text:
# A Helium nanodrop bouncing off a wall

## 1 Introduction

In recent years we have described the effect named: Diffraction of wave packets in space and time. The effect consists in a multiple peak wave train that is generated in a scattering event, by the interference between the incoming and the scattered packets. The wave train lasts to infinite time, due to the spreading of the incoming packet, that catches up with the scattered packet.-

The effect occurs in matter wave scattering. It persists only for narrow enough packets compared to the scatterer extent. The effect was demonstrated numerically and analytically in various settings. As a possible laboratory experiment to verify the effect experimentally we suggested a collision between a Helium drop and a reflecting wall. In ref.() we omitted completely the self-interaction of the drop. The impinging packet that represented statistically the behavior of the drop was taken as a Gaussian packet, for which we could provide exact analytical expressions. However, the self-interaction provides the binding energy of the drop and hinders spreading, that is crucial for the appearance of the diffraction pattern. A more realistic calculation was needed.

Helium is relatively a weakly bound liquid, even close to zero degrees Kelvin. Weaker than liquid water or other liquids at ambient temperature. The binding energy per Helium4 atom in the superfluid phase is around $`E_b=7.5^0K`$ whereas for liquid water it is around $`5500^0K`$, depending on temperature and pressure.

The Helium atoms are neutral and do not benefit from strong Hydrogen-like bonds for their binding. The apparent weakness of the interactions is nevertheless misleading. A Helium drop interacts with itself in a much stronger manner than a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), and even there the nonlinear effects of the self-interaction are important. In particular the interatomic forces dominate over the so called ’quantum pressure’ or quantum potential in the bulk of the drop. Inside the drop the density is constant and the quantum pressure vanishes. Near the edge of a drop, curvature effects take over and the quantum pressure becomes relevant.

In the present work we investigate numerically the quantum scattering of a Helium droplet bouncing off an infinitely hard wall. The aim is twofold: Firstly an investigation like the present has never been carried out before and it is interesting in its own merit and, secondly we would like to have a more realistic treatment of the diffraction of wave packets effect in the context of liquid Helium.

In order to simplify the treatment as much as possible we resort to the density functional approach.

The density functional phenomenological method for interacting quantum systems, is based upon the solution of the one-body Schrödinger equation carrying self-interaction nonlinear terms that depend on the density only. Many topics are treated nowadays by means of the density function theory. To name a few; electron transport in solids, electronic excitations, soft condensed matter phase transitions in liquid crystals, phonons in solids , colloids, liquids and nuclei , atoms and molecules , quantum dots, etc. As a numerically viable phenomenological theory, is even becoming the dominant method for treating many body quantum systems. This is evidenced by the number of papers on the topic that, by the late 1990’s, surpassed the works using the Hartree-Fock method.

Density functional theories resort to the solution of a one-body nonlinear Schrödinger equation for a particle of mass m

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}^2\psi +[O(|\psi |^2)+U(\stackrel{}{𝐫})]\psi `$ (1)
where $`O(|\psi |^2)`$ is a nonlinear and sometimes nonlocal functional of the density $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$, and $`U(\stackrel{}{𝐫})`$ an external potential. The commonly used mean field equation for BEC systems belongs to this class of equations. In this case it is referred to as the Gross-Pitaevskii equation.

Density functional theory has been extremely successful in reproducing the properties of Helium nanodroplets. Besides the mean binding energy per particle, average density, incompressibility and surface tension at zero temperature both for Helium4 and Helium3, in a stationary state, it accounts for capillary effects at low temperatures , the phase diagram of liquid-vapor coexistence, as well as the excitation spectrum (phonon-maxon-roton) of liquid Helium. The model has been verified experimentally in scattering reactions. It is currently being applied to other areas of superfluid dynamics such as electron bubbles, adsorption on plates of Alkali metals, vortex line pinning, etc.

The density functional theory is therefore a respectable method for the treatment of Helium nanodroplets scattering. In the next section we present results for the scattering of Helium nanodroplets in one dimension with and without the quantum potential. The last section provides some comments emerging from the observation of the numerical data.

## 2 A helium drop colliding with a wall

A nonlinear, local, self-interaction of the Helium drop was proposed some time ago by Stringari and Treiner. The parameters of the density functional were fitted to the known values of the binding energy per atom in the bulk, the incompressibility, the infinite atom matter density and the surface tension. Improvements to this functional seem to require nonlocal terms. Such terms are engineered to reproduce the excitation spectrum of liquid Helium below the $`\lambda `$ transition point in a more accurate manner. In the present work we opt for the local version that is more manageable computationally and still quite successful phenomenologically.

The operator $`O(\rho )`$ of eq.(1) is given by

$`O(\rho )=b\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{c}{4}}(4+2\gamma )\rho ^{1+\gamma }2d\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}^2\rho `$ (2)
With $`b=888.81{}_{}{}^{0}K\AA ,c=1.0455410^7{}_{}{}^{0}K\AA ^{3+3\gamma },\gamma =2.8,d=2383^0K\AA ^5`$.

For the one-dimensional case treated presently we use the same parameter set, assuming independence from the y,z directions, i.e. an infinite planar slab.

The stationary solutions of eq.(1) with the self-interaction of eq.(2), in one spatial dimensions are obtained from the substitution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=e^{i\mu t}\varphi (x)`$, with $`\mu `$, the chemical potential. For finite size drops, $`\mu `$ is a parameter , whose value determines the number of particles in the drop and tends to the bulk binding energy when the number of particles tends to infinity. For Helium4, it is $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=7.15^0K`$.111 The transformation to standard energy units proceeds by multiplication with Boltzmann’s constant k

Stationary solutions are found by integration of the equation

$`\mu =b\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{2+\gamma }{2}}c\rho ^{1+\gamma }(2d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m\rho }}){\displaystyle \frac{d^2\rho }{dx^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{d\rho }{dx}\right)^2}{8m\rho ^2}}`$ (3)
or equivalently

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dx}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{8m\rho }{8m\rho d+1}}\left(\mu \rho +{\displaystyle \frac{b\rho ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c\rho ^{2+\gamma }}{2}}\right)`$ (4)
The integration of eq.(4), proceeds by a choice of $`\rho (x=0)<\rho (x=0)_{\mathrm{}}=0.021836\AA ^3`$, the bulk helium liquid density for atomic matter. Eq.(4), with $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dx}}|_{x=0}=0`$, fixes the value of the chemical potential $`\mu >\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$. Numerical roundoff error limits the possibilities of approaching $`\rho (x=0)_{\mathrm{}}`$ closer than $`10^7`$ and still obtain a profile density that decays at infinite distances. We therefore chose the closest value we could and used this profile density in all the scattering events to be presented below. The parameter for this density profile are $`\rho (x=0)=0.02183599`$, that yields $`\mu =6.71^0K`$. The number of particles per unit area

$`N={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\rho (x)`$ (5)
for this case is $`N=1.288\AA ^2`$, or an effective length $`X_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\rho (x=0)}}=59\AA `$. The drop then extends some $`59\AA `$ along the x axis and is infinite along the y,z plane. The solution in the three dimensional case is not much different, in this case, the drop contains around 4500 atoms. Figure 1 shows this initial density profile.

The details of the scattering are not very sensitive to the number of particles and the extension of the drop. The majority of the particles reside within the bulk. The diffraction effects depend on the side wings of the distribution in figure 1 and are therefore almost the same for any number of particles, because the width of these wings is determined by the parameters of the nonlinear potential only.

In the next section we will show results for smaller size drops whose profile resembles a Gaussian. For such drops the interference effect is cleaner, but not qualitatively different.

The scattering starts with a drop impinging from the left onto an infinitely hard wall located to the far right. We took a drop centered at $`x_0=110\AA `$ with velocity v, defined by

$`\psi (x,t=0)=e^{imv(xx_0)}\sqrt{\rho (x)}`$ (6)
The wall is located at $`x=150\AA `$. We use a five step predictor corrector method for the numerical integration. We demand an accuracy of more than $`0.1\%`$ in both the conservation of normalization of the wave and the energy. This strict demand requires a tiny time step of around $`10^{17}`$ sec, and consequently lengthy runs of around $`10^7`$ iterations. A larger time step causes rapid deterioration of the accuracy and runaway behavior. A tiny time step is needed, due to the large values of the constants entering the self-interaction.

It was found that for packet velocities below around $`v=50{\displaystyle \frac{m}{sec}}`$ the drop collides with the wall elastically with a barely noticeable distortion. Such a threshold corresponds to a momentum transfer per particle at the wall of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=2mv0.62\AA ^1`$. This is a typical value for the excitation of ripplons, at the surface of a drop.

The drop is travelling without strictures, hence there is no superfluid limiting velocity, it can remain superfluid up to any velocity, in practice the drop flows over a surface that limits the maximum frictionless speed. The experiment may also be viewed as one in which the wall is moved crashing into the stationary drop. We have performed such calculations in order to check our numerical schemes, and found them to agree with the results of a moving packet and a fixed wall as expected.

Figure 2 exemplifies the result of the scattering for various velocities and times, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=vt`$, for all of them is the same in the free case. Above the threshold velocity there appears a multiple peak structure that receds faster than the packet. It resembles the diffraction in space and time structures seen in refs.\- . For high enough velocities, the collision is inelastic. The energy is transferred into waves that recede faster than the bulk of the drop. The drop is almost stalled at the wall. In the bottom graph of figure 2 the collision process is still underway and the multiple peak structures are still being generated. There is a background hump under the peaks in the middle graph. This elevation is an incoherent background, similar to the one occurring in the diffraction in space and time phenomenon- for wide packets. In the next section we will show pictures for a thinner drop, for which the background is almost absent.

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the scattering process for a velocity of $`v=65.78{\displaystyle \frac{m}{sec}}`$.222 The awkward value of the velocity originates from a convenient choice of time units

The density fluctuations inside the packet due to the collision, are progressively expelled out of the drop. This multiple peak tail wave, is a product of both the incoming and the reflected waves interfering with each other.

In order to confirm the hypothesis that the interference effects are responsible for the multiple peak structures, we performed parallel calculations for the analog classical drop, by subtracting the quantum potential in the Schrödinger equation. In eq.(1) $`O(\rho )`$ is replaced by $`O(\rho )U_{quantum}`$, with $`U_{quantum}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m\sqrt{\rho }}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sqrt{\rho }}{dx^2}}`$. For the classical scattering case , we use the same initial profile as the one depicted in figure 1, although it is not a stationary solution with the quantum potential subtracted. As a matter of fact there are no stationary solutions without the quantum potential. This may be easily seen by expanding around the vacuum.

Such an expansion produces the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\rho }{dx^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2d}}\rho `$ (7)
whose solutions are oscillatory, with the density becoming eventually negative.

Figure 4 depicts the classical scattering pictures corresponding to the quantum events of figure 2. As is evident from the figure, the classical collision does not produce a multiple peak tail. The collision results in large density fluctuations in the bulk and noisy fluctuations at the edges.

The corresponding classical packet evolution for $`v=65.78{\displaystyle \frac{m}{sec}}`$ appears in figure 5.

Figure 6 shows classical and quantum scattering outcomes together at $`t=60.8psec`$. Clearly, the quantum scattering resists distortions in the bulk and gets rid of the energy in the form of coherent wave trains, whereas the classical scattering that lacks the quantum potential curvature-like term, renders the packet softer to deformations. The detail of the backwards region can be seen in figure 7.

The coherence of the tail region is visualized in figure 8. In this picture we display the phase of the wave function for the scattering case of figure 6. The classical scattering phase at the bottom is coherent inside the drop corresponding to a travelling packet of fixed velocity, and incoherent or even random at the surface. The quantum phase is coherent both inside and outside (only part of the outside region is shown). The wavelength outside the bulk of the drop in the upper graph , for $`x<70\AA `$ is smaller than the wavelength in the bulk. The multiple peak tail recedes faster than the drop.

## 3 Conclusions

We have confirmed numerically that the effect of diffraction of wave packets in space and time does express itself in Helium4 nanodrop scattering. The results for a thick drop presented in the last section are not that clean as those of ref.. A thick drop has a sizeable self-interaction and tends to conserve its shape in the collision. To enhance the effect, we considered also smaller size drops as the one depicted in figure 9. Here we used $`\rho (x=0)=0.02\AA ^3`$ The number of particles per unit area is now $`N=0.26\AA ^2`$, and the effective extent is $`X_{eff}=12.5\AA `$. A three dimensional drop of this type contains around 40 atoms.

Figures 10 and 11 depict the classical and quantum scattering results for the profile of figure 9 and a velocity of $`v=65.78{\displaystyle \frac{m}{sec}}`$ at $`t=60.8psec`$. The asymptotic behavior of the quantum event is much cleaner than that of the thicker drop depicted in the previous section. In summary, it appears that it could be possible to observe the diffraction phenomenon described in - with Helium4 nanodrops by colliding them with a hard surface at high enough speed.


format: text

text:
# Factoriality of Bożejko–Speicher von Neumann algebras

## 1. Introduction

In 1970 Frisch and Bourret \[FB70\] considered commutation relation

(1)
$$l_\varphi l_\psi ^{}ql_\psi ^{}l_\varphi =(\varphi ,\psi )$$

fulfilled by annihilation operator $`l`$ and its adjoint creation operator $`l^{}`$ for $`q`$. Annihilation and creation operators are indexed by elements of a fixed real Hilbert space $`_{}`$ and they act on a complex Hilbert space $``$, called Fock space. There is a distinguished unital vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, called vacuum, such that $`l_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ for every $`\varphi _{}`$. It was a long time until Bożejko and Speicher \[BS94\] showed in 1994 the existence of the operators considered by Frisch and Bourret for all $`1<q<1`$.

Frisch and Bourret were studying generalized Gaussian variables $`L_\varphi =l_\varphi +l_\varphi ^{}`$; it turns out that the algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ generated by $`(L_\varphi )`$ can be equipped with a tracial state $`a\mathrm{\Omega },a\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The motivation for studying such Gaussian variables is that if $`q=1`$ then (1) coincides with the canonical commutation relations and hence $`(L_\varphi )`$ can be identified with a family of classical Gaussian random variables; for $`q=1`$ relation (1) coincides with the canonical anticommutation relations; furthermore it turned out much later that for $`q=0`$ relation (1) coincides with the free relation and hence $`(L_\varphi )`$ is a family of Voiculescu semicircular elements \[VDN92\].

In this article we will study the von Neumann algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ generated by $`q`$–deformed Gaussian variables $`L_\varphi `$. Since for $`q=0`$ these von Neumann algebras are isomorphic to the free group factors, we can consider the general case as a ‘smooth’ deformation of this eminent case. Not too much is known about $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$, in particular it is not clear if it is always isomorphic to the free group factors. Bożejko and Speicher \[BS94\] showed that under certain conditions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is non–injective; recently Nou \[Nou02\] showed that it is enough to assume that $`1<q<1`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_{}2`$. Recently Shlyakhtenko \[Shl03\] showed that if $`|q|<\sqrt{2}1`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_{}2`$ then algebras $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ are solid (cf. \[Oza03\]) and if they are factors then they do not have the property $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Bożejko, Kümmerer and Speicher \[BKS97\] showed that if the number of generators is infinite (i.e. if $`\mathrm{dim}_{}=\mathrm{}`$) then for every $`1<q<1`$ the algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is a $`\text{II}_1`$ factor. In this article we show that this result remains true if the number of generators is finite, greater than some constant depending on $`q`$ and that this factor does not have the property $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We also point out that the same proof can be used for proving the analogous result for many other von Neumann algebras, both finite and infinite.

## 2. Notations

If not stated otherwise, all results presented in this section are due to Bożejko and Speicher \[BS94\].

### 2.1. Fock space

Let $`_{}`$ be a real Hilbert space equipped with a bilinear scalar product $`(,)`$; we will denote its complexification by $``$ and the corresponding sesquilinear scalar product by $`,`$. Let furthermore $`1<q<1`$ be fixed. For integer $`n0`$ we introduce an operator $`P^{(n)}:^n^n`$ given by

(2)
$$P^{(n)}(\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}q^{\mathrm{inv}\sigma }\psi _{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\psi _{\sigma (n)},$$

where $`\mathrm{inv}\sigma `$ is the number of inversions in $`\sigma `$, i.e. the number of pairs $`(i,j)`$ such that $`1i<jn`$ and $`\sigma (i)>\sigma (j)`$. Operator $`P^{(n)}`$ is strictly positive, therefore we can equip $`^n`$ with a new scalar product

$$\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }_q=\mathrm{\Phi },P^{(n)}\mathrm{\Psi },$$

for $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$ where $`,`$ denotes the standard scalar product on $`^n`$. In the following by $`^n`$ we will mean the $`n`$–fold tensor product equipped with the standard scalar product $`,`$ and by $`_q^n`$ the $`n`$–fold tensor product equipped with the scalar product $`,_q`$.

The $`q`$–Fock space $``$ is a complex Hilbert space defined by

$$=(_{})=\underset{n0}{}_q^n,$$

where the term $`_q^0`$ should be understood as one–dimensional space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for some unital vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By $``$ we will mean the tensor product of Hilbert spaces $``$ and $``$ equipped with the canonical scalar product of the scalar product in $``$ and the scalar product in $``$.

We consider the Hilbert space

$$^+=\underset{n1}{}_q^n=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}$$

and the map

(3)
$$j:^+$$

given by the trivial mapping of Hilbert spaces

$$\varphi (\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)\varphi \psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n.$$

Please note that the map (3) is not as trivial as it might appear since the scalar products are different on the domain and on the range.

###### Proposition 2.1.

For every $`1<q<1`$ there exist constants $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ such that for every choice of the real Hilbert space $`_{}`$

$$jC_1,j^1C_2.$$

Similar inequalities hold for the right trivial mapping $`^+`$ given by $`(\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)\varphi \psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n\varphi `$.

###### Proof.

Bożejko and Speicher showed that

$$P^{(n+1)}\frac{1}{1|q|}\left(1P^{(n)}\right)$$

and Bożejko \[Boż98\] showed that there exists a positive constant $`\omega (q)`$ such that for each $`n`$ we have

$$1P^{(n)}\frac{1}{\omega (q)}P^{(n+1)}.$$

### 2.2. Annihilation and creation operators

For $`\varphi _{}`$ we consider left and right creation operators $`l_\varphi ^{},r_\varphi ^{}:`$ defined on elementary tensors by

(4)
$$l_\varphi ^{}(\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)=\varphi \psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n,$$

(5)
$$r_\varphi ^{}(\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)=\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n\varphi .$$

We also consider their adjoints: left and right annihilation operators

(6)
$$l_\varphi (\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)=\underset{1in}{}q^{i1}(\varphi ,\psi _i)\psi _1\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi _i}\mathrm{}\psi _n,$$

(7)
$$r_\varphi (\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)=\underset{1in}{}q^{ni}(\varphi ,\psi _i)\psi _1\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi _i}\mathrm{}\psi _n,$$

where $`\widehat{\psi _i}`$ denotes an omitted factor and $`n1`$. The case $`n=0`$ should be understood as $`l_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }=r_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. All creation and annihilation operators are bounded.

###### Remark.

Please note that in the definition of the annihilation operators the natural extension of the bilinear scalar product $`(,)`$ was used and not the sesquilinear scalar product $`,`$.

### 2.3. Von Neumann algebra

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ denote the von Neumann algebra generated by the family of selfadjoint operators $`L_\varphi :`$ given by

$$L_\varphi =l_\varphi +l_\varphi ^{}.$$

for $`\varphi _{}`$. Algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is equipped with a faithful tracial state $`x\mathrm{\Omega },x\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is separating and cyclic for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$; let $`J:`$ denote the canonical involution. Then $`JL_\varphi J=R_\varphi `$, where

$$R_\varphi =r_\varphi +r_\varphi ^{}$$

for $`\varphi _{}`$. Operators $`(L_\varphi )`$ commute with operators $`(R_\psi )`$ \[BX00\].

## 3. The main result

Let us fix some finite–dimensional real Hilbert subspace $`_{}^{}_{}`$ and let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_d`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`_{}^{}`$. We denote by $`^{}`$ the complexification of $`_{}^{}`$.

In Section 4 we will define a certain operator $`M`$. It is enough to know now that $`|M|^2:`$ is given by

(8)
$$|M|^2=M^{}M=\underset{i}{}(L_{e_i}R_{e_i})^2.$$

In Section 4 we will show the following.

###### Proposition 3.1.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to the kernel of $`|M|`$.

For every $`1<q<1`$ there exists $`d_0`$ such that if $`dd_0`$ then the restriction of $`|M|`$ to the space $`^+`$ is strictly positive in the sense that

$$|M|ϵ>0$$

holds for some $`ϵ`$.

The above result has an immediate consequence.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`d_0`$ be the constant from Proposition 3.1. If $`\mathrm{dim}_{}d_0`$ (the case $`\mathrm{dim}_{}=\mathrm{}`$ is allowed) then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is a $`\text{II}_1`$ factor which does not have the property $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proof.

We choose finite–dimensional $`_{}^{}_{}`$ in such a way that $`\mathrm{dim}_{}^{}d_0`$.

Let $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ be central; it follows that $`a`$ commutes with $`|M|`$ hence $`|M|a\mathrm{\Omega }=a|M|\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`a\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to the kernel of $`|M|`$. Proposition 3.1 implies that $`a\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is separating it follows that $`a`$ hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is a factor.

The following observation was pointed out to me by Dimitri Shlyakhtenko. The operator $`|M|`$ belongs to the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ and $`J\mathrm{\Gamma }_qJ`$. Proposition 3.1 shows that the kernel of $`|M|`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and that the zero eigenvalue is separated. It follows that the orthogonal projection $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to $`C^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_q,J\mathrm{\Gamma }_qJ)`$. By the result of Connes \[Con76\] it follows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ does not have the property $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

## 4. Inequalities

We define $`M:`$ by

$$M(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{i}{}e_i\left(L_{e_i}(\mathrm{\Phi })R_{e_i}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right).$$

It is easy to check that (8) is indeed fulfilled. We also define auxiliary maps $`m,m^{}:`$ given by

$$m(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{i}{}e_i\left(l_{e_i}(\mathrm{\Phi })r_{e_i}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right),$$

$$m^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{i}{}e_i\left(l_{e_i}^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })r_{e_i}^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right).$$

Clearly $`M=m+m^{}`$. Please note that the definitions of the above operators do not depend on the choice of the orthonormal basis $`(e_i)`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

The norm of $`m`$ fulfills

$$m2C_1,$$

where $`C_1`$ is the constant from Proposition 2.1.

###### Proof.

Consider the map $`m_l:^+`$ given by

$$m_l\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{i}{}e_i(l_{e_i}\mathrm{\Phi }).$$

Its adjoint $`m_l^{}:^+`$ is given by

$$m_l^{}(\varphi \mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{i}{}(e_i,\varphi )l_{e_i}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=j\left[(\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\varphi )\mathrm{\Phi }\right]$$

where $`j`$ denotes the trivial map (3) and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}:^{}`$ is the orthogonal projection. Therefore $`m_l=m_l^{}jC_1`$.

Similar inequality can be obtained for the right annihilator

$$m_r\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{i}{}e_i(r_{e_i}\mathrm{\Phi });$$

it remains to notice that $`m=m_l+m_r`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.2.

The restriction of $`|m^{}|`$ to the space $`^+`$ fulfils

$$|m^{}|\frac{dC_1C_2}{C_2\sqrt{d}}.$$

###### Proof.

Consider the map $`S:^+^+`$:

$$S(\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _n)=\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _n(\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}\varphi _1),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{^{}}:^{}`$ denotes the orthogonal projection. Proposition 2.1 implies that $`SC_1C_2`$.

Consider the map $`\stackrel{~}{f}:`$ given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{f}\left(\varphi \psi _1(\psi _2\mathrm{}\psi _n)\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{k}{}e_ke_k,\varphi \psi _1\psi _2\mathrm{}\psi _n;\end{array}$$

its norm is equal to $`_ke_ke_k=\sqrt{d}`$. From Proposition 2.1 it follows that $`f:^+`$ given by

$$f\left(\varphi (\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _n)\right)=\underset{k}{}e_ke_k,\varphi \psi _1\psi _2\mathrm{}\psi _n$$

fulfills $`fC_2\sqrt{d}`$ (because the only difference between the maps $`f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is the choice of the norm on the domain).

It is easy to check that for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$

$$fm^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=(dS)\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

It follows

$$C_2\sqrt{d}m^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })fm^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=(dS)\mathrm{\Phi }(dC_1C_2)\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

###### Proof of Proposition 3.1.

It is easy to check that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to the kernel of $`|M|^2`$.

Observe that if the restrictions of the operators to the space $`^+`$ fulfill

$$|m^{}|>m$$

then the restriction of $`|M|=|m^{}+m|`$ to $`^+`$ is strictly positive. Estimates from the above Lemmas finish the proof. ∎

###### Remark.

For the case $`q=0`$ one can take $`C_1=C_2=1`$ and Theorem 3.2 shows factoriality of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for $`\mathrm{dim}_{}6`$ while we know (from the free group construction) that it is valid also for $`\mathrm{dim}_{}2`$ therefore our result is far from being fully satisfactory.

## 5. Generalizations

A careful reader might easily observe that in Sections 3 and 4 we used only very few properties of Bożejko–Speicher algebras. In particular, we did not use the exact form of the symmetrizer (2) and of the annihilation operators (6), (7), nor the existence of the tracial state $`a\mathrm{\Omega },a\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

It follows that our proof can be used in a more general context to proof factoriality (both in type $`\text{II}_1`$ and type III case) of some von Neumann algebras arising from some generalized Brownian motions for which an analogue of Proposition 2.1 holds.

It is easy to find a whole zoo of examples since already Bożejko and Speicher in their original article \[BS94\] considered symmerizations arising from Yang–Baxter operators which are much more general than (2); Królak \[Krȯ00\] generalized further these results. Also Hiai \[Hia03\] generalized results of Shlyakhtenko \[Shl97\] and constructed von Neumann algebras which are $`q`$–analogues of free Araki–Woods algebras. It was pointed out to me by Mădălin Guţă that the generalized Brownian motions considered in the work \[GM02\] might also provide appropriate examples.

## 6. Acknowledgments

I thank Marek Bożejko for introducing me into the subject and for many discussions. I thank Benoît Collins for teaching me the right way of thinking about tensors. I also thank Mădălin Guţă, Fumio Hiai, Dimitri Shlyakhtenko and the Reviewer for many helpful remarks.

Research supported by State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) grant No. 2 P03A 007 23. The research was conducted in Syddansk Universitet (Odense, Denmark) and Banach Center (Warszawa, Poland) on a grant funded by European Post–Doctoral Institute for Mathematical Sciences.


text:
# Dynamics of entanglement in quantum computers with imperfections

## Abstract

The dynamics of the pairwise entanglement in a qubit lattice in the presence of static imperfections exhibits different regimes. We show that there is a transition from a perturbative region, where the entanglement is stable against imperfections, to the ergodic regime, in which a pair of qubits becomes entangled with the rest of the lattice and the pairwise entanglement drops to zero. The transition is almost independent of the size of the quantum computer. We consider both the case of an initial maximally entangled and separable state. In this last case there is a broad crossover region in which the computer imperfections can be used to create a significant amount of pairwise entanglement.

Any practical implementation of a quantum computer will have to face errors, due to the inevitable coupling to the environment zurek ; palma  or to device imperfections GS . The effect of the environment is to introduce decoherence which sets the time scale over which quantum computation is no longer possible. The presence of static imperfections, although not leading to any decoherence, may be also decremental for the implementation of any quantum computational task. A small inaccuracy in the coupling constants induces errors in gating or an unwanted time evolution in the case in which the Hamiltonian cannot be switched exactly to zero. If the imperfection strength increases, new phenomena occur and above a certain threshold the core of the computer can even “melt” due to the setting in of chaotic behavior GS . Previous investigations of the stability of quantum information processing in the presence of such effects mainly studied the fidelity of the quantum evolution as an indicator of the quality of the computation zurek2 ; GS ; simone . In particular, in Ref. GS  the fidelity was used to measure the stability of the quantum memory, that is of a state loaded on a quantum computer with imperfections. A more complete characterization of the stability of a quantum computation requires a deeper investigation of the state of the system. Fidelity is one of the ways to characterize it. In this Letter we discuss the behavior of entanglement on approaching the transition to quantum chaos. Entanglement is not only one of the most intriguing features predicted by the quantum theory but also a fundamental resource for quantum computation and communication chuang . Therefore studies of the stability of entanglement under decoherence and imperfection effects are, in our opinion, of interest.

We model the quantum computer as a lattice of interacting spins (qubits) where, due to the unavoidable presence of imperfections, the spacing between the up and down states (external field) and the couplings between the qubits (exchange interactions) are both random. The entanglement properties in spin systems has recently attracted attention and we refer to spinent  for a more detailed introduction. In this work we consider, for the first time, the effect of disorder in the couplings.

We consider $`n`$ qubits on a two-dimensional lattice, described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\sigma _i^z+\underset{i<j=1}{\overset{n}{}}J_{ij}\left(\frac{1+\gamma }{2}\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^x+\frac{1\gamma }{2}\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^y\right),$$
(1)
where the $`\sigma _i^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =x,y,z`$) are the Pauli matrices for the qubit $`i`$ and the second sum runs over nearest-neighbor qubit pairs on the lattice. The energy spacing between the up and down states of a qubit is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\delta _i`$, where the $`\delta _i`$’s are uniformly distributed in the interval $`[\delta /2,\delta /2]`$. The parameter $`\delta `$ gives the width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ (single qubit energy) distribution around the average value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The couplings $`J_{ij}`$ are also uniformly distributed in the interval $`[J,J]`$. We consider $`0\gamma 1`$. For $`\gamma =1`$ Eq. (1) reduces to the disordered Ising model, while for $`\gamma =0`$ it gives the disordered XY model. For $`\gamma =1`$ the model defined by Eq. (1) has been proposed by Georgeot and Shepelyansky GS  to describe the hardware of a quantum computer, in which system imperfections generate unwanted interqubit couplings and energy fluctuations. For $`J,\delta =0`$ the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is composed of $`n+1`$ degenerate levels, and the interlevel spacing is $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, which corresponds to the energy required to flip a single qubit. We study the case $`\delta ,J\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, in which the degeneracies are resolved and the spectrum is composed by $`n+1`$ bands. Since $`\delta ,J\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, the interband couplings in (1) can be neglected and every single band can be studied separately. We concentrate our studies on the central band with zero magnetization ($`\sigma _i^z=0`$). We assume free boundary conditions and set the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1`$.

In this Letter, we investigate the evolution in time of the entanglement between two nearest neighbor qubits in the lattice. We confine our interest to the entanglement of formation bennett  between two spins in the lattice. The propagation of entanglement in disordered-free systems has been analyzed in Ref. amico . In the same spirit we study the entanglement evolution for an initially maximally entangled pair of qubits:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_B(0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)|0101\mathrm{}01.$$
(2)
We will also analyze the generation of the entanglement, due to interqubit coupling, of two spins which are initially in a separable state. In this case we start from the wave vector

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_S(0)=|01|0101\mathrm{}01.$$
(3)
In both cases, the initial state, Eqs. (2-3), evolves according to the Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (1). We compute the reduced density matrix $`\rho _{12}(t)`$, obtained from the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ after all the spins except those at sites 1 and 2 have been traced out: $`\rho _{12}(t)=\mathrm{Tr}_{3,\mathrm{},n}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|`$. We choose qubits 1 and 2 to be nearest neighbors on the border of the lattice (their position in the lattice is not crucial for the results here reported). Their state at time $`t`$, described by the density matrix $`\rho _{12}(t)`$, is mixed since qubits 1 and 2 become entangled with the rest of the lattice. We quantify the entanglement by means of the concurrence bennett , defined as $`C=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4,0\}`$, where the $`\lambda _i`$’s are the square roots of the eigenvalues of the matrix $`R=\rho _{12}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}`$, in descending order; the spin-flipped density matrix is defined by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}=(\sigma _1^y\sigma _2^y)\rho _{12}^{}(\sigma _1^y\sigma _2^y)`$ (in this definition the standard basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$ must be used). Another dynamical quantity widely used to characterize the stability of a state under perturbations is the fidelity GS . It is defined as $`f(t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)|\psi (0)`$ (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$). For weak interqubit coupling $`f(t)`$ is close to 1 for all times. For strong coupling we enter the so-called quantum chaos regime, and the fidelity essentially drops to zero GS . In the following we contrast the behavior of the fidelity with that of the concurrence. In addition to the different regimes found in the analysis of the fidelity, the concurrence gives additional information related to the choice of the initial state.

Initially entangled state -  We first consider the time evolution of $`C(t)`$ starting from the (maximally entangled) initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_B(0)`$. If the coupling strength $`J`$ is weak, then the time evolution of $`C(t)`$ can be obtained by means of perturbation theory in the coupling $`J`$. Only the quantum register states directly coupled to the initial state are involved (the quantum register states are the eigenstates of Hamiltonian (1) at $`J=0`$: $`|\alpha =|\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$, with $`\alpha _i=0,1`$). Since the exchange interaction has a two-body nature, the matrix elements are zero when the state binary strings differ in more than two digits. Furthermore, only nearest neighbor qubits interact, and therefore to first order in perturbation theory only order of $`n`$ quantum register states are involved. It is important to note that the coupling to a state which differs from the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_B(0)`$ in the polarization state of two qubits other that 1 and 2 does not affect the pairwise entanglement between qubits $`1`$ and $`2`$. To first order in the perturbation theory, these two qubits become entangled only with nearest neighbor qubits. Therefore the concurrence can be described in terms of superposition between a small number of quantum register states, independently of the total number $`n`$ of qubits. In the perturbative regime, the frequencies of these oscillations are $`\delta `$, around an average value $`1(J/\delta )^2`$. Perturbation theory breaks down when the typical interaction matrix element $`J`$ between directly coupled states becomes of the order of their energy separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\delta /n`$. This follows from the fact that two quantum register states are directly coupled when two qubits are flipped. This changes the energy by $`\delta `$, and there are the order of $`n`$ states directly coupled inside this energy interval. Therefore the perturbative regime is limited to $`J<J_p\delta /n`$ GS . Above this threshold, it is known flambaum ; GS  that the fidelity decays exponentially: $`f(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_ft)`$, with the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_fJ^2\rho _f`$ determined by the Fermi golden rule, where $`\rho _f=1/\mathrm{\Delta }En/\delta `$ is the density of directly coupled states. The transitions involving qubits other than 1 and 2 do not change the concurrence. Therefore the density of directly coupled states relevant for this quantity is given by $`\rho _c1/\delta `$. Hence we expect the concurrence to decay exponentially, $`C(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_ct)`$, with the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_cJ^2\rho _cJ^2/\delta `$. This expectation is borne out by the numerical data of Fig. 1, which show that the concurrence time scale $`t_c^F`$, defined by the condition $`C(t_c^F)=0.96`$, is inversely proportional to $`J^2`$ (the result does not depend on the value chosen).

In the regime of strong coupling, $`J\text{ }>\delta `$, the time evolution of the fidelity is given by flambaum ; GS  $`f(t)_{i<j}\mathrm{cos}(J_{ij}t)`$, where the product runs over nearest neighbor qubits. Thus the fidelity decay is Gaussian: $`f(t)\mathrm{exp}(_{i<j}J_{ij}^2t^2)\mathrm{exp}(J^2nt^2)`$. In computing the concurrence decay, we must again take into account that the rotations of qubits different from 1 and 2 do not change their pairwise entanglement. Therefore we expect $`C(t)\mathrm{exp}(J^2t^2)`$. This gives a concurrence time scale $`t_c^EJ^1`$, in good agreement with the numerical data of Fig. 1. Since in the Fermi golden rule regime the concurrence time scale $`t_c^F\delta /J^2`$, while in the ergodic regime $`t_c^E1/J`$, the transition between these two regimes takes place at $`J=J_E\delta `$ (we checked numerically that $`J_E\delta `$). The data of Fig. 1, taken at different number of qubits, seem to collapse on a single curve, in agreement with our theoretical expectations.

It is also interesting to study the saturation value of the concurrence, $`C_{\mathrm{}}=(lim_t\mathrm{}_{t\tau }^tC(t^{})𝑑t^{})/\tau `$. In order to smoothen the fluctuations, we average our numerical data over both different random configurations of $`\delta _i`$ and $`J_{ij}`$ and a large enough time interval $`\tau `$ (we take $`\tau `$ equal to $`1/10`$ of the total integration time $`t`$, with $`t`$ sufficiently long to observe the saturation of $`C(t)`$). In Fig. 2, we study $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ as a function of the coupling strength $`J`$, starting from the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_B(0)`$. Again we can distinguish three regimes. In the perturbative regime $`J<J_p\delta /n`$ the saturation value is close to one (more precisely, $`1C_{\mathrm{}}(J/\delta )^2`$). In the ergodic regime at $`J>J_E\delta `$ the concurrence $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is equal to zero. Quantum chaos is characterized by the ergodicity of the eigenfunctions $`|\varphi _i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N=2^n`$) of Hamiltonian (1). This means that, by expanding $`|\varphi _i`$ over the quantum register states, $`|\varphi _i=_\alpha c_\alpha |\alpha `$, the coefficient $`c_\alpha `$ are randomly fluctuating and have amplitudes $`|c_\alpha |1/\sqrt{N}`$. In this regime, the complexity of the eigenstates, characterized by the entropy $`S_i=_\alpha |c_\alpha |^2\mathrm{log}|c_\alpha |^2`$, is maximal, that is $`S_in`$. We note that indeed the maximum entropy criterion $`S_in`$ gives the ergodicity threshold $`J_E\delta `$ silvestrov . Due to quantum ergodicity, for times $`t>>t_c^E1/J`$ the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is a random superposition of the quantum register states: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=_\alpha a_\alpha (t)|\alpha `$, where the coefficients $`a_\alpha (t)`$ have amplitudes $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ and random phases. The diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix $`\rho _{12}`$ are given by $`[\rho _{12}(t)]_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2;\alpha _1,\alpha _2}=_{\alpha _3,\mathrm{},\alpha _n}|a_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n}(t)|^2`$. The value of these elements is $`1/4`$, since they are the sum of $`N/4`$ positive terms, and the value of each term is $`1/N`$. The off diagonal matrix elements of $`\rho _{12}`$ are instead given by the sum of $`N/4`$ terms with random signs, and therefore their value is $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. For such a reduced density matrix the concurrence is equal to zero. Physically this means that in the ergodic regime the entanglement is multipartite and shared between all the qubits, and therefore the pairwise entanglement drops to zero. In this regime the coupling to the rest of the system acts as a dephasing channel, and the reduced density matrix becomes essentially diagonal, thus destroying the pairwise entanglement.

Initially separable state -  Since the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) can create entanglement due to the exchange term between neighboring qubits amico , it is interesting to consider also separable states as initial states. In the perturbative regime $`J<J_p`$, the concurrence oscillates with frequency $`|\delta _1\delta _2|`$ between 0 and a maximum value $`2|J_{12}|/|\delta _1\delta _2|`$. At times $`t1/|\delta _1\delta _2|`$, the perturbation theory gives $`C(t)2|J_{12}|t`$, in agreement with the numerical data of Fig. 3 (after disorder averaging we get $`C(t)=Jt`$). In the ergodic regime $`J>J_E`$, a maximum concurrence of the order of one is generated after a time $`1/J`$. After this time the entanglement of the pair rapidly drops to zero. In the intermediate regime the concurrence reaches its maximum and then saturates to a value which is nearly independent of $`J`$. Therefore the generation of pairwise entanglement is an interesting characteristic of this region.

The saturation value $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ as a function of the coupling $`J`$ is shown in Fig. 4. In the perturbative regime $`C_{\mathrm{}}J/\delta `$ whereas in the ergodic regime $`C_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. It is interesting to notice that there is a broad region in which the interactions create a significant amount of entanglement, quantified by a concurrence $`C_{\mathrm{}}0.20.3`$. We also note that in the ergodic regime $`J>J_E`$ the saturation value $`C_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ does not depend on the initial conditions, as expected. On the contrary, when $`J<J_E`$ the concurrence saturation value depends on the initial state vector, implying the absence of ergodicity.

As it can be seen from our data shown in Figs. 1-4, we did not found any significant change in the dynamics of entanglement as a function of $`\gamma `$. Even though a further symmetry is added to the system when $`\gamma =0`$ (the invariance with respect to rotations about the $`z`$-axis), this has little influence on entanglement.

In summary, we have studied the dynamics of the pairwise entanglement in a qubit lattice in the presence of static imperfections, and characterized three different regimes: (i) the perturbative regime, in which the entanglement is stable against imperfections, (ii) the crossover regime, in which the imperfections degrade the concurrence of an initially entangled pair but can also drive a significant entanglement generation, and (iii) the ergodic regime, in which a pair of qubits becomes entangled with the rest of the lattice and therefore the concurrence of the pair drops to zero. We stress two important points of our findings from the point of view of quantum computation. First of all, the pairwise entanglement is destroyed above a coupling strength which is independent of the size of the quantum computer. Moreover, there is a broad crossover region in which the computer imperfections can be used to create a significant amount of pairwise entanglement. Finally we want to emphasize that our analysis leads to the conclusion that the spin system behaves as a dephasing environment only in the ergodic regime. In the integrable limit, even an infinite system is unable to dephase completely the initial state. We believe that this observation may be relevant in understanding the behavior of spin or more complex baths.

We acknowledge very fruitful discussions with L. Amico, A. Osterloh, and F. Plastina. This work was supported by the EU (IST-SQUBIT), RTN2-2001-00440, HPRN-CT-2002-00144.


text:
# On the mass of the 𝐷_𝑠(0⁺,1⁺) system

(July 1, 2003)

## Abstract

In this note we discuss a determination for the mass of the $`D_s(0^+,1^+)`$ system recently discovered by the BaBar, CLEO II and Belle Collaborations. The value of the mass is derived by making explicit the prediction obtained in a quark-meson model prior to the discovery of these states.

Recently the BaBar collaboration Aubert:2003fg  discovered a narrow meson near 2.32 GeV$`/c^2`$ decaying into $`D_s\pi ^0`$. The reported mass is

$$M=2316.8\pm 0.4\mathrm{MeV}/c^2,$$
(1)
while the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=8.6\pm 0.4`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ is consistent with the experimental resolution. This result has been confirmed by the CLEO II Collaboration Besson:2003cp  and the Belle Collaboration belle . Besides the 2.32 state CLEO also finds another narrow state, near 2.46 GeV$`/c^2`$, decaying into $`D_s^{}\pi ^0`$. More precisely for the latter mass they find

$$M^{}=2463\mathrm{MeV}/c^2.$$
(2)
These data have triggered a discussion on the nature of the observed states, see e.g. Barnes:2003dj ; Szczepaniak:2003vy ; Nussinov:2003uj ; Datta:2003iy ; Terasaki:2003qa ; Dai:2003yg ; Bardeen:2003kt ; vanBeveren:2003hj ; vanBeveren:2003kd ; Godfrey:2003kg ; Cheng:2003kg ; Cahn:2003cw ; Colangelo:2003vg  and the review in alex . The natural interpretation should be that these states form the $`J^P=(0^+,1^+)`$ doublet, predicted by the Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) Manohar:dt  and generally denoted as $`S`$ in this formalism. Their masses happen to be below the threshold mass for the decay into the Zweig allowed final state $`D^{()}K`$ and this forces the isospin violating $`D_s^{()}\pi ^0`$ decay channel and the narrowness of the decaying meson. Though straightforward, this identification is questioned by some results of potential models Godfrey:xj ; Godfrey:wj ; DiPierro:2001uu  that predict larger masses, above the $`D^{()}K`$ threshold. Because of it, more exotic explanations have been proposed in terms of baryonium, $`D\pi `$ atoms or $`DK`$ molecules Barnes:2003dj ; Szczepaniak:2003vy ; Nussinov:2003uj ; Datta:2003iy ; Terasaki:2003qa .

Our point of view is very close to the one expressed in Bardeen:2003kt  (see also Bardeen:1993ae ). We do not see anything exotic in this state, especially so because the mass $`M_S^{(s)}`$ of the $`S=(0^+,1^+)`$ multiplet in the strange sector can be obtained using a relativistic quark model incorporating the symmetries of the HQET noi . The calculation is entirely analogous to the one of the non-strange multiplet $`(0^+,1^+)`$ whose mass was predicted in noi :

$$M_S=2165\pm 50\mathrm{MeV}/c^2.$$
(3)
A rough estimate of the strange $`S`$doublet mass can be simply obtained by adding a mass term

$$M(D_s)M(D)M(D_s^{})M(D^{})100\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$$
(4)
to (3). This would give a result $`M_S^{(s)}2265`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, which would be compatible with (1) and (2) only if the theoretical uncertainties were larger. This estimate is however too crude, and in any case unnecessary because the model allows a more precise calculation. In view of its interest we present it below. It is worth noticing that not only the average mass (3) of the $`J^P=(0^+,1^+)`$ non-strange states was computed, but also the masses of the strange $`J^P=(0^+,1^+)`$ states were already evaluated by us. This calculation is contained in noi0  and its result was used as a parameter in a form factor parametrization. In this note we briefly recall the discussion outlined in noi0  and make explicit the prediction for $`M_S^{(s)}`$.

The model we consider is a quark-meson model (CQM), introduced in noi  as an extension of the ideas and the methods in Refs. Bardeen:1993ae , manohar  and cqm . A survey of these topics can be found in nc . The transition amplitudes containing light/heavy mesons in the initial and final states as well as the couplings of the heavy mesons to hadronic currents can be calculated via quark loop diagrams where mesons enter as external legs. The model is relativistic and incorporates, besides the heavy quark symmetries, also the chiral symmetry of the light quark sector.

The model can be extended to the strange quark sector solving the gap equation discussed in ebert  with a non zero current mass for the strange quark:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(m)=mm_08mGI_1(m^2)=0,$$
(5)
where $`G=5.25\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`m_0`$ is the current mass of the strange quark. The $`I_1`$ integral is calculated using the proper time regularization:

$$I_1=\frac{iN_c}{16\pi ^4}^{\mathrm{reg}}\frac{d^4k}{(k^2m^2)}=\frac{N_cm^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},\frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}).$$
(6)
The choice of the ultraviolet (UV) cutoff is dictated by the scale of chiral symmetry breaking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi =4\pi f_\pi `$ and we adopted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.25`$ GeV. The infrared (IR) cutoff $`\mu `$ and the constituent mass $`m`$ must be fixed taking into account that CQM does not incorporate confinement. This means that one has to enforce the kinematical condition to produce free constituent quarks $`Mm_Q+m`$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the heavy meson and $`m_Q`$ is the constituent mass of the heavy quark. The heavy meson momentum is $`P^\mu =m_Qv^\mu +k^\mu `$, $`v^\mu `$ being the heavy quark 4-velocity and $`k^\mu `$ the so called residual momentum due to the interactions of the heavy quark with the light degrees of freedom at the scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Therefore the above condition coincides with $`vkm`$. This is so because the 4-velocity of the meson is almost coincident with that of the heavy quark, i.e. $`PMv`$. Equivalently, in the rest frame of the meson, $`\mathrm{inf}(k)=m`$, meaning that the smallest residual momenta that can run in the CQM loop amplitudes are of the same size of the light constituent mass. The IR cutoff $`\mu `$ is therefore $`\mu m`$.

A reasonable constituent quark mass for the strange quark is $`m=510`$ MeV$`/c^2`$, considering the $`\varphi `$ meson as a pure $`s\overline{s}`$ state. Taking $`\mu =0.51`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ as an infrared cutoff, a value of $`m_0=131`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ is required by the gap equation (consistently with the spread of values for the current $`s`$ quark mass quoted in pdg ). Varying the current strange mass in the range $`60170`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ gives a small excursion of the constituent strange mass around the $`500`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ value.

The free parameter of CQM is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H`$ defined, in the infinite heavy quark mass limit, by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H=M_Hm_Q`$. The subscript $`H`$ refers to the $`H`$multiplet of the HQET Manohar:dt  $`H=(0^{},1^{})`$. In a similar way a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ is associated to the $`S`$ multiplet, $`S=(0^+,1^+)`$. The latter is determined by fixing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H`$ and solving the equation:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_H)=\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_S),$$
(7)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,S})=I_1+(\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,S}\pm m)I_3(\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,S})$$
(8)
with

$`I_3(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{reg}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(k^2m^2)(vk+\mathrm{\Delta }+iϵ)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{1/\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dse^{s(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}}{s^{3/2}}}\left(1+\mathrm{erf}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{s})\right).`$
Eq. (7) comes from requiring the HQET form of the kinetic term in the effective Lagrangian defining the model.

The related $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{(s)},\mathrm{\Delta }_S^{(s)}`$ values in the strange sector are shown in Table I. We consider in the table the range of values $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{(s)}=0.5,0.6,0.7`$ GeV$`/c^2`$, which is consistent with the condition $`Mm_Q+m`$. Note that in the non strange sector we considered in noi  the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H=0.3,0.4,0.5`$ GeV$`/c^2`$, smaller or higher values being excluded by consistency argument or by experiment. Using (4) we see that the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{(s)}=0.7`$ GeV$`/c^2`$ has to be excluded as well.

In order to give the explicit value of the mass of the $`(0^+,1^+)`$ states we observe that experimentally one has:

$$M_H^{(s)}=\frac{3M_{D_s^{}}+M_{D_s}}{4}=2076\pm 1\mathrm{MeV}/c^2.$$
(10)
Considering only the first two entries in Table I, from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S^{(s)}\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{(s)}M_S^{(s)}M_H^{(s)}=335\pm 25`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ one gets

$$M_S^{(s)}=2411\pm 25\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$$
(11)
that differs by $``$140 MeV$`/c^2`$ from the rough estimate presented above.

Eq. (11) represents the main result of this note. It gives the average mass of the $`S=(0^+,1^+)`$ doublet and is related to the masses of the two states by

$$M_S^{(s)}=\frac{3M_{D_s^{}(1^+)}+M_{D_s(0^+)}}{4}.$$
(12)
From the measured value of the $`0^+`$ state, eq. (1), we get

$$M_{D_s^{}(1^+)}=\frac{4M_S^{(s)}}{3}\frac{M_{D_s(0^+)}}{3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2442}\pm 33\mathrm{MeV}/c^2,$$
(13)
which agrees, within the theoretical uncertainties, with the CLEO result (2). The overall agreement is better here than in other approaches, see e.g. the discussion contained in Cahn:2003cw .

We note that in the present model the relation $`(M_{1^+}M_{0^+})=(M_1^{}M_0^{})142`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ Bardeen:2003kt  does not hold necessarily (indeed we find $`M_{1^+}M_{0^+}=125`$ MeV$`/c^2`$). In any case, assuming its validity, from (3) we would get $`M_{D_s^{}(0^+)}=2304\pm 25`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and $`M_{D_s^{}(1^+)}=2446\pm 25`$ MeV$`/c^2`$, which is also compatible, within the errors, with the data (1) and (2). Let us finally observe that, using Table I, we expect for the $`B_s(0^+,1^+)`$ system a central mass of $`M=5740\pm 25`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and, for the two individual states, $`M_{B_s^{}(0^+)}=5710\pm 25`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ and $`M_{B_s^{}(1^+)}=5770\pm 25`$ MeV$`/c^2`$ respectively. On the basis of these results, the $`\overline{b}s`$ signal at 5850 MeV$`/c^2`$ pdg  should be better interpreted as arising from the $`(1^+,2^+)`$ doublet predicted by the HQET.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. Pompili for most useful discussions. ADP is supported by a M. Curie fellowship, contract HPMF-CT-2001-01178.