text:
# Exclusive and Inclusive Semileptonic Λ_𝑏-Decays

## 1 Introduction

In mesonic semileptonic $`bc`$ transitions, the exclusive transitions to the ground state $`S`$-wave mesons $`BD,D^{}`$ make up approximately $`66\%`$ of the total semileptonic $`BX_c`$ rate . In this talk we are concerned about expectations for the corresponding percentage figure in semileptonic bottom baryon decays, i.e. we are interested in the ratio of the semileptonic transition rates $`R_E=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_c}`$. Unfortunately nothing is known experimentally about this ratio yet. Using some theoretical input and data on bottom meson decays we predict that the baryonic rate ratio $`R_E(\mathrm{baryon})`$ lies in the range $`0.81÷0.92`$  and is therefore predicted to be larger than the corresponding mesonic rate ratio $`R_E(\mathrm{meson})66\%`$.

In fact this investigation was prompted by two questions on related rate ratios posted to us by experimentalists. G. Sciolla asked us about the semileptonic rate ratio

$$R_A=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cXl\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_cl\nu )},$$
(1)
while P. Roudeau wanted to know about theoretical expectations for the ratio

$$R_B=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_c(non\mathrm{\Lambda }_c)l\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_cl\nu )}.$$
(2)
It is very difficult to make reliable theoretical predictions for these two semi-inclusive and inclusive ratios. However, in as much as one has the constraint relation

$$R_E+R_A+R_B=1,$$
(3)
and, in as much as all three ratios in (3) are positive definite quantities, a large number for $`R_E`$ close to one, as predicted by us, would limit the ratios $`R_A`$ and $`R_B`$ to rather small values.

The size of the exclusive rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ is tied to the shape of the Isgur-Wise form factor $`F_B(\omega )`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ transition. Expanding $`F_B(\omega )`$ about the zero recoil point $`\omega =1`$, where $`F_B(\omega )`$ is normalized to one, one writes

$$F_B(\omega )=F_B(1)[1\rho _B^2(\omega 1)+c_B(\omega 1)^2+\mathrm{}].$$
(4)
The coefficients $`\rho _B^2`$ and $`c_B`$ are called the slope parameter and the convexity parameter, respectively. The slope parameter $`\rho _B^2`$ is frequently used to characterize the fall-off behaviour of the Isgur-Wise function. We have to caution the reader, though, that it can be quite misleading to use the linear approximation over the whole range of $`\omega `$ even if the physical range of $`(\omega 1)`$ in this process is quite small $`(0÷0.43)`$. For example, if one calculates the rate, the weight factor which multiplies $`F_B(\omega )^2`$ in the rate formula is strongly weighted towards the end of the $`\omega `$-spectrum and one will thus get quite misleading results if one uses the linear approximation for the Isgur-Wise function. Besides, if $`\rho _B^2`$ exceeds 2.31, $`F_B(\omega )`$ would become negative in the physical region which is physically unacceptable.

There is a longstanding controversy about the size of the baryonic slope parameter $`\rho _B^2`$. A first preliminary experimental measurement of $`\rho _B^2`$ was presented at the HEP’99 Tampere conference by the DELPHI Collaboration . They obtained the rather large value of

$$\rho _B^2=3.4\pm 1.3\pm 0.7.$$
(5)
Theoretical models offer a wide range of predictions. Taking a representative set of eight different theoretical models the slope parameter varies in the range $`\rho _B^2=0.33÷2.35`$ . We emphasize that this list is not exhaustive. In this talk we present lower and upper bounds on the slope parameter which read

$$0.36\rho _B^20.89\pm 0.19.$$
(6)
These bounds exclude the model of  on the low side and the models  on the high side. Also the preliminary DELPHI result (5) can be seen to violate the upper bound.

## 2 Origin of bounds

The upper bound on $`\rho _B^2`$ has its origin in a spectator quark model relation which relates the baryonic form factor to the square of the mesonic form factor. The relation reads

$$F_B(\omega )=\frac{\omega +1}{2}|F_M(\omega )|^2.$$
(7)
The spectator quark model form factor can be seen to provide a lower bound to the baryonic form factor. This then leads to an upper bound on the baryon slope parameter given by

$$\rho _B^22\rho _M^2\frac{1}{2}.$$
(8)
Using an average of the experimental $`BD,D^{}`$ mesonic slope parameters  one then arrives at the upper bound in (6).

The physical picture behind the spectator quark model relation is quite simple. In the heavy baryon case there are two light spectator quarks that need to be accelerated in the current transition compared to the one spectator quark in the heavy meson transition. Thus the baryonic form factor is determined in terms of the square of the mesonic form factor. The factor $`(\frac{\omega +1}{2})`$ is a relativistic factor which insures the correct threshold behaviour of the baryonic form factor in the crossed $`e^+e^{}`$-channel .

In  the relation between heavy meson and heavy baryon form factors was investigated in the context of a dynamical Bethe-Salpeter (BS) model. The above spectator quark model relation (7) in fact emerges when the interaction between the light quarks in the heavy baryon is switched off in the BS-interaction kernel. In the more realistic situation when the light quarks interact with each other, the heavy baryon form factor becomes flatter, i.e. the spectator quark model form factor may be used to bound the heavy baryon form factor from below. This in turn leads to the upper bound on the slope parameter in (8).

On the other hand, the origin of the lower bound on $`\rho _B^2`$ in (6) derives from the requirement that the exclusive rate should not exceed the inclusive rate, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_c}`$ as explained in more detail in the next section.

## 3 Numerical values of bounds

We begin by deriving the lower bound on $`\rho _B^2`$ in (6). As explained before the lower bound is obtained from the requirement that the exclusive rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$ should not exceed the totally inclusive rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_c}`$.

The exclusive rate is calculated using the following input:

* HQET to $`O(1+1/m_Q)`$ where the $`O(1/m_Q)`$ contribution of the so-called nonlocal form factor $`\eta (\omega )`$ is dropped. The contribution of $`\eta (\omega )`$ was found to be negligibly small in two model calculations .
* The $`O(1/m_Q^2)`$ corrections at zero recoil are fully accounted for . These are extended to the whole $`\omega `$-range using a technical smoothness assumption involving the lowest partial wave in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$-transition.
* We use a standard (convex) form of the leading Isgur-Wise function given by

$$F_B(\omega )=\frac{2}{\omega +1}\mathrm{exp}\left((2\rho _B^21)\frac{\omega 1}{\omega +1}\right).$$
(9)
which has the correct zero recoil normalization $`F_B(1)=1`$, a slope $`\rho _B^2`$ and a convexity of $`(1+4\rho _B^2+\rho _B^4)/8`$.
* $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections are included according to the approximate scheme introduced in .

The inclusive rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_c}`$ is calculated using the following input:

* HQET to $`O(1+1/m_Q^2)`$ thus including the $`O(1+1/m_Q^2)`$ kinetic energy correction
* Full $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections using the results of .
* A pole mass of $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV from the sum rule calculation of

Using these ingredients we have obtained $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX_c}=6.5010^{10}s^1`$ for the inclusive rate.

To obtain the numerical value of the lower bound $`(\rho _B^2)_{\mathrm{min}}=0.36`$ we have adjusted the slope parameter $`\rho _B^2`$ in the exponential standard form (9) such that saturation $`R_E=1`$ is reached. As concerns the upper bound we have used the average of the experimental values of the mesonic slope parameters in $`BD,D^{}`$  which we calculate as $`\rho _M^2=0.70\pm 0.10`$. This then leads to the upper bound $`\rho _B^2=0.89\pm 0.19`$ according to the spectator quark model bound Eq.(8).

## 4 Results on the exclusive/inclusive ratio $`R_E`$

We are now in a position to give our results for the exclusive/inclusive ratio $`R_E`$. We begin by recording our prediction for the exclusive rate for which we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=5.5210^{10}s^1$$
(10)
using $`V_{bc}=0.038`$. The exclusive rate is calculated using a slope value of $`\rho _B^2=0.75`$ which is the average of the two slope values 0.65 and 0.85 resulting from the QCD sum rule analysis of nondiagonal and diagonal sum rules, respectively . This value is identical to the sum rule result of . We consider the sum rule calculations to be the most reliable at present. Note that the sum rule results lie within the bounds given by Eq.(6).

When calculating the exclusive/inclusive ratio we allow for a variation of the slope parameter between these two values of 0.65 and 0.85. Similarly we allow for a variation of the inclusive rate by using the results of either  or . We thus obtain

$$R_E=0.81÷0.92.$$
(11)
Note that the $`V_{bc}`$-dependence drops out in this ratio. Our conclusion is that the exclusive/inclusive ratio of semileptonic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$-decays is considerably higher than in the corresponding bottom meson case.

## 5 Summary

Let us summarize our findings. Our main predictions are the following:

* The slope parameter in baryonic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ transitions lies in the range

$$0.36\rho _B^20.89\pm 0.19.$$
(12)
* The exclusive rate (using the central value of a QCD sum rule prediction $`\rho _B^2=0.75`$ and $`V_{bc}=0.038`$) is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=5.5210^{10}s^1$$
(13)
which corresponds to a branching ratio of $`BR(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl\nu )=6.8\%`$. Considering the fact that experimentally one has a semi-exclusive branching ratio of $`BR(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_cXl\nu )=(9.8_{3.8}^{+3.1})\%`$  this does not leave much room for the inclusive “X”.
* The exclusive/inclusive semileptonic rate ratio (using $`\rho _B^2=0.65÷0.85`$ from QCD sum rules, and  and  for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{incl.}`$) is predicted to be

$$R_E(\mathrm{baryon})=0.81÷0.92.$$
(14)
$`R_E(\mathrm{baryon})`$ is thus predicted to be larger than $`R_E(\mathrm{meson})66\%`$.

Since the time of this talk two new preliminary experimental results have appeared that are relevant to the results presented in this talk. The DELPHI Coll. has come out with new preliminary results on the slope of the baryonic Isgur-Wise function . They now obtain slope values of $`\rho _B^2=1.65\pm 1.3\pm 0.6`$ or, when they include the observed event rate in the fit, $`\rho _B^2=1.55\pm 0.60\pm 0.55`$. These new slope values are considerably smaller than their previous value (5). and are now clearly compatible with the bound (6) even if the central value is still somewhat high. The results of this new analysis were also presented at this meeting by T. Moa .

Furthermore, the CLEO Coll. has presented preliminary results of a new analysis of the slope parameter in mesonic $`BD^{}`$-transitions based on a much larger data sample than the one that was used in the analysis of . They now obtain $`\rho _M^2=1.67\pm 0.11`$ . Using this new preliminary value on the mesonic slope parameter would move the upper bound on the baryonic slope parameter to $`(\rho _B^2)_{\mathrm{max}}=2.84\pm 0.22`$. This new upper bound is much less stringent than the upper bound $`(\rho _B^2)_{\mathrm{max}}=0.89\pm 0.19`$ derived in  from previous CLEO data. The new upper bound would easily accommodate all theoretical models mentioned in Sec.I (except for  which violates the lower bound) as well as the old and new measurements of the DELPHI Coll. . It will be interesting to see whether the new large mesonic slope value measured by the CLEO Coll. is confirmed by measurements of BABAR and BELLE which hopefully will become available soon.


format: text

text:
# Are Cluster Radio Relics Revived Fossil Radio Cocoons?

## 1. Introduction

The radio cocoons of radio galaxies become rapidly undetectable after the central engine of the active galactic nucleus ceases to inject fresh radio plasma. Although undetectable, the aged radio plasma should still be an important component of the inter-galactic medium (IGM). We investigate the possibility of reviving patches of such fossil radio plasma (also called radio ghosts, Enßlin (1999)) by compression in a shock wave produced in the IGM by the flows associated with cosmological large-scale structure formation. Such shock waves re-energize the electron population in the fossil radio cocoons, which can lead to observable synchrotron emission. This is probably the mechanism responsible for the, so called, cluster radio relics, which are patches of diffuse, sometimes polarized radio emission typically found at peripheral locations in clusters of galaxies. These cluster radio relics can not be simply relic radio galaxies, as their name suggests. The spectral ages of the electron population are usually too short to admit even the nearest galaxy to have been the parent radio galaxy, which has moved to its present location with a velocity typical for cluster galaxies. Therefore, a recent enhancement of the nonthermal radio output of the cluster relic sources is mandatory.

The connection between the presence of a shock wave and the appearance of the cluster radio relic phenomenon was assumed to be due to Fermi-I shock acceleration of electrons, in Enßlin et al. (1998) and Roettiger et al. (1999). While this process might work within the normal IGM, several arguments favor the possibility that indeed old fossil radio plasma is revived in the case of cluster relic sources:

* Cluster radio relics are extremely rare, whereas shock waves should be very common within clusters of galaxies. The dual requirement of a shock wave and fossil radio plasma, for producing a cluster radio relic, would be an attractive explanation for the rareness of the relics.
* Fossil radio plasma with existing relativistic electron population and fairly strong magnetic field appears to have ideal properties for being brightened up during the shock’s passage.
* The radio relic 1253+375 near the Coma cluster of galaxies appears to be fed with radio plasma by the nearby galaxy NGC 4789 (Enßlin et al. 1998).

But, if indeed the fossil radio plasma and not the normal IGM were to become radio luminous at a shock wave, the expected very high sound velocity of that relativistic plasma should forbid the shock in the ambient medium from penetrating into the radio plasma. Thus, shock acceleration is not expected to occur there. Instead, the fossil radio plasma would get adiabatically compressed, and the energy gain of the electrons is expected to be mainly due to adiabatic heating. It is the purpose of this work to demonstrate that this process is sufficient to account for the cluster radio relics.

## 2. The Model

Between the release from a radio galaxy and the reappearance as a cluster radio relic the radio plasmon undergoes several different phases of expansion and contraction:
Phase 0: Injection. The radio galaxy is active and a large expanding volume is being filled with radio plasma. The expansion of this cocoon is likely to be supersonic with respect to the outer medium
Phase 1: Expansion. After the central engine of the radio galaxy becomes inactive, the radio cocoon might still be strongly over-pressured compared to its gaseous environment and expands until pressure equilibrium with environment is reached. The radio cocoon probably becomes undetectable during this phase, and therefore becomes a fossil radio cocoon or a so called radio ghost.
Phase 2: Lurking. Due to the previous adiabatic energy losses of the electrons, they are at low energies. Their radiation losses, which strongly depend on the particle energies, are therefore strongly diminished. Furthermore, the synchrotron losses are reduced due to the weaker magnetic field during the expanded state of the radio cocoon. The adiabatic losses are reversible, and will be reversed during the subsequent compression phase.
Phase 3: Flashing. The fossil radio plasma gets dragged into a environmental shock wave. The relativistic electron population and the magnetic field gain energy adiabatically, leading to a steep enhancement of the synchrotron emissivity. The fossil appears as a ‘relic’.
Phase 4: Fading. The radio plasma is in pressure equilibrium with the post-shock ambient medium. The radio emission of the relic now fades away due to the heavy radiation losses.

We followed the evolution of a cocoon of radio plasma for different scenarios (A, B, and C) and calculated the resulting radio emission. In A, the relic is located at the cluster center, while in B, its location is near the cluster boundary, i.e., in the proximity of the accretion shock wave. In both scenarios the duration of phase 2 was chosen to be so long that the shocked radio plasma could be barely observed as a weak ultra-steep spectrum source: 0.1 Gyr in A and 1 Gyr in B. Scenario C demonstrates that a shorter phase 2 can lead to a moderately steepened spectrum of the cluster radio relic. The different scenarios and the calculations of the radio spectra are described in detail in Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna (2000). The resulting radio spectra of the radio fossil/relic in scenario A are displayed in Fig. 1 together with the spectrum of an observed relic.

## 3. Discussion

We have argued here that adiabatic compression in cluster shocks can revive fossil radio plasma to radio detection, even up to 2 Gyr after the cessation of the nuclear activity and thus explain the observed cluster radio relics. Below, we summarize some merits of this model (also, see Sect 1.):

* The observed connection of cluster radio relics to shock waves arises naturally in this model.
* The presence of the radio galaxy NGC 4789 and the morphological connection of its radio tails to the relic 1253+275 seems to be the smoking gun of cluster radio relic formation by compression of fossil radio plasma.
* The expected very high sound speed within the radio plasma should virtually forbid shock waves of the ambient medium to penetrate into radio cocoons. This renders adiabatic compression as a more plausible means of reviving the fossil plasma.
* Cluster radio relics are rare. Not only a shock wave and fossil radio plasma are both required in this model, in order to produce a cluster radio relic, but also the fossil radio plasma cannot grow too old (of the order of 0.1 Gyr in the center of clusters and 1 Gyr at their boundaries). Otherwise, the depletion of the high energy end of the electron population would be too severe for the adiabatic gains during the compression phase to be able to shift them to radio emitting energies. Since radio fossils should be very common (Enßlin & Kaiser 2000), these requirements help to explain the observed rarity of cluster radio relics.
* The observed tendency of relics to appear at peripheral locations in clusters follows in this model from the much shorter synchrotron lifetimes of the radio emission and, consequently, much shorter ages which the revive-able fossil radio cocoons can have near the centers.

We conclude that the model presented here provides a fairly natural and promising explanation for the phenomenon of cluster radio relics. It predicts the existence of a population of diffuse, ultra-steep, very low frequency radio sources inside and possibly also outside of clusters of galaxies, due to the age dependence of the upper frequency cutoff of the radio emission arising from the revivable fossil radio plasma. The ongoing rapid improvements in the sensitivities at low radio frequencies (Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope: (GMRT), Low Frequency Array (LOFAR)) may therefore open a new window on cosmological structure formation by detecting shock waves marked by such relic radio sources.

## References

Enßlin, T. A., Biermann, P. L., Klein, U., & Kohle, S. 1998, ‘Cluster Radio Relics as a Tracer of Shock Waves of the Large-Scale Structure Formation’, A&A, 332, 395–409

Enßlin, T. A. 1999, ‘Radio Ghosts’ in ‘Diffuse Thermal and Relativistic Plasma in Galaxy Clusters’, MPE Report, 271, 275–280, astro-ph/9906212

Enßlin, T. A., & Gopal-Krishna 2000, ‘Reviving Fossil Radio Plasma in Clusters of Galaxies by Adiabatic Compression in Environmental Shock Waves’, A&A, submitted

Enßlin, T. A., & Kaiser, C. R. 2000, ‘Comptonization of the Cosmic Microwave Background by Relativistic Plasma’, A&A, 360, 417–430

Roettiger, K., Burns, J. O., & Stone, J. M. 1999, ‘A Cluster Merger and the Origin of the Extended Radio Emission in Abell 3667’, ApJ, 518, 603–612


text:
# Status of VHE Astronomy c.2000

## I Retrospective

As we enter a new century of high energy astrophysics, it behooves us to consider briefly how far we have come and far we have yet to go. It is some 47 years since Galbraith and Jelley mounted a ten inch mirror in a garbage can with a photomultiplier at its focus and under the impossibly damp skies of the Berkshires detected the first Cherenkov light pulses from air showers G&J53 . Within a decade the broad outlines of the atmospheric Cherenkov technique, as it applied to the search for very high energy gamma rays, had been defined and significant experiments built to pursue these searches. Reading again these early papers G&J57  chudakov65  J&P63  one cannot but marvel at the prescience of the authors and the courage of the exponents who were taking on what must have seemed an impossible task. It is amazing how much was anticipated in these classic papers and how much is ”rediscovered” by later exponents of the technique with large teams of experimenters, sophisticated telescopes, and vast simulations. Using simple, but elegant, telescopes, analytical models, and considerable foresight, much of what was later to become the basis of the multi-million dollar observatories now in operation was anticipated. The early pioneers of the field, W. Galbraith and J.V. Jelley of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, England, N.A. Porter of University College, Dublin, Ireland, A.E. Chudakov and V.I. Zatsepin of the Lebedev Institute, Moscow, U.S.S.R., were the giants on whose work all future progress depended; their names should be inscribed large within the High Energy Astrophysics Hall of Fame! It is but an accident of nature that these early experiments failed to detect significant signals from supernova remnants and quasars since their sensitivities were remarkably close to subsequent detection levels.

To consider the state of high energy astrophysics in 1960 is to appreciate their courage in undertaking very high energy gamma-ray experiments at that time. In fact ”high energy astrophysics” per se did not exist as a discipline at that time. Although the seminal papers containing estimates of fluxes of 100 MeV and TeV gamma-rays to be expected from cosmic sources were already in print morrison58  cocconi60 , they were, with hindsight, hopelessly optimistic. One can only hope that contemporary estimates of TeV fluxes of neutrinos from cosmic sources are on a more solid base! Gamma-ray astronomy at any energy was in its infancy with no sources detected. X-ray astronomy did not exist and was not even seriously considered. Since cosmic rays were both the prime motivator to look for gamma-ray sources and the chief source of information as to what properties such sources might have, the conventional wisdom was that the dominant energy spectrum would be that of the cosmic radiation, i.e. a differential exponent of -2.7. Such an exponent did not bode well for the chances of detecting very high energy gamma-rays. Since space gamma-ray telescopes could be shielded with active detectors to exclude the charged cosmic radiation, the chances of detecting a signal in a non-shielded ground-based detector seemed vanishingly small. Optical detection methods which depended on an unstable atmosphere and on the detection of a weak optical signal against a background of natural and man-made light sources did not seem promising. Only a fool or someone with great courage would choose to pursue such techniques in the face of such uncertainty.

The eventual detection of a mixed population of very high energy (VHE) gamma-ray sources is a vindication of these early efforts and a tribute to the pioneers.

## II Gamma-ray Astronomy’s Great Failure!

Although GeV-TeV gamma-ray astronomy has had a number of outstanding successes (the detection of blazars, the GEV component in solar flares, the GeV-TeV component of GRBs, pulsars, shell and plerionic supernova remnants, the galactic plane, to mention but a few), the single great motivator, the conclusive solution to the problem of the origin of the cosmic radiation, is still elusive. It was this problem more than any other that led to the development of high energy gamma-ray astronomy, both in space and on the ground, but in some ways, at least observationaly, we are no closer to identifying the source than we were 40 years ago. While we can celebrate the contributions of gamma-ray studies to pulsar phenomenology, to limiting the infrared background, to the study of jets in extragalactic sources, we cannot yet proclaim with any confidence ”Gamma-ray astronomers find the Origin of the Cosmic Radiation”.

As pointed out previously weekes99  every gamma-ray source detected to date can be explained as a source of cosmic electron acceleration and interaction; there is no source that can be conclusively attributed to hadron acceleration. The $`\pi `$o bump is only observed in the galactic plane and there we observe the propagation, not the source, of the cosmic rays.

The title to this section is deliberately provocative and hopefully will be obsolete before this volume is off the press. The number of sensitive ground-based telescopes now on-line, or shortly to come on-line, ensures that a vast number of new candidate sources are under ever increasingly sensitive scrutiny and may soon supply the vital data necessary to solve this problem.

## III What the Imaging A.C.T. has done for Astrophysics:

### III.1 Existence of Sources

The outstanding contribution of the imaging atmospheric Cherenkov technique (IACT) must surely be that it has elevated ground-based gamma-ray astronomy techniques above that critical threshold where sources are detected with some credibility. In short the IACT has confirmed that there is a gamma-ray sky at energies above 200 GeV (Figure 1), that the upper energy limit of space gamma-ray telescopes is an instrumental limit, not an astrophysical one, that there are a variety of different kinds of source populations, that there are both galactic and extragalactic sources, both steady and variable sources, and both point-like and extended. Furthermore the energy spectra extend to 50 GeV where the flux sensitivity of the IACT is not large so that the construction of new telescopes that are sensitive above this energy is now justified.

Half of the reported sources are galactic. These include plerions, shell SNRs in which the progenitor particles are probably electrons and an X-ray binary. The extragalactic sources are all blazars. All but one are X-ray-selected BL Lacs; this population is quite different from the population of EGRET-detected blazars.

Although a large fraction of the sky has not been surveyed with high sensitivity, there are a number of objects for which significant upper limits have been established. These have the effect of severely limiting some classes of models and thus contribute to high energy astrophysics in a negative sense. These non-sources include shell-type SNRs, in which the progenitor particles are hadrons, the galactic plane and various pulsars.

The energy range covered by atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes extends from 50 GeV to 50 TeV. Thus far, the IACT has only been used down to 200 GeV but it is possible to reach as low as 50 GeV using Solar Arrays. By observing at low elevations the IACT can reach energies as high as 50 TeV.

### III.2 Source Catalog

It is a matter of some disappointment (given the number of new observatories now in operation) that the source catalog (Table 1) shows no changes since the one assembled at the time of the Snowbird Workshop weekes99 . In particular the credibility rating of sources has not changed.

### III.3 Time Variability

One of the extraordinary contributions of VHE gamma-ray observations to high energy astrophysics has been the revelation of the variability of blazars on a wide range of time-scales. This has truly opened a new window to the study of these objects and has been a major incentive to improve and extend the observations.

Short-term Variations: The dramatic flare from Markarian 421 observed by the Whipple group on May 15, 1996 gaidos96  is still the best instance of a rapid time variation (doubling time $`<`$ 15 minutes) from an AGN (Figure 2). The observation of such short flares from more distant AGN may have some important consequences for cosmology and quantum gravity biller99 .

Longterm Monitoring: The ability of VHE telescopes to provide longterm monitoring of variable sources is a little appreciated property of ground-based observatories. Although the optical techniques have a limited duty-cycle, their ability to monitor sources over days, weeks, months and years is a unique feature in gamma-ray astronomy above 1 MeV. This is dramatically illustrated by the HEGRA observations of Markarian 501 in 1997 (Figure 3). In this instance the observations were significantly extended by the pioneering work of the HEGRA group in observing in moonlight kranich99 . Such long-term monitoring can be enhanced by organized observing campaigns involving VHE observatories at different longitudes takahashi00 ; unfortunately the number of really sensitive VHE telescopes is limited so that it is difficult to get continuous coverage. Such campaigns are further limited by weather patterns. Near continuous coverage will come with the next generation of space telescopes which will use wide field telescopes.

### III.4 Multiwavelength Observations

For an understanding of the mechanisms at work in AGN jets, multiwavelength campaigns are required. These are notoriously difficult to organize since many traditional observatories require advanced notification and approval and do not readily respond to Targets of Opportunity. VHE observatories have the advantage that they are usually controlled by the principal investigators, do not have rigid observing schedules, and have only a small number of known sources (regrettably!). The correlation of X-ray and VHE observations has been reported in a number of instances (cf. cataneseweekes99  and references therein). One such instance is shown in Figure 4.

X-ray observations of sources with non-thermal spectra have proved particularly useful in identifying candidate VHE supernova remnants. Hard X-ray observations hold the promise of identifying a new class of extreme blazars which will have detectable and variable TeV emission. The launch of EXIST, the first hard X-ray survey instrument, in the next decade will extend this symbiotic relationship.

### III.5 Energy Spectrum

The ability of the IACT to measure energy spectrum in the TeV region has steadily improved and is comparable or better than that achieved in space gamma-ray telescopes. Energy resolutions of single telescope systems are quoted as 35% and for the HEGRA array as low as 10-15%. It is reassuring that observations made by different experiments using different methods of analysis are in good agreement (Figure 5).

## IV Status of VHE Observatories

The IACT continues to be the favored method of detecting gamma-rays in the 100-10,000 GeV energy range although there are several overlapping techniques at the low and high energy ends of this range. The principal observatories who have reported results using this technique at recent workshops are listed (Table 2). Sadly at this meeting we learnt that both the Durham and 7TA observatories, after the successful detection of several sources, have ceased operations. Also listed (Table 3) are several atmospheric Cherenkov observatories which do not use imaging; the Potchefstroom experiment has also recently ceased operation.

In the interval between the death of EGRET and the launch of GLAST it is interesting to explore the lowest energies that can be achieved from the ground. Although it is unlikely that ground-based observations can be really competitive below 50 GeV, there is a window of opportunity between 10 and 100 GeV before the next generation of space telescopes come into operation. Even relatively simple telescopes could elucidate such problems as pulsar spectral cut-offs, AGN absorption in intergalactic space, gamma-ray bursts, etc. The simplest approach is to use large mirror collection areas and these are provided by the relatively crude optics of large solar collectors using heliostats. The four experiments listed in Table 4 use existing solar farms (large fields of heliostats pointing, and roughly focussing, light to a central tower). STACEE uses a facility that is still in operation for experimental solar energy work whereas the other three use facilities that are no longer in use.

The energy threshold of particle air shower detectors (Table 5) has gradually been reduced to the point where there is now overlap with IACT experiments. The Tibet experiment has been in operation for some years whereas MILAGRO has just come on-line.

## V Next Generation Telescopes

The next few years will see the completion of several new ”next generation” IACTs which will significantly improve the scientific potential of the discipline. These major observatories will probably dominate the field for the next decade and they represent a major transition from the traditional ”small science” which characterized the early years of the IACT to multi-national facilities which will serve a larger community as guest investigators. Three of the facilities: CANGAROO-III mori99 , HESS HESS99 , and VERITAS VERITAS99 , build on the IACT array concept that has been demonstrated by HEGRA and are very similar in concept; the first two will be in the southern hemisphere, the third in the northern hemisphere. MAGIC is a single large imaging telescope which will use several new technological approaches MAGIC99 . Some of the most important parameters of these telescopes are listed in Table 6. A new addition to the list of new IACTs is MACE, an Indian look-alike of MAGIC; its parameters were described at this meeting.

Sensitivity: New experiments are often characterized by their energy thresholds and flux sensitivities. The definitions of these quantities are not trivial and often cause confusion. Energy threshold, usually defined as the maximum in the differential response curve for a Crab-like spectrum, is particularly misleading since the event selection can be biassed to give a very low energy threshold but with very small collection area.

Figure 6 gives the integral flux sensitivity for various existing experiments as well as the predicted sensitivity for GLAST and VERITAS vassiliev99 . This figure has been widely reproduced. However integral flux sensitivities presuppose knowledge of the source spectrum and are not useful for sources with steep spectra which fall off near the energy threshold. The flux sensitivity for VERITAS is in close agreement with that derived for HESS hofmann99  as would be expected. However the sensitivity quoted for CANGAROO-III mori99  is much better, particularly at lower energies; this prediction needs to be reconciled with those of VERITAS and HESS since the array parameters are not that different.

Schedule: Of major concern to all those interested in VHE astronomy is the roadmap of HE and VHE experiments in the next decade. Although all proposed launch and construction completion dates are inevitably optimistic, it is hoped that the future depicted in weekes99  is not grossly inaccurate. The solar telescopes are already reporting results. The MAGIC web page proudly, if somewhat optimistically, gives a countdown to first light in 2001. Concrete has already been poured for the HESS foundations and one CANGAROO telescope is in place and taking data. Although the first of the next generation projects to be announced, VERITAS, has yet to break ground, first light in 2005 is still feasible. The space telescopes, reported elsewhere in these proceedings, seem to be well on schedule. The scheduled completion date for MACE, the Indian MAGIC look-alike, is 2003.

Although AMS AMS99  and AGILE AGILE99  will partially fill the HE gap left by the demise of EGRET, they will not provide a significant boost in sensitivity. In the next few years the most exciting new results may well come from the solar telescopes as they explore a new energy domain. Prior to the launch of GLAST GLAST99  there will be a spate of new results forthcoming from the new generation of IACT arrays.

Acknowledgements: Research in very high energy gamma-ray astronomy at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. I am grateful to Tony Hall, Deirdre Horan, Jim Gaidos and Rod Lessard for helpful comments on the manuscript.


text:
# Diffraction Limited Imaging of High Redshift Galaxies with Adaptive Optics

## References

Cowie, L., Songaila, A., Hu, E., & Cohen J. 1996, AJ, 112, 839

Kasper, M., Looze, D., Hippler S., Herbst, T., Glindemann, A., Ott, T., & Wirth, A., 2000, Experimental Astronomy, 10, 49

Larkin, J., & Glassman, T. 1999, PASP, 111, 1410

Le Louarn, M., Foy, R., Hubin, N., & Tallon, M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 756


text:
# Local log-law of the wall: numerical evidences and reasons

## Abstract

Numerical studies performed with a primitive equation model on two-dimensional sinusoidal hills show that the local velocity profiles behave logarithmically to a very good approximation, from a distance from the surface of the order of the maximum hill height almost up to the top of the boundary layer. This behavior is well known for flows above homogeneous and flat topographies (“law-of-the-wall”) and, more recently, investigated with respect to the large-scale (“asymptotic”) averaged flows above complex topography. Furthermore, this new-found local generalized law-of-the-wall involves effective parameters showing a smooth dependence on the position along the underlying topography. This dependence is similar to the topography itself, while this property does not absolutely hold for the underlying flow, nearest to the hill surface.

111* Corresponding author: mazzino@fisica.unige.it tel. & fax: 0039-010-3536354

PACS: 83.10.Ji – 47.27.Nz – 92.60.Fm Near-wall-turbulence

The impact of terrain features has been recognized (see, e.g., ) to be crucial for the correct prediction of the atmosphere general circulation. This is mainly due to the key role played by the surface features in extracting momentum from the atmosphere, either through the differential pressure across the object or the vertical propagation of internal gravity waves initiated by the flow over the mountains. The problem for the weather prediction is that most of the surface disturbances are much smaller than what can be resolved by any current operational numerical model, and yet these disturbances can still have a considerable impact on the transfer of momentum from the atmosphere to the surface. For this reason the problem concerning how to parameterize the small-scale orographic effects on the large-scale dynamics attracts much attention . An important result in this direction concerns the generalization to the case of complex terrain of the well-known “law-of-the-wall” (see, e.g., ) valid for a neutral homogeneous turbulent boundary layer above flat terrain:

$$U(z)=\frac{u_{}}{k}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{z_0}\right),$$
(1)
where $`U(z)`$ is the wind profile averaged over a time much larger than the characteristic times of turbulence, $`k`$ is the Von Kàrmàn’s constant, $`z`$ is the distance from the surface, $`z_0`$ and $`u_{}`$ are the “roughness length” and the “friction velocity”, respectively. Just very recently the above logarithmic law-of-the-wall for the mean velocity profile has received a rigorous analytical prove. This has been obtained in Refs.  by combining the “rapid distortion theory” and the averaged Reynolds stress description of the mean flow.

It is probably worthwhile to recall (see, e.g., Ref. ) that $`z_0`$, a quantity characteristic of the surface itself, is related to the height of surface protrusions, while $`u_{}`$, a property of the flow, is proportional to the turbulent fluxes of momentum along the vertical (see again Ref. ).

It has been actually found, as a result of numerical simulations (see, e.g., Ref. ) and observations (both in wind tunnel, see, e.g., Refs. , and in nature, see, e.g., Ref. ), that, in a neutral homogeneous boundary layer over hilly terrain, the logarithmic shape is restored to a very reasonable approximation, from a distance from the surface of the order of the maximum hill height almost up to the top of the boundary, for $`U`$, i.e. the velocity profile averaged over an area of linear dimensions much larger than the typical scale on which the topography varies, a regime which we would like to define as “asymptotic”, in analogy with another topic we are going to discuss at the end of this Letter. More precisely, Eq. (1) still holds, with $`U(z)`$ replaced by $`U(z)`$, where $`z`$ is still the distance from the surface, $`u_{}`$ is replaced by the “effective friction velocity”, $`𝗎_{}^{\text{eff}}`$, and $`z_0`$ is replaced by the “effective roughness length”, $`𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}`$. Notice that the values of these effective parameters are considerably larger than those of the corresponding ones in the absence of any hill.

It is a matter of fact that one can be interested in the dynamics of the flow over intermediate scales between the two considered, i.e. at scales comparable with those on which the terrain varies, a regime which we like to refer to as “pre-asymptotic”. For this regime, an interesting and natural question arises about the presence of some form of structural similarity and thus on the existence of logarithmic laws with effective parameters through which the dynamics can be described. If that is so, the investigation of the relation (if any) between the asymptotic and the pre-asymptotic parameters should be an interesting issue to be investigated. The above points, which are up to now largely unexplored, are the main concern of the present Letter.

To investigate the above conjectures, we have considered in detail the case-studies analyzed by Wood and Mason in Ref.  (hereafter, WM93 data-set), even if we have drawn similar conclusions analyzing experiments both in a wind tunnel (see Ref. ) and in nature (see, e.g., Ref. )). In fact, the attention of Wood and Mason, as well as that of any other author involved with this topic – at least as far as we know – was focused on the areally averaged velocity field (over scales much greater than those on which topography varies) and not on the scales we referred to as the pre-asymptotic regime.

The part of WM93 data-set we have considered consists of velocity fields obtained from numerical simulations performed over three different two-dimensional topographies whose shapes are described by the following expression:

$$h(x,y)=Hsin^2\left(\frac{x\pi }{\lambda }\right).$$
(2)
In all modeled cases, $`\lambda =1000m`$, while the roughness length, $`z_0`$, is $`0.1m`$; three different surface configurations have been considered in the present study: $`H=250m`$ (hereafter hill H250), $`H=100m`$ (H100) and $`H=20m`$ (H20).

The flow is driven by a constant pressure gradient corresponding to a geostrophic wind speed of 10 $`m/s`$ in the $`x`$-direction. The model was initialized with the ”unperturbed” profile, i.e. the wind profile relative to a corresponding flat surface, shown as a dashed line in Fig. 1, the flattening of $`U(z)`$ at values of $`z`$ higher than $`1000m`$ being due to the geostrophic balance occurring at the end of the Ekman layer (see, e.g., Ref. ) where the surface drag is vanishing.

The Wood and Mason’s numerical model uses the Boussinesq approximation to the ensemble-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, together with the equation of mass conservation and a $`1\frac{1}{2}`$-order closure scheme through which small-scale (subgrid) motions are described. More precisely, the Reynolds’ stress is expressed in the form $`\tau _{ij}=\nu S_{ij}`$ where $`S_{ij}=(_iu_j+_ju_i)`$ and the eddy viscosity $`\nu `$ is modeled as $`\nu =L_m^2S`$, with $`S=1/2S_{ij}S_{ij}`$ and $`L_m`$ the mixing length, obtained by solving the equation for the turbulent kinetic energy (for major details, see Ref.  and the references therein).

Equations are solved by standard finite difference methods with a grid spacing of approximately $`50m`$. Periodic boundary conditions in both horizontal directions are also imposed. A more extensive description of the numerical model and of its evaluation against field experiments can be found in Refs.  and in other papers of the same research group.

Our remark concerning the analysis of WM93 data-set, is that the generalized law of the wall observed in Ref.  for $`U(z)`$ is certainly present, but a more intrinsic logarithmic shape

$$U(x,z)=\frac{u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)}{k}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)}\right)\text{for}z>z_{min}H,$$
(3)
where the effective parameters now show a dependence on the horizontal position $`x`$, actually takes place at smaller scales than those focused by the authors. This fact can be easily checked from the results shown in Fig. 1, where

typical behaviors for the horizontal wind speed profile (which can be thought to be representative of an area of the order of the model grid box) $`U(z)=\sqrt{u(z)^2+v(z)^2}`$ (for simplicity, the dependence on the $`x`$-coordinate is omitted in the notation) as a function of $`z`$ are presented in lin-log coordinates for the steepest hill H250 and for four values of the $`x`$-coordinate in Eqs. (2) and (3) corresponding to: (a) $`x=0`$ (i.e. $`h=0`$), (b) $`x=\lambda /4`$ (i.e. $`h=H/2`$ upwind), (c) $`x=\lambda /2`$ (i.e. $`h=H`$) and (d) $`x=3\lambda /4`$ (i.e. $`h=H/2`$ downwind), respectively. From this figure, clean scaling regions of the type described by Eq. (3) (a straight-line with slope $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)/k`$ in these coordinates) extended up to $``$ 1 decade are evident and a reliable measure of both $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ is thus feasible by least-square fits. Specifically, for the four above positions along the hill, we have obtained the following values of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$: 1.38 $`m/s`$, 77.3 $`m`$ (for $`h=0`$); 1.07 $`m/s`$, 32.4 $`m`$ (for $`h=H/2`$ upwind); 0.87 $`m/s`$, 13.2 $`m`$ (for $`h=H`$) and 1.05 $`m/s`$ and 31.5 $`m`$ (for $`h=H/2`$ downwind), respectively. Such values can be compared with those in the absence of any hill: $`u_{}0.44m/s`$ and $`z_00.16m`$. Notice that the logarithmic behavior shown in the above figure is not peculiar of the four positions considered, being indeed observed for the full range of variability of $`x`$ and for all the three hills.

The results of the least-square fits are summarized in Fig. 2

where both profiles $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ (on the left) and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ (on the right) are shown as a function of $`x`$ both for the steepest hills (H250) and for the gentlest one (H20) (from above to below: notice the different scales in the ordinates both on the left and on the right hand sides). Similar behaviors have been also observed for the intermediate hill H100. Notice that both $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ have a shape similar, but opposite, to that of the underlying topography, here described by Eq. (2). Furthermore, we have verified that the use of either the total horizontal speed or just the $`x`$-component of the velocity has little impact on the values of the obtained effective parameters.

Finally, we have observed that both the average values and amplitudes of these sinusoidal shapes show, to a reasonable approximation, a linear dependence on $`H/\lambda `$, with $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)z_0`$ and $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)u_{}`$ when $`H/\lambda 0`$.

Notice that the above properties are valid only for $`z>z_{min}H`$, as already written on the right of Eq. (3), while in the underlying flow, nearest to the hill surface, the upwind-downwind asymmetry of the velocity field is more pronounced with increasing the $`H/\lambda `$ ratio (for instance the “flow separation” occurring in the lee of steep hills and ridges, close to the surface, is a well-known feature we have observed, for instance, for the hill H250).

Some other remarks and comments are in order. The first concerns the physical meaning of dynamical quantities like $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$. It is natural to assume that they share the same meaning of $`u_{}`$ and $`z_0`$, respectively, for flat surfaces but now with a smooth dependence on the position.

The minimum of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ occurring on the top of the hills can be easily understood, being related to curvature effects. If the streamlines are indeed curved (as it happens in our case due to the presence of the ridges), energy may be transferred between the large-scale flow and the turbulent motion (the amount of which can be measured as $`u_{}^{\text{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}(x)`$). This point can be easily grasped by means of the simple argumentations presented in Ref.  based on the analysis of the transfer of energy in terms of the angular momentum of the flow about the axis of curvature. In this framework, it is possible to show that the flow curvature above the hill top works to transfer the energy from turbulent motion toward larger scales. This fact reduces the turbulence energy and thus $`u_{}^{\text{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}(x)`$. The situation changes above the valleys, where the mechanism is reversed: energy is now released from the large-scale flow and appears as energy of the turbulent motion, and thus an enhancement of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}(x)`$ occurs.

Also the minimum of $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ above the top of the ridge can be understood remembering  that, in the case of flat terrain, $`z_0`$ is related to the height of surface protrusions and thus to the size of eddies generated by the flow around them. Indeed, for hilly terrain it is reasonable to assume that the eddies placed in proximity of the surface act as a sort of effective protrusions for the above pre-asymptotic flow. In this picture, it is evident that such a ‘dynamical roughness’ turns out to be smaller on the hill top, where, as already said, turbulence (and thus eddies activity) is weaker than on the valleys.

We have already pointed out the presence of an upwind-downwind symmetry inside the ‘logarithmic layer’ for both $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$. Physically, this means that, sufficiently far above the topography, it is just the mean cumulative result of many almost independent effects, arising in the underlying layer, which is relevant for the large scale dynamics. The details of the underlying dynamics (e.g., the regime of flow separation) only affects the numerical values of quantities related to the effective parameters (e.g., its average values along the hill and the amplitude of the modulation).

We can finally investigate the relation between the asymptotic and the pre-asymptotic effective parameters. To that end, averaging the logarithmic profile (3) over the hill periodicity box, we obviously obtain again the log-profile (1), but where now $`𝗎_{}^{\text{eff}}`$ and $`𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}`$ are related to the effective parameters at smaller scales. Specifically,

$$𝗎_{}^{\text{eff}}=u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)\mathrm{ln}𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}=\frac{u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)\mathrm{ln}z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)}{u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)},$$
(4)
which do not depend on the position along the hill. The results thus remain unchanged when the average is performed over scales larger than the hill periodicity box.
The relationships between the values of these parameters and the topography characteristics are discussed, for instance, in Refs. . It is easily checked that the first of the two above relations is an immediate consequence of the conservation of the total flux of vertical momentum inside the whole domain. More interestingly, the second relation tells us that the roughness parameter $`𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}`$ does not have solely a geometrical meaning, being in fact related to $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ at smaller scales. This fact places in an unfavorable light attempts to evaluate, either experimentally or numerically, the parameter $`𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}`$ without taking into account its dependence on the flow configuration as a whole.

We stress that the possibility of describing the flow in terms of effective parameters is a direct consequence of an intrinsic scale separation in the dynamics. There is a simple (and more treatable) physical system where this link between scale separation and effective parameters can be rigorously stated. This is the transport of passive scalar field (e.g., the density of particles or dye injected into the flow). In this problem, if a small-scale turbulent velocity field $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ (varying on scales of the order of $`l_0`$) is superimposed to an uniform field $`𝐕`$, for times large compared with those characteristic of the turbulent field, the concentration field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is now varying on scales $`L>>l_0`$ and, as shown in Ref. , obeys the Smoluchowsky equation:

$$_t\mathrm{\Theta }+(𝐕)\mathrm{\Theta }=(D)\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(5)
where $`D`$ is the so-called eddy-diffusivity, i.e. an effective enhanced diffusivity which depends on the characteristics of turbulence as a whole.

Furthermore, under the assumption that $`𝐕`$ is now varying on spatial scales of the order of $`L>>l_0`$, it has been shown (see Ref. ) that again a Smoluchowsky equation for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ holds for large times, but where the effective diffusivity now takes a smooth dependence on the position on scales of the order of $`L`$.

The existence of some analogy between the two aforesaid contexts seems clear. The role played by $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ in the passive scalar dynamics is played in our problem by the smallest eddies placed in the vicinity of the wall and produced by the roughness elements (flat surface) or by the topography (flow averaged over distances much larger than the topography wave-length). The statistical role of such small scale features affects the large scale dynamics only via parameters such as $`D`$ for the passive scalar problem and such as $`u_{}`$ and $`z_0`$ in the case of the flow above a flat surface or $`𝗎_{}^{\text{eff}}`$ and $`𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}`$ in the case of the flow over hilly terrain, averaged at a scale much larger than the topography wave-length (asymptotic regime). On the other hand, the passive scalar dynamics observed at the same scales (of the order of $`L`$) of the varying advecting velocity, $`𝐕`$, corresponds in our problem to the velocity behavior above a hilly terrain, when this velocity field is observed at scales comparable with the integral scale of the problem (the wave-length, $`\lambda `$, of the hill). In such (pre-asymptotic) regimes, the dynamics is again described in terms of effective parameters but now depending on the position, i.e. $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ in the case of flow above a hilly surface, $`D(𝐱)`$ for the passive scalar problem.

The analogy cannot be pushed any further, but we are convinced that it is a clear indication that the scenario we have described is a direct consequence of an intrinsic scale separation in the dynamics.

In conclusion, we have presented strong numerical evidences showing the ‘local’ validity of the law-of-the-wall not only above flat terrain, where it is well known, but also in the presence of hilly terrain. The logarithmic shape for the velocity field is restored far enough from the terrain where typical scales of the velocity fields appear “separated” from those relative to the smallest eddies confined near the surface. Local logarithmic profiles are well evident and described in terms of effective parameters showing a smooth dependence on the position along the hill. We have found  (but not discussed in this Letter) similar results analyzing data from both wind tunnel experiments (see Ref. ) and experiments in nature (see Ref. ). Such results confirm the scenario here outlined and also give a strong evidence that our conclusions do not depend on the particular choice of the parameterization scheme adopted in the numerical model here considered.
The relation between asymptotic and pre-asymptotic effective parameters is also derived and the dynamical role of the roughness clearly emerges. Finally, a simple analogy with the pre-asymptotic dynamics for the passive scalar problem, is exploited to confirm our interpretation of the reasons underlying the presented numerical evidence.

Acknowledgements We are particularly grateful to N. Wood for providing us with his data-set relative to velocity fields as well as many useful comments. Helpful discussions and suggestions by D. Anfossi, R. Festa, E. Fedorovich, S. Gallino, D. Mironov, S. Nazarenko, G. Solari, F. Tampieri and P.A. Taylor are also acknowledged. This work was partially supported by the INFM PA project GEPAIGG01.


text:
# Complete controllability of quantum systems

## I Introduction

Recent advances in laser technology have opened up new possibilities for laser control of quantum phenomena such as control of molecular quantum states, chemical reaction dynamics or quantum computers. This has prompted researchers to study these systems from a control-theoretical point of view, in particular in view of the limited success of initially advocated control schemes based largely on physical intuition in both theory and experiment SCI288p824 .

One issue that arises is the question whether, or under which conditions, it is possible to control a quantum system in such a way as to achieve any physically permitted evolution of the system. Complete controllability is an important theoretical concept that also has significant practical implications. For example, it has been shown that kinematical constraints on the evolution of non-dissipative quantum systems give rise to universal bounds on the optimization of observables PRA58p2684  and that the practical issue of dynamical realizability of these bounds depends on the controllability of the system 00SL . Controllability is also important in quantum computation as it is directly related to the question of universality of a quantum computation element PRA54p1715 .

It has been shown that an atomic system with $`N`$ accessible energy levels, which are sufficiently separated to allow control based on frequency discrimination, is completely controllable using a sequence of frequency-selective pulses that address only a single transition at a time PRA61n032106 . Although this approach is enormously useful, control based on frequency discrimination is not applicable to systems with equally spaced energy levels such as truncated harmonic oscillators, and problematic for systems with almost equally spaced energy levels such as Morse oscillators, since in this case any external field is likely to address multiple transitions simultaneously. Moreover, systems with degenerate energy levels also present problems for this technique.

In this paper we therefore concentrate on complete controllability of quantum systems subject to a single control field, e.g., a laser pulse or magnetic field, that addresses multiple transitions concurrently. In particular, we study the problem of controllability of a system subject to a single control, for which the interaction with the control field is determined by the dipole approximation. The systems considered are assumed to be non-decomposable, i.e., systems that can be decomposed into non-interacting subsystems are excluded. Note that such systems can never be completely controllable 00SL .

It will be shown in particular that a non-decomposable quantum system with dipole interaction is completely controllable with a single control pulse if there is some anharmonicity in the energy levels. It must be noted however that it is sufficient if, e.g., the transition frequency for the first transition is different from all the other transition frequencies. This is a much weaker condition than frequency discrimination, which requires that all the transition frequencies are sufficiently different. Furthermore, for a system with no anharmonicity, i.e., equally spaced energy levels, we demonstrate that complete controllability depends on the values of the transition dipole moments of the system, and establish sufficient criteria for complete controllability. The controllability of some systems with degenerate energy levels is also discussed and examples of systems that are not completely controllable are presented.

## II Quantum Control System

Given any $`N`$-level quantum system, the Hamiltonian of the unperturbed system can be written as

$$\widehat{H}_0=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_n|nn|,$$
(1)
where $`\{|n:n=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ is a complete set of orthonormal eigenstates and $`E_n`$ are the corresponding energy levels of the system.

The application of external control fields perturbs the system and gives rise to a new Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_I`$, where $`\widehat{H}_I`$ is an interaction term. In the control–linear approximation the interaction term is of the form

$$\widehat{H}_I=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}f_m(t)\widehat{H}_m,$$
(2)
where $`f_m(t)`$ for $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$ are independent control fields, and the operator $`\widehat{H}_m`$ represents the interaction of the field $`f_m(t)`$ with the system. The off-diagonal elements of $`\widehat{H}_m`$ depend on the transition dipole moments $`d_{n,n^{}}`$ for transitions between energy eigenstates. Each $`\widehat{H}_m`$ is Hermitian since the transition dipole moments satisfy $`d_{n^{},n}=d_{n,n^{}}^{}`$, where $`d_{n,n^{}}^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`d_{n,n^{}}`$. In this paper we are particularly interested in the case $`M=1`$, i.e., a single control pulse, for which the interaction operator is of dipole form

$$\widehat{H}_1=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}d_n(|nn+1|+|n+1n|),d_n0.$$
(3)
Note that we exclude systems for which any of the transition dipole moments $`d_nd_{n,n+1}=d_{n+1,n}`$ vanish since these systems can be decomposed into non-interacting subsystems.

An arbitrary initial state of the system can be represented by a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ that evolves according to the dynamical law

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=\widehat{U}(t,t_0)\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}(t,t_0)^{},$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{U}(t,t_0)`$ is the time-evolution operator, which satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{U}(t,t_0)=(\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_I)\widehat{U}(t,t_0)$$
(5)
with initial condition $`\widehat{U}(t_0,t_0)=\widehat{1}`$.

We say the system is initially in a pure state if $`\text{Tr}(\rho _0^2)=1`$. In this case the initial state of the system can also be represented by a normalized wavefunction $`|\psi _0`$, which is either an energy eigenstate $`|n`$ or a superposition of energy eigenstates

$$|\psi _0=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_n|n,$$
(6)
where the $`c_n`$ are complex coefficients that satisfy the normalization condition $`_nc_nc_n^{}=1`$ 95Mukamel . The time evolution of a pure state represented by a wavefunction $`|\psi (t)`$ is

$$|\psi (t)=\widehat{U}(t,t_0)|\psi _0$$
(7)
where $`|\psi _0=|\psi (t_0)`$ and $`\widehat{U}(t,t_0)`$ is the time-evolution operator as defined above.

## III Criteria for Complete Controllability

Since $`\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_I`$ is Hermitian, (5) implies that the time evolution operator $`\widehat{U}(t,t_0)`$ is unitary. Hence, examination of (4) reveals that only target states $`\widehat{\rho }(t_F)`$ that are related to the initial state $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ by $`\widehat{\rho }(t_F)=\widehat{U}\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}^{}`$, where $`\widehat{U}`$ is a unitary operator, are kinematically admissible. However, in general, not all of these states can actually be dynamically reached, unless the dynamical Lie group generated by $`i\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`i\widehat{H}_m`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$, is the unitary group $`U(N)`$. (See appendix A for a discussion of this requirement.) This motivates the

###### Definition 1

A quantum system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_I`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_I`$ as in (1) and (2) is *completely controllable* if every unitary operator $`\widehat{U}`$ is accessible from the identity operator $`\widehat{1}`$ via a path $`\gamma (t)=\widehat{U}(t,t_0)`$ that satisfies (5).

Complete controllability implies that any kinematically admissible target state can be dynamically reached from the initial state by driving the system with a suitable control field. If the system is initially in a mixed state represented by a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ then this means that any other kinematically admissible mixed state can be dynamically reached. Similarly, if the system is initially in a pure state represented by a normalized wavefunction $`|\psi _0`$ then complete controllability guarantees that every other pure state represented by a normalized wavefunction $`|\psi _1`$ can be dynamically reached from the initial state. In 00SL  it is furthermore shown that complete controllability implies dynamical realizability of the universal kinematical bounds on the optimization of observables for (non-dissipative) quantum systems.

It is apparent that if the dimension of the Lie algebra $`L_0`$ generated by the operators $`\{\widehat{H}_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{H}_M\}`$, or more accurately, their skew-Hermitian counterparts $`\{i\widehat{H}_0,\mathrm{},i\widehat{H}_M\}`$ is $`N^2`$ then $`L_0`$ is the Lie algebra of skew-Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices $`u(N)`$. Ramakrishna *et al* have shown in PRA51p960 , using results by Jurdjevic and Sussmann 72JS , that in this case the dynamical Lie group of the system is the unitary group $`U(N)`$. Noting that the dimension of $`u(N)`$ is $`N^2`$ and that any Lie algebra of skew-Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices of dimension $`N^2`$ is (isomorphic to) $`u(N)`$ we have therefore

###### Theorem 1 (Ramakrishna et al)

A necessary and sufficient condition for complete controllability of a quantum system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_I`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_I`$ as in (1) and (2) is that the Lie algebra $`L_0`$ has dimension $`N^2`$.

This theorem provides a condition for complete controllability of a quantum system that can easily be verified by computing the Lie algebra generated by $`\widehat{H}_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{H}_M`$ and determining its dimension.

A basic algorithm for constructing a basis for the Lie algebra $`L_0`$ in terms of iterated commutators is presented in Table 1. It can be optimized to increase the speed of the computation and to improve the accuracy of the numerical results. In Table 1 we use $`\widehat{H}`$ to denote a $`N\times N`$ matrix and using the fact that a matrix can also be interpreted as a vector, $`𝐇`$ for the $`N^2`$ column vector obtained by concatenating the columns of $`\widehat{H}`$ vertically. $`W`$ is a $`N^2\times N^2`$ matrix whose columns $`W_{:,j}`$ represent the basis elements of $`L_0`$. Note that $`\widehat{W}_{:,j}`$ is the $`j`$-th basis element interpreted as $`N\times N`$ matrix.

To initialize $`W`$ we start with $`W_{:,1}=𝐇_0`$ and add $`𝐇_m`$ for $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$ provided that the additional column increases the rank of $`W`$. This guarantees that $`W`$ initially consists of linearly independent generators of $`L_0`$. To construct a basis for $`L_0`$, we compute all possible commutators of the columns $`W_{:,j}`$ of $`W`$, interpreted as $`N\times N`$ matrices. Whenever a commutator is linearly independent of the columns of $`W`$, we add the commutator as a new column to $`W`$. Note that if we add a new column to $`W`$ then we also have to compute the commutator of the matrix represented by the new column with all the matrices represented by the old columns of $`W`$. Hence, we repeat computing the commutators of the basis elements represented by $`W`$ until no new columns have been added in the previous step or the rank of $`W`$ reaches the maximum of $`N^2`$.

## IV Controllability calculations

We implemented the algorithm presented in the previous section and computed the dimension of the dynamical Lie algebra for the system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (1) and (3) for various choices of the energy levels $`E_n`$ and the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$. In particular, we studied the $`N`$-level harmonic oscillator with energy levels

$$E_n=n\frac{1}{2}$$
(8)
and the $`N`$-level Morse oscillator with energy levels

$$E_n=(n\frac{1}{2})[1\frac{1}{2}B(n\frac{1}{2})]$$
(9)
where $`B`$ is a (usually small) positive real number. In our numerical computations we used $`B=0.0419`$, which corresponds to a Morse oscillator model of the molecular bond for hydrogen fluoride 90CBC . We computed the dimension of the Lie algebra $`L_0`$ for systems with varying dimension $`N`$ and for different choices of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$. The results of some of these computations are presented in Table 2.

For the Morse oscillator system we observe that the dimension of $`L_0`$ is always $`N^2`$, i.e., it is completely controllable independent of the choice of the $`d_n`$ (as long as the $`d_n`$ are non-zero).

For the harmonic oscillator, however, the dimension of $`L_0`$ depends on the choice of the transition dipole moments. For the usual choice, $`d_n=\sqrt{n}`$, the dimension of $`L_0`$ is $`N^2`$, i.e., the system is completely controllable. However, if we chose all the $`d_n`$ to be equal, e.g., $`d_n=1`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, then the dimension of the Lie algebra $`L_0`$ is less than $`N^2`$ and the system is therefore *not* completely controllable for $`N>2`$. It is also worth noting that a slight modification of the $`d_n`$ is sufficient in this case to restore complete controllability: if we choose $`d_n=1`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},N2`$ and $`d_{N1}=2`$ then the dimension of $`L_0`$ is again $`N^2`$.

The extensive data we gathered strongly suggested that any Morse oscillator system with non-zero transition dipole moments, i.e., $`d_n0`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, is completely controllable for any $`N`$, while complete controllability for a harmonic oscillator seemed to depend on the values of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$. These observations prompted us to study the issue of controllability systematically using Lie algebra techniques.

## V Results from Lie algebra theory

In order to prove our conjectures about complete controllability based on numerical evidence, a few general results from the theory of Lie algebras are required. For more detailed information about Lie algebras and Lie groups the reader is referred to 62Jacobson ; 97Cornwell ; 74Gilmore ; 66Hermann  or any other book on the subject.

We first observe that $`u(N)=su(N)u(1)`$, where $`su(N)`$ is the Lie algebra of traceless skew-Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices. If the diagonal elements $`d_{m,m}`$ of the interaction operators $`\widehat{H}_m`$ for $`m>0`$ are zero, as is the case in the dipole approximation, then the interaction operators $`\widehat{H}_m`$ are represented by traceless Hermitian matrices, i.e., $`i\widehat{H}_msu(N)`$ for $`m>0`$. If the internal Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ is traceless as well, i.e., $`i\widehat{H}_0su(N)`$, then the dynamical Lie algebra $`L_0`$ generated by $`i\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`i\widehat{H}_m`$ must be $`su(N)`$, or a subalgebra of $`su(N)`$, since the commutator of two traceless skew-Hermitian matrices is always a traceless skew-Hermitian matrix. By our strict definition of complete controllability, a system whose dynamical Lie algebra is $`su(N)`$ is *not* completely controllable since its dynamical Lie group is $`SU(N)`$, i.e., the Lie group of unitary $`N\times N`$ matrices with determinant one, and $`SU(N)`$ is a proper subgroup of $`U(N)`$, the Lie group of all unitary $`N\times N`$ matrices. (For a discussion of the practical significance of the difference between $`su(N)`$ and $`u(N)`$ see appendix A.) On the other hand, we have the following useful

###### Lemma 1

If the dynamical Lie algebra $`L_0`$ contains $`su(N)`$ and $`\widehat{H}_0`$ has non-zero trace then we have $`L_0=su(N)u(1)u(N)`$.

Proof: Note that we can write

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{1}{N}Tr(\widehat{H}_0)\widehat{I}+\widehat{H}_0^{},$$
(10)
where $`i\widehat{H}_0^{}su(N)`$. $`i\widehat{H}_0`$ is in $`L_0`$ by definition. Since $`L_0`$ contains $`su(N)`$ and hence $`i\widehat{H}_0^{}`$, it must also contain the identity matrix $`i\widehat{I}=(\widehat{H}_0\widehat{H}_0^{})N/Tr(\widehat{H}_0)`$. Hence, noting that $`\widehat{I}`$ generates a one-dimensional Lie algebra isomorphic to $`u(1)`$ we have indeed $`L_0=su(N)u(1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, in order to show that a system is completely controllable we only need to show that $`Tr(\widehat{H}_0)0`$ and that $`L_0`$ contains $`su(N)`$.

To verify that $`L_0`$ contains $`su(N)`$ we need a complete set of generators for the Lie algebra $`su(N)`$. Let $`\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}`$ be the $`N\times N`$ matrix such that the element in the $`n`$-th row and $`n^{}`$-th column is 1 while all other elements are 0, i.e.,

$$(\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}})_{ij}=\delta _{in}\delta _{jn^{}},$$
(11)
where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker symbol. One can easily see that any traceless skew-Hermitian matrix must be a real linear combination of the $`N^21`$ basic matrices

$$\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^R=\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}\widehat{e}_{n^{},n}\hfill & 1nN1,n<n^{}N\hfill \\ \widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^I=i(\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}+\widehat{e}_{n^{},n})\hfill & 1nN1,n<n^{}N\hfill \\ \widehat{h}_n=\widehat{e}_{nn}\widehat{e}_{n+1,n+1}\hfill & 1nN1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
However, verifying that $`L_0`$ contains all of the $`N^21`$ basis elements would be quite tedious. Fortunately, this is not necessary.

###### Lemma 2

The skew-Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I`$, $`1n<N`$, generate the Lie algebra $`su(N)`$.

Proof: Using the relation

$$\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}\widehat{e}_{m,m^{}}=\widehat{e}_{n,m^{}}\delta _{n^{}m},$$

which follows from the definition of $`\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}`$, it can be verified by direct computation that the skew-Hermitian matrices $`\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^I`$ satisfy the equations

$$\begin{array}{c}[\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^R,\widehat{e}_{n^{},n^{\prime \prime }}^R]=\widehat{e}_{n,n^{\prime \prime }}^Rn^{\prime \prime }n,\\ [\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^R,\widehat{e}_{n^{},n^{\prime \prime }}^I]=\widehat{e}_{n,n^{\prime \prime }}^In^{\prime \prime }n,\\ [\widehat{e}_{n,n^{}}^R,\widehat{e}_{n^{},n}^I]=2i(\widehat{e}_{n,n}\widehat{e}_{n^{},n^{}})\end{array}$$
(13)
and a bit of algebra therefore shows that the $`2(N1)`$ elements $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I`$ for $`1nN1`$ generate the entire Lie algebra $`su(N)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Hence, if $`L_0`$ contains the generators $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I`$ for $`1nN1`$, then $`L_0`$ must contain $`su(N)`$. Thus, given a system whose energy levels are well enough separated to permit selective control of each transition between adjacent energy levels through frequency discrimination, i.e.,

$$i\widehat{H}=i\widehat{H}_0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}f_n(t)\mathrm{cos}(\mu _nt)i\widehat{H}_1$$

with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ as in (1), $`\mu _n=E_nE_{n+1}`$ and

$$i\widehat{H}_n=id_n(|nn+1|+|n+1n|)=d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I,$$

where $`f_n(t)`$ is slowly time-varying compared to $`\mathrm{cos}(\mu _nt)`$ and $`d_n0`$, we can conclude immediately that the Lie algebra of the system contains $`su(N)`$ and hence that the system is completely controllable (if $`Tr(\widehat{H}_0)0`$). To see this, note that the generators $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I`$ are given and the generators $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R`$ can be obtained by computing the commutators

$$\mu _n^1[i\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I]=\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R.$$

However, selective control of individual transitions between adjacent energy levels through frequency discrimination is not always possible. For instance, as pointed out earlier, it fails when the energy levels are equally spaced or degenerate, and it may not be a good approach for systems with nearly equally spaced energy levels, such as Morse oscillators. Furthermore, even if it is possible to use multiple pulses to selectively control individual transitions, one may not wish to do so. Instead, one may for instance wish to control the system with a single optimally shaped control pulse obtained using an efficient optimal control algorithm JCP109p385 ; JCP110p9825 ; PRA61n012101

In order to establish criteria for complete controllability of $`N`$-level systems subject to a single control field that drives all permitted transitions concurrently, we need another lemma, which makes use of the dipole form of $`\widehat{H}_1`$.

###### Lemma 3

If $`\widehat{H}_1`$ has the special form (3), i.e.,

$$i\widehat{H}_1=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I$$
(14)
then it suffices to show that $`L_0`$ contains the pair of generators $`\widehat{e}_{12}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{12}^I`$ or $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^I`$, i.e., if $`L_0`$ contains either of these two pairs of generators, then it contains all the generators of $`su(N)`$.

Proof: If $`\widehat{e}_{12}^R,\widehat{e}_{12}^IL_0`$ then

$`\widehat{h}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\widehat{e}_{12}^R,\widehat{e}_{21}^I]=i(\widehat{e}_{11}\widehat{e}_{22})L_0,`$
$`\widehat{V}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\widehat{H}_1d_1\widehat{e}_{12}^I={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{N1}{}}}d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^IL_0.`$
where $`\widehat{e}_{21}^I=\widehat{e}_{12}^I`$. This leads to

$`[\widehat{h}_1,\widehat{V}_1]`$ $`=`$ $`d_2\widehat{e}_{23}^RL_0,`$
$`[\widehat{h}_1,[\widehat{h}_1,\widehat{V}_1]]`$ $`=`$ $`d_2\widehat{e}_{23}^IL_0.`$
Since $`d_20`$ by hypothesis it follows that $`\widehat{e}_{23}^R,\widehat{e}_{23}^IL_0`$. Repeating this procedure $`N2`$ times shows that all the generators $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I`$ for $`1n<N`$ are in $`L_0`$. Similarly, we can show that $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^I`$ in $`L_0`$ implies that $`L_0`$ contains all the generators $`\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{n+1,n}^I`$, $`1n<N`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, if $`\widehat{H}_1`$ has the special form (3) then it suffices to show that $`\widehat{e}_{12}^R,\widehat{e}_{12}^IL_0`$ in order to conclude that $`L_0`$ is at least $`su(N)`$.

## VI Complete controllability for anharmonic systems

Let $`\mu _n=E_nE_{n+1}`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$ and $`\widehat{V}=i\widehat{H}_1`$.

###### Theorem 2

If $`\mu _10`$ and $`\mu _n^2\mu _1^2`$ for $`n>1`$ then the dynamical Lie group of the system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as defined in (1) and (3) is at least $`SU(N)`$. If in addition $`Tr(\widehat{H}_0)0`$ then the dynamical Lie group is $`U(N)`$, i.e., the system is completely controllable.

Proof: We evaluate

$`[i\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{V}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mu _nd_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R\widehat{V}^{},`$
$`[i\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{V}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mu _n^2d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I\widehat{V}^{\prime \prime }.`$
Using $`\widehat{V}`$ and $`\widehat{V}^{\prime \prime }`$ we obtain $`\widehat{V}_1L_0`$, where

$`\widehat{V}_1`$ $``$ $`\widehat{V}^{\prime \prime }\mu _{N1}^2\widehat{V}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}(\mu _n^2\mu _{N1}^2)d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I.`$
Repeating the previous steps for $`i\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{V}_1`$ leads to $`\widehat{V}_2L_0`$, where

$`\widehat{V}_2`$ $``$ $`[i\widehat{H}_0,[i\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{V}_1]]\mu _{N2}^2\widehat{V}_1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N3}{}}}(\mu _n^2\mu _{N2}^2)(\mu _n^2\mu _{N1}^2)d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I.`$
After $`N2`$ iterations, we have $`\widehat{V}_{N2}L_0`$ where

$$\widehat{V}_{N2}d_1\left[\underset{n=2}{\overset{N1}{}}(\mu _1^2\mu _n^2)\right]\widehat{e}_{12}^I.$$

Since by hypothesis $`d_1_{n=2}^{N1}(\mu _1^2\mu _n^2)0`$ this means $`\widehat{V}_{N2}^{}=\widehat{e}_{12}^IL_0`$ and noting that $`\mu _10`$ we have

$$\widehat{V}_{N2}^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{\mu _1}[i\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{V}_{N2}^{}]=\widehat{e}_{12}^RL_0.$$

The conclusion now follows from lemmas 1 and 3. $`\mathrm{}`$

This theorem shows that for anharmonic systems complete controllability does not depend on the values of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$ (as long as they are non-zero) and in particular we have the following

###### Corollary 1

A quantum system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (1) and (3), respectively, and $`E_n`$ as in (9), i.e., a Morse oscillator, is completely controllable for arbitrary non-zero values of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$.

It is worth noting that Theorem 2 also applies to some degenerate quantum systems.

###### Example 1

The system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with

$$\widehat{H}_0=\text{diag}\{E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_2\},E_1E_2.$$

and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (3) is completely controllable by theorem 2 despite the fact that energy level $`E_2`$ has multiplicity $`N1`$. In fact, the proof of controllability is even simpler for this system as we have $`\widehat{V}^{\prime \prime }=\mu _1^2d_1\widehat{e}_{12}^I`$ after only one step.

This example begs the question whether the system is still completely controllable if we choose

$$\widehat{H}_0=\text{diag}\{\underset{N1}{\underset{}{E_1,\mathrm{},E_1}},E_2\},E_1E_2$$

instead. It is obvious that this system does not satisfy the technical condition $`\mu _10`$. However, it can easily be shown that this system is completely controllable by modifying the proof. In fact, this example is just a special case of the following

###### Theorem 3

If $`\mu _{N1}0`$ and $`\mu _n^2\mu _{N1}^2`$ for $`n<N1`$ then the dynamical Lie group of the system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as defined in (1) and (3), respectively, is at least $`SU(N)`$. If in addition $`\text{Tr}(\widehat{H}_0)0`$ then the dynamical Lie group is $`U(N)`$, i.e., the system is completely controllable.

The proof of this theorem is analogous to the proof of Theorem 2.

## VII Complete controllability for harmonic systems

The condition $`\mu _1^2\mu _n^2`$ in the previous theorems excludes any system with equally spaced energy levels, such as a harmonic oscillator, for which we have $`\mu _1=\mu _2=\mathrm{}=\mu _{N1}`$. We shall assume that $`\mu _10`$ since for $`\mu _1=0`$ the system is completely degenerate with only one energy level.

In order to state our theorem, we need to introduce some technical parameters

$$v_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}2d_1^2d_2^2,\hfill & n=1;\hfill \\ 2d_n^2d_{n1}^2d_{n+1}^2,\hfill & n=2,\mathrm{},N2;\hfill \\ 2d_{N1}^2d_{N2}^2,\hfill & n=N1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Observe that these technical parameters depend on the values of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$.

###### Theorem 4

The dynamical Lie group for a quantum system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (1) and (3) and $`N`$ equally spaced energy levels

$$E_n=E_1+(n1)\mu _1,n=1,\mathrm{},N,\mu _10,$$

is at least $`SU(N)`$ if the the parameters $`v_n`$ satisfy one of the following conditions

1. $`v_nv_{N1}`$ for $`1nN2`$;
2. $`v_nv_1`$ for $`2nN1`$.

If in addition $`\text{Tr}(\widehat{H}_0)0`$ then the dynamical Lie group is $`U(N)`$, i.e., the system is completely controllable.

Proof: Let $`\widehat{V}=i\widehat{H}_1`$. In this case the element

$$\stackrel{~}{V}=\mu _1^1[i\widehat{H}_0,\widehat{V}]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R$$

is in $`L_0`$ and its sum and difference with $`\widehat{V}`$ give rise to

$`\widehat{V}_1^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}d_n\underset{\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^+}{\underset{}{(\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I+\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R)}},`$
$`\widehat{V}_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}d_n\underset{\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^{}}{\underset{}{(\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^I\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^R)}}`$
which, along with their commutator

$`\widehat{V}_1^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\widehat{V}_1^+,\widehat{V}_1^{}]`$
$`=`$ $`id_1^2\widehat{e}_{1,1}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{N1}{}}}i(d_n^2d_{n1}^2)\widehat{e}_{n,n}id_{N1}^2\widehat{e}_{N,N},`$
are in $`L_0`$. Starting with $`\widehat{V}_1^0`$ and $`\widehat{V}_1^+`$, we have

$$[\widehat{V}_1^0,\widehat{V}_1^+]=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}v_nd_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^+L_0,$$

$`\widehat{V}_2^+`$ $``$ $`[\widehat{V}_1^0,\widehat{V}_1^+]v_1\widehat{V}_1^+`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{N1}{}}}(v_nv_1)d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^+L_0,`$
$`\widehat{V}_3^+`$ $``$ $`[\widehat{V}_1^0,\widehat{V}_2^+]v_2\widehat{V}_2^+`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{N1}{}}}(v_nv_2)(v_nv_1)d_n\widehat{e}_{n,n+1}^+L_0,`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\widehat{V}_{n1}^+`$ $``$ $`[\widehat{V}_1^0,\widehat{V}_{N2}^+]v_{N2}\widehat{V}_{N2}^+`$
$`=`$ $`d_{N1}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}(v_{N1}v_n)\right]\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^+L_0.`$
Since by hypothesis $`v_{N1}v_n`$ for $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},N2`$, we have $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^+L_0`$.

Similarly, starting with $`\widehat{V}^0`$ and $`\widehat{V}_1^{}`$, we can also prove $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^{}L_0`$. This implies $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^R`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{N1,N}^I`$ are in $`L_0`$ and hence the conclusion follows from lemmas 1 and 3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 2

The standard $`N`$-level harmonic oscillator system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (1) and (3), $`E_n=n1/2`$ and $`d_n=\sqrt{n}`$ is completely controllable by theorem 4 since we have

$$v_1=v_2=\mathrm{}=v_{N2}=0,v_{N1}=N,$$

i.e., the $`v_n`$ satisfy $`v_{N1}v_n=N`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N2`$.

###### Example 3

However, the $`N`$-level harmonic oscillator system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (1) and (3), $`E_n=n1/2`$ and $`d_n=1`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N1`$ does *not* satisfy the hypothesis of theorem 4 since we have

$$v_1=1,v_2=\mathrm{}=v_{N2}=0,v_{N1}=1,$$

i.e., $`v_{N1}=v_1`$. Numerical calculations for various $`N`$ confirm that this system is indeed not completely controllable. (See Table 2.)

For $`N=4`$ one can, e.g., verify either numerically or by analyzing the Lie algebra that the simple skew-Hermitian matrix

$$\widehat{e}_{12}^I=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

is not in $`L_0`$ and therefore the unitary operator

$$\widehat{U}(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta \widehat{e}_{12}^I)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )& i\mathrm{sin}(\theta )& 0& 0\\ i\mathrm{sin}(\theta )& \mathrm{cos}(\theta )& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

can not be dynamically generated for this system for any $`\theta (0,2\pi )`$. Thus, if the system is initially in state $`\widehat{\rho }_0=_{n=1}^4w_n|nn|`$ then the target state

$$\widehat{\rho }(t_F)=\widehat{U}(\theta )\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}(\theta )^{}$$

is generally not dynamically accessible since it is impossible to put the energy eigenstates $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ into superposition without equally “entangling” the states $`|3`$ and $`|4`$ of the initial ensemble.

###### Example 4

The $`N`$-level harmonic oscillator system $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+f(t)\widehat{H}_1`$ with $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as in (1) and (3), $`E_n=n1/2`$, $`d_n=1`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N2`$ but $`d_{N1}=2`$, however, *does* satisfy the hypothesis of theorem 4 since we have

$$v_1=1,v_2=\mathrm{}=v_{N3}=0,v_{N2}=3,v_{N1}=7,$$

i.e., $`v_nv_1`$ for $`n1`$. Numerical calculations for various $`N`$ confirm that this system is completely controllable (see Table 2).

The rather surprising results of the previous two examples can be understood by analyzing the Lie algebra generated by $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ in both cases. Although the details of this analysis are beyond the scope of this paper (and will be discussed in a future paper) we would like to mention here that for a harmonic system with transition dipole moments satisfying the “symmetry” relation $`d_{Nn}=\pm d_n`$ for $`1nN/2`$, the transitions $`nn+1`$ and $`NnN+1n`$ for $`1nN/2`$ become coupled. This leads to a collapse of the Lie algebra and loss of complete controllability, which can be restored by breaking the symmetry in the transition dipole moments. This is why changing $`d_{N1}=1`$ to $`d_{N1}=2`$ restored controllability in the last example. In fact, changing $`d_{N1}`$ to any value other than $`\pm 1`$ would work as well.

## VIII Conclusion

The question of complete controllability of quantum systems using external control fields has been addressed before by various authors and it is, for instance, well known that a quantum system is completely controllable if it is possible to address a sufficiently large set of single transitions using multiple frequency-selective control pulses. However, many optimization strategies attempt to find a single control pulse that addresses all transitions concurrently to achieve the control objective. Furthermore, control based on frequency discrimination is not always possible, e.g., it is not suitable for systems with equally or almost equally spaced or degenerate energy levels.

Despite the relative importance of control strategies involving a single control pulse, sufficient criteria for complete controllability in this case have so far been missing. In this paper we addressed this problem and established general criteria for complete controllability of quantum systems subject to a single control pulse.

In particular, we showed that most anharmonic, non-decomposable quantum systems are completely controllable using a single control that drives all the transitions concurrently, independent of the values of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$. For quantum systems with equally spaced energy levels we demonstrated that complete controllability depends on the values of the transition dipole moments $`d_n`$ and derived conditions that guarantee complete controllability.

We verified that the standard truncated harmonic oscillator with transition dipole moments $`d_n=\sqrt{n}`$ satisfies these conditions and gave examples of harmonic systems that do not satisfy the conditions. In the latter case we also checked by direct computation of the Lie algebra that they are not completely controllable and showed that there are certain unitary operators that can not be dynamically realized for these systems.

## IX Acknowledgements

We would like to thank F. C. Langbein and B. I. Mills of Cardiff University and J. V. Leahy of the University of Oregon for providing valuable comments and suggestions.

## Appendix A Controllability and the question of trace

All the theorems about complete controllability presented in this paper require that the trace of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ be non-zero. The mathematical necessity of this hypothesis is obvious: a set of traceless skew-Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices cannot generate all of $`u(N)`$ but at most $`su(N)`$. Hence, assuming that the interaction terms $`\widehat{H}_m`$, $`m>0`$, are represented by traceless skew-Hermitian matrices, if $`\widehat{H}_0`$ is traceless as well then the dynamical Lie group can be at most $`SU(N)`$, the set of unitary matrices with determinant one, which is a proper subgroup of $`U(N)`$. However, our definition of complete controllability requires that all unitary matrices be dynamically accessible.

Nevertheless, the trace condition is physically somewhat disturbing since the energy levels of a physical system are generally only determined up to a constant, and hence the trace of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ seems physically rather insignificant as one can always make it either zero or non-zero by shifting the energy levels of the system by a constant. We shall attempt to resolve this apparent conflict by showing that the difference between $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$ is only a phase factor.

Let the initial state of the system be represented by the normalized wavefunction $`|\psi _0`$. If the dynamical Lie group of the system is $`U(N)`$ then any other pure state represented by normalized wavefunction $`|\psi _1`$ is dynamically reachable since given any two normalized wavefunctions there always exists a (not necessarily unique) unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}`$ such that $`|\psi _1=\widehat{U}|\psi _0`$ and we can find a path $`\gamma (t)=\widehat{U}(t,t_0)`$ in $`U(N)`$ such that $`\gamma (t_0)=\widehat{1}`$ and $`\gamma (t_F)=\widehat{U}`$. Since the determinant of a unitary operator is a complex number of modulus 1, we can write $`det(\gamma (t))=e^{i\varphi (t)}`$. Noting that $`det(\alpha A)=\alpha ^Ndet(A)`$ where $`N`$ is the size of $`A`$, we see immediately that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma (t)}e^{i\varphi (t)/N}\gamma (t)`$ has determinant 1

$$det(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t))=(e^{i\varphi (t)/N})^Ndet(\gamma (t))=e^{i\varphi (t)}e^{i\varphi (t)}1,$$

and thus defines a path in $`SU(N)`$. Furthermore,

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t_F)|\psi _0=e^{i\varphi /N}\widehat{U}|\psi _0=e^{i\varphi /N}|\psi _1,$$

i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t_F)|\psi _0`$ and $`|\psi _1`$ differ only by a phase factor. Hence, if the dynamical Lie group is $`SU(N)`$ then we loose control over the phase of the state, otherwise there is no difference.

Thus, for practical applications that do not require phase control one need not worry about the trace. For instance, if the goal of controlling the system is to maximize the expectation value of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$ at a target time $`t_F`$,

$$\widehat{A}(t_F)=\psi (t_F)|\widehat{A}|\psi (t_F),$$

then clearly the phases of the target states are irrelevant as they are cancelled out by computing the expectation value anyway.

Moreover, if the initial state is given by a density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ then any target state $`\widehat{\rho }(t_F)`$ that is dynamically accessible via a path in $`U(N)`$ is also dynamically accessible via a path in $`SU(N)`$. To see this, let $`\gamma (t)=\widehat{U}(t,t_0)`$ be a path in $`U(N)`$ such that

$$\widehat{\rho }(t_F)=\widehat{U}(t_F,t_0)\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}(t_F,t_0)^{}.$$
(16)
Again, we have $`det(\gamma (t))=e^{i\varphi (t)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)=e^{i\varphi (t)/N}\gamma (t)`$ defines a path in $`SU(N)`$ that is equivalent to $`\gamma (t)`$ since <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note that if $`A`$ is unitary then $`det(A^{})=[det(A)]^1`$, i.e., $`det(\gamma (t)^{})=e^{i\varphi (t)}`$.

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t)\widehat{\rho }_0\gamma (t)^{}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi (t)/N}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)\widehat{\rho }_0\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)^{}e^{i\varphi (t)/N}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)\widehat{\rho }_0\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)^{},`$
i.e., the phase factors $`e^{i\varphi (t)/N}`$ cancel out completely.

However, there are some applications of control in quantum computation where it is important to have phase control and when $`SU(N)`$ is not adequate. Therefore, we have chosen to require the dynamical Lie group to be $`U(N)`$ for complete controllability.