiral shock formed by the instability allows us to start producing111in collaboration with M. Muno(MIT) synthetic light curves, which can be compared with the observed ones. Preliminary results show in particular that the AEI can reproduce the high rms amplitude of the QPO.
* Observation: We have now published in final form the results presented at the last workshop, comparing theory and observation of relativistic effects when the inner disk edge approaches the last stable orbit, in particular in GRO J$`1655`$-$`40`$ and GRS 1915+105 -. Although the observational evidence is fragile and can only be taken as an indication, an additional hint is now provided by observations of XTE J$`1550`$-$`564`$ .
* Energy spectrum of the QPO: It is commonly observed that the QPO is best correlated with the properties of the disk, although it affects more strongly the coronal emission, i.e. the power-law tail. However, in the same observations of XTE J$`1550`$-$`564`$, we find that the modulated emission has a different energy spectrum than this power-law. This is consistent with the presence of a hot point in the disk i.e., in our interpretation, the spiral shock.

Thus these results converge to confirm the expected properties of the AEI and its ability to explain the main characteristics of the QPO. These expectations were the basis of the ‘Magnetic Flood’ scenario, which starts from the identification of the QPO with the AEI, and extrapolates to give a tentative explanation for the $``$30 minutes cycles of GRS 1915+105. In this scenario the cycles are determined by the processing of the poloidal (vertical) magnetic flux advected with the gas in the disk. We will show below how we have found a positive indication in favor of this scenario, in the detailed analysis of one of these cycles.

We will then turn to unpublished work, presented in the undergraduate thesis of Fitzgibbon (1999) with E. Morgan and R. Remillard at MIT: defining states analogous to the ones of Belloni et al., they show a striking regularity in the succession of these states: the source does not err between them, but repeatedly follows a well-defined sequence between them. We will briefly discuss how the Magnetic Flood scenario could be extrapolated again to explain this regularity.

## 2 The Magnetic Flood Scenario

Presented previously  and at the last workshop, this starts from the identification of the AEI as the origin of the QPO, and follows a simple line of inferences which could explain the 30 mn cycles of GRS 1915+105. Its first step is that the apparition of the QPO, when the disk transitions from the high-soft to the low-hard state, must correspond to the crossing of a stability threshold. In our scenario the QPO appears when the magnetic pressure in the inner region of the disk builds up, reaching equipartition with the gas pressure; this is known to suppress the Magneto-Rotational turbulence (causing accretion in weakly magnetized disks), and conversely it is the most unstable situation for the AEI.

As a consequence the disk cools down, since the AEI transports the accretion energy outward and upward, in the form of wave flux, rather than depositing it locally to heat the gas (as assumed in the $`\alpha `$-disk model). This explains that the disk transitions to the low-hard state, characterized by weak disk emission and dominant coronal one, and by the presence of a strong QPO. The disk moves outward and then back in, as it is viscously refilled from the outer regions; the low state ends when the inner disk edge reaches the Last Stable Orbit, allowing its magnetic flux to reconnect with that trapped in the vicinity of the black hole (this may be the same force-free magnetic structure associated with the Blandford-Znajek mechanism). The reconnection, seen as the ‘spike’ ending the low-hard state (see the ‘Magnetic Bomb’ model presented by S. Eikenberry, this workshop) causes the ejection of the relativistic plasmoids later seen in IR and radio, and destroys magnetic flux: this allows a return to a lower magnetization state where the magneto-rotational instability dominates again the accretion process.

Our detailed analysis of two such cycles was mainly motivated by a comparison of observations with the theory of relativistic effects on the AEI, mentioned in the previous section. However we also found that the QPO appeared shortly before the transition to the low state. Thus, if there is a causal relation between the low state and the QPO, it is not the one usually assumed: the QPO is not a property of the low state, but might well be what causes it, as predicted by our scenario.

This scenario is compatible with all the observational facts; we use it as a guide in our ongoing work of theory, simulation and observation; this new fact lets us hope that it may become a true model of the evolution of this source, from which much could be learnt: concerning other states of GRS 1915+105, its long-term behavior, and by extension the physics of accretion in black-hole binaries.

## 3 …and beyond?

One way to progress in this direction might be to turn to the results of Fitzgibbon, reproduced in Figure 1: he defined 9 states of the source, similar to the 12 states of Belloni et al. (a tenth state would be Belloni’s state $`\chi `$, and is not shown). Figure 1 is his main result: he found that the source goes from one state to the other in a well-defined order, following the history of its X-ray luminosity, rather than simply the luminosity itself with which it is only loosely correlated: as plateau states are followed by flares, the source transitions from Fitzgibbon’s states 1 to 8 and 9 (Belloni’s states $`\beta `$ and $`\vartheta `$, subject to the 30 mn cycles). They are followed by a drop back to the plateau state, until the next flare.

This result, although unpublished, may be of great importance as it probably contains a clue to the additional parameter, besides the accretion rate, which is suspected to rule the behavior of GRS 1915+105. This must have to do with the history of the source, which cannot return to the plateau state before it has gone through the 30 mn cycles, and before that through the succession of the different states. We suggest that this parameter could be the poloidal flux advected in the disk: in the Magnetic Flood scenario, it is its piling up in the inner region of the disk which causes the cycles.

Extrapolating further this scenario, we thus get to the following working hypothesis: although one might think of other possibilities, reconnection is the best candidate to explain the spike and the ejection of the plasmoid; but this requires that the magnetic fields in the disk and in the ‘hole’ inside the Last Stable Orbit have opposite polarities. We thus assume that the poloidal field trapped near the black hole is sometimes parallel and sometimes anti-parallel to the one frozen in the disk (in the solar wind–earth magnetosphere system, the same dichotomy allows reconnection in the anti-parallel case, while in the parallel case more complex physics is involved). On long time scales the poloidal flux advected with the gas can change polarity; this may be due to the dynamo in the companion star, or in the disk itself. In a parallel configuration accretion causes the flux trapped in the vicinity of the black hole to gradually build up until, after the next change of polarity in the disk, it can start to be destroyed by reconnection. This (the anti-parallel configuration) would correspond to the flares, and the cycles in Fitzgibbon’s states 8 and 9 would occur when the trapped flux has dropped and will soon also change sign: in this case the return to the plateau state corresponds to the return to the parallel fields configuration, and the beginning of the flares to the next field reversal in the disk and the onset of an anti-parallel phase.

At this stage this is only an extrapolation of the Magnetic Flood scenario, which is itself an extrapolation of the identification of the AEI as the source of the QPO - although we believe that our recent results have increased its credibility. We note, however, that it would nicely explain that the plateau and the flares seem to occupy roughly comparable durations over the period studied by Fitzgibbon, since in order to annihilate the magnetic flux built up during one episode the disk has to accrete a comparable amount of opposite flux. We hope that analyzing other states of GRS 1915+105 may help in refining this hypothesis, leading to a more global view of accretion physics in this and other sources.

## Acknowledgments

The author thanks Peggy Varnière and Jerôme Rodriguez for the work summarized in this paper, and for their contribution in discussing Fitzgibbon’s results.