text:
# Hysteresis loops of Co-Pt perpendicular magnetic multilayers

## Abstract

We develop a phenomenological model to study magnetic hysteresis in two samples designed as possible perpendicular recording media. A stochastic cellular automata model captures cooperative behavior in the nucleation of magnetic domains. We show how this simple model turns broad hysteresis loops into loops with sharp drops like those observed in these samples, and explains their unusual features. We also present, and experimentally verify, predictions of this model, and suggest how insights from this model may apply more generally.

hysteresis, nucleation, Cobalt-Platinum, cellular automata, model, reversal curves

Magnetic thin films with magnetization oriented perpendicular to the plane of the film have become attractive as magnetic bits get smaller and smaller. Cobalt-platinum multilayers are thin films with several desirable characteristics for future recording media, such as large ratio of coercive field (field where $`M=0`$) to saturation magnetization and sharp initial drops in their hysteresis loops. Although grain sizes are too large at present for applications, they are nevertheless interesting model systems, both as high coercivity thin films Weller et al. (2001), and as a testing ground for Ising model based simulations of hysteresis in real materials.

These films are also of fundamental interest as interacting dynamical systems. In particular, the precise onset of magnetization reversal, which has been observed before in Co-Pt multilayers Weller et al. (2001); Phillips et al. (2001); Hatwar and Blanton (1997); Bennett et al. (2001); Della Torre et al. (2000), suggests the shape of the hysteresis loop may be dominated by nucleation. This is the case for some magnetic thin films of interest in recording Phillips et al. (2001); Hatwar and Blanton (1997); Mansuripur (1995). Nucleation phenomena are of broad interest, e.g. in phase transitions Langer (1968), materials synthesis Fan et al. (2003), and protein aggregation Slepoy et al. (2001). Unresolved issues for these Co-Pt multilayers include the origin of the broad tail in the hysteresis loop near magnetic saturation and the drop in first-order reversal curves following reversal of the magnetic field (Fig. 1). Additionally, differences between nominally similar samples are not well understood.

Here we obtain the major hysteresis loop and first-order reversal curves (measured by decreasing the magnetic field along the major hysteresis loop until a predefined reversal field, then tracing out a reversal curve as the field is again increased to saturation) for two Co-Pt multilayer samples, then develop a lattice-based theoretical model to explain key features of these measurements. The model makes testable predictions concerning time-dependence of the reversal curves, which we test, and temperature-dependence of the hysteresis loop. Our model is remarkable not so much in terms of quantitative agreement with experiment, but in the physical insight it provides into a variety of experimental results.

Two Co-Pt multilayer samples were provided by B. Terris at IBM. These samples are similar in composition to those described by Weller et al. Weller et al. (2001) and consist of a 20 nm Pt buffer layer, followed by 10 Co(0.6 nm)/Pt(1 nm) bilayers. Growth temperatures for the multilayers were 157C and 320C for the samples of Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively. Reversal curves (Fig. 1) were taken with an Alternating Gradient Magnetometer (Princeton Measurements Corporation). The general procedure for each reversal curve was to decrease the magnetic field every 0.1s until reaching a predefined reversal field. Data was then collected at steps along the reversal curve with an averaging time at each data point of 0.13s. Variations on this procedure were used to test predictions of our model and will be discussed below.

The experimental hysteresis loops and reversal curves for these samples exhibit several unusual features. To our knowledge, a simple explanation of these has not yet been provided. Particularly, we note the broad tail (as the magnetization approaches saturation) shown in Fig. 1(b). Modeling in terms of exchange coupling can produce sharp drops due to an energy barrier associated with nucleation of reverse domains, but the rounding at the tail is typically comparable to the rounding at the onset (as the magnetization begins to fall) Miyashita et al. (2002); Zhu and Bertram (1991). We notice here that the tail is much broader than the onset. This has been observed previously Phillips et al. (2001); Bennett et al. (2001); Della Torre et al. (2000) and described as an asymmetry around the coercive field Della Torre et al. (2000). Additionally, we notice a drop in the reversal curves in Fig. 1(a) following reversal of the magnetic field. That is, the magnetization continues to fall even after the magnetic field begins to increase. Reversal curves are less commonly examined but this has been observed in an unrelated material Basso et al. (2000) and without comment in a similar material Della Torre et al. (2000). These features will be explained here.

Sethna et al. have argued that one should be able to trade realistic microscopic degrees of freedom for a set of rules as part of a renormalization procedure to study different classes of hysteretic behavior at long length and time scales Sethna et al. (2001). While some multiparameter micromagnetic (time-dependent Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation) models can produce hysteresis loops similar to those observed here Lyberatos (1998), we here present a simpler model which explains these features in a simple, physically transparent manner and, we believe, captures much of the essential physics of these samples.

Stochastic cellular automata models, like we use here, have been used successfully before to model nucleation barriers Slepoy et al. (2001). Ours involves spins – representing individual magnetic bits that are either up or down – on a 2D triangular lattice, as these materials are designed to work for 2D storage. The key model ingredients are as follows:

1. *Anisotropy field:* Each spin is initially assigned an anisotropy field, defined as $`H_k=2K/(\mu _0M_s)`$ where $`K`$ is the anisotropy energy. The field $`H_k`$ can be thought of as the field at which an isolated spin would flip from up to down, and conversely for $`+H_k`$. Thus each spin has a coercivity and is inherently hysteretic. We assign different $`H_k`$ values to each spin, typically according to a lognormal distribution.

2. *Energy barrier:* At each step, we first treat each spin independently and compute an energy barrier for it to flip down. For an up-spin, in the case of magnetic field $`H>H_k`$, we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\frac{AH_k}{2}(1+\frac{H}{H_k})^2`$, where A is a constant, and for a down-spin in the case of $`H<H_k`$ there is simply a sign change inside the quadratic Bertotti (1998). The barrier is 0 otherwise.

3. *Attempt probability:* We evaluate the probability of the individual spin attempting to flip, $`P=exp(\mathrm{\Delta }E/k_BT)`$, where $`T`$ is an input parameter, and determine whether the spin attempts to flip. We do this for every spin on the lattice and keep a list of those that attempt.

4. *Cooperative rules:* We then apply rules which require cooperativity between spins and establish a nucleation barrier. The model we use is as follows: For a spin to flip from up to down, it must have at least three neighbors that are already down or will flip down in the same step (and similarly going from down to up). Thus the smallest size group of spins that can flip down is 7, as in Fig. 2. This effectively builds in a nucleation barrier and allows us to explore what effect this has on the hysteresis loop. These rules play a diminishing role after initial nucleation.

5. *Magnetization and field:* After updating every site on the lattice, we calculate and output the magnetization and step the magnetic field. This represents one simulation step. We then repeat this procedure until reaching saturation.

It is important to note that we do not wait until the sample equilibrates before stepping the field. We thus link a simulation step with some small amount of real time, $`\tau `$, which has been done successfully before to model kinetic effects in hysteresis loops Rao et al. (1990). The relevant timescale for this may be the “attempt frequency” for crossing an energy barrier, which is generally considered to be on the order of a nanosecond He et al. (1996).

At the most basic level, we show that without cooperativity, our rules yield hysteresis loops that are quite broad. These loops acquire a sudden drop in magnetization due to the nucleation barrier when we apply the cooperative rules (Fig. 3(a)). We also find that the temperature dependence of this effect is somewhat unusual (Fig. 3(b)), in that the drop is actually sharper at higher temperature and both the drop and the tail are broader at low temperature.

The explanation for these effects follows: The sudden drop in the hysteresis loop is due to the relief of the constraints of the cooperative rules following nucleation of domains. That is, once the nucleation barrier is crossed, domains can grow, and it is much easier to add additional spins to a domain (a spin that is still up neighboring a down domain already has some down neighbors and so it is easier for it to have sufficient down neighbors to flip down) than it was to nucleate the domain in the first place. This is similar to a previous description of reversal in terms of two coercivities, a nucleation field $`H_n`$ necessary to nucleate reversed domains and a field $`H_p`$ necessary to overcome domain wall pinning. If $`H_n>H_p`$ reversal can occur very rapidly following nucleation Weller et al. (2001); Phillips et al. (2001). However, our model is different in that we do not have a single pinning coercivity. We refer to the large cascade of spin-flips following nucleation as “avalanching,” as described in random-field Ising models Perković et al. (1995), although there is a distinction in that in the Ising model, reversed domains tend to pull their neighbors along with them, while here the only driving force is the external field.

This avalanching applies to the temperature dependence of the drop in that at high temperature, more thermal energy is available to allow the avalanches to proceed. More thermal energy means bigger avalanches and sharper hysteresis loops, because it helps to overcome outlying $`H_k`$ values that would tend to pin domain walls. This pinning is possible because the rules do provide some constraint even after nucleation. Higher temperature means the disorder is less important and so avalanches are bigger. Low internal disorder has been shown to produce sharp hysteresis loops with large avalanches before Perković et al. (1995); Berger et al. (2001), but our model includes both internal disorder and the effects of thermal fluctuations, and shows how temperature affects this sharpness.

The broadening of the tail at low temperatures arises from a freezing in of the hysteresis loop to follow the actual distribution of $`H_k`$ at low temperatures. That is, in the tail of the hysteresis loop, our rules play little role (most remaining up spins have enough down neighbors they can flip as soon as they “want”) and spins act independently, so the tail samples the distribution of $`H_k`$ and it must follow it more closely at low temperatures. This can be seen in Fig. 3 by the rejoining of the T=0.04 curves in the tail region. This tail behavior emerges naturally from our model. It has been observed before and its origin has been hinted at in phenomenological Preisach modeling Della Torre et al. (2000) but we have provided a simple physical explanation.

We also find (Fig. 3(c),(d)) that our model does produce a drop in the first-order reversal curves. At reasonably high temperatures (i.e. T=0.1 in our model) it greatly exaggerates this effect: reversing the magnetic field at M=0.9, the magnetization continues to fall almost to M=-1 before flattening out (Fig. 3(c)). Lower temperatures or broader distributions of $`H_k`$ make this effect more reasonable (Fig. 3(c)). Additionally, our model predicts that we can make this effect smaller by increasing the field sweep rate. That is, taking bigger steps in magnetic field gets back to the field necessary to stop the reversal curves from dropping sooner, so they do not fall as far. It is simply due to avalanching – once a domain nucleates, it can grow easily and it requires getting back to a significantly less negative field to stop the avalanche of domain growth. Consider, for example, a spin with a low $`H_k`$ which, if isolated, would be easy to flip. If it has several higher $`H_k`$ neighbors it will not flip until long after it would like to flip. But once its neighbors flip it is quite happy to flip, even if the magnetic field reversal begins, since it is long past the point at which it would have liked to flip on its own. This also means that in our model, this asymmetric tail is present even when the distribution of anisotropy fields is symmetric (i.e. Gaussian).

With this explanation in mind, experimentally, one should be able to allow the sample to equilibrate before taking a reversal curve and the effect should disappear, since it is a kinetic effect. On the other hand, slowing the field sweep rate along the reversal curve should allow avalanches to proceed further and the effect should get bigger. This was tested experimentally and confirmed for sample (a) (Fig. 4) and the drop also appears for sample (b) if the field sweep rate is slowed enough Pike (2002). If we assume our theoretical model is capturing this effect accurately, $`\tau `$ provides the conversion between simulation steps and experimental time. Thus a crude estimate of the effective $`\tau `$ for these samples is on the order of a few milliseconds. This is obviously much larger than the typical value of around a nanosecond and would suggest that these samples are unusual. This is consistent with the observation that this drop is not typically observed in experimental reversal curves.

To check our prediction of tail broadening at low temperature, we used a Quantum Design Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) magnetometer in the standard (DC) operating configuration with the sample perpendicular to the applied field. Our procedure was to measure a full hysteresis loop at 5K and then just the descending half of the loop at 300K, to compare the broadening of the tail. Results are shown in Fig 5; both samples show a broadening of the tail at lower temperatures in qualitative agreement with the predictions of Fig. 3(b). This is more pronounced for sample (a). However, our model’s hysteresis loops have a coercivity that is strongly temperature-dependent, but this is true for only one of these two samples.

Overall, our results are especially significant in that we qualitatively explain the experimentally observed drop in the first-order reversal curves as a kinetic effect due to avalanching and provide experimentally verified suggestions for reducing or increasing this effect. This drop has been observed in another material and attributed to thermal relaxation Basso et al. (2000)– thermal growth of domains at fields below that necessary to induce domain depinning. While thermal energy allows this drop to be larger in our model, we would argue both on theoretical and experimental grounds that our mechanism is distinct. Experimentally, we find that kinetics strongly influence this effect. And in our model, even at T=0, there is still a nucleation barrier which can result in avalanches and produce a drop in reversal curves – the drop is simply smaller.

Additionally, our cooperative rules provide hysteresis loops with an asymmetric tail. This asymmetry is due to nucleation, because the nucleation barrier has a profound effect on the initial drop in magnetization. The effects of our cooperative rules disappear by the tail, allowing the tail to still be broad and individual spins to act independently. This effect has only been captured before in vastly more complicated models Lyberatos (1998) or by parameter-tuning Della Torre et al. (2000).

There are two possible origins of the experimentally observed broad tail. The first is the mechanism we describe here, which does not depend on having an asymmetric distribution of $`H_k`$. To our knowledge, this effect is absent in models dealing in terms of exchange coupling, as exchange coupling strong enough to produce a nucleation barrier will also tend to prevent a broad tail. However, strongly asymmetric distributions of $`H_k`$ can produce an asymmetry without hysteresis cooperativity. Independent measurements of the distribution of anisotropy fields will be very useful to distinguish between these two cases.

Our model suggests the importance of inherently hysteretic spins, or hysterons, rather than Ising spins, where hysteresis comes solely from interactions between spins. In samples like these, with strong uniaxial anisotropy, there may be two separate energy scales, one associated with the energy barrier to flip individual grains, and one governing the exchange coupling between neighboring grains which determines a cooperative nucleation barrier. The fact that nucleation is an irreversible process, as described above, helps to create a broad tail in our model despite the absence of any significant rounding at the top, and without invoking asymmetric distributions. Preliminary work suggests that this may remain true in an interacting hysteron model. On the other hand, models based on Ising spins may not capture this behavior, as the deviation from fully polarized state at the top and bottom of the hysteresis loop would be due to reversible flips of outliers and thus would be symmetric. Hence, we suggest that interacting hysteron models, or cooperative nucleation models of the type discussed here, will be better for describing the hysteresis in materials with broad asymmetric tails.

In conclusion, our model allows us to qualitatively explain important features in the hysteresis loops of these samples and predict kinetic effects observed experimentally. We explain the drop in the reversal curves and the broad tail. Our results suggest that exploring Ising-type models with exchange coupling and inherently hysteretic spins may give new insight into materials like these.

We thank B. Terris for providing our samples. We also gratefully acknowledge discussions with R. Scalettar and G. Zimanyi, and K. Liu for help with the SQUID work. We acknowledge support of the National Science Foundation NEAT-IGERT program (IGERT Grant DGE-9972741) (DLM), the U.S. Department of Energy office of Basic Energy Sciences Division of Materials Research (DLC), and NSF-DMR9986948 (RRPS).


format: text

text:
# Measureament, Trace, Information Erasure and Entropy

## I INTRODUCTION

When we attempt to apply classical mechanics and eletrodynamics to explain atomic phenomena, they lead to results which are obviously conflict with experiment. The mechanics which governs microword is quantum mechanics. It is the most accurate and complete description of the world known. Thus quantum mechanics occupies a very unusual place among physical theories: it contains classical mechanics as a limiting case, at the same time, it requires this limiting case for its own formulation.

Quantum mechanics tells us the evolution of a closed quantum system is described by a unitary transformation. To observes a closed quantum system to find out what is going on inside the system, one needs to interact the system with an external physical system, which makes the system no longer closed, and the unitary evolution is not necessary. Structurally, quantum mechanics has two parts, one part concerned with quantum states, the other with quantum dynamics. In this paper, we will show some properties about quantum evolution.

To find out what is going on inside a quantum system, one must perform a quantum measurement. And a partial trace operation can give the correct description of observable quantities for subsystems of a composite system. The relation between physical entropy and information may have been mentioned first by Szilard . Landauer’s principle states that in erasing one bit of information, on average, at least $`k_BT\mathrm{ln}(2)`$ energy is dissipated into the environment ( where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $`T`$ is the temperature of the environment at which one erases.) . Piechocinska derived Landauer’s principle from microscopic considerations .

In this paper, we first give a definition of the wave behavior of a quantum system. Suppose a quantum system is in state

$$|\phi >=\underset{i}{}a_i|i>,$$
(1)
where $`_i|a_i|^2=1`$, $`\{|i>\}`$ is a set of orthogonal vectors. If $`i2`$, we will say that this quantum system has wave behavior. Else, there is only particle behavior in this quantum system. The quantum operations formalism is a general tool for describing the evolution process of quantum systems, such process include unitary evolution, quantum measurement, and even more general processes . A general quantum dynamical process is described by a quantum operation. We will use quantum operations formalism to described the quantum evolution processes in this paper. We use density operators formalism $`\rho `$ or Dirac’s bracket notation $`|\psi >`$ to described the state of quantum system. In this paper, we will use a word: momentum-energy conservation. The momentum-energy conservation is a word for short. In microword, the conversation quantities would include momentum, energy, spin and other quantity. All these quantities we call them momentum-energy conservation in this paper. The entropy of a classical system is defaulted as Shannon entropy. And the entropy of a quantum system is considered as the von Neumann entropy default in this paper.

### A Trace

The trace of a matrix A is defined to be the sum of its diagonal elements,

$$tr(A)\underset{i}{}A_{ii}.$$
(2)
The trace is cyclic and linear. Suppose we have physical systems A and B, whose state is described by a density operator $`\rho ^{AB}`$. The reduced density operator for system A is defined by

$$\rho ^Atr_B(\rho ^{AB}),$$
(3)
where trB is a map of operators known as the partial trace over system B. The partial trace is defined by

$$tr_B(|a_1><a_1||b_1><b_1|)|a_1><a_1|tr(|b_1><b_1|).$$
(4)
The partial trace operator is the operation which gives description of observable quantities for subsystems of a composite system.

### B Measurement

Distinguishing quantum states needs quantum measurement. Quantum measurements are described by a collection $`\left\{M_m\right\}`$ of measurement operators . These are operators acting on the state space of the system being measured. The index $`m`$ refers to the measurement outcomes that may occur in the experiment,

$$p(m)=<\psi |M_m^{}M_m|\psi >,$$
(5)
where $`|\psi >`$ is the state of the quantum system immediately before the measurement. The state of the system after the measurement is

$$\frac{M_m|\psi >}{\sqrt{<\psi |M_m^{}M_m|\psi >}}.$$
(6)
And the completeness equation expresses the fact that probabilities sum to one:

$$1=\underset{m}{}p(m)=\underset{m}{}<\psi |M_m^{}M_m|\psi >.$$
(7)
The quantum measurements postulate gives a rule describing the measurement statistics and a rule describing the postmeasurement state of the system. It is familiar that quantum mechanics describe $`projective`$ $`measurements`$, ‘Positive Operator-Valued Measure’ measurements ($`POVMs`$), and a $`general`$ $`measurements`$. A projective measurement is described by a Hermitian operator, $`M`$, on the state space of the system being observed

$$M=\underset{m}{}mP_m,$$
(8)
where $`P_m`$ is the projector onto the eigenspace of $`M`$ with eigenvalue $`m`$. The possible outcomes of measurement correspond to the eigenvalues, $`m`$, of the observable. Upon measuring the state $`|\psi >`$, the probability of getting result $`m`$ is given by

$$p(m)=<\psi |P_m|\psi >.$$
(9)
### C Information Erasure

The bit is a fundamental unit of information. We will assume to have a large number of bits but they will be erased individually, one by one. Landauer argues that since information erasure is a logical function which does not have a single-valued inverse, it must be associated with physical irreversibility and require heat dissipation. Suppose we have a quantum system which is in the unknown state $`\rho `$. A information erasure process is that we prepare this system in a standard state,

$$ϵ:\rho |0><0|,$$
(10)
where $`\rho `$ is an arbitrary state and $`|0><0|`$ is a standard state. This information erasure process is nonunitary generally. If the system is in a known state, this information erasure process can be realized by a unitary operation. But in the case we have a large number of bits to erase, the information erasure operation must be irreversible. In this paper, information erasure will be considered as the quantum state erasure of a quantum system.

## II Relation between Measurement, Trace, and Erasure

Let $`H_A`$ be any Hilbert space, spanned by an orthonormal basis $`|1>`$ $`\mathrm{}|d>`$. Then the trace map $`\rho tr(\rho )`$ can be represented as

$$tr(\rho )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}.$$
(11)
If $`H_A`$ is both the input and output space, a quantum measurement can be described:

$$M_m(\rho )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}|m><m|,$$
(12)
where $`M_m`$ is a quantum measurement operator.

Let $`H_Q`$ be any input Hilbert space, spanned by an orthonormal basis $`|1>`$ $`\mathrm{}|d>`$, and let $`H_Q^{}`$ be a one dimensional output space, spanned by the state $`|0>`$. Then, information erasure can be described like this

$$R(\rho )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}|0><0|.$$
(13)
where $`R`$ is an erasure operator. No matter what the state $`\rho `$ is, the state of output space is $`|0><0|`$.

A trace operation can be realized by a projective measurement when we never learn the result of the measurement. Suppose the a quantum in the state $`|\psi >`$, the state after the measurement is given by

$$\rho ^{}=\underset{i}{}M_i|\psi ><\psi |M_i^{}.$$
(14)
Relation between trace operation and the measurement can be described like this,

$$1=tr(|\psi ><\psi |)=\underset{i}{}<\psi |M_i^{}M_i|\psi >.$$
(15)
Suppose we have a joint system $`AQ`$ in the state

$$\rho ^{AQ}=\underset{i,j}{}p_{ij}\rho _i^A|j_Q><j_Q|,$$
(16)
and wish to trace out the subsystem $`Q`$. Then the state of the subsystem $`A`$ becomes

$$\rho ^A=tr_Q(\rho ^{AQ})=\underset{j^{}}{}<j_Q|\rho ^{AQ}|j_Q>=\underset{i,jj^{}}{}p_{ij}\rho _i^A\delta _{j,j^{}}.$$
(17)
Suppose that a projective measurement described by $`P_j^Q`$ is performed on the quantum system $`Q`$, but we $`never`$ $`learn`$ the result of the measurement. The state of the system $`A`$ after a projective measurement on the system $`Q`$ is given by

$$\rho ^A=\underset{j^{}}{}P_j^Q\rho ^{AQ}P_j^Q=\underset{i,jj^{}}{}p_{ij}\rho _i^A\delta _{j,j^{}}.$$
(18)
We can see that a project measurement on a subsystem is the same as a partial trace. To see it clearly, let us consider a GHZ state

$$|GHZ>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A0_B0_C>+|1_A1_B1_C>)$$
(19)
of a three qubit system $`ABC`$. Then trace one qubit (suppose of system $`A`$) out of the three qubit system. It has

$$tr_A(|GHZ><GHZ|)=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{00}^{BC}+\frac{1}{2}\rho _{11}^{BC},$$
(20)
where $`\rho _{00}^{BC}=|0_B0_C><0_B0_C|`$, $`\rho _{11}^{BC}=|1_B1_C><1_B1_C|`$. From Eq.(20), we know that after a partial trace on system $`A`$, the system of $`BC`$ has a probability $`p=\frac{1}{2}`$ in state $`\rho _{00}^{BC}`$ or in the state $`\rho _{11}^{BC}`$. Obviously, the quantum measurement postulate tells us that is we perform a project measurement in basis $`\{|0>,\text{ }|1>\}`$ on the system $`A`$, the measurement result is in state $`|0>`$ ( consists to $`\rho _{00}^{BC}`$ ) or in state $`|1>`$ ( consists to $`\rho _{11}^{BC}`$ ) with a probability $`p=\frac{1}{2}`$. Consider the case the three qubit in the state $`|w>`$

$$|w>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|1_A0_B0_C>+|0_A1_B0_C>+|0_A0_B1_C>).$$
(21)
Let us suppose we trace out the qubit of system $`A`$. then we have

$$tr_A(|w><w|)=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{00}^{BC}+\frac{2}{3}|\psi _{BC}^+><\psi _{BC}^+|,$$
(22)
where $`|\psi _{BC}^+>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_B1_C>+|1_B0_C>)`$ is a Bell state. Clearly, after a project measurement on system $`A`$ in basis $`\{|0>,\text{ }|1>\}`$, the system $`A`$ has a probability $`p=\frac{1}{3}`$ in the state $`|1>`$ (consists to $`\rho _{00}^{BC}`$ ) and a probability $`p=\frac{2}{3}`$ in the state $`|0>`$ ( consists to $`|\psi _{BC}^+>`$ ).

Information erasure operation can be realized by a quantum projective measurement and a unitary operation. First, we perform a projective measurement. Then the quantum system will be in a known state (suppose in the state $`|j><j|`$) after the quantum measurement. We can perform a unitary operation on the state $`|j><j|`$ to prepare the system in state $`|0><0|`$. Suppose we want to erase the state information of quantum system $`A`$, which is in an known state $`\rho `$. First, we can perform a projective measurement described by projectors $`P_j`$. When we gain the measurement result (suppose in state $`|j>`$), then we can perform a unitary operation $`U`$ to prepare the system in a state $`|0>`$,

$`M`$ $`:`$ $`\rho |j><j|,`$ (23)
$`U`$ $`:`$ $`|j><j||0><0|.`$ (24)
This is a information erasure process.

## III Wave-particle duality:unitary and nonunitary operations

The evolution of the state of a closed quantum system is described by the $`Schr\ddot{o}dinger^{}s`$ equation. A general quantum dynamical process is described by a quantum operation. Complementarity principle tells us the microscopic word has the behavior, wave-particle duality. One can not draw pictures of individual quantum processes . To gain information of a quantum system, one has to perform a quantum measurement. A unitary operation on a quantum system will keep the wave behavior of this system. But, a nonunitary operation, will destroy the wave behavior of the system.

### A Nonunitary operations and particle behavior

In the quantum case, the completeness relation requires that trace of $`\rho `$ equal to one, $`tr(\rho )=1`$. We can see it consists to the quantum measurement, Eq.(7). A trace process can be treated as a notion that we can find out the particle in the whole space to a certain. After a trace process on a quantum system, the wave behavior disappeared completely. If the quantum system is $`tracepreserving`$ ( $`tr(\rho )=1`$ ), which means that the trace of this quantum system is unit, the probability of find out the particle is 1.

Consider the case of quantum measurement. When we perform a projective measurement on a quantum system, the result of the measurement is in a state with the probability give by Eq.(5). Since the state is in an orthogonal state after a projective measurement, according to the definition of Eq. (1), the behavior of this system is particle. The wave behavior disappeared. But, $`POVMs`$ maybe show some wave behavior. Suppose a particle is a two dimensions $`\{|0>,|1>\}`$ quantum system. Consider a $`POVM`$ containing three elements ,

$$E_1=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1+\sqrt{2}}|1><1|,$$
(25)
$$E_2=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1+\sqrt{2}}\frac{(|0>|1>)(<0|<1|)}{2}$$
(26)
$$E_3=IE_1E_2$$
(27)
We can see that $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, and $`E_3`$ are not orthogonal to each other. Then after a POVM, the quantum system will keep some wave behavior and appear some particle behavior.

A information erasure operation will destroy the wave behavior completely. After a information erasure operation, the system is in the state $`|0><0|`$. There is no wave behavior in this quantum system. Since the information erasure operation is physical irreversible, the wave behavior of the quantum system can not be recurred.

### B Quantum operation and von Neumann entropy

Entropy is a key concept of quantum information theory. It measures how much uncertainty there is in the state of a physical system. Von Neumann defined the entropy of a quantum state by the formula

$$S(\rho )tr(\rho \mathrm{log}\rho ).$$
(28)
If $`\lambda _x`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$ then von Neumann’s definition can be re-expressed

$$S(\rho )=\underset{x}{}\lambda _x\mathrm{log}\lambda _x,$$
(29)
where $`0log00`$. The entropy of a system measures the amount of uncertainty about the system before we learn its value. It is a measure of the “amount of chaos” or of the lack of information about a system. If one has complete information, i.e., if one is concerned with a pure state, $`S(\rho )=0`$ .

How does the entropy of a quantum system behave when we perform an operation on that system? Obviously, a unitary operation does not change the entropy of a system because a unitary transformation does not change the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$. In general, a nonunitary transformation would change the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$. So a nonunitary operation would change the von Neumann entropy of a quantum system.

Suppose $`P_i`$ is a complete set of orthogonal projectors and $`\rho `$ is a density operator. Then the entropy of the state $`\rho ^{}=_iP_i\rho P_i`$ of the system after the measurement is at least as great as the original entropy,

$$S(\rho ^{})S(\rho ),$$
(30)
with equality if and only if $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$ . From Eq.(9), we know the measurement outcomes $`P_m`$ is gained randomly with the probability $`m`$. So the uncertainty of the system increases after under the projective measurement if we never learn the result of the measurement. The entropy of the system would increase under a projective measurement. But how does the entropy behave depends on the type of measurement which we perform. A projective measurement increases entropy of a quantum system. But, a generalized measurements can decrease entropy of a quantum system.

Consider a trace operation. The information of a quantum system disappeared completely after a trace operation. So the uncertainty of the quantum system would increase. The uncertainty of the system would increase. In another view, a trace process can be realized by a projective measurement if we do not know the measurement result. So a trace operation would increase the entropy of the system.

Information erasure process will induce the entropy of the environment increase. Suppose a quantum system is in a state $`\rho `$. The von Neumann entropy of the system is

$$S(\rho )0,$$
(31)
where $`S(\rho )=0`$ if and only if $`\rho `$ is a pure state. After the information erasure operation, the system is in the known state $`|0><0|`$. The entropy of the system is zero. The entropy of the system is nonincreasing. Since entropy does not decrease, the entropy of the environment must increase. To realize the information erasure process, there must be interaction between system and environment. A information erasure process has to exchange momentum-energy with environment randomly. In another view, a information erasure process can be realized by a projective measurement and a unitary operation. A unitary operation does not change the entropy of the system. The change of entropy is derived by the measurement. A measurement will induce exchange of momentum-energy between system and environment. Here, the projective measurement will decrease the entropy of a system because we have to know the result of the measurement if we want to realize the information erasure operation.

## IV Quantum measurement and the second law of thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a closed system can never decrease. In 1871, J. C. Maxwell proposed the existence of a machine that apparently violated this law. Suppose we have a vessel in which full of air at unitary temperature are moving with velocities by no means unitary. And such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole. Let suppose that a demon, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slow from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of the work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contraction to the second law of thermodynamics .

The resolution to the Maxwell’s demon paradox lies in the fact that the demon must perform measurement on the molecules moving between the partitions, in order to determine their velocities. The result of this measurement must be stored in the domon’s memory. Because any physical memory is finite, the demon must erase information from its memory, in order to have space for new measurement results. By Landauer’s principle, erasing information increases the total entropy of the combined system which includes demon, gas vessel, and their environments. The second law of thermodynamics is obeyed.

We give a quantum manifestation of Maxwell’s demon. The demon and molecules in the vessel are all considered as quantum systems. To determine the velocities of molecules, the demon has to perform a quantum projective measurement. The average velocities of the molecules is

$`\overline{M}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}mP(m)`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`<\psi |M|\psi >,`$ (33)
where $`M`$ is a velocity operator. The standard deviation is

$`\mathrm{}(M)`$ $`=`$ $`<(M<M>)^2>`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`<M^2><M>^2.`$ (35)
It is a measure of the typical spread of the observed values upon measurement of $`M`$. In the vessel, the spread of the velocity of molecules is a Boltzmann’s spread. So the standard deviation is nonzero. Every demon’s measurement on the molecules will exchange some of momentum-energy between demon and molecules. We can calculate the least value of the momentum exchange under every measurement. Suppose the volume of the vessel is $`L^3`$. From the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we know that

$$\mathrm{}x\mathrm{}p\text{ }h.$$
(36)
The uncertainty of momentum is at least $`\text{ }h/L`$ in every measurement in one axes. Every time, when demon want to determine the velocity of molecules, there is some uncertainty momentum, at least $`\text{ }h/L`$, exchanged between demon and molecules. The system of vessel is not a closed. So the entropy of the vessel can decrease. Considering the whole system including molecules, demon, and environment, the entropy of combined system does not decrease.

Let us see a laser cooling of free atoms case. The general method of cooling is to reduce the kinetic energy of an atom after it was loaded into the trap. Assume we have an unbound gas of atoms. After a laser cooling process, the atoms can be in a Bose-Einstein condensation state . The entropy of the atoms decreases all long in this laser cooling process. But the entropy of the whole system including atoms and photon field increases. This laser cooling process is very like the maxwell’s demon paradox.

Consider a closed system including a large number of molecules. The average velocity of molecules is $`\overline{v}`$. Every molecule has a nonzero velocity in this system. Every molecule collides with others randomly all the time. There is momentum-energy exchange under every collision. The collision is a irreversible process in natural state. In a closed system, a collision process is nonreversible. Since every collision is random, the chaos of the system would increase after a long time. The entropy of this closed system increases.

## V the principle of least action in microword

There is only one physical process in reality. It is well known there is the principle of least action in the classical word. It corresponds to the Fermat’s principle in optics. The principle of least action tells us that every one in classical word will has a certain position and momentum forever. There is only one path is realizable in every possible path.

Quantum evolution of a closed system is a unitary evolution which can be described by Schrödinger’s equation. A state of a closed system is determined. As we have known, microword is a linear word. The linearity of the microword can be considered as the requirement of momentum-energy conservation and quantization. Suppose we have a two-level atom in the state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }>=\alpha |0>+\beta |1>,$$
(37)
where $`|0>`$ is the ground state and $`|1>`$ is the excited state, $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$. The energy level of the ground state is $`E_0`$, and the excited state is $`E_1`$. Suppose there is a photon with energy $`\mathrm{}E=\frac{1}{2}(E_0E_1)`$ which was absorbed into the system. If the system is in the state $`|0>`$ at first, then it should be in the state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>+|1>)$$
(38)
after it absorbed the photon. But a classical probability view is that this system is either in state $`|0>`$ or in state $`|1>`$ with certain. It is easy to see that a classical probability view will induce the energy not conservation. If the system is in state $`|1>`$ after absorbed a photon with energy $`\mathrm{}E`$, there is another $`\mathrm{}E`$ required of this combined system. Then the energy of this combined system is not conservation any longer. If the system is still in the state $`|0>`$ after it absorbed this photon, there is some energy $`\mathrm{}E`$ unwanted. The energy of the combined system is not conservation.

Another example is the double-slit interference. Reasonably, we can suppose the transverse momentum of the particle is zero. The state of particles exiting an interferometer is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi _1(r)>+|\psi _2(r)>],$$
(39)
where $`|\psi _1(r)>`$ and $`|\psi _2(r)>`$ represent the possibility for the particles to take path 1 or 2. If the particle only go through path 1 or path 2 every time, the transverse momentum is not conservation yet.

Comparing to the principle of least action in classical, we can see that entropy is least in the microword. The von Neumann entropy is least of a closed system, which give a limitation that the evolution of a closed system is unitary and the a microword is linear. In this case, we can say that the least of von Neumann entropy is an elementary requirement in the microword comparing to the principle of least action in classical word if and only if the momentum-conservation of energy and the quantization is needed in the microword. There is only one physics in reality. In classical word, it can be manifestation by the principle of least action. In the microword, it can be described as that the von Neumann entropy of a closed system is least.

## VI conclusion and suggestions for future research

We have presented that both a trace operation and a information erasure process can be realized by a projective measurement in physics. A partial trace can be realized by a projective measurement on a subsystem if we never know the result of the measurement. We have discussed the relation between quantum operations and the wave-particle duality behavior in microword. We have given a quantum manifestation of Maxwell’s demon. We have shown that the quantum measurement would increase the entropy of the environment. We have given a manifestation of the principle of least action in microword. And we have presented that the quantization and the conservation of momentum-energy requires the evolution of a closed system is a unitary and the entropy of this system is least.

The information erasure process is very important in quantum computation. The memory of the quantum computer has to be erased before a new job started since deleting an unknown state is impossible . The relation between information erasure and heat dissipation in a quantum system should be studied deeply in the future. And the quantum manifestation of the Maxwell’s demon maybe be practical to calculate the relation between decrease of entropy of the vessel and the exchange of energy between demon and molecules.

## VII acknowledgments

The author acknowledge financial support from the National natrual Science Foundation of China ( Grant No 10004013 ).

## VIII REFERENCES

 L. Szilard, Z. Phys. 53, 840 (1929).

 R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 3, 183 (1961).

 B. Piechocinska, Phys. Rev. A 61, 062314

 M. A. Nielsen, C. M. Dawson, J. L. Dodd, A. Gilchrist, D. Mortimer, T. J. Osborne, M. J. Bremner, A. W. Harrow, and A. Hines, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052310 (2003)

 M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).

 D. M. Green, M. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989); D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990); N. D. Mermin, Phys. Today 43 (6), 9 (1990).

 A. Zeilinger, m. A. Horne, and D. M. Greenberger, NASA Conf. Publ. No. 3135 (National Aeronautics and Space Adiministration, Code NTT, Washington, DC, 1997).

 N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145 (2002).

 von Neumann, Gōtt. Nachr. 273; A. Einstein, 1914, Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 12, 820.

 A. Wehrl, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50 (2), 221 (1978).

 J. C. Maxwell, Theory of Heat. Longmans, Green, and Co., London, 1871; L. Szilard. Z. Phys., 53, 840 (1929); C. H. Bennet, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21, 905 (1982); C. H. Bennett, Sci. Am., 295(5), 108 (1987).

 D. J. Wineland and Wayne M. Itano, Phys. Rev. A 20, 1521 (1979); Anthony J. Leggett, Rev Mod. Phys., 73, 307 (2001).

 Arun Kumar Pati and Samuel L. Braunstein, 404, 164 (2000).


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We utilize anthropic reasoning to demonstrate that we are typical observers of our reference class under a self-sampling assumption by investigating the definition of what a civilization is. With reference to the conflict between such reasoning and the observational lack of extra-terrestrial intelligent life, we conclude that a part of our theoretical understanding of the Universe will be at fault.

## 1 Introduction

There exist certain physical observations that we should not be at all surprised about. What we can expect to observe is restricted a priori by the conditions that are necessary for us to exist in the first place1. Necessarily, if intelligent life forms did not evolve in the Universe, then such observations could not take place at all2,3. Yet the question of what our own circumstances should be remains a taxing issue4: are we typical of all observers in the Universe? Indeed, Bostrom5 suggests reasoning that we should think of ourselves as a random sample derived from the set of all observers in our reference class under a ‘self-sampling assumption’.

One immediate question that arises is how should we define our own reference class? Bostrom5 includes all observers who have existed in the past and all those who will exist in the future. Olum6 favours adding to Bostrom’s reference class all those observers who might potentially have existed as well. Yet removing these extensions and confining our reference class to only those observers who exist presently, there is still conflict between anthropic reasoning and observation4 such that we would expect ourselves to be part of a titanic (inter-) galactic civilization rather than being part of a uniplanetary one. In numerical terms, only 1 in 100 million individuals would not be part of such a civilization at a pan-galactic level4.

In general, the assumptions that underscore this anthropic reasoning are inflationary7: in an infinite Universe, there logically exist such titanic civilizations3,4. Given that ‘they’ should already be here and are not3, there are a number of scenarios for the resolution of this problem4. In this work, we focus on an observational approach to resolving this conflict.

## 2 Defining civilization

Observationally, it is self-evident that we are part of a civilization. The definition of what a civilization is, however, is somewhat tricky and potentially arbitrary. For example, let us consider ourselves as being part of a civilization based on present-day national boarders where voluntary migration is uncommon. Unless we have emigrated away from our nation, we would not be surprised to find out that we are typical members of said civilization. Conversely, if we have migrated, we would also be unsurprised that we constitute a small minority of the populous in our new residential country.

By taking this example further, we can consider our national boundary to be the Earth. This in turn expands our reference class to all individuals present on Earth. Again, we would be unsurprised that we are a national of this planet. Assuming extra-terrestrial intelligence does exist, then we may migrate to their planets where we would unsurprisingly be in the minority. Yet we could now consider ourselves to be part of some greater civilization with a different (arbitrary) border such as a pan-galactic one that consisted of all intelligent life in the Galaxy. The reference class that we now have is exactly as defined in section 1. We conclude that we would still be typical galaxy nationals despite our divergent heritages under the self-sampling assumption.

This line of reasoning indicates a type of selection effect in how civilizations are defined. Specifically, we have used at each step only those observers whom we know by direct observation to be existent. It appears that by only considering our observations rather than the (theoretically) implied observations of vast civilizations, we are typical observers of our reference class; even when accounting for a finite speed of light.

## 3 Implications

Returning to our present knowledge base, it is clear that we have only observed our own Earthbound civilization. Further, it is highly probable that there is not any ‘local’ extra-terrestrial intelligence waiting to be discovered3. Importantly, we do not know anything about the existence of such beings at larger distances. The inference that they may exist is theoretically based rather than observationally. There is no observational evidence of absence beyond our local stellar region.

We therefore find it probable that it is not anthropic reasoning that is at fault. Although more detailed observations of exo-planets will be required, more likely the flaw in the conflict lies within a theoretical aspect coupled with the use of theoretical observers in our reference class. Specifically with reference to Olum4, these flaws are: few civilizations are able to grow to titanic proportions; the Universe is finite; or large-scale inter-stellar colonization is near impossible.

## 4 Summary

We have investigated the definition of civilization and applied anthropic reasoning to suggest that we are typical residents of our neighbourhood: whether this is in an Earthbound context or spatially more extended. Thus we reject the supposition that anthropic reasoning is invalid and favour that either our theoretical understanding of the Universe, our understanding of our colonization ability or the use of theoretical observers is at fault.

## Acknowledgements

KAP thanks the staff at both the University of Durham and the University of Queensland for their support. This work was supported by an EPSA University of Queensland research fellowship.

## References

(1) B. Carter, Confrontation of cosmological theories with observations (Reidel, Dordrecht), 1974.
(2) R.H. Dicke, Nature, 192, 440, 1961.
(3) J.D. Barrow and F.J. Tipler, The anthropic cosmological principle, (Clarendon Press, Oxford), 1986.
(4) K.D. Olum, arxiv:gr-qc/0303070, 2003.
(5) N. Bostrom, Anthropic bias: Observation selection effects, (Routledge, New York), 2002.
(6) K.D. Olum, Phil. Q., 52, 164, 2002.
(7) A.H. Guth, Phys. Rep., 333, 555, 2000.