text:
# X-ray spectral evolution of SAX J1747.0-2853 during outburst activity and confirmation of its transient nature

## 1 Introduction

The transient X-ray source SAX J1747.0-2853 was discovered during an observation of the Galactic bulge with the BeppoSAX Wide-Field Cameras (WFCs) in March 1998 (in ’t Zand et al. 1998). The position of the source is consistent with that of the transient source GX+0.2-0.2 detected by Ariel V in 1976 (Proctor et al. 1976). The source went into outburst again in March 2000 (Markwardt et al. 2000) and September 2001 (Wijnands et al. 2002). Type I X-ray bursts were detected at the discovery proving that SAX J1747.0-2853 is a weakly magnetized neutron star (type I X-ray bursts are thought to be due to thermonuclear flashes on the surface of a neutron star; for reviews see Lewin et al. 1993 and Strohmayer & Bildsten 2003). The distance as determined from equalizing the peak bolometric flux of photospheric radius expansion bursts to the Eddington limit expected for a neutron star was measured by Sidoli et al. (1998) and Natalucci et al. (2000) to be between 8 and 10 kpc. Given that the currently best estimate for the distance to the Galactic center is $`8.0\pm 0.4`$ kpc (Eisenhauer et al. 2003) and that the angular distance of 19′ translates to a linear tangential distance of only 44 pc, it is quite possible that the source is located within only $`100`$ pc from the Galactic center. According to Sidoli et al. (1998) the severe interstellar absorption in this region hampers the search for the optical counterpart of the source. The apparent $`J`$ magnitude is predicted to be larger than 30 for the low mass companion.

The source was serendipitously observed with Chandra/ACIS in 2001 July (Wijnands et al. 2002), when it was not in a bright outburst. The 0.5–10 keV unabsorbed X-ray luminosity for a distance of 9 kpc was $`3\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1. The spectrum was consistent with a power law with a photon index of about 2 while showing no sign of an Fe-K emission line. Since the luminosity is at least an order of magnitude larger than expected for quiescence, it appears that the classification of SAX J1747.0-2853 as transient was premature. The possibility of the implied low accretion levels makes it a particularly interesting object for further study.

In this light we have analyzed X-ray data of SAX J1747.0-2853 that were obtained in 2000 when the source was fairly active. The data were collected with the Narrow-Field Instruments (NFIs) and Wide Field Cameras (WFCs) on BeppoSAX, the European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) PN and MOS cameras on XMM-Newton and the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on RXTE. This represents the densest X-ray coverage of the source, although it must be said that the spectral measurements are significantly hampered by the high interstellar absorption (at energies below 2 keV) and source confusion (above 10 keV). The Gas Imaging Spectrometer (GIS) onboard ASCA also performed a long observation of SAX J1747.0-2853 in March 2000. Since this observation duplicates the coverage of the other instruments, both in time and instrumental capabilities, we choose not to analyze these data in great detail but merely checked the standard data products made available by NASA’s High-Energy Astronomy Science Archive Research Center. Using all X-ray data, we studied the spectrum as a function of luminosity and tried to constrain accretion flow geometries at different states of the source. We start with a discussion of the long-term light curve in Sect. 2, continue with a treatment of the 0.3–10 keV BeppoSAX-NFI spectrum during various stages of activity in Sect. 3, discuss the ASCA data in Sect. 4 and treat the XMM-Newton data in Sect. 5. In Sect. 6 we review the X-ray burst activity. We end with an interpretation of all data in Sect. 7.

## 2 Long-term lightcurve and observations

Since February 1999, the PCA instrument on board the RXTE satellite is programmed to scan the Galactic bulge twice a week with a sensitivity close to 1 mCrab (Swank & Markwardt 2001). Observations occur throughout the year, except for three months centered on December and one month in June, when solar constraints on spacecraft pointing prevent them. Figure 1 shows the lightcurve of SAX J1747.0-2853 resulting from these observations, from the beginning of the bulge scan program up to 2003 March 30. In source confused regions like this, it is very difficult to perform an a priori background subtraction. Rather we evaluated a background level a posteriori per each of two scan directions and subtracted that level from the data in the plots presented here. This level was verified from independent measurements with BeppoSAX and XMM. The light curve is characterized by six peaks in March 1999, March 2000, April 2000, August 2000, August 2001 and September 2001. The 1999 outburst is reported for the first time. We furthermore know that there was also an outburst in March 1998 (Sidoli et al. 1998, Natalucci et al. 2000).

The X-ray activity of SAX J1747.0-2853 appears strongest in 2000, with three peaks within 5 months of which the first one had the highest peak flux measured for the source thus far. SAX J1747.0-2853 was found to be in outburst on 2000 March 2 with an average intensity of 42 mCrab in the 2–10 keV band (Markwardt et al. 2000). The peak of 140 mCrab occurred 6 days later. After that the brightness steadily decreased over the course of a month and reached a minimum at about 2000 April 7. Then the brightness increased again to a second peak of 80 mCrab on 2000 April 30. Subsequently, the source had another peak four months later in mid August at about 20 mCrab. Some outbursts may have been missed during observation interruptions. In conclusion, it appears SAX J1747.0-2853 exhibited outburst activity with a recurrence time of approximately one year between 1998 and 2001, with a peak flux of approximately one tenth that of the Crab and a duration between one week and a few months.

Figure 2 focuses on part of the lightcurve (in the year 2000) where the X-ray activity was the highest and the X-ray coverage the densest. Five BeppoSAX NFI observations were performed and one serendipitous XMM-Newton observation. The first four NFI observations are covering the decreasing part of the strongest peak, ending with an observation at the minimum between the two peaks (on April 7). The April 12 observation covers the rising phase of the 2nd peak. The XMM-Newton observation covers the tail of the third 20 mCrab peaked outburst. Exact observation and exposure times are provided in Table 1.

The long ASCA observation was performed between March 11.1 and 22.0, 2000, with a net exposure time for the GIS of 331.0 ks. SAX J1747.0-2853 was outside the field of view of the Solid-state Imaging Spectrometer. The observation covers the first half of the decaying part of the brightest peak and overlaps the first two NFI observations.

It is worthwhile to note that the Chandra observation occurred a few weeks before the 2001 outburst. It is quite possible that this observation caught the source in the onset of that outburst, given that the sensitivity of the PCA observations for SAX J1747.0-2853 is a moderate 3 mCrab which is roughly equivalent to $`5\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1.

## 3 BeppoSAX NFI observations and data analysis

### 3.1 Data extraction

The NFIs on BeppoSAX (Boella et al. 1997a) consist of two imaging devices: the Low-Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (LECS; Parmar et al. 1997) operating in the 0.1–10 keV bandpass and the Medium-Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS; Boella et al. 1997b) operating at 1.6–10 keV. The source was also observed by the non-imaging Phoswich Detector System (PDS; Frontera et al. 1997) operating in the 15-220 keV bandpass, while the High-Pressure Gas Scintillation Proportional Counter was turned off. The circular fields of view of the LECS and MECS are 40 arcmin and 30 arcmin in diameter. The PDS has a hexagonal field of view with a diameter ranging between 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 and 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5 (full width at half maximum FWHM). The energy resolution at 6 keV for the MECS is $`8\%`$ (FWHM).

To study the source spectrum we extracted the LECS and MECS data from circular regions centered at the source using radii of 4.6 arcmin and 4 arcmin and rebinned them in order to have at least 20 counts per photon energy bin, so that we could apply the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic in fitting models to the data.

The photon flux as measured by the MECS remains constant within 10% for all observations except for the 2nd observation (on March 16) during which it steadily decreases by 40% and for the April 12 observation which shows an increase of 50% (note that this observation lasted 1.6 d).

The time intervals corresponding to two X-ray bursts were excluded from the MECS data (see Sect. 6). The LECS was not observing during the bursts. We found that the standard LECS and MECS background spectra obtained from blank field observations underestimate the background present in empty regions close to the source by a factor of $`5`$. We therefore used background spectra for the LECS and MECS instruments obtained from a region near to the source and void of point sources. Since the source was very bright during the first two observations, the tails of the point-spread function became too bright and the local background determination became questionable. Therefore, the background subtraction for the MECS and LECS instrument was performed using backgrounds from the longest observation on April 12. For the other three observations the background spectra and source spectra were extracted from the same image. Due to calibration uncertainties the bandpasses for the spectral analysis were limited to 0.3-4 keV for the LECS, 1.8–10 keV for the MECS and 15-200 keV for the PDS. In order to accommodate cross calibration uncertainties, the normalisations of the LECS and PDS data sets with respect to the MECS data were left as free parameters. Furthermore, a 1% systematic error per channel due to calibration uncertainties of the instruments is included. We fitted our spectra using a variety of models in XSPEC (version 11.2.0; Arnaud 1996).

By fitting the spectra with various models we found that the normalisation constant for the PDS data is unacceptably high (larger than 1.5). Since the PDS has a relatively large field of view and SAX J1747.0-2853 is in the central region of our Galaxy where the density of X-ray sources is high (c.f., Sidoli et al. 1999), the high normalisation constant indicates that the PDS data are significantly contaminated by other sources. This is further illustrated by the small variability of the PDS spectrum as compared by the (uncontaminated) MECS spectrum (Fig. 3). Also, the contaminating sources (most notably 1E 1740.7-2942 which is at a 64′ off-axis angle) are known to be strongly variable which precludes the usefulness of other PDS observations when SAX J1747.0-2853 was off as background measurements. We decided to exclude the PDS data from the analysis.

### 3.2 Spectral modeling

We tested different spectral models to describe the continuum. To describe the soft component we tested the blackbody and the multicolor disk blackbody model, for the hard component we tested a powerlaw, an exponentially cut off powerlaw and a Comptonization model. A more elaborate discussion is presented in Natalucci et al. 2003. The best fitting model of the continuum consists of a soft multicolor disk blackbody component and a hard Comptonized component, all with interstellar absorption. This is in agreement with results obtained by Natalucci et al. (2000) for NFI data on the 1998 outburst of SAX J1747.0-2853, and with those on many other LMXBs at similar flux levels (e.g., Sidoli et al. 2001). However, we note that the combination of a disk black body and a power law fits just as well due to the absence of PDS data (in contrast to the BeppoSAX study of the 1998 outburst by Natalucci et al. 2000).

The above-mentioned continuum model describes the data reasonably. However, the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit still exceeds 2 and by investigating the residuals we noticed that there is a narrow-band spectral component between 5.5 and 7.5 keV, which is not represented by these models. The peak of the narrow-band emission feature is near the energy expected for the Fe-K line complex. To describe this feature we included a gaussian in our model. We found that a gaussian with the width fixed to zero (a narrow line) describes the emission feature well. The 1$`\sigma `$ width of the line is with 90$`\%`$ confidence smaller than 0.28 keV. We note that the background in the vicinity of the source does not show any sign of an Fe-K line. This is consistent with the expected flux from diffuse Fe-K line in this region of at most 3$`\times 10^5`$ ph s-1cm-2 for a 4′ extraction radius (e.g., Koyama et al. 1986 and Wang et al. 2002). In Table 1 we present the parameter values for each observation together with single-parameter 1 $`\sigma `$ errors, for a model consisting of a soft component (disk blackbody), a hard Comptonized component and a Gaussian, all with interstellar absorption. We get lower values of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ for the data obtained in the last three observations when the brightness of the source was lower. Since it is most likely that $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ is constant in the direction of the source (circumstellar $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ variations usually are accompanied with dipping activity in the light curve which is not detected), we fixed $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to 8.8$`\times `$1022 cm-2. We decided to choose this value because it was determined from data with the highest count rate and highest accuracy.

It is evident from Fig. 3 and Table 1 that the spectrum is changing over time. The contribution of the disk black body flux to the total observed photon flux in 2–10 keV is decreasing with the overall flux. The spectrum is also slightly hardening with time. If we replace the Comptonization model by a power law to quantify the changes in a straightforward manner, the power law photon index decreases from 2.64 on March 13 to 2.30 on April 12. The most significant decrease of the 0.3–10 keV unabsorbed flux happened between March 28 and April 7. In this time interval there were significant changes in the disk blackbody component and in the equivalent width of the iron line. Between March 28 and April 7 the inner disk temperature decreased by a factor of $`5`$ and the disk radius increased. At the same time the equivalent width of the iron line increased by a factor of $`7`$. Between April 7 and April 12 the inner disk temperature jumped from $``$0.4 keV to $``$3.1 keV, the disk radius decreased and the equivalent width of the iron line decreased by a factor of $``$5. We do not find any significant changes in the parameter values of the Comptonized component, but note that the data are not particularly constraining due to the lack of data above 10 keV. The spectrum obtained during the observation on April 7 is shown in Fig. 4.

## 4 ASCA observation

SAX J1747.0-2853 decayed during the ASCA observation by 40%. Furthermore, the light curve shows two X-ray bursts. The overall spectrum as measured with ASCA-GIS2 shows the same components as the NFI spectrum ($`\chi _\mathrm{r}^2=1.22`$ for 669 dof) with an Fe-K line at 6.70$`{}_{0.02}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.04}`$ keV with a flux of $`(1.1\pm 0.2)\times 10^3`$ phot s-1cm-2 and an equivalent width of 45 eV. These results confirm the findings of the first two NFI observations.

## 5 XMM-Newton observation and data analysis

There are three identical telescopes on board of the XMM-Newton satellite. For two of these, 50$`\%`$ of the radiation is diverted to reflection gratings and the other 50$`\%`$ of the radiation is collected by the EPIC metal oxide semoconductor MOS1 and MOS2 CCD arrays. 100$`\%`$ of the radiation from the third telescope is collected by the EPIC-pn CCD array. The 3 EPIC cameras have $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution in a $`30^{}`$-diameter field of view. The energy resolution intrinsic to all CCDs is $`E/\delta E`$=20 to 50 in a 0.1 to 15 keV bandpass.

During the observation on SAX J1747.0-2853 all cameras were operated in full-window mode with the medium filter. The data analysis was performed with the Science Analysis System (SAS, version 5.4.1). Several background flares occurred during the observation, relevant data were excluded from the analyzis. We did not use the data from time intervals during which the count rate of photons with energy higher then 10 keV exceeds 0.5 counts s-1 for MOS and 2 counts s-1 for the EPIC-pn. The resulting net exposure times are 7.6 ksec for the pn camera and 16.7 ks for each of the MOS cameras. The source spectrum was extracted from a circular region centered at the source using a diameter of 1.5 arcmin. The background spectra were extracted from a circle with the same radius, from a region close to SAX J1747.0-2853 from the same CCD. The extracted spectra were rebinned into bins with a minimum of 20 counts per bin. The response matrices and ancillary response files were generated using SAS.

The bandpasses for the spectral analyses are, due to calibration uncertainties, limited for all three EPIC cameras to 0.3–10.0 keV. We fitted the obtained spectra using XSPEC. In order to accommodate the cross calibration uncertainties the normalisations for the MOS1 and MOS2 data sets with respect to the EPIC-pn data were left as free parameters. We started with the same continuum model as we used for the BeppoSAX observations. The spectrum with the best fit and residuals is shown in Fig. 5. There was no need to include an iron line feature in the model. Our data constrain the highest possible value for the iron line flux to $`1.85\times 10^5`$ phot s-1cm-2 with a 90% confidence level. This value is an order of magnitude lower then the lowest value detected by the BeppoSAX observations after the outburst. The upper limit of the equivalent width of the iron line is 24.7 eV. Taken literally, the temperature at the inner disk radius was small and the disk was far away from the neutron star compared to the previous observations. The unabsorbed 2–10 keV flux during this observation was $`8.7\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2s-1. This value is comparable to the April 7 BeppoSAX observation. The data obtained by the EPIC-pn show some excess with respect to the model at low energies, but the data obtained by the MOS cameras do not confirm the excess.

## 6 X-ray bursts

Two type-I X-ray bursts were detected with the MECS. The first burst started on 2000 March 17 at 0:14:30 UT and lasted approximately 20 s. Its time profile has a fast rise and an exponential decay. We fitted the decaying part with an exponential and find an e-folding decay time of $`6.6\pm 0.4`$ s. The second burst started on 2000 April 12 at 23:14:23 UT and lasted 50 s. It took about 15 s for the decay to set in for this burst while for the previous burst the decay set in after about 2 s. The e-folding decay time is $`8.0\pm 0.3`$ s. The neutron star photospheric radius expansion as well as a plateau in the peak flux during the bursts suggests that the bursts are Eddington-limited type I X-ray bursts. When fitted with a blackbody spectrum, the burst peak intensity corresponds to an unabsorbed bolometric flux of $`(4.47\pm 1.4)\times 10^8`$ ergs s-2. Assuming isotropic burst emission, Eddington limited type I X-ray bursts can be used to constrain the distance of the source. Using a standard candle luminosity of $`(3.0\pm 0.6)\times 10^{38}`$ ergs s-1 (Lewin et al. 1993; see also Kuulkers et al. 2003), we calculated a distance of $`7.48\pm 1.34`$ kpc for SAX J1747.0-2853.

We investigated the burst history of the SAX J1747.0-2853 by employing the WFCs (for an instrument description, see Jager et al. 1997). The PCA lightcurve is overplotted in Fig. 6 with the time intervals of the WFC observations and the times of detected bursts. There were 30 bursts detected during or close to outbursts in this period. It is interesting to note that the BeppoSAX WFCs had SAX J1747.0-2853 in the field of view during the whole first peak of the outburst, but bursts were detected only at or after peak flux. The chance probability of detecting zero bursts prior to the peak, assuming that the average burst rate is identical to that after the peak and that the bursts arrive randomly, is $`4.6\%`$.

The WFCs did not detect any bursts during its fall 1999 (MJD 51410–51470) campaign on the Galactic center when there was no strong persistent X-ray activity, while the net exposure time of this campaign was 801 ks. At other times when the PCA lightcurve also does not show strong persistent activity, there are considerable amounts of bursts (for instance in the period around MJD 51800). This strongly suggests that the source was truly in quiescence during the fall of 1999. The presence of truly quiescent periods is furthermore supported if we consider the full WFC database of 42 burst detections from SAX J1747.0-2853, see Table 2. There are many prolonged periods when there were no bursts detected, the coverage was particularly extensive in the fall of 1996 and the spring of 1997 with a combined exposure time of 1.7 Ms. Finally, we note that the Chandra observation as discussed by Wijnands et al. (2002) was close to the 2001 outburst during which WFC also detected 9 bursts and the above-quiescent flux very likely reflects the onset of that outburst.

## 7 Discussion

Whenever its location was covered by 2–10 keV instrumentation with $`10^{12}`$ erg cm-2s-1 sensitivity or better (we exclude soft X-rays here because the low-energy absorption is very high), SAX J1747.0-2853 was detected to be above quiescence. The lowest reported flux is $`1.9\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2s-1 (2–10 keV) during a Chandra observation in July 2001 (Wijnands et al. 2002). The next lowest flux value was measured by Sidoli et al. (1998) at $`5\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2s-1 in April 1998 in the tail of the 1998 outburst. For a distance of 7.5 kpc this translates to 2 and 4$`\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1. An X-ray burst was detected during the observation that Sidoli et al. discuss, independently testifying to low-level accretion activity. Based on the failure to find SAX J1747.0-2853 in true quiescence, it appears that SAX J1747.0-2853 is not a true transient. ”This suggestion was recently reaffirmed by the report of an X-ray burst from SAX J1747.0-2853 in 1991 (Grebenev et al. 2002) which is seven years before the source discovery. However, we find indirect evidence that it does go to quiescence between outbursts. The lack of burst detections in 3 WFC campaigns, each with a coverage in excess of 600 ks, is that evidence. If there were any significant accretion, there would have been bursts as shown by Sidoli et al. (1999).

From the long-term PCA lightcurve we estimate the average 0.3–10 keV luminosity. The average count rate is 87$`\pm 2`$ c s-1 per 5 PCUs. This is within 5% from the value measured within a day from the XMM-Newton observation. Applying the results of that observation we estimate an average flux of $`(6\pm 3)\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-2s-1 or luminosity of $`(4\pm 2)\times 10^{36}`$ erg s-1. The bolometric luminosity is estimated to be at most 50% more. Thus, the system appears to be close to the critical luminosity below which the accretion onto the compact object changes from persistent to transient in nature (Van Paradijs 1996; White et al. 1984).

The multiple-peak outburst of 2000 is an interesting feature, as is the otherwise somewhat irregular outburst behavior. The suggestion presents itself that the accretion disk is not fully emptied during mosts outbursts due to heating fronts in the disk that do not make it to either edge of the disk (see Lasota 2001 and references therein). The fact that during the rise to the first peak no X-ray bursts were detected while they were during the decay suggests that this outburst was caused by an outside-in heating front in the accretion disk. If it would have been an inside-out front, one would have expected immediate accretion onto the neutron star surface and, therefore, ignition of X-ray bursts fairly soon after the onset of the outburst.

Our series of five NFI observations nicely probes the outburst evolution, with coverage of a decaying state of the first peak and the rising state of the second peak. The most conspicuous changes in the spectrum during the decay are the softening of the soft component (as diagnosed by the disk inner edge temperature) and the jump of the equivalent width of the Fe-K line. This change is most obvious in the last NFI observation of the decay with the lowest flux (see Fig. 3) for which the MECS spectrum shows an upturn at low energies (when k$`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$ decreases from roughly 2 to 0.4 keV) and a larger Fe-K line (the equivalent width increases from about 40 eV to about 300 eV). Also, the temperature of the seed photons for the Comptonization drops threefold in this observation. The temperature measurements are qualitatively consistent with a picture of a changing inner radius of the optically thick part of the accretion disk (e.g., review by Lasota 2001). When the flux becomes lower during the first peak, the optically thick part of the disk moves away from the neutron star and the disk spectrum cools. The rise to the second outburst peak was covered by the last NFI observation. The spectrum is characterized by a relatively hot disk temperature, hotter than any previous measurement. Perhaps the optically thick part of the accretion disk here is closer to the neutron star than during the decay of the previous peak. Perhaps this reflects a disk instability that occurred in the inner parts of the disk instead and the outburst is the result of an inside-out disk instability. Unfortunately, we were not able to verify this with WFC monitoring observations of X-ray bursts.

There is one striking measurement regarding the Fe-K line: the equivalent width right between the two outburst peaks is an order of magnitude larger than at other times and the line energy remains at a highly ionized level. The width is at least 10 times smaller during the XMM-Newton measurement which is at approximately the same persistent flux level (this is nicely illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5). We suggest that this is due to the fact that the hard X-ray continuum flux (i.e., photons more energetic than $``$10 keV), which must be responsible for the fluorescence, has not decreased by the same amount as the soft X-ray flux, and that this flux is capable of ionizing the medium containing the iron, suggesting that the iron is not in the accretion disk but close to the source of the high-energy photons. A similar trend of the Fe-K line energy and equivalent width has been seen in another transient and black hole candidate (GX 339-4) by Feng et al. (2003). They suggest that this may be explained by the presence of an advection-dominated accretion flow (e.g., Narayan & Yi 1994). The results obtained by Wang et al. (2002) with Chandra on the hundreds of faint X-ray point sources in the center square degree of the Galaxy suggest that many near-to quiescent X-ray binaries may have 6.7 keV Fe-K emission.

###### Acknowledgements.

NW thanks the European Community for financial support. Four of the five BeppoSAX NFI observations were obtained from the publicly available archive provided by the Science Data Center of the Italian Space Agency (ASI). We thank the Data Center for pre-processing the data. We thank Tim Oosterbroek for providing us a LECS response matrix for an uncommon accumulation radius. BeppoSAX was a joint Italian and Dutch program.


format: text

text:
# Biography of John Rainwater

## Origins

John Rainwater came into existence at the University of Washington in 1952 when Nick Massey, a mathematics graduate student in Prof. Maynard Arsove’s beginning real variables class, erroneously received a blank registration card. (In those years, each student filled out a card for every class, which first circulated among various tabulating clerks in the registrar’s office before being sent to the professor.) He and a fellow graduate student, Sam Saunders, decided to use the card to enroll a fictional student, and since it was raining at the time, decided to call him “John Rainwater”. They handed in John Rainwater’s homework regularly, so it wasn’t until after the first midterm exam that Prof. Arsove became aware of the deception. He took it well, even when he later opened an “exploding” fountain pen with John Rainwater’s name engraved on it which had been left on the classroom table. After remarks by Arsove, such as “I guess I’ll never see Rainwater except in a barrel,” virtually all the students learned of the Rainwater prank. Several years later, when a group of mathematics graduate students and junior faculty solved some American Mathematical Monthly problems over coffee in the student union, it was only natural that they would submit them to the Monthly under J.R.’s name. As it does at present, the maa doubtless suggested that someone who was submitting problem solutions should become a member of the Association. At that time, a prospective maa member had to obtain the endorsement of two current members. An ideal endorser would have been Professor Carl Allendoerfer, who was not only Chairman of the Mathematics Department but also President of the maa. Unfortunately, he was not the kind of person to participate in a joke involving the maa. The solution was simple: A secretary was persuaded to put the endorsement form in with a pile of papers which required the busy Chairman’s signature, and the deed was accomplished. (Allendoerfer was reported to have been more than a bit unhappy when he eventually learned of the matter.) John has continued to publish problem solutions; see the paragraph on Authorship and Motivation below.

The first of John Rainwater’s ten published research papers were written in 1958 and 1959 by John Isbell, a young Assistant Professor. Isbell’s response to queries concerning his motivation for using J.R. as a pseudonym has been simply to quote Friedrich Schiller “Der Mensch ist nur da ganz Mensch, wo er spielt.” Unlike many of the Rainwater papers, there is no hint within these first two papers as to the actual authorship. (For present-day readers of this account, it should be pointed out that academic jobs were plentiful in the late 50’s, so amassing a publication record was not as pressing as it is today.) A functional analysis seminar was started in the late 1960’s, and it seemed appropriate to call it the “John Rainwater Seminar”, in view of the work that J.R. had done in that field. As the functional analysts in the department over the years have changed fields, died or retired, the John Rainwater seminar has changed its emphasis from simply functional analysis to functional analysis plus Fourier analysis, then to these two fields plus dynamical systems. At present it is primarily a seminar in the latter area.

## Impact

What about the impact of John Rainwater’s research? This is something that it is always difficult to measure, but a rough idea can be obtained from the citations listed in the Institute for Scientific Information’s “Web of Science”. (The numbers which follow are those in the bibliography below.) His most cited paper, with 19 citations, the latest in 2000, was the first one, in topology. Number 6, his 1969 pams note on Day’s norm, is his next most cited paper, with 17 citations, the latest in 1998. The algebra paper (number 14) has 14 citations, the latest in 2001. There are eight citations to both his second paper, the latest in 1989, and his third one, the one–page 1963 pams note, the latest in 2002. The latter has also been cited in books as “Rainwater’s Theorem”. Paper 15 on convex functions has six citations, the latest in 1995, while paper 10 on regular matrices has four citations, the latest in 1997. Paper 7, also about Day’s norm, has three citations, the latest in 1993 and number 8 has two, the latest in 1998. There is even one citation to number 13, his unpublished 1967 Rainwater Seminar note on Lindenstrauss spaces. Papers 4 and 16 have received no citations to date. In summary, it appears that most of John Rainwater’s published work has been reasonably well received.

## Authorship and motivation

As mentioned earlier, John Isbell wrote the first two John Rainwater papers. I wrote the third one, and the motivation was simple: I needed the theorem for a paper I was writing, but it was a “folk theorem”, observed more or less independently by five other mathematicians. It would have been a bit silly to have a half-page paper appear under the names of five authors, so I wrote to each of them, obtaining their approval to publish it under J.R.’s name (who acknowledged their “extremely useful conversations”). The fourth paper was written by Irving Glicksberg. I’m not certain of his motivation; this might be the only instance where the actual author thought that the paper was not good enough to appear under his own name. (The absence of any citations for it suggests that he was right.) Paper 5 is an unpublished note that was circulated to the experts. Paper 6 about Day’s norm was again a case of a large number of people (six this time) having provided various parts of the proof, so a pseudonym was very much in order. Again, they are thanked for “helpful discussions”. Paper 7, which deduced additional properties of Day’s norm, was written by Edgar Asplund for a conference in Aarhus. Paper 8 on the abstract F. and M. Riesz theorem was written by Glicksberg. The result was proved by four people but it was only one and a half pages long, so the motivation is again obvious. The unpublished seminar note in number 9 was written by me for the Rainwater Seminar. Number 10 (*Regular matrices …*) was written by John Isbell again (who, incidentally, has authored or co-authored six other pseudononymous papers under two other names). I proved the result in number 11 and subsequently learned that Day and Pelczynski were also aware of it. John Giles also proved it independently, and he was rather unhappy that the rest of us thought that it was not important enough to publish. Number 12 is an exposition I wrote for the Rainwater Seminar. Number 13 was proved by Peter D. Morris and me when he was visiting here; we thought it was too clearly an example of “proof by theorem” to be worth publishing. Paper 14 is a departure for John Rainwater. Not only is it in algebra, but he doesn’t thank anyone for helpful conversations. He notes, however, that his work was supported by four different grants. (Culprits this time were Ken Brown, Ken Goodearl, Toby Stafford and Bob Warfield.) Number 15 was written by Isaac Namioka and me. We were able to generalize Elena Verona’s theorem simply because we were familiar with some techniques she (as a new Ph.D.) had not yet learned and we would have been embarrassed to take personal credit for that. Number 16 was written by me and David Preiss; it has not yet shown up in in the Science Citation Index. Number 17 is a collection (surely incomplete) of problems or solutions which J.R. has published in the American Mathematical Monthly, the earliest in 1959 (sent by John Isbell), the latest in 1994 (sent by me). I have no idea who was responsible for problem 4908 (1963) from the University of British Columbia.

## Future

Where does John Rainwater go from here? It would be a shame if he were to die. He is not as old or famous as N. Bourbaki (who may still be alive) but he is clearly older than Peter Orno, who only has three publications to his name, all in the 1970’s. (At least one of his authors had an interest in pornography, hence P. Orno.) He is also older than M. G. Stanley (with four papers) and H. C. Enoses (with only two). It is to be hoped that someone will be able to help John Rainwater carry on, so that in the future people won’t ask “Who killed J.R.?” The previous paragraph gives some guidance to potential Rainwater authors. Clearly, in the present employment climate, no junior faculty member would be willing to emulate John Isbell and publish a really good paper under a pseudonym. The other successful J.R. papers were those which simply had too many authors, all of whom were securely tenured faculty, so keep him in mind if you find yourself in such a situation. It would be nice to keep the tradition going.

### Acknowledgements

A number of people have helped me to write this biography. My appreciative thanks go to Maynard Arsove, John Isbell and Sam Saunders for their information on J.R.’s origins and to the University of Washington Mathematics Librarian Martha Tucker for furnishing the citation material.

## Bibliography

1. *Spaces whose finest uniformity is metric*, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 567–570. mr 21#5180; zbl 0088.38301
2. *A note on projective resolutions*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1959), 734–735. mr 23#A618; zbl 0105.16403
3. *Weak convergence of bounded sequences*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1963), 999. mr 27#5111; zbl 0117.08302
4. *A remark on regular Banach algebras*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1967), 255–256. mr 34#8223; zbl 0171.33802
5. *On a renorming theorem of Klee*, Unpublished note, 1968.
6. *Local uniform convexity of Day’s norm on $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (1969), 335–339. mr 39#4647; zbl 0185.37602
7. *Day’s norm on $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$*, Proc. of the Functional Analysis Week, Aarhus 8 (1969), 46–50, Matematisk Inst., Aarhus Univ., Aarhus. mr 40#7778; zbl 0235.46048
8. *A note on the preceding paper*, Duke Math. J. 36 (1969), 799–800. mr 44#7299; zbl 0201.45801
9. *A characterization of certain dual unit balls*, Rainwater Sem. Notes, 1970.
10. *Regular matrices with nowhere dense support*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (1971), 361. mr 43#5330; zbl 0213.08301
11. *A non-reflexive Banach space has non-smooth third conjugate space*, Rainwater Sem. Notes, 1972.
12. *A theorem of Ekeland and Lebourg on Frechet differentiability of convex functions on Banach Spaces*, Rainwater Sem. Notes, 1976.
13. *Lindenstrauss spaces which are Asplund spaces*, Rainwater Sem. Notes, 1976–77.
14. *Global dimension of fully bounded Noetherian rings*, Comm. Algebra 15 (1987), no. 10, 2143–2156. mr 89b:16032; zbl 0628.16010
15. *Yet more on the differentiability of convex functions*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1988), no. 3, 773–778. mr 89m:46081; zbl 0661.49007
16. *A class of null sets associated with convex functions on Banach spaces*, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 42 (1990), no. 2, 315–322. mr 91j:46050; zbl 0724.46017
17. *Problems/Solutions published by John Rainwater*.
18. *Collected Works of John Rainwater*, Department of Mathematics, University of Washington.


text:
# Analysis and interpretation of high transverse entanglement in optical parametric down conversion

## Abstract

Quantum entanglement associated with transverse wave vectors of down conversion photons is investigated based on the Schmidt decomposition method. We show that transverse entanglement involves two variables: orbital angular momentum and transverse frequency. We show that in the monochromatic limit high values of entanglement are closely controlled by a single parameter resulting from the competition between (transverse) momentum conservation and longitudinal phase matching. We examine the features of the Schmidt eigenmodes, and indicate how entanglement can be enhanced by suitable mode selection methods.

Nonclassical correlation among photons has been one of the central topics in quantum optics and quantum communication. In particular, the property of quantum entanglement is now recognized as the key to accomplishments exceeding the limit imposed by classical physical laws. Entangled photons are experimentally available through optical spontaneous parametric downconversion (PDC). Such highly correlated photons have been employed in fundamental experiments, e.g., to test the violation of Bell’s inequality bell1 , and to demonstrate quantum teleportation tele1 . Significantly, down conversion photons provide quantum entanglement in a rich diversity of forms beyond polarization Bell states. For example, one has continuous entanglement in field frequencies huang ; Ian , energy-time variables energy1  and momenta momentum . Altogether, counting the discrete polarization and orbital angular momentum variables angular1 ; angular2 ; angular3 , a full quantum characterization of just two-photon states already requires multiple parameters and the term ‘hyper-entanglement’ has been proposed in order to emphasize the complex structure of such quantum states multi1 .

Here we focus on PDC entanglement that is associated with the transverse wavevectors of signal and idler photon pairs. We are especially interested in ways to reach states of anomalously high entanglement. The PDC quantum state is sometimes called a biphoton Klyshko . Biphoton correlation is experimentally accessible and several investigations have addressed this topic in regard to the underlying orbital angular momentum structure angular1 ; angular2 ; Torres  and applications in quantum imaging imaging1  are being explored, including comparison with two-beam correlation using spatially coherent classical light boyd-etal . In this note we approach the subject using the single-sum Schmidt decomposition technique knight , which yields for the first time a complete characterization of the existing entanglement by determining the natural set of bi-orthogonal mode pairs. This is in contrast to studies based on familiar double-sum expansions in Gauss-Laguerre or Gauss-Hermite modes.

To begin with, we consider the signal and idler photons of PDC under the so-called type-II phase matching condition. The two photons are distinguished by their orthogonal polarizations. The explicit forms of biphoton states in three dimensional space are complicated by the details of crystal properties and pump pulse profiles rubin . However, under plausible assumptions in the paraxial approximation, the dependence of longitudinal components of the wavevectors $`k_z`$ and $`q_z`$ may be eliminated in the monochromatic limit angular2 ; monken . Denoting $`𝐤_{}`$ and $`𝐪_{}`$ as transverse wavevectors of the signal and idler photons, the biphoton state takes the approximate form: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝑑𝐤_{}𝑑𝐪_{}C(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})|𝐤_{},𝐪_{}.`$ Here the biphoton amplitude is given by angular2 ; monken ,

$$C(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=_p(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤_{}𝐪_{}),$$
(1)
where $`_p(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})`$ describes the transverse profile of the pump field in wavevector space, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤_{}𝐪_{})`$ is a purely geometrical function that will be specified later. Note that if the amplitude $`C(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$ were to separate into factors depending only on $`𝐤_{}`$ and $`𝐪_{}`$, then the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ would be factorable (not entangled).

The Schmidt decomposition of $`C(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$ corresponds to the expansion,

$$C(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _n}u_n(𝐤_{})v_n(𝐪_{})$$
(2)
where $`u_n(𝐤_{})`$ and $`v_n(𝐪_{})`$ are Schmidt modes defined by eigenvectors of the reduced density matrices for the signal and idler photons respectively, and $`\lambda _n`$ are the corresponding eigenvalues knight . Thus the mode functions $`u_n`$ form a complete and orthonormal set, and the same is true for the $`v_n`$. Because density matrices always have finite trace, the Schmidt decomposition is always discrete, even when the original specification of the state is naturally continuous, or doubly continuous as in the present situation. This discreteness is intrinsic, independent of any artificial box boundary conditions.

The Schmidt decomposition (2) provides the information eigenstates of the two-particle system, which characterizes the structure of entanglement by providing two important pieces of information not available otherwise. First, the Schmidt single-sum form of decomposition reveals exactly how the photons are paired, i.e., if a signal photon is detected in the mode $`u_n`$, then with certainty the idler photon must be in the mode $`v_n`$. Second, the Schmidt eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ serve to measure the degree of entanglement. This is usually discussed in terms of the entanglement entropy $`E=_n\lambda _n\mathrm{log}_2\lambda _n`$. However, a more transparent and experimentally more direct measure of entanglement is the ‘average’ number of Schmidt modes involved. The Schmidt number (or participation ratio) $`K`$ provides this average: $`K1/_n\lambda _n^2`$. The larger the value of $`K`$, the higher the entanglement BellK . We remark that the maximum value of $`K`$ is governed by the volume of accessible phase space of the system under relevant physical constraints such as energy-momentum conservation.

We first examine a class of biphoton amplitudes in which both $`_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are represented by gaussian functions:

$$C_g(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=𝒩_ge^{|𝐤_{}+𝐪_{}|^2/\sigma _{}^2}e^{b^2|𝐤_{}𝐪_{}|^2}.$$
(3)
Here $`𝒩_g`$ is a normalization constant, and the parameters $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`b^1`$ are the widths of the respective gaussians, to which we give physical meaning below. With this amplitude, it can be shown that the Schmidt eigenmodes are simply the energy eigenfunctions of a two-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator. The probability of finding a mode (in polar coordinates) with radial and angular quantum numbers $`n`$ and $`m`$ is proportional to $`\xi ^{2n+|m|}`$, where $`\xi =(1b\sigma _{})^2/\left(1+b\sigma _{}\right)^2`$. This leads to a very convenient closed form for the Schmidt number:

$$K=\frac{1}{4}\left(b\sigma _{}+\frac{1}{b\sigma _{}}\right)^2.$$
(4)
Thus, $`K`$ increases as the “control parameter” $`b\sigma _{}`$ increases or decreases, i.e., for both $`b\sigma _{}1`$ and $`b\sigma _{}1`$ (see Fig. 1). It is interesting that $`K`$ can be expressed in terms of the variance of the transverse wavevector components, $`K^{1/2}=q_j^2/\sqrt{s_{+j}^2s_j^2}`$, where $`s_{\pm j}=(k_j\pm q_j)/\sqrt{2}`$ with the subscript $`j`$ referring to a component on the transverse $`xy`$ plane. Such an expression connects the abstract measure of entanglement with observable fluctuations.

The biphoton amplitude $`C_g`$ can be recognized as a continuous representation of two-mode squeezed states, and these states maximize the EPR correlation for a given amount of entanglement cirac . Eq. (4) provides a useful estimation of degree of entanglement according to the widths of the functions $`_p(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤_{}𝐪_{})`$. In practice, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is determined by phase matching in the longitudinal direction, and it is generally not a gaussian. We now follow Monken, et al. monken  and consider another class of biphoton amplitude:

$$C_s(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=𝒩_se^{|𝐤_{}+𝐪_{}|^2/\sigma _{}^2}\mathrm{sinc}\left[b^2|𝐤_{}𝐪_{}|^2\right].$$
(5)
Here the transverse profile of the pump field $`_p`$ is treated as a gaussian, and this gives physical meaning to the width $`\sigma _{}`$, and $`𝒩_s`$ is a normalization constant. We have used the subscript $`s`$ in order to emphasize that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤_{}𝐪_{})`$ is now taken as the sinc function arising from longitudinal momentum mismatch in the PDC crystal. Spatial coherence is the physical effect that determines $`b`$ via the relation $`b^2=cL/4\omega _p`$, where $`L`$ is the length of the crystal and $`\omega _p`$ is the pump frequency.

The amplitude (5) is an approximation to actual biphoton states realized in laboratories. This is because technical details involving dispersion and birefringence effects are omitted. However, it captures the main features imposed by conservation of energy and momentum, which are the key constraints on the state in the two-photon Hilbert space. To more fully appreciate (5) in terms of conservation rules, one can see first that the gaussian with the argument $`𝐤_{}+𝐪_{}`$ is merely a statement of the uncertainty in transverse momentum conservation, and second that the sinc function’s argument expresses energy conservation $`\omega _s=\omega _i=\omega _p/2`$ in practice monken .

In several previous studies of biphoton states, the sinc function was approximated by unity in the small $`L`$ limit (or equivalently the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was approximated by a delta function) angular2 ; Torres . However, such an approximation is inapplicable to our Schmidt analysis here because the corresponding $`C_s(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$ would be unbounded on the $`𝐤_{}=𝐪_{}`$ manifold. Since the sinc function ultimately limits the accessible transverse wave vectors, it has to be fully accounted for in the equation. We also note that exact analogs of the sum and difference arguments in (5) appear in wave functions of entangled states of two massive particles when expressed in terms of center of mass and relative coordinates Fedorov-etal .

To carry out the complete Schmidt decomposition of (5), we make use of polar coordinates, writing: $`𝐤_{}=(k_{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _k,k_{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _k)`$ and $`𝐪_{}=(q_{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _q,q_{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _q)`$. The biphoton amplitude can be decomposed in the form: $`C_s(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=_me^{im(\theta _k\theta _q)}\sqrt{P_m}F_m(k_{},q_{})/2\pi ,`$ where $`F_m(k_{},q_{})`$ is a function of magnitude $`k_{}`$ and $`q_{}`$, and is normalized according to $`_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}|F_m(k_{},q_{})|^2k_{}q_{}𝑑k_{}𝑑q_{}=1`$. We identify the integer $`m`$ as a quantum number of orbital angular momentum. Therefore $`P_m`$ is the probability of finding the two photons with opposite orbital angular momentum numbers $`m`$ and $`m`$.

Further decomposition of $`F_m(k_{},q_{})\sqrt{k_{}q_{}}`$ is a simpler task due to its lower dimensionality as compared with $`C_s(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$. According to the Schmidt decomposition scheme, we have: $`F_m(k_{},q_{})\sqrt{k_{}q_{}}=_n\sqrt{\gamma _{n,m}}\varphi _{n,m}(k_{})\varphi _{n,m}(q_{})`$, where the $`\varphi _{n,m}`$ are the same for idler and signal photons because of the symmetry assumed in Eq. (5). Consequently the Schmidt decomposition of the biphoton amplitude reads:

$$C_s(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{\lambda _{nm}}u_{n,m}(𝐤_{})u_{n,m}(𝐪_{})$$
(6)
where $`\lambda _{nm}P_m\gamma _{nm}`$ and $`u_{n,m}(𝐤_{})e^{im\theta _k}\varphi _{n,m}(k_{})/\sqrt{2\pi k_{}}`$ are normalized Schmidt mode functions in wavevector space. Eq. (6) reveals that quantum entanglement involves orbital angular momenta and the magnitude of transverse wavevectors.

The gaussian and the sinc function in (5) compete with each other by enforcing correlations in opposite directions. High entanglement is achieved only when one of them becomes dominant, i.e., $`\sigma _{}b1`$ or $`\sigma _{}b1`$. We have numerically performed the Schmidt decomposition for various values of $`\sigma _{}b`$. In Fig. 1, we show the Schmidt number $`K=1/_{nm}\lambda _{nm}^2`$ as a function $`\sigma _{}b`$. Consistent with the description above, we see that either a decrease or increase in $`\sigma _{}b`$ can lead to an increased degree of entanglement. For example, $`K7.2`$ when $`\sigma _{}b=0.3`$. The minimum Schmidt number $`K1.4`$ occurs at $`\sigma _{}b1`$. The figure also indicates that $`C_s`$ is more entangled than $`C_g`$ at the same parameter value $`\sigma _{}b`$.

To learn how various modes contribute to the entanglement, we plot in Fig. 2 the distribution of $`\lambda _{nm}^2`$ for the case $`b\sigma _{}=0.25`$. Such a control parameter value corresponds to a moderately high entanglement regime where conservation of transverse momentum dominates. Small values of $`b\sigma _{}`$ are typically accessible in experiments using very thin crystals. In Fig. 2 we clearly see that most probabilities are found on the $`n=0`$ manifold, where the quantum number $`n`$ equals the number of nodes in the radial direction (Fig. 3). Therefore quantum entanglement is mainly manifest in the angular correlations. In fact, the nature of quantum entanglement can be appreciated from the probability distribution associated with the photon amplitude (Fig. 4). Along the $`k=q`$ manifold, we see a narrow peak emerge near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\theta _k\theta _q=\pi `$. For smaller values of $`b\sigma _{}`$ (i.e., higher entanglement), the more pronounced is the peak observed. In other words $`𝐤_{}`$ is almost locked near $`𝐪_{}`$ for sufficiently large transverse wavevectors. This demonstrates an interesting connection between quantum entanglement and localization in the transverse momentum space. In fact, recent studies have begun to examine the role of entanglement in localization problems Fedorov-etal ; rau .

Fig. 4 suggests that wave vectors with large transverse magnitude are ‘more entangled’. Therefore higher entanglement may be achieved by simply choosing wavevectors with sufficiently large transverse components. This may be realized by adopting certain filtering procedures. As a demonstration, we consider an amplitude

$$𝒜(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=C_s(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})\theta (k_{}\mu _c)\theta (q_{}\mu _c)$$
(7)
in which low transverse wavevectors smaller than $`\mu _c`$ are removed by the unit step functions $`\theta (x)`$. We have performed a Schmidt decomposition of $`𝒜(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$ numerically. For the case $`b\sigma _{}=0.25`$ and $`\mu _c=2\sigma _{}`$, the corresponding Schmidt number is found to be $`K17.2`$. This is substantially higher than the original value $`K=10.2`$. The enhancement is more drastic for the almost disentangled case $`b\sigma _{}=1`$. In this case we find $`K26`$ by using $`\mu _c=\sigma _{}`$. Such an enhancement via amplitude filtering exploits the long tail of the sinc function, and it has a cost in terms of detection rate. Physically it means that there is uncertainty of projecting the two photon amplitude onto $`𝒜(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$. For the $`b\sigma _{}=1`$ example above, the probability of finding the system in $`𝒜(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})`$ is about $`6\%`$.

To summarize, we described a method to analyze and interpret physically realistic cases of high transverse entanglement in parametric down conversion, based on the Schmidt decomposition method. For the two classes of two-photon amplitudes defined by $`C_g`$ and $`C_s`$, the degree of entanglement is controlled by a single parameter $`b\sigma _{}`$. We determined the Schmidt number as a function of $`b\sigma _{}`$ and identified two experimentally accessible regimes $`b\sigma _{}1`$ and $`b\sigma _{}1`$ in which values of entanglement higher than reported to date can be studied. In addition we proposed a method to enhance entanglement via large transverse wave vector selection. In fact one sees many possibilities to engineer entanglement through mode selection and manipulation of the shape of the pump pulse profile Torres . The Schmidt decomposition presented here provides a basic framework for investigation of such possibilities.

Acknowledgments: We acknowledge conversations with colleagues, including K. Banaszek, K.W. Chan, M.V. Fedorov, A. Gatti, J. Howell, M. Ivanov, A. Sergienko and I.A. Walmsley, and support from grants NSF PHY00-72359 and ARO DAAD19-99-1-0215, and RGC Project No. 401603.


text:
# Note on nonequilibrium stationary states and entropy

(11 december 2003)

## Abstract

In transformations between nonequilibrium stationary states, entropy might be a not well defined concept. It might be analogous to the “heat content” in transformations in equilibrium which is not well defined either, if they are not isochoric (i.e. do involve mechanical work). Hence we conjecture that un a nonequilbrium stationary state the entropy is just a quantity that can be transferred or created, like heat in equilibrium, but has no physical meaning as “entropy content” as a property of the system.

preprint: RU/4-03g

I. Thermostats and chaotic hypothesis.

In studying equilibrium and nonequilibrium thermodynamics the notion of thermostat plays an important role: it is usually defined phenomenologicallyZe68  as a system capable only of exchanging heat without changing its temperature or performing work (hence it is ideally an infinite system).

In a statistical mechanical approach to a theory of the nonequilibrium stationary states of a system which is subject to external non conservative forces, which (therefore) perform work, thermostats must then be present to avoid that the work performed by the external forces causes an increase of the energy beyond bounds. In statistical approaches the thermostats must be defined as mechanical forces: the routes that one can follow are

(i) Introduce stochastic forces acting on the system (usually on the boundary)
(ii) Assume that the system interacts via conservative forces with infinite systems (“thermostats”) which are initially in equilibrium and which one would like to show that by interacting with the system the thermostats will undergo only changes localized in the vicinity of the contact surfaces
(iii) Assume that the interaction with the “outside world” is modeled by an effective force on the system which balances the work of the external forces working on the system (cf. Eq. (1) below) thus allowing the system to reach stationarity.

The third possibility has recently emerged as a very convenient way of studying the problem, since it at least avoids the virtually untractable theory of the behavior of systems in contact with infinite reservoirs. However it is often regarded as “unphysical” because it “amounts to modifying the system’s equations of motion”. But the equations of motion are modified also if one uses the option (i), while the option (ii) is interesting but not really suitable for investigations which, at least until now, mostly rely on numerical experiments. Furthermore theoretically the only “infinite thermostats” which have been considered are infinite systems of free particles interacting only with the particles of the system and not directly with each other, a rather restricted case.

Here we shall model thermostats by mechanical forces acting on the system, however we do not want to make very specific choices of the forces and the thermostats since we are interested only in general properties which would be shared by “any” (reasonable) choices of the forces and thermostat models. We think that the mechanical models of thermostats fall into “equivalence classes”, just as one thinks that phenomenological thermostats do. Therefore we consider mechanical systems which, in spite of being acted upon by nonconservative forces, are kept in a nonequilibrium stationary state with the help of other mechanical (“thermostatic”) forces and study which relations, if any, can be established about transitions between stationary statesGa03 . We restrict ourselves here to transformations between stationary states which are “quasi static” transformations through intermediate stationary states. This means that on the time scale of the observations the control parameters (e.g. volume, strength of the external forces etc.) of the stationary states are kept fixed long enough so that the system can at any time can be considered to be in a stationary state. This is a generalization of reversible transitions in equilibrium.

We consider only systems consisting of many particles and we do not consider systems that are modeled by continua. Continua could be considered but one first must understand the thermodynamics of simple systemsGa02 . The particle motions occurring in a simple system are assumed to be chaotic: the Chaotic HypothesisGC95 , essentially states that an isolated system of particles has a chaotic evolution on microscopic time scales (see below).

A simple system will be described by a differential equation in its phase space: we write it as $`\dot{x}=X_E(x)`$ where $`x=(\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q})R^{6N}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (phase space), $`N`$=number of particles, $`m`$= mass of the particles, with

$`m\underset{¯}{\overset{¨}{q}}=f(\underset{¯}{q})+\underset{¯}{E}\underset{¯}{g}(\underset{¯}{q})\vartheta _{\underset{¯}{E}}(\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q})X_E(x)`$ (1)
where $`f(\underset{¯}{q})`$ describes the internal (conservative) forces (e.g. hard cores), $`\underset{¯}{E}\underset{¯}{g}(\underset{¯}{q})`$ represents the “active external forces” (nonconservative for the reasons mentioned at the beginning) acting on the system: for definiteness we suppose that they are locally conservative (like an electromotive force) but not globally, and $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }_{\underset{¯}{E}}`$ is the force law which models the action exerted by the thermostat on the system to keep it from indefinitely acquiring energy: this is why we shall call it a mechanical thermostat. Linearity of the dependence on the “fields” $`\underset{¯}{E}`$ is only for convenience: we are not assuming them to be small (the theory of linear nonequilibrium is amply discussed in the literatureDGM84 ). More generally the external forces could be velocity dependent and even time dependent (periodically) but we restrict ourselves to positional forces only for simplicity.

Models of thermostats in the above sense can be very different even for the same macroscopic system; for instance (a list far from exhaustive)

(1) assuming the system to have hard cores (e.g. a granular material of the type considered inFN03 ) one can consider inelastic collisions, e.g. suppose that the head-on component of the energy is decreased by a scale factor $`\eta <1`$ upon each collision or, alternatively, the total energy of the two colliding particles is rescaled after a collision and assigned a value $`2\frac{3}{2}k_BT`$ (this is essentially “Drude’s conduction model”)Be64 , or

(2) assuming that there is a background friction $`\vartheta _i=\nu \dot{q}_i`$, $`\nu >0`$, for all components of $`\ddot{x}_j`$ or

(3) assuming minimum effort to keep, say, the total kinetic energy or the total energy constant, (“Gaussian thermostatEM90 ).

Remark: the restriction that the external forces ($`\underset{¯}{E}\underset{¯}{g}(\underset{¯}{q})`$) be positional is a strong restriction as it does not allow velocity dependent forces or several different thermostats as needed in any heat conduction problem where the nonequilibrium stationary state is achieved by putting the system in contact with two reservoirs without any external forces acting. However, such cases could also be consideredGa96a , but we do not treat them here since we want to restrict ourselves to the simplest case.

We shall assume about the system which we consider the

Chaotic HypothesisGC95 : The system evolution is supposed to be as chaotic as possible, i.e. to be hyperbolic (one also says, technically, that the system is “an Anosov system”).

which will be a key assumption in our analysis.

II. SRB statistics and nonequilibrium ensembles

Any initial state $`x`$, randomly chosen in phase space with a probability distribution which has a density in phase space (i.e. such that the probability of a phase point $`\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q}`$ to be in $`d\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}d\underset{¯}{q}`$ has the form $`\rho (\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q})d\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}d\underset{¯}{q}`$ for some probability density $`\rho (\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q})0`$ in phase space), will admit a statistics (under the above chaotic assumption): i.e. for all (smooth) observables $`F`$

$`\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}F(S_tx)𝑑t={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\mu _E(dy)F(y)`$ (2)
where $`\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}`$ is a stationary probability distribution on phase space, called the SRB distribution or also SRB statisticsRu95 ; Ga00 ; Ga02 ; GBG04 . This is a (nontrivial) consequence of the above chaotic hypothesis.

Definition: A system in a microscopic state $`x`$, which has SRB statistics $`\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}`$, is said to be in the stationary state $`\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}`$. The collection of all stationary states of a system that are constructed by varying the parameters (typically the volume $`V`$ of the container, the number of particles $`N`$, the external forces $`\underset{¯}{E}`$, etc) will be called a “nonequilibrium Ensemble”.

The Ensemble (with capital $`E`$) is therefore a collection of probability distributions which we distinguish from what, following Gibbs, has become established terminology where ensemble indicates a single element of the collection, with fixed control parameters: what is usually called simply the “microcanonical ensemble with parameters $`U,V`$” is here just a single element of the collection (i.e. the Ensemble) of microcanonical probability distributions.

The notion of Ensemble in nonequilibrium is wider than in equilibrium since it depends also on the equations of motion, because of the presence there of the thermostats. However, one expects that, as happens in equilibrium statistical mechanics, there should be “equivalent Ensembles” corresponding to classes of different possible models for thermostats acting on a systemGa00 ; Ga02 .

Equilibrium is a special case of a nonequilibrium stationary state: in such case $`\underset{¯}{E}=\underset{¯}{0}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }_{\underset{¯}{E}}=\underset{¯}{0}`$ and the chaotic hypothesis implies the validity of the ergodic hypothesisGa00 ; the Ensemble (or collection) of SRB distributions each of which can be parameterized by the total energy $`U`$ and volume $`V`$ coincides with the corresponding collection of microcanonical ensemblesGa00 . Furthermore, in general, the chaotic hypothesis implies that observables that are represented by smooth functions on phase space have finite time correlations which converge exponentially fast to their stationary state averages (i.e. SRB averages).

We now want to consider which relations can be established in general between the properties of stationary states that can be transformed into one another by changing reversibly the external parameters, just as is done on equilibrium states.

In fact, if we limit ourselves to equilibrium states first then it is well known since Boltzmann (in his papers in the period 1866–1884, seeBo84 ) that if a transformation generates an energy variation $`dU`$ and a volume variation $`dV`$ when the pressure (defined as a time average of a function defined on phase space, see for instanceGa00 ) is $`p`$ and the average kinetic energy is $`\frac{3}{2}Nk_BT`$ then, seeGa00  appendices A1.1 and A9.3,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dU+pdV}{T}}=\mathrm{exact}\mathrm{differential}`$ (3)
while $`dU+pdV`$ is not exact, except in the isochoric case (i.e. when $`dV=0`$) and it is called the heat transferred from the heat reservoirs to the system. It makes no sense to talk of heat content contained in the systemLL , unless one limits oneself to isochoric transformations: there is no heat content of a system because one cannot distinguish between the heat and the mechanical work contents unless one allows only isochoric transformations in which the system performs no work (and in that case it is just another name for the internal energy).

Defining the entropy content of a system as an integral $`S`$ of the exact differential $`(dU+pdV)/T`$, an immediate question is whether one can extend the notion of entropy content to non equilibrium states.

III. Entropy production rate and temperature.

The proposal that emerges from various theoretical considerations and a number of numerical experimentsAn82 ; EM90 ; Ru99 ; Ga00 , is to define, if $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant,

Definition: The entropy production rate in a stationary state $`\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}`$ is $`k_B\sigma _+`$ with (cf. Eq.(2)):

$`\sigma _+=\sigma \stackrel{def}{=}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}(dx)\sigma (x)`$ (4)
where $`\sigma (x)=`$ divergence of $`\underset{¯}{X}_{\underset{¯}{E}}(x)`$ (i.e. $`\sigma (x)`$ is the phase space contraction rate) and $`\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}`$ is the SRB statistics.

This definition elicits a few comments:

(a) There is no generally accepted definition of entropy in nonequilibrium stationary states.
(b) In several thermostat models considered in the literature the average divergence $`\sigma _+`$ of the equations of motion is essentially related to $`W`$, the average work per unit time done by the thermostatting forces, i.e. to the time average $`W`$ of $`\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}\underset{¯}{\vartheta }(\underset{¯}{q},\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}})`$, which in stationary states equals the average work done by the external forces. For instance if $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }(\underset{¯}{q},\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}})`$ is proportional to $`\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}`$, i.e. $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }(\underset{¯}{q},\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}})=\alpha (\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q})\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}`$ for some function $`\alpha `$, then $`W=\alpha \underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}^2`$ while $`\sigma _+=\sigma =3N\alpha +(_{\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}}\alpha )\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}`$: hence $`W\alpha 2K`$ and $`\sigma _+3N\alpha `$ so that in such cases $`W`$ and $`\sigma _+`$ are related by $`\sigma _+=\frac{W}{2K/3N}`$. Since the work done by the thermostatting forces is naturally interpreted as the heat that the system cedes to the thermostat we see that in the cases considered (i.e. $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }(\underset{¯}{q},\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}})=\alpha (\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}},\underset{¯}{q})\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}`$) the quantity $`\sigma _+`$ has the meaning of the entropy increase of the thermostat.
(c) An important general theoremRu96 , guarantees that $`\sigma _+0`$, and $`\sigma _+=0`$ corresponds to the case in which the SRB distribution $`\mu _{\underset{¯}{E}}`$ admits a density on phase space, a case that one naturally identifies with an equilibrium state and which essentially happens only if $`\underset{¯}{E}=\underset{¯}{0}`$.

Certainly the above three properties are, at best, only an indication that the phase space contraction can be interpreted as the entropy increase of the thermostats (in the classical sense of the word and due to the heat generated by the system). If we used phenomenological thermostats they would be systems in thermal equilibrium and at a fixed temperature so that the heat absorbed per unit time would generate an entropy increase of the thermostats which is well defined. Here one has to bear in mind that the the notion of heat absorbed by a mechanical thermostat as well as the notion of its temperature are new concepts. We use the arbitrariness offered us by the lack of a generally accepted definition of these concepts to conjecture the above definition of the entropy production rate on the basis of the general result in (c) which guarantees the positivity that is desired for compatibility with classical thermodynamics.

The notion of temperature of a thermostat is however still missing but the above definition leads to a definition of an effective temperature of the thermostatting forces (we stress that there is no universally accepted definition of temperature in systems out of equilibrium, even if stationaryFN03 ; Ga03 ). Here we propose

Definition: the (effective) temperature $`T`$ of the thermostats for a stationary nonequilibrium state is

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{W}{k_B\sigma _+}}`$ (5)
where $`W`$ is the average work per unit time done on the system by the external forces, equal to the average work $`\dot{Q}`$ done on the thermostatting forces, and $`k_B\sigma _+`$ is the entropy production rate.

The equality between $`W=\underset{¯}{E}\underset{¯}{g}(\underset{¯}{q})\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}`$ and $`\dot{Q}=\underset{¯}{\vartheta }\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{q}}`$ is due to the fact that the internal forces being conservative perform zero work in the average.

Remark: the situations in which there is heat conduction between different thermostats is not considered here: in such cases one has at least two thermostats acting on the system: i.e. the thermostatting force $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }`$ is then the sum of, for instance, forces $`\underset{¯}{\vartheta }=\underset{¯}{\vartheta }_1+\underset{¯}{\vartheta }_2`$, which perform the work $`\dot{Q}_1`$ and $`\dot{Q}_2`$, respectively, so that the divergence $`\sigma (x)`$ is the sum of two quantities $`\sigma _1(x)`$ and $`\sigma _2(x)`$. Therefore in such cases it will be natural to define the temperatures of the two thermostats as $`T_i=\frac{\dot{Q}_i}{k_B\sigma _{i+}}`$: we do not discuss the matter further since, from the outset, we are not considering situations in which the system is subject to several thermostatting forces.

The above definition does not make sense as such in equilibrium because it becomes $`0/0`$: however, one can imagine introducing a small forcing $`\underset{¯}{E}`$ and a corresponding thermostat. Then in the limit of vanishing forcing this yields a definition of $`T`$ which by the “fluctuation dissipation theorem” can be checked to be the correct equilibrium temperatureCKP97 ; Ga96a ; Ga96 ; GR97 .

Our definition of nonequilibrium temperature has already been hinted at by F. Bonetto and N. Menon as well as used in the literatureCKP97 ; FN03 , in particular cases.

Adopting the above concepts leads naturally to giving up the possibility of defining the entropy content of a nonequilibrium stationary state because the system creates entropy at a constant rate and if one would insist in defining the entropy content of a dissipating (i.e. with $`\sigma _+>0`$) stationary state one would be compelled to assign to it a value $`\mathrm{}`$. Thus in our view of nonequilibrium stationary states the entropy ends up to be undefined and one can speak meaningfully only of “entropy production” or “entropy transfer”: much as the “heat content” of a system is undefined in equilibrium, but production and transfer of heat are well defined.

IV. Discussion.

(1) Having defined the notion of entropy production rate one can define a “duality” between fluxes $`J_j`$ and forces $`E_j`$ using $`k_B\sigma _+=k_B\mu (dx)\sigma (x)`$ as a “generating function”:

$$J_j(\underset{¯}{E})=k_B\frac{\sigma _+}{E_j}$$

which, in the limit $`\underset{¯}{E}=\underset{¯}{0}`$, leads to Onsager’s reciprocity and to Green–Kubo’s formulae for transportGa96 ; GR97 .

(2) We have proposed a general definition of entropy production rate and of temperature for a class of stationary states. But a new definition is really useful if it is associated with new results: we think that such new results may already be around and cluster around the fluctuation theorem, for which we refer to the literatureECM93 ; GC95 ; BGG97 ; Ge98 ; GRS02 ; FN03 ; Ga03 ; CHGLPR03 .

(3) The reason for our conjecture on the absence of an entropy content in nonequilibrium stationary states differs from the absence of heat content in equilibrium. This because in equilibrium the heat content cannot be defined separately from the mechanical energy content, LL . However in a nonequilibrium stationary state the impossibility to define entropy content is due to the steady entropy production, which makes the entropy content $`\mathrm{}`$. In spite of that there is an analogy in that both quantities can be transferred or produced and they can even be defined if one limits oneself to consider a suitably restricted class of transformations (e.g. isochoric transformations between equilibrium states for what concerns heat or general transformations between equilibrium states for what concerns entropy).

Acknowledgements: One of us (GG) is indebted to stimulating discussions with F.Bonetto, S.Goldstein, J.Lebowitz, O. Costin, D. Ruelle, E. Speer. EGDC gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Office of Basic Engineering Sciences of the US department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-88-ER13847.

e-mail
egdc@mail.rockefeller.edu,
gallavotti@roma1.infn.it

REVTEX


text:
# The 27-plet Baryons from Chiral Soliton Models

## Abstract

We use the perturbation method to calculate the masses and widths for 27-plet baryons with spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ from chiral soliton models. According to the masses and quantum numbers, we find all the candidates for non-exotic members of 27-plet. The calculation of the widths shows that these candidates manifest an approximate symmetry of the 27 representation of the SU(3) group, and the quantum numbers of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1950)`$ seem to be $`I(J^P)=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^+)`$. Up to leading order of the strange quark mass, we find that the exotic members have widths much larger than those of the anti-decuplet members.

The possible observation LEPS ; DIAN ; CLAS ; SAPH ; HERMES  of an exotic baryon with a narrow width and a positive strangeness number S=+1, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(1540)`$, has led to an explosion of interest this year. In chiral soliton models, the anti-decuplet baryon multiplet Mano ; Chem  is the lightest one next to the octet and decuplet, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is the lightest member of the anti-decuplet. In quark language, $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is of the minimal five-quark configuration $`|uudd\overline{s}`$ qqqqqbar ; GM99 ; thus, $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ has the exotic strangeness number S=+1 and, if exists, must be the lightest exotic baryon of pentaquark states. Predictions about the mass and width of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ from chiral soliton models Pra ; penta1 ; Diak ; Weig  have played an important role in the searches of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. Especially, in Ref. Diak , Diakonov, Petrov and Polyakov predicted that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ has a mass around 1.53 GeV and a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<15`$ MeV, which is surprisingly close to experimental observations. The experimental results seemed to support chiral soliton models. Following this success, some authors Wall ; 27sec  studied baryons in the 27-plet and 35-plet, which are the next baryon multiplets to the anti-decuplet from chiral soliton models. However, a recent report NA49  on the existence of a narrow $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^{}`$ baryon resonance with a mass of $`1.862\pm 0.003`$ GeV and width below the detector resolution of about $`0.018`$ GeV, if confirmed and identified as a member of the anti-decuplet, seems to imply that identifying the nucleon resonance N(1710) with a member of the anti-decuplet needs revision Diak2 ; Wu-Ma .

The purpose of the present note is to give a clear picture of all the 27-plet baryons from chiral soliton models and check the validity of this picture by symmetry. Though there are criticisms of the validity of chiral soliton models to study pentaquark states anti-sol , we find that we can identify candidates for all non-exotic members in the 27-plet with spin 3/2, consistent with the experimental results in NA49 . We also make predictions about the masses and widths for all exotic members in the 27-plet.

The action of Skyrme model is of the form Skyr ; witt

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I=& \frac{f_\pi ^2}{4}d^4x\text{Tr}(_\mu U_\mu U^{})\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{32e^2}d^4x\text{Tr}[_\mu UU^{},_\nu UU^{}]^2+N_c\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
and the SU(3) chiral field is expressed as

$$U(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\lambda _b\varphi _b(x)}{f_\pi }\right]=A(t)U_1(𝐱)A(t)^1,ASU(3),$$
(2)
where $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV is the observed pion decay constant, the dimensionless parameter $`e`$ is introduced to stabilize the solitons by Skyrme, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Wess-Zumino term, $`\lambda _b`$ are the eight Gell-Mann SU(3) matrices, $`\varphi _b(x)`$ are the eight pseudoscalar meson fields, and $`U_1(𝐱)`$ is a solitonic solution (with unit baryonic charge) of the equation of motion Guad

$$U_1(𝐱)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}[i(\widehat{𝐫}\tau )F(r)]& \begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{cc}0& 0\end{array}& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`F(r)`$ is the spherical-symmetric profile of the soliton, $`\tau `$ are the three Pauli matrices, and $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ is the unit vector in space. The eigenvalues of the collective Hamiltonian are Guad

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_J^{(p,q)}=\hfill & \hfill M_{cl}+\frac{1}{6I_2}\left[p^2+q^2+pq+3(p+q)\frac{1}{4}(N_cB)^2\right]\\ & \hfill +\left(\frac{1}{2I_1}\frac{1}{2I_2}\right)J(J+1),\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`(p,q)`$ denotes an irreducible representation of the SU(3) group, $`M_{cl}`$, $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are given by the 3-dimensional space coordinate integrals of even functions of $`F(r)`$ and $`e`$, treated model-independently and fixed by experimental data, $`M_{cl}`$ is the classical soliton mass, $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are moments of inertia. From the energy eigenvalues above, it can be seen that {27} multiplet with spin 3/2 is next to the anti-decuplet, whose quark content is suggested in Fig. 1.

Using the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{(\mu )}`$ of baryon $`B`$ in the collective coordinates

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{(\mu )}(A)=\sqrt{\text{dim}(\mu )}D_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{(\mu )}(A),$$
(5)
where $`(\mu )`$ denotes an irreducible representation of the SU(3) group; $`\nu `$ and $`\nu ^{}`$ denote $`(Y,I,I_3)`$ and $`(1,J,J_3)`$ quantum numbers collectively; $`Y`$ is the hypercharge of $`B`$; $`I`$ and $`I_3`$ are the isospin and its third component of $`B`$ respectively; $`J_3`$ is the third component of spin $`J`$; and $`D_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{(\mu )}(A)`$ are representation matrices, we can deal with the symmetry breaking Hamiltonian Bolt  perturbatively Park

$`H^{}=\alpha D_{88}^{(8)}+\beta Y+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}D_{8i}^{(8)}J^i,`$ (6)
where the coefficients $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ are proportional to the strange quark mass and model dependent. In this note they are treated model-independently and fixed by experiments. $`D_{ma}^{(8)}(A)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(A^{}\lambda ^mA\lambda ^a)`$ is the adjoint representation of the SU(3) group.

We can use the relations between the masses of the octet and decuplet baryons, then we need two additional equations to fix the parameters. Up to know, we have two methods to fix all the parameters in (4) and (6) model-independently: (I) take $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ as the member of the anti-decuplet, and use relations about the mass (1.54 GeV) and width ($`<`$25 MeV) of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$; (II) take both $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ and the candidate for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$ NA49  as members of the anti-decuplet and only use the mass relations of the anti-decuplet baryons Diak2 ; Wu-Ma . For method I, we have the results

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha =766\text{MeV},\hfill & \beta =22\text{MeV},\hfill & \gamma =254\text{MeV},\hfill \\ 1/I_1=154\text{MeV},\hfill & 1/I_2=376\text{MeV};\hfill & \end{array}$$

and for method II we have the results

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha =663\text{MeV},\hfill & \beta =12\text{MeV},\hfill & \gamma =185\text{MeV},\hfill \\ 1/I_1=154\text{MeV},\hfill & 1/I_2=399\text{MeV}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

The predicted mass of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}`$ from method I is 1.81, which is compatible with the experimental observation NA49  and can be further adjusted to meet the data within uncertainties.

We find that the masses of the 27-plet calculated by the two methods are nearly equal, shown in Table 1. These results are close to those calculated by Walliser and Kopeliovich Wall , with difference in the mass of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{27}`$. This shows the validity of the use of the perturbation method in chiral soliton models. In Table 1, we also list the candidates for the 27-plet baryons. We can find all the candiates for the non-exotic members by considering their masses and $`I(J^P)`$ in the baryon listing PDG . To verify this identification, we calculate the widths of the 27-plet baryons.

| Table 1. The masses (GeV) of baryons in the {27} multiplet | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`B|H^{}|B`$ | method I | method II | candidate | $`I(J^P)`$ | PDG |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ | $`\frac{13}{112}\alpha +\beta \frac{65}{224}\gamma `$ | 1.62 | 1.64 | $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1600)`$ | $`\frac{3}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^+)`$ | $`1.55\text{to}1.70`$ |
| $`N_{27}`$ | $`\frac{1}{28}\alpha +\beta \frac{5}{56}\gamma `$ | 1.73 | 1.73 | N(1720) | $`\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^+)`$ | $`1.65\text{to}1.75`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{27}`$ | $`\frac{1}{56}\alpha +\frac{5}{112}\gamma `$ | 1.79 | 1.80 | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1840)`$ | $`1(\frac{3}{2}^+)`$ | $`1.72\text{to}1.93`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{27}`$ | $`\frac{17}{112}\alpha \beta +\frac{85}{224}\gamma `$ | 1.95 | 1.96 | $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1950)`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^+)(\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | $`1.95\pm 0.015`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{27}`$ | $`\frac{1}{14}\alpha +\frac{5}{28}\gamma `$ | 1.86 | 1.86 | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1890)`$ | $`0(\frac{3}{2}^+)`$ | $`1.85\text{to}1.91`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ | $`\frac{\alpha }{7}+2\beta \frac{5}{14}\gamma `$ | 1.61 | 1.60 | ? | $`1(\frac{3}{2}^+)\mathrm{?}(\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | ? |
| $`X_{1s}`$ | $`\frac{5}{56}\alpha \frac{25}{112}\gamma `$ | 1.64 | 1.68 | ? | $`2(\frac{3}{2}^+)\mathrm{?}(\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | ? |
| $`X_{2s}`$ | $`\frac{1}{14}\alpha \beta +\frac{5}{28}\gamma `$ | 1.84 | 1.87 | ? | $`\frac{3}{2}(\frac{3}{2}^+)\mathrm{?}(\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | ? |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ | $`\frac{13}{56}\alpha 2\beta +\frac{65}{112}\gamma `$ | 2.06 | 2.07 | ? | $`1(\frac{3}{2}^+)\mathrm{?}(\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | ? |

The decay of a 27-plet baryon $`B`$ to an octet baryon $`B^{}`$ and a pseudoscalar meson $`m`$ is controlled by a pseudoscalar Yucawa coupling Blot1 ; Diak :

$$\widehat{g}_AG_0D_{m3}^{(8)}G_1d_{3ab}D_{ma}^{(8)}J_b\frac{G_2}{\sqrt{3}}D_{m8}^{(8)}J_3,$$
(7)
where $`d_{iab}`$ is the SU(3) symmetric tensor, $`a,b=4,5,6,7`$, and $`J_a`$ are the generators of the infinitesimal SUR(3) rotations. $`G_1`$, $`G_2`$ are dimensionless constants, $`1/N_c`$ suppressed relative to $`G_0`$. $`G_2`$ is neglected, then $`G_0`$ and $`G_1`$ can be fixed by experiments. Up to leading order of the strange quark mass, we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BB^{}m)=\frac{G_s^2}{4\pi }\frac{|𝐩|}{m_B}\left[(m_B^{}^2+𝐩^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}m_B^{}\right]\left\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\text{dim}(\mu ^{})}{\text{dim}(\mu )}\left|\begin{array}{c}\underset{\gamma }{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}8& \mu ^{}\\ Y_mI_m& Y_\rho I_\rho \end{array}|\begin{array}{c}\mu _\gamma \\ Y_\nu I_\nu \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}8& \mu ^{}\\ 01& 1J_\rho \end{array}|\begin{array}{c}\mu _\gamma \\ 1J_\nu \end{array}\right)\end{array}\right|^2\end{array}\right\},$$
(8)
where we postulate $`B`$ with $`(Y,I,I_3;J^P,J_3)=(Y_\nu ,I_\nu ,I_{\nu 3};J_\nu ^+,J_{\nu 3})`$, $`B^{}`$ with $`(Y,I,I_3;J^P,J_3)=(Y_\rho ,I_\rho ,I_{\rho 3};J_\rho ^+,J_{\rho 3})`$ and $`m`$ with $`(Y,I,I_3;J^P,J_3)=(Y_m,I_m,I_{m3};0^{},0)`$; and $`G_s^2=3.84(G_0\frac{1}{2}G_1)^2`$. If we postulate the width of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<25\text{MeV}`$, we can calculate the upper bounds of widths for all the 27-plet baryons, listed in Table 2. We can see that the candidates for non-exotic baryons manifest the approximate symmetry of the 27 representation of the SU(3) group. In the results above, we only consider the flavor SU(3) as an exact symmetry. If we take into account the effects of flavor asymmetry, the width of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ will fall by about 30% Wu-Ma-plb .

| Table 2. The widths (MeV) of baryons in the 27-plet | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | PDG estimation | modes | branching ratios | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ from data | width $``$calculation |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1600)`$ | $`250\text{to}450`$ | $`N\pi `$ | $`10\text{to}25\%`$ | $`25\text{to}113`$ | 130 |
| N(1720) | $`100\text{to}200`$ | $`N\pi `$ | $`10\text{to}20\%`$ | $`10\text{to}40`$ | 19 |
|  |  | $`N\eta `$ | $`(4.0\pm 1.0)\%`$ | $`3\text{to}10`$ | 66 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$ | $`1\text{to}15\%`$ | $`1\text{to}30`$ | 18 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K`$ |  |  | 0.39 |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1840)`$ | $`65\text{to}120`$ | $`N\overline{K}`$ | $`0.37\pm 0.13`$ | $`11\text{to}60`$ | 50 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ |  |  | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1890)`$ | $`60\text{to}200`$ | $`N\overline{K}`$ | $`20\text{to}35\%`$ | $`12\text{to}70`$ | 46 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ | $`3\text{to}10\%`$ | $`2\text{to}30`$ | 5 |
| $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1950)`$ | $`60\pm 20`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{K}`$ | seen |  | 90 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{K}`$ | possibly seen |  | 6.5 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Xi }\pi `$ | seen |  | 8.3 |
| $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ | ? | $`KN`$ | ? | ? | 79 |
| $`X_{1s}`$ | ? | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi `$ | ? | ? | 96 |
| $`X_{2s}`$ | ? | $`\mathrm{\Xi }\pi `$ | ? | ? | 58 |
|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{K}`$ | ? | ? | 36 |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ | ? | $`\mathrm{\Xi }\overline{K}`$ | ? | ? | 107 |

In summary, we use the perturbation method to deal with the 27-plet baryons with spin 3/2 from chiral soliton models. Calculations of the widths of the candidates for the non-exotic members manifest an approximate symmetry of the 27 representation of the SU(3) group. Thus, it seems that chiral soliton models are able to give us a clear picture of the 27-plet with spin 3/2, as well as the anti-decuplet Diak2 ; Wu-Ma , beyond their validity of describing the octet and decuplet baryons. We also predict the masses and widths of the exotic members in 27-plet. The exotic members seem to be more difficult to be found experimentally for their larger widths compared with those of the anti-decuplet members. If this picture is right, the non-exotic member $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1950)`$ should be with $`J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+`$.

We are grateful for discussions with Yanjun Mao. This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 10025523 and 90103007.