text:
# How does breakup influence the total fusion of 6,7Li at the Coulomb barrier?

## I Introduction

The effect of breakup of weakly bound projectiles on fusion has been extensively investigated in recent years both experimentally Yoshida ; Takahashi ; Kolata ; Rehm ; Dasgupta ; Aguilera ; Trota ; Moraes ; Mukherjee ; Signorini ; Navin ; Padron ; Dasgupta\_new ; Beck\_new  and theoretically Hussein2 ; Hagino ; Alexis1 ; Alexis2 ; Keeley1 ; Keeley2 ; Yabana ; Alamanos , but there is not yet a definitive conclusion. Experimental works discuss the effect of breakup on fusion by comparing experimental fusion excitation functions to either realistic theoretical predictions which do not include couplings to the breakup channels, e.g. Dasgupta ; Trota ; Navin ; Dasgupta\_new , or to experimental fusion excitation functions of well-bound (reference) projectiles for which the breakup is expected to be weak, e.g. Rehm ; Moraes ; Signorini ; Padron .

In fusion of weakly bound nuclei, two independent fusion processes can be distinguished, namely complete fusion and incomplete or partial fusion. The total fusion is the sum of these processes (complete + incomplete). These two types of fusion processes are connected to the dynamics of the projectile fragments. A clear definition of complete and incomplete fusion is necessary to compare theoretical predictions to experimental data. Theoreticians, e.g. Hussein2 ; Hagino , and experimentalists, e.g. Dasgupta ; Dasgupta\_new2 , give different definitions in the literature. From a theoretical point of view we think that, strictly speaking, complete fusion refers to the capture of all the projectile fragments (from bound and breakup states) by the target, whereas the incomplete fusion is related to the capture of only some of those fragments. Experimentalists Dasgupta ; Dasgupta\_new2  tend to define complete and incomplete fusion as absorption of all the charge of the projectile and of a part of that charge, respectively. These definitions are only equivalent to the strictly theoretical ones if all the projectile fragments are charged (e.g., 6Li=$`\alpha `$+$`d,`$ or 7Li=$`\alpha `$+$`t`$), but this is not the case for projectiles like 9Be$`=\alpha +\alpha +n`$ or 11Be$`=^{10}`$Be$`+n`$. It is important to note that in fusion experiments with 9Be Dasgupta ; Signorini  and 11Be Signorini  it is still unclear what happens to the valence neutron after the reaction. If we follow the experimental definitions, the total and complete fusion would be the same for the reaction 11Be + 209Bi Signorini , since only the capture of the stable 10Be core has been observed so far.

Most experiments Yoshida ; Takahashi ; Kolata ; Rehm ; Aguilera ; Trota ; Moraes ; Mukherjee ; Signorini ; Padron ; Beck\_new  have only measured the total fusion, whereas in Dasgupta ; Navin ; Dasgupta\_new  the complete fusion was distinguished from the incomplete one. The importance of distinguishing between complete and incomplete fusion in order to observe complete fusion suppression above the barrier for 6,7Li + 209Bi was pointed out in Dasgupta\_new .

Since the calculation of the complete and the incomplete fusion cross section following either the strictly theoretical definitions or the experimental ones is extremely complex, simplifying models have been used up to now Dasgupta\_new ; Hussein2 ; Hagino ; Alexis1 ; Alexis2 . Using full coupled channels calculations, complete fusion was interpreted in Hagino ; Alexis1  as absorption from projectile bound states, and as incomplete fusion that from unbound states. In our approach in Alexis1 , the total fusion cross section for 11Be + 208Pb was unambiguously (referred to the strictly theoretical definition) calculated, but this was not the case for the complete and incomplete fusion independently. The unambiguous prediction of complete and incomplete fusion cross sections is still a challenge for all current fusion models Dasgupta\_new .

Following Ref. Hagino , we interpreted in Alexis1  the total fusion of 11Be on 208Pb as the absorption of the center of mass (c.m.) of the projectile from either its bound or breakup states. Since the mass of the 10Be core is much larger than the neutron mass, such an absorption could ensure that at least the charged core is captured. However, we doubt that this approach can be used to study the total fusion of the two-cluster projectiles 6,7Li because the two charged fragments (6Li=$`\alpha `$+$`d,`$ and 7Li=$`\alpha `$+$`t`$) have similar masses. In this case, the capture of the c.m. of the projectile is not necessarily connected to the capture of the charged fragments. Therefore, we will use for the present reactions two optical potentials for the nuclear interaction between the projectile fragments and the target. At the same time, the short-ranged imaginary fusion potential defined in the c.m. coordinate of the projectile and used in Alexis1 , will be removed. The imaginary part of those optical potentials will also be short-ranged (inside the Coulomb barriers) to ensure that the absorption is associated with fusion channels only.

The present work particularly aims at (i) investigating the relative importance of breakup and bound-state structure effects (i.e. ground-state reorientation couplings, coupling to the bound excited state (7Li) and bare potential) for the total fusion of 6,7Li on 59Co and 209Bi targets around the Coulomb barrier, (ii) clarifying whether or not the enhancement or suppression effect of breakup is shown in total fusion, and (iii) testing the model with recent experimental data Dasgupta\_new ; Beck\_new . In Sect. II, the theoretical formalism is presented, whereas the results and the discussion are shown in Sect. III. We draw conclusions in Sect. IV.

## II Theory

Calculations of total fusion cross sections for 6,7Li on 59Co and 209Bi are carried out using a three-body model Alexis1  with a new CDCC CDCC  method of calculating fusion, i.e. with short-range fusion potentials for each fragment separately. Full coupled channels calculations are performed with the code FRESCO FRESCO . The set of coupled equations Alexis1  for the projectile-target radial wave functions is solved with the usual scattering boundary conditions FRESCO .

The total fusion cross section is calculated in terms of that amount of flux which leaves the coupled channels set (total absorption cross section) because of the short-ranged imaginary parts $`iW_F`$ of the optical potentials between the projectile fragments and the target. This guarantees that at least one of the charged fragments of the projectile is captured. The same Woods-Saxon potential $`W_F`$ with parameters $`W_0=50`$ MeV, $`r_0=0.8`$ fm, and $`a=0.1`$ fm is used for the imaginary part of the two optical potentials. The results depend only very weakly on the parameters of this potential, as long as it is well inside the Coulomb barrier and strong enough for the mean-free path of the projectile inside the barrier to be much smaller than the dimensions of $`W_F`$. The fusion cross sections for $`W_0=50`$ MeV are those for $`W_0=10`$ MeV changed by $`1\%`$. The use of a short-ranged imaginary potential is equivalent to the use of an incoming boundary condition inside the barrier for each fragment to study fusion Brown .

In calculations of total fusion cross sections, we simultaneously include (i) the breakup of the projectile caused by inelastic excitations to different partial waves in the continuum (non-resonant and resonant breakup), induced by the projectile fragments-target interactions (Coulomb+nuclear), and (ii) all continuum (bound-continuum and continuum-continuum) and reorientation couplings. By breakup we mean the elastic dissociation of 6,7Li into two fragments only, namely alpha + deuteron for 6Li and alpha + triton for 7Li, and not further breakup of the deuteron or triton. The reorientation couplings refer to the couplings of the quadrupole term of the projectile fragment-target potentials, among the projectile target partial waves, for the projectile in its ground state. Since we will first focus on effect of projectile excitation, we will not include transfer or inelastic channels of the target. The target will be regarded as a spherical nucleus with spin zero. Afterwards, we will estimate the effect of target excitations on the total fusion cross section. We expect both that such an effect could be important at energies just around the Coulomb barrier and that it is similar for the two lithium isotopes.

We would like to stress that in the present calculations the imaginary parts of the off-diagonal couplings have been neglected, while the diagonal couplings include imaginary parts. The reason for not including the imaginary part of the off-diagonal couplings is that they produce numerical instabilities. The hermiticity of the symmetric breakup matrix is violated when large values of off-diagonal imaginary couplings are included. Those imaginary couplings describe absorption occurring during the transitions between the channels. Following Ref. Satchler , we expect that these couplings weakly affect the total fusion cross section. In that reference, it was shown that the imaginary off-diagonal coupling redistributes, among the elastic and nonelastic channels, the flux that has already penetrated the Coulomb barrier. The total fusion cross section, however, remained unchanged.

In addition to the Coulomb interaction, the global Woods-Saxon parametrization given in Ref. Broglia  for the Christensen and Winther potential is used for the real part of the optical potentials between the projectile fragments (6Li=$`\alpha `$+$`d,`$ and 7Li=$`\alpha `$+$`t`$) and the target. Those potentials are given in Table I. The projectile-target bare potential for a central collision is calculated by the single-folding of the projectile fragments-target monopole (real) interactions with the 6,7Li ground-state densities defined in terms of the ground-state wave functions. In the following, by Coulomb barrier $`V_B`$ we mean the barrier of that potential.

The couplings are taken into account up to a projectile-target radial distance $`R_{\text{coup}}=150`$ fm. Partial waves for the projectile-target relative motion up to only $`L_{\mathrm{max}}30`$ (partial-wave total fusion cross section $`10^3`$ mb) are included in the calculation.

The bound states of the two-body 6Li (7Li) projectile and the single energy scattering wave functions which form the continuum bins Alexis1 , are obtained by solving a Schrödinger equation with the $`\alpha `$-$`d`$ ($`\alpha `$-$`t`$) potential $`V_{\alpha \text{-}d}^l`$ ($`V_{\alpha \text{-}t}^l`$), which may be $`l`$ dependent. The continuum states with a given partial wave $`l`$ have been consistently generated either by the same potential as that of the bound state of the same orbital angular momentum $`l`$ or by the potential generating the unbound resonances. The continuum (non-resonant and resonant) breakup subspace is discretized in equally spaced momentum bins with respect to the momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$ of the $`\alpha `$-$`d`$ ($`\alpha `$-$`t`$) relative motion. The bin widths are suitably modified in the presence of the resonant states in order to avoid double counting.

The $`J^\pi =1^+`$ ($`l=0`$ coupled to the spin of the deuteron $`s=1`$) ground state of 6Li with a binding energy of $`1.47`$ MeV can be generated by a Woods-Saxon potential given in Table I. The $`d`$-state ($`l=2`$,$`s=1`$) component Zhukov  of the g.s. wave function has been neglected. The $`3^+,2^+`$ and $`1^+`$ ($`l=2`$ coupled to the spin of the deuteron $`s=1`$) unbound resonant states of 6Li can be obtained with a Woods-Saxon potential including a spin-orbit term with the same geometry (see Table I). The energies and widths obtained for those resonances are compared with the experimental exp\_resonances  values in Table II.

In the case of 7Li, the $`3/2^{}`$ ground state and the bound $`1/2^{}`$ excited state ($`l=1`$ coupled to the spin of the triton $`s=1/2`$) with binding energies of $`2.47`$ MeV and $`1.99`$ MeV, respectively, can also be reproduced by a Woods-Saxon potential with a spin-orbit term (see Table I). The $`7/2^{}`$ and $`5/2^{}`$ ($`l=3`$ coupled to the spin of the triton $`s=1/2`$) unbound resonant states are calculated in the same way (see Table I). The energies and widths obtained for those resonances are included in Table II.

For the reactions with 6Li, we obtain converged total fusion cross sections Alexis1  using (i) a maximum energy of the continuum states of $`8`$ MeV for energies well above the Coulomb barrier and of $`6`$ MeV for energies around the barrier, (ii) continuum partial waves up to $`l=2`$ waves for a density of the continuum discretization of $`2`$ bins/MeV ($`l=0,1`$); $`7.7`$ bins/MeV and $`1.92`$ bins/MeV below and above the $`3^+`$ resonance, respectively, $`10`$ bins/MeV inside the resonance; $`2.5`$ bins/MeV and $`2`$ bins/MeV below and above the $`2^+`$ resonance, respectively, $`2.5`$ bins/MeV inside the resonance; for $`1^+`$ continuum states the density of the discretization is the same as that for $`2^+`$ states, (iii) the projectile fragments-target potential multipoles up to the quadrupole term ($`K2`$).

For 7Li, converged total fusion cross sections are obtained using (i) the same cutoff for the maximum energy of the continuum states as that for 6Li, (ii) continuum partial waves up to $`l=3`$ waves for a density of the continuum discretization of $`2`$ bins/MeV ($`l=0,1,2`$); $`7.7`$ bins/MeV and $`1.92`$ bins/MeV below and above the $`7/2^{}`$ resonance, respectively, $`10`$ bins/MeV inside the resonance; $`2.5`$ bins/MeV and $`2`$ bins/MeV below and above the $`5/2^{}`$ resonance, respectively, $`2.5`$ bins/MeV inside the resonance, (iii) the projectile fragments-target potential multipoles up to the octupole term ($`K3`$).

## III Results and discussion

### III.1 6,7Li+59Co

Fig.1 is used as an example to show the convergence of the total fusion cross sections of 6Li+59Co with respect to the number $`l`$ of partial waves in the continuum along with potential multipoles $`K`$. The maximum energy Emax of the continuum states and the density of the continuum discretization are as mentioned above. In particular, we would like to point out that converged results at energies just around the Coulomb barrier are obtained with a small number of continuum partial waves, i.e. up to $`d`$-waves in the present example, in contrast to that, it was claimed in Ref. Yabana . In the following, total fusion cross sections refer to converged values.

Fig. 2 shows total fusion excitation functions for 6Li+59Co (full dots with solid curve) and 7Li+59Co (full triangles with dashed curve), which are normalized with the corresponding cross sections in absence of couplings to breakup channels. For each reaction, the incident energy is normalized with its Coulomb barrier $`V_B`$. The Coulomb barrier for 6Li+59Co is $`V_B=11.74`$ MeV, whereas for 7Li+59Co it is $`V_B=11.68`$ MeV. These barriers are similar to those ($`11.5`$ MeV and $`11.35`$ MeV, respectively) calculated using the double-folding procedure with the Skyrme-type nucleon-nucleon interaction DF . The total fusion excitation functions without breakup include all reorientation couplings of 6,7Li. In case of 7Li, it also includes the coupling to the bound $`1/2^{}`$ first excited state. Since 6Li is a spherical nucleus in its ground state and, therefore, the quadrupole term of the projectile fragments-target potentials is zero, no reorientation effects occur for 6Li. The total fusion excitation functions with breakup include all continuum and reorientation couplings.

The breakup enhances the total fusion cross section at energies just around the barrier, whereas it hardly affects (an enhancement by $`2\%`$) the total fusion at energies well above the barrier. The fusion enhancement around the barrier is larger for 6Li than for 7Li, and it correlates with the smaller $`\alpha `$-breakup threshold for 6Li. Here, the enhancement factor strongly depends on the incident energy. This enhancement is caused by the bound-continuum couplings Alexis1  which dominate the suppression effect of the continuum-continuum couplings.

In Fig. 3, we compare the total fusion excitation functions of the two reactions. For each reaction, the incident energy is also normalized with the Coulomb barrier $`V_B`$ of the bare potential. We only include the reorientation couplings in fusion without breakup. All continuum and reorientation couplings are included in fusion with breakup. We can observe that the total fusion excitation functions without breakup are practically the same for 6,7Li. The mass difference between 6,7Li explains the remaining difference between their fusion excitation functions at energies well below the barrier. Both the 7Li ground-state reorientation effect (comparing the dashed curve to the dash-dotted one) and the effect of the coupling to its bound $`1/2^{}`$ excited state (comparing the dashed curve to the dotted one) on total fusion are very weak.

In Fig. 3, we can also observe that the inclusion of the couplings to the breakup channels notably increases the difference between the total fusion excitation functions of the two systems at energies just around the barrier. However, at energies well above the barrier the total fusion cross sections are practically the same. We conclude that the breakup is the main reason for the difference between the total fusion cross sections of 6,7Li on 59Co.

A crude estimation of the effect of 59Co excitations on the total fusion cross section was done by (i) fitting the converged total fusion cross sections of Fig. 3 (lower part) in a single (elastic) channel calculation by finding an appropriate projectile-target real Woods-Saxon potential with an energy dependent depth and the geometry $`r_0=1.179`$ fm and $`a=0.658`$ fm, and then (ii) including the target excitations as in Refs. FRESCO ; target\_exc . We include the couplings to the first three levels of the ground-state rotational band (Table III) of 59Co Baglin . This estimation reveals that the effect is very weak and similar for the two lithium isotopes. Total fusion cross sections are increased by $`5\%`$ for energies around the barrier, while they remain constant for energies well above the barrier.

In Fig. 4, the calculated (full squares and triangles) total fusion cross sections of Fig. 3 (lower part) including the effect of 59Co excitations are compared to the experimental data Beck\_new  (open circles and squares). The agreement is good at energies just around the barrier (arrows), but a slight overestimation is observed at energies well above the barrier. However, the ratio of the theoretical cross sections of the two systems agrees very well with the ratio of their experimental cross sections (see Fig. 3 of Beck\_new ) at all energies.

### III.2 6,7Li+209Bi

Fig. 5 shows, like Fig. 2, total fusion excitation functions for 6Li+209Bi (full dots with solid curve) and 7Li+209Bi (full triangles with dashed curve), which are normalized with the corresponding cross sections without breakup. The incident energies are also normalized with the barrier ($`V_B=29.71`$ MeV for 6Li, and $`V_B=29.57`$ MeV for 7Li) of the calculated bare potentials. These barriers are similar to those measured in Ref. Dasgupta\_new  ($`V_B=30.1\pm 0.3`$ MeV for 6Li, and $`V_B=29.7\pm 0.2`$ MeV for 7Li) and to those calculated DF  ($`V_B=29.8`$ MeV for 6Li, and $`V_B=29.5`$ MeV for 7Li) with the double-folding procedure.

Fusion enhancement occurs at energies just around the barrier, while breakup has very little effect (an enhancement by $`3.5\%`$) on total fusion at energies well above the barrier. The difference between the two $`\alpha `$-breakup thresholds for 6,7Li is also revealed in the value of their enhancement factors around the barrier. These factors also depend strongly on the decreasing incident energy below the barrier. Comparing this figure with Fig. 2, we can observe that the breakup effect on total fusion is stronger for the 209Bi target than for 59Co, as expected.

In Fig. 6, the total fusion excitation functions of the two reactions are compared to each other (as in Fig. 3). It is observed that the differences between the total fusion excitation functions, caused by the bound-state structure effects of 6,7Li, are very small and similar to those with the 59Co target. The effect of the 7Li ground-state reorientation couplings (comparing the dashed curve to the dash-dotted one) and of the coupling to its bound $`1/2^{}`$ excited state (comparing the dashed curve to the dotted one) on total fusion are also very weak.

In Fig. 6, it is also shown that the breakup increases the difference between the total fusion cross sections for 6,7Li at energies just around the barrier. At energies well above the barrier, the two systems show very similar total fusion excitation functions. Fig. 6 also indicates, like Fig. 3, that the breakup causes the difference between the total fusion cross sections of 6,7Li.

We also estimated the effect of target excitations on total fusion. It was done in the same way as for 59Co. Since the couplings to the first two excited states of single-particle structure is rather weak Martin , we only include couplings to the collective multiplet \[208Pb(3-)$``$1h9/2\]$`_{J^\pi }`$ (Table III) with energies ranging from 2.493 to 2.741 MeV Martin . Moreover, we assume collective transitions to these excited states due to their complexity (combined collective and single-particle dynamics). Total fusion cross sections remain the same for energies well above the barrier, whereas they are increased by $`3\%`$ around the barrier for both 6Li and 7Li.

Fig. 7 shows a comparison between the calculated (full squares and triangles) total fusion excitation functions including the effect of target excitations and the experimental data Dasgupta\_new  (open circles and squares). The experimental data for 6Li (upper part, open circles) are well reproduced, but it is not the case for 7Li (lower part, open squares). Theoretical results for 7Li underestimate the experimental values at energies around the barrier, but the agreement is good at energies well above the barrier.

In contrast to 6,7Li+59Co Beck\_new , experimental total fusion cross sections for 7Li+209Bi are larger than those for 6Li+209Bi around the barrier. The experiment Dasgupta\_new  shows that it is because the direct production of 210,211Po evaporation residue (contributing to the incomplete fusion yield) is notably larger with 7Li than with 6Li. These evaporation residues can be produced by the capture of (i) the deuteron or proton (proton capture following dissociation of $`dp+n`$) for 6Li, and of (ii) the triton for 7Li. A stripping breakup process Stripping  does not seem to explain the larger production of 210,211Po with 7Li, because the triton binding energy in 7Li is larger than the deuteron one in 6Li. It would be interesting to measure deuteron and triton transfer cross sections for these reactions to clarify the reason for the difference of their 210,211Po yields. We would like to stress that couplings to these transfer channels were not included in the present calculations.

### III.3 Effect of the off-diagonal imaginary couplings; comparison to other approaches

As an example, Fig. 8 shows the effect of the off-diagonal imaginary couplings on the total fusion of 6Li+59Co. This is the only system (the lightest one studied) for which we have obtained stable results when all imaginary couplings are included, as the off-diagonal imaginary couplings are not too strong in this case. In Fig. 8, we also compare the total fusion excitation function obtained with the present approach (using two optical potentials) to that obtained with our previous method in Ref. Alexis1  (using one imaginary potential defined in the c.m. coordinate of 6Li). The cross sections neglecting the off-diagonal imaginary couplings (full squares in Fig. 8) are the same as shown with full dots in Fig. 3. The cross sections including all imaginary couplings are presented with full stars. The off-diagonal imaginary couplings slightly reduce the total fusion cross sections (by $`13\%`$ around the barrier and by $`6\%`$ well above the barrier). However, the cross sections obtained with the present approach (full squares) differ considerably from those (full triangles) calculated with the method from Ref. Alexis1 , as expected for the 6Li projectile (see introduction). The results indicate that there are many events where one of the fragments of 6Li is captured, but the c.m. of the projectile does not reach the absorption (fusion) region. The imaginary potential used in the method from Ref. Alexis1  has the same shape and magnitude as the imaginary part of the optical potentials in the present approach.

In Fig 9, we compare the total fusion excitation function (open circles) obtained with the barrier penetration model (BPM) Satchler  to that obtained with full coupled channels calculations when all imaginary couplings are included (full stars in Fig. 8). The total fusion excitation functions are normalized with the cross sections in absence of couplings to breakup channels. The BPM model assumes that all the flux that penetrates a single barrier (defined for these calculations as the sum of the bare potential and the real part of a local dynamic polarization potential (DPP) target\_exc ) leads to fusion. The DPP potential includes the effect of couplings to breakup channels and was extracted from the CDCC calculation shown with full stars in Fig. 8. This approach to fusion has been extensively used in the last few years Keeley1 ; Keeley2  to predict total fusion cross sections with weakly bound projectiles, e.g. very recently for 6Li and 6He on the 208Pb target Keeley2 . It is observed that the BPM cross sections (open circles) underestimate (by $`40\%`$ just around the barrier and by $`8\%`$ well above the barrier) the actual cross sections (full stars), which is particularly relevant at energies just around the barrier. This is because the BPM approach does not include fusion within the projectile-target barrier target\_exc . In contrast to the full coupled channel calculations (full stars), the BPM approach (open circles) shows total fusion suppression for the whole range of incident energies studied (by $`14\%`$ just around the barrier and by $`9\%`$ well above the barrier). The present results shows that the BPM approach is particularly inappropriate at energies just around the barrier and also yields a rather inaccurate answer to the question how breakup affects total fusion.

With the above comparisons, it is important to note that to realistically predict total fusion cross sections the fusion model should be carefully chosen depending on the cluster structure of the weakly bound projectile and on what the experiment is expected to measure (in order to ensure a realistic comparison of theoretical and experimental data).

## IV Summary and conclusions

Total (complete + incomplete) fusion excitation functions of 6,7Li on 59Co and 209Bi targets at Coulomb barrier energies are obtained using full coupled channels calculations with a new CDCC method of calculating fusion, that has short-range fusion potentials for each fragment separately. The realistic prediction of total fusion cross sections requires the selection of an appropriate fusion model which depends on both the cluster structure of the weakly bound projectile and what the experiment is supposed to measure.

The effect of breakup on fusion can be observed in the total fusion excitation function. The breakup enhances the total fusion of 6,7Li at energies just around the barrier, whereas it has very little effect on total fusion at energies well above the barrier. The fusion enhancement factor strongly depends on the decreasing incident energy below the barrier. The fusion enhancement is larger for the reaction with 6Li than that with 7Li, and it is correlated with the smaller $`\alpha `$-breakup threshold of 6Li. The difference between the bound-state structures of 6,7Li does not produce large difference between their total fusion excitation functions. The effect of the 7Li ground-state reorientation couplings on total fusion is very weak. A crude estimation reveals that the effect of target excitations on total fusion is weak and similar for 6,7Li. The experimental data for 6,7Li+59Co as well as for 6Li+209Bi are well reproduced. The breakup notably causes the difference between the experimental total fusion cross sections of 6,7Li on 59Co, but it is not the case for the 209Bi target. Experiments focused on the deuteron and triton transfer cross sections are important to understand the difference between the total fusion of 6,7Li on 209Bi. Work is in progress to study 6He induced fusion reactions since low-energy radioactive beams have become available for new experiments in selected facilities Kolata ; Rehm ; Trota ; Signorini .

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank M. Dasgupta for providing experimental data in tabulated form. We would also like to acknowledge G.G. Adamian, N.V. Antonenko and S.J. Sanders for a careful reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Superconductivity, d Charge-Density Wave and Electronic Raman Scattering in High-Tc Superconductors

## Abstract

The competition of superconductivity and a d charge-density wave (CDW) is studied in the $`tJ`$ model as a function of temperature at large $`N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of spin components. Applying the theory to electronic Raman scattering the temperature dependence of the $`B_{1g}`$ and the $`A_{1g}`$ spectra are discussed for a slightly underdoped case.

Generalizing the $`tJ`$ model from two to N spin components it can rigorously be shown that its phase diagram exhibits a quantum critical point at large N at a critical doping $`\delta =\delta _0`$. It separates a superconducting ground state with a d-wave order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$ for $`\delta >\delta _0`$ from a state with two competing d-wave order parameters, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a d CDW wave order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤)`$. Below we will present results on the temperature dependence of the two order parameters and the resulting electronic Raman spectra.

Fig. 1 shows the temperature dependence of the maximum amplitude of the two order parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

using the nearest hopping amplitude $`t`$ as the energy unit. The doping $`\delta =0.114`$ corresponds to a slightly underdoped case because $`\delta _00.15`$ determines essentially optimal doping. $`V_c`$ is the Coulomb repulsion between nearest neighbors. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ sets in at high temperatures in a mean-field like square root fashion, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exhibits a smooth onset. The curves demonstrate that the increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is accompanied by a decrease in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at low temperatures reflecting the competition between the two order parameters.

Fig. 2 shows $`B_{1g}`$ spectra for the same doping at different temperatures. The main peak at $`T=0`$ lies well below the excitations of free quasiparticle across the gap and corresponds to a collective excitation which may be viewed either as an exciton state of the superconductor or as the amplitude mode of the d CDW order parameter. The shoulder in the $`T=0`$ curve is caused by transitions over the superconducting gap and may have been observed in underdoped $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$. This sideband decreases with decreasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and vanishes at $`T=0.01`$. The main peak does not move within this temperature interval which means that it reflects the behavior of the total gap. With increasing temperature the peak moves to smaller frequencies and looses rapidly in intensity.

Density fluctuations may couple to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ via their modulation of the density of states at the Fermi energy. Using this coupling Fig. 3 shows calculated $`A_{1g}`$ spectra for different temperatures. The broad peaks are again collective in nature and describe ampliude fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Their maxima are appximately given by $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The peak positions and their intensities decrease rapidly with increasing temperature with the onset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at around $`T0.01`$ setting the scale. The usual density coupling may also contribute to the $`A_{1g}`$ spectrum, especially, if the Fermi surface has several sheets. The corresponding temperature dependence is similar to that of the $`B_{1g}`$ spectrum in Fig. 2. Different temperature dependencies of spectra thus could discriminate between different coupling mechanisms.


text:
# References

Evidence that the universe is undergoing a phase of accelerated expansion at the present epoch continues to grow. Not only is accelerated dynamics inferred in high redshift surveys of type Ia supernovae , it is now independently implied from observations of the anisotropy power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) . The favoured explanation for this behavior is that the universe is presently dominated by some form of ‘dark energy’ contributing up to 70$`\%`$ of the critical energy density, with the remaining 30$`\%`$ comprised of clumpy baryonic and non–baryonic dark matter . One of the central questions in cosmology today is the origin of this exotic matter. In the quintessence scenario, for example, the dark energy is a self–interacting scalar field that slowly evolves down a potential and thereby acts as a negative pressure source . This paradigm has attracted attention because a wide class of models exhibit ‘tracking’ behavior at late times, where the dynamics of the field becomes independent of its initial conditions in the early universe. In principle, this may resolve the fine–tuning problem inherent in dark energy models based purely on a cosmological constant . Nevertheless, there is at present no generally accepted origin for the quintessence field from a particle physics perspective.

Current observations constrain the effective equation of state of the dark energy to be within the region bounded by $`1.45<w_{\mathrm{DE}}<0.74`$ at the 95$`\%`$ confidence level , where $`w_{\mathrm{DE}}p_{\mathrm{DE}}/\rho _{\mathrm{DE}}`$ and $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ denote the pressure and energy density of the field, respectively. Phantom matter corresponds to the region of parameter space $`w_{\mathrm{DE}}<1`$, where the scalar field has negative kinetic energy . Although matter of this form is presently consistent with observations, the origin of such a scalar field with a non-conventional kinetic energy is not understood. On the other hand, it was recently noted that the phantom field need not necessarily be a scalar but may in principle have vector or tensor degrees of freedom . Moreover, similarities between phantom matter and conformal field theory (CFT) were discussed in Ref. .

In view of the above developments, and given the absence of a favoured scalar field model, it is important to search for alternative candidates for the dark energy/phantom matter whose origin may be found within the context of string/M–theory. One of the more unusual types of matter that is predicted to arise in string/M–theory is the so-called Born-Infeld (BI) field. (For a review, see, e.g., Refs. ). The action for the BI field coupled to gravity is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{BI}}=\lambda d^4x\left\{\sqrt{det\left(g_{\mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu }\right)}\sqrt{detg_{\mu \nu }}\right\},$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength for the gauge field, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the spacetime metric and $`\lambda `$ is a coupling constant.

The question we address in this paper is whether such a field can play the role of dark energy/phantom matter in the present–day universe. For simplicity, we assume throughout that the gauge group is abelian. It is known that standard abelian BI cosmology is necessarily anisotropic (or inhomogeneous) . On the other hand, as shown in Ref. , non–abelian BI cosmology may be isotropic when the proper choice of gauge field configuration is made. Moreover, the equation of state of BI matter may become negative in some regions of parameter space . However, it could be argued that such a complicated choice for the gauge field strength might be artificial. In the present letter, therefore, we suggest that abelian BI theory may be employed as a toy model for isotropic BI cosmology where the field strength is time-dependent due to quantum effects (specifically effects similar to that of gluon condensation in QCD).

In a four-dimensional spacetime, it follows that

$$det\left(g_{\mu \nu }+F_{\mu \nu }\right)=(g)\left\{1+\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{16(g)}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^2\right\},$$
(2)
where $`gdetg_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$. The energy momentum tensor for the BI field is then derived by varying the action (1) with respect to the metric tensor:

$$T_{\mathrm{BI}}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{BI}}}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}=\frac{\lambda }{2}\left\{\frac{g^{\mu \nu }\left(1+\frac{1}{2}F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma }\right)F_\rho ^\mu F^{\nu \rho }}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2}F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma }\frac{1}{16(g)}\left(F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma }\right)^2}}g^{\mu \nu }\right\}.$$
(3)
We now assume that the spacetime metric corresponds to the spatially flat, isotropic, Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) universe:

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)dx^2,$$
(4)
where $`a(t)`$ represents the scale factor of the universe. If the electric or magnetic component of the field strength, $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, becomes non–trivial, the isometry of the metric (4) is broken. However, it is known that in the case of QCD, the vacuum expectation value of the square of the field strength becomes non-trivial due to the condensation of the gluon. Phenomenologically, the gluon condensation has been observed by using the operator product expansion . In QCD the condensation can be derived by using the trace anomaly induced effective action  (for a general discussion, see ). If we take into account such effects, we may impose as our main assumption that

$$F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }_V=\alpha (t),F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }_V=\beta (t)\sqrt{g},$$
(5)
where $`_V`$ denotes vacuum expectation values and the functions $`\alpha (t)`$ and $`\beta (t)`$ may in general depend on time but are constant on the spatial hypersurfaces. Due to the isometry of the spatial hypersurfaces, we may further assume that

$$F_\rho ^0F^{0\rho }_V=\frac{\alpha _t}{4}g^{00},F_\rho ^iF^{j\rho }_V=\frac{\alpha _s}{4}g^{ij},\alpha _t+3\alpha _s=4\alpha ,$$
(6)
where $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(t)`$, $`\alpha _t=\alpha _t(t)`$.

We emphasize that the origin of Eq. (5) is purely quantum in nature and arises from the condensate that appears due to vacuum fluctuations. In general, the vacuum expectation values (5) are not independent. However, the relationship between them can only be determined by a direct calculation to some finite order in loop corrections (normally chosen to be the one–loop level). Moreover, such a calculation depends on the choice of the background, the origin of the BI field itself, as well as the compactification scheme and particular string theory under consideration. In Ref. , the one-loop effective potential (and static potential) for a toroidal D-brane described by the BI-action in constant electric and magnetic fields was evaluated. In the case of the one-loop potential, it was found that the presence of a magnetic background may stabilize the D-brane, whereas, in contrast, a constant electrical field leads to destabilization. The main conclusion to be drawn from such a study is that the consideration of quantum effects in BI theory is extremely involved even for the case of a stationary background. Since the explicit calculation of the time–dependence of (5) is beyond the scope of the present work, we adopt a more phenomenological approach. Our aim is to discuss the possible role of the quantum condensate in cosmological settings and, in particular, to determine the conditions that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ would need to satisfy in order for the BI field to act as a viable candidate for dark energy.

The classical thermodynamics of the radiation must also be accounted for. The classical contribution to the energy density and pressure of the BI field is determined by averaging over the spatial volume, as in Ref. . By identifying the electric and magnetic components such that $`E_iF_{i0}`$ and $`B_i\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F^{jk}`$, respectively, we may specify $`_iE_i^2=_iB_i^2ϵ(t)`$ by invoking the equipartition principle . Since $`F_\rho ^0F^{0\rho }=_iE_i^2`$ and $`F_{i\rho }F_j^\rho =E_iE_j+2B_iB_j`$, it is also consistent to further assume that $`E_iE_j=B_iB_j=ϵg_{ij}/3`$, and in this case, it follows that

$$\alpha _t=\alpha 4ϵ,\alpha _s=\alpha +\frac{4}{3}ϵ.$$
(7)
The parameters $`\alpha _t`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ are therefore to be viewed as expressing the time–dependence of the averaged components of the field strength, $`F_\rho ^0F^{0\rho }`$ and $`F_\rho ^iF^{j\rho }`$, respectively, where the contributions from the classical radiation bath and the quantum condensate have both been taken into account. We may regard the contribution from $`\alpha `$ as arising purely from quantum mechanical effects. Since the electric field is orthogonal to the magnetic field in the radiation, $`_iE_iB_i=0`$, it also follows that $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }_iE_iB_i=0`$ at the classical level. This corresponds to specifying $`\beta =0`$.

We now proceed to determine the effective equation of state for the BI field. When the connected parts of the operators in the vacuum expectation values are neglected, i.e., when

$$\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^n\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)^m_V=\alpha ^n\beta ^m,\text{etc.,}$$
(8)
the expressions for the energy density, $`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}`$, and pressure, $`p_{\mathrm{BI}}`$, of the BI field follow directly from Eq. (3). We find that

$`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\alpha _t}{4}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\beta ^2}{16}}}}1\right),`$ (9)
$`p_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\alpha _s}{4}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\beta ^2}{16}}}}1\right).`$ (10)
Since the BI field is minimally coupled to Einstein gravity, its dynamics is determined by the conservation of its energy–momentum, $`_\mu T_{\mathrm{BI}}^{\mu \nu }=0`$. For the FRW metric (4), this reduces to the ordinary differential equation:

$$\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{BI}}+3H(\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+p_{\mathrm{BI}})=0,$$
(11)
where $`H\dot{a}/a`$ represents the Hubble expansion parameter and a dot denotes differentiation with respect to cosmic time. In the purely classical limit, $`\alpha =\beta =0`$, we find that the equation of state corresponds to that of a relativistic fluid, $`p_{\mathrm{BI}}=\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}/3`$, as expected, and this implies that the energy density redshifts with the expansion of the universe in the standard fashion, $`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}ϵa^4`$.

We now consider the effects of the quantum condensate. In general, a matter degree of freedom may be viewed as phantom matter if it has positive energy density and negative pressure and if its equation of state satisfies $`wp/\rho <1`$, i.e., if $`p+\rho >0`$ . This implies that its energy density increases with time. By comparing Eqs. (9) and (10), we deduce immediately that

$$\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+p_{\mathrm{BI}}=\frac{\lambda }{8}\frac{\alpha _s\alpha _t}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\beta ^2}{16}}}$$
(12)
and it follows immediately that a necessary condition for the quantum BI condensate to act as phantom matter is that $`\alpha _t>\alpha _s`$. However, since $`ϵ`$ is a semi–positive–definite quantity, we conclude from Eq. (7) that $`\alpha _t<\alpha _s`$ is always satisfied. Thus, the BI field can not act as phantom matter in the context discussed here. This is a general result and is independent of the explicit time–dependence of the expectation value of the field strength.

On the other hand, in the limit where the quantum condensate dominates the classical contributions, $`\alpha ϵ`$, it follows from Eq. (7) that $`\alpha \alpha _s\alpha _t`$, and comparison of Eqs. (9) and (10) then implies that

$`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}=p_{\mathrm{BI}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{\alpha }{4}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\beta ^2}{16}}}}1\right)`$ (13)
$`w_{\mathrm{BI}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\mathrm{BI}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}}}=1.`$ (14)
In other words, in the limit where the classical contribution is negligible, the BI field behaves precisely as an effective cosmological constant. This is remarkable, given that the initial time dependence of the quantum contributions, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, has not been specified in the analysis. For consistency with Eq. (11), we require that the ratio

$$\frac{1+\frac{\alpha }{4}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\beta ^2}{16}}}$$
(15)
be time–independent and this imposes a restriction on the functional form of the parameters $`\{\alpha _s,\alpha _t,\beta \}`$, but does not necessarily imply that they should be time–independent themselves. We further require that

$$\frac{\alpha }{2}>1+\frac{\beta ^2}{16}$$
(16)
and, in the limit where $`8\alpha 16+\beta ^2`$ or $`\alpha +\mathrm{}`$, both the energy density and pressure diverge. It also follows from the identity

$$\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{4}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\frac{\beta ^2}{16}\right)=\frac{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}{16}0,$$
(17)
that the energy density is positive (negative) for positive (negative) coupling parameter, $`\lambda `$.

The question that now arises, therefore, is whether further constraints can be imposed on the time–dependent parameters from cosmological considerations. If the BI condensate is to act as a viable dark energy candidate, it can only be starting to dominate the energy density of the universe at the present epoch. This implies that the parameters $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ should be evolving in such a way that they are much less then unity today, otherwise the coupling parameter, $`\lambda `$, would have to be severely fine–tuned. Consequently, it is natural to Taylor expand Eqs. (9) and (10) to first–order in these parameters and we deduce that the effective equation of state in this limit is given by

$$w_{\mathrm{BI}}1+\frac{128ϵ}{96ϵ+3\beta ^2}.$$
(18)
Eq. (18) illustrates how the classical contribution to the field strength, $`ϵ`$, pushes the equation of state away from that of a cosmological constant. If the quantum condensate contribution to the energy density redshifts more slowly than the classical sector as the universe expands, the behavior of the BI field will gradually approach that of a cosmological constant as time proceeds. Consistency with observations requires that the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (18) should not exceed $`0.26`$ by the present epoch . It is interesting that the equation of state (18) is independent of $`\alpha `$ at this level of approximation.

To summarize, therefore, we have considered the possible cosmological implications of including ultraviolet quantum effects on Born–Infeld matter degrees of freedom that generate a condensate similar to that of the gluon condensate in QCD. In a FRW background, such effects introduce time–dependent corrections to the energy and pressure of the BI field, thereby altering its equation of state away from that of a classical radiation fluid. Since, in general, the determination of the time–dependence of such corrections is highly involved, we have invoked a phenomenological approach by investigating the conditions that should be satisfied by the quantum condensate if it is to act as a viable candidate for dark energy or phantom matter. It was found that such a field can not act as phantom matter unless it has negative energy density. Such a no–go result follows even though the precise time–dependence of the quantum corrections is unknown. On the other hand, we note that although negative energy densities may appear to be unphysical, spatial distributions of negative energy sources have recently been investigated in detail in Ref. , where it was shown by specific example that there exist distributions that are indeed allowed555In our case, we note that in the somewhat unlikely event that the classical contribution is absent, the ansatz $`\alpha _t=3\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _s=\alpha /3`$ could be made and this would yield phantom-like behavior for the BI condensate. However, a definitive conclusion can only be drawn after a complete calculation has been performed.. Similarly, the consideration of the Casimir energy in various models (see, for instance, Ref. ) shows that quantum corrections to the energy density may be negative.

In the classical limit, the BI field behaves as a relativistic perfect fluid. Surprisingly, however, in the opposite limit where the classical contribution is negligible relative to the quantum condensate, the field acts as an effective cosmological constant. There exists an intermediate regime of parameter space where the field may act as a dark energy source under the very weak condition that the classical sector redshifts with the expansion of the universe more rapidly than that of the quantum condensate.

This is potentially interesting because it suggests a mechanism for addressing the fine–tuning problem associated with dark energy cosmology. This is the problem of understanding why the dark energy has such a low density relative to the Planck scale. A possible scenario that could be considered is the case where the classical sector dominates the energy density of the BI field shortly after the condensate forms in the very early universe and remains the dominant contribution until a relatively recent epoch is reached that corresponds to a redshift of $`z𝒪(\mathrm{few})`$. In this case, the BI field may act as a relativistic degree of freedom for most of the history of the universe without violating the observational limits imposed by primordial nucleosynthesis and CMB constraints. If we further assume that equipartition holds in the early universe, the energy density of the BI field would remain comparable to that of the background CMB during this time. However, if the time dependence of the quantum parameters then changed so that these quantities redshifted more slowly than the classical contribution, the BI field would transform into a cosmological constant, but with a sufficiently low energy density at the present epoch. It would soon come to dominate the universe as its energy density remained approximately constant.

In order to proceed further, a number of unresolved questions should be addressed. In particular, the action (1) contains a string coupling constant within the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. It is important, therefore, to consider the energy scales associated with the condensates that we have considered. The coupling constant of the BI theory is predicted by string theory to be much higher than the observable, present–day dark energy. However, the BI theory arises from higher–dimensional string theory as an effective $`D`$–brane theory with an associated brane tension, and since we have considered the case where the quantum contributions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are of the order unity or less, the only scale that arises is that of the brane tension. In the standard $`D`$–brane setting, it is expected that the bulk cosmological constant and brane tension should both be of the order of the Planck scale. On the other hand, in warped compactification models, such as the Randall–Sundrum scenarios , the (higher–dimensional) Planck scale might be considerably lower. Moreover, it has been argued that the confinement of QCD might be dual to the Higgs mechanism . In this case, small values for the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ would arise naturally since they would be determined by the ratio of the confinement or Higgs scale with respect to the four–dimensional Planck scale. Alternatively, it would be interesting to consider mechanisms such as renormalization group screening to reduce the magnitude of the induced cosmological constant. Of course, this very important question of physical energy scales can only be addressed concretely after a direct calculation. We propose that the scenario we have outlined above provides strong motivation for considering the field theoretic issues that are involved in determining the explicit time–dependence of the condensate vacuum expectation values in an expanding FRW universe.

Finally, we remark that the quantum effects associated with CFT matter may also be accounted for by including the contributions due to the conformal anomaly. These take the general form

$$T=b\left(F+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}R\right)+b^{}G+b^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}R,$$
(19)
where $`F`$ is the square of four–dimensional Weyl tensor and $`G`$ is the Gauss-Bonnet invariant. If there are $`N`$ scalar, $`N_{1/2}`$ spinor, $`N_1`$ vector, $`N_{\mathrm{HD}}`$ higher derivative conformal scalars, and $`N_2`$ ($`=0`$ or $`1`$) graviton fields present, then $`b`$, $`b^{}`$ and $`b^{\prime \prime }`$, are given by

$`b={\displaystyle \frac{N+6N_{1/2}+12N_1+611N_28N_{\mathrm{HD}}}{120(4\pi )^2}}`$
$`b^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N+11N_{1/2}+62N_1+1411N_228N_{\mathrm{HD}}}{360(4\pi )^2}}`$
$`b^{\prime \prime }=0,`$ (20)
respectively. The contributions to the energy density and pressure due to the conformal anomaly have been found explicitly when the metric has the FRW form (4) . Specifically, for the case of pure de Sitter space, it was found that

$$\rho _A=p_A=6b^{}H^4.$$
(21)
It is remarkable, that for higher derivative conformal scalar the quantum CFT energy density becomes negative as well. It then follows that the (nearly de Sitter) Friedmann equation is given by

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi }{3m_P^2}\left\{\frac{\lambda }{6}\left(\frac{1+\frac{\alpha }{4}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\beta ^2}}1\right)6b^{}H^4\right\},$$
(22)
where $`m_P`$ is the Planck mass and we have neglected any classical effects. (For the exact expression of the CFT energy density in an arbitrary FRW spacetime, see ).

Hence, we deduce that BI quantum effects combined with the vacuum polarization which arises due to CFT matter contributions also serve as an effective cosmological constant with a negative equation of state and may in principle serve as a mechanism for realizing an accelerated phase of cosmic expansion.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported in part by the Royal Society (JEL), Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan under grant number 13135208 (SN) and the DGI/SGPI (Spain) project BFM2000-0810 (EE and SDO).


text:
# Entanglement as precondition for secure quantum key distribution

## Abstract

We demonstrate that a necessary precondition for unconditionally secure quantum key distribution is that sender and receiver can use the available measurement results to prove the presence of entanglement in a quantum state that is effectively distributed between them. One can thus systematically search for entanglement using the class of entanglement witness operators that can be constructed from the observed data. We apply such analysis to two well-known quantum key distribution protocols, namely the 4-state protocol and the 6-state protocol. As a special case, we show that, for some asymmetric error patterns, the presence of entanglement can be proven even for error rates above $`25\%`$ ($`4`$-state protocol) and $`33\%`$ ($`6`$-state protocol).

Quantum key distribution (QKD) Wiesner83 ; BB84  allows two parties (Alice and Bob) to generate a secret key despite the computational and technological power of an eavesdropper (Eve), who interfers with the signals. Together with the Vernam cipher Vernam26 , QKD can be used for unconditionally secure communication.

QKD protocols distinguish typically two phases to establish a key. In the first phase, an effective bi-partite quantum mechanical state is distributed between the legitimate users, which establishes correlations between them. A (restricted) set of measurements is used to measure these correlations, and the measurement results are described by a joint probability distribution $`P(A,B)`$. In the second phase, called key distillation, Alice and Bob use an authenticated public channel to process the correlated data in order to obtain a secret key. This procedure involves, typically, postselection of data, error correction to reconcile the data, and privacy amplification to decouple the data from a possible eavesdropper Norbert99 .

In this Letter we consider the first phase of QKD and demonstrate that a necessary precondition for successful key distillation is that Alice and Bob can detect the presence of entanglement in a quantum state that is effectively distributed between them. Such detection may involve available observed data only; it can be realized by using the class of entanglement witness operators that can be constructed from these data.

Two types of schemes are typically used to create correlated data. In prepare&measure schemes (P&M schemes) Alice prepares a random sequence of pre-defined non-orthogonal states that are sent to Bob through an untrusted channel (controlled by Eve). Generalizing the ideas of Bennett et al. Mermin92 , the signal preparation can be thought of as follows: Alice prepares an entangled bi-partite state of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{source}_{AB}=_i\sqrt{p_i}|e_i|\phi _i`$. If she measures the first system in the canonical orthonormal basis $`|e_i`$, she effectively prepares the (non-orthogonal) signal states $`|\phi _i`$ with probabilites $`p_i`$. The action of the quantum channel on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{source}_{AB}`$ leads to an effective bi-partite state shared by Alice and Bob. One important characteristic of the P&M schemes is that the reduced density matrix $`\rho _A`$ of Alice is fixed Note . In entanglement based schemes a bi-partite state is distributed to Alice and Bob by an, in general, untrusted third party. This party may be an eavesdropper who is in possession of a third sub-system that may be entangled with those given to Alice and Bob. While the subsystems measured by Alice and Bob result in correlations described by $`P(A,B)`$, Eve can use her subsystem to obtain information about the data of the legitimate users. Entanglement based schemes have been introduced by Ekert Ekert91 , who proposed to detect the presence of correlations of quantum mechanical nature by looking at possible violations of Bell-like inequalities. This is, in general, more restrictive than detection of the presence of entanglement. As we will show below, the success of the key distillation phase requires that the performed measurements together with $`P(A,B)`$ suffice to prove that the (effective) bi-partite state is entangled.

The starting point for our considerations is an upper bound for the distillation rate of a secure key from the correlated data via public communication, which is given by the intrinsic information  $`I(A;BE)`$, introduced by Maurer Maurer99 . Consider all possible tri-partite states that Eve can establish using her eavesdropping method, and all measurements she could perform on her sub-system. This gives rise to a set of possible extension $`𝒫`$ of the observable probability distribution $`P(A,B)`$ to $`P(A,B,E)`$. Maurer Maurer99  defines $`I(A;BE)`$ using the mutual information $`I(A;B|E)`$ between Alice and Bob given the public announcement of Eve’s data, as described by the conditional probabilites $`P(A,B|E)`$. In an adaptation of Maurer’s work we define the intrinsic information as

$$I(A;BE)=\mathrm{inf}_𝒫I(A;B|E).$$
(1)
An important consequence is that whenever the observable data $`P(A,B)`$ can be explained as coming from a tripartite state with a separable reduced density matrix for Alice and Bob, the intrinsic information vanishes.

###### Observation 1

Assume that the observable joint probability distribution $`P(A,B)`$ together with the knowledge of the corresponding measurements can be interpreted as coming from a separable state $`\sigma _{AB}`$. Then the intrinsic information vanishes and no secret key can be distilled via public communication from the correlated data.

This is easy to see for entanglement based schemes as we extend a separable reduced density matrix $`\sigma _{AB}=_iq_i|\phi _i_A\phi _i||\mathrm{\Phi }_i_B\mathrm{\Phi }_i|`$ to a tripartite pure state of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{sep}=_i\sqrt{q_i}|\phi _i_A|\mathrm{\Phi }_i_B|e_i_E`$. Here $`|e_i_E`$ is a set of orthonormal vectors spanning a Hilbert space of sufficient dimension. If Eve measures her sub-system in the corresponding basis, the conditional probability distribution conditioned on her measurement result factorizes so that for this measurement $`I(A;B|E)=0`$. As a consequence, the intrinisic information vanishes and no secret key can be distilled. In the case of P&M schemes we need to show additionally that the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{sep}`$ can be obtained by Eve by interaction with Bob’s system only. In the Schmidt decomposition $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{source}`$ can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{source}=_ic_i|u_i_A|v_i_B`$. Then the Schmidt decomposition of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{sep}`$, with respect of system $`A`$ and the composite system $`BE`$, is of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{sep}=_ic_i|u_i_A|\stackrel{~}{e}_i_{BE}`$ since $`c_i`$ and $`|u_i_A`$ are fixed by the known reduced density matrix $`\rho _A`$ to the corresponding values of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{source}`$. Then one can find a suitable unitary operator $`U_{BE}`$ such that $`|\stackrel{~}{e}_i_{BE}=U_{BE}|v_i_B|0_E`$ where $`|0_E`$ is an initial state of an auxiliary system.

In both types of schemes it is clear that we can obtain a secret key whenever the distributed (or effectively distributed) bi-partite states are entangled qubit states and we are allowed to perform joint quantum manipulations on these states. This is true since one can distill maximally entangled states in this situation Horodecki97 ; Deutsch96 . However, up to now it is not clear whether this is still true if Alice and Bob perform their respective measurements and can perform only classical operations on their correlated data. This scenario has been partially addressed under extra assumptions in Gisin99 ; Bruss03 ; Acin03 . More recently, Acín et al. Acin03b  proved that one can always distill a secret key from any bi-partite entangled qubit states by adapting the local measurements to the quantum state and performing subsequently a classical protocol.

Let us now turn to the investigation of the correlations in detail. The question whether the effectively distributed bi-partite state is entangled can be addressed based on the ideas of entanglement witnesses. An entanglement witness is an observable that detects the presence of entanglement (if any) of a given state $`\rho `$: A state $`\rho `$ is entangled iff there exist a hermitian witness operator $`W`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}(W\rho )<0`$, while we have $`\mathrm{Tr}(W\sigma )0`$ for all separable states $`\sigma `$. These operators, as any bipartite hermitian operator, can always be decomposed into a pseudo-mixture of projectors onto product vectors $`W=_ic_i|a_ia_i||b_ib_i|`$, where the coefficients $`c_i`$ are real numbers and fulfill $`_ic_i=1`$ Sanpera97 ; Guehne02 ; Guehne02b . Given such a decomposition of $`W`$, the expectation value $`\mathrm{Tr}(W\rho )`$ can be obtained directly from the expectation value, $`P(a_i,b_i)`$.

In our approach we consider the reverse problem: Given a particular set of local measurements performed by Alice and Bob, and search for all entanglement witnesses that can be constructed from them.

###### Theorem 1

Given a set of local operations with POVM elements $`F_aG_b`$ together with the probability distribution of their occurrence, $`P(A,B)`$, then the correlations $`P(A,B)`$ cannot lead to a secret key via public communication unless one can prove the presence of entanglement in the (effectively) distributed state via an entanglement witness $`W=_{a,b}c_{a,b}F_aG_b`$ with $`c_{a,b}`$ real such that $`\mathrm{Tr}(W\sigma )0`$ for all separable states $`\sigma `$ and $`_{a,b}c_{a,b}P(a,b)<0`$.

By observation 1 it is a necessary condition for the success of the key distillation phase that we can exclude separable quantum states as the origin of the observed correlations of the first phase. The observed data define equivalence classes of reduced density matrices that are compatible with the data. We need to distinguish between cases where the determined equivalence class contains separable states and those that do not. For this we proceed as follows: Note that the operators of the form $`_{a,b}c_{a,b}F_aG_b`$ form a real vector space which is a sub-space of the vector space spanned by the hermitian operator basis of the composite Hilbert space. The separable density matrices form a compact, convex set in that vector space, and its projection into a sub-space is again a compact and convex set formed by elements that represent the equivalence classes mentioned before. Each element of this new set can be explained as being the projection of a separable density matrix, while the elements of the complement of the set cannot be explained in this way and must therefore come from the projection of an entangled state. In the subspace, we therefore need to distinguish a compact and convex set form its complement, which is done, again, by witness operators. In the sub-space, all witnesses operators can be realized by definition. The corresponding operators on the larger vector space are those witness operators that can be created by real linear combinations of the local measurements. This proves the theorem.

The question whether certain correlations are of quantum origin and might lead to a secure key is therefore reduced to a search over all entanglement witnesses that can be constructed from the protocol and the collected data. We will illustrate the consequences of this view for well-known protocols, namely the $`6`$-state protocol Bruss98  and the $`4`$-state protocol BB84 . In searching through the entanglement witnesses, note that some conditions derived from witnesses are redundant in the sense that all entangled states detected by one witness can be contained in the set of detected entangled states of another witness. A witness operator $`W`$ is called optimal Lewenstein00  if no other entanglement witness exists that detects all states detected by $`W`$. The class of optimal entanglement witnesses for two qubit states, denoted by OEW, are given by $`W=|\varphi _e\varphi _e|^{T_P}`$ Lewenstein97 , where $`|\varphi _e`$ denotes an entangled state and $`T_P`$ is the partial trace, that is, the transposition with respect to one subsystem.

For the case of the 6-state protocol, Alice and Bob perform projection measurements onto the eigenstates of the three Pauli operators $`\sigma _x,\sigma _y,`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ in the entanglement based scheme where Eve distributes bi-partite qubit states. In the corresponding P&M scheme, Alice prepares the eigenstates of those operators by performing the same measurements on a maximally entangled qubit state. Therefore, the set of three measurement bases used in the protocol allows Alice and Bob to construct any entanglement witness of the form

$$W=\underset{i,j=\{0,x,y,z\}}{}c_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _0=𝟙`$ and $`c_{ij}`$ are real numbers. Note that the set of operators $`\{\sigma _i\sigma _j\}_{i,j}`$ constitutes an operator basis in $`^2^2`$. Therefore Alice and Bob can evaluate all entanglement witnesses, in particular the class OEW of optimal witnesses for two qubits, as given above. This means that in this protocol all entangled states can be detected. Alternatively to the witness approach, Alice and Bob can employ quantum state tomography techniques in connection with the Peres-Horodecki criterion Peres96 ; Horodecki96 .

While the analysis of the $`6`$-state protocol is quite simple, the $`4`$-state protocol, however, needs a deeper examination since it turns out that the optimal witnesses in OEW cannot be evaluated with the given correlations, as we will see below. In the four state protocol Alice and Bob perform projection measurements in two qubit bases, say $`x`$ and $`z`$. In the corresponding P&M scheme Alice uses the same set of measurements on a maximally entangled state.

For the entanglement scheme we obtain the set of entanglement witnesses that can be evaluated with the resulting correlations as

$$W=\underset{i,j=\{0,x,z\}}{}c_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j.$$
(3)
This class, which we shall denote as EW4, can be characterized with the following observation.

###### Observation 2

Given an entanglement witness $`W`$ we find $`WEW_4`$ iff $`W=W^T=W^{T_P}`$.

To see this, we start with the general ansatz of Eqn. (2) and impose the conditions $`W=W^T=W^{T_P}`$. This directly constraints $`W`$ to the form (3) since $`\sigma _y`$ is the only skew-symmetric element in the operator basis. The reverse direction is then trivial.

Note that that the elements of OEW, $`W=|\varphi _e\varphi _e|^{T_P}`$, are nonpositive, while $`W^{T_P}=|\varphi _e\varphi _e|`$ is a positive operator for all entangled states $`|\varphi _e`$. This means that, in contrast to the case of the $`6`$-state protocol, the $`4`$-state protocol does not allow to evaluate the optimal witnesses in OEW. As a result, there can be entangled states that give rise to correlations $`P(A,B)`$ that are not sufficient to prove the presence of entanglement.

The concept of optimal witnesses can be extended by calling a witness $`W`$ optimal in class $`C`$ iff there is no other element in $`C`$ that detects all entangled states detected by $`W`$. Our basic goal is now to characterise a family of witness operators that are optimal in class EW4, such that it is sufficient to check this family of witnesses to decide whether the presence of entanglement can be verified from the given data.

For this purpose we present a necessary condition for a bi-partite state to contain entanglement that can be detected by elements of EW4.

###### Observation 3

Given $`WEW_4`$, a necessary condition to detect entanglement in state $`\rho `$ is that the operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{4}\left(\rho +\rho ^{T_A}+\rho ^{T_B}+\rho ^T\right)`$ is a non-positive operator.

To see this, let us start by the observation that the symmetries of the witness operators in EW4 give rise to the identity $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(W\rho \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(W\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$. Now let us assume that the operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is non-negative. Then one can interpret it as a density matrix. Since it is invariant under partial transposition, it must be a separable state. Since $`W`$ is a witness operator, we must therefore find $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(W\rho \right)0`$. As a result, we find that the non-positivity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a necessary condition to detect entanglement of the state $`\rho `$ with witnesses in EW4.

###### Theorem 2

Consider the family of operators $`W=\frac{1}{2}(Q+Q^{T_P})`$, where $`Q=|\varphi _e\varphi _e|`$ and $`|\varphi _e`$ denotes a real entangled state. The elements of this family are witness operators that are optimal in EW4 and detect all the entangled states that can be detected within EW4.

Let us start by checking that this family, indeed, can detect all entanglement that can be detected in EW4. From the observation 3 we know that we need only to consider bi-partite states $`\rho _n`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\frac{1}{4}\left(\rho _n+\rho _n^{T_A}+\rho _n^{T_B}+\rho _n^T\right)`$ is non-positive. We can find, therefore, an (entangled) state $`|\varphi _n`$ such that $`\varphi _n|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|\varphi _n<0`$. Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\mathrm{\Omega }_n^T`$, this operator has a real representation. In this representation, also the state $`|\varphi _n`$ has a real representation Strang80 . Let us definine the projector $`Q=|\varphi _n\varphi _n|`$. Then we find $`\varphi _n|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|\varphi _n=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}\left(Q+Q^{T_A}+Q^{T_B}+Q^T\right)\rho \right)`$. Therefore, we can define the operator $`W=\frac{1}{4}\left(Q+Q^{T_A}+Q^{T_B}+Q^T\right)`$ that can be further simplified to $`W=\frac{1}{4}\left(Q+Q^{T_P}\right)`$ thanks to the real representation of $`Q`$. This operator is a witness operator, since $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(W\sigma \right)0`$ for all separable states $`\sigma `$, while $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(W\rho _n\right)<0`$ for the chosen $`\rho _n`$. Moreover, by construction the familiy of these witness operators detect all entanglement that can be detected within EW4. The prove of optimality is omitted here. $`\mathrm{}`$

The set of witness operators $`W=\frac{1}{2}(Q+Q^{T_P})`$, with $`Q=|\varphi _e\varphi _e|`$, provides an infinite number of necessary and sufficient conditions for the presence of entanglement in the observable correlations $`P(A,B)`$. Each condition is characterized by a real entangled state $`|\varphi _e`$, and therefore the coefficients of the pseudo-mixture decomposition of the corresponding witness operators can be easily parametrized with three real parameters. ¿From a practical point of view, this means that Alice and Bob can easily check this set of conditions numerically.

Let us briefly analyze the implications of our results in the relationship between the bit error rate $`e`$ in the protocols and the presence of correlations of quantum mechanical nature. Here error rate refers to the sifted key, that is, those events where signal preparation and detection employ the same polarization basis. An intercept/resend attack breaks the entanglement and gives rise to $`e25\%`$ ($`4`$-state protocol) and $`e33\%`$ ($`6`$-state protocol), respectively Ekert94 ; Bruss98 . This means that if the error rate is below these values, this already sufficies to prove that the joint probability distribution $`P(A,B)`$ contains quantum mechanical correlations. However, for some asymmetric error patterns, it is possible to detect the presence of quantum correlations even for error rates above $`25\%`$ ($`33\%`$). Let us illustrated this fact with an example that is motivated by the propagation of the polarization state of a single photon in an optical fiber. This channel can be described by a unitary transformation that changes on a timescale much longer than the repetition cycle of the signal source, so it can be thought to be constant over that time. Consider the unitary transformation $`U(\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝟙𝕚\mathrm{sin}\theta \sigma _𝕪`$. In this scenario, the resulting bit error rate is given by $`e=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ and $`e=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ for the $`4`$-state and the $`6`$-state protocols, respectively. Nevertheless, in both cases the existence of quantum correlations can be detected for all angles $`\theta `$. The case of the $`6`$-state protocol is clear, since a unitary transformation preserves the entanglement and all entanglement can be verified in this protocol. With respect to the $`4`$-state protocol, it can also be shown that there is always an entanglement witness $`W`$ EW4 that detects quantum correlations in $`P(A,B)`$. In particular, if we select $`W_e=\frac{1}{2}(|\varphi _e\varphi _e|+|\varphi _e\varphi _e|^{T_P})`$, with $`|\varphi _e`$ the eigenvector of the operator $`\frac{1}{2}|\psi \psi |^{T_P}`$ ($`|\psi =\mathrm{cos}\theta |00+\mathrm{sin}\theta |01\mathrm{sin}\theta |10+\mathrm{cos}\theta |11`$) which corresponds to its negative eigenvalue, then we find in a suitable representation as a pseudo-mixture for the entanglement witness that $`\mathrm{Tr}(W_e\rho )=_ic_iP(a_i,b_i)=\frac{1}{4}`$.

To conclude, we have as a necessary condition for QKD that the legitimate users can prove the presence of entanglement in the effectively distributed quantum state. In order to construct practical and efficient new QKD protocols, it is vital to separate the generation of two-party correlations from the public discussion protocol which extracts a key from those data. We have analyzed the $`4`$-state and $`6`$-state QKD protocols, and we have derived necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of quantum correlations in both protocols. As a special case, we have demonstrated that, for some asymmetric error patterns, the presence of this type of correlations can be detected even for error rates above $`25\%`$ and $`33\%`$, respectively.

The authors wish to thank D. Bruß, P. Hyllus, P. van Loock, Ph. Raynal, A. Sanpera, and especially O. Gühne for very useful discussions. This work was supported by the DFG (Emmy Noether programme, SFB 407, SPP 1078), and the network of competence QIP of the state of Bavaria (A8).


text:
# Comment on: “Sadi Carnot on Carnot’s theorem”.

## 1 Comment

Carnot established in 1824  that the efficiency $`\eta _C`$ of reversible engines operating between a hot bath at absolute temperature $`T_{hot}`$ and a cold bath at temperature $`T_{cold}`$ is equal to $`1T_{cold}/T_{hot}`$. He particularly considered air as a working fluid and small bath-temperature differences. If one plugs into Carnot’s expression modern experimental values one finds exact agreement with the above formula. A recently published paper by Güémez and others  is useful in attracting attention to the early work on thermodynamics by Carnot. However, the “modified Carnot cycle” that they consider, involving two isobars, is not the one treated by Carnot. They calculate a considerably lower efficiency and suggest that Carnot made conceptual errors and employed incorrect data, the agreement being achieved by coincidence only. To the contrary, our contention is that the Carnot theory is perfectly accurate, and that his numerical estimates are fairly good. A related discussion was given in 1975 by Hoyer .

In his book “Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu”, published in 1824, Carnot  presents calculations on the “motive power” of heat engines, defined as “the useful effect that an engine is capable of producing. The effect can always be expressed in terms of a weight being raised to a certain height. It is measured by the product of the weight and the height to which the weight is considered to have to be raised”. Specifically, Carnot employed as the mechanical energy unit the energy required to lift a cubic meter of water by one meter in the earth gravitational field, that is, 9.81 kJ. As far as heat consumption is concerned, Carnot employed as a unit the heat required to raise one kilogram of water from 0 to 1°C (say, at constant pressure). Thus, the Carnot unit for heat is equal to 4.18 kJ.

Carnot \[1, p. 80\] considers an ideal heat engine whose working agent is a cylinder containing 1 kg of air initially at atmospheric pressure $`p`$=10.4 meters of water. The cold bath temperature is $`T_{cold}`$=0°C while the hot bath temperature $`T_{hot}`$=1°C 111Initially, Carnot considered a hot-bath temperature of 0.001 °C, but later on switched to 1°C.. Let us postpone physical explanations and consider the values of the work $`W`$ performed per cycle and the hot-bath heat consumption $`Q`$ as given in Carnot’s book:

$`W=\mathrm{\Delta }V\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }V=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{116}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{267}})\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.77}\mathrm{\Delta }p={\displaystyle \frac{10.4}{267}}`$
$`Q=0.267{\displaystyle \frac{W}{Q}}=0.00138\text{Carnot units}.`$ (1)
If we introduce into the above Carnot formula recent experimental values and convert heat into energy, we have instead

$`W=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{109.3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{273.15}})\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.773}{\displaystyle \frac{10.34}{273.15}}`$
$`Q=0.240\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{W}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{9.81}{4.18}}=0.00367.`$ (2)
in nearly exact agreement with the Carnot efficiency $`\eta _C=1T_{cold}/T_{hot}1/273.15=0.00366`$.

The reasoning that led Carnot to the expression in (1) is sound. Figure 1 shows the reversible cycle $`1`$-$`2`$-$`3`$-$`4`$-$`1`$ considered by Carnot in the pressure-volume diagram. The vertical axis corresponds to the change of pressure in the air-filled cylinder with respect to atmospheric pressure $`p_0`$, while the horizontal axis corresponds to the change in cylinder volume with respect to the volume at atmospheric pressure and $`T=0`$°C, namely $`V_0=0.773`$ cubic meters. Because the relative changes of temperature and volume are small the cycle is a parallelogram. For obvious geometrical reasons the work performed per cycle, that is, the area enclosed in the parallelogram, is: $`W=\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ are shown in the figure. This is also the area enclosed in the rectangular path shown in the figure. Let us emphasize, however, that this path is *not* the cycle considered by Carnot.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ is the change of pressure required to increase the temperature of 1 kg of air from 0 to 1°C, the volume being kept constant (path $`4`$-$`4^{}`$). This quantity had been measured at Carnot’s time by Gay-Lussac. The recent value is $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=p_0/273.15`$, where $`p_0=10.34`$ meters of water. Carnot introduced the ratio $`\gamma `$ of air specific heats at constant pressure and constant volume, which is also the ratio of the isothermal and isentropic compressibilities (see, for example, \[4, p. 272\]). According to the figure, the ratio of the slopes of the isotherms and adiabats is $`\gamma =(1/109.3+1/273.15)/(1/109.3)=1.400=7/5`$. This is indeed the ratio of constant-pressure to constant-volume heat capacities of di-atomic molecules such as those comprising air (oxygen and nitrogen) in the temperature range considered. A slightly larger value of $`\gamma `$ was used by Carnot on the basis of the sound-velocity measurements made at the time. Thus the volume change $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=(1/109.3+1/273.15)V_0`$, where $`V_0=0.773`$ cubic meters.

To obtain the amount of heat $`Q`$ supplied by the hot bath, Carnot noted that for small temperature differences the work performed is negligible compared to the heat consumption. It follows that one may assume, for that part of the calculation, that the heat received by the system almost vanishes in a closed cycle. Consider now the cycle $`1`$-$`2`$-$`4`$-$`1`$ (triangular path). By definition, no heat is being transfered to the fluid along the adiabat $`4`$-$`1`$. Therefore, the amount of heat $`Q`$ received by the system along the path $`1`$-$`2`$ is equal to the heat received along the path $`4`$-$`2`$. The latter is the heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kg of air from 0 to 1°C at (constant) atmospheric pressure. Experimental values for this quantity were known at Carnot’s time.

Carnot also correctly noted that, for small temperature differences, essentially the same values of $`W`$ and $`Q`$ are obtained if the cylinder volume is kept constant when being transfered from one bath to the other, that is, adiabats may be replaced by isochores, in that limit. However, when the cylinder is kept in contact with a bath and its volume changes as shown in the figure, the pressure necessarily varies. This is why the description of the Carnot cycle given in  “The cycle used by Carnot was composed of two isobarics and two isochorics” is erroneous. It is then not surprising that these authors calculate a much lower efficiency, namely, $`\eta =0.00089`$, using modern data, and misinterpret the nature of Carnot’s contribution, as far as air or other nearly ideal gases are concerned.

Carnot gave in a manuscript the mechanical equivalent of heat according to: 1 kilo-calorie of heat=370 kg.m (instead of the modern value of 426 kg.m corresponding to 1 calorie of heat=4.18 J). Because the energy of ideal gases depends on temperature only, $`Q`$ is equal to the work $`\mathrm{\Delta }Vp_0`$ done along the isothermal path $`1`$-$`2`$. If we replace $`Q`$ in (1) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }Vp_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ drops out and we obtain, using the ideal gas law $`pV/T=`$constant, $`\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }p/p_0=1T_{cold}/T_{hot}`$.

Readers interested in the history of Thermodynamics would do well in reading the La Mer papers (reference 6 of the commented paper) that appeared long ago in this journal.