text:
# Ultrafast Photoinduced Softening in a III-V Ferromagnetic Semiconductor for Non-thermal Magneto-Optical Recording

thanks: Author to whom correspondence should be addressedthanks: Present address: PRESTO, Japan Science and Technology Corporation, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, 332-0012, Japan.

## Abstract

Through time-resolved two-color magneto-optical Kerr spectroscopy we have demonstrated that photogenerated transient carriers decrease the coercivity of ferromagnetic InMnAs at low temperatures. This transient “softening” persists only during the carrier lifetime ($``$ 2 ps) and returns to its original value as soon as the carriers recombine to disappear. We discuss the origin of this unusual phenomenon in terms of carrier-enhanced ferromagnetic exchange interactions between Mn ions and propose an entirely nonthermal scheme for magnetization reversal.

Mn-doped III-V semiconductors offer a variety of new scientific and technological opportunities through their carrier-induced ferromagnetism Munekataetal89PRL ; Ohnoetal92PRL ; Munekataetal93APL ; Ohnoetal96APL ; Ohno98Science . Their magnetic characteristics are sensitive functions of carrier density, and hence, carrier-density-modulation can lead to control of ferromagnetism. In fact, voltage-tuned Ohnoetal00Nature ; Chibaetal03Science  and photoinduced Koshiharaetal97PRL ; Oiwaetal01APL ; Oiwaetal02PRL  alteration of ferromagnetism have been demonstrated recently. In parallel to these pioneering studies on ferromagnetic semiconductors are efforts to manipulate ferromagnetic metals (or itinerant ferromagnets). A number of recent time-domain optical studies of itinerant ferromagnets have revealed novel phenomena, including ultrafast demagnetization Zhangetal02Book . However, there have been few time-dependent optical studies of (III,Mn)V ferromagnets.

Here, we report on a demonstration of ultrafast photoinduced softening (UPS) (i.e., a transient photoinduced decrease of coercivity) in ferromagnetic InMnAs/GaSb heterostructures. Pumping (III,Mn)V systems with ultrashort laser pulses has a multitude of effects that are not present in the case of ferromagnetic metals. Since laser pulses can create a transient distribution of delocalized carriers, one can anticipate significant modifications in the exchange interaction between localized Mn spins and delocalized carrier spins. This should be contrasted to the metal case where the main effect of the laser pulses is heating (either electronic or lattice heating). We observed that photogenerated transient carriers significantly decrease the coercivity ($`H_c`$). We attribute this phenomenon to the carrier-enhanced Mn-Mn exchange interaction and propose a new, extremely fast scheme for recording information on a magneto-optical disk entirely non-thermally.

Figure 1 shows a schematic band diagram of the InMnAs/GaSb sample studied. Surface pinning of the Fermi energy and the type-II broken-gap alignment between InMnAs and GaSb produces large band bending. Also shown in Fig. 1 is the selective pumping scheme we used. At the pump wavelength (2 $`\mu `$m), the photon energy (0.62 eV) was smaller than the band gaps of GaSb (0.812 eV) and GaAs (1.519 eV) but larger than that of InMnAs ($``$ 0.42 eV), so the pump created carriers only in the InMnAs layer (Fig. 1). Under our pumping conditions, the maximum density of photocreated carriers are estimated to be comparable to or larger than the background carrier density ($``$ 1019 cm-3), and, hence, significant modifications in exchange interactions can be expected.

We performed two-color time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) spectroscopy experiments using femtosecond ($``$ 150 fs) pulses of midinfrared (MIR) and near-infrared (NIR) radiation. Details of the setup were described previously Wangetal03JSC . The source of intense MIR pulses was an optical parametric amplifier (OPA) pumped by a regenerative amplifier (Model CPA-2010, Clark-MXR, Inc.). The OPA was tunable from 522 nm to 20 $`\mu `$m using different mixing crystals. We used a very small fraction ($``$ 10-5) of the CPA beam (775 nm) as a probe and the output beam from the OPA tuned to 2 $`\mu `$m as the pump. The two beams were made collinear by a non-polarizing beam splitter and then focused onto the sample mounted in a magnet with optical windows. We recorded the intensity difference of the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-components of the reflected NIR beam as well as its total intensity as functions of time delay and magnetic field.

The sample studied was an InMnAs/GaSb single heterostructure with a Curie temperature of 55 K, consisting of a 25 nm thick In0.91Mn0.09As magnetic layer and an 820 nm thick GaSb buffer layer grown on a semi-insulating GaAs (100) substrate. Its room temperature hole density and mobility were 1.1 $`\times `$ 1019 cm-3 and 323 cm2/Vs, respectively. The magnetization easy axis was perpendicular to the epilayer due to the strain-induced structural anisotropy caused by the lattice mismatch between InMnAs and GaSb. This allowed us to observe ferromagnetic hysteresis loops in the polar Kerr configuration.

Typical data showing the ultrafast photoinduced softening process are presented in Figs. 1(b) and 1(c). Here, two magnetic-field scans exhibiting ferromagnetic hysteresis loops at 20 K are shown, for $``$4 ps and 430 fs time delays, respectively. The pump beam was circularly polarized. The data at $``$4 ps delay \[Fig. 1(b)\] shows a hysteresis loop with a finite coercivity ($``$ 1 mT). However, at 430 fs \[Fig. 1(c)\], the hysteresis loop is suppressed in the horizontal direction, i.e., the coercivity is almost zero. It is important to note that the data shows almost no change \[or a slight increase (¡ 10%), if any\] in vertical size, within the sensitivity of our setup. This leads us to conclude that simple lattice heating cannot be the reason for the above observations since raising the lattice temperature should result in loop shrinkage both horizontally and vertically.

Figure 2 plots detailed photoinduced magnetization dynamics. Figure 2(a) shows photoinduced MOKE signal versus time delay at a magnetic field of $``$20 mT with a circularly polarized pump. An ultrafast photoinduced response is clearly observed. Ferromagnetic loops are plotted in Figs. 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and 2(e), which correspond to the fixed time delays indicated in Fig. 2(a). Again, near time zero \[Fig. 2(c)\], the loop is collapsed horizontally. It can be also seen that such softening lasts only for a very short time, $``$ 2 ps. As soon as the photoinduced MOKE signal disappears \[see Fig. 2(a)\], the loop returns with the original $`H_c`$ recovered \[see Figs. 2(d) and 2(e)\].

First, let us discuss the origin of the ultrafast signal in Fig. 2(a). Note that none of the field scans in Figs. 1 and 2 are offset; i.e., vertical shifts of the loops are a real effect. However, we observed similar ultrafast photoinduced MOKE signals even at temperatures far above the Curie temperature. Therefore, we believe that the ultrafast vertical shifts shown in Fig. 2(a) are not due to any change related to ferromagnetism. We can also exclude nonlinear optical effects such as state filling, band filling, and band gap renormalization as the cause of the induced MOKE signal. The two-color nature of the current measurements allows us to decouple the photogenerated carriers from the energy levels probed, i.e., the quasi Fermi level of the optically excited carrier system is too low to affect the probe. Finally, we found that the sign of the ultrafast MOKE signal depends on the sense of circular polarization of the pump Wangetal03JSC , i.e., $`\sigma ^+`$ or $`\sigma ^{}`$. These facts and considerations lead us to conclude that the coherent spin polarization of the photogenerated carriers is the origin of the ultrafast photoinduced vertical shift of the ferromagnetic hysteresis loop. Thus, such time scans provide a direct measure of the spin lifetime of photogenerated carriers. In addition, we determined the charge lifetime of the carriers to be $``$ 2 ps by standard pump-probe techniques. The short charge lifetime is probably due to anti-site defects introduced during low temperature MBE growth Smithetal89APL , but more systematic studies are necessary to understand the microscopic mechanism of the ultrafast carrier recombination dynamics.

We believe that carrier-enhanced exchange coupling between Mn ions is at the core of the observed ultrafast photoinduced softening. The phenomenon is essentially the same as what has been observed in the CW work on the same systems Oiwaetal01APL ; Oiwaetal01PE ; Munekataetal02PE  except for the very different time scales. One possible scenario is in terms of domain walls Oiwaetal01APL . Namely, creation of a large population of transient holes breaks the original balance between the exchange energy and the anisotropy energy (the latter was found to be independent of carrier density Oiwaetal01APL ). The dominance of the former results in an increase in domain wall thickness and a decrease in domain wall energy. This reduces the magnetic field required to achieve magnetization reversal, i.e., coercivity is decreased. Another possible mechanism involves the magnetic rotation of single-domain particles known as magnetic polarons. In an assembly of such particles, the interaction field among the particles is opposite to the particle magnetization and thus helps to reverse the particles. This gives rise to a reduction of the coercive field needed for magnetization reversal compared to that of a single particle. A large enhancement of the exchange coupling leads to the enlargement of magnetic polarons and thus increases the single particle magnetization. This increases the interaction field and reduces the coercive force. In either view, as soon as the transient photogenerated carriers recombine to disappear, the original value of the coercive field is recovered. This is consistent with the notion that the extremely short-lived photogenerated carriers are the cause of ultrafast photoinduced softening.

Finally, we propose a new scheme for nonthermally recording information onto a magneto-optical disk based on the observed ultrafast softening (Fig. 3). If a storage medium made of a III-V ferromagnetic semiconductor is prepared in a magnetic field that is smaller than the original coercivity but larger than the expected photo-modified coercivity, the ultrafast creation of transient carriers can soften the recording material and, thus can cause ultrafast magnetization reversal. Our experiments above showed that the softening process happens and persists only for less than 2 ps, after which the coercivity recovers its original value. Within such a time scale, any heat transfer process between spin and lattice subsystems, which takes more than 1 ns, is out of the picture. This proposed scheme, being nonthermal, possibly exceeds the fundamental limit to the data writing rate set by the thermo-magnetic process used in conventional magneto-optical recording (which is 30 MB/s in the state-of-the-art technology) Kaneko00book .

In summary, we have demonstrated ultrafast photoinduced softening, i.e., a transient coercivity decrease, in an InMnAs/GaSb ferromagnetic semiconductor heterostructure. We found surprisingly fast switching due to ultrashort carrier lifetimes in ferromagnetic semiconductor InMnAs, exceeding the fundamental time limitation set by the thermo-magnetic process. The extremely fast decay and recovery of the observed ferromagnetic softening process differentiates itself from any known ultrafast processes in ferromagnetic systems. We attribute the observed softening to the carrier-enhanced exchange interaction between Mn ions and believe that further systematic studies will provide detailed information on the microscopic mechanism of carrier-mediated ferromagnetism in these semiconductors.

This work was supported by DARPA MDA972-00-1-0034, NSF DMR-0134058 (CAREER), NSF DMR-0325474 (ITR), and NSF INT-0221704.


format: text

text:
# The Lorentz force and superconductivity

## .1 The Meissner effect

The expulsion of magnetic flux from the interior of a type I superconductor when a magnetic field is turned on can be understood, just as diamagnetism of atomic electrons, as arising from the current generated through the Lorentz electric force generated by the changing magnetic field acting on the superfluid electronsbecker . However when a simply connected type I superconductor is cooled below $`T_c`$ in the presence of a constant magnetic field, the same final state needs to be achieved, in the absence of electric forces generated by changing magnetic fields. Furthermore since the superfluid is supposed to be at rest, no magnetic Lorentz force can act. How is it possible then that a state with finite screening currents is reached?

London postulates the London equationlondon

$$\stackrel{}{v}_s=\frac{e}{m_ec}\stackrel{}{A}$$
(4)
for the superfluid velocity that should exist in the presence of the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, $`regardless`$ of how that state was reached. No justification for Eq. (4) exists within the standard theory of electromagnetism. As a plausibility argument it is argued that the wavefunction of the superconductor is ’rigid’ and that Eq. (1) with $`\stackrel{}{p}=0`$ applies for a simply connected superconductor independent of history, so that Eq. (4) is the $`only`$ possible state due to this rigidity. However this begs the question: rigidity or not, in the atom the diamagnetic current is generated through a real force generated by a real electric field acting on the atomic electron. Why can’t the final state of the superconductor be understood in the same way? How do the electrons in the superconductor ’know’ to start moving when the metal is cooled below $`T_c`$ in the presence of a magnetic field?

## .2 The rotating superconductor

In a simply connected superconductor rotating with angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$, a magnetic field exists throughout its interior given bybecker ; london

$$\stackrel{}{B}=\frac{2m_ec}{e}\stackrel{}{\omega }$$
(5)
(conventionally called ’London field’)londonmy . This has been verified experimentally for both conventionalpb ; nb ; sn  and high $`T_c`$bapb  superconductors. Theoretically it was predicted first based upon the theory of perfect conductorsbecker , for the case where the metal in the superconducting state is put into rotation. In that framework it can be understood as arising because the electrons near the surface ’lag behind’ when the body is put in rotation, and a surface current is generated. When the ions start moving the resulting electric current due to ionic motion generates a changing magnetic field which in turn generates an electric field that makes the electrons follow suit.

The existence of the field Eq. (5) also follows from London’s equationlondon , and hence is predicted to exist also when a rotating normal metal is cooled below its superconducting transition temperature, and indeed is so found experimentallysn . However we face then a similar problem as for the Meissner effect discussed above. If the electrons are rotating with the lattice in the normal state, what makes the electrons near the surface ’lag behind’ when the metal becomes superconducting to generate the interior magnetic field Eq. (5)? No magnetic field nor electric field should initially exist, so no Lorentz force acts on the electron.

Furthermore there is another mysterious consequence of Eq. (5). In the interior of the superconductor the electrons are rotating at the same angular velocity as the lattice. Assuming no force is exerted by the ionic lattice on the superfluid, the centripetal force for the electron to rotate needs to be provided by the magnetic field. However the magnetic field required for a charge $`e`$ and mass $`m_e`$ to rotate with angular velocity $`\omega `$ is $`half`$ the value of the magnetic field Eq. (5)! In other words, an electron rotating in a magnetic field rotates at the cyclotron frequency $`\omega =eB/m_ec`$ rather than the Larmor frequency $`\omega =eB/2m_ec`$. Consequently, for mechanical equilibrium, an electric field in the interior of the superconductor needs to exist:

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}\times (\stackrel{}{\omega }\times \stackrel{}{r})}{2c}$$
(6)
This electric field points towards the $`interior`$ of the superconductor. Hence it requires the negative superfluid to move slightly $`in`$ towards the interior of the superconductor to generate this field, as shown schematically in Figure 1. However, one would expect exactly the opposite: if in a rotating metal the electrons become ’free’ as the metal enters the superconducting state, the centrifugal force would push the electrons $`out`$ rather than in. However if such was the case the resulting electric field would point $`out`$, which would be incompatible with Eq. (5) and mechanical equilibrium.

We should point out that previous discussions of the electric field inside rotating superconductors within the conventional framework erroneously concluded that an electric field pointing $`out`$ existsgaw ; rys , compatible with the expectationbecker  that electrons should move $`out`$ due to the centrifugal force. This is because in analyzing the situation in the rotating frame, the contribution to the electric field arising from Lorentz-transforming the magnetic field Eq. (5) was omitted.

## .3 The quantized flux

Consider a metal ring with magnetic flux through its center in a well-localized region that does not overlap the ring, as shown in Figure 2. The flux quantization conditionlondon

$$\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{dl}=nh$$
(7)
($`n`$=integer, $`h`$=Planck’s constant) requires that if the ring is in the superconducting state the magnetic flux enclosed is an integer multiple of the flux quantumonsager :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{dS}=n\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$
(8a)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{hc}{2e}$$
(8b)
If the applied magnetic field does not satisfy the condition Eq. (8), surface currents develop in the ring so that Eq. (8) is satisfied. If the external magnetic field is changed from a value that satisfies Eq. (8) to one that does not, while the ring is in the superconducting state, the development of these ring currents can be understood: as the magnetic flux is changed, magnetic field lines will move across the superconducting ring and exert a Lorentz force on the superfluid electrons that will drive the ring surface currents necessary to satisfy Eq. (8).

However, if the ring is cooled from the normal to the superconducting state while enclosing a flux that does not satisfy Eq. (8), how do the ring currents develop? In that case no magnetic field ever exists in the ring itself, as well as no electric field, so the Lorentz force is zero. How do the electrons know to start moving?

We argue that the three examples discussed above represent unsolved puzzles in the conventional understanding of superconductivity. In the following we propose a hypothesis that explains these puzzles.

A hint to explain these puzzles arises from consideration of the electron in a diamagnetic atom. In the atom, it is the $`change`$ in the electron velocity that obeys the London-like equation (2). This can be simply understood classically. Assume the electron is rotating in an orbit of radius $`r`$. The centripetal force is provided by the ionic electric field $`E_{ion}`$:

$$\frac{m_ev^2}{r}=eE_{ion}$$
(9)
On applying a magnetic field, the $`change`$ in the centripetal force is provided by the magnetic Lorentz force. In absolute value,

$$\frac{2m_ev\mathrm{\Delta }v}{r}=\frac{ev}{c}B$$
(10)
leading to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v=\frac{e}{m_ec}\frac{Br}{2}$$
(11)
which is equivalent to Eq. (2) for $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{r}/2`$. The left-hand side of Eq. (10) follows from a variation of Eq. (9) only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }v<<v`$, which is consistent with the fact that quantum-mechanically Eq. (2) only holds to first order in the magnetic field.

From an identical consideration it is clear that we will have mechanical equilibrium for the superfluid electrons in the rotating superconductor with the correct factor of $`2`$ in the London field Eq. (5) if the superfluid electron is already rotating at a high angular velocity before the body is set into rotation, so that Eq. (10) applies just as for the electron in the atom (from Eq. (10), Eq. (5) follows for rigid rotation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=\omega r`$). If this is so, an electric field has to exist in the interior of the superconductor which provides the centripetal force to sustain the superfluid electron rotation. This implies that a non-zero $`positive`$ charge density exists in the interior of the superconductor, which in turn leads us to conclude that negative charge is expelled from the interior of the metal towards the surface when the metal enters the superconducting state.

Remarkably, this hypothesis then provides us with an explanation of the Meissner effect. When the system goes superconducting electrons in the interior are expelled towards the surface. In the presence of a magnetic field, the Lorentz force on the radially outgoing electron will give rise to a tangential force in the direction needed to generate the surface currents that will screen the magnetic field, as shown schematically in Figure 3.

Furthermore this assumption provides a natural explanation for why the superfluid electrons near the surface ’lag behind’ when a rotating metal becomes superconducting: electrons flow out, and if the body is rotating there is a Coriolis force on the outward flowing electrons that makes them lag behind when they approach the surface. Simply put, the electron from the interior has a smaller tangential velocity so that when it flows out it will lag the faster motion occuring at larger r.

Finally, how do the electrons in the superconducting ring threaded by magnetic flux get set into motion when neither a magnetic field nor an electric field nor a preexistent superfluid velocity exist in the ring? When the superconductor expels electrons from its interior we need to assume that the wavefunction of these electrons near the surface ’leaks out’ and reaches the region where the magnetic field is non-zero, as shown in Figure 4. This occurs through a radially inward velocity, which when the wavefunction reaches the region of non-zero magnetic field gives rise to a Lorentz force in the tangential direction that can set the surface current in the superconducting ring into motion. Note that this implies that the current generated will always be such that the magnetic field generated by the ring currents opposes the pre-existing flux, hence will ’round down’ the non-integral flux quantum number generated by the applied field.

We point out that the theory of hole superconductivityhole  predicts that electrons are expelled from the interior of superconductors when the transition to superconductivity occurscharge , that a radially outward electric field exists in the interior of superconductorscharge ; atom , and that the wavefunctions of electrons will leak out from the body of the superconductoratom , as required by the explanations discussed above. Of course other explanations may also be possible.

The reader may note that the proposed solution to these puzzles raises another puzzle. If superfluid electrons are rotating in the absence of body rotation and magnetic fields, why is no current observed? The reason is that when electrons are expelled from the interior of the superconductor, interaction of the electron spin of the radially outgoing electron with the ionic lattice will deflect electrons of opposite spin tangentially in opposite directionsatom ; ferro . As a consequence, macroscopic spin currents are predicted to exist in superconductors if this scenario is correct. This phenomenon and some experimental consequences are also discussed in ref. atom .


text:
# Affine Quantum Gravity11footnote 1This essay received an “honorable mention” in the 2003 Essay Competition of the Gravity Research Foundation.

## Metric positivity

Most operator descriptions of quantum theory adopt (or are equivalent to) a Hamiltonian point of view. Specifically, there are several kinematical operators obeying a basic algebra, and for quantum gravity we choose so-called affine commutation relations, which are not equivalent to canonical commutation relations. The determining factor in this choice is ensuring commutation relations among self-adjoint field operators that preserve the spectral properties implicit in metric positivity (strictly positive spatial distances). A one-parameter analog provides a useful clarification. Let $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$ denote Hermitian quantum operators obeying the Heisenberg commutation relation $`[\widehat{q},\widehat{p}]=i\mathrm{}I`$. Insist that $`\widehat{q}`$ be self adjoint with a positive spectrum, $`\widehat{q}>0`$. Then $`\widehat{p}`$ cannot simultaneously be self adjoint for otherwise it would serve to generate unitary translations of $`\widehat{q}`$ thus violating spectral positivity. The remedy is simple: multiply the Heisenberg relation by $`\widehat{q}`$ to obtain $`[\widehat{q},\widehat{d}]=i\mathrm{}\widehat{q}`$, where $`\widehat{d}=(\widehat{q}\widehat{p}+\widehat{p}\widehat{q})/2`$. Choose the new, affine commutation relation as basic; then $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{d}`$ can both be self adjoint since $`\widehat{d}`$ serves to dilate $`\widehat{q}`$, thereby preserving spectral positivity.

Affine commutation relations for the spatial metric tensor operator $`\widehat{g}_{ab}(x)`$ $`[=\widehat{g}_{ba}(x)]`$ and its dilation partner $`\widehat{\pi }_d^c(x)`$ entail self-adjoint field operators (after smearing) that have the property of respecting metric positivity. Here $`\widehat{\pi }_d^c(x)`$ is the quantum field associated with the classical “momentric” field $`\pi _d^c(x)=\pi ^{cb}(x)g_{bd}(x)`$, where $`\pi ^{cb}(x)[=\pi ^{bc}(x)]`$ is the ADM classical momentum conjugate to the classical spatial metric tensor $`g_{ab}(x)[=g_{ba}(x)]`$. The affine commutation relations for quantum gravity are then nothing more than commutation expressions (modulo the usual $`i\mathrm{}`$) of the associated Poisson brackets for the classical fields $`g_{ab}(x)`$ and $`\pi _d^c(y)`$ that follow directly from the usual Poisson brackets for the classical fields $`g_{ab}(x)`$ and $`\pi ^{cd}(y)`$. Classically, canonical kinematical variables ($`g_{ab}`$ and $`\pi ^{cd}`$) are entirely equivalent to affine kinematical variables ($`g_{ab}`$ and $`\pi _d^c`$); quantum mechanically, only the affine kinematical variables ($`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }_d^c`$) preserve metric positivity, and their adoption precludes the canonical momentum from even exisiting as an operator!

## Constraints

Let us turn attention to a brief account of a unified procedure to deal with all kinds of quantum constraints. Classically, constraints are a set of real functions, $`\{\varphi _\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^A`$, of the classical phase space variables, and their vanishing restricts the system to a subset of the original phase space, called the constraint hypersurface, determined by $`\varphi _\alpha =0`$ for all $`\alpha `$. Quantum mechanically, constraints are self-adjoint operators, $`\{\widehat{\varphi }_\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^A`$, that are related to $`\{\varphi _\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^A`$ by quantization. While $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \varphi _\alpha ^2=0`$ on the constraint hypersurface, it does not follow that $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \widehat{\varphi }_\alpha ^2`$ vanishes on any subspace, but generally $`X0`$ if $`\mathrm{}0`$. We focus on a subspace of the original Hilbert space, $`\mathrm{IE}`$, where $`\mathrm{IE}=\mathrm{IE}((\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \widehat{\varphi }_\alpha ^2\delta (\mathrm{})^2))`$ is a projection operator that satisfies $`0\mathrm{IE}X\mathrm{IE}\delta (\mathrm{})^2I`$. By choosing $`\delta (\mathrm{})^2`$ suitably, various types of constraints may be covered, e.g.: (a) if $`\widehat{\varphi }_\alpha =J_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, where $`J_\alpha `$ are generators of SO(3), then $`\delta (\mathrm{})^2=\mathrm{}^2/2`$ forces $`J_\alpha =0`$ for all $`\alpha `$; (b) if $`\widehat{\varphi }_1=\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }_2=\widehat{q}`$, then $`\delta (\mathrm{})^2=\mathrm{}`$ leads to $`\mathrm{IE}`$ as a projection operator onto states $`|\psi `$ that satisfy $`(\widehat{q}+i\widehat{p})|\psi =0`$; (c) if $`\widehat{\varphi }_1=\widehat{q}`$ alone, then we may choose (say) $`\delta (\mathrm{})^2=10^{1000}`$. For case: (a) $`X`$ has a discrete spectrum including zero, and corresponds to first-class constraints; (b) $`X`$ has a discrete spectrum not including zero, and corresponds to second-class constraints; and (c) $`X`$ has a continuous spectrum including zero, and $`\delta `$ is chosen ridiculously small so that highly unphysical energies would be needed to induce excitations above the lowest level for that (sub)system (it is also possible to let $`\delta 0`$ as a suitable limit to enforce $`\widehat{q}=0`$ exactly). These few examples illustrate how general constraint operators can be treated within the projection operator formalism  in a remarkably similar fashion.

For gravity, all physics enters through four constraint fields expressing invariance under coordinate transformations. Mutual consistency of the constraints as expressed by their Poisson brackets leads to an open set of first-class constraints (not characterized by a Lie agebra). When quantized, the consistency of these constraints exhibits an anomaly, i.e., they are partially second class. While others change the theory to avoid this conclusion, we accept it. The projection operator approach to quantum constraints outlined above incorporates second-class constraints as readily as it does first class ones. Therefore, affine quantum gravity formally extends to incorporate the four constraint operator fields of gravity. To incorporate such constraints, some sort of regularization is required.

## Nonrenormalizability

To deal with nonrenormalizability it helps to understand what it means for an interaction to be perturbatively nonrenormalizable. Consider the schematic functional integral

$`S_\lambda (h)={\displaystyle e^{{\scriptscriptstyle hf}}e^{Q(f)\lambda N(f)}𝒟f},`$
where $`f`$ denotes generic fields ($`h`$ denotes source fields), and $`Q`$ and $`N`$ denote quadratic and nonquadratic components of the action, respectively. If, for all relevant $`f`$, $`Q(f)<\mathrm{}N(f)<\mathrm{}`$, then $`lim_{\lambda 0^+}S_\lambda (h)=S_0(h)`$, and this situation corresponds to (super)renormalizable interactions. However, if $`Q(f)<\mathrm{}\overline{)}N(f)<\mathrm{}`$, then $`lim_{\lambda 0^+}S_\lambda (h)=S_0^{}(h)S_0(h)`$, and this situation corresponds to nonrenormalizable interactions. This result holds because $`N(f)`$ acts partially as a hard core in field space, and the expression $`S_0^{}(h)`$ differs from $`S_0(h)`$ because it retains the hard-core effects even after $`\lambda 0^+`$. Note that the interacting theory is not even continuously connected to the noninteracting theory! Consequently, it is not surprising that a power series expansion of a (regularized) hard-core, nonrenormalizable interaction leads to an ever increasing variety of divergent contributions.

The hard-core picture for nonrenormalizable interactions is quite general , and formally it applies to various nonrenormalizable models, including gravity. However, incorporating a hard core within a functional integral is challenging, and only recently  has a fully specific proposal been advanced regarding how one might achieve nontrivial results for a quartic self-interacting scalar theory in five (or more) spacetime dimensions. Demonstration of the hard-core philosophy in such models would provide a big boost to their use in other problems such as quantum gravity.

## Comment

One of the currently important questions in quantum gravity deals with establishing the discreteness of space, and thus the quantization of areas and volumes. Affine quantum gravity is not sufficiently advanced to address this question, but it is useful to note that there seem to be the roots of just such a topic. Although the metric tensor $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ commutes with itself,

$`[\widehat{g}_{ab}(x),\widehat{g}_{cd}(y)]=0,`$
it must be remembered that this metric tensor is not a physical observable. Instead, the physical metric is given by $`\widehat{g}_{ab}^E(x)\mathrm{IE}\widehat{g}_{ab}(x)\mathrm{IE}`$, and it follows almost surely that

$`[\widehat{g}_{ab}^E(x),\widehat{g}_{cd}^E(y)]0.`$
While the result of such a commutator is not yet in hand, it is quite possible that it could lead to discrete units of space.

## Summary

In this brief note we have tried to suggest how one may approach various problems in quantum gravity in new ways. First, we have discussed the affine commutation relations for the basic kinematical field operators that (i) are self-adjoint (after smearing), and (ii) retain the positivity of the metric tensor so that spatial distances are strictly positive. Second, we illustrated the projection operator approach to quantum constraints as a way to accomodate quantum anomalies, i.e., constraints that are partially second class, without having to abandon the original Einstein theory. Third, we have presented the hard-core theory of nonrenormalizability as a way to understand why nonrenormalizable interactions behave as they do, as well as to offer, in principle, a way to develop a nonperturbative procedure to overcome such problems.

The program of affine quantum gravity is not easy, but nevertheless it offers novel ways to attack some otherwise seemingly intractable problems.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by NSF Grant 1614503-12.


text:
# The hierarchical formation of a stellar cluster

## 1 Introduction

The advent of large, efficient infrared detectors has resulted in a fundamental shift in our understanding of star formation. From the older viewpoint that star formation was something done independently and in isolation (Shu, Adams & Lizano 1987), we now know that star formation is a group activity whereby some tens to thousands of stars form within a fraction of a parsec of each other (Clarke, Bonnell & Hillenbrand 2000). In such environments, the forming stars interact with each other on timescales comparable to their formation, resulting in a highly dynamical picture of star formation (Bate, Bonnell & Bromm 2003; Bonnell et al. 1997; Chapman et al. 1992). Infrared surveys of star forming regions have repeatedly shown that most stars form in clusters (Lada et al. 1991; Lada 1999; Clarke et al. 2000). This is found from both unbiased and pointed observations of molecular clouds and it is estimated that between 50 and 95 per cent of stars form in clusters. Massive stars are even more likely to be found in young stellar clusters (Clarke et al. 2000). Testi et al.(1997) used pointed observations of Herbig AeBe stars and found a clear relation between the star’s mass and a surrounding stellar cluster. This implies a potential causal relationship between the cluster properties and the mass of the most massive star.

The formation of stellar clusters has been an unsolved problem in astronomy due to the intrinsic difficulty of fragmenting a molecular cloud into a large number of stars, coupled with the numerical difficulties in following the subsequent dynamical evolution. The spherical, nearly homogeneous nature of young stellar clusters has generally been thought to imply that the preceding molecular cloud was itself smooth and nearly spherical (Goodwin 1998). Fragmenting such an object is extremely difficult as it requires the existence of self-gravitating clumps that have gas densities significantly higher than the mean gas density of the cloud (Bonnell 1999).

In previous simulations involving smaller, lower-mass clouds, fragmentation into many bodies occurs most readily when the cloud contains filamentary structures which easily satisfy the above condition (Bastien et al. 1991; Inutsuka & Miyama 1997: Klessen, Burkert & Bate 1998; Bonnell 1999; Klessen 2000 & Burkert 2000). Filamentary structures occupy a small fraction of the total volume of the cloud. Thus, the free-fall time of any self-gravitating perturbation in the structure is shorter than the overall dynamical time of the system. Thus they can collapse to form fragments before colliding together, forming binary and multiple systems (Bonnell et al. 1991). A recent calculation (Bate et al. 2003) modelled the formation of $`50`$ low-mass stars and brown dwarfs from the fragmentation of a turbulent molecular cloud. In this simulation (see also Klessen et al. 1998; Klessen & Burkert 2000), the turbulence leads to filamentary structures which then fragment as stated above. Cloud-cloud collisions have also been shown to lead to sheet-like and then filamentary structures which subsequently fragment into multiple systems (Chapman et al. 1992).

In this paper, we present the results from the first numerical simulation to follow the formation and evolution of a cluster containing more than 400 stars. The primary new insight from this simulation is that the cluster forms through a hierarchical process of many small sub-clusters which grow and merge through the subsequent dynamics to form the much larger final cluster. In Section 2 we detail the calculation. In Section 3 we describe the evolution of the forming cluster while in section 4 we discuss the resultant mass distribution. Section 5 describes the implications of a hierarchical cluster formation process for stellar properties. Our conclusions are given in section 6.

## 2 Calculations

We use a high resolution Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) (Monaghan 1992) simulation to follow the fragmentation of an initially uniform density molecular cloud containing $`1000M_{}`$ in a diameter of $`1`$ pc and a gas temperature of $`10`$ K. SPH is a Lagrangian particle-based method that calculates fluid properties by interpolation. Calculations of gravitational forces are facilitated using a tree-structure (Benz et al. 1990). We use $`5\times 10^5`$ individual SPH particles to follow the gas dynamics. We model the supersonic turbulent motions that are observed to be present in molecular clouds by including a divergence-free random Gaussian velocity field with a power spectrum $`P(k)k^4`$ where $`k`$ is the wavenumber of the velocity perturbations (Ostriker, Stone & Gammie 2001). In three dimensions, this matches the observed variation with size of the velocity dispersion found in molecular clouds (Larson 1981). The velocities are normalised to make the kinetic energy equal to the absolute magnitude of the potential energy so that the cloud is marginally unbound. In contrast, the thermal energy is initially only 1 per cent of the kinetic energy. Thus the cloud contains 1000 thermal Jeans masses,

$$M_J=\left(\frac{5R_gT}{2G\mu }\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi \rho \right)^{1/2},$$
(1)
where $`T`$ is the gas temperature, $`R_g`$ is the gas constant, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular weight and $`\rho `$ is the density of the gas. Thus, in the absence of the turbulence and hence kinetic support, the cloud could be expected to fragment into of order 1000 stars should sufficient structure be present (Bonnell 1999). We force the gas to remain isothermal throughout the simulation, emulating the effect of efficient radiative cooling at the low gas densities present. We do not include any feedback (radiative or kinematic) from the newly formed stars. We expect that feedback, especially from massive stars, will start to become important by the end of the simulation. The simulation was carried out on the United Kingdom’s Astrophysical Fluids Facility (UKAFF), a 128 CPU SGI Origin 3800 supercomputer.

Once fragmentation has produce a protostar, we replace the constituent SPH particles with a single sink-particle (Bate, Bonnell & Price 1995). These sink-particles, used to follow the newly formed stars, interact only through gravitational forces and by accretion of gas particles that fall into their sink-radii. Sink-particle creation occurs when the densest gas particle (at a given time) and its $`50`$ neighbours are self-gravitating, subvirial and occupy a region smaller than the sink-radius (200 AU). For the simulation reported here, this requires a gas density of $`\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}1.5\times 10^{15}`$ g cm-3. Gas particles that fall within a sink-radius of 200 AU are accreted if they are bound to the sink-particle whereas all gas particles that fall within 40 AU are accreted, regardless of their properties. A minimum number of SPH particles is required to resolve a fragmentation event (Bate & Burkert 1997) implying that our completeness limit for fragmentation is approximately $`0.1M_{}`$. Thus, we cannot resolve any protostars that would form with (initial) masses below this limit. Therefore, although we do resolve the bulk of the fragmentation, there will be a number of lower-mass stars and brown dwarfs that we do not capture in our simulation. Gas accretion onto the stars then increases their masses and removes SPH particles from the simulation. In order to minimise computational expense, we smooth the gravitational forces between stars at distances of 160 AU. This means that only the widest binaries and multiple systems are resolved and that stellar collisions are not included in the simulation. The use of gravitational softenning allows us to evolve the system further than has previously been achieved and thus evaluate the formation process of the stellar cluster.

## 3 Hierarchical cluster formation

The initial evolution of the molecular cloud is due to the turbulent motions present in the gas. The supersonic turbulence leads to the development of shocks in the gas, producing filamentary structures (Bate, Bonnell & Bromm 2003). The shocks also remove kinetic energy (assumed to be radiated away) and thus remove the turbulent support locally (Ostriker et al. 2001). The chaotic nature of the turbulence leads to higher-density regions in the filamentary structures which, if they become self-gravitating, collapse to form stars.

Star formation occurs simultaneously at several different locations in the cloud. Figure 1 plots the column density through the molecular cloud at four different times over the $`4.5\times 10^5`$ years ($`2.6`$ free-fall times, $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$) that we follow the evolution. The stars that form first are in the highest density gas where the dynamical timescale is the shortest. This generally occurs in the deepest parts of local potential minima. Surrounding clumps with slightly lower gas densities form additional stars. Both the stars and the residual gas are attracted by their mutual gravitational forces and fall toward each other. Gas dynamics dampen the infall velocities allowing the systems to rapidly merge to form a high density subcluster containing from five to several tens of stars. The number of stars in each subcluster increases as further star formation occurs nearby, and these stars fall into the existing potential wells. This process repeats itself until several hundred stars are formed and mostly contained in five subclusters. The further evolution is marked by a decreasing star formation rate as the subclusters, aided by the dissipative effects of their embedded gas, sink towards each other and finally merge to form one single cluster containing over 400 stars. The final cluster is approximately spherical in shape with a centrally condensed core as is observed in young stellar clusters (Hillenbrand 1997; Lada 1999).

The hierarchical nature of the formation process is illustrated in figure 2, which shows the evolution of the local and global stellar number-densities for the cluster. The local stellar density is calculated for each star from the minimum volume required to contain the star’s ten nearest neighbours. We use the median value of this distribution to quantify a typical local stellar density. In contrast, the global stellar number-density is calculated from the volume required to contain half of the total number of stars. This typifies the stellar densities expected from a monolithic (homogeneous and structureless) formation scenario. We see that the local number-density increases rapidly once the first stars form and fall towards each other in their local subcluster. The local number density attains a maximum of $`10^5`$ stars pc-3, up to 100 times that for a monolithic collapse. The difference between the two values indicates that the stars occupy but a small fraction of the total volume of the star forming region. This has significant implications for the probability for interactions (see below).

The local number-density decreases after reaching a maximum during the subclustering phase. This decrease is due to the ejection of stars from the subclusters through dynamical interactions, and due to the kinetic heating during the merging of subclusters. This process erases the substructure fairly quickly, producing a single, centrally condensed cluster.

## 4 Accretion and the initial mass function

.

In addition to acting as a reservoir for star formation and as a damping force of the stellar dynamics, gas is accreted onto individual stars, thereby increasing their masses. The stars compete for the gas, with those in the bottom of their local potential wells accreting the most and becoming the most massive stars (Bonnell et al. 1997, 2001a). Thus, the first stars to form are frequently the most massive due to this accretion process. This process, termed competitive accretion, is a leading candidate to explain the apparently universal initial mass function (IMF) of stars (Bonnell et al. 2001b; Klessen 2001).

Here, gas accretion results in final stellar masses that range from approximately $`0.07`$ to 27 M. The final mass distribution, shown in figure 3 is consistent with observed IMFs (Hillenbrand 1997; Luhman et al. 2000; Meyer et al. 2000). The distribution has a near flat slope for low-mass stars, that turns into an increasingly steeper slope for more massive stars (see also Bonnell et al. 2001b; Bate et al. 2003). The higher-mass distribution is broadly consistent with a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ slope ($`dN(logm)=m^\mathrm{\Gamma }dm`$, where the Salpeter slope has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.35`$) although could also be fit by a shallower slope for intermediate-mass stars and a steeper slope for high-mass stars. This high-mass slope is similar to the recent result where high-mass stars are formed through a combination of gas accretion and stellar mergers (Bonnell & Bate 2002). In this simulation, the gravitational potential wass not softened and binary systems, formed through three-body capture, had separations as small as 10 AU.

The median and mean stellar mass are $`0.43`$ and 1.38 M, respectively. At the end of the simulation, 42 per cent of the total mass remains in gas, although much of the gas is no longer bound to the cluster due to the initial turbulence. The cluster contains 494 M in a 0.25 pc radius, but only 16 per cent is in the form of gas. This star formation efficiency, although comparable to that observed for young stellar clusters (Lada 1991; Lada & Lada 1995; Clarke et al. 2000), does not include any background molecular cloud not directly involved in the cluster formation process. Furthermore, as the fraction of mass in stars is an ever increasing function of time, its value depends on when we halt the simulation. At some point in the process, feedback from the more massive stars is expected to clear the remaining gas from the system. This gas expulsion will force the cluster to expand as may be occurring in the ONC (Kroupa, Hurley & Aarseth 2001). Feedback from massive stars could also affect the accretion process. As feedback acts relatively quickly and only once the massive stars have formed, its most probable effect will be a freezing of the resultant mass function (Bonnell et al. 2001b).

## 5  Discussion

The hierarchical nature of the formation process has many interesting implications for star formation. Subclustering means that individual stars are in regions of higher stellar number-density than they would be for a monolithic formation process (Fig. 2; Fall & Rees 1985; Scally & Clarke 2002). The high number-density of stars, coupled with the relatively small number of stars in each subcluster, and thus smaller velocity dispersion, results in closer, and stronger stellar interactions than would otherwise occur (Scally & Clarke 2002). Such stellar interactions can harden binaries to explain the closest systems (Bate, Bonnell & Bromm 2002), truncate circumstellar discs (Hall, Clarke & Pringle 1996; Bate et al. 2003) decreasing their masses and thus lifetimes, trigger fragmentation in the disc (Boffin et al. 1998; Watkins et al. 1998) and possibly even liberate a population of planets from their parent stars if planets form quickly (Bonnell et al. 2001c; Hurley & Shara 2002). The maximum number-density of stars is sufficiently high ($`10^7`$ to $`10^8`$ stars pc-3) that stellar mergers may play a role in forming the most massive stars (Bonnell, Bate & Zinnecker 1998; Bonnell & Bate 2002).

Figure 4 plots the distribution of closest approaches for each of the 418 stars formed in the simulation. This distribution is calculated, for each star, as the minimum distance to any other passing star sometime during the evolution. The distribution extends from 10 AU to $`>10^4`$ AU. The small peak at large separations indicates the few stars that form in relative isolation in the molecular cloud, and never enter into a cluster. Nearly half of the stars in the simulation have interactions within the 160 AU resolution limit where we start to smooth the gravitational forces. These are therefore upper limits for the actual closest approaches.

We see in figure 4 that approximately one third (140/400) of the stars have encountered another star within 100 AU, sufficiently close to perturb the circumstellar disc (McCaughrean & O’Dell 1996) or a binary system (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991). A close passage of a star is likely to disrupt a circumstellar disc down to one third of the minimum separation between stars (Hall et al. 1996), thus limiting their mass reservoirs and lifetimes (although subsequent accretion may replenish the discs \[Bate et al. 2003\]). Figure 4 also plots the corresponding distribution of closest approaches for more massive stars, with $`m3M_{}`$. The great majority (34/40) of these massive stars have had a close interaction within 100 AU. Interactions within 100 AU result in a disc truncated to 30 AU or less (Hall et al. 1996). This suggests that many of the stars, and virtually all the massive stars, found in young stellar clusters, should have small (less than 30 AU) or non-existent discs. A similar result was found in the smaller cluster simulation of Bate et al. (2003) which resolved discs down to $`10`$ AU.

## 6 Conclusions

The results of the numerical simulation presented here point to a hierarchical formation process for stellar clusters. Star formation occurs along filamentary structures engendered in the molecular cloud due to supersonic turbulent motions. The stars fall together to form many small subclusters. These subclusters grow by accreting other stars and eventually merge to form a large-scale cluster containing over 400 stars. The heirarchical nature of the formation process means that close interactions between forming stars is much more important than would be in a monolithic formation process. Thus, stars are more likely to have suffered close interactions that can truncate their circumstellar discs, harden existing binaries and possibly liberate planets from their parent stars. In particular, the hierarchical process and the corresponding higher stellar number-densities imply that approximately one third of low-mass stars, and most high mass stars, should have had their discs truncated to within 30 AU.

Evidence for a hierarchical formation process exists in the results of Testi et al.(2000) showing the hierarchical organisation of the sub-mm cores in the Serpens molecular cloud. Detection of the subclustered phase at optical and near infrared wavelengths is problematic due to the large dust extinction present in the cloud. Fortunately, the upcoming Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) will observe star forming regions in the mid-infrared and should be able to determine the level of hierarchical subclustering present in even the youngest stellar clusters.

Finally, this numerical simulation demonstrates that there is a strong link between the large-scale dynamics of star formation and the small-scale stellar and protoplanetary disc properties. This highlights the importance of a global approach to the problem. Future studies will need to include even larger-scale processes such as the formation and evolution of molecular clouds. In this way, we will be able to determine how and when star formation is initiated and thus tie star formation into Galactic evolution.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Mark McCaughrean, Keith Horne and the referee, Ant Whitworth for many useful comments which improved the paper. The computations reported here were performed using the U.K. Astrophysical Fluids Facility (UKAFF).


text:
# On the sample size dependence of the critical current density in MgB2 superconductors

## Abstract

Sample size dependent critical current density has been observed in magnesium diboride superconductors. At high fields, larger samples provide higher critical current densities, while at low fields, larger samples give rise to lower critical current densities. The explanation for this surprising result is proposed in this study based on the electric field generated in the superconductors. The dependence of the current density on the sample size has been derived as a power law $`jR^{1/n}`$ ($`n`$ is the $`n`$ factor characterizing $`Ej`$ curve $`E=E_c(j/j_c)^n`$). This dependence provides one with a new method to derive the $`n`$ factor and can also be used to determine the dependence of the activation energy on the current density.

It has been reported that the critical current density derived from magnetic measurement in the magnesium diboride superconductors depends on the sample size Horvat et al. (2003); Jin et al. (2003). Usually a larger sample results in a higher critical current density at high fields. If this is a true intrinsic property of this new superconductor, it would be advantageous to use this superconductors in large scale applications. As far as we know, such a phenomenon has not been observed in either high temperature or low temperature superconductors. Explanations have been proposed to account for this observation Horvat et al. (2003); Jin et al. (2003). Jin et al. Jin et al. (2003) measured the relaxation of cylindrical magnesium diboride superconductors of different lengths and found that the activation energy depends linearly on the length of the sample up to 1 $`mm`$ and saturates after that. The authors suggested that the vortices in the magnesium diboride superconductors are quite rigid at small sample lengths and break into segments as the sample length reaches the collective pinning length $`L_c(ϵ_0^2\xi ^2/\gamma )^{1/3}`$, with $`ϵ_0`$ the basic energy scale, $`\xi `$ the coherence length, and $`\gamma `$ a parameter of disorder strength. However, their proposal cannot explain the higher critical current density for smaller samples at low fields. Horvat et at. Horvat et al. (2003) proposed that different coupling between the superconducting grains at different length scales is responsible for the sample size dependent critical current density. However, this explanation is quite qualitative and not conclusive.

It is very important to clarify this problem. On the one hand, we need to understand the underlying mechanism governing this dependence in order to see whether we can further improve the critical current density by increasing the sample size and to understand why this phenomenon has not been reported in high temperature or low temperature superconductors. On the other hand, we need a standard to compare the current density of magnesium diboride superconductors fabricated by different techniques. In this paper, we propose an explanation for this observation based on the electric field generated in the superconductors during a hysteresis loop measurement.

The samples used in this study are all in the shape of rectangular rods cut from a MgB2 pellet. The sample preparation can be found elsewhere Wang et al. (2003). In order to eliminating any geometric effects on the critical current density, the pellet was cut into a series of samples with constant size ratio $`a:b:c`$. Seven samples are used in this study with dimensions of $`a\times b\times c`$ $`(mm^3)`$: $`1.07\times 3.27\times 7.15`$, $`0.7\times 2.12\times 4.65`$, $`0.57\times 1.68\times 3.64`$, $`0.46\times 1.34\times 2.92`$, $`0.36\times 1.08\times 2.29`$, $`0.29\times 0.85\times 1.87`$, $`0.24\times 0.68\times 1.42`$ $`mm^3`$. The critical current density is derived from magnetic hysteresis loop measurements by means of a Quantum Design PPMS (Physical Property Measurement system) magnetometer with a sweep rate of 50 Oe/s. The measurements are performed with the applied field parallel to the longest direction of the sample ($`c`$ axis). The critical current density in full penetration can be estimated using the critical state model as: $`j=20\mathrm{\Delta }M/a(1a/3b)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is the width of the magnetization hysteresis loop.

Fig. 1 shows the magnetic field dependent critical current densities of all the samples at 5 K and 20 K. The arrows indicate the direction where the sample size increases. Flux jumping is observed for all samples at 5 K, but only for the two largest samples at 20 K. It can be clearly seen from Fig. 1 that at high fields (larger than 3 T) the current density increases systematically as the sample size increases. But the current density tends to be saturated when the sample size is very large. The low field part of Fig. 1 is enlarged in Fig. 2, and again the arrow indicates the direction where the sample size increases. Contrary to what is observed at high fields, the current density decreases as the sample size increases.

In order to explain this observation, we start from the flux creep equation derived from Maxwell’s equation $`\times 𝐄=𝐁/t`$ with $`𝐄=𝐁\times 𝐯`$ as discussed by Jirsa et al Jirsa et al. (1993) and Schnack et al. Schnack et al. (1992),

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{\chi _0}{\mu _0}\frac{dB_e}{dt}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _0B_e}{\mu _0}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{U(j)}{kT}\right]$$
(1)
The vortex velocity $`\nu `$ is assumed to be thermally activated, i.e. $`\nu =\nu _0\mathrm{exp}[U(j)/kT]`$, where the attempt velocity $`\nu _0=x_0\omega _0`$ with attempt frequency $`\omega _0`$ and attempt distance $`x_0`$ is the velocity of vortices when $`U(j)=0`$(i.e. $`j=j_c`$). $`U(j)`$ is the activation energy and $`k`$ the Boltzmann constant. The differential susceptibility $`\chi _0`$ and the geometric factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (1) depend on the size and shape of the sample. Here we consider a disk with $`B_e`$ parallel to its axis, then we have

$$\chi _0=\frac{\pi ^2R^3}{3\mathrm{}}$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2\pi ^2R^2}{3\mathrm{}}$$

where $`R`$ is the radius of the disk, $`\mu _0R\mathrm{}`$ the self-inductance of the disk. Eq. (1) can be solved for $`U(j)`$ as

$$U(j)=kT\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{B_e\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _0}{\mu _0\frac{dM}{dt}+\chi _0\frac{dB_e}{dt}}\right]$$
(2)
For a hysteresis loop measurement, we usually have $`\mu _0\frac{dM}{dt}<<\chi _0\frac{dB_e}{dt}`$, and Eq. (2) can then be reduced to

$$U(j)=kT\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{B_e\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _0}{\chi _0\frac{dB_e}{dt}}\right]=kT\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{2B_e\nu _0}{R\dot{B}_e}\right]$$
(3)
here $`\dot{B}_e=dB_e/dt`$. Eq. (3) is simply related to the current-voltage $`IV`$ curves (or $`j`$ versus $`E`$ curves where $`j`$ is the current density and $`E`$ the electric field) since for a cylinder of radius $`R`$, Faraday’s law leads to

$$E=\frac{R}{2}\frac{dB_e}{dt}$$
(4)
As can be seen from Eq. (4), a larger sample size $`R`$ will lead to a larger electric field in the sample, and therefore to a larger current density in the sample. This effect is similar to the effect of $`\dot{B}_e`$ on the hysteresis loop as has been used in dynamical relaxation measurements Jirsa et al. (1993); Schnack et al. (1992).

According to Eq. (3), a different $`U(j)`$ will result in a different dependence of the current density on the sample size. The relaxation results of MgB2 samples have led to a logarithmic dependence of the activation energy on the current density Qin et al. (2001); Han et al. (2003)

$$U(j)=U_0\mathrm{log}\frac{j_c}{j}$$
(5)
where $`U_0`$ is the energy scale and $`j_c`$ the true critical current density at which $`U(j_c)=0`$.

Combining Eq. (3) with Eq. (5), we obtain the sample size dependence of the current density as

$$j=j_cR^{1/n}\left(\frac{\dot{B}_e}{2B_e\nu _0}\right)^{1/n}$$
(6)
where $`n=U_0(B,T)/kT`$. The above analysis can also be applied to a rectangular rod with $`Rab/(a+b)`$.

As can be seen from Eq. (6), the current density depends on the sample size as $`jR^{1/n}`$, therefore the dependence is determined by the exponent $`n`$, which is a function of both temperature $`T`$ and magnetic field $`B`$. If $`n`$ is very large, there will be no sample size dependence as $`R^{1/n}1`$, and this might be the reason why no sample size dependent current density has been reported in low temperature superconductors, characterizing the $`Ej`$ curve of the superconductors $`E=E_c(j/j_c)^n`$. Typical $`n`$ factors in low temperature superconductors vary between 10 and 100 Seeber (1998). As an example, magnets which work in the persistent mode without a drift require wires with a high $`n`$ factor, typically larger than 30 at the highest field Seeber (1998). In high temperature superconductors, $`n`$ values as low as 5 in NdBa2Cu3O7 Inoue et al. (2001a) and 4 YBa2Cu3O7 Inoue et al. (2001b) at high temperature and high magnetic field have been reported, indicating that a significant sample size dependent current density should be observed. However, weak-links in polycrystalline high temperature superconductors are very serious and prevail against the effects shown in Eq. (6), resulting in a lower critical current density in larger samples.

Although the activation energy was reported to be very high in magnesium diboride at low temperature and low magnetic field, it drops sharply as the applied magnetic field and the temperature are increased Qin et al. (2001). The $`n`$ factors in MgB2/Fe tapes and wires have been reported Suo et al. (2001); Beneduce et al. (2002) to be around 60 at 4 T, but drop to below 10 at high fields. From the $`IV`$ curves of MgB2 high density bulk samples reported by Pradhan et al. Pradhan et al. (2001), the $`n`$ factor is derived to be around 1.5 at 26.5 K and 5 T. A similar $`n`$ factor around $`1`$ has been obtained from $`IV`$ curves by Kim et al. Kim et al. (2001) at 30 K and 3 T. When the $`n`$ factor is in this range, the sample size dependence of the current density is expected to appear as seen in Fig. 1. The power law dependence $`R^{1/n}`$ saturates as $`R`$ is increased if $`n`$ is larger than $`1`$, which explains the reported saturation of the current density. Although no saturation is expected at very high temperatures and fields ($`n`$ may drop below 1), the total current is limited by the irreversibility line as $`BB_{irr}`$

Eq. (6) provides us with a new method to determine the $`n`$ factor $`n=U_0(B,T)/kT`$ by plotting $`\mathrm{ln}j`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}R`$. The inverse of the slope is just $`n`$. This method is applied to the samples used in this study, the results are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, where $`\mathrm{ln}j`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}R`$ curves at 5 T, 6 T, and 7T at 5 K, and 3 T, 4 T, 5 T at 20 K are plotted respectively. The solid lines in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are the best fittings to the linear dependence between $`\mathrm{ln}j`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}R`$. The derived $`n`$ factor is shown in Fig. 5 as a function of the applied magnetic field at 5 K and 20 K. The solid lines are only guides to the eyes. This will be a very useful method when the critical current is too high to construct the whole $`IV`$ curve to derive the $`n`$ factor.

On the other hand, as the $`n`$ factor is very high at low fields Suo et al. (2001); Beneduce et al. (2002) (more than 100), a sample size dependence of the current density is not expected ($`R^{1/n}1`$). The decreasing current density as the sample size increases might result from the self-field effect. Because larger samples carry larger currents (even if current density is almost the same), generating a larger self-field, this results in a smaller current density. Significant self-field has been observed in high temperature superconductors, especially in tapes with large critical currents Schwartzkopt et al. (1999); Spreafico et al. (1999). And MgB2 is expected to show similar behavior. Another possible reason is due to the surface pinning effect Bean and Livingston (1964). In the presence of both bulk and surface pinning, the magnetization is just the sum of the bulk and surface contributions Burlachkov et al. (1994). However, the surface component is only effective in the fields $`H<H_p\kappa H_{c1}/\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$, with $`\kappa `$ the Ginsburg-Landau parameter and $`H_{c1}`$ the lower critical field Burlachkov et al. (1994). For the rectangular rods in this study, the ratio between the surface area parallel to the applied magnetic field and the sample volume is $`2(ac+bc)/abc=2/R`$, indicating a larger surface contribution as the sample size is decreased. This results in a larger current density in a smaller sample. The sample size dependence of the current density at low magnetic fields will be studied in more detail in our forthcoming work.

Another advantage of Eq. (6) is that we can use it to determine the current density dependent activation energy $`U(j)`$ in the sample. This is because different $`U(j)`$ relationships lead to different sample size dependences. For example, the linear current density dependent activation energy $`U(j)=U_0(1j/j_c)`$ will give rise to a logarithmic dependence of the current density on the sample size,

$$j=j_c\left[1+\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{ln}a+\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\dot{B}_e}{2B_e\nu _0}\right]$$
(7)
which is different from the power law dependence shown in Eq. (6). The experimental results shown in Fig. (3) and Fig. (4) indicate that in magnesium diboride superconductors, the activation energy depends logarithmically on the current density (Eq. (5)), rather than having the linear Anderson-Kim type dependence suggested by Jin et al. Jin et al. (2003).

In summary, the dependence of the current density on the sample size in magnesium diboride superconductors has been observed and explained in this Letter based on the electric field generated in the superconductors. Starting from the flux creep equation, we have derived an analytical expression $`jR^{1/n}`$ for the sample size dependent current density. We have shown that the sample size dependence of the current density can be used to derive the $`n`$ factor of MgB2 samples and can also be used to determine the dependence between the activation energy and the current density.

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with D. C. Larbalestier and E. W. Collings. The authors are also very grateful to HyperTech Research Inc., Alphatech International Ltd., and the Australian Research Council for financial support.


text:
# Spin squeezing as a measure of entanglement in a two qubit system

## Abstract

We show that two definitions of spin squeezing extensively used in the literature \[M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993) and D.J. Wineland et al., Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994)\] give different predictions of entanglement in the two-atom Dicke system. We analyze differences between the definitions and show that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s spin squeezing parameter is a better measure of entanglement than the commonly used spectroscopic spin squeezing parameter. We illustrate this relation by examining different examples of a driven two-atom Dicke system in which spin squeezing and entanglement arise dynamically. We give an explanation of the source of the difference in the prediction of entanglement using the negativity criterion for entanglement. For the examples discussed, we find that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s spin squeezing parameter is the sufficient and necessary condition for entanglement.

Spin squeezing results from quantum correlations between atomic spins and have received a great deal of attention in recent years . The interest in spin squeezing arises not only from the fact that it exhibits reduced fluctuations of the collection of atomic spins below the fundamental spin noise limit, but also from the possibility of interesting novel applications in interferometry, high precision spectroscopy and atomic clocks. Recently, Sørensen et al.  have proposed spin squeezing as a measure of entanglement in multi-atom systems, which opens further applications in the area of quantum information and quantum computation . The advantage of spin squeezing over the well known entanglement measures, such as concurrence  and negativity  is that spin squeezing can be used as a measure of entanglement in multi-atom systems, whereas the former measures can be applied only to two particle (two qubit) systems. Hald et al.  recently reported preparation of an entangled multiatom state via quantum state transfer from squeezed light to a collection of atomic spins. Kuzmich et al.  have proposed a scheme to produce spin squeezed states via a quantum nondemolution measurement technique and spin noise reduction using this method has been experimentally observed .

There are, however, two different definitions of the spin squeezing parameter frequently used in the literature; the Kitagawa and Ueda’s spin squeezing parameter defined as

$`\xi _{n_i}^S={\displaystyle \frac{2}{S}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}\right)^2_{},i=1,2,`$ (1)
and the spectroscopic spin squeezing parameter introduced in the context of Ramsey spectroscopy as

$`\xi _{n_i}^R={\displaystyle \frac{2S\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}\right)^2_{}}{S_{\stackrel{}{n}_3}^2}},`$ (2)
where $`S`$ is the total spin of the system, $`\stackrel{}{n}_1,\stackrel{}{n}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_3`$ are three mutually orthogonal unit vectors oriented such that the mean value of one of the spin components, assumed here $`S_{\stackrel{}{n}_3}`$, is different from zero, while the other components $`S_{\stackrel{}{n}_1}`$ and $`S_{\stackrel{}{n}_2}`$ have zero mean values. The variance $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\stackrel{}{n}_i}\right)^2_{}`$ is calculated in the plane orthogonal to the mean spin direction. A multiatom system in a coherent state has variances normal to the mean spin direction equal to the standard quantum limit of $`S/2`$. In this case, $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^S=1`$. A system with the variance reduced below the standard quantum limit is characterized by $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^S<1`$, that is spin squeezed in a direction normal to the mean spin direction. With the parameter (2), spin squeezing is manifested by $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^R<1`$ which indicates a reduction in the frequency noise. Since the mean value $`|S_{\stackrel{}{n}_3}|S`$, it follows that the parameters (1) and (2) do not describe the same spin squeezing, that a spectroscopic spin squeezing $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^R<1`$ implies $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_i}^S<1`$, but not vice versa. It should be noted here that in general the spin squeezing parameters (1) and (2) are sufficient but not necessary conditions for entanglement, that one can create entanglement without spin squeezing .

In studying the relation between entanglement and spin squeezing, we discovered that the two definitions of spin squeezing give somewhat different predictions of entanglement in the two-atom Dicke system. It is the purpose of this Brief Report to point out that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s spin squeezing parameter (1) is a better measure of entanglement than the the spectroscopic spin squeezing parameter (2). Specifically, we will show that there is a large class of processes for which the Kitagawa and Ueda’s parameter is the sufficient and necessary condition for entanglement. It was quite surprising to find this connection, since the spectroscopic spin squeezing parameter (2) is commonly used in the literature to compute spin squeezing and entanglement in multi-atom systems. The spin squeezing is currently the widely accepted measure of multi-atom entanglement, so we believe that a detailed analysis of the relation between entanglement and these two definitions of spin squeezing is of general interest.

We illustrate our considerations of the relation between entanglement and the spin squeezing parameters in a simple model of the two-atom (two qubit) Dicke system which consists of two identical atoms confined to a volume with dimensions much smaller than the wavelength of the atomic transitions . In this limit, the atomic dipole moments evolve on the time scale much shorter than any $`\stackrel{}{S}^2`$-breaking relaxation mechanism, so that the total spin $`\stackrel{}{S}^2`$ of the system is conserved during the evolution. Each atom is assumed to have only two energy levels, ground level $`|g_i`$ and excited level $`|e_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$, separated by an energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _0E_eE_g`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the atomic transition frequency. The atomic levels $`|g_i`$ and $`|e_i`$ are eigenstates of the energy operator $`S_i^z`$ with eigenvalues $`1/2`$ and $`1/2`$, respectively. Although the two-atom Dicke system is admittedly an elementary model, it offers an insight into the fundamentals of spin squeezing generation process and entanglement creation in multiatom systems. Because of its simplicity, we will obtain exact solutions for the density matrix elements of the system, which will allow us to study in details the relation between the atomic coherence properties and the amount of spin squeezing.

In the absence of external driving fields, the two-atom Dicke system is equivalent to a cascade multilevel system composed of three energy levels

$`|g`$ $`=`$ $`|g_1|g_2,`$ (3)
$`|s`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|e_1|g_2+|g_1|e_2\right)/\sqrt{2},`$ (4)
$`|e`$ $`=`$ $`|e_1|e_2,`$ (5)
with energies $`E_g=\mathrm{}\omega _0,E_s=0`$ and $`E_e=\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, respectively. The energy levels (5) are known as the Dicke collective states . The ground $`|g`$ and the upper $`|e`$ levels are product states of the individual atoms, whereas the intermediate state $`|s`$ is a maximally entangled state of the two-atom system. The state is a linear superposition of the product states which cannot be separated into product states of the individual atoms.

In our analysis, we assume that the atoms are driven by two fields of fixed phases but different statistics. These are a coherent laser field of the (real) Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and a broadband squeezed vacuum field which is known to produce strong two-photon coherences in atomic systems. To keep the mathematical complications to a minimum, we assume that the angular frequency $`\omega _L`$ of the laser field and the carrier frequency $`\omega _s`$ of the squeezed field are equal to the atomic transition frequency, i.e. the detunings $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\omega _L\omega _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\omega _s\omega _0`$ are zero. We will examine the relation between entanglement and the spin squeezing parameters in three different models of the interaction in which entanglement and spin squeezing arise dynamically. In the first, the atoms interact only with the squeezed field $`(\mathrm{\Omega }=0)`$. In this case, one achieves spin squeezing and entanglement induced by the two-photon coherences with no contribution from the one-photon coherences. In the second model, the atoms interact only with the coherent field. Here, both the one and two-photon coherences contribute to the spin squeezing and entanglement. In the third model, the atoms interact simultaneously with both fields. In this case the squeezed field enhances the two-photon coherences.

To calculate the variances and the mean values of the spin components appearing in Eqs. (1) and (2), we apply the master equation of the driven two-atom Dicke system, which in the interaction picture is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_s,\widehat{\rho }]`$ (6)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+1\right)\left(S^+S^{}\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }S^+S^{}2S^{}\widehat{\rho }S^+\right)`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }N\left(S^{}S^+\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }S^{}S^+2S^+\widehat{\rho }S\right)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }M\left(S^+S^+\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }S^+S^+2S^+\widehat{\rho }S^+\right)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }M^{}\left(S^{}S^{}\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }S^{}S^{}2S^{}\widehat{\rho }S^{}\right),`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the spontaneous emission rate of the atoms, $`S^\pm =S_1^\pm +S_2^\pm `$ are the collective atomic spin operators, and $`H_s=i\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Omega }/2)\left(S^+S^{}\right)`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian between the atoms and the laser field. The parameters $`N`$ and $`M`$ characterize the squeezed vacuum field, such that $`N`$ is the number of photons in the squeezed modes, $`M=|M|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _s)`$ is the magnitude of two-photon correlations between the vacuum modes, and $`\varphi _s`$ is the phase of the squeezed field. For simplicity, we set the squeezing phase $`\varphi _s=0`$ (or $`\pi `$) so that the squeezing parameter $`M`$ is real.

In order to analyze the relation between entanglement and the spin squeezing parameters, we express the parameters (1) and (2) in terms of the density matrix elements of the system. Since the driving fields are on resonance with the atomic transition and $`M^{}=M`$, the stationary off-diagonal density matrix elements (coherences) are real, or equivalently, the Bloch vector has the components $`\stackrel{}{B}=(S_x,0,S_z)`$, where $`S_x=(S^++S^{})/2`$ and $`S_z=S_1^z+S_2^z`$. Thus, we can study spin squeezing by a single rotation of the nonzero spin components around the $`y`$-axis. Let $`\stackrel{}{n}_3`$ be the direction of the total spin in the new (rotated) reference frame. Then the variances calculated in the directions $`\stackrel{}{n}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}_2`$ perpendicular to the direction of the total spin can be written as

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\stackrel{}{n}_1}\right)^2_{}`$ $`=`$ $`S_z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +S_x^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha S_xS_z\mathrm{sin}2\alpha ,`$ (11)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\stackrel{}{n}_2}\right)^2_{}`$ $`=`$ $`S_y^2,`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha =S_x/S_z`$.

A simple calculation using Eqs. (1), (2) and (12) shows that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s parameter becomes

$`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^S`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(1\rho _{ss}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\left(1+\rho _{ss}+2\rho _{eg}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha ,`$ (13)
$`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ $`=`$ $`1+\rho _{ss}2\rho _{eg},`$ (14)
whereas for the spectroscopic spin squeezing parameter takes the form

$`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\left[2\left(1\rho _{ss}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\left(1+\rho _{ss}+2\rho _{eg}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \right]/U^2,`$ (15)
$`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\rho _{ss}2\rho _{eg}\right)/U^2,`$ (16)
where $`U=(\rho _{ee}\rho _{gg})\mathrm{cos}\alpha +2^{1/2}(\rho _{es}+\rho _{sg}+\rho _{se}+\rho _{gs})\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$.

From the structure of Eqs. (14) and (16) it is clear that the necessary condition to obtain spin squeezing is to create two-photon coherences $`\rho _{ge}`$. For $`\rho _{eg}<0`$, the right-hand sides of $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^S`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^R`$ can be less than 1, whereas the right-hand sides of $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R`$ are always greater than 1. Thus, spin squeezing can be observed only in the $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^S`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^R`$ components. On the other hand, for $`\rho _{eg}>0`$, the right-hand sides of only $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R`$ can be less than 1.

Having introduced the spin squeezing parameters in terms of the density matrix elements, we now turn to our central problem to determine which of the spin squeezing parameters is a better measure of entanglement and what is the degree of entanglement. Consider first the two-atom Dicke system driven by a broadband squeezed vacuum field alone $`(\mathrm{\Omega }=0)`$. In this case, the master equation (10) leads to the following nonzero steady-state solutions for the density matrix elements

$`\rho _{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^2\left(2N+1\right)\left(2N1\right)|M|^2}{\left(2N+1\right)\left(3N^2+3N+13|M|^2\right)}},`$ (17)
$`\rho _{ss}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N\left(N+1\right)|M|^2}{3N^2+3N+13|M|^2}},`$ (18)
$`\rho _{eg}=\rho _{ge}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|M|}{\left(2N+1\right)\left(3N^2+3N+13|M|^2\right)}}.`$ (19)
This equation expresses the steady-state of the system in terms of the intensity and the two-photon correlations characteristic of a squeezed field. Since the one-photon coherences are zero, we can easily verify that $`S_z0`$ and $`S_x=S_y=0`$. This implies that we can determine spin squeezing in the $`xy`$-plane without any rotation $`(\alpha =0)`$. In this case $`(n_1,n_2,n_3)=(x,y,z)`$.

With the steady state solution (19), the density matrix of the system in the basis of the product states $`\{|e_1,e_2,|e_1,g_2,|g_1,e_2,|g_1,g_2\}`$ takes the form

$`\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _{ee}& 0& 0& \rho _{eg}\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& 0\\ \rho _{ge}& 0& 0& \rho _{gg}\end{array}\right),`$ (24)
where $`\rho _{gg}=1\rho _{ee}\rho _{ss}`$.

Given the density matrix, it is possible to calculate the entanglement between the atoms. To quantify the degree of entanglement, we use the negativity criterion for entanglement  and find that the eigenvalues of the partial transposition of $`\widehat{\rho }`$ are

$`\lambda _{1\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{ss}\pm |\rho _{eg}|,`$ (25)
$`\lambda _{2\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\left(\rho _{ee}+\rho _{gg}\right)\pm \left[\left(\rho _{ee}\rho _{gg}\right)^2+\rho _{ss}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\}.`$ (26)
From this it readily follows that $`\lambda _{1+}`$ and $`\lambda _{2+}`$ are always positive. Moreover, it is easily verified that with the solution (19), the eigenvalue $`\lambda _2`$ is positive for all values of the parameters involved. Thus, the system exhibits entanglement when $`|\rho _{eg}|>\rho _{ss}/2`$, and then the degree of entanglement is

$`E=\mathrm{max}(0,2\lambda _1)=2|\rho _{eg}|\rho _{ss}.`$ (27)
It is evident by comparison of Eq. (27) with Eqs. (14) and (16) that the condition for entanglement $`(E>0)`$ is completely equivalent to the condition for spin squeezing predicted by the Kitagawa and Ueda’s parameter, and there is a simple relation

$`E=1\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S.`$ (28)
A value of $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S<1`$ indicates spin squeezing and at the same moment there is entanglement $`(E>0)`$ between the atoms. In addition, the degree of entanglement is equal to the degree of spin squeezing. Thus, we conclude that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s parameter is the sufficient and necessary condition for entanglement induced by a squeezed vacuum field.

The above considerations are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2, which show the entanglement measure $`E`$ and the parameters $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R`$ for two different types of the squeezed field. In Fig. 1, we plot the entanglement measure and the spin squeezing parameters for a classical squeezed field with the correlations $`M=N`$. The classical squeezed field is characterized by an anisotropic distribution of noise with the noise reduced in some directions, but not below the standard vacuum level. The figure shows that $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R>1`$ for all $`N`$, but $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ is less than 1 for $`N<1/2`$, and also an entanglement appears in the same range of $`N`$. This shows that $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ correctly predicts entanglement, while with the parameter $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R`$ one could observe entanglement without spin squeezing.

In Fig. 2, we plot $`E`$ and the spin squeezing parameters for a quantum squeezed field with perfect correlations $`M^2=N(N+1)`$. Since $`\rho _{ss}=0`$ and the inequality $`|\rho _{eg}|>0`$ always holds, both parameters $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^R`$ are less than 1 for the entire range of $`N`$. Thus, both parameters predict entanglement and spin squeezing for all $`N`$. However, the degree of entanglement is equal to the degree of spin squeezing given by $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$. The entanglement and spin squeezing increase with increasing $`N`$ and attain their maximal values $`E=1`$ and $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S=0`$ for large $`N`$.

It is easy to show that the entanglement created by the quantum squeezed field is related to the pure two-atom squeezed state. Under the squeezed field excitation, there are entangled states generated which can be found by the diagonalization of the density matrix (24). We find that the two-photon coherences produce entangled states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_+\rho _{ee}\right)|g+\rho _{eg}|e\right]/𝒩_+,`$ (29)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\rho _{ge}|g+\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\rho _{gg}\right)|e\right]/𝒩_{},`$ (30)
where $`𝒩_\pm `$ are the normalization constants, and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\rho _{gg}+\rho _{ee}\right)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\rho _{gg}\rho _{ee}\right)^2+4\left|\rho _{eg}\right|^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (31)
are the populations of the entangled states.

It is evident from (30), that the two-photon coherences create entangled states which are linear superpositions of the ground state $`|g`$ and the upper state $`|e`$. Thus, entanglement created by a squeezed field is associated with the two-photon entangled states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$. Note that the steady-state with the classical squeezed field is a mixed state with the populations $`\rho _{ss}0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm 0`$, whereas for the quantum squeezed field $`\rho _{ss}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}=0`$, and then the stationary state of the system is a pure state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N+1}}}\left[\sqrt{N+1}|g+\sqrt{N}|e\right].`$ (32)
The pure state is a non-maximally entangled state, and reduces to a maximally entangled state for $`N1`$. According to Fig. 2, the pure state admits of the largest amount of entanglement and for $`N1`$, the optimum entanglement $`E=1`$ can be achieved. In Fig. 1, the mixed state admits of lower level of entanglement, and also the entanglement occurs in a restricted range of the intensity $`N`$.

We now consider the second model in which the system is driven by the coherent field $`(\mathrm{\Omega }0)`$ in the absence of the squeezed field $`(N=M=0)`$. This is an interesting example where one can create spin squeezing and entanglement with the linear Hamiltonian $`H_s`$. Typical schemes considered for the generation of spin squeezing involve quadratic Hamiltonians . After straightforward but lengthy calculations, we find the following steady-state solutions for the density matrix elements

$`\rho _{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^4/D,`$ (33)
$`\rho _{ss}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^4+2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)/D,`$ (34)
$`\rho _{sg}=\rho _{gs}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\right)/D,`$ (35)
$`\rho _{es}=\rho _{se}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }^3/D,`$ (36)
$`\rho _{eg}=\rho _{ge}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/D,`$ (37)
where $`D=3\mathrm{\Omega }^4+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$.

In order to analyze the relationship between entanglement and spin squeezing parameters, we write the density matrix of the system

$`\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _{ee}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{es}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{es}& \rho _{eg}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{se}& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{sg}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{se}& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& \frac{1}{2}\rho _{ss}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{sg}\\ \rho _{ge}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{gs}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho _{gs}& \rho _{gg}\end{array}\right),`$ (42)
and again make use of the negativity criterion for entanglement. There are obviously four eigenvalues of the partial transposition of the matrix (42). It is straightforward to show that one of the eigenvalues is

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{ss}|\rho _{eg}|,`$ (43)
whereas the remaining eigenvalues are the three roots of the cubic equation

$`p^3(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{ss}+\rho _{eg})p^2`$ (44)
$`+[\left(1\rho _{ss}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{ss}+\rho _{eg})+\rho _{ee}\rho _{gg}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho _{ss}^2\rho _{es}^2\rho _{sg}^2]p`$ (45)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{ss}+\rho _{eg})(\rho _{ee}\rho _{gg}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho _{ss}^2)+\rho _{gg}\rho _{es}^2+\rho _{ee}\rho _{sg}^2`$ (46)
$`\rho _{ss}\rho _{sg}\rho _{es}=0.`$ (47)
It is easily verified from Eqs. (37) and (47) that the roots $`p_i`$ are real and positive for all values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Thus, we conclude that the system is entangled when $`|\rho _{eg}|>\rho _{ss}/2`$, and again the entanglement is related to the Kitagawa and Ueda’s spin squeezing parameter. Figure 3 shows $`E`$ and the squeezing parameters as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. An entanglement appears for $`\mathrm{\Omega }<\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and, as predicted, corresponds to the spin squeezing predicted by the parameter $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$.

Finally, we turn to the third model in which the atoms are driven simultaneously by coherent and squeezed vacuum fields. In this case the density matrix has the same form as Eq. (42) but with the density matrix elements now dependent on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the squeezing parameters $`N`$ and $`M`$. Hence, the condition for entanglement $`|\rho _{eg}|>\rho _{ss}/2`$ holds. However, it can be shown that one of the roots of Eq. (47) can be negative indicating that one can observe entanglement without spin squeezing. We have checked numerically that this can happen for $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ and $`M>0`$. For $`M<0`$ the roots are positive for all values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`N`$. Hence, the condition for entanglement, $`|\rho _{eg}|>\rho _{ss}/2`$, also holds in this model and, according to Eq. (14), coincides with the condition for spin squeezing.

We now present some numerical calculations that illustrate the above remarks. Figure 4 shows the entanglement measure and the squeezing parameters as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`N=0.1`$ and $`M=\sqrt{N(N+1)}`$. It is evident that similar to the models considered above, the entanglement is related to the spin squeezing given by $`\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^S`$. The entanglement induced at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and vanishes at $`\mathrm{\Omega }2.1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, indicating that both entanglement and spin squeezing can be observed only for weak driving fields.

In summary, we have examined the relationship between entanglement and spin squeezing parameters in the two-atom Dicke system. Characterizing the spin squeezing parameters by the density matrix elements, we have examined simple models of driven two-atom Dicke systems in which spin squeezing and entanglement arise dynamically. We have found that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s spin squeezing parameter is a better measure of entanglement than the spectroscopic spin squeezing parameter. For the models discussed we have established that the Kitagawa and Ueda’s parameter is the sufficient and necessary condition for entanglement and the degree of entanglement is equal to the degree of spin squeezing.