text:
# First Investiation of magnetic ground states in the rare-earth intermetallic compounds 𝑅Al0.9Si1.1 (𝑅 = Ce, Pr, Gd)

## Abstract

We report the magnetic properties strongly varying with the rare-earth elements in the newly found ternary compounds $`R`$Al0.9Si1.1, which crystallize in the tetragonal $`\alpha `$-ThSi2-type structure. For $`R`$ = Ce the alloy has a weak ferromagnetism below 11 K and for $`R`$ = Pr it orders ferromagnetically at 17 K, while for $`R`$ = Gd it is antiferromagnetic with $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ = 30.5 K. In addition, we find no field effect on $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ of $`R`$ = Gd because of the large internal mean field, but significant changes in the magnetic properties of $`R`$ = Ce and Pr.

, , ,

There have been studies of Ce-based ternary compounds in the Ce-Al-(Si,Ge) phase diagram . It was found for CeAlx(Si,Ge)2-x that the crystal structure changes as the Al/Si(Ge) ratio varies . The alloys of $`x`$ = 1 and 1.2 have the tetragonal $`\alpha `$-ThSi2-type structure, while the alloy of $`x`$ = 1.5 has the hexagonal AlB2-type structure. The magnetic properties were reported to depend on the crystal chemistry ; CeAlSi is ferromagnetic with a Curie temperature of 7.1 K, whereas CeAlGe orders antiferromagnetically at 4 K. In the present work, we have extended this investigation to other ternary compounds as changing the rare-earth elements, which are $`R`$Al0.9Si1.1 ($`R`$ = Ce, Pr, and Gd) and find that the magnetic properties are strongly varying with the rare-earth elements.

The single crystals were synthesized by high-temperature flux method. Electron-probe microanalysis showed the composition of $`R`$Al0.9Si1.1 within an error of $`\pm 0.05`$ for $`R`$ = Gd and $`\pm 0.03`$ for $`R`$ = Ce and Pr without any impurity phase. X-ray powder diffraction pattern revealed that the samples are single phased with the tetragonal $`\alpha `$-ThSi2-type structure. The magnetic susceptibility was measured in a field of 100 G using a Quantum Design superconducting quantum interference device. The specific heat was taken with a Quantum Design physical property measurement system.

The inverse magnetic susceptibility $`H/M`$ vs. temperature is shown in Fig. 1. A linear behavior of the Curie-Weiss law is observed above 100 K and a deviation from the linear behavior occurs below 50 K. The effective magnetic moments are estimated to be $`\mu _{eff}`$ = 2.52(5) $`\mu _B`$, 3.31(8) $`\mu _B`$, and 8.10(8) $`\mu _B`$ for $`R`$ = Ce, Pr, and Gd, respectively. These values show that the rare-earth ions are in the normal trivalent state. The paramagnetic Curie temperatures are $`\theta _P`$ = 6.91(0) K, 26.37(4) K, and $``$142.43(3) K for $`R`$ = Ce, Pr, and Gd, respectively, possibly indicating the development of different types of magnetic exchange interaction. The small value of $`\theta _P`$ for CeAl0.9Si1.1 might be related with a weak ferromagnetism, while the negative value of $`\theta _P`$ for GdAl0.9Si1.1 might be responsible for an antiferromagnetic order.

These different types of magnetic exchange could be achieved at low temperatures. In the inset of Fig. 1, we observe a peak in the zero-field cooled (ZFC) curve and a cusp in the field cooled (FC) curve at $`T_{\mathrm{wF}}`$ = 11 K, which further confirms weak ferromagnetism in CeAl0.9Si1.1. The magnetic behavior of PrAl0.9Si1.1 could be also understood in a way similar to that of CeAl0.9Si1.1, because there is a difference between ZFC and FC susceptibilities below $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ = 17 K. However, we observe a rapid saturation of magnetization to a value of almost full moment $`3\mu _B`$ at 0.4 T (not shown here), indicating a ferromagnetic ordering. It is worthwhile to mention here that this difference could be associated with a spin-glass transition. On the other hand, GdAl0.9Si1.1 has no difference between ZFC and FC susceptibilities and orders antiferromagnetically below $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ = 30.5 K. The magnetization increases linearly with magnetic field (not shown here).

Figure 2 represents the specific heat $`C(T)`$ vs. temperature. A $`\lambda `$-type anomaly is observed in all the compounds $`R`$Al0.9Si1.1 at the magnetic transition temperatures: $`T_{\mathrm{wF}}`$ = 11 K, $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ = 17 K, and $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ = 30.5 K for $`R`$ = Ce, Pr, and Gd, respectively. As the magnetic is applied, the magnetic transition temperatures for $`R`$ = Ce and Pr are increased, whereas the transition temperature for $`R`$ = Gd is unchanged. The former is characteristic of ferromagnetic materials. In the latter case, one should note that Gd3+ ions (L = 0 and J = S) in GdAl0.9Si1.1 have a large internal mean field and thus an effect of external field could be negligible in total magnetic exchange. We may depress $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ in a very high magnetic field beyond our present measurement range.

This work was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation through the Center for Strongly Correlated Materials Research at SNU and the NRL project of the Korea Ministry of Science and Technology.


format: text

text:
# Physical-resource demands for scalable quantum computation11footnote 1To be published in the proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Fluctuations and Noise in Photonics and Quantum Optics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, June 1–4, 2003

## 1 Introduction

Quantum computation is an alluring long-term goal for the emerging field of quantum information science . In this paper we address the question of what physical resources are required for quantum computation and, in particular, how the required resources scale with problem size. By determining how to avoid a physical-resource demand that increases exponentially with problem size, we establish necessary conditions for a physical system to be a scalable quantum computer.

The initial step in a quantum computation is to store classical information (the input) as some quantum state of the computer. The computer then runs through a carefully controlled sequence of unitary operations and/or measurements (the program). At the completion of the computation, the answer (the output) is stored as classical information that can be read out with high probability by a measurement. The power of a quantum computer lies somewhere in the murky region between the classical input and the classical output—a region where classical, realistic descriptions fail.

Ask for the crucial property of that murky region, and you will get nearly as many answers as there are quantum information scientists: the superposition principle of quantum mechanics and associated quantum interference and quantum parallelism; quantum entanglement; the use of entangling unitary operations; the collapse of the wave function after measurement and associated information-disturbance trade-offs. All of these distinguish quantum systems from classical ones. How are we to decide which is the crucial quantum feature?

We argue that a quantum computer’s power stems from the murky region itself: a quantum computer escapes the bounds of classical information processing because there is no efficient realistic description of what happens between the classical input and the classical output. The ability to access arbitrary states in Hilbert space is what leads to situations where there is no efficient realistic desciption.

It is difficult to pin down the source of a quantum computer’s power because arbitrary states can be accessed in very different physical systems—different hardware—using very different control techniques—different software. Yet no matter how a quantum computation is packaged, we can identify one universal prerequisite: the computer must have a Hilbert space large enough to accommodate the computation. If the computer is to be a general-purpose computer, able in principle to solve problems of arbitrary size, it must have a Hilbert space whose dimension is capable in principle of growing exponentially with problem size. Hilbert space is essential for quantum computation, and the primary resource is Hilbert-space dimension.

Hilbert spaces of the same dimension are fungible. What can be done in one can be done in principle in any other of the same dimension: simply map one Hilbert space onto the other, including all the subsystems, operations, and measurements. Which Hilbert space is used to represent and process quantum information becomes important only when further physical considerations are introduced. Though Hilbert spaces are fungible, the physical systems described by those Hilbert spaces are not, because we don’t live in Hilbert space. A Hilbert space gets its connection to the world we live in through the physical quantities—position, linear momentum, energy, angular momentum—of the system that is described by that Hilbert space. These physical quantities arise naturally from spacetime symmetries and the system Hamiltonian. They are the “handles” that permit us to grab hold of a quantum system and manipulate it, and they are the physical resources that must be supplied to access various parts of the system Hilbert space. The crucial physical question for quantum computation is the following: how much of these resources is required to achieve a Hilbert-space dimension sufficient for a computation? This is the question we address in this paper.

Quantum mechanics constrains our description of physical systems sufficiently that we can formulate the question of physical-resource demands in a general way. We find that to avoid supplying an amount of some physical resource that grows exponentially with problem size, the computer must be made up of subsystems—degrees of freedom in the simple analysis presented here—whose number grows nearly linearly with the number of qubits required in an equivalent quantum computer. This thus becomes a fundamental requirement for a system to be a scalable quantum computer.555Since in this paper we are interested in comparing how different systems use physical resources, we use the term quantum computer for any physical system that has the required Hilbert-space dimension, and we reserve the term scalable quantum computer for systems that can provide the required Hilbert-space dimension efficiently.

We emphasize that this requirement is an initial barrier that must be surmounted by proposals for scalable quantum computation, before such proposals confront the difficult and necessary tasks of initialization, control, protection from errors, and readout. Surmounting this initial barrier does not guarantee that a proposal can meet the further requirements; it is a necessary, but by no means sufficient requirement for a scalable quantum computer. The point of this paper is that one can draw general conclusions about the physical systems that can be used for quantum computation just by considering whether the system can efficiently provide the primary resource of Hilbert-space dimension, without getting enmeshed in questions about the other necessary requirements for the operation of a quantum computer.

The present paper is an abbreviated version of a more extensive analysis published elsewhere . Here we restrict our consideration to systems of particles that can be described by ordinary quantum mechanics. For these systems, the subsystems can be identified with the degrees of freedom of the particles. Though this simple degrees-of-freedom analysis contains the essence of our conclusions—indeed, the essence is summarized succinctly in Fig. 1—the original paper extended the analysis to more general systems that require a description in terms of quantum fields. The reader interested in this more general analysis and in a more extensive list of references is urged to consult the original paper .

## 2 Degrees-of-freedom analysis of resource requirements

### 2.1 Role of Planck’s constant

Dimensionless quantities in physics are determined by writing the relevant physical quantities in terms of a relevant scale. For the dimension of a system’s Hilbert space, Planck’s constant $`h`$ sets the scale; the available number of Hilbert-space dimensions is determined by writing an appropriate combination of physical quantities, the action, in units of $`h`$.

The analysis of resource demands is particularly simple for systems of particles described by ordinary quantum mechanics, for which the subsystems can be identified with the degrees of freedom of the particles. The quantum state of such a computer is described in a Hilbert space that is a tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the degrees of freedom.

A degree of freedom corresponds to a pair of (generalized) canonical coördinates, position $`q`$ and momentum $`p`$. The physical resources are the ranges of positions and momenta, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$, used by the computation. The physically relevant measure of these resources is the corresponding phase-space area or action, $`A=\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }p`$. For a degree of freedom that is an intrinsic angular momentum $`J`$, we can use $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=2\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=\mathrm{\Delta }J`$, thus giving $`A=2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }J`$. The connection to Hilbert space comes from the fact that a quantum state occupies an area in phase space given by Planck’s constant $`h`$; orthogonal states correspond roughly to nonoverlapping areas, each of area $`h`$. Thus the available dimension of the Hilbert space for a single degree of freedom is given approximately by $`A/h`$. The goal of scalability is to avoid having to supply an action resource $`A`$ for any degree of freedom that grows exponentially with problem size.

### 2.2 Degrees-of-freedom analysis

We measure the Hilbert-space dimension required for a quantum computation in qubit units: let the problem size for a computation be $`n`$, and let $`N=𝐅(n)`$ be the number of qubits required for the computation, assuming an optimal qubit algorithm that requires only a polynomial number of qubits, an example being Shor’s factoring algorithm . Here and below, bold type denotes a function that is bounded above by a polynomial. The Hilbert-space dimension needed for the computation is $`2^N=2^{\text{F}(n)}`$. Using qubit units, we see that the required Hilbert-space dimension grows exponentially with problem size. We assume that there is no more efficient algorithm in a Hilbert space with some other structure than the qubit tensor-product structure, this being part of our assumption that Hilbert spaces are fungible.

Suppose now that the $`j`$th degree of freedom supplies an action $`A_j`$. The Hilbert space of the entire system is a tensor product of the Hilbert spaces for the degrees of freedom, so the overall Hilbert space has dimension

$$2^N\frac{A_1}{h}\mathrm{}\frac{A_T}{h}=\frac{V}{h^T},$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the phase-space volume used by the computation. If $`T`$ grows more slowly than linearly with $`N`$ (within specific logarithmic corrections discussed below), at least one of the actions must grow exponentially with $`N`$, thus requiring an exponential amount of some physical resource. In contrast, if $`T`$ grows linearly with $`N`$, no degree of freedom has to supply an increasing amount of action, which makes the system a candidate for a scalable quantum computer.

It is useful to summarize this simple result, as it is the foundation for all our further conclusions. The physical resources are the quantities that label the axes of a (generalized) phase space that has two axes for each degree of freedom. The number of Hilbert-space dimensions available for a computation is proportional to the total phase-space volume. If the number of degrees of freedom grows linearly in $`N`$, the phase-space volume needed to accommodate the Hilbert-space dimension can be folded up into a hypercube in phase space without requiring an exponentially increasing contribution along any direction in phase space. In contrast, if the number of degrees of freedom grows more slowly than linearly in $`N`$ (within the logarithmic corrections discussed below), some phase-space direction must supply an exponentially increasing amount of the corresponding physical resource. This simple argument is depicted schematically in Fig. 1.

To formulate a more precise statement, we specialize to the case of $`T`$ identical degrees of freedom, each of which supplies an action $`A`$. In this situation, the total number of Hilbert-space dimensions satisfies $`(A/h)^T2^N`$, which gives

$$A/h2^{N/T}.$$
(2)
In order to avoid an exponential resource demand, $`A/h`$ must grow polynomially with $`N`$,666We follow the computer-science convention of referring to any superpolynomial growth as exponential. which means that the number of degrees of freedom increases as777We use base-2 logarithms.

$$T\frac{N}{\mathrm{log}𝐏(N)},$$
(3)
where $`𝐏(N)`$ is a function bounded above by a polynomial. We say that $`T`$ grows quasilinearly with $`N`$ and that the system is scalable, having a scalable tensor-product structure.

It is instructive to distinguish three cases:

1. $`T`$ grows more slowly than linearly with $`N`$. If $`T`$ grows quasilinearly, as in Eq. (3), then $`A/h𝐏(N)`$, and the system is scalable. If $`T`$ grows more slowly than quasilinearly with $`N`$, $`A/h`$ grows exponentially with $`N`$, leading to an exponential demand for physical resources.
2. $`T`$ grows faster than linearly with $`N`$. In this case, $`A/h`$ goes to one as $`N`$ increases, implying that each degree of freedom asymptotes to a one-dimensional Hilbert space. This means that the present analysis in terms of independent degrees of freedom breaks down and should be replaced by a counting of the excitations of a quantum field, which properly takes into account the resources used by unoccupied field modes .
3. $`T=N/\mathrm{log}D`$ grows strictly linearly with $`N`$. For $`D<2`$, the present analysis breaks down, and we again need the analysis of quantum fields to reach a sensible conclusion . For $`D2`$, each degree of freedom is a $`D`$-level system, i.e., a qudit instead of a qubit. Though this is the special case of quasilinear growth in which $`𝐏(N)=D`$, we consider it separately because it is the most important scalable case, in that the action supplied by each system, $`A/hD`$, is independent of problem size. Scaling is achieved simply by adding degrees of freedom, without having to change the Hilbert-space dimension supplied by each degree of freedom. We say that this kind of system is strictly scalable and has a strictly scalable tensor-product structure. Most quantum computing proposals are of this sort.

Had we focused on the total action resource,

$$TA/hT2^{N/T},$$
(4)
instead of on the action resource per degree of freedom, we would have reached the same conclusions regarding scaling. For a scalable system, the total action resource grows as $`TA/hN𝐏(N)/\mathrm{log}𝐏(N)`$; only for strictly scalable systems is the total action resource linear in $`N`$.

### 2.3 Quantum computing in a single atom

An illuminating extreme example of the nonscalable systems in case 1 is the attempt to implement quantum computing in a single atom , single molecule with a fixed number of atoms , or large spin . Advances in laser spectroscopy with ultrashort pulses have allowed researchers to manipulate and measure the electronic wave function in an atom  or both electronic and rotational/vibrational wave functions in a molecule  with exquisite precision. It is natural to wonder whether these tools for coherent control of quantum states can be applied to quantum computing.

For illustration, consider the simplest hypothetical model, quantum computing in a hydrogen atom. Characteristic atomic units of length, momentum, and energy are formed from the physically important constants: the electron charge and mass, $`e`$ and $`m`$, and the quantum of action, $`\mathrm{}`$. If we ignore spin, Bohr’s formula for quantizing the action gives the familiar expressions for the energy, radius, and momentum of a stationary state with principle quantum number $`n`$,

$$E_n=\frac{1}{2n^2}\frac{e^2}{a_0},r_n=n^2a_0,p_n=\frac{1}{n}\frac{\mathrm{}}{a_0},$$
(5)
where $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/me^2`$ is the Bohr radius. The dimension of the Hilbert space spanned by all bound states from the ground state up to a maximum principle quantum number $`n`$ is

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}(2l+1)\frac{1}{3}n^3\left(\frac{r_np_n}{\mathrm{}}\right)^3.$$
(6)
The final expression has just the form we expect. Without spin the internal states of the hydrogen atom have three degrees of freedom, signaled by the 3 in the exponent and corresponding to the three coördinates of relative motion of the electron and proton. Each degree of freedom is allotted an action $`Ar_np_n`$, which provides enough phase space for $`A/h`$ orthogonal states in Hilbert space.

Demanding that the atomic Hilbert space have a dimension $`2^N`$ requires that the radial coördinate scale as $`r_n2^{2N/3}a_0`$. The exponential growth of this coördinate with problem size implies that quantum control in a single atom cannot be used for scalable quantum computation. For instance, to implement a quantum computation requiring $`N=100`$ qubits, the atomic radius must be $`r_n10^{20}a_0=6\times 10^6`$km, about 5 times the diameter of the Sun.

A single atom is an example of a “physically unary” quantum computer, having a limited natural tensor-product structure provided by the small number of physical degrees of freedom. Similar poor scaling will be seen in any implementation consisting of a single particle, a single atom, or a single molecule consisting of a fixed number of atoms. The fungibility of Hilbert spaces means that one can impose an artificial tensor-product structure on the Hilbert space of these systems, equivalent to that of qubits, but this does not obviate the need to provide the physical resources to generate orthogonal quantum states. Without a scalable tensor-product structure corresponding to a division into physical degrees of freedom, the action resources along one or more of the physical coördinate axes must blow up exponentially with problem size, meaning that these systems are not suitable for scalable quantum computation.

This should be contrasted with quantum computing using multiple atoms, containing a physical tensor product structure, such as in an ion trap . Quantum information is stored in two sublevels of each of the ion’s ground states and manipulated with a limited number of vibrational states. A Hilbert space of 100 qubits requires 100 ions in their ground states occupying 100 local positions. Neither the internal nor the external degrees of freedom of the atoms require physical resources that grow exponentially in order to accommodate a $`2^N`$-dimensional Hilbert space.

## 3 Role of entanglement

Entanglement is a distinctive feature of quantum mechanics. It is clearly a resource for such quantum information protocols as teleportation, yet its role in quantum computation remains unclear. Some claim it is the property that powers quantum computation , while others downplay its significance . The situation has been clarified considerably by the recent work of Jozsa and Linden , who showed that for a qubit quantum computer—the extension to qudits is probably straightforward—entanglement among all the qubits is a prerequisite for an exponential speed-up over a classical computation. The Jozsa-Linden proof proceeds by showing that if entanglement extends only to a fixed number of qubits, independent of problem size, the computation can be simulated efficiently on a classical computer.

The Jozsa-Linden argument assumes a strictly scalable tensor-product structure. The global entanglement that accompanies exponential speed-up is a consequence of assuming this tensor-product structure and an initial pure state. Consider a computation with an exponential speed-up on a qubit quantum computer. Mapped onto a unary machine, the same computation produces no entanglement. Whether run on the unary computer or the qubit computer, the computation accesses arbitrary states—i.e., arbitrary superpositions—in the computer’s Hilbert space and has no efficient description in the realistic language of classical computation. Hilbert spaces are fungible! Global entanglement is a result of running the computation on a quantum computer with a tensor-product structure; for such a computer, arbitrary superpositions lead to entanglement among all the parts, because the states without such global entanglement occupy only a tiny corner of Hilbert space . On a physically unary computer, the same arbitrary superpositions have no entanglement.

The global entanglement in a quantum computation is thus a consequence of the need to save resources, which is what dictates a strictly scalable tensor-product structure to start with. A weak statement is that global entanglement is a measure of the computer’s ability to economize on physical resources. A stronger conclusion is that global entanglement is indeed the key quantum resource that allows a scalable quantum computer to avoid an exponential demand for physical resources. For a pure-state quantum computer, such as those considered here, entanglement is what allows the arbitrary superpositions required for quantum computation to be folded into a compact hypercube in phase space, as illustrated in Fig. 1.888In their analysis, Jozsa and Linden were careful to point out that although entanglement among all qubits is necessary for exponential speed-up, it is not sufficient: as shown by Gottesman and Knill , there are sequences of quantum gates that can be simulated efficiently on a classical computer even though they entangle all qubits. This does not undermine the conclusion that entanglement is necessary for avoiding an exponential resource demand, but it does suggest that some other quantity, presumably closely related to entanglement, might characterize more completely the ability of a quantum computer to economize on physical resources.

This line of reasoning, based on consideration of pure-state quantum computation, is supported by what is known about mixed-state quantum computation. An example is provided by liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) . In NMR the qubits are the active nuclear spins within each molecule in the liquid sample, and each molecule is an independent quantum computer, which runs an independent version of the computation. Mixed states don’t have any effect on the analysis of this paper, which shows that to avoid an exponential resource demand requires a scalable tensor-product structure—in NMR this means that the number of qubits per molecule must increase linearly, just as in a pure-state qubit computer—but the further argument that entanglement follows from accessing arbitrary states in a system with a tensor-product structure, does not work for mixed states . Indeed, with present polarizations, the states accessed in NMR are known to be unentangled up to about 23 qubits  and, for bigger numbers of qubits, are likely to be far less entangled than in a corresponding pure-state quantum computer.

In a mixed-state quantum computer, the previous connection between physical resources and entanglement is severed, but a new connection arises to take its place. The paucity of entanglement in mixed-state quantum computing betrays another resource problem. This resource problem comes about from the need to read out the output reliably in the presence of the noise produced by the mixed state and results in a demand for a number of repetitions of the computation that increases exponentially with problem size. In NMR this resource problem shows up as a demand for an exponentially increasing number of molecules. This mixed-state resource problem, which is apparently independent of the phase-space considerations that we apply to quantum computers in this paper, provides further evidence for the importance of entanglement in avoiding exponential resource demands in quantum computation.

## 4 Conclusion

Our contention in this paper is that the fundamental requirement for a scalable quantum computer is set by the need to economize on physical resources in providing the primary resource of Hilbert-space dimension. To avoid an exponential demand for physical resources, the number of degrees of freedom must grow quasilinearly with the equivalent number of qubits. This requirement means that a scalable quantum computer must have a robust tensor-product structure. Systems without such a tensor-product structure are not suitable for scalable quantum computation.

Physical systems that don’t scale properly, such as liquid-state NMR, Rydberg atoms, or molecular magnets, are still worth studying for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, they embody fundamental physical questions that are worth investigating in their own right, regardless of their relevance to quantum information science. Second, they can be used to develop new technologies for control, readout, and error correction in quantum systems. These new technologies might have applications to quantum-information-processing jobs outside quantum computation, and they might be transferable to scalable quantum computers. Finally, the scalability criteria formulated in this paper are asymptotic requirements. They are useful for assessing the physical resources required for a general-purpose quantum computer to do problems of increasing size. Yet even for this purpose, they are imperfect tools, because no real computer is expected to do problems of arbitrary size. Nonscalable systems might be able to provide sufficient Hilbert-space dimension for special-purpose quantum computations that need only a limited number of qubits, such as simulation of other quantum systems .

Hilbert space is essential for quantum computation. Yet it is an odd sort of thing to need. It is not a physical object, but rather a mathematical abstraction in which we describe physical objects. A Hilbert space gets a physical interpretation—a connection to the external world—only through the physical system that we describe in that Hilbert space. The connection is made through privileged observables—the generators of space-time symmetries, e.g., position, momentum, angular momentum, and energy—which determine a set of physical degrees of freedom for the system. This connection made, we can determine how the physical resources, measured in terms of phase-space actions constructed from the privileged observables, must grow in order to provide the Hilbert-space dimension needed for a quantum computation.

Our degrees-of-freedom analysis can be applied to the physical resources required by a classical computer. Generally the subsystems in a classical computer consist of many physical degrees of freedom. If each distinguishable configuration of a subsystem occupies a fixed phase-space volume, then our analysis shows that the physical resources required by the classical computer grow exponentially unless the number of subsystems grows quasipolynomially with problem size. But the phase-space scale in the classical analysis is not fundamental, instead being set by noise and the resolution of measuring devices. This makes the classical analysis of resource requirements dependent on other features of a classical computer. The difference for a quantum computer is that Planck’s constant sets a fundamental scale, which makes the resource requirements presented here prerequisites for scalable quantum computation, prior to the other necessary requirements for a quantum computer’s operation.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) under Army Research Office (ARO) Contract No. DAAD19-01-1-0648 and by the Office of Naval Research under Contract Nos. N00014-00-1-01578 and N00014-99-1-0247. This work grew in large part out of discussions at the Institute Theoretical Physics of the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the authors were in residence during the fall of 2001. The authors received support from the ITP’s National Science Foundation Contract No. PHY99-07949.


text:
# SDSS J092455.87+021924.9: an Interesting Gravitationally Lensed Quasar from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

## 1 Introduction

If the rate of gravitational lenses among known quasars is roughly 0.1% of all quasars (Turner, Ostriker & Gott 1984), the expected number of new gravitationally lensed quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey’s (SDSS; York et al. 2000) final spectroscopic quasar sample will be approximately $`10^2`$. Furthermore, the entire SDSS photometric sample may contain an order of magnitude more lensed systems (since the photometric observations reliably probe $`2`$ mag fainter than the spectroscopic sample).

The SDSS is a project to conduct parallel photometric and spectroscopic surveys of 10,000 deg2 of the sky centered approximately on the North Galactic Pole, using a dedicated wide-field 2.5-m telescope at Apache Point Observatory (APO) in New Mexico, USA. Photometric observations are done in five broad optical bands ($`u`$, $`g`$, $`r`$, $`i`$, and $`z`$, centered at 3561 Å, 4676 Å, 6176 Å, 7494 Å, and 8873 Å respectively (Fukugita et al. 1996; Stoughton et al. 2002). The imaging camera consists of a 5$`\times `$6 array of large photometric CCDs (2048$`\times `$2048 pixels) and 24 astrometric CCDs (2048$`\times `$128 pixels) (Gunn et al. 1998). The imaging data are reduced by the photometric pipeline (Lupton et al. 2001) using information from the astrometric pipeline (Pier et al. 2002) and the 0.5-m photometric calibration telescope (Hogg et al. 2001; Smith et al. 2002). Spectroscopic observations are done with a multi-fiber spectrograph covering 3800 Å to 9200 Å with the resolution R$`=`$1800.

We are interested in using the SDSS to find new lensed quasars since they have proven to be useful for cosmological tests, especially for the measurement of the cosmological constant by the number counts of lensed quasars (Fukugita & Turner 1991) as well as the measurement of the Hubble constant by observations of the time delay between multiple components (Refsdal 1964). Finding new lensed quasars in a large, homogeneous survey, such as the SDSS will contribute greatly to the statistics of lensed quasars (useful for measurements of the cosmological constant) and the determination of their time delays (useful for constraining the Hubble constant). To date the SDSS has yielded one new two-image lensed quasar, SDSS 1226$``$0006A,B (Inada et al. 2002) and here we report on the second lensed quasar system discovered among the SDSS quasars.

To maximize the likelihood of discovering additional lens systems, we are studying the SDSS parameters of previously known lensed quasars. In particular, we studied the parameters of SDSS J1226$``$0006, and using these parameters we developed an algorithm to select SDSS 1226-like objects from the SDSS database. This algorithm should be sensitive to lensed quasars with separations on the order of $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ to $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$. Applying this algorithm to the approximately 10,000 SDSS quasars discovered prior to 2001 December 1, we identified five lensed quasar candidates. By definition one of them is SDSS 1226$``$0006. Another candidate is SDSS J0924+0219 (09h 24m 55$`{}_{}{}^{s}{}_{^\mathtt{.}}{}^{}`$87, +02 19$`^{^{}}`$ $`24\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}9`$, J2000) which is identified as a $`z=1.524`$ quasar in the SDSS database. We obtained photometric follow-up observations of SDSS J0924+0219 using the Magellan Consortium’s Walter Baade 6.5-m (WB6.5m) telescope at Las Campanas Observatory under good seeing conditions ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}550\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}75`$). Additional spectroscopic observations of the components that were resolved by the WB6.5m images were obtained with the Keck II telescope at the W. M. Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea in $`<1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ seeing. Observations of the three other candidates from this sample have been taken with the WB6.5m telescope and indicate that these systems are also likely to be lensed quasars; these systems will be discussed in future papers.

Section 2 of this paper briefly describes the new algorithm which led to the discovery of SDSS0924+0219. Section 3 describes the follow-up observations and show the results of them. In § 4, we discuss some of the interesting aspects of this system. Finally, we present a summary of this paper in § 5.

## 2 Selection Method of Finding lensed quasars from the SDSS Quasar Catalog

We now describe the manner in which SDSS J0924+0219 was selected as a gravitational lens candidate based upon the object parameters in the SDSS object catalog (Lupton et al. 2001). First, we selected objects that were confirmed to be quasars in the SDSS spectroscopic survey (see Richards et al. 2002 for details of the SDSS quasar target selection algorithm). We rejected quasars whose redshifts are less than 0.6 since many low-redshift quasars are extended objects (Schneider et al. 2002), making it hard to distinguish them from unresolved lensed quasars. Next, we restricted our lensed quasar candidate sample using some SDSS catalogued parameters, specifically the galaxy profile fitting likelihood111We mainly used two SDSS catalogued parameters, “dev\_L” (de Vaucouleurs profile fitting likelihood) and “exp\_L” (exponential disk fitting likelihood).. As the SDSS data are passed through the data reduction pipelines, each extended object is fitted with a set of possible galaxy profiles (Lupton et al. 2001) and labeled with the likelihood that each profile explains the data. These likelihoods are useful for searching for extended quasars, so we optimized our search criteria to use these values, based on our study of the first SDSS lensed quasar, SDSS J1226$``$0006.

This algorithm targets lensed quasars whose separations are approximately $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}02\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, because we empirically confirmed that lensed quasars whose separations are less than 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 do not have large “extended” parameters in the SDSS object catalog; we cannot distinguish these small separation lensed quasars from single, unresolved quasars. For lensed quasars that have separations of more than 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5, each lensed component should appear as a separate entity in the SDSS catalog. As a result of applying this algorithm to the approximately 10,000 SDSS quasars (in $`1,100`$ deg2), we selected five lensed quasar candidates. One of these five candidates is the first SDSS lensed quasar, SDSS 1226$``$0006, and another of these candidates is SDSS J0924+0219. If the total lensing rate is roughly 0.1% of all quasars, then on the order of $`10`$ lensed quasars are expected from the approximately $`10,000`$ SDSS quasars that were known at the start of this work. About half of the lensed quasars should have $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}02\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$ separations (Chiba & Yoshii 1999); therefore, the result of this algorithm is consistent with the theoretical estimate. Whether or not this selection algorithm is the optimal way to select moderate separation lens candidates from the SDSS imaging data remains to be seen, since it could be biased towards SDSS J1226$``$0006-like lens systems. However, the successful discovery of two lensed quasars suggests that it is a reasonable method to use for our initial lens search.

## 3 Data analysis

### 3.1 Follow-up Observations

Photometric follow-up observations of SDSS J0924+0219 were obtained using the WB6.5m telescope. The data were taken on 2001 December 15 with $`u`$, $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$ filters using the Magellan Instant Camera (MagIC, a 2048$`\times `$2048 CCD camera); the seeing was 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$55$``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$75 FWHM. The pixel size was 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$069. The exposure time was 300 sec in each band. Each CCD frame was bias-subtracted and flat-field corrected.

Additional spectroscopic data were taken on 2002 January 12 with the Keck II Echellette Spectrograph and Imager (ESI; Sutin 1997), using the MIT-LL 2048$`\times `$4096 CCD camera and a 175 line mm-1 grating. We used the echellette mode. The resolution of the echellette mode of this spectrograph is 11.4 km sec-1 pixel-1. The spatial resolution scale of this spectrograph is 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$153 pixel-1. The spectral range covers 3900 Å to 11,000 Å. The exposure time was 1200 sec. We set the slit direction so that two of the three components (components A and B, see below) were on the slit at the same time. The two components are separated by 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$78 and the seeing was less than 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 FWHM; the two components are clearly distinct in the 2-dimensional ESI image. The two spectra were extracted separately using the usual method of summing the flux in a window around each object and subtracting sky from neighboring windows on either side of the trace. The only difference from a simple single spectrum extraction was that we were careful to exclude the other object from the sky windows. There was no need (and no attempt) to fit the two spectra simultaneously because we cannot see any overlap along the slit in the 2-dimensional ESI image. However, flux of component D (see below) actually affect the component A spectrum (we set the slit width 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0). We could not see it in the 2-dimensional ESI image, because component D is close to the component A, and is more than two magnitudes fainter than component A. The estimated contaminations are 6.0% of the flux of component A in $`g`$ band (4000Å$``$5500Å), 6.8% in $`r`$ band (5500Å$``$7000Å), and 7.4% in $`i`$ band (7000Å$``$8500Å), respectively.

We used a single slit position that included components A and B, which puts component G (see below) slightly off to one side. Since it is much fainter (about 2 mag fainter than component A), it is not noticeable in the spectrum.

### 3.2 Photometry

The SDSS images (sky and bias subtracted and flat-field corrected) are shown in all bands in Figure 1. Total magnitudes of the five components are 18.68$`\pm `$0.02, 18.43$`\pm `$0.01, 18.34$`\pm `$0.01, 18.09$`\pm `$0.01, and 17.98$`\pm `$0.03 in $`u^{}`$, $`g^{}`$, $`r^{}`$, $`i^{}`$, and $`z^{}`$, respectively222The filters of the SDSS 2.5-m are referred to as $`ugriz`$, while the still preliminary 2.5-m filter-based photometry will be called $`u^{}g^{}r^{}i^{}z^{}`$ (Stoughton et al. 2002). These errors in the magnitudes are statistical errors.

We show the full follow-up MagIC $`r`$ image including nearby stars (star a, star b, and star c) as well as SDSS J0924+0219 in Figure 2. The non-PSFs subtracted (hereafter “original”) $`u`$, $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$ images of SDSS J0924+0219 and the PSF-subtracted images of each band are shown in Figure 3. The upper panels are the original images and the lower panels are the PSF-subtracted images. We subtracted PSFs using stars from the original images in all bands. We used star a for the $`u`$ image, star b for the $`r`$ and the $`i`$ images and star c for the $`g`$ image, respectively. The “peak” flux and the center coordinates of stars a, b, and c and components A, B, and C were calculated by the single Gaussian fit (these results agree with the results obtained by the “imexamine” task in IRAF333IRAF is the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility, a general purpose software system for the reduction and analysis of astronomical data. IRAF is written and supported by the IRAF programming group at the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) in Tucson, Arizona. NOAO is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.). We named the three stellar components “components A–C” according to their magnitudes, the center extended object “component G” and the unknown component which remains after subtracting PSFs “component D”. The flux ratios between components A and B are 0.47, 0.44, 0.43, and 0.43 in $`u`$, $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$, respectively, and those between components A and C are 0.44, 0.43, 0.41, and 0.40. In the original $`i`$ image one can see components G and D, both are much more prominent in the PSF-subtracted images (except for $`u`$). We show the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ from the PSF subtraction in Table 1. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the $`g`$, $`r`$, and $`i`$ images of component A and component C are large, because component A has contamination from components G and D, and component C has contamination from component G. We cannot see components D and G in the $`u`$ PSF-subtracted image. This fact suggests that component D is not a quasar but rather a galaxy. We give our estimated magnitudes and colors of the three stellar components, component G and component D in Table 2. We used stars a, b, and c as the photometric standard stars using their SDSS catalog magnitudes and positions.

### 3.3 Spectra

Spectra of components A and B taken with ESI on Keck II are shown in Figure 4. Al III, Si III\], C III\], and Mg II emission lines are seen clearly; both components are quasars at the same redshift ($`z=1.524`$). The velocity difference between the two components is less than 100 km sec-1, calculated using the Mg II emission lines. The widths of the emission lines of both components are also in good agreement. We do not have a spectrum of component C, but the colors of this component indicate that this component is also a quasar. A photometric redshift can be computed for component C following Richards et al. (2001), assuming an $`iz`$ color of $`0.025`$. The resulting photometric redshift is 1.33$`\pm `$0.20, which is consistent with the redshifts of components A and C, $`z=`$1.524. The redshifts and the widths of the emission lines are summarized in Table 3.

### 3.4 Astrometry

We calculated the celestial coordinates of components A, B, and C based on the SDSS celestial coordinates of the three stars (star a, star b, and star c, Figure 2) common to the MagIC $`r`$ image and the SDSS data. The separations between components A and B, B and C, and A and C are calculated to be 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$78$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$04, 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$50$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$03, and 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$14$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$04, respectively. We also calculated the celestial coordinates of component G and component D after subtracting PSFs. The results are summarized in Table 4.

## 4 Discussion

SDSS J0924+0219 is certainly a lensed quasar because of its morphology (there is a galaxy between three almost same color quasars) and the small velocity difference and the small line width differences between components A and B. However, even though there are no emission line profile differences between components A and B, the ratio of the spectra of the two quasars is not constant with $`\lambda `$; it steadily decreases from 0.7 at 4000 Å to 0.2 at 9000 Å as shown in Figure 5. The flux of component D would affect the spectrum of component A, but the estimated contaminations are not large (see § 3.1) and it would not give a dramatically change in the spectrum of component A. The difference in the flux density ratio between the two components indicates that the two quasars might not be from the same physical source. It is possible that the slit used for the Keck spectroscopic observation was not precisely aligned along the line between components A and B; combined with differential refraction, this could have produced a spectroscopic flux density ratio different from the photometric flux ratio. However, this cannot be the full explanation, since it cannot explain why the spectroscopic flux ratio is not smooth (Figure 5).

Another possibility for the differences in the spectra of the two components is that continuum variations of the source quasar combined with the differential time delay causes the wavelength dependence in the flux density ratio. Continuum variations are often seen in quasars (Trévese, Kron, & Bunone 2001), and differences in flux ratios between lensed component continua are seen in some catalogued lensed quasar systems, e.g. HE 1104$``$1805 (Wisotzki et al. 1995) and FBQ 0951+2635 (Schechter et al. 1998)444Differential extinctions might also cause the differences of the flux ratios between the components of these two known lenses (Falco et al. 1999).. We investigate whether the large differences between the photometric flux ratios (see § 4.1) and the spectroscopic flux density ratio could be caused by the continuum variations combined with the differential time delay. We estimate the time delay between components A and B using the SIS model (Peacock 1999)555We applied our SIS model to B 1600+434 whose time delay is known to be about 50 days (Koopmans et al. 2000). Our calculation gave 35 days for this lensed quasar — in rough agreement with the observation.:

$$c\mathrm{\Delta }t=(1+z_l)\frac{D_sD_l}{D_{ls}}\alpha _E(\theta _+\theta _{}),$$
(1)
where $`D_s`$, $`D_l`$, $`D_{ls}`$, $`\alpha _E`$, and $`z_l`$ are the angular size distances from observer to the source quasar, from observer to the lensing galaxy, from the lensing galaxy to the source quasar, the Einstein radius in arcseconds and the redshift of the lensing galaxy, respectively. The observed separations from the center of the lensing galaxy are represented as $`\theta _+`$ and $`\theta _{}`$. We suppose the redshift of the lensing galaxy is 0.4 (see below), the velocity dispersion of the lensing galaxy is 230 km sec-1 (see below), $`H_0=`$70 km sec-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. Using these parameters, we determine a time delay of about 15 days. Quasars generally do not experience large variations, such as shown in Figure 4 (or Figure 5), in less than 15 days, therefore, there is a significant possibility that other additional phenomena cause the differences between the two components of SDSS J0924+0219.

One such effect might be microlensing. We cannot see clear evidence of microlensing in both spectra (Figure 4), but microlensing should be universal in quadruple lens (Witt, Mao, & Schechter 1995), therefore, it is natural that microlensing events happen to both components or to one of the two components and cause the difference between the two components (if we suppose the same situation of Q2237+0305 (Walsh, Carswell, & Weymann 1979), the microlensing optical depth (Schmidt, Webster, & Lewis 1998) supports this fact). Furthermore, if there is another object which darkens component D or component D is a second lensing galaxy (see below discussion), it might have an effect on the observed spectrum of component A, i.e. the reddening of component A could be larger than that of component B. However, this extinction should be time invariant (effectively), and therefore, we should see the same extinction in the the photometric flux ratios, but we cannot see it. Confirming spectra and direct imaging are needed to determine whether the differences between the spectroscopic and direct imaging flux ratios are real or an observational artifact.

Although the SIS model with an external shear (Kochanek 1991) predicts the existence of a fourth lensed component whose amplification is as bright as the brightest of the other three lensed components, there are no stellar components except components A, B, and C in all the images (Figure 3). Using the positions of components A–C and of lensing galaxy G (which of course might not be the only lensing galaxy) we can fit the SIS model with an external shear, with a projected potential:

$$\psi (r,\varphi )=\alpha _Er+\frac{\gamma }{2}r^2\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi 2\varphi _\gamma ),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _E`$ is the Einstein radius of the SIS model in arcseconds, $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the radial and the angular parts, respectively, of the angular position on the sky, and $`\varphi _\gamma `$ is the position angle of the shear, measured East of North. Fitting this model to the positions (but not the fluxes) of components A–C, we get $`\alpha _E=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}850`$, $`\gamma =0.065`$, and $`\varphi _\gamma =173.65^{}`$, with a source position ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$R.A., $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Dec.) = ($`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}025`$, $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}04`$) relative to component G. This value of $`\alpha _E`$ corresponds to a velocity dispersion 230 km sec-1 with the estimated redshift of the lensing galaxy (see final paragraph of this section). The observed positions of components A–C, the observed position of component D and the predicted positions of the lensed components are given in Table 5 below. With six constraints and five free parameters it is no surprise that we obtain small residuals ($`<0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}04`$) from the observed positions of components A–C. Although the flux ratios of observed components were not taken as constraints, the predicted flux ratios between components A and B and between components A and C are in agreement with the observations. The predicted position of the fourth lensed component (hereafter, component D) is shown in Figure 6a and Figure 6b. Figure 6a is the image plane of this model, and Figure 6b is the enlarged part of the $`i`$ subtracted image of Figure 3 with the measured positions of components A–C, component D and the predicted position of component D. Component D is separated by only about 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$15 from the predicted position of component D (the filled circle on Figure 6a or the open circle on Figure 6b). Also, the predicted position of component D is within the region occupied by component D (Figure 6b).

These results suggest that it is possible that either 1) component D really is the “missing” fourth lensed component, or 2) that component D is a object which is mixed component D (predicted fourth lensed component) with a foreground object that is obscuring the light from component D. According to Schechter & Wambsganss 2002, microlensing causes demagnificating (or vanishing) the fourth lensed image at “saddlepoint”. The difference between the expected magnitude and the observed magnitude is large ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{expected}m_{observed}=2.7`$), but this marginally consistent with Figure 3 of Schechter & Wambsganss 2002. Futhermore, some literatures reported that milli-lensing and/or micro-lensing produce anomalous flux ratios of four-image gravitationally lensed systems (Subramanian, Chitre, & Narasimha 1985, Metcalf & Madau 2001, Keeton 2003, and Kochanek & Dalal 2003). The second case is also likely. If there are a foreground dusty galaxy superposed upon component D, it could be obscuring and reddening the light from component D. This might also explain why component D is bluer than component G; component D may have some contribution from component D, which is expected to be relatively blue. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of component D from the PSF subtraction in the $`i`$ image is 20.91 and it is comparable with the other stellar component (Table 1), therefore, there is a possibility that component D includes a stellar component. In addition to reddening by the foreground object, the demagnifying effect of microlensing might also darken component D, and therefore, component D might be much fainter than component D.

Two additional minor possibilities are that component D is a second lensing galaxy and contributes significantly to the lensing potential, which would change the lensing model such that the predicted position of component D is incorrect, and that this lensing system has a very interesting lensing potential which produces only three lensed components. According to Keeton, Kochanek, & Seljak (1997); Kassiola & Kovner (1993); and Wallington & Narayan (1993), there are some cases that non-singular lensing potentials with large shears, large ellipticities, or large core radii produce only three lensed component. However, SDSS J0924+0219 cannot be explained by these standard lensing models, such as non-singular lensing potentials with large shears because components of a “standard” three component lensing system are expected to be on the same side of the lensing galaxy in the non-singular lens models (Kassiola & Kovner 1993; Wallington & Narayan 1993) while the three components of SDSS J0924+0219 are not on the same side of the presumed lensing galaxy (component G). Spectroscopy of image D is just one way for the question to be resolved. Higher resolution imaging, say with HST, may resolve it without any need for spectra.

According to Fukugita, Shimasaku, & Ichikawa (1995), a typical elliptical galaxy at $`0.2<z<0.5`$ has $`1.3<gr<1.8`$ and $`0.5<ri<1.0`$, which are close to the estimated colors of component G (see Table 2). The estimated colors and the spherical appearance of component G, therefore, indicate that it may be an elliptical galaxy at $`0.2<z<0.5`$. This would be the primary lensing galaxy of this lensing system. If the redshift of the lensing galaxy is 0.4, the $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$ separation of components A and B requires the velocity dispersion of the lensing galaxy to be about 230 km sec-1 in the SIS model, while the Faber-Jackson law predicts 225 km sec-1 from the $`i`$ magnitude of this galaxy ($`i=`$20.8). Here we assume that $`M_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=21.3`$, $`\sigma ^{}=225`$ km sec-1 (Blanton et al. 1999 and Kochanek 1996), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`H_0=70`$ km sec-1 Mpc-1, and the $`K`$-corrections of $`i`$ are 0.2 for a $`z=0.2`$ elliptical galaxy and 0.4 for a $`z=0.4`$ (Inada 2001). This result favors a redshift of 0.4 for the lensing galaxy, and a velocity dispersion of about 230 km sec-1.

## 5 Summary and Conclusion

Using a selection algorithm tuned to recover a previously discovered lensed quasar (SDSS 1226$``$0006), we have identified several additional lensed quasar candidates from the SDSS data. We confirmed that one of them, SDSS J0924+0219, is a lensed quasar with follow-up observations using the Walter Baade 6.5-m and the Keck II telescopes. The redshift of the source quasar is $`z=1.524`$. The maximum separation is $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}78`$. The velocity difference between component A and component B is very small, less than 100 km sec-1. We can directly see the lensing galaxy in the original MagIC $`i`$ image, and we can see it more clearly in the PSF-subtracted images. The estimated colors and the magnitudes of the lensing galaxy are consistent with those of a typical elliptical galaxy at $`z=0.4`$ with a velocity dispersion of 230 km sec-1. We can see only a faint red component near the predicted position of the fourth lensed image (using the SIS model with an external shear). We consider that this faint red component is a fourth lensed component darkened and reddened by a foreground objects and microlensing. To settle the issue of what causes the lack of the fourth quasar component, we need to obtain deeper and higher resolution images and fainter spectroscopy of component D.

Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington. G. T. R. and D. P. S. acknowledge support from National Science Foundation grant AST99-00703 and D. J. E. acknowledges support from National Science Foundation grant AST00-98577 and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. Finally, we thank the staffs of the Keck and Las Campanas Observatories for their excellent assistance.


text:
# Training of the Ni-Mn-Fe-Ga ferromagnetic shape-memory alloys by cycling in a high magnetic field

## I Introduction

The Heusler alloys of Ni-Mn-Ga system are materials with well-investigated structural and magnetic properties 1-w  that reveal shape-memory effect (SME) as the following process of the first-order structural phase transition (SPT). Stress 2-k  and temperature 3-c  induced SPT in Ni-Mn-Ga proceeds in a similar way to that in Ni-Ti where SME was demonstrated. Alloys with SME are now used as basic elements for actuators, thermo- and magnetosensors and are widespread in technique and medicine.

Ferromagnetic order of Ni-Mn-Ga allows one to consider the alloys to be a prominent kind of ”smart materials” that are to be thoroughly investigated and practically used. Predicted possibility of magnetic field controlling of the polycrystalline sample shape was proved to be correct. 4-u ; 5-j ; 6-c ; 7-c ; 8-b  The magnetic field action on deformation of a Ni Mn Ga single crystal was first investigated by Ullakko et al. 4-u  Associated with twin boundaries motion, deformations of about 0.2% had been induced by an external field of 8 kOe, applied along  axis of the crystal. The field-induced deformation of 4.3% after mechanical preloading was reported by James et al. 5-j  In Ref. 6 the one-way magnetic-field-induced SME was demonstrated. Restorable deformation value $`ϵ`$ reaches 3.5% at a 100 kOe field. In this case deformation is caused by SPT.

Magnetic properties of Ni2+xMn1-xGa alloys are conditioned by Mn atoms at which magnetic moments of 4.17 $`\mu _B`$ are localized that is strongly more than 0.3 $`\mu _B`$ at Ni atoms. 1-w  Thus partial substitution of Mn by Ni gives a region of concentrations $`x=0.160.19`$ where magnetic and SPT are close to each other or coincide. 8-b  SPT temperatures of these non-stoichiometric alloys most heavily depend on the applied magnetic field. Realization of a reversible magnetic-field-induced SPT at constant temperature and stress for these concentrations needs the field of about 100 kOe. 7-c  Inclusion of Fe allows to enhance the mechanical properties of the alloy without sacrificing its magnetic and structural properties.

The present work describes an attempt of training a ferromagnetic Ni2.16Fe0.04Mn0.80Ga polycrystalline sample for two-way shape memory by magnetic field cycling across the transition point.

## II Experimental

Polycrystalline ingots of Ni2.16Fe0.04Mn0.80Ga were produced by arc-melting of high-purity initial elements in argon gas atmosphere on a cold bottom. For homogenisation they were annealed at 1100 K for 9 days. Then the samples of $`8\times 2.5\times 0.36\mathrm{mm}^3`$ were cut out. An optical method was used to perform the investigation. 6-c  The maximal available magnetic field provided by the Bitter magnet was of 85 kOe value. Ordinary weight up to 0.05 kg was used to load the sample employing the three-point method. The temperature was varied by an electric oven.

The investigated material has Curie temperature $`T_C=340`$ K higher than the finish reverse martensite transition point $`A_f`$. Therefore, it is ferromagnetic both in the austenite and martensite phases. 7-c  Martensite transition goes from martensite transition start temperature $`M_s=312.5`$ K to martensite transition finish $`M_f=305.5`$ K for untrained sample. Reverse transition points are austenite transition start $`A_s=308.5`$ K and finish $`A_f=314.0`$ K.

The first step for the magnetic field training experiment was heating the sample to a temperature just above $`A_f`$. Then the temperature was stabilized. After this the magnetic field was slowly being increased from 0 to 85 kOe (for about 3 min) to induce SPT. After a minute pause, the field was decreased at the same rate to transfer the sample back to the austenite state. This was the procedure of a single cycle.

## III Results and discussion

The procedure of temperature training has been elaborated. The temperature dependence of Ni2.16Fe0.04Mn0.80Ga polycrystal deformation is depicted in Fig. 1. Non-zero initial deformation is conditioned by the load. For example, the processes during the first cycle are as follows.

The flat section of the curve from 323 to 314 K is a 100% austenite region. At $`M_s=312.5`$ K the martensite transition starts. The crystal lattice transforms from cubic to tetragonal. This leads to change of volumes occupied by each phase and thus to considerable deformation of the sample. This section is the superplasticity region. At heating, one can observe the reverse process with a temperature hysteresis of about 5 K. As a result the crystal recovers its initial shape in austenite phase doing work against the external force. This loop exhibits a one-way SME. With the number of cycle maximal deformation progressively rises. This is exactly the training process.

The $`M_sM_f`$ region shifts to the range of higher temperatures with the number of processed thermocycle increase. This is followed by hysteresis loop diminution. 9-s

The existence of a reversible magnetic-field-induced SPT at constant temperature in a magnetic field of about 80 - 100 kOe 7-c  allows one to change the sample deformation caused by phase transition not only by temperature change, but also by magnetic field; and to train the sample for the two-way SME by this method. The field dependence of deformation for Ni2.16Fe0.04Mn0.80Ga during training at a constant temperature of about 314 - 315 K and load $`p=0.5`$ N is presented in Fig. 2. The $`ϵ(H)`$ plots at the first, second and third cycles are shown.

Let us discuss the procedure of field cycling in more detail. As magnetic field switching off acts as a temperature rise, the graphs in Figs. 1 and 2 are reflection symmetric; and in this case we observe all the thermoelastic effects that we do at $`ϵ(T)`$ dependence. These are superplasticity — actual non-elastic change of deformation during phase transition caused by crystalline lattice transformation induced by the magnetic field, and SME — the sample shape restoration at field value decrease. The deformation value at the first cycle is 0.29% for maximal martensite, at the second cycle is 0.41% and at the third cycle is 0.48% as compared with the initial value. This increasing of maximal deformation with the number of cycles indicates the possibility of attaining the two-way shape memory by magnetic field training. The incomplete recovering of deformation is caused by unstable temperature ($`\pm `$ 1 K) and the highest available field (85 kOe) which was not enough to induce complete reverse transition. 7-c

Hysteresis loops are slightly shifted to lower fields with the cycle number increase. An effect, related to the martensitic transition start field decrease (or $`M_s`$ rise) and hysteresis loop diminution (in this case from 68 kOe for the first cycle to 60 kOe for the third cycle) is observed like in many materials with the SME at thermocycling (see, for example, Ref. 9) and can be explained as follows.

Vestiges of martensite plates in the form of dislocation tangles and local stress fields remain in the parent phase after the repeated formation and reversion of stress-induced martensite. The dislocation structure developed during cycling assists the nucleation of the preferred variants of stress-directed thermoelastic martensite during field rise (just as during cooling), thus more early martensite transition start and decreaseing the hysteresis are observed.

The plot in Fig. 3 is of an illustrative interest. Temporal dependencies of magnetic field and deformation show some delay of field-induced deformation change. This is exactly field hysteresis. The maximal deformation rise with cycle number is evident while the highest field at each cycle is the same and equals 85 kOe.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion we note that the attempt to train Ni2.16Mn0.80Fe0.04Ga sample by magnetic field cycling demonstrated that the material during the cycling revealed behaviour similar to that during the thermocycling.

There are two reasons related to each other to predict that magnetic field training of Ni-Mn-Ga alloys permits higher efficiency of field-induced SPT. The first reason is that the SPT tends to reverse transition in the same thermodynamic way as the direct one and this scheme also works at further cycles, the method of training is a principal factor of field-induced shape change efficiency. While second reason is that the transition induced by magnetic field switching off and on structurally differs from that induced by temperature change. So magnetic field should influence field cycling trained sample shape more strongly than the temperature cycling trained one.


text:
# References

HERD BEHAVIOR OF RETURNS IN THE FUTURES EXCHANGE MARKET

Kyungsik Kim, Seong-Min Yoona and Yup Kimb

$`Department`$ $`of`$ $`Physics`$, $`Pukyong`$ $`National`$ $`University`$,
$`Pusan`$ $`608`$-$`737`$, $`Korea`$
a$`Division`$ $`of`$ $`Economics`$, $`Pukyong`$ $`National`$ $`University`$,
$`Pusan`$ $`608`$-$`737`$, $`Korea`$
b$`Department`$ $`of`$ $`Physics`$, $`Kyung`$ $`Hee`$ $`University`$,
$`Seoul`$ $`130`$-$`701`$, $`Korea`$

Abstract

The herd behavior of returns is investigated in Korean futures exchange market. It is obtained that the probability distribution of returns for three types of herding parameter scales as a power law $`R^\beta `$ with the exponents $`\beta =3.6`$(KTB$`203`$) and $`2.9`$(KTB$`209`$) in two kinds of Korean treasury bond. For our case since the active state of transaction exists to decrease lesser than the herding parameter $`h=2.33`$, the crash regime appears to increase in the probability with high returns values. Especially, we find that it shows a crossover toward a Gaussian probability function near the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=360`$ from the distribution of normalized returns. Our result will be also compared with other well-known results.

$`Keywords`$: Herd behavior; Returns; Bond future prices

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-51-620-6354; Fax: +82-51-611-6357.
$`Email`$ $`address`$: kskim@pknu.ac.kr.

1. INTRODUCTION

In financial markets, there has recently been attracted the considerable interests for the microscopic models in natural and social sciences.1-3 It is in particular well-known that the major models of interest in self-organized phenomena are the herding multiagent model4,5 and the related percolation models,6,7 the democracy and dictatorship model,8 self-organized dynamical model,9 the cut and paste model, the fragmentation and coagulation model.10 One of challenging microscopic models is the herding model11,12 that means some degree of coordination and crowd effect between a group of agents sharing the same information or the same rumor and making a common decision. It has recently been introduced that the probability distribution of returns scales a power law and that it exists the financial crashes in the probability with low herding parameters and high return values.5 Moreover, the distribution of normalized returns has the form of the fat-tailed distributions13 of price return, and a crossover toward the Gaussian distribution can be shown in financial markets.

The theoretical and numerical arguments for the volume of bond futures traded at Korean futures exchange market were presented in the previous work.14 We mainly considered the number of transactions for two different delivery dates and found the decay functions for survival probabilities15,16 in our bond futures model. We also have studied the tick dynamical behavior of the bond futures price using the range over standard deviation or the R/S analysis in Korean Futures Exchange market.17 The Norwegian and US stock markets presented in recent work18 have been led to the notable persistence caused by long-memory in the time series. The multifractal Hurst exponents and the height-height correlation function have mainly been discussed numerically with long-run memory effects. It is particularly shown that the form of the probability distribution of the prices leads to the Lorentz distribution rather than the Gaussian distribution.17

The purpose of this paper is to study the dynamical herding behavior of the bond futures price for two kinds of Korean treasury bond in Korean futures exchange market. In this paper, we only consider two different delivery dates: October KTB$`203`$ and April KTB$`209`$. The tick data for KTB$`203`$ were taken from October $`2002`$ to March $`2002`$ while we used the tick data of March KTB$`209`$ transacted for six months from April $`2002`$. In section $`2`$ we mainly find the financial crashes and the distribution of normalized returns from the distribution of returns. We end with some results and conclusions in the final section.

2. FINANCIAL CRASHES AND SIMULATIONS

In our model, we introduce bond futures prices for two sets of data(KTB$`203`$ and KTB$`209`$) in Korean futures exchange market. In Fig.$`1`$, we show the time series of bond futures price $`P(t)`$ that is found in the case of bond futures of KTB$`203`$ traded for six months at Korean futures exchange market. We can also obtain numerically the price return $`R(t_i)=`$ ln$`[P(t_i)/P(t_i1)]`$, as plotted in Fig.$`2`$, when the activity of transactions takes place at the time step $`i`$. We use two sets of tick data(KTB$`203`$ and KTB$`209`$) composed of bond futures prices, and the average time between ticks for these is about one monute.

From now on, let’s consider three return states composed by $`N`$ agents, i.e., the continuous tick data of bond futures price. We assume that the states of agent $`l`$ can be constituted into $`\psi _l=\{1,0,1\}`$, where the state of clusters is given by $`s(t_i)=_{l=1}^N\psi _l`$. Thus the waiting state that occurs no transactions or gets no return corresponds to $`\psi _l=0`$, and the selling and buying states, i.e., the active states of transaction, are $`\psi _l=1`$ and $`\psi _l=1`$, respectively. The active states of transaction are represented by vertices in a network having links of time series, and we assume that it belongs to the same cluster between a group of agents sharing the same information and making a common decision. Since the distribution of returns is really related to the distributon of cluster, we can obtain the averaged distribution of cluster in our model. Fig.$`3`$ presents the log-log plot of the averaged distribution of cluster as a function of the size of the transacted states, and these scale with the scaling exponent $`\alpha =1.75`$.

In order to find the distribution of the price return $`R`$ for different herding probabilities, the network of links for $`R`$ can be selected at random value $`a=a_++a_{}`$, where $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ is, repectively, probability of the selling and buying herds. As the herding parameter is defined by $`h\frac{1a}{a}`$, the probability distribution of returns for three types of herding parameter scales as a power law $`R^\beta `$ with the exponents $`\beta =3.6`$(KTB$`203`$) and $`2.9`$(KTB$`209`$), as shown in Fig.$`4`$ (a) and (b). Here we would suggest that $`h^{}=2.33`$$`(a=0.3)`$ is the so-called critical herding parameter from our data. It is obtained that the financial crashes occur at $`a<0.3`$($`h>2.33`$). Thus the crash regime appears to increase in the probability with high returns values, since the state of transaction exists to decrease lesser.

Particularly, we can calculate the distribution of normalized returns for the bond futures price since the normalized return is given by $`(R<R>)/\sigma `$, where $`<R>`$ is the value of returns averaged over the time series and the volatility $`\sigma =(<R^2><R>^2)^{1/2}`$. In Fig.$`5`$ (a) and (b), we show, respectively, the semi-log plot of the probability distribution of the normalized returns in one case of herding probability $`a=0.1`$($`h=9`$), where the time steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$, $`10`$, $`60`$, and $`360`$ for two kinds of Korean treasury bond. Here the herd behavior for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$, $`10`$, and $`60`$ is obtained to take the form of fat-tailed distribution of price returns. On the other hand, the distribution of normalized returns really reduces to a Gaussian probability function for the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=360`$.

3. CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we have investigated the dynamical herding behavior of the bond futures price for two kinds of Korean treasury bond(KTB$`203`$ and KTB$`209`$) in Korean Futures Exchange market. Specially, the distribution of the price return for our bond futures scales as a power law $`R^\beta `$ with the exponents $`\beta =3.6`$(KTB$`203`$) and $`2.9`$(KTB$`209`$). However, our distributions of the price return arenot in good agreement with those of Eguiluz and Zimmermann5. It is in practice found that our scaling exponents $`\beta `$ are larger than theirs, because our price returns are real values for KTB$`203`$ and KTB$`209`$. It would be noted that the existence of financial crashes has extremely high probability for the active herding states making the same decision as the herding parameter takes the larger value. We would also suggest that the critical value of herding parameter is $`h^{}=2.33`$($`a=0.3`$), and it shows a crossover toward a Gaussian probability function for the distribution of normalized returns.

In future, our results may be expected to be satisfactorily studied extensions of foreign financial analysis for the won-yen and won-dollar exchange rates in Korean foreign exchange market. We hope that it will apply our model of herd behavior to the other tick data in Korean financial markets and in detail compare our results with bond futures transacted in other nations.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure $`1`$. Time series of bond futures price $`P(t)`$ for KTB$`203`$.

Figure $`2`$. Plot of the price return $`R(t_i)=`$ ln$`[P(t_i)/P(t_i1)]`$ for KTB$`203`$.

Figure $`3`$. Plot of the averaged probability distribution of cluster sizes $`s`$ for the herding probability $`a=0.5`$ ($`h=1`$), where the averaged probability distributions for KTB$`203`$ and KTB$`209`$ scales as a power law $`S^\alpha `$ with the exponent $`\alpha =1.75`$(the dot line).

Figure $`4`$. Log-log plot of the probability distribution of returns for three types of herding probabilities $`a=0.1`$, $`0.3`$, $`0.5`$ ($`h=9`$, $`2.33`$, $`1`$), where the dot line scales as a power law $`R^\beta `$ with the exponents (a) $`\beta =3.6`$(KTB$`203`$) and (b) $`2.9`$(KTB$`209`$).

Figure $`5`$. Semi-log plot of the probability distribution of the normalized returns ($`R/\sigma `$) for herding probability $`a=0.1`$($`h=9`$), where the dot line is the form of Gaussian function with (a) $`\sigma =1`$ for KTB$`203`$ and with (b) $`\sigma =1`$ for KTB$`209`$.