text:
# Re-analysis of VLT Data for M83 with Image Subtraction — Nine-fold Increase in Number of Cepheids

## 1 Introduction

Cepheid variables are one of the most important primary distance indicators due to the period-luminosity (PL) relation they obey. Precise Cepheid distances require a large number of Cepheids with accurate photometry and periods. However, the more distant the galaxy, the more important become the effects of crowding and blending with nearby luminous stars (Mochejska et al. 2000; Stanek & Udalski 1999; Mochejska et al. 2001), which introduce systematic, one-sided errors in the distance measurements and skew the distance towards artificially lower values. These effects can only be disentangled satisfactorily with the Hubble Space Telescope, which has the required spatial resolution, especially now with the new instrumentation (ACS).

The spiral galaxy M83, the principal member of the nearby M83 group, is a good target to obtain a Cepheid distance to. Observations of M83 with the Very Large Telescope (VLT) were analyzed by Thim et al. (2003) with point-spread function (PSF) photometry, discovering 12 Cepheids, which were used to derive the Cepheid distance to the galaxy. However, the “traditional” method of doing PSF fitting photometry on all the stars on an image and looking for variations in the light from night to night is not very efficient or effective in finding Cepheids in crowded fields. In this paper we re-analyze the VLT data for M83 using image subtraction to demonstrate this fact.

Observations of M83, at a distance of $`4.5`$ Mpc (Thim et al., 2003), with the 8.2 meter VLT and $`0.76\mathrm{}`$ median seeing are roughly equivalent to the DIRECT project observations of M31/M33 with the FLWO 1.2 meter telescope, at a distance of $`780`$ kpc (Stanek & Garnavich 1998) with $`4\mathrm{}`$ seeing. This fact partly motivated this paper – we would consider such poor seeing data unacceptable to run PSF photometry on. The three most recent DIRECT papers (Mochejska et al., 2001a, b; Bonanos et al., 2003) have used Alard’s image subtraction package ISIS (Alard & Lupton, 1998; Alard, 2000) to discover variables, in particular detached eclipsing binaries and Cepheids, in M31 and M33. This method has become a method of choice for variability searches in crowded fields.

At the distance of M83, the issue of blending must be taken into account in deriving the Cepheid distance. The median seeing of the VLT data is $`0.76\mathrm{}`$, which corresponds to $`17`$pc in M83. As first discussed by Mochejska et al. (2000), blending is the close association of a Cepheid with one or more intrinsically luminous stars, which is the result of the higher value of the star-star correlation function for massive stars, such as Cepheids, compared to random field stars. This effect cannot be detected within the observed PSF by usual analysis. Mochejska et al. (2000, 2001c) address the effect of blending on the Cepheid distances to M31 and M33. They compare high resolution HST images to the ground-based DIRECT data and find that blending can affect the flux of a Cepheid typically by $`2030\%`$, which leads to an underestimation of the true distance. This phenomenon is different from crowding, which is the random background luminosity fluctuation in each resolution element. In M83, a large fraction of the flux of a blended Cepheid could come from its companions, assuming the effect scales to that in M31 and M33. Based on a simulation by Stanek & Udalski (1999), this would result in a significant distance bias. Whereas the discovery of Cepheids in nearby galaxies can be done adequately from the ground given good signal-to-noise photometry, deriving the Cepheid PL distance requires high spatial resolution HST imaging.

In this paper, we apply the image subtraction method to the M83 dataset. In Section 2 we describe the observations, in Section 3 the image subtraction method and finally the results, which are discussed in Section 4.

## 2 Observations

We have retrieved the M83 data obtained by FORS1 on the ESO Very Large Telescope, from the ESO/ST-ECF Science Archive Facility. The field of view is $`6.8\times 6.8`$ arcminutes, with a pixel scale of $`0.2\mathrm{}`$ per pixel. The $`2048\times 2048`$ Tektronix CCD has 24 $`\mu `$m pixels. There are 34 epochs in $`V`$-band spanning a period of 1.5 years, from January 2000 to July 2001. Each epoch consists of 3-4 subexposures of 400 or 500 sec. More details are given by Thim et al. (2003).

## 3 The Method of Image Subtraction and Results

The images were overscan corrected and flat fielded with standard IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the NSF. routines. The transformation from rectangular to equatorial coordinates was derived using 84 transformation stars from the USNO-B1.0 (Monet et al., 2003) catalog. The average difference between the catalog and the computed coordinates for the transformation stars was less than $`0.\mathrm{}3`$ in RA and $`0.\mathrm{}3`$ in Dec. Next, we ran the image subtraction package ISIS (Alard & Lupton, 1998; Alard, 2000) on the 104 $`V`$-band images of M83.

The ISIS reduction procedure consists of several steps. Initially, all the frames are transformed to a common coordinate grid. The best seeing frame, FORS.2000-04-05T06:16:02.924 in our case, is chosen to be the reference image. Next, a composite reference image is created by stacking several best seeing frames. For each frame, the composite reference image is convolved with a kernel to match its PSF and then subtracted. On the subtracted images, the constant stars cancel out, and only the signal from variable stars remains. A median image is constructed of all the subtracted images, and the variable stars are identified visually as significant peaks. Finally, profile photometry is extracted from the subtracted images. Mochejska et al. (2001a) describes this procedure in more detail.

After locating the positions of the bright peaks, we obtained light curves for $`650`$ candidate variables. We ran them through the DIRECT pipeline (Kaluzny et al., 1998; Stanek et al., 1998) which fits model Cepheid light curves and eclipsing binary light curves and classifies the stars as Cepheids, eclipsing binaries (EBs) or other variables. After checking these light curves, we found 112 Cepheids, with periods ranging from 7 to 91 days, 2 candidate EBs and $`60`$ other variable stars. Figure 1 presents 10 sample Cepheid flux light curves. Table 1 lists the coordinates (RA, Dec) and (X, Y) on the reference image for each Cepheid and the periods. We recover all but one of the Cepheids found by Thim et al. (2003), the Cepheid C4. The periods we derive agree well with those of Thim et al. (2003), the median difference being 0.04 days and the largest difference being 0.22 days for Cepheid C6. Figure 2 plots the location of the Cepheids as circles on the reference image, their size being proportional to the period. A 29 day Cepheid is labeled for scale. On the same plot, the stars show the position of the 12 Cepheids from Thim et al. (2003). The image subtraction method detects many Cepheids in the more crowded part of the field, which is much harder to do with the “traditional” PSF photometry method.

We do not claim completeness in finding Cepheids, however we do show that Cepheids in the highly crowded and blended central regions of the galaxy can be detected from the ground with high quality data, such as these VLT observations. High resolution observations are necessary to disentangle blending for Cepheids both in the outer and inner parts of the galaxy.

## 4 Discussion

This paper re-analyzes the excellent VLT data of M83 obtained by Thim et al. (2003) using the image subtraction method. The resulting nine-fold increase in the number of Cepheids detected indicates that image subtraction should be used in crowded fields. We also present parameters and sample light curves for the 112 Cepheids we have found. These additional Cepheids are valuable for determining the PL distance to M83 accurately. However, HST observations are necessary to resolve blending effects. After we started working on this project, we became aware of the Cycle 12 program with the title “M83: Calibrating the Cepheid PL Relation” (PI: B. Madore). We note that some of these 112 Cepheids might be Population II variables, however, a PL diagram would be necessary to distinguish them.

In Figure 3, we plot the flux amplitude versus period relation for the 112 Cepheids. We have taken the full flux amplitude from the light curve and plotted the logarithm of this quantity versus logarithm of the period $`P`$. There is a definite correlation, however, it is not very tight. Paczyński & Pindor (2000) demonstrate that the period-flux amplitude relation is not universal and needs to be calibrated before being used to measure distances accurately.

In addition to these Cepheids, we also find $`60`$ other variable stars, including 2 candidate eclipsing binaries (EBs). If these are confirmed from their position on a CMD to be located in M83, they would be the first optically discovered EBs outside the Local Group. Figure 4 presents some of the more interesting light curves of other periodic or non periodic variables that we find, including the candidate EBs. There are two long period variables, which are possibly Cepheids with periods of 132 and 195 days. Their positions on the PL diagram would verify this.

We thank Danny Steeghs, David Bersier and Barbara Mochejska for helpful discussions. We thank Grzegorz Pojmański for his most useful “lc” program. We also thank Bohdan Paczyński and Dimitar Sasselov for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. This work is based on observations made with the European Southern Observatory telescopes obtained from the ESO/ST-ECF Science Archive Facility.


format: text

text:
# Simulatings POVMs on EPR pairs with six bits of expected communication

## Abstract

We present a classical protocol for simulating correlations obtained by bipartite POVMs on an EPR pair. The protocol uses shared random variables (also known as local hidden variables) augmented by six bits of expected communication.

Entanglement simulation was first introduced by Maudlin in a 1992 paper published in a philosophical journal  and was revived independently by Brassard, Cleve and Tapp in 1999 . The objective was to quantify the non-locality of EPR pairs  in terms of the amount of communication necessary to simulate the correlations obtained by bipartite measurement of an EPR pair. “The key to understanding violations of Bell’s inequality is not operator algebras but information transmission .” This approach increases our understanding of the relationships between classical information and quantum information. It also helps us gauge the amount of information hidden in the EPR pair itself or, in some sense, the amount of information that must be space-like transmitted, in a local hidden variable model, in order for nature to account for the Bell inequalities.

In this scenario, Alice and Bob try to output $`a`$ and $`b`$ respectively, through a classical protocol, with the same probability distribution, hence correlations, as if they shared an EPR pair and each measured his or her half of the pair according to a given random von Neumann measurement. In , a protocol using an infinite amount of random shared variables and eight bits of communication in the worst case was given. Independently, Steiner  presented a protocol using an infinite amount of random shared variables and 1.48 bits of *expected* communication for the simulation of von Neumann measurements in the *real plane*. Surprisingly, Maudlin  already had a protocol using random shared variables and 1.17 bits of expected communication to also simulate von Neumann measurements in the real plane. This later result was improved by Cerf, Gisin and Massar  to 1.19 bits of expected communication, still with an infinite amount of shared variables, for *arbitrary* von Neumann measurements. They were also able to generalize their protocol to simulate POVMs with 6.38 bits of communication. Although both type of simulations, worst-case and expected, used shared random variables so far, it was shown by Massar et al.  that only protocols of the worst-case communication type required shared randomness. In fact, when considering the simualtion of quantum entanglement with a protocol that uses a bounded amount of communication, an infinite amount of shared variables is needed. In , a protocol to simulate POVMs with 20 bits of expected communication, without *any* shared randomness, was detailed. Subsequent refinements have been made on the result of Brassard, Cleve and Tapp. Csirik  proposed a protocol using only six bits of communication and recently Toner and Bacon  presented a protocol using only *one* bit of communication. For a survey, one can be refered to .

In this paper, we present a protocol, based on  and , to *simulate arbitrary POVMs* on an EPR pair *using six bits of expected communication*. First, we decribe what a POVM is, what is the probability distribution of the outputs if we actually make POVMs on a $`|\varphi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$ state and display some tools that we will need for the protocol. Then a description of the protocol is given followed by an analysis.

A POVM is a family of matrices $`\{B_i\}`$ such that $`A_i^{}A_i=B_i=\text{I}`$, where $`B_i`$ is called a *POVM element*. On qubits, the POVM elements can be expressed, without lost of generality, as the linear sum of one-dimensional projectors . Thus one can find vectors on the Bloch sphere $`\stackrel{}{b}_i`$ such that $`B_i=(|\stackrel{}{b}_i|\text{I}+\stackrel{}{b}_i\stackrel{}{\sigma })/2`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are the Pauli matricies and with the completeness conditions $`|\stackrel{}{b}_i|=2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_i=0`$. Let’s assume that Alice and Bob share a $`|\varphi ^+`$ state. Alice receives the description of a POVM $`\{A_i\}`$ and Bob receives the description of a POVM $`\{B_j\}`$. If they each measure their half of the state according to their description of the POVM, Alice will produce $`a=i`$ with probability $`\mathrm{Pr}[a=i]=|\stackrel{}{a}_i|/2`$, Bob will produce $`b=j`$ with probability $`\mathrm{Pr}[b=j]=|\stackrel{}{b}_j|/2`$ and the joint probability will be $`\mathrm{Pr}[a=i,b=j]=(|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|+\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{b}_i)/4`$.

Now let us turn our attention to the presentation of the protocol. The classical protocol (with six bits of expected communication) to simulate an arbitrary bipartite POVM on a $`|\varphi ^+`$ can be described as follows:

* Alice and Bob share two random unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_2^3`$.
* Alice and Bob are given a description of their POVM $`\{A_i\}`$ and $`\{B_i\}`$ respectively.
* Alice choses the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ output of her POVM according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{Pr}[a=i]=|\stackrel{}{a}_i|/2`$.
* Alice sends $`c=\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)`$ and $`d=\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_2)`$.
* Bob choses the $`j^{\text{th}}`$ output of his POVM according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{Pr}[b=j]=|\stackrel{}{b}_j|/2`$.
* Bob checks if $`\stackrel{}{b}_j((1)^c\stackrel{}{v}_1+(1)^d\stackrel{}{v}_2)<0`$, if so he sends $`0`$ to Alice and they start over with a fresh set of random variables.
* Otherwise, Bob sends $`1`$ to Alice and they produce their output $`i`$ et $`j`$ respectively.

The analysis of the protocol is quite simple. The probability of Alice obtaining the POVM outcome $`i`$ is, as stated, $`\mathrm{Pr}[a=i]=|\stackrel{}{a}_i|/2`$. As for Bob’s marginal probability distribution, the vector $`(1)^c\stackrel{}{v}_1+(1)^d\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ can be considered as a vector pointing in a random direction. Therefore, Bob has probability $`1/2`$ of rejecting $`\stackrel{}{b}_j`$. Since each time around the probabilities are independent, Bob’s marginal probability is $`Pr[b=j]=|\stackrel{}{b}_j|/2`$. The joint probability distribution, the calculation is a bit tricky but is still straightfoward:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Pr}[a=i,b=j]=& \frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|}{4(4\pi )^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{b}_j((1)^c\stackrel{}{v}_1+(1)^d\stackrel{}{v}_2))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|}{4(4\pi )^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{b}_j(sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)\stackrel{}{v}_1+sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{v}_2))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|}{4(4\pi )^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{\Theta }(sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)\stackrel{}{b}_j(\stackrel{}{v}_1+sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{v}_2))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|}{4(4\pi )^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_2\left(\frac{1+sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)sgn(\stackrel{}{b}_j(\stackrel{}{v}_1+sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{v}_2))}{2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|}{8}+\frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|}{8(4\pi )^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_2sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)sgn(\stackrel{}{b}_j(\stackrel{}{v}_1+sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)sgn(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_2)\stackrel{}{v}_2))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{|\stackrel{}{a}_i||\stackrel{}{b}_j|+\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{b}_j}{8}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
For more details on the integration, see . As for the $`1/2`$ factor in (1), it is removed by renormalization (which is allowed since all instances are independent from one another) . To realize the protocple Alice must send two bits to Bob and Bob one bit to Alice. Since each round is independent of the preceding ones and each has probability of $`1/2`$ of ending the protocol, the protocol takes an average of two rounds, hence $`2(2+1)=6`$ bits of communication. If we are allowed block-coding, the communication can be lowered. Alice still sends $`c`$ to Bob, but she can send $`d^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{v}_2)`$ from which $`d`$ can be easily recovered. From , we know that $`d^{}`$ can be compressed to an average of $`0.85`$ bits . The communication becomes $`2(1+0.85+1)=5.7`$ bits.

Although this result is a small improvement and a simplification of the result in , much is left to do. We do not know any way to simulate POVMs with worst-case communication or even if it is possible to do so. While von Neumann measurements can be done with worst-case communcation, it is not clear that they can be done for POVMs. Von Neumman measurements have only two possible outcomes while POVMs have an unbounded number of outcomes. Can a protocol with a bounded amount of communication choose correctly between an unbounded number of outcomes? Can we generalize these types of protocols to simulate arbitrary measurements on $`n`$ EPR pairs? GHZ and other entangled states?

We would like to thank Ben Toner and Gilles Brassard for very helpful discussions and Anne Broadbent for helpful comments on the manuscript.


text:
# Untitled Document

THE LANDAUER FORMULA: A MAGIC MANTRA REVISITED

* Invited talk, XXVI International Workshop on Condensed Matter Theories, Luso, 2002
Mukunda P. Das and Frederick Green

Department of Theoretical Physics

Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200, Australia

1. INTRODUCTION

a. Prolog

In 1957, Rolf Landauer published a different and – to some of the leading transport gurus of the epoch – iconoclastic interpretation of metallic resistivity. Landauer envisioned the current, rather than the electromotive voltage, as the stimulus by which resistance is manifested. The measured voltage is simply the macroscopic effect of the carriers’ inevitable encounters with the localized scattering centers within a conductor. Around any such scatterer the carrier flux resembles a diffusive flow, set up by the density difference between the upstream and downstream electron populations. In this purely passive scenario, energy dissipation does not enter.

The Landauer theory describes electron transport in an environment of scatterers that are purely elastic. As such it is not able to address the dynamical mechanisms of energy dissipation that characterize transport. This is despite the fact that Landauer theory, like any other description of conductance, must satisfy the fluctuation-dissipation (Johnson-Nyquist) theorem at some level. The theorem implies that dissipation is always present whenever there is resistance. It is an inescapable element in every theory of conductance. A properly formulated theory will describe dissipation explicitly, in physical detail.

This paper reviews the conceptual structure of the Landauer model of electron transport, in the light of what has long been accepted as the canonical description of conductance and fluctuations: quantum kinetics. Through some straightforward instances, we discuss the lack of a clearly discernible correspondence between Landauer theory on the one hand, and standard microscopics on the other.

From our microscopic critique it follows that one must consider, longer and harder than before, how Landauer’s bold insight can be said to express its microscopic integrity. There is no question that Landauer, with his foresight and determination, inspired and guided the growth of mesoscopic physics as very few other personalities could have done. However, establishing a substantive connection with canonical microscopics remains a serious task, whether or not that fact is widely acknowledged.

b. The Rise of Landauer Theory

Landauer has recounted how his ideas languished until their resurrection, and bold reinterpretation, by a new generation of less hide-bound theorists. The main early objection seemed to be his emphasis on the localized action of the scattering impurities in opposing current flow, in an era when the theoretical dogma held that local effects could never be individually probed; all that one could (and should) do was to compute a configurational average over ensembles of samples, with a spread of scattering-center distributions. A clear account of the configurational viewpoint is in the text by Doniach and Sondheimer.

All this changed radically in the ’eighties, with the advent of truly mesoscopic sample fabrication. It was now possible to study not bulk, coarsely grained ensembles, but individual samples with individual spatial arrangements of scatterers. Moreover, the phase coherence of the carriers could now be preserved over the much shorter lengths of the samples.

Overnight, the Landauer model came into its own. A new dogma was promptly declared (though not primarily by Landauer himself): transmission is all. One result of this sea change has been that standard, thoroughly established and powerful microscopic methods, such as Boltzmann kinetics and the quantum mechanical Fermi-liquid and Kubo theories, now languish in relative disuse within mesoscopics. Those papers that apply such methods to the subject tend to be obscured in the noise (we have reviewed several such works elsewhere).

For one thing, the older approaches are much too labor-intensive to suit the milieu of instant results. For a second, it is taken – on faith alone – that they can do little else than corroborate Landauer’s far more compact phenomenology. For yet a third, all mesoscopic transport was now to occur solely by coherent elastic transmission, to all intents dissipationless (even when the fluctuation-dissipation theorem clearly states otherwise).

It is fair to say that the eclipse of standard microscopic methods in mesoscopics has no particular basis in logic. It is fashion-driven. Fashion dogma being ultimately less hard-wearing than good physics, the vogue circa 1957 did not last. Will the current one endure?1 1 Landauer reprinted his 1957 paper in J. Math. Phys. 37, 5269 (1996), with a self-explanatory commentary: “ …IBM Journal of Research and Development, is not all that easily located in 1996. As a result the frequent citations to it often assign content to that paper which does not agree with reality.”

Meanwhile, in other disciplines where short-range coherent phenomena are equally pivotal (such as nuclear matter), microscopic analysis remains not only indispensable but goes steadily from strength to strength, both in its power and sophistication. For an overview of modern developments in many-body quantum kinetics, see the volume edited by Bonitz. We now engage our subject technically.

2. ISSUES IN MESOSCOPIC TRANSPORT

a. Importance of the Landauer Formula in the Mesoscopic Literature

Landauer’s suggestion that conduction is at heart transmissive dominates the realm of mesoscopic physics. His formula, derived for noninteracting electrons in a one-dimensional (1D) uniform conductor, has wide application to a variety of physical systems: quantum wires, quantum-Hall edge states, quantum point contacts, and carbon nanotubes. There is a current consensus that the physics and technology of transport in nanodevices are fully understood by the seminal work of Landauer and its extensions, and that his model supersedes all others.

We will clarify a number of important points, which have taken on a mythical significance in the electron-transport theory of mesoscopic conductors. Some of the arguments that we present may be at odds with the consensual Landauer formalism in terms of fundamental physics. In our microscopic formulation, the Landauer formula occurs as a highly idealized case. There is an important departure here: as for any standard microscopic treatment, our description of the physics of dissipation is explicit. So it must be. In Landauer-like descriptions, it remains a congenitally murky issue.

Let us begin with a simple derivation of the Landauer conductance, after Imry and Landauer. A long, uniform 1D wire is connected to two large leads held at different chemical potentials $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$, where all energies are measured from a global zero level. Electrons flow from the higher potential $`\mu _1`$ to the lower one $`\mu _2`$ (that is, the density $`n(\mu )`$ is assumed to increase monotonically).

A disturbance $`\delta n`$ of the equilibrium electron density across the ends of the wire defines the current-density response as

$$J=(e)v\frac{\delta n}{2}(e)\frac{v}{2}\frac{n}{E}\delta E=(e)\frac{v}{2}\left(\frac{2}{\pi }D(E)\right)(\mu _2\mu _1),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`v,E`$ are the Fermi velocity and energy respectively; $`D(E)`$ is the 1D density of states. Note two points:

(i) the change in the physical carrier density $`\delta n`$ must be reduced by an ad hoc factor of two. That is because only “left-to-right” moving equilibrium carriers are understood to convey current from source to drain (an equal number of equilibrium electrons at the source flows the “wrong” way). Conversely, only “right-to-left” moving ones can carry the counter-current. Their net sum is $`J`$.

(ii) To expand perturbatively about the Fermi level, we must be in the extreme degenerate limit where all relevant energies are much less than $`E`$. The argument will not hold for classical ballistic carriers.

Next, by identifying $`\mu _1\mu _2`$ with the drop in electron potential $`eV`$ across the asymptotic source and drain leads, and by replacing $`D(E)`$ with its expression in terms of $`v`$, we get

$$J=(e)v\frac{D(E)}{\pi }(eV)=e^2v\left(\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}v}\right)V=\left(\frac{2e^2}{h}\right)V.$$
$`(2)`$
The Landauer conductance in 1D follows:

$$G=\underset{V0}{lim}\left\{\frac{J}{V}\right\}=\frac{2e^2}{h}=7.75\times 10^5\mathrm{Siemens}.$$
$`(3)`$
The important quantum ingredient is the one-dimensional density of states $`D(E)`$. Its proportionality to $`1/v`$ cancels $`v`$ in the numerator and reproduces the “universal” conductance quantum $`2e^2/h`$ irrespective of the length or material of the wire.

Landauer gave a wider interpretation of conductance quantization in terms of independent eigenchannels, through the transmission matrix. However, the real question is: What causes dissipation in a ballistic (collision-free) wire? That question remains without a definitive answer, though imaginative explanations have not been wanting\[8-11\].

The next serious point concerns the controversial use of several different chemical potentials within a driven system which is, ipso facto, (a) not in thermodynamic equilibrium, and (b) part of a topologically closed electrical circuit. The common claim that such a mismatch is absolutely required for any description of mesoscopic transport, is more than misleading. It is frankly incorrect, as Kamenev and Kohn have demonstrated through their completely orthodox quantum-kinetic derivation of Eq. (3). The thermodynamically erroneous idea of transport-induced mismatch in chemical potentials continues to propagate in the literature. It is widely employed in molecular-transistor studies; see for example Ref. .

b. Contact Effects in Quantized Conductance

Imry has given an intuitive understanding of how the finite resistance of a collision-free ballistic wire arises; it is due to the bottleneck between the rich densities of states in leads and interfaces, and the sparse one for the few open channels that are available in the wire itself. He emphasizes the central role of the reservoirs in the process of dissipation. Since the power dissipated in conduction is $`P=IV=GV^2`$, it is certainly accessible in a sample whose resistance $`G^1`$ is of order 13 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and no-one doubts its reality.

If one tries to follow logically the physics of the classic derivation of $`G`$ reproduced in Eq. (3), it is far from clear how dissipation in the reservoirs mediates the finite resistance for the ballistic channel, unless there is some manifest role for the reservoirs within the proof of the formula. There is none, of course; it is a case of “acting at a distance”, with the actors not even allowed within sight of the stage.

It is surprising, to say the least, that the result for $`G`$ does not depend in any way on material parameters or the structure of the wire-lead contacts. After all, the Imry picture still asserts that the role of remote dissipation in the leads (via inelastic collisions) is central to ballistic transport. The fundamental incompleteness of this approach becomes evident.

There is universal agreement that dissipative effects are essential to stabilize transport, ballistic or not. In subsequent accounts of Landauer theory, they are invoked as an essential function of the sample’s contacts with the macroscopic leads. Yet the same theory makes no room for dissipative processes within the core mathematical derivation of conductance. In our view this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for a serious mesoscopic transport model.

c. Experiments

Recently, in groundbreaking work, de Picciotto et al. demonstrated electronic transport in a nearly ideal, ballistic quantum wire. The wire’s remarkably fine construction rendered electron flow intrinsically resistanceless. In this device any resistance appearing in two-terminal measurements2 2 Two-terminal measurements probe both voltage and current across the macroscopic leads that feed the sample. Four-terminal measurements are those in which the voltage is measured at distinct probes on, or immediately adjacent to, the wire itself. See below. is ascribed to the current contacts, or interfaces, of the wire with its reservoir leads. Irrespective of the perfectly resistanceless quantum wire connected to the ideal leads, the contact resistance per open channel is very near the rather substantial value of $`(h/2e^2)12.9`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The de Picciotto et al. study is a tour de force. It goes to unprecedented lengths to fabricate perfectly ballistic 1D structures, minimally influenced by extraneous effects. Even so, the surprise is that their raw results for conductance quantization clearly show systematic deviations from the perfect Landauer values. This cannot be so, according to theory, unless the transmission in the sample is less than perfectly ballistic and/or dissipationless.

The above experiment, unquestionably the cleanest yet done, can be directly compared with the much earlier data from a pioneering study of 1D ballistic conductance: van Wees et al.. This was the first to report perfect quantized conductance in integer units $`n(2e^2/h)`$. A careful reader of Ref.  will note that, from the measured resistance, a lead resistance of 400 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was subtracted (an error of 3% in the value of $`h/2e^2`$). Once plotted, the thus-corrected conductance exhibited ideal quantized steps, right up to $`n=12`$.

Our central question is: What causes dissipation in the ballistic channel of van Wees et al.? If, as argued by Imry, the perfectly quantized resistance truly represents the whole of the ballistic wire’s contact “bottleneck” to its entire electrical environment, what is the physical significance of subtracting 400 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$? If it were somehow part of the contact resistance to the sample, its removal would negate a contribution that should be integral to the perfectly quantized value. If not, then it must be an experimentally distinguishable effect lying beyond the all-inclusive Landauer-Imry explanation of the contact resistance. No circuit-specific origin for the 400 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was identified by van Wees et al..

The point is that the contact resistance is not an additive lumped-circuit parameter (albeit it dissipates electrical power just as well). It cannot be analyzed as such. A mesoscopic device does not possess the well-defined boundaries to permit the additivity that we know from the world of discrete macroscopic components.

3. FURTHER ANALYSIS

a. Two-Terminal versus Four-Terminal Measurements

After several confusing debates in the literature, see for example , the current consensus is that the meaning of conductance depends on the type of measurement that is done. Points a-c of the previous Section relate to two-terminal measurements, where the current leads are also the voltage leads. The measured resistance of a two-terminal device cannot reveal the intrinsic resistance of the wire (that is, its “true” value considered as a discrete component, presumably in series with the contact resistance).

To gain insight into the intrinsic resistance, one has to make a four-terminal measurement by putting two extra voltage leads (probes) to the wire located between the reservoir contacts. These voltage probes must be noninvasive; they cannot interfere with the passage of current in the wire. The voltage drop between these probes, divided by the current through the wire, should give the resistance of the wire.

In the Landauer-Büttiker formulation  this resistance is given by $`G^1`$, where now

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}\frac{𝒯}{1𝒯}.$$
$`(4)`$
The transmission factor $`𝒯`$ gives the transparency of the barrier represented by the wire. In this picture ballistic transmission, or ideal reflectionless elastic “scattering” ($`𝒯=1`$), produces ideal (infinite) conductance, as envisaged long ago by Bloch and others.

Realization of the foregoing measurement scenario – the attainment of $`𝒯=1`$ – was the express goal of de Picciotto et al.. They reported the vanishing of the intrinsic four-probe resistance, over a wide range of gate voltage. As we have already noted in Sec. 2, the experiments of de Picciotto et al., show a two-terminal resistance that is nonuniversal; that is, $`𝒯<1`$, while the four-terminal resistance is ideal (zero), implying $`𝒯=1`$. A primitive understanding of Landauer theory might lead to the conclusion that the two-terminal and four-terminal measurements jointly harbor a contradiction.

b. Scattering Theory and Transmission

The core of the Landauer theory is the assertion that transmission is conductance. Transmission is to be computed from the quantum mechanics of elastic single-particle scattering3 3 At this simple level of description, any attempt to include inelasticity (dissipation) destroys the unitarity of the Schrödinger evolution. The wave function no longer conserves probability.. A problem arises when the wire size is of the same order as the inelastic scattering length. In that case the transmission properties of the wire are strongly affected by the leads. The current-carrying state has a dissipative component, spoiling its coherence. Even when the wire is perfectly ballistic, its contacts with the leads will induce a certain amount of decoherence. Therefore the zero-resistance state of the four-probe results (see, for example, Fig. 2 of Ref.) remains unexplained.

In principle, scattering theory is microscopic. In practice, its use in Landauer-based models is as a prop to phenomenology, rather than the reverse as in most other models. The elements of the scattering matrix are not extracted microscopically, but are left for some separate calculation to feed into the Landauer theory. In thus “outsourcing” its physics, such a framework does little to explain the key details of real devices.

An important point is that the scattering theory invoked by Landauer, Büttiker, and Imry is a one-particle theory which considers only elastic scattering and ignores altogether the inelastic processes vital to the stability of mesoscopic transport. We recall that dissipation is the unique outcome of inelastic scattering, and that dissipation through any resistance is mandatory (the Johnson-Nyquist theorem). On that score the occurrence of a finite resistance in a family of models that are purely elastic, and in which the action of dissipation in the leads (conceded by all to be essential) is so vestigial as to be totally invisible in the formalism, is an astonishing result.

4. MICROSCOPIC RESOLUTION

Dissipation is always a many-body problem. It is mediated by electron-phonon and electron-electron interactions, and many others besides. These processes unfold side by side with, say, impurity or barrier scattering which are well described as elastic one-body effects.

Whether classical or quantum, unless there is an external agent, a particle continues to travel unhindered. If there are correlations among the particles, their freedom and independence are at least partially lost. This dynamic is readily followed within Kubo’s formulation of linear-response theory: microscopic correlations in the current response will produce, directly and transparently, a finite conductivity.

a. Linear Response and the Many-Body Kubo Formula

The Kubo theory is a theory of the electrons’ full density matrix, not of the far more restrictive set of one-body wave functions. We briefly consider the core structure of the Kubo conductance formula. Complete details, including the explicit microscopic construction of the formula from both elastic and inelastic scattering processes, are in Ref.. The electrical conductivity is given by

$$\sigma (t)=\frac{ne^2}{m^{}}_0^t𝒞_{vv}(t)𝑑t$$
$`(5)`$
The velocity-velocity correlation function is

$$C_{vv}(t)=\frac{v(t)v(0)}{v(0)^2}\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _m)$$
$`(6)`$
where the expectations are taken in the equilibrium state (this gives the leading linear term in the expansion of the nonequilibrium response), and $`\tau _m`$ characterizes the dominant decay of the correlations. This parameter includes, on an equal footing, the microscopic contribution from every physically relevant collision mechanism. In the long time limit,

$$\sigma \frac{ne^2\tau _m}{m^{}}.$$
$`(7)`$
This is the celebrated Drude formula. In one dimension, the density in terms of the Fermi wavenumber is $`n=2k_\mathrm{F}/\pi `$. The conductance over a sample of length $`L`$ becomes

$$G\frac{\sigma }{L}=\frac{2k_\mathrm{F}e^2}{\pi Lm^{}}\tau _m=\frac{2e^2}{h}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{F}}{Lm^{}}\tau _m\right)\frac{2e^2}{h}𝒯_\mathrm{K},$$
$`(8)`$
in which the transmission coefficient $`𝒯_\mathrm{K}`$ (K for Kubo) is now proportional to the ratio of the effective scattering length $`v_\mathrm{F}\tau _m`$ to length $`L`$.

All of the dissipative many-body effects have been embedded within $`\tau _m`$, as well as any elastic impurity scattering. The interface physics is incorporated into the microscopic Kubo conductance as fully and directly as the physics of the device itself.

There is nothing in Eq. (8) that precludes conformity with the Landauer formula, Eq. (3). Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. This is plain from Eqs. (1) and (2), its usual phenomenological derivation. Quite unlike the analytical structure of the Kubo formula, there is no provision for the many-body physics at the interfaces that explicitly generates the dissipation. Kubo, by contrast, includes all of the physical detail that this problem demands.

b. The Landauer Formula without Landauer’s Assumptions

The microscopically consistent Kubo derivation of Eq. (3) by Kamenev and Kohn is a landmark. It lays to rest the myth that response theory can work only within the thermodynamically unfounded leaky-reservoir paradigm (where a mismatch of source and drain chemical potentials is fancied to accompany the current). However, their derivation was for a closed mesoscopic 1D loop not subject to the major dissipative effects that govern an open mesoscopic system. We now show that the Kubo formula also works just as well for open systems, and that it recovers the ideal Landauer-conductance expression as a (very) special case of Eq. (8) “in the open”.

Let us consider a simple model for the behavior of $`𝒯_\mathrm{K}`$. The wire is uniform; so are the driving field and carrier distribution within. At a distance $`L`$ apart lie the interfaces where the current is, in effect, injected and extracted. $`L`$ is not a geometrically defined quantity. Rather, it characterizes the dynamical processes for the open mesoscopic system (somewhat abstractly but quite specifically; see below). Note that it is the injection and extraction of the current that explicitly energizes the system. There is no appeal to chemical-potential differences in any way, shape, or form.

The interfaces are regions of strong elastic scattering with impurities in the leads (relaxation time is $`\tau _{\mathrm{el}}`$) and strong dissipative interactions with the background modes excited by the influx and efflux of carriers from the current source (relaxation time is $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}`$)4. 4 From the viewpoint of a carrier inside the 1D wire, its dynamical evolution in the presence of the open leads is Markovian, but over a length scale set by $`L`$ if the wire is truly collisionless (ballistic). The scattering mechanisms are independent, so that the Matthiessen rule applies:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _m}=\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{el}}}+\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{in}}}.$$
$`(9)`$
The mean free path (MFP) associated with the elastic collisions is obviously $`L`$, since by hypothesis that is the size of the impurity-free region. Therefore $`\tau _{\mathrm{el}}=L/v_\mathrm{F}`$. By the same token the MFP for inelastic scattering cannot be greater than $`L`$, though it may be less. Hence

$$\tau _{\mathrm{in}}\tau _{\mathrm{el}}=L/v_\mathrm{F}.$$
$`(10)`$
We conclude that

$$𝒯_\mathrm{K}=\frac{2v_\mathrm{F}}{L}\left(\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{el}}\tau _{\mathrm{in}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{el}}+\tau _{\mathrm{in}}}\right)=\frac{2\tau _{\mathrm{in}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{in}}+L/v_\mathrm{F}}1.$$
$`(11)`$
It is the explicit competition between the elastic processes in the mesoscopic system (whose very fabrication guarantees that the characteristic length $`L`$ will be equal to the elastic MFP), and the dissipative processes (hopefully restricted to the current injection/extraction areas bounding $`L`$, but also liable to intrude into the interior) that determines the physical, and measurable, transmission through the sample. A full-scale Kubo analysis would clarify the physics in all its microscopic detail. Nevertheless, the essence of it is already in Eqs. (8)-(11).

What is the optimum outcome for Eq. (11), and what does it yield for the conductance? The maximum value of $`𝒯_\mathrm{K}`$ is unity, and it is attained precisely when

$$\tau _{\mathrm{in}}=\tau _{\mathrm{el}}=L/v_\mathrm{F}.$$
$`(12)`$
In other words, no inelastic events intrude into the core of the wire; they all occur at the interfaces. From Eq. (8) one easily discerns the corresponding value of $`G`$ for this open, maximally ballistic 1D wire. It is the Landauer conductance $`2e^2/h`$.

Which assumptions have been made in common with Landauer? There are two.

$``$That the channels available in 1D transport are discrete, and sufficiently apart in energy that each can be treated independently;

$``$That the conductor is internally uniform over most of its operative length.

What have we NOT assumed on the way to Landauer’s rightfully celebrated result?

$``$That transport is exclusively due to an energy drop between carrier reservoirs at different (effective) densities;

$``$That coherent elastic transmission is the sole mechanism that should be included in the formula;

$``$That dissipation in an open conductor, though acknowledged to be vital (simply to save the Johnson-Nyquist theorem), is a remote asymptotic effect in the reservoirs with no immediate role in conduction.

c. Quantum Kinetics and Quantized Conductance

Both the Kubo and Landauer formulae, though radically different in philosophy, presuppose an external driving force that is weak enough to let one linearize the nonequilibrium transport equation. In practical mesoscopic devices, there is no guarantee that typical internal fields are small enough to justify linear response. As a prosaic example, we cite the case of high-mobility transistors with a strongly quantum-confined heterojunction channel. At optimum operation in a microwave-amplifier circuit, such structures must reliably sustain electric fields of order 50 kV/cm over their active region. The upper bound for linear response is much lower, at best 3 kV/cm in GaAs.

There is an evident need to extend transport theory to the nonlinear regime, while retaining all the quantum effects (not least, many-body correlations) that impart unique properties to mesoscopic structures, making them desirable for novel applications. This is done most naturally within a quantum kinetic approach. We briefly review our basic kinetic treatment of nonequilibrium transport which recovers all the results of the previous section at low fields, and also allows one to study the problem well away from linear response.

We examine the electron-transport equation in a 1D uniform wire. In steady state, with driving field $`E`$, the electron distribution function $`f_k`$ in wave-vector space $`\{k\}`$ obeys

$$\frac{eE}{\mathrm{}}\frac{f_k}{k}=\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{in}}(\epsilon _k)}\left(f_k\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{in}}^1f}{\tau _{\mathrm{in}}^1f^{\mathrm{eq}}}f_k^{\mathrm{eq}}\right)\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{el}}(\epsilon _k)}\frac{f_kf_k}{2}.$$
$`(12)`$
The scattering times $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}(\epsilon _k)`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{el}}(\epsilon _k)`$ are in general energy-dependent. Equation (12) has some essential properties:

1. Thermodynamic consistency. Only one chemical potential enters the problem, through the equilibrium Fermi distribution

$$f_k^{\mathrm{eq}}=1/\{1+\mathrm{exp}[(\epsilon _k+\epsilon _i\mu )/k_\mathrm{B}T]\}$$

(where $`\epsilon _i`$ is the threshold energy for the $`i`$th 1D subband and $`k_\mathrm{B}T`$ is the thermal energy). This is the only place at which dependence on the chemical potential $`\mu `$ comes in.

2. Microscopic conservation. The leading, inelastic collision term on the right of Eq. (12) has a restoring contribution proportional to the expectation

$$\tau _{\mathrm{in}}^1f_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{2dk}{2\pi }\tau _{\mathrm{in}}^1(\epsilon _k)f_k.$$

The inelastic collision term respects continuity and gauge invariance. Last, the second term on the right of Eq. (12) represents the elastic collisions, which work to restore symmetry to the nonequilibrium distribution $`f_k`$.

The equation can be solved systematically. For the special case that the collision times are independent of the electronic band energy $`\epsilon _k`$, there is an exact solution (not only for $`f_k`$ but also for the much richer nonequilibrium current correlation, $`𝒞_{vv}(t)`$). The response behavior parallels that for the Kubo analysis. Indeed, all of the results Eqs. (5)-(11) are recovered.

d. A Worked Example

Figure 1. Conductance of a one-dimensional ballistic wire, computed from Eq. (14) within the quantum kinetic model. We show $`G`$ as a function of chemical potential $`\mu `$. The conductance is in units of the Landauer quantum, and $`\mu `$ is in units of thermal energy. $`G`$ exhibits strong shoulders as $`\mu `$ crosses the two subband energy thresholds in succession. (These are set at $`\epsilon _1=5k_\mathrm{B}T`$ and $`\epsilon _2=17k_\mathrm{B}T`$ in this simulation.) Well above each threshold, the electrons in that subband are degenerate. The conductance tends to a well defined quantized plateau. Solid line: $`G`$ for an ideal ballistic channel: the Landauer limit. Dot-dashed line: the collision-time ratio $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}/\tau _{\mathrm{el}}`$ of the upper subband is set to the non-ideal value of 0.8. Note how the increased inelastic scattering brings down the upper plateau. Dotted line: as above, with $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}/\tau _{\mathrm{el}}=0.6`$. The departure from ideality is more pronounced. Such effects cannot be predicted from the conventional phenomenology of the Landauer formula.

We end with a presentation of the conductance obtained from our kinetic model. First, recall that the common derivation of the Landauer conductance assumes a highly degenerate electron band; that is, we are in the zero-temperature limit. If the band is even marginally full, then the full $`G`$ comes out. If the band is empty (the only other possibility at zero temperature), then there is no conduction and $`G=0`$.

In a real experimental situation at finite temperature, such as in de Picciotto et al. or van Wees et al., the carrier density in a 1D subband is controlled via a gate above the wire. The electron population duly undergoes a continuous transition, from a low-density classical regime to a high-density Fermi-Dirac one. While there is no provision for this classical-to-quantum crossover in the standard treatments of the Landauer conductance, it is no problem at all within the Kubo or kinetic treatment.

It is sufficient to note that, classically, the elastic mean free path is a function, not of the Fermi velocity, but of the thermal velocity $`v_{\mathrm{th}}=\sqrt{2k_\mathrm{B}T/m^{}}`$. In general, we must replace $`\tau _{\mathrm{el}}`$ with the expression

$$\tau _{\mathrm{el}}(n,T)=\frac{L}{\overline{v}}L\frac{n}{2|v|f^{\mathrm{eq}}}.$$
$`(13)`$
In the classical limit, $`\overline{v}=v_{\mathrm{th}}`$. In the degenerate limit, $`\overline{v}=v_\mathrm{F}`$, as in Eq. (10). We can then extend Eq. (8) for $`G`$ to all accessible regimes of density at finite temperature:

$$G=G_0\left(\frac{hn}{2m^{}\overline{v}}\right)\left(1\frac{1}{1+\tau _{\mathrm{in}}/\tau _{\mathrm{el}}}\right),$$
$`(14)`$
where $`G_0=2e^2/h`$ is the Landauer conductance quantum, and where $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ has been replaced with its equivalent expression in 1D: $`v_\mathrm{F}=\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{F}/m^{}=hn/4m^{}`$.

When the system is at low density ($`\mu \epsilon _ik_\mathrm{B}T`$) the conductance vanishes with $`n`$. When the system is degenerate ($`\mu \epsilon _ik_\mathrm{B}T`$) the conductance reaches a plateau, which is ideally quantized when $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}=\tau _{\mathrm{el}}`$. In between, it rises smoothly as the chemical potential (and density) is swept from much below the subband threshold $`\epsilon _i`$ to much above it. The result is depicted in Figure 1.

In Fig. 1 we see the conductance of a 1D ballistic wire computed from Eq. (14), with full temperature dependence, as a function of chemical potential. The threshold steps at the two subband plateaux are clear. Also clear is the progressive loss of ideality as the inelasticity in the problem is increased. Nonetheless, the characteristic Landauer steps survive robustly, even when the height of the steps no longer corresponds to perfect ballistic transport inside the body of the wire.

One principal conclusion stands out. In an open mesoscopic ballistic conductor, the close interplay of elastic and dissipative scattering dominates the form and behavior of the conductance. On its own, neither collision mode can encapsulate the relevant physics. They must be allowed to act in concert, as they do in nature.

5. EPILOG

In this paper we have shown that the Landauer quantized-conductance formula, foundational to so much of mesoscopic transport, possesses a microscopic validity and scope well beyond the popular rationale in which it has been clothed for so long. For an open mesoscopic system, there is no escaping the direct – indeed vital – interplay between elastic one-body scattering on the one hand, and inelastic many-body scattering on the other. Theories that favor the former at the expense of the latter, without adducing valid microscopic reasons for doing so, court a serious distortion of the physics.

Were it not for Landauer’s intuition and his formula, mesoscopics in the last two decades would have fared very differently. His legacy has truly been one of unprecedented progress. It would therefore be a cause for concern if, for the sake of fashion, inadequately reasoned casuistic phenomenologies were to win out in the theoretical arena over the microscopically based analytic methods first put in place by Maxwell and Boltzmann, and culminating in the contributions of Born, Fermi, Landau, and others. Such a reversal of values does not serve progress in the long term.

One criterion matters for continued reliance on any mesoscopic formula. It is not whether the formula is fashionable, nor whether it is easily finessed for yet one more quick publication opportunity. The only question that counts is whether the model has a rational and clearly traceable origin within canonical microscopics, the bedrock of modern condensed-matter physics. If the answer is “yes”, that formula will be far more likely to keep on performing well.

REFERENCES

 R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 1, 223 (1957); Phil. Mag.21, 863 (1970).

 See e.g. A. D. Stone and A. Szafer, IBM J. Res. Dev.32, 384 (1988).

 R. Landauer, in Coulomb and Interference Effects in Small Electronic Structures, ed. by D. C. Glattli, M. Sanquer and J. Tran Than Van (Editions Frontières, Gif-sur-Yvette, 1994) p. 1.

 S. Doniach and E. H. Sondheimer, Green Functions for Solid State Physicists (W. A. Benjamin, Reading, MA, 1974).

 F. Green and M. P. Das, in Condensed Matter Theories Vol. 17, ed. by M. P. Das and F. Green, (Nova Science Publ., New York, 2003).

 M. Bonitz (editor), Progress in Nonequilibrium Green’s Functions (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000).

 Y. Imry and R. Landauer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S306 (1999).

 Y. Imry, Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics second edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002).

 D. K. Ferry and S. M. Goodnick, Transport in Nanostructures (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).

 S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).

 J. H. Davies, The Physics of Low Dimensional Semiconductors: an Introduction, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).

 A. Kamenev and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. B 63, 155304 (2001).

 P. Dample, T. Rakshit, M. Paulsson, and S. Datta, Preprint cond-mat/0206328.

 R. de Picciotto, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Nature 411, 51 (2001); see also A. Chang, Nature 411, 39 (2001).

 B. J. van Wees, J. van Houten, C. W. J. Beenaker, J. G. Williams, L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. van der Marel, and C. T. Foxon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 848 (1988).

 R. Kubo, M. Toda, and N. Hashitsume, Statistical Physics II: Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics, second edition (Springer, Berlin, 1991).

 F. Green and M. P. Das, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12, 5233 (2000).

 F. Green and M. P. Das, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12, 5251 (2000).

 F. Green and M. P. Das, Fluctuation and Noise Letters 1, C21 (2001)


text:
# A Search for Intraday Variability in the Blazar PKS 2005–489

## 1. Introduction

Multiwavelength monitoring campaigns of BL Lacs find complex variability behavior, involving different modes and likely reflecting a complex mix of jet structure and emission mechanisms. Like other classes of blazars, the emission from BL Lacs is dominated from radio to soft X-ray energies by synchrotron emission from an energetic plasma that is moving relativistically towards the observer. At higher energies the emission is likely due to inverse-Compton scattering of low-energy seed photons, either synchrotron emission from the jet itself or from external sources. Intraday variability (IDV), which is typically defined as variability on timescales of $``$1 day in the source restframe, is a common characteristic of BL Lac objects (Heidt & Wagner, 1996), although in high-energy peaked BL Lacs (HBLs) IDV is less common (Heidt & Wagner, 1998). From causality arguments one can infer that the emission regions in BL Lacs are smaller than light-days modulo beaming effects, or roughly the size of the Solar System. From observed flux densities and variability timescales, brightness temperatures greater than the “Compton limit” of $`T_b>10^{12}`$ K (Kellerman & Pauliny-Toth, 1969) are implied, requiring either relativistic beaming or extrinsic (propagation induced) sources of variability. The observed variability of many sources at multiple wavelengths indicates that at least some of the variability is intrinsic, implying extreme photon densities within the source as well as relativistic beaming (Wagner & Witzel, 1995, and references therein).

PKS 2005–489 is a bright and highly variable BL Lac object. It is a member of the “1 Jansky” sample of BL Lacs (Stickel et al., 1991), which is defined by its bright radio flux density ($`S_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}1`$ Jy), flat radio spectrum ($`\alpha _r0.5`$; $`S_\nu \nu ^{+\alpha }`$) and lack of strong emission lines ($`W_\lambda `$ $`5`$Å). Despite is presence in the radio-bright 1Jy sample, PKS 2005–489 is classified as an intermediate to high-energy peaked BL Lac object because its broadband spectrum peaks in the UV. Despite the lack of detection while in a non-flaring state during our campaign (Rector et al., 2002), its proximity ($`z=0.071`$) and spectral energy distribution make PKS 2005–489 a promising TeV candidate (Perlman, 1999; Costamante & Ghisellini, 2002).

Its bright X-ray flux has allowed PKS 2005–489 to be monitored in the X-ray in detail on several occasions; and it has exhibited complex variability behavior. For example, in September 1998, there was a general increase in X-ray flux density over a 3-day period, with smaller oscillations on timescales of several hours (Sambruna, 2000). In October–December 1998 there was a massive flare, which peaked at F(2–10 keV) = $`3.33\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. During the flare, no variability was detected on intraday timescales, and there was very little shift in $`\nu _{peak}`$ at $`10^{15.5}10^{16}`$ Hz (Perlman et al., 1999; Tagliaferri et al., 2001).

Based upon the past behavior of PKS 2005–489, we designed a multiwavelength monitoring campaign with the following schedule. Short ($`23`$ orbit) observations were taken with the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) satellite at intervals of $`0.51`$ day during 19–26 August and 3–4 September 2000. Nearly continuous RXTE monitoring was completed from 27 August to 2 September 2000. Continuous optical monitoring was scheduled for 22–28 August at Cerro Tololo, Chile, Adelaide, Australia and Potchefstroom, South Africa. Unfortunately it was not possible to schedule the X-ray and optical monitoring campaigns to be coincident. PKS 2005–489 was also observed in the submillimeter by the Swedish–ESO Submillimetre Telescope (SEST) and at TeV energies with CANGAROO-II. The overall results of the multiwavelength campaign are presented in Rector et al. (2002). Here we present a search for IDV from the optical monitoring portion of the campaign.

## 2. Observation and Reduction

The optical observations for the multiwavelength campaign were designed to search for variability on timescales from minutes to days. Optical monitoring was completed with the CTIO 0.9 m telescope during 22–28 August. Unfortunately, optical monitoring could not be completed in Adelaide and in Potchefstroom due to bad weather, thereby leaving $``$16 hour holes per day in the optical coverage. In addition, the first two nights at CTIO were hampered by bad weather.

The monitoring was completed in three colors by using the CTIO B Tek (4201/1050), V Tek (5475/1000) and R Tek (6425/1500) filters. These filters are roughly equivalent to Johnson B, Johnson V and Cousins R respectively. Short exposures were taken in immediate succession. Exposure times varied from 30 to 150 seconds depending on weather conditions. Including the CCD read-out time, a cycle of $`BVR`$ observations was completed roughly every five minutes during photometric conditions. PKS 2005–489 was observable for roughly ten hours per night, allowing over 100 datapoints per filter to be obtained on most nights.

The CCD frames were overscan, bias and flat-field corrected in the standard manner. The images were shifted between exposures to avoid any systematic errors in the pixel-to-pixel calibration. Aperture photometry was completed on PKS 2005–489 and in-field stars using the IRAF APPHOT package as described in Massey & Davis (1992). An aperture of 15 pixels (6″) in diameter was chosen.

The absolute photometric solutions were determined from multiple observations of Baldwin-Stone southern hemisphere secondary spectrophotometric standards in Landolt (1992). The solutions were determined independently for each photometric night and found to be consistent to $`0.05`$ magnitudes for in-field standard stars. Twenty-three in-field standard stars were identified based upon their photometric stability during the seven nights of the campaign. These standards are shown in the optical field of PKS 2005–489 in Figure 1 and a summary of their properties is given in Table 1. The columns are:  the label in Figure 1; \[2–3\] the Right Ascension and Declination in J2000 coordinates. The coordinates are accurate to better than an arcsecond;  the $`V`$ magnitude; and \[5–6\] the B V and V R colors. Magnitude values are limited by the consistency of the nightly photometric solutions, and are therefore accurate to $`0.05`$.

The magnitude and colors of PKS 2005–489 are determined relative to the in-field standards, resulting in an absolute photometric accuracy of $`0.05`$ magnitudes and an intraday relative photometric precision of $`0.015`$ magnitudes. The measured flux densities are corrected for Galactic reddening assuming $`N_H=5\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which is consistent with BeppoSAX and ROSAT observations (Padovani et al., 2001; Sambruna et al., 1995). Extinction coefficients of $`A_B=0.351`$, $`A_V=0.265`$ and $`A_R=0.198`$ are derived via the methodology in Cardelli, Clayton & Mathis (1989). The flux density from the host galaxy, $`m_r=14.52\pm 0.01`$ (Urry et al., 2000), is also subtracted from PKS 2005–489 by assuming standard elliptical colors of B V $`=0.96`$ and V R $`=0.61`$.

## 3. Analysis

Figure 2 of Rector et al. (2002) shows the optical variability of PKS 2005–489 over the entire campaign, during which time the optical flux density increased linearly 13% over 5.2 days ($``$500 ksec), starting 22 August, and then remained constant during the night of 28 August. The X-ray flux doubled over roughly the same time period as the optical campaign (Rector et al., 2002). During this campaign PKS 2005–489 was seen in an optically bright state, with a mean magnitude of $`V=12.456\pm 0.048`$ and mean optical colors of $`BV=0.249\pm 0.010`$ and $`VR=0.230\pm 0.006`$. This is $``$1 magnitude brighter than in quiescent epochs (Wall et al., 1986; Heidt & Wagner, 1996). There is no evidence of optical color variability during the campaign; however there is evidence for long-term color variability. Wall et al. (1986) report $`BR=0.84\pm 0.06`$ in September 1981 and $`BR=0.88\pm 0.06`$ in August 1982, which is redder than the $`BR0.48`$ observed during this campaign. The trend for the optical spectrum to flatten during bright phases has been observed in other BL Lacs as well, e.g., S5 0716+714 (Wagner et al., 1996). The observed hardening of the spectrum may have been a precursor to the X-ray flare which began on 2 September 2000, unfortunately four days after the optical campaign had concluded (Rector et al., 2002).

Figure 2 shows the $`V`$ magnitude of PKS 2005–489 during the sixth night of the campaign, 27 August 2000. Figures 3 and 4 show the B V and V R color variability respectively during this time. These figures are representative of the behavior of PKS 2005–489 during the entire campaign. Despite the precision of the photometry, there is no evidence for flux density or optical color variability during any night of the campaign on timescales of hours or shorter. Any variability on intraday timescales is at a level well below the 1$`\sigma `$ RMS error of the individual measurements.

Unfortunately the RXTE observations during the campaign are mostly insufficient to search for X-ray IDV. Due to the failure of PCU0 on RXTE during the observations, as well as the faintness of PKS 2005–489 at X-ray wavelengths during the campaign, the X-ray data had to be binned by 10 ksec to obtain statistically meaningful flux density measurements (Rector et al., 2002). However, the data are sufficient to show that the long-term variability behavior in the X-ray is different than at optical wavelengths during the campaign. As shown in Figure 1 of Rector et al. (2002), the X-ray flux doubles, with no spectral change, between 19–25 August, remains constant during 26–27 August and then fades on 28 August. If the stable X-ray period of 26–27 August corresponds to the stable optical period of 28 August this indicates a $``$2 day lag between the optical and the X-ray. If this is indeed the case, this lag is much longer than observed in other blazars (Sambruna, 2000; Tanihata et al., 2001; Pian, 2002; Ulrich, Maraschi & Urry, 1997). Unfortunately the lack of detectable variability on short timescales prevents a correlation of the optical and X-ray light curves and reduces this analysis to speculation.

## 4. Discussion

There is no evidence for IDV in PKS 2005–489 during our campaign, to a relative photometric precision of $`0.015`$ magnitudes over a 6.2 day period. Similarly, the optical monitoring of Heidt & Wagner (1996) detected only modest variability in this source of 10.1% over a 5.08 day period. Nor is there any evidence for optical color variability, although this is not unexpected as the synchrotron peak is at much higher energies. Previous efforts have found little color variability in the optical and near-IR in PKS 2005–489 and other HBLs despite large variability in flux density (Tagliaferri et al., 2001; Fan, 1999).

There is no known evidence for optical IDV in this source at any epoch; which is not that unusual for HBLs, as they tend to show fewer instances of optical IDV, and with a shorter duty cycle, than RBLs (Heidt & Wagner, 1998). However, intraday X-ray variability has been seen in PKS 2005–489 on one occasion, during the last two days of the 1998 September campaign of Sambruna (2000), where oscillations of $``$20% were seen on timescales of 6–8 hours. Other campaigns have not seen X-ray IDV, e.g., Perlman et al. (1999) and Lamer (2002). Unfortunately PKS 2005–489 has not yet been monitored in the optical on short timescales during an X-ray outburst; thus it is not known if optical IDV occurs in this object during a flare, or shortly thereafter.

On longer timescales, a linear increase in optical flux density of 13% was measured during the first 5.2 days of this campaign, just a few days prior to the X-ray outburst on 2 September 2000. This behavior has been seen in PKS 2005–489 before, when it was observed to brighten gradually by $``$0.5 magnitudes during the month prior to the X-ray flare in November 1998.

The behavior of PKS 2005–489 reported here and in Rector et al. (2002) is both similar to, and different from, that seen in 1998, when massive flaring activity was reported. The flaring activity in 1998 consisted of two peaks, in September (Sambruna, 2000) and November (Perlman et al., 1999). Comparison of the X-ray lightcurves during the two 1998 peaks shows that the 2–6 keV flux densities were within 20% of one another; however, very different behavior was seen above 6 keV, where the flux density in November was several times that seen at the peak of the September flare. Moreover, the character of the variability seen at those times was quite different, with hard X-ray variability on 6–8 hour timescales recorded in September but no intraday variability seen in October and November. Unfortunately not much information exists on the optical lightcurve of PKS 2005–489 during those times, but an inspection of data from the AAVSO (J. Maffei 2002, private communication) as well as Scaltriti et al. (1999) and other observers reveals much gentler optical variability during late 1998, with a nearly constant (variations $`0.2`$ mag) optical magnitude in July-early October, and then modest (0.7 magnitude) increases in late October and late December. Comparing these lightcurves to the models of Chiaberge & Ghisellini (1999) indicates that the two 1998 flares probably originated from the same physical region, one in which both the particle injection timescale $`t_{inj}`$ and the 10–15 keV cooling timescale $`t_{cool,1015\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}`$ were comparable to the light crossing time $`R/c`$ of the varying region, because of (1) the small shift seen in $`\nu _{peak}`$, (2) the symmetry of the lightcurve during the November flare, (3) the 4-day-long near-plateau in the 10–15 keV lightcurve, and (4) the lack of response seen in the hard X-ray lightcurve until the November flare, which probably re-accelerated to even higher energies particles that had also been accelerated in September.

By contrast, while the X-ray and optical lightcurves during our 2000 campaign did show significant variability, for various reasons the data did not enable us to model changes similar to those that occurred two years earlier. As reported in Rector et al. (2002), the X-ray lightcurve showed a smooth, monotonic increase by nearly a factor 2 during 19-27 August, a decrease of $``$40% on 28 August, then roughly constant flux density between 29 August-1 September, and then a rapid increase in flux density 2-4 September, nearly quadrupling the source’s flux density within the final 2-day span. Unfortunately, however, the source was approximately a factor of 20 fainter than during the 1998 flare. Thus we were unable to observe significant X-ray spectral changes during the 2000 campaign. And then the sampling was too poor to ascertain the shape of the start of the flare on 2 September.

The optical lightcurve discussed here shows a smooth, monotonic increase of about 13% during 22-27 August. However, as already discussed we have no optical data for the latter part of the campaign when the largest X-ray excursions were seen. The 1998 and 2000 lightcurves differ in the magnitude of the X-ray varibility, which was over a factor 10 in hard X-rays during 1998, but was much less in 2000. This by itself does not yield significant constraints. But what is interesting about the 1998 and 2000 lightcurves of PKS 2005–489 is that in both cases, the X-ray variability was of significantly greater amplitude and was more violent, than that seen in the optical. And no optical IDV was seen in either year, with X-ray IDV being seen only in September 1998 but not during the main flare two months later, although in 1998 the sampling was very poor due to the poor visibility in September-December as well as scheduling constraints. This is in general agreement with what is predicted for synchrotron models, which predict more violent variability at higher frequencies, where the cooling time is shorter. However, without higher signal to noise we cannot use the 2000 X-ray lightcurves to place tighter constraints on the size of or physical conditions within the flaring regions in the jet of PKS 2005–489. Nor can we test Comptonization models with the available dataset because PKS 2005–489 was not detected at TeV energies during the campaign; and the SED of PKS 2005–489 can be explained as synchrotron emission up to energies of 20 keV and higher (Tagliaferri et al., 2001; Padovani et al., 2001; Rector et al., 2002).

We also note that PKS 2005–489 was observed to be in an unusual state during this campaign, wherein its optical flux density was as high as seen in any other epoch but its X-ray flux density was very faint compared to prior epochs. For comparison, the optical flux density for PKS 2005–489 during this campaign was 0.5–1.0 magnitudes brighter than measured in the October-December 1998 campaign even though the X-ray flux density was in a low state, with a 2–10 keV flux density comparable to that observed by Sambruna et al. (1994) and thirty times fainter than the flare observed in the October-December 1998 campaign (Perlman et al., 1999). In this campaign, and in the October-December 1998 campaign, the observed gradual increase in optical flux density was accompanied by a similar increase in X-ray flux density prior to an X-ray outburst, suggesting a rough correlation on the timescales of weeks. Due to a lack of small-scale structure in the X-ray and optical lightcurves during the two campaigns, it is not possible to determine a more precise time offset between the two wavebands. However, the large discrepancy between the ratio of X-ray to optical flux density between the two epochs indicates that the correlation is not long-term.

Thus the relationship between the optical and X-ray emission in PKS 2005–489 is unclear. As discussed above, the two 1998 X-ray flares are consistent with simple particle injection models where $`t_{inj}`$ and $`t_{cool,1015\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}`$ are comparable to $`R/c`$ of the varying region. As such, the optical peak due to synchrotron cooling is expected to follow the X-ray peak. In both 1998 and 2000 optical brightening occurs prior to the X-ray flares; and unfortunately optical coverage after these flares is poor or unavailable. On long timescales, the observed slow variability can be consistent with particle injection models if the region in question is large and/or the magnetic field is weak. However, the large discrepancy between the ratio of X-ray to optical flux density observed in this epoch and that observed in October 1998 indicates a lack of long-term correlation between the two wavebands; and it illustrates that simple particle injection events are likely an insufficient explanation for the jet emission mechanism.

## 5. Conclusions

We have presented rapid, multi-color optical monitoring carried out for a multiwavelength campaign during 22-27 August 2000 for the high-energy peaked BL Lac object PKS 2005–489. These observations are part of the multifrequency monitoring campaign reported in Rector et al. (2002). During this campaign, PKS 2005–489 was observed to be in an unusual state, bright in the optical but faint in the X-ray, just prior to an X-ray flare that began on 2 September 2000. A linear increase in optical flux density was observed during the first 5.2 days of the campaign. However, no optical flux density or color IDV was detected, although PKS 2005–489 was observed to have a flatter optical spectrum than in prior epochs. PKS 2005–489 was too faint during this campaign to search for IDV at X-ray energies.

The two 1998 X-ray flares of PKS 2005–489 probably originated from the same physical region, one in which both the particle injection timescale and the 10–15 keV cooling timescale were comparable to the light crossing time of the varying region. The coverage of our 2000 campaign prevents the study of the flare on 2 September; however, we note that, in both the 1998 and 2000, the X-ray variability was of significantly greater amplitude, and was more violent, than that seen in the optical. And no optical IDV was seen in either year. This is in general agreement with what is predicted for synchrotron models, which predict more violent variability at higher frequencies, where the cooling time is shorter.

The large discrepancy between the ratio of X-ray to optical flux density observed during this campaign and that observed in prior epochs indicates a lack of long-term correlation between the two wavebands; and it illustrates that simple particle injection models for the jet emission mechanism are insufficient to explain the long-term variability behavior of this object. The behavior of PKS 2005–489 during this and prior epochs shows a variety of violent and complex behavior, encouraging future campaigns. Twenty-three in-field standard stars are identified for future optical monitoring programs.

E. Perlman acknowledges interesting coversations with M. Chiaberge about the interpretation of multi-band blazar variability. We also wish to thank the referee for insightful comments which have improved the quality of this paper.


text:
# Measurements of the optical mirror coating properties.

## 1 Introduction.

The sensitivity of terrestrial laser interferometer gravitational wave antennae  crucially depends on how the analysis of different kind of noises in parts of the set up, especially in the optical mirrors (test masses), is in-depth. Few years ago the analysis of the mirrors thermoelastic and thermorefractive noises ”contribution” to the total noise budget was carried out . The net result of this analysis is: these types of noises can make a significant ”contribution” to the total noise if wrong material will be chosen for the mirrors. The analysis has also shown that fused silica has a serious advantage because of very small thermal expansion coefficient $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}5\times 10^7\mathrm{K}^1`$. At the same time the role of the mirrors coating has not been taken into account in this analysis. The coating of the mirror provides very important parameter of the mirror: the difference between the reflectivity $`R`$ and unity. The smaller is the value of $`(1R)`$, the higher is the sensitivity of the antenna. It is worth noting that the smallness of $`(1R)`$ also defines the sensitivity in many high resolution spectroscopical measurements.

The analysis of the role of thermoelastic noise produced due to the coating has been carried out recently by S.P. Vyatchanin and by one of this article authors and independently by M. Fejer and S. Rowan . The analytical formulas for the values of spectral densities of the noises in this publications are practically the same. The only difference is in dimensionless multiplier which depends on the ratio of the substrate (the mirror) and coating material constants. But substantial difference in  and  is in the numerical estimate of the spectral densities of the noise. This difference appears because the numerical value of the thermal expansion factor of tantalum pentoxide $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ in  has been borrowed from the experiment by Inci : $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=[4.43\pm 0.05]\times 10^5\mathrm{K}^1`$. This value is unexpectedly negative and large in contrast to , where the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=+3.6\times 10^6\mathrm{K}^1`$ has been borrowed from the measurement by Tien et al.  (positive value but without confidence limits). Due to this difference the predictions of the value of the noise produced by thermoelastic effect in  and  differs by one order. It is worth noting that this difference between these independent measurements may not be due to a mistake (or mistakes) of experiment but due to ”pathological” properties of thin tantalum pentoxide layers. This harsh description of that solid belongs to S. Witcomb , who mentioned that the properties of $`\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$ layer substantially depend on the chosen procedure of the layer deposition, and one may expect even mechanical and optical anisotropy of this type of layer.

These circumstances are the motivation for the experiments we have carried out and which are described below.

## 2 The procedures and results of measurements.

To measure the value of thermal expansion factor of tantalum pentoxide $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ we used a well known method (see e.g. ). This method is based on the measurement of bending of thin substrate plate (made of $`\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2`$ in our case) with coating, when plate is heated. The bending appears due to the difference $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}\alpha _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}`$. If one end of the plate, which length is $`l`$, is rigidly attached to massive platform (which is not distorted by change of temperature) then one can observe the displacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ of the plate free end due to the tension between the coating and the substrate that appears if the plate temperature changes by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. The value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ may be calculated using the following formula which can be easily derived from formulas (30c) and (32b) of :

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{E_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}(1\nu _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5})d_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}^2}{E_{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}(1\nu _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2})d_{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}l^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}\right]$$
(1)
where $`E_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}`$ is the plate Young modulus, $`E_{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ is the $`\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$ Young modulus, $`d_{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ is the total thickness of $`\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$ coating, $`d_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}`$ is the thickness of the plate, $`\nu _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ and $`\nu _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}`$ are the Poisson’s ratios of $`\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$ and plate solid respectively.

To reproduce the coating for a real mirror manufactured for the LIGO antenna in our tests we have prepared $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ flat fused silica plates which were very well polished and have the shape of stripes $`2\mathrm{cm}`$ long and $`1\mathrm{cm}`$ wide. A set of such thin fused silica plates-stripes was placed on a big relatively thick fused silica mini platform. The very ends of each stripe were rigidly attached to the platform. Due to the care of Dr. H. Armandula this platform (with the plates-stripes on it) was placed into the same vacuum chamber together with big End Mirror for LIGO ($`10\mathrm{cm}`$ thick, $`25\mathrm{cm}`$ in diameter), where the deposition of the multilayer coating was performed. Our fused silica plates-stripes ”received” the same 19 pairs of quarter-wavelength $`\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5+\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2`$ layers. Thus our plates-stripes were covered with the same coating (which has the thickness of $`5.5\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and the total thickness of $`\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$$`2.2\mu \mathrm{m}`$) as the big mirror. This coating provides the value of $`(1R)1\times 10^5`$.

When the process of deposition was over and the plates-stripes were detached from the platform we have got the first (unexpected) experimental result: all plates-stripes were bent. The measured value of the curvature radius of these plates-stripes was $`11\mathrm{cm}`$ (in the plane of long axis of the stripes). This bending remained unchanged many weeks after the detachment from the platform.

The main elements of the measuring set up are the two massive fused silica rectangular blocks which were rigidly attached to a heavy optical bench. A plate-stripe was rigidly clamped between two blocks. To evade damage due to the clamping a $`15\mu \mathrm{m}`$ teflon film was inserted between plate-stripe and the surfaces of fused silica blocks. Power stabilized He-Ne laser, two lenses and photodiode were installed on the bench. This simple optical system permitted to measure $`0.1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ displacement of the plate-stripe edge (”knife and slot” technique). Small box around a plate-stripe permitted to heat the plate-stripe by a slow stream of heated air.

Four sets of measurements with two different plates were carried out. The measurements with each plate were performed two times, second time‘ with the plate flipped up side down. The value of $`[\mathrm{\Delta }z/\mathrm{\Delta }T]`$ was obtained from the directly measured dependence of the edge displacement at the free end of plate-stripe on temperature. By using formula (1) with parameters $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}=5.5\times 10^7\mathrm{K}^1`$, $`E_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}=7.2\times 10^{11}\frac{\mathrm{erg}}{\mathrm{cm}^3}`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}=0.17`$, $`E_{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=1.4\times 10^{12}\frac{\mathrm{erg}}{\mathrm{cm}^3}`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=0.23`$ and measured $`[\mathrm{\Delta }z/\mathrm{\Delta }T]`$ the linear thermal expansion coefficient $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ was estimated. Its value is equal to:

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=[5\pm 1]\times 10^6\mathrm{K}^1.$$

## 3 Conclusion.

The obtained value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ is evidently closer to the one obtained by Tien et al.  then to the one obtained by Inci . In the same time our value is almost two times larger then the smaller value . In addition we have to note that our value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ is based not only on the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ but also on assumption that the values of $`E_{\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{O}_2}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ (measured by other experimentalists) are correct. Taking into account that these values may be substantially different in thin layers and that the process of deposition may also cause changes of the Young moduli values (see e. g. ), we may conclude that the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}`$ is between $`3\times 10^6\mathrm{K}^1`$ and $`7\times 10^6\mathrm{K}^1`$. The only ”remedy” to solve this problem is the direct measurement of the mirror with coating surface fluctuations spectral density. At the same time the limits (from $`3\times 10^6\mathrm{K}^1`$ to $`7\times 10^6\mathrm{K}^1`$) permit to cancel the pessimistic prediction for the spectral density of the thermoelastic noise in the coating  which was based on Inci’s value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Ta}_2\mathrm{O}_5}=[4.43\pm 0.05]\times 10^5\mathrm{K}^1`$. For example, the potentially achievable sensitivity for LIGO-II near the frequency of observation $`f10^2\mathrm{Hz}`$ may not be at the level of $`S_h1.5\times 10^{23}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}`$ (as in ) but between $`0.6\times 10^{24}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{h}1.4\times 10^{24}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}`$. It means that the projected sensitivity of LIGO-III (better than the Standard Quantum Limit) will be evidently not possible due to this noise.

To the above conclusive remarks we have to add that the ”unpleasant discovery” i.e. the observation of the ”frozen” bending of the plates-stripes with coating, which indicates the existence of mechanical stresses in the coating has to be regarded as strong argument in favor of direct measurement of the noises in coating, especially the measurement of $`1/f`$ component.

The authors of this article are expressing their sincere gratitude to S.P. Vyatchanin and H. Armandula for their advice and direct help. This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-0098-715 and by Russian Ministry of Industry and Science.