text:
# Ultra-Short Period Double-Degenerate Binaries

## 1. Introduction

Binary systems consisting of interacting white dwarf pairs (double degenerate) have been known for some time. Smak (1967) was the first to suggest that AM CVn was such a system, and although many questioned this interpretation, it is now generally accepted. There are four AM CVn binaries in Warner’s (1995) review, and approximately ten such systems are now known. They have been considered to be the double-degenerate analogues of Cataclysmic Variables, but with a degenerate rather than main sequence-type secondary, accreting by Roche Lobe overflow through a disk.

In the first Cape Workshop, Motch et al (1995) reported the discovery of a soft X-ray source, RX J1914.4+2456 (now V407 Vul), from the ROSAT Galactic Plane Survey. They reported this as a new ‘soft’ Intermediate Polar. The X-ray emission was to be modulated with an amplitude of 100% at a period of 568s. Motch et al (1996) searched for the optical counterpart, but were unable to identify any unusual object.

In followup observations of the ‘soft’ IPs, Cropper et al (1998) were exercised by the shape of the X-ray modulation in this particular object, and by the fact that for half of the modulation phase there was no detectable X-ray emission. They noted that this was unlike the behaviour of all other IPs and proposed instead that the period was the orbital period of a rotationally sychronised white dwarf pair with a magnetic primary – the double degenerate analog of Polars. The implication of this was that at 568s (9.5 min) this was the shortest period binary system known.

Since then the optical counterpart has been identified (Ramsay et al 2000) and significant progress has been made in elucidating the nature of the system. In 1999, another soft source, RX J0806.3+1527, was identified with a pulsation period of 321s (Israel et al 1999, also Beuermann et al 1999), again classified as an IP. In papers accepted within days of each other, Ramsay, Hakala & Cropper (2002a) and Israel et al (2002) suggested that this system was similar to RX J1914.4+2456, so that the 321s (5.4 min) period was the orbital period of a double degenerate binary.

The X-ray light curves of these two systems distinguishes them from AM CVn systems, even though the binary components may be degenerate pairs in both cases. If the variations are taken to be the orbital period as proposed, these are shorter than those of any known AM CVn systems. Recently Warner & Woudt (2002) have suggested that ES Cet (KUV01584–0939, discovered in the KISO Schmidt UV Survey: Kondo, Noguchi & Maehara 1984) is a short period AM CVn. At 10.3 min this is only slightly longer than that of RX J1914.4+2456, but the system has characteristics that are more typical of AM CVns, including strong He emission lines in the spectrum (Wegner et al 1987), double-peaked lines (Woudt – private communication) and a double-humped optical light curve which may be the result of a permanent superhump (Warner & Woudt 2002). This implies evidence for a disk, so ES Cet is therefore probably an AM CVn system with a period at the short extreme of the class. This categorisation is also supported by the fact that ES Cet was not detected in the ROSAT All Sky Survey or PSPC pointed observations (Voges et al 2000).

In this paper we review the observed properties of RX J1914.4+2456 and RX J0806.3+1527 and the models currently applied to them. We then examine how well these explain their observed properties.

## 2. Observational Characteristics

### 2.1. X-ray Spectrum

These objects were first classified as IPs because of their short but stable X-ray periodicities, but their spectra were completely atypical of IPs. Rather than a hard ($`>1`$ keV in this context) optically thin continuum without any soft ($`<1`$ keV) optically thick component, their spectra showed only a soft optically thick component. Even ‘soft’ IPs such as PQ Gem show a hard component (Duck et al 1994). No hard component was evident in the ROSAT data (Motch & Haberl 1995). Much deeper hard X-ray observations of RX J1914.4+2456 were carried out by Ramsay et al (2000) with ASCA: they measured an upper limit of the bolometric luminosity of this component of $`10^7`$ with respect to the soft component. Recent stringent upper limits using Chandra have also been reported by Israel et al for RX J0806.3+1527 (these proceedings).

### 2.2. Frequency Analysis of Light Curves

When Cropper et al (1998) Fourier analysed their ROSAT HRI data of RX J1914.4+2456, only one period (with its harmonics) was evident in the data, with the value of 569.38s reported by Motch & Haberl (1995). The same was found in the optical by Ramsay et al (2000). A similar analysis of RX J0806.3+1527 X-ray data by Israel et al (1999) and optical data by Israel et al (2002) and Ramsay et al (2002a) also found only one period with its harmonics (but see below for further discussions). Again this was atypical of IPs, which generally show a multiplicity of periods at combinations of the orbital and white dwarf rotation periods.

### 2.3. X-ray Modulation Profile

The folded X-ray light curves (on the detected period) are remarkably similar in both systems (Cropper et al 1998, Burwitz & Reinsch 2001) – see Figure 1. These are approximately sawtooth, with a more rapid rise than decline. In more detail, they show a sharp rise, followed by a slower rise to maximum, then a slower decline, with a final smaller drop back to minimum. There are no detected X-rays for approximately half of the period. At different epochs the light curves of RX J1914.4+2456 change slightly (Ramsay et al 2000), but the sawtooth profile remains. The shape of the X-ray modulation profile is unlike that seen in any other IP, ‘soft’ or normal.

Cropper et al (1998) argued that the shape of the X-ray emission, and its absence over half of the period, required a small emission region moving into and out of view. The accretion had to be far from symmetric about the rotation axis in order to prevent a lower region rotating into view as the upper rotated over the limb of the star; they considered absorption could not be the cause, and that pole-switching would not be possible on the observed short timescales in the system.

### 2.4. Long-term Light Curves

Ramsay et al (2000) examined the long-term brightness of RX J1914.4+2456 and found that its measured brightness varied between 0.03 and 0.3 HRI cts s-1 in the X-ray and between $`I=16.6`$ and $`I=18.2`$ in the red over a period of 6 years. Such variability in X-rays is also evident in RX J0806.3+1527 (Israel et al 1999) and in the optical even on short time scales (Ramsay et al 2002a, Israel et al 2002).

These results indicate that the emission processes in these systems are highly variable, indicative of accretion or similar mechanism.

### 2.5. Optical/IR Colours

In order to characterise the nature of the secondary in RX J1914.4+2456, Ramsay et al (2000) obtained optical and infrared photometry. Their $`HK/IK`$ and $`JH/IK`$ colour-colour diagrams located the source away from the main sequence tracks, for all reddening values. The best description of the spectrum is a highly reddened ($`E(BV)1`$) hot blackbody ($`>10^4`$K) (Ramsay et al 2002b). This reddening is consistent with the measured X-ray absorption from cold material using ASCA and ROSAT data. If little reddening is assumed, then a cooler spectrum is permitted, approaching 5000K. In this case, the discrepancy between the X-ray and optical absorption requires explanation.

The situation is much clearer in the case of RX J0806.3+1527 as this system is much less reddened in X-rays and the optical (Israel et al 2002) and has a spectrum characteristic of a hot blackbody ($`>4\times 10^4`$K).

### 2.6. Phasing of X-ray and Optical Light Curves

Ramsay et al (2000) were able to co-phase the X-ray and optical light curves in RX J1914.4+2456 and found that the X-ray and optical variation was almost anti-phased (Figure 1). The centre of the X-ray bright phase (but not the maximum brightness) is at $`\varphi 0.25`$ in their data, while the optical maximum is at $`\varphi 0.85`$ (in contrast to the X-rays, the optical/IR variation is quasi-sinusoidal), so that the optical lags the X-rays by $`0.6`$. A similar value is reported in these proceedings for RX J0806.3+1527 by Israel.

The difference in phasing between the X-ray and optical is most naturally explained by reprocessing in a binary star model. Here the variation in the optical emission is caused by the heating from the soft X-ray emission from small spots on the primary (as inferred from the X-ray light curve) (see Figure 2).

### 2.7. Optical Spectrum

Despite several attempts, obtaining a spectrum of RX J1914.4+2456 was frustrated by the presence of nearby companions. The first optical spectrum was presented in Ramsay et al (2002). By this time Israel et al (2002) had obtained VLT spectra of RX J0806.3+1527. These showed an almost featureless continuum rising to the blue. On close inspection, the high S/N data indicated the presence of weak $`5`$% emission lines, which they attributed mostly to the Pickering series of He, with some C and Ne. The lines were broad, with velocities of $`1000`$ km s-1. Norton, Haswell &Wynn (2002) claim that the even terms of the Pickering series lines in the spectra presented in Israel et al (2002) are stronger, indicating the presence of some H, and therefore ruling out a degenerate primary. This deserves further quantification.

The spectrum of RX J1914.4+2456 in Ramsay et al (2002) also appeared almost featureless, with a red continuum consistent with the reddening. No emission lines were evident in this lower S/N spectrum, but there was an absorption feature at 5200Å. The absence of strong emission lines in a system accreting through Roche lobe overflow was a surprising result, and entirely atypical of the spectrum of known IPs.111Steeghs (private communication) has recently reported optical spectra of RX J1914.4+2456 taken with Gemini N. This shows absorption lines characteristic of the interstellar medium and an overall spectrum which appears typical of a K star. The implications of these results are being investigated by Steeghs et al.

### 2.8. Polarisation

Ramsay et al (2000) made $`I`$band polarisation measurements of RX J1914.4+2456 and concluded that there was no circular polarisation detected on the modulation period. The instrument used prevented a high precision measurement of the absolute level of polarisation, but absolute levels exceeding 0.5% and amplitudes exceeding 0.2% could be excluded.

### 2.9. Period Changes

Strohmayer (2002) examined the change in the 568s X-ray period of RX J1914.4+2456 using the archive ROSAT and ASCA data. He found that the period was decreasing at the rate expected from gravitational losses.

## 3. Models

Currently four models have been published to describe these systems. Both systems were originally considered to be Intermediate Polars; Cropper et al (1998) suggested that they were double-degenerate analogs of Polars; Ramsay et al (2002b) and Marsh & Steeghs (2002) suggested that they might be double-degenerate Direct Accretors and Wu et al (2002) suggested that they might be double-degenerate systems powered by electrical current. It should be noted that three of the four models involve a magnetic white dwarf. We discuss these in turn below.

Other models involving neutron stars have also been considered, as the thermal X-ray spectrum is very similar to those in the ROSAT isolated neutron stars such as RX J1856–37 (Burwitz et al 2002). Israel et al (1999) concluded that such a neutron star would be only $`10`$ pc distant, but both they and Ramsay et al (2002a) reported negligible proper motion. Burwitz & Reinch (2001) argued that the absence of hard emission precluded an neutron star interpretation for general Roche lobe overflow accretion. Ramsay et al (2002b) also considered a neutron star model, in this case for RX J1914.4+2456, and concluded that this may be viable if low rates of accretion (but higher than those expected from the accretion of interstellar material) were assumed: this may be possible if the neutron star was accreting from material left over from a previous phase of stellar evolution. It remains difficult to avoid the production of a hard tail of emission, however, and pending more detailed calculations, models in which the primary is a neutron star appear to be less favoured.

### 3.1. Intermediate Polar

The IP interpretation is the only one of the four white dwarf primary models with a main sequence companion. Cropper et al (1998) argued against such an interpretation on the grounds that the X-ray light curve, and particularly the absence of flux for half of the period and the sharp rise to maximum could not be explained in the framework of an IP model, even if pole switching was occurring. As noted above, further observations, for example the absence of emission lines, the absence of a hard X-ray spectral component and the infrared colours (the last seemingly excluding a main-sequence secondary), also militate against an IP interpretation.

Norton et al (2002) resuscitated the IP model by investigating the pole-switching timescales using single particle hydrodynamic (SPH) calculations for the stream. They concluded that the rapid transitions in the X-ray light curves could indeed be generated by pole switching in a face-on system. They did not however address the optical/infrared colours, and the presence of mostly He lines in the optical spectrum of RX J0806.3+1527 was not satisfactorily explained.

One argument against the IP model was the absence of any other periodicities in the power spectra of these systems. These are upper limits, and other periods may be unearthed in more sensitive future data. Indeed, despite careful analysis, Ramsay et al (2002a) were unable to decide whether a low-level signal in their power spectra of RX J0806.3+1527 at 4800s was real or not. The power spectra of Israel et al (2002) also show an enhancement at this period (although the resolution in their plots is lower) which may mean that the periodicity is real. In this case, asynchronous models (all except for the first below) would be favoured, with the longer periods reflecting the orbital period or some combination of the orbital and primary rotation periods.

Strohmeyer (2002) notes that the decrease in the 568s period in RX J1914.4+2456 could be associated with the spinup of the primary in an IP model.

### 3.2. Double-Degenerate Polar

Because of the difficulties of the IP interpretation, and the softness of the X-ray spectrum of RX J1914.4+2456 and the similarity of its X-ray light curve to those Polars accreting at one visible pole only, and the presence of only one significant periodicity in the system, Cropper et al (1998) suggested that the system may be the first of the double-degenerate analogs of Polars, so that the 569s period was the orbital period of a rotationally synchronised pair of white dwarfs (Figure 2).

Cropper et al (1998) noted that for such a compact system, the magnetic field of the primary did not need to be as strong as that of normal Polars in order to achieve synchronism. The predictions from the model were that there may be detectable levels of optical circular polarisation and that the accretion flow should be mostly He. The model successfully predicted the optical/IR colours in the two systems (Ramsay et al 2000), and the He emission (Israel et al 2002) but the absence of strong emission lines from an accretion stream was a surprise. In retrospect, the small dimensions of these systems renders the stream to be small, and this and the hotter white dwarf secondary could cause the line emission from the stream to be feeble by comparison with normal Polars.

The absence of circular polarisation was also seen as a possible difficulty for the double-degenerate Polar model by Ramsay et al (2002b). However they point out that magnetic fields less than a few MGauss would not generate the high levels of polarisation seen in usual Polars.

While the ratio of soft X-rays to hard in some Polars can be high (see Ramsay & Cropper, these proceedings), in general some optically thin hard component from the post-shock region is detected. The absence of any detection of a hard component (Ramsay et al 2000, Israel et al, these proceedings) therefore poses some difficulties. One possibility is that the flow between the secondary and primary is subsonic all of the way (a ‘settling solution’). If this is the case the temperature structure within the stream should be evident as it appears over the limb of the star; moreover, in this case it is difficult to imagine how X-ray emission is absent for half of the orbital period, even if most of the emission is near the base of the accretion flow onto the white dwarf.

### 3.3. Double-Degenerate Direct Accretor

The double-degenerate Direct Accretor (sometimes loosely called double-degenerate Algol) model was proposed independently by Marsh & Steeghs (2002) and Ramsay et al (2002b). In this case, neither of the white dwarfs is magnetic, and mass is lost from the secondary by Roche Lobe overflow in a ballistic stream. The larger relative size of the primary and its Roche Lobe in these compact systems is such, however, that the stream impacts directly onto its surface, ahead of the line of centres (Figure 2). For smaller (more massive) primaries, the stream may miss the surface and intersect with iself, circularising and forming an accretion disk as in the standard AM CVn systems.

The above papers used slightly different constraints for determining the allowed parameter space for such a model to be viable, but both agreed in their analysis that the primary mass could not exceed $`0.55`$ M. Marsh & Steeghs (2002) took the point of view that this was consistent with known primary masses in interacting binaries, while Ramsay et al (2002b) considered the restricted parameter space to be a concern, searching as they were for other models which avoided the restricted magnetic field in the double-degenerate Polar model.

It should be noted that unless the primary is substantially less massive than 0.55 M, the stream impacts on the far side of the primary from the secondary, and the impact is at an oblique angle. In this case, the secondary is below the horizon, and it cannot be the source of the optical modulation through reprocessing of the X-ray flux. In this case Marsh & Steeghs (2002) suggested that the optical modulation results from the cooling material downstream of the X-ray heated region (the non-magnetic primary would not be synchronised). The implications of this are that there is no fixed relationship between the X-ray and optical phasing: this would differ for different accretion rates; it would be different from system to system, depending on the rotation rate of the primary; there should be a systematic advancement in the phasing of the optical/IR light curves towards longer wavelengths, and because of the prograde rotation of the primary, the X-ray light curve should have a slow rise and steep decline, together with a strong X-ray spectral signature. On most of these points such an explanation can be excluded, so that this model requires a very low mass primary.

### 3.4. Electric Star

In response to the difficulties with all of the models above, Wu et al (2002) suggested that RX J1914.4+2456 was powered by electrical current. They noted that a white dwarf secondary star moving in the magnetic field of the primary would develop an electrical potential across its diameter. Should there be any ionised material between the two stars, an electrical circuit would be set up each side of the orbital plane: down the magnetic field lines from one side of the secondary to the primary and back down field lines to the other side. The major source of resistance in this circuit is in two small regions where the magnetic field lines intersect the surface of the primary near the magnetic poles. This is where almost all of the energy is dissipated.

This unipolar inductor system was based on that observed directly in the Jupiter-Io interaction (Clarke et al 1996) and proposed white dwarf-planet interactions (Li, Ferrari & Wickramasinghe 1998) but scaled up to take account of the much shorter orbital period, potentially much larger primary magnetic field and relatively much larger secondary in the double-degenerates. Wu et al (2002) found that the total energy dissipated at the spots in the white dwarf primary atmosphere exceeded $`10^{32}`$ erg s-1 for a fractional asynchronism of 0.001 between the rotation of the primary and that of the orbit. The energy reservoir in the system is the revolving and rotating binary pair; gravitational radiation robs the orbit of energy, so that the orbital separation shrinks and the period shortens, but does not act significantly on the stellar rotation. The primary is therefore being contnually spun up through the Lorentz torques caused by the electrical currents, and from the point of view of the secondary it moves slowly retrograde. However, the footpoints of the field lines remain locked in the frame of the binary as the primary rotates, as they are the lines which thread the secondary.

The secondary star in the electric star model does not fill its Roche lobe, and there is no accretion. The model therefore naturally explains the absence of strong emission lines as may be expected from a stream: any lines that are evident will be produced by the heated secondary, and ought therefore to be rotationally broadend. The magnetic field required on the primary is moderate, $`1`$ MG, and there is no shock, so the levels of optical circular polarisation should be small and there should be no hard X-rays produced. There are natural instabilities in the system caused by induced magnetic fields (from the large curents flowing in the circuit) that modify the field of the primary: these could be the origin of the long- and short-term variability seen in the systems. Such detatched white dwarf pairs in which one of the stars has a moderate magnetic field will be natural end-points of many binary systems, and the extreme mass ratios required for Roche Lobe overflow are not required in this model. Furthermore, the steep rise and more shallow decline in X-ray brightness is in the right sense as (unlike the Direct Accretor) the primary is rotating retrograde.

Strohmeyer (2002) notes that the binary period will decrease in the absence of conservative mass transfer (Wu et al 2002), but increase if conserved mass transfer takes place (Rappaport, Joss & Webbink 1982). The observed decrease in period consistent with gravitational radiation losses therefore favours a non-accretor interpretation and hence the Electric Star model.

The Electric Star model appears to be consistent with the observational facts for RX J1914.4+2456 and RX J0806.3+1527 but Wu et al (2002) note that the lifetime of this phase would be short at $`10^3`$ years. Marsh & Steeghs (2002) considered this a serious difficulty given the space density that can be inferred from two systems. However, this difficulty may be overcome, as the system may be oscillating between a unipolar inductor phase and an accreting phase many times through the lifetime of the binary, which may last $`10^610^7`$ years.

### 3.5. Comparison

We summarise in Table 1 the degree with which the different models are consistent with the observational characteristics of the two systems.

Of the four models, the IP interpretation has the most difficulties. The absence of strong emission lines, the optical/IR colours (particularly in RX J0806.3+1527 where the uncertainties introduced by the reddening are not important) and the absence of a hard optically thin X-ray component all apppear to be insurmountable difficulties, even if the claim by Norton et al (2002) that the shape of the X-ray light curve can be caused by pole switching is accepted.

The double degenerate Polar and Direct Accretor models provide a reasonably good description of the observed data. Both are inconsistent with the period change in RX J1914.4+2456 measured by Strohmayer (2002), who points out that although there may be other factors affecting the period, those identified in normal CVs are generally absent when the secondary is degenerate. Period changes will become increasingly evident as time passes, especially in the case of RX J0806.3+1527, and this promises to be a powerful way to discriminate between the accreting and Electric Star models.

Both the double degenerate Polar and Direct Accretor models ought to have some signature of the accretion stream at a low level. It remains to be seen whether the lines seen by Israel et al (2002) in RX J0806.3+1527 can be explained fully by emission from the heated face of the secondary, or whether they require an additional component from the stream. This can be solved using Doppler Tomography.

The Direct Accretor model suffers from the requirement that the primary star needs to be relatively low mass, and, if a reprocessing model is accepted for the optical component, the primary mass is uncomfortably low in order for the secondary to be illuminated by the X-ray emitting regions. The suggestion by Marsh & Steeghs (2002) that the optical is the cooling tail of the X-ray emitting region on the primary is not particularly satisfactory on the grounds of the X-ray modulation profile, the absence of phase shifts between the different optical/IR bands and the constant phase difference at different accretion rates; also the similar X-ray/optical phasing observed in the two systems (Ramsay et al 2000, Israel, these proceedings). On the other hand, the absence of polarisation in the double degenerate Polar model may not be too significant, given the modest field strengths required to achieve synchronism.

Of all the currently envisaged scenarios, the Electric Star model matches the observations most closely. The main disadvantage of the model is that the lifetime is predicted to be too short given the observed space density. However, the calclation in Wu et al (2002) used magnetic field strengths and departures from asynchronism which aimed primarily to demonstrate that sufficient power was available from these systems, rather than using parameters which maximised the lifetime given an observed luminosity. How much the lifetime is a difficulty also depends on how many close white dwarf pairs are expected from evolutionary calculations, which at present are not sufficiently constraining. Further open issues of the model are that it relies on an initial disturbance into asynchronism, and that the effects of the induced currents on the magnetic field of the primary still need to be calculated. Perhaps the main difficulty faced with the model is one of unfamiliarity in the context of accreting binaries, thus requiring an extra burden of proof.

## 4. Gravitational Radiation

Ramsay et al (2000) made the point that the accretion in these systems was driven by gravitational radiation. Wu et al (2002) estimated that the power of the gravitational radiation in such systems can easily reach $`10^{36}`$ erg s-1. A number of authors (for example Strohmeyer 2002) have pointed out that they will radiate at frequencies $`2/P_{orb}`$ at the centre of the band at which the proposed LISA mission will be sensitive. Because of the large gravitational radiation power, the large strain amplitudes ($`10^{21}`$) they generate in this band and their proximity will cause these systems to be the brightest presently known constant sources in the gravitational wave sky, and as such they will be among the first to be observed. Moreover, these will be sources with relatively well-known source properties (masses, orbital periods) and will therefore be fundamentally important in early gravitational wave studies.

## 5. Conclusions

With the discovery of RX J0806.3+1527, so similar to RX J1914.4+2456, it now appears more clear that the secondary in these systems is a degenerate dwarf, and that the main period in these systems is the orbital period. The uncertainties on the nature of the secondary introduced by the reddening correction to the optical/IR colours in RX J1914.4+2456 are negligible in RX J0806.3+1527, and the shorter period makes it impossible to squeeze in a main sequence star. The similar phasing between the X-ray and optical in the two systems and its stability from epoch to epoch suggests that the source of the optical variation is reprocessing from the secondary. This again argues for a binary model.

A neutron star primary is not entirely excluded as a possibility, but because of the gravitational bending of the emission into fan-shaped beams, the sharp X-ray pulse profiles are difficult to generate if these are assumed to arise in hot polar caps. The systems need to be extremely close in order to attain the measured X-ray intensities from small regions on a neutron star: the reddening in RX J1914.4+2456 and the lack of proper motion of RX J0806.3+1527 (Ramsay et al 2002a, Israel et al 2002) makes this unlikely. The absence of a hard component rules out accretion onto a neutron star, except possibly for a very narrow parameter regime.

For these reasons models with a white dwarf primary are preferred. Of the four models considered so far, it would be unwise to exclude any except the IP interpretation. Of these, the Electric Star model provides the best agreement with the observed characteristics of these systems, but their short lifetimes remain an issue given the space density that can be inferred from two systems.

Looking forward, progress in understanding these systems will depend on more being found. All of the double-degenerate models are viable and together with the disk-accreting AM CVn systems, it may be that larger samples indicate that there is a melange of double degenerate systems with ultrashort binary periods. It may even be possible for individual binaries to move from Electric Star to accreting systems, as alluded to above, or from double-degenerate Polars to double-degenerate IPs. One of the main discriminants between the models is the presence and extent of an accretion stream, and Doppler tomography will be an important tool in identifying if a stream contributes to the line emission. A further important tool, as pointed out by Strohmayer (2002) is the investigation of the period changes in these systems; more constraints on their space density from evolutionary models will also prove valuable.

## 6. Acknowledgements

Mark Cropper is grateful to the Royal Society for travel support.

## References

Beuermann, K., Thomas, H.-C., Reinsch, K., Schwope, A. D., Trümper, J, Voges, W., 1999, A&A, 347, 47

Burwitz. V., Reinsch, K. 2001, X-ray astronomy : stellar endpoints, AGN, and the diffuse X-ray background, Bologna, Italy, eds White, N. E., Malaguti, G., Palumbo, G., AIP conference proceedings, 599, 522

Burwitz, V., Haberl, F., Neuhaeuser, R., Predehl, P., Trümper, J., Zavlin, V. E. 2002, A&A, in press, astro-ph/0211536

Clarke, J. T. et al, 1996, Science, 274, 404

Cropper, M., Harrop-Allin, M. K., Mason, K. O., Mittaz, J. P. D., Potter, S. B., Ramsay, G., 1998, MNRAS, 293, L57

Duck, S. R., Rosen, S. R., Ponman, T. J., Norton, A. J., Watson, M. G., Mason, K. O. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 372

Israel G.-L., Panzera M.R., Campana S., Lazzati D., Covino S., Tagliaferri G. 1999, A&A, 349, L1

Israel, G.-L., Hummel, W., Covino, S., Campana, S., Appenzeller, I., Gässler, W., Mantel, K.-H., Marconi, G., Mauche, C. W., Munari, U., Negueruela, I., Nicklas, H., Rupprecht, G., Smart, R. L., Stahl, O., Stella, L. 2002, A&A, 386, L13

Kondo, M., Noguchi, T., Maehara, H. 1984, Ann. Tokyo Astron. Obs., 20, 130

Li, J., Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D. T., 1998, ApJ, 503, L151

Marsh, T., Steeghs, D. 2002, MNRAS, 331, L7

Motch, C., Haberl, F. 1995, Cape Workshop on Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables, ASP Conf. Ser. 85, eds Buckley, D. A. H., Warner, B., p 109

Motch, C., Haberl, F., Guillout, P., Pakull, M., Reinsch, K., Krautter, J. 1996, A&A, 307, 459

Norton, A. J., Haswell, C. A., Wynn, G. A. 2002, astro-ph/0206013

Ramsay, G., Cropper, M., Wu, K., Mason, K. O., Hakala, P. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 75

Ramsay, G., Hakala, P., Cropper, M. 2002a, MNRAS, 332, L7

Ramsay, G., Wu, K., Cropper, M., Schmidt, G., Sekiguchi, K., Iwamuro, F., Maihara, T., 2002b, MNRAS, 333, 575

Rappaport, S., Joss, P. C., Webbink, R. F. 1982, ApJ, 254, 616

Smak, J., 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 255

Strohmayer, T., 2002, ApJ, 581, 577

Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, Th., Brauninger, H., Briel, U., Burkert, W., Dennerl, K., Englhauser, J., Gruber, R., Haberl, F., Hartner, G., Hasinger, G., Pfeffermann, E., Pietsch, W., Predehl, P., Schmitt, J., Trúmper, J., Zimmermann, U. 2000, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: IX/29. Originally published in: Max-Planck-Institut fur extraterrestrische Physik, Garching (2000)

Warner, B., 1995, Ap&SS, 225, 249

Warner, B., Woudt, P. A. 2002, PASP, 792, 129

Wegner, G., McMahon, R. K., Boley, F. I., 1987, AJ, 94, 1271

Wu, K., Cropper, M., Ramsay, G., Sekiguchi, K. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 221


format: text

text:
# Appendix to: Energy Density Functional Approach to Superfluid Nuclei, nucl-th/0210047

## Abstract

This report is not meant to be submitted for publication at the present time and it is simply a supplement to our work . We have collected together all our results for one–nucleon and two–nucleon separation energies for several isotope and isotone chains and compare them to the values extracted from the 1995 Audi and Wapstra table of recommended masses . Where it was possible we have compared our results to the results of Fayans et al.  and Goriely et al. . We also present results for the charge radii and compare them to experiment and results of Goriely et al.

The entire formalism has been described in Ref.  and earlier references cited therein. Since the best agreement between our energy density functional for superfluid nuclei and experimental binding energies was obtained when we use for the normal part of this functional Fayans’ FaNDF0 and the bare pairing coupling constant $`g=200MeVfm^3`$, we limit the results presented here to this case only. For the experimental binding energies we have used the recommended values extracted from Ref. . The results of Fayans et al. have been obtained by digitizing their published figures and for that reason inaccuracies are likely. The reader has to keep in mind also that Fayans et al.  did not use a universal pairing energy and have renormalized the strength of their interaction by a factor of 1.05 in case of tin isotopes and by a factor of 1.35 in case of calcium isotopes. Since these authors have also published results for one–nucleon separation energies without this renormalization of the pairing interaction, we have extracted the unrenormalized results in case of $`S_n`$ for Ca isotopes. Fayans et al.  have performed calculations only for these three isotope chains. The results of Goriely et al.  have been extracted from their website. Goriely et al.  use separate pairing strengths for even proton, odd proton, even neutron and odd neutron systems. In all our calculations we use the same pairing strength for both proton and neutron systems and we did not change its value as a function of the atomic number. We have treated all nuclei as spherical. It is well known that many nickel isotopes are deformed, see e.g. Goriely et al. , and we suspect that some discrepancies between our predictions and experimental data can be ascribed to deformation. Since it is known that there is a significant amount of pairing among protons in zirconium isotopes, pairing has been allowed in both proton and neutron subsystems, but only with the couplings $`g=g_0+g_10`$ and $`g^{}=g_0g_10`$, see Ref.  for details. Note also that the heavier zirconium isotopes are also deformed according to Goriely et al.

In the last five figures we present the charge radii for Ca, Ni, Zr, Sn and Pb isotopes. For the proton charge radius we have used $`r_p=0.87fm`$ according to Ref. . Note that Goriely et al. use instead an older value of $`r_p=0.80fm`$. The experimental values for the nuclear charge radii are from Nadjakov et al.  and were very kindly provided to us by J. Michael Pearson, to whom we are very thankful. In our self–consistent calculations the protons were treated as point particles when evaluating the nuclear Coulomb energy. Fayans made a strong point in private discussions with us for using the charge distribution with the finite formfactors for both protons and neutrons. A finite proton size leads to a smaller Coulomb energy and a less repulsive Coulomb potential for protons, which thus leads to slightly larger charge radii and very likely to a better overall agreement with experiment in our case. We have also neglected the Coulomb exchange and correlation energies and a possible charge symmetry contribution to the total energy as well, see Refs.  for additional references and discussions of these terms. Except for the cases when deformation is likely to affect significantly the values of the charge radii, the agreement between our theoretical predictions and experiment is about of the same quality as in case of Goriely el. All together we present results for 212 nuclei.


text:
# Entangled Light in Moving Frames

## Abstract

We calculate the entanglement between a pair of polarization-entangled photon beams as a function of the reference frame, in a fully relativistic framework. We find the transformation law for helicity basis states and show that, while it is frequency independent, a Lorentz transformation on a momentum-helicity eigenstate produces a momentum-dependent phase. This phase leads to changes in the reduced polarization density matrix, such that entanglement is either decreased or increased, depending on the boost direction, the rapidity, and the spread of the beam.

The second quantum revolution dowling03  is changing the ways in which we think about quantum systems. Rather than just describing and predicting their behavior, we now use new tools such as quantum information theory to organize and control quantum systems, and turn their non-classical features to our advantage in creating quantum technology. The central feature that makes quantum technology possible is quantum entanglement, which implies that particles or fields that have once interacted are connected by an overall wave function even if they are detected arbitrarily far away from each other. Such entangled pairs, first discussed after their introduction by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen epr35 , are crucial in technology such as quantum teleportation Bennettetal93  and superdense coding BennettWiesner92 . Furthermore, quantum entanglement is critical in applications such as quantum optical interferometry, where quantum entangled $`N`$-photon pairs can increase the shot-noise limited sensitivity up to the Heisenberg limit dowling98 .

While quantum entanglement as a resource has been studied extensively within the last decade NielsenChuang00 , it was realized only recently that this resource is frame-dependent, and changes non-trivially under Lorentz transformations Czachor97 ; Peresetal02 ; AlsingMilburn02 ; TerashimaUeda02 ; GingrichAdami02 ; PeresTerno02 . In particular, Gingrich and Adami showed that the entanglement between the spins of a pair of massive spin-1/2 particles depends on the reference frame, and can either decrease or increase depending on the wave-function of the pair GingrichAdami02 . A consequence of this finding is that the entanglement resource could be manipulated by applying frame changes only. Many applications of quantum technology, however, involve entangled photons rather than massive spin-1/2 particles, to which the massive theory does not apply. In this letter, we work out the consequences of Lorentz transformations on photon beams that are entangled in polarization. Each photon beam is described by a Gaussian wave packet with a particular angular spread in momentum, and for the sake of being definite we discuss a state whose polarization entanglement can be thought of as being produced by down-conversion. Because both spin-1/2 particles and photons can be used as quantum information carriers (qubits), the present calculation also contributes to the nascent field of Relativistic Quantum Information Theory PeresTerno03 .

In order to calculate how a polarization-entangled photon state transforms under Lorentz transformations, we need to discuss the behavior of the photon basis sates. Because there is no rest frame for a massless particle, the analysis of the spin (polarization) properties is quite distinct from the massive case. For instance, instead of using $`p^\mu =(m,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ as the standard 4-vector (see GingrichAdami02 ), we have to define the massless analog $`k^\mu =(1,\widehat{𝐳})`$. Note that $`k^\mu `$ has no parameter $`m`$ and is no longer invariant under all rotations. In fact, the little group of $`k^\mu `$ is isomorphic to the non-compact two-dimensional Euclidean group $`E(2)`$ (the set of transformations that map a two-dimensional Euclidean plane onto itself) . For a massless spin-one particle the standard vector allows us to define the eigenstate

$`P^\mu |\widehat{𝐳}\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`k^\mu |\widehat{𝐳}\lambda `$ (1)
$`J_z|\widehat{𝐳}\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda |\widehat{𝐳}\lambda ,`$ (2)
where $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ is a unit vector pointing in the z-direction. Since the particle is massless, $`\lambda `$ is restricted to $`\pm 1`$ wigner .

The momentum-helicity eigenstates are defined as

$$|𝐩\lambda =H(𝐩)|\widehat{𝐳}\lambda ,$$
(3)
where $`H(𝐩)`$ is a Lorentz transformation that takes $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ to $`𝐩`$. The choice of $`H(𝐩)`$ is not unique, and different choices lead to different interpretations of the parameter $`\lambda `$. For instance, in the massive case the choice of $`H(𝐩)`$ can lead to $`\lambda `$ being either the rest frame spin or the helicity. In the present case it is convenient to choose

$$H(𝐩)=R(\widehat{𝐩})L_z(\xi _𝐩),$$
(4)
where $`L_z(\xi _𝐩)`$ is a Lorentz boost along $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ that takes $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ to $`|𝐩|\widehat{𝐳}`$ and $`R(𝐩)`$ is a rotation that takes $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ to $`\widehat{𝐩}`$, while $`\xi _𝐩`$ is the rapidity of the moving frame,

$$\xi _𝐩=\mathrm{ln}|𝐩|.$$
(5)
For a parameterization in polar coordinates, we can write $`\widehat{𝐩}=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$

$$R(\widehat{𝐩})R_z(\varphi )R_y(\theta ).$$
(6)
Again, this choice of $`R(\widehat{𝐩})`$ is not unique (see for example yndurain ) but particularly easy to deal with in this context. An arbitrary two-particle state in this formalism can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AA^{}BB^{}}=\underset{\lambda \sigma }{}g_{\lambda \sigma }(𝐩,𝐪)|𝐩\lambda _{AA^{}}|𝐪\sigma _{BB^{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}𝐩\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}𝐪,$$
(7)
where $`|𝐩\lambda _{AA^{}}`$ and $`|𝐪\sigma _{BB^{}}`$ correspond to the momentum and helicity states, as defined in Eq. (3), of photons $`A`$ and $`B`$. Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{d}𝐩`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}𝐪`$ are the Lorentz-invariant momentum integration measures:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}𝐩\frac{\mathrm{d}^3𝐩}{2|𝐩|}$$
(8)
and the functions $`g_{\lambda \sigma }(𝐩,𝐪)`$ must satisfy

$$\underset{\lambda \sigma }{}|g_{\lambda \sigma }(𝐩,𝐪)|^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}𝐩\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}𝐪=1.$$
(9)
To work out how a Lorentz boost affects an entangled state, we must understand how the basis states $`|𝐩\lambda `$ transform. Following wigner ; tung , we apply a boost $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`|𝐩\lambda `$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐩\lambda =H(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐩)H(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐩)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }H(𝐩)|\widehat{𝐳}\lambda ,$$
(10)
where $`H(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐩)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }H(𝐩)`$ is a member of the little group of $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ (leaves $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ invariant), and hence is a rotation and/or translation in the $`x`$,$`y`$ plane. The translations can be shown wigner  not to affect the spin/helicity, and we are thus left with just a rotation by an angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)`$. Using the parameterization $`𝐩=p(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and solving for $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)`$ we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0:& \mathrm{\Lambda }=L_z(\xi )\hfill \\ \hfill 0:& \mathrm{\Lambda }=R_z(\gamma ),\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐳}\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma :& \mathrm{\Lambda }=R_z(\gamma ),\widehat{𝐩}=\widehat{𝐳}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{A}{B}\right):& \mathrm{\Lambda }=R_y(\gamma )\hfill \end{array}`$ (15)
for different Lorentz transformations and momenta, where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ (16)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\varphi .`$ (17)
Noting that

$$R_z(\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩))=R_z(\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐩))R_z(\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩))$$
(18)
and taking advantage of the fact that all Lorentz boosts can be constructed using $`L_z`$, $`R_z`$ and $`R_y`$, Eq. (15) allows us to find $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and any momentum $`𝐩`$. Applying this rotation to the momentum-helicity eigenstate of a massless particle we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝐩\lambda =\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)}|\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐩\lambda .$$
(19)
Typically, it is the polarization of a photon that is measured in quantum optics experiments, not the helicity. Let us therefore examine the effects of a Lorentz transformation on a photon’s polarization 4-vector.

The polarization 4-vectors for positive and negative helicity states are given by

$$ϵ_\pm ^\mu (\widehat{𝐩})=\frac{R(\widehat{𝐩})}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ \pm i\\ 0\end{array}\right].$$
(20)
A general polarization vector is, of course, formed by the superposition of the two basis vectors. According to han ; AlsingMilburn02 , for a given 4-momentum $`p^\mu `$ and associated polarization $`ϵ^\mu `$, a Lorentz boost has the following effect:

$$D(\mathrm{\Lambda })ϵ^\mu =R(\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{𝐩})R(\widehat{𝐩})^1ϵ^\mu .$$
(21)
However, this transformation is only correct for pure boosts in the z-direction, or rotations around the z-axis if this axis is not the momentum axis (as for those cases the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩)`$ in Eq. (15) vanishes). In general, the four-vector $`ϵ^\mu `$ transforms as

$$D(\mathrm{\Lambda })ϵ^\mu =R(\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{𝐩})R_z(\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐩))R(\widehat{𝐩})^1ϵ^\mu .$$
(22)
It is helpful to write $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in an alternative form

$$D(\mathrm{\Lambda })ϵ^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^\mu \frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^\mu )^0}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }p^\mu )^0}\mathrm{\Lambda }p^\mu ,$$
(23)
where $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^\mu )^0`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }p^\mu )^0`$ denote the time-like component of the transformed polarization and momentum 4-vectors, respectively. The form Eq. (23) agrees with the general law described in weinberg . The proof that Eqs. (22) and (23) are equivalent is non-trivial, but an outline is as follows. Note that both forms of $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ obey

$$D(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})D(\mathrm{\Lambda })ϵ^\mu =D(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })ϵ^\mu $$
(24)
and both forms have the property

$$D(R)ϵ^\mu =Rϵ^\mu $$
(25)
where $`R`$ is a rotation. An explicit calculation of $`D(L_z(\xi ))`$ then shows that they are equivalent.

The second term on the right hand side of Eq. (23) is just a momentum-dependent gauge transformation. It must be different for each momentum in order to keep a consistent overall (Coulomb) gauge. To see that this term leads to measurable consequences consider the polarization vector for classical electromagnetic waves. The polarization vector points along the gauge-invariant electric field, and the direction of this vector undergoes the same transformation as in Eq. (23) (or 22) when acted on by a Lorentz transformation. In fact, the magnitude of the electric field undergoes the same transformation as the diameter of an infinitesimal circle centered at the momentum. This holds for any Lorentz transformation and momentum. A detailed study of this transformation will be published elsewhere.

In the following, we investigate two entangled photon beams moving along the z-axis. The beams are in a momentum product state, and fully entangled in polarization,

$$g_{\lambda \sigma }(𝐩,𝐪)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _{\lambda \sigma }\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \varphi _𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\sigma \varphi _𝐪}f(𝐩)f(𝐪).$$
(26)
In Eq. (26), $`\varphi _𝐩`$ and $`\varphi _𝐪`$ are the polar angles of $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ respectively. The phase factors $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \varphi _𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\sigma \varphi _𝐪}`$ allow us to write the state as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|h_𝐩|h_𝐪|v_𝐩|v_𝐪)f(𝐩)|𝐩f(𝐪)|𝐪\stackrel{~}{d}𝐩\stackrel{~}{d}𝐪,$$
(27)
where $`|h_𝐩`$ and $`|v_𝐩`$ are approximations of horizontal and vertical polarization given by phinote

$`|h_𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _𝐩}ϵ_+^\mu (\widehat{𝐩})+\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _𝐩}ϵ_{}^\mu (\widehat{𝐩}))`$ (28)
$`|v_𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _𝐩}ϵ_+^\mu (\widehat{𝐩})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _𝐩}ϵ_{}^\mu (\widehat{𝐩})).`$ (29)
So, for small $`\theta `$ (small azimuthal spread of the momentum distribution) we have:

$`|h_𝐩\widehat{𝐱},`$ (30)
$`|v_𝐩\widehat{𝐲},`$ (31)
and Eq. (27) is a close approximation to a polarization Bell state. Omitting the phase factors in (26) and (28) instead describes a photon beam where horizontal and vertical polarizations point in the $`\widehat{r}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ directions, respectively (see Fig. 1).

We specifically consider the beams to have a Gaussian spread in the azimuthal direction,

$$f(𝐩)=\frac{1}{N(\sigma )}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\theta }{\sigma _\theta }\right)^2\right)\delta (|𝐩|p_0),$$
(32)
where $`\sigma _\theta `$ is a parameter which controls the spread of the beam, $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle of the momentum vector, and $`p_0`$ is the magnitude of the momentum of the photon beam, which we arbitrarily set to unity. We do not take into account a spread in the magnitude of the momentum because the magnitude, $`\omega `$, is just a constant multiplying the momentum 4-vector and so

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }p^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\omega ,\omega \widehat{𝐩})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega (1,\widehat{𝐩})`$
$`=`$ $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }(1,\widehat{𝐩}).`$
Inserting this result into Eq. (23), we see that the $`\omega `$-dependence cancels.

We now boost the state Eq. (27) and trace out the momentum degrees of freedom to construct the polarization density matrix. Because photons are spin-one particles, they constitute three-level systems (even though they are constrained to be transverse for any particular momentum). In order to calculate the entanglement present in the quantum state, we therefore cannot use Wootters’ concurrence Wootters98 , as it is only a measure of entanglement for two-state quantum entangled systems. Instead, we use here “log negativity”, an entanglement measure introduced by Vidal and Werner vidal02 . This measure is defined as

$$LN(\rho )=\mathrm{log}_2\rho ^{T_A},$$
(34)
where $`\rho `$ is the trace norm and $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ is the partial transpose of $`\rho `$. $`LN(\rho )`$ is a measure of the entanglement but is unable to detect bound entanglement. We can now calculate the change in log negativity explicitly for a Lorentz boost with rapidity $`\xi `$ at an angle $`\alpha `$ with respect to the photon momentum, i.e., a Lorentz transformation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=R_y(\alpha )L_z(\xi )R_y(\alpha )^1,$$
(35)
applied to Eq. (27). Fig. 2 summarizes the results of varying the boost direction, $`\alpha `$, for a given spread, $`\sigma _\theta `$, and shows that the entanglement can increase or decrease, depending on boost direction. For $`\alpha =0`$, positive $`\xi `$ corresponds to boosting the photon in the direction of the detector. Note that the entanglement at zero rapidity is only about half its maximal value, because the angular spread of the momentum leaves the spin degrees of freedom in a mixed state after tracing out momentum.

In general, boosts in the direction of motion tend to increase the entanglement to saturation, while boosts away from it decrease it. As $`\alpha `$ approaches $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$, the effect on entanglement becomes symmetric.

Fig. 3 summarizes the effect of applying the boost in Eq. (35) for varying spreads in the momentum distribution, for a boost direction given by $`\alpha =2\pi /5`$.

Distributions with small spread, $`\sigma _\theta 0.1`$, tend to change entanglement only imperceptively, while for larger spread the entanglement changes become more pronounced. Note that for $`\sigma _\theta =1.3`$ the entanglement becomes zero (for boosts of negative rapidity) and then increases. This appears to happen because the momentum spread becomes so large that a significant portion of the beam is in fact moving in the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ direction. Because of the collimating effect that a Lorentz boost has on the beam, the entanglement can actually increase in such a situation.

We have derived the relativistic transformation law for photon polarizations, and shown that the entanglement of polarization-entangled pairs of photon beams depends on the reference frame. Boosting a detector (even at an angle) towards the beams increases this entanglement because the momentum distribution is shrunk by the boost (see also PeresTerno02 ). The type of entangled beams that we have investigated in this letter are idealizations of realistic states that can be created using parametric down-conversion. In principle, therefore, the effects discussed here should become relevant as soon as linear-optics based quantum technology is created that is placed on systems that move with respect to a detector (or when the detector moves with respect to such a system).

We would like to thank Jonathan Dowling, and the members of the JPL Quantum Computing Group, for useful discussions and encouragement. We also acknowledge János Bergou for helpful suggestions. This work was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California Institute of Technology) under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, with support from the National Security Agency, the Advanced Research and Development Activity, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Office of Naval Research.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The presented approach aims at a microscopic link between interactions for free baryon-baryon scattering, their in-medium interaction in infinite matter and in finite nuclei. Such a comprehensive description is essential for extrapolations to not yet experimentally observed or even never observable regions of the (hyper)nuclear chart, infinite hypermatter in neutron stars and baryon-baryon interactions in heavy ion collisions. In the nuclear sector there is abundant information available, i.e., the coupling constant can be fixed from free NN scattering and then propagated to finite nuclei where calculations of their properties and comparison to experimental data yield an important check of consistency. In the hyperon sector the model can be used then to extract from single particle spectra of hypernuclei free hyperon coupling constants which are unaccessible otherwise.

## 2 The density dependent relativistic hadron field theory

Our approach is based on the covariant meson exchange framework. To generate the effective microscopic interaction in finite nuclei an approach using T-matrix theory with a three dimensionally reduced two-nucleon propagator is applied. In this way the same mesons with the same bare couplings are used throughout the model. The in-medium interaction is calculated in Dirac-Brueckner theory, i.e., a T-matrix calculation in infinite matter where the intermediate two-baryon propagators are Pauli-blocked and dressed by Hartree-Fock self-energies. Since a G-matrix calculation for finite nuclei is technically not feasible DDRH theory is used to apply the G-matrix interactions in calculations of finite nuclei.

DDRH theory  is a Walecka type model designed for relativistic mean-field (RMF) calculations of finite nuclei using G-matrix interactions. Contrary to the conventional RMF models density dependent vertex functionals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{\rho })`$ are used instead of constant couplings and meson self-interactions to account for finite density effects. $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is a bilinear of the baryonic field operators. Using the self-energies, in-medium effects of the G-matrix interaction are mapped onto the vertex functionals . Deriving the Dirac equation from the DDRH Lagrangian yields additional rearrangement self-energies, coming from the variation of the vertex functionals with respect to the baryonic field operators and describing static polarizations of the nuclear medium . They do not affect the bulk properties of a nucleus but modify the single particle structure only. This treatment of the density dependence leads to a covariant field theoretically and thermodynamically consistent theory (see  for the proofs). DDRH theory was applied successfully to magic and exotic nuclei in RMF approximation .

## 3 Hypernuclear structure

Hypernuclear spectroscopy has made important progress in accuracy in the recent years, allowing now to extract information about the interaction systematics between hyperons and nucleons within a microscopic model. With this understanding of the interaction and upcoming even more precise $`\gamma `$-spectroscopy experiments on hypernuclei at KEK, JLab, GSI and MAMI-C it will even be possible to study more subtle interaction effects beyond the mean-field which are not accessible in such a clean way using nucleon spectroscopy and conventional nuclear structure.

### 3.1 DDRH for hypernuclei

DDRH theory has been extended from the use in pure isospin nuclei to hypernuclei involving the octet baryons  and to hyperon star matter . Lacking a G-matrix calculation for the complete baryon octet – work is in progress on that – an approximate treatment of the hyperon-meson vertices was obtained from a diagramatic analysis of the Dirac-Brueckner equations. It was shown  that the functional shape of the vertices should be approximately the same as that of the nuclear ones, depending on the density of the respective hyperon iso-multiplet instead of the nuclear density. The strength has to be rescaled by a function $`R_{Y\alpha }`$ which turns out to be approximately constant and can in first order be related to the free coupling constants as $`R_{Y\alpha }=\frac{g_{Y\alpha }}{g_{N\alpha }}`$.

Single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei are the only well known hypernuclear systems. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being an isoscalar and electrically neutral baryon just couples to the $`\sigma `$ and the $`\omega `$ meson simplifies its theoretical description tremendously. The two corresponding scaling factors relate directly to the free couplings $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma }`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega }`$ by the approximate relations given above. Using spectral information of hypernuclear spectroscopy including resolved spin-orbit doublets these two constants can be extracted unambiguously from DDRH RMF calculations for the respective hypernucleus – or incompatibilities of the calculated and measured spectral structures will give definite hints to deformations and dynamics beyond mean field.

### 3.2 Evaluation of experimental data

Recent experimental data measured at KEK on $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{89}Y`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{51}V`$  show a significant broadening of the single particle peaks as compared to the experimental resolution. The simple analysis with a two uncorrelated gaussian fit of each single particle peak - motivated by a spin-orbit (s.o.) splitting assumption - which was performed in  lead to a single particle spectrum which could not be reproduced by DDRH RMF calculations. Taking into account also the high ground state spin of the $`{}_{}{}^{88}Y`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{50}V`$ cores with $`I^\pi =4^+,6^+`$, respectively, we performed a refit of the data. The broad single particle peaks were modeled by two gaussians of which the individual strength was constrained by the relative multiplicities of their s.o. states. The width of each gaussian and the relative distance of their means were fixed by assuming the spin dependent part of the single particle energies to be $`E_s=E_{ls}ls+E_{jj}Ij`$ ($`I`$ being the core spin and $`j`$ the total angular momentum of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ state). The s.o. and $`jj`$ matrix elements are the same for the whole fitting procedure. In contrast to the fit with uncorrelated gaussians our fit gets significantly more stable. A strong reduction of the s.o. strength compared to the simpler fit is observed being consistent with high precision measurements of the s.o. splitting in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{13}C`$ . The s.o. and $`jj`$ matrix elements are obtained as $`E_{ls}=223\pm 153keV`$ and $`E_{jj}=61\pm 3keV`$.

### 3.3 Hypernuclear structure calculation with DDRH

The fairly small s.o. splitting brings into the game the formerly already discussed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega `$ tensor interaction (see, e.g., ). This tensor interaction introduces terms proportional to $`\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{{}_{\mu }{}^{}\nu }\psi _\mu \omega _\nu `$ in the interaction Lagrangian being of the same Dirac structure as the s.o. interaction in the Dirac equation. According to spin-flavor SU(6) the tensor vertex ”$`f`$” is minus that of the vector interaction ”$`g`$”, leading to an almost vanishing s.o. splitting.

Including the tensor interaction we performed a least squares fit of calculated DDRH RMF $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ single particle energies to the experimental ones with respect to the variables $`R_\sigma `$, $`R_\omega `$ and $`f/g`$ (which should be $`2/3`$, $`2/3`$ and $`1`$, respectively, according to SU(3)). A very strong linear correlation between $`R_\sigma `$ and $`R_\omega `$ is found, induced by the spectral gross structure (known already from earlier hypernuclear RMF calculations not considering s.o. splitting ). The favored region with $`\chi ^2<1`$ is shown in fig. 2. It is centered around $`R_\sigma `$(=$`R_\omega `$) = 0.25 and $`f/g`$ = 0. This indicates a substantial violation of SU(3) symmetry. Effects which are still under investigation and might lead to minor changes are for example the influence of deformations of the nuclear core. Calculations for the world data set on hypernuclei with an even-even core is shown in fig. 3. The calculation with our new parametrization (dots linked by the solid line) shows clear improvements especially in the low mass region compared to our previous parameters.

Concerning model building the strong violation of SU(3) symmetry is bothering since SU(3) relations used in the derivation of, e.g., hyperon-hyperon interactions could no longer be applied. From the nuclear structure point of view the very weak $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ couplings are in contrast very encouraging. Since the strange sector seems to almost decouple from the isospin sector it might be possible in future high accuracy spectroscopic experiments to measure nuclear bulk properties like mass radii and deformations through $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear spectroscopy.

## 4 Conclusions

The accuracy of the discussed experimental data is already at the limits of what can be expected from meson spectroscopy of hypernuclei. Still, looking at the large uncertainties in the determination of coupling constants from these data, see fig. 2, more precise measurements are needed. These will be provided by the beginning new era of $`\gamma `$ spectroscopy experiments on hypernuclei. On the theory side it will be essential to replace the approximate treatment of the in-medium $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interactions by a fully microscopic one. Work on such a Dirac-Brueckner G-matrix calculation is in progress.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the European Graduate School Gießen -Copenhagen, DFG contract Le 439/5 and GSI.