text:
# Simulations of Stellar Core Collapse, Bounce, and Postbounce Evolution with Boltzmann Neutrino Transport, and Implications for the Core Collapse Supernova Mechanism

## 1 Introduction

Beginning with the first numerical simulations conducted by Colgate and White, three decades of supernova modeling have established a basic supernova paradigm. The supernova shock wave—formed when the iron core of a massive star collapses gravitationally and rebounds as the core matter exceeds nuclear densities and becomes incompressible—stalls in the iron core as a result of enervating losses to nuclear dissociation and neutrinos. The failure of this “prompt” supernova mechanism sets the stage for a “delayed” mechanism, whereby the shock is reenergized by the intense neutrino flux emerging from the neutrinospheres carrying off the binding energy of the proto-neutron star. The heating is mediated primarily by the absorption of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos on the dissociation-liberated nucleons behind the shock. This past decade has also seen the emergence of multidimensional supernova models, which have investigated the role convection, rotation, and magnetic fields may play in the explosion , in some cases invoking new explosion paradigms.

Although a plausible framework is now in place, fundamental questions about the explosion mechanism remain: Is the neutrino heating sufficient, or are multidimensional effects such as convection and rotation necessary? Can the basic supernova observable, explosion, be reproduced by detailed spherically symmetric models, or are multidimensional models required? Without a doubt, core collapse supernovae are not spherically symmetric. For example, neutron star kicks and the polarization of supernova emitted light cannot arise in spherical symmetry. Nonetheless, ascertaining the explosion mechanism and understanding every explosion observable are two different goals. To achieve both, simulations in one, two, and three dimensions must be coordinated.

## 2 Convection

Supernova convection falls into two categories: (1) convection near or below the neutrinospheres, which we refer to as proto-neutron star convection and (2) convection between the gain radius and the shock, which we refer to as neutrino-driven convection. The gain radius is the radius at which neutrino heating and cooling via electron neutrino and antineutrino absorption and emission between the neutrinospheres and the shock balance. There is net neutrino heating above this radius and net neutrino cooling below it.

Proto-neutron star convection may aid the explosion mechanism by boosting the neutrinosphere luminosities. Hot, lepton-rich rich matter is convectively transported to the neutrinospheres. This mode of convection may develop owing to instabilities caused by lepton and entropy gradients established by the deleptonization of the proto-neutron star via electron neutrino escape near the electron neutrinosphere and by the weakening supernova shock (as the shock weakens, it causes a smaller entropy jump in the material flowing through it). Proto-neutron star convection is arguably the most difficult to investigate numerically because the neutrinos and the matter are coupled and, consequently, multidimensional simulations must include both multidimensional hydrodynamics and multidimensional, multigroup neutrino transport. \[Multigroup, i.e., multi-neutrino energy, transport is necessary because the neutrino opacities are strongly energy dependent and low- and high-energy neutrinos may be transported in very different ways (e.g., diffusion versus free streaming) at any given spatial point in the core at any given time.\]

Neutrino-driven convection may aid the explosion mechanism by boosting the shock radius and the neutrino heating efficiency, thereby facilitating shock revival. It develops as the result of the entropy gradient established as the shocked stellar core material infalls between the shock and the gain radius, being continually heated in the process.

### 2.1 Proto-Neutron Star Convection (1D): Neutron Fingers

The fundamental difficulty in modeling convection in spherically symmetric models is apparent: convection is a three-dimensional phenomenon, and spherically symmetric models can incorporate convection only in a phenomenological way (e.g., via a mixing-length prescription). Moreover, because convection is not admitted by the one-dimensional hydrodynamics equations, some imposed criterion for the existence of convection must be used.

Neutron-finger convection has been invoked by Wilson et al. in their one-dimensional models and has been deemed necessary by them to obtain supernova explosions. This mode of proto-neutron star convection arises in the presence of a negative electron fraction gradient and a positive entropy gradient in the postshock stellar core, resulting in higher-entropy, neutron-richer matter above lower-entropy, neutron-poorer matter in the core. With the assumption that energy transport by neutrinos is more efficient than lepton transport, neutron fingers develop under these conditions, resulting (like salt fingers in the ocean) in finger-like downflows of neutron-rich matter that penetrate deep into the stellar core. The assumption that energy transport is more efficient than lepton transport is justified in the following way: Three flavors of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau) can transport energy, whereas only one (electron) can transport lepton number. However, detailed neutrino equilibration experiments carried out by Bruenn and Dineva demonstrate that the muon and tau neutrinos do not couple strongly with the stellar core matter in energy, and therefore, there is only one flavor (electron) that transports both energy and lepton number efficiently. Given the outcome of these numerical experiments, the fundamental assumption made by Wilson et al. should be reexamined. However, it is also important to note that the equilibration experiments carried out by Bruenn and Dineva have to be repeated in light of energy exchange channels between the muon and tau neutrinos and the stellar core matter that have recently been identified.

### 2.2 Proto-Neutron Star Convection (2D): Ledoux Convection

In certain regions of the stellar core, neutrino transport can equilibrate a convecting fluid element with its surroundings in both entropy and lepton number on time scales shorter than convection time scales, rendering the fluid element nonbouyant. This will occur in intermediate regimes in which neutrino transport is efficient but in which the neutrinos are still strongly enough coupled to the matter. Figures 1 and 2 from Mezzacappa et al. demonstrate that this equilibration can in fact occur. Figure 1 shows the onset and development of proto-neutron star convection in a 25 M model shortly after bounce in a simulation that did not include neutrino transport, i.e., that was a hydrodynamics-only run. Figure 2 on the other hand shows the lack of any significant onset and development of convection when neutrino transport was included in what was otherwise an identical model. Transport’s damping effects are obvious. (The same result occurred in our 15 M model.)

On the other hand, in the model of Keil et al., vigorous proto-neutron star convection developed, which then extended deep into the core as a deleptonization wave moved inward owing to neutrinos diffusing outward. In this model, convection occurs very deep in the core where neutrino opacities are high and transport becomes inefficient in equilibrating a fluid element with its surroundings.

It is also important to note in this context that Mezzacappa et al. and Keil et al. used complementary transport approximations. In the former case, spherically symmetric transport was used, which maximizes lateral neutrino transport and overestimates the neutrino–matter equilibration rate; in the latter case, ray-by-ray transport was used, which minimizes (zeroes) lateral transport and underestimates the neutrino–matter equilibration rate.

These outcomes clearly demonstrate that to determine whether or not proto-neutron star convection exists and, if it exists, is vigorous, will require simulations coupling three-dimensional, multigroup neutrino transport and three-dimensional hydrodynamics. Moreover, realistic high-density neutrino opacities will also be needed.

### 2.3 Neutrino-Driven Convection (2D)

This mode of convection occurs directly between the gain radius and the stalled shock as a result of the entropy gradient that forms as material infalls between the two while being continually heated from below. In Figure 3, a sequence of two-dimensional plots of entropy are shown, illustrating the development and evolution of neutrino-driven convection in our 15 M model. High-entropy, rising plumes and lower-entropy, denser, finger-like downflows are seen. The shock is distorted by this convective activity.

In the Herant et al. simulations, large-scale convection developed beneath the shock, leading to increased neutrino energy deposition, the accumulation of mass and energy in the gain region, and a thermodynamic engine they claimed ensured explosion, although Herant et al. stressed the need for more sophisticated multidimensional, multigroup transport in future models. \[They used two-dimensional “gray” (neutrino-energy–integrated, as opposed to multigroup) flux-limited diffusion in neutrino-thick regions and a neutrino lightbulb approximation in neutrino-thin regions. In a lightbulb approximation, the neutrino luminosities and rms energies are assumed constant with radius.\] In the Burrows et al. simulations, neutrino-driven convection in some models significantly boosted the shock radius and led to explosions. However, they stressed that success or failure in producing explosions was ultimately determined by the values chosen for the neutrino spectral parameters in their gray ray-by-ray (one-dimensional) neutrino diffusion scheme. \[In spherical symmetry (1D), all rays are the same. In a ray-by-ray scheme in axisymmetry (2D), not all rays are the same, although the transport along each ray is a 1D problem. In this latter case, lateral transport between rays is ignored.\] Focusing on the neutrino luminosities, Janka and Müller, using an adjustable central neutrino lightbulb, conducted a parameter survey and concluded that neutrino-driven convection aids explosion only in a narrow luminosity window ($`\pm 10\%`$), below which the luminosities are too low to power explosions and above which neutrino-driven convection is not necessary to power explosions. In more recent simulations carried out by Swesty using two-dimensional gray flux-limited diffusion in both neutrino-thick and neutrino-thin regions, it was demonstrated that the simulation outcome varied dramatically as the matter–neutrino “decoupling point,” which in turn sets the neutrino spectra in the heating region, was varied within reasonable limits. (The fundamental problem in gray transport schemes is that the neutrino spectra, which are needed for the heating rate, are not computed. The spectra are specified by choosing a neutrino “temperature,” normally chosen to be the matter temperature at decoupling. In a multigroup scheme, the spectra are computed dynamically.) In our two-dimensional models, the angle-averaged shock radii do not differ significantly from the shock trajectories in their one-dimensional counterparts, and no explosions are obtained, as seen in Figure 3. Neither the luminosities nor the neutrino spectra are free parameters. Our two-dimensional simulations implemented precomputed spherically symmetric (1D) multigroup flux-limited diffusion neutrino transport, compromising transport dimensionality to implement multigroup transport and a seamless transition between neutrino-thick and neutrino-thin regions, although without feedback between the hydrodynamics and the transport.

In light of the neutrino transport approximations made, the fact that none of the simulations have been three dimensional, and the mixed outcomes, next-generation simulations will have to reexplore neutrino-driven convection in the context of three-dimensional simulations that implement more realistic three-dimensional multigroup neutrino transport.

## 3 General Relativity, Rotation, <br>and Magnetic Fields

For discussions of the role of general relativity, rotation, and magnetic fields in supernova models, the reader may begin with the papers by Bruenn et al., Liebendörfer et al.,, Fryer and Heger, Khokhlov et al., and MacFadyen and Woosley.

## 4 Boltzmann Neutrino Transport (1D)

The neutrino energy deposition behind the shock depends sensitively not only on the neutrino luminosities but also on the neutrino spectra and angular distributions in the postshock region, necessitating exact multigroup Boltzmann neutrino transport near and above the neutrinospheres or a very good approximation of it. Ten percent variations in any of these quantities can make the difference between explosion and failure in supernova models. Past simulations have implemented increasingly sophisticated approximations to multigroup Boltzmann transport, the most sophisticated of which is multigroup flux-limited diffusion. A generic feature of this approximation is that it underestimates the isotropy of the neutrino angular distributions in the heating region and, thus, the heating rate. Therefore, the question arises whether or not failures to produce explosions in past one-dimensional models were the result of the transport approximations employed. It is important to note that, without invoking proto-neutron star (e.g., neutron finger) convection, simulations that implement multigroup flux-limited diffusion do not produce explosions (as we will discuss, the existence and vigor of proto-neutron star convection is a matter of debate).

To begin to address the question posed above, we have been simulating the core collapse, bounce, and postbounce evolution of 13, 15, and 20 M stars, beginning with the precollapse models of Nomoto and Hashimoto, with a new neutrino radiation hydrodynamics code for both Newtonian and general relativistic spherically symmetric flows: AGILE–BOLTZTRAN. BOLTZTRAN is a three-flavor Boltzmann neutrino transport solver, now extended to fully general relativistic flows. In the 13 M Newtonian (gravity) simulation we present here, it is employed in the $`O\left(v/c\right)`$ limit. AGILE is a conservative, adaptive mesh, general relativistic hydrodynamics code. Its adaptivity enables us to resolve and seamlessly follow the shock through the iron core into the outer stellar layers.

The equation of state of Lattimer and Swesty (LS EOS) is employed to calculate the local thermodynamic state and nuclear composition of the matter in nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE). For matter initially in the silicon layer, the temperatures are insufficient to achieve NSE. In this region, the radiation and electron components of the LS EOS are used, while an ideal gas of $`{}_{}{}^{28}\mathrm{Si}`$ is assumed for the nuclear component. For typical hydrodynamic timesteps ($`.1`$ millisecond), silicon burning occurs within a single timestep for T $`5\mathrm{GK}`$; therefore, when a fluid element exceeds a temperature of 5 $`\mathrm{GK}`$ in our simulation, the silicon is instantaneously burned, achieving NSE and releasing thermal energy equal to the difference in nuclear binding energy between $`{}_{}{}^{28}\mathrm{Si}`$ and the composition determined by the LS EOS.

Figure 4, taken from the simulation of Mezzacappa et al., shows the radius-versus-time trajectories of equal mass (0.01M) shells in the stellar iron core and silicon layer in a Newtonian simulation initiated from the 13 M progenitor. Core bounce and the formation and propagation of the initial bounce shock are evident. This shock becomes an accretion shock, decelerating the core material passing through it. At $``$ 125 ms after bounce, the accretion shock stalls at a radius $``$ 250 km and begins to recede, continuing to do so during the first 500 ms of postbounce evolution. No explosion has developed in this model during this time. Similar behavior is exhibited in our 15 and 20 M Newtonian models and in our 13 and 20 M general relativistic models, although these have not yet reached 500 ms after bounce. We will continue these simulations and report on the final outcomes in subsequent papers. If explosions are consistently obtained in the more realistic general relativistic cases, this would imply that core collapse supernovae driven purely by neutrino heating are possible, although these same models would have to be considered in three dimensions to assess whether or not multidimensional effects alter this conclusion and, of course, to model any associated phenomenology, such as neutron star kicks.

Figure 5 shows the time evolution of the three-flavor neutrino signal computed with Boltzmann neutrino transport shortly after shock breakout in our general relativistic simulation. We see the electron neutrino burst and the three-flavor emission develop from the hot, shocked mantle. This early evolution is a consequence of the time-dependent neutrino transport in semitransparent regions.

## 5 Outlook

Fundamental questions in supernova theory remain, which can only be answered via systematic and coordinated simulations in one, two, and three dimensions.

We have shown results from the first 500 ms of our one-dimensional (spherically symmetric) Newtonian simulation with Boltzmann neutrino transport initiated from a 13 M progenitor. In light of our implementation of Boltzmann transport, if we do not obtain explosions in this model, or other models we have initiated from different progenitors (see also Rampp and Janka), it would suggest that improvements in our initial conditions (precollapse models) and/or input physics are needed, and/or that the inclusion of multidimensional effects such as convection, rotation, and magnetic fields are required ingredients in the recipe for explosion. In the past, it was not clear whether failure in spherically symmetric models was the result of transport approximations or the lack of inclusion of important physics. With the implementation of Boltzmann transport, this conclusion can be made unambiguously. We will report on the continued evolution of our 13 M model and on our other models in subsequent papers.

Potential improvements in our initial conditions and input physics include: improvements in precollapse models; the use of ensembles of nuclei in the stellar core rather than a single representative nucleus; computing the neutrino–nucleus cross sections with detailed shell model computations; and the inclusion of nucleon correlations in the high-density neutrino opacities. These improvements all have the potential to quantitatively, if not qualitatively, change the details of our simulations. Thus, it is important to note that the conclusions drawn here are drawn considering the initial conditions and input physics used.

To accurately investigate multdimensional effects such as convection, rotation, and magnetic fields, future simulations must be carried out in three dimensions and must implement realistic, three-dimensional, multigroup neutrino transport. Three-dimensional simulations will be necessary to assess, for example, the vigor of convection in the proto-neutron star, where the neutrinos and the matter are strongly coupled and the flow is three-dimensional, and to assess the character of neutrino-driven convection behind the shock in a stellar core that is both rotating and convecting. Certainly, three-dimensional simulations are required to study the development of MHD jets in stellar cores, and given that the development of such jets depends in some scenarios on the convection in the proto-neutron star, which in turn will depend on the neutrino transport, all of these studies must be strongly coupled.

We have developed a general relativistic neutrino Boltzmann transport/radiation hydrodynamics code, AGILE-BOLTZTRAN, that can be used to study the supernova mechanism and nucleosynthesis, and to make accurate predictions of the neutrino signatures in supernovae and failed supernovae. In a model initiated from a 13 M progenitor, we have computed the early three-flavor neutrino signal, with general relativistic Boltzmann neutrino transport. We are currently running other models with different progenitor masses and will report on their dynamics and neutrino signatures in future papers.

## Acknowledgments

A.M. is supported at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. The author wishes to thank Michael Smith and Raph hix for valuable comments on the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Coherent quantum measurement for the direct determination of the degree of polarization and Polarization Mode Dispersion compensation

## I Introduction

One of the lessons of quantum information theory  is that coherent measurements generally provide more information than incoherent ones. And this is true even if the quantum systems under investigation are not entangled. Recall that coherent measurements are represented by operators whose eigenvectors are entangled. Consequently, coherent measurements, contrary to incoherent ones, necessarily treat several systems at once. Most known examples use spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, named in this context qubits. For instance, to determine the direction $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ of 2 spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in a pure but unknown state $`|\stackrel{}{m}|\stackrel{}{m}`$, Massar and Popescu  have proven that a specific coherent measurement provides the maximal possible fidelity , strictly better than all successive standard measurement, even if the second one is allowed to depend on the result of the first one. This is an intellectually attractive result! The game is possibly even more fascinating if one starts from 2 spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in pure, but opposite states $`|\stackrel{}{m}|\stackrel{}{m}`$ . But, admittedly, all known examples, in particular the above mentioned ones, are somewhat artificial. Also, in order to have a well defined and tractable problem, all examples assume simple a priori distributions (e.g. random directions, but pure state) and use as figure of merit the concept of fidelity , whose main quality is to be easy to compute.

In this letter, on the contrary, we consider a problem of great practical value and show that coherent measurements could provide a real advantage over all possible incoherent measurements schemes. Moreover, our proposal can be realized with today’s technology and has the potential of being made very compact and cost effective. The price to pay, conceptually, is that the figure of merit and the a priori distribution are not uniquely defined. The concept of optimal measurement is thus ill-defined.

The problem is to measure the Degree Of Polarization (DOP) of a single mode optical beam, e.g. at the output of a single-mode optical fiber. This is usually done indirectly, by measuring all 4 Stokes parameters. This is typically an incoherent measurement scheme: each photon is measured with a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) with detectors at each of the outports. For about a third of the photons the PBS analyses circular polarization, while for the second and last third of photons it analyses the photons in the horizontal-vertical and diagonal linear polarization bases, respectively. Such polarimeters are expensive, bulky, rather slow and require frequent recalibration. But one can easily convince oneself that there is no better way to measure the DOP if one treats each photon separately, i.e. if one uses incoherent measurements. Let us note that treating photons separately does not mean that one uses single-photon detector (actually, all commercial polarimeters use analog detectors sensitive to the photon flux); it means that the contribution of each photon is independent of all the others.

Now, assume we have 2 photons in the same unknown mixed state (we denote polarization states by vectors, using the Poincaré sphere representation):

$$\frac{\text{11}+\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\frac{\text{11}+\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}$$
(1)
where the DOP equals $`|\stackrel{}{M}|`$, $`0|\stackrel{}{M}|1`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ denote the Pauli matrices. The state (1) is clearly not entangled, but let us consider coherent measurements on such states. The overlap between the product state (1) and the archetype of entangled state, the singlet $`\psi ^{()}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|,|,\right)`$, reads:

$$\psi ^{()}|\frac{\text{11}+\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}\frac{\text{11}+\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}|\psi ^{()}=\frac{1|\stackrel{}{M}|^2}{4}$$
(2)
Consequently, a coherent measurement with the singlet state as eigenstate provides results directly related to the DOP. Intuitively this can be understood as follows. If the DOP is high, the photons are likely to have the same polarization and thus no overlap with the singlet state (recall that in a singlet state the 2 spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ are anti-correlated in all direction).

It is natural to ask whether the above coherent measurement is better in principle than a succession of two incoherent measurements. But, a priori the question seems ill defined because there is no natural a priori probability distribution for the DOP (for the direction of $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ we make the natural assumption of complete randomness, i.e. the direction is uniformly distributed). One possible distribution for the DOP could be uniform between 0 and 1. Another would assume that the vector $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ is uniformly distributed in the sphere equipped with the euclidean metric. But in fact the a priori distribution depends on the problem under consideration. In the next section we present the problem we have in mind and compute the corresponding probability distribution for the DOP.

## II Depolarization due to Polarization Mode Dispersion

Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) is presently one of the limiting factor in optical fiber communication systems (see  and reference therein). In particular, fibers installed in the 1980’s have rather large PMDs and there is an intense effort to develop PMD compensators . One difficulty is that PMD is a statistical quantity (see below), the compensator must thus be active. Ideally, the feedback parameter should be the Differential Group Delay (DGD), but the measurement time would be too long. Another possible feedback parameter is the DOP. There is thus a high interest in fast DOP measurement techniques. In addition to speed, typically in the microsecond domain, the measurement should operate at low powers ($`\mu `$W). In this section we briefly recall the origin of PMD, the basic concepts of Principal States (PS) and of Differential Group Delay (DGD)  and compute the induced depolarization. This provides the a priori DOP distribution for this case of great practical importance.

PMD is cause by small asymmetries in the fiber, hence locally there are two group velocities. This simple picture has to be combined with polarization mode coupling: the degeneracy between the 2 polarization modes of perfectly circular fibers is only slightly lifted by the asymmetry present in all real fibers. Consequently, the 2 polarization modes couple easily. Accordingly, the photons propagate partly in the fast mode, partly in the slow mode. The polarization mode coupling is very sensitive to any mechanical or thermal perturbation. Thus, in practice, it fluctuates and has to be considered as a statistical phenomenon. If the source is of very low coherence, the outcoming light is completely depolarized. If, at the other extreme, the source is monochromatic with optical frequency $`\omega `$, the beam propagating in the single-mode fibre is fully polarized, its polarization state $`\psi _\omega `$ resulting from complex interferences. In the realistic cases the optical spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is finite but small compared to the PMD. One can then show that there exists two mutually orthogonal privilege polarization modes, called the Principal States (PS) $`\psi _\omega ^{PS}`$, characterized by their stability to first order :

$$\frac{\psi _\omega ^{PS}}{\omega }=\pm \frac{i}{2}\delta \tau (\omega )\psi _\omega ^{PS}$$
(3)
where $`\delta \tau (\omega )`$ is the DGD, i.e. the relative delay between the two PS. Note that (3) implies $`\frac{}{\omega }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\psi _\omega ^{PS}}=0`$. Any incoming polarization state can thus be decomposed onto the two PS which then propagate without distortion (neglecting chromatic dispersion), but at slightly different velocities, as illustrated on Figure 1. Assuming incoming pulses of Gaussian shape, $`I(t)=I_0e^{t^2/2\sigma ^2}`$ with spread $`\sigma `$, the outcoming pulses in each PS read:

$`E_{fast}(t)=E_0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\eta }{2}}}e^{(t\tau _0\delta \tau )^2/4\sigma ^2}`$ (4)
$`E_{slow}(t)=E_0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta }{2}}}e^{(t\tau _0+\delta \tau )^2/4\sigma ^2}`$ (5)
where $`\tau _0`$ is the mean propagation time, $`E_0`$ takes into account the attenuation and $`\eta `$ denotes the relative intensity of each PS ($`\eta `$ is randomly distributed between -1 and 1). It is known that for fibers much longer than the mean polarization mode coupling length (in practice fibers longer than a few km), the DGD $`\delta \tau `$ is a random variable with Maxwell distribution :

$$\rho (\delta \tau )=\frac{3\delta \tau ^2}{\sqrt{\pi /6}(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )^3}exp(\frac{3\delta \tau ^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )^2})$$
(6)
where the rms DGD $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ is defined as the PMD.

The polarization state of the outcoming light can now by described by the following density matrix:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t(E_{fast}|fast+E_{slow}|slow)}`$ (8)
$`(E_{fast}fast|+E_{slow}slow|)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{11}+\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}`$ (9)
from which the DOP can be computed:

$$DOP=M|\stackrel{}{M}|=\left(\eta ^2+(1\eta ^2)e^{\delta \tau ^2/4\sigma ^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(10)
The DOP probability distribution can be computed from:

$$\rho (M)=\frac{d}{dM}Prob(DOPM)$$
(11)
where $`Prob(DOPM)=_0^{\mathrm{}}d(\delta \tau )\rho (\delta \tau )_{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}}^1𝑑\eta `$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{min}}^2=\mathrm{max}\{0,\frac{M^2e^{\delta \tau ^2/4\sigma ^2}}{1e^{\delta \tau ^2/4\sigma ^2}}\}`$. Figure 2 illustrates the corresponding DOP probability distribution for pulses with spread $`\sigma `$=10 ps and PMDs $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$=20, 30 and 40 ps.

## III implementation of the coherent measurement

Implementation of coherent measurements require 2-photon processes, i.e. non-linear optics. Efficient 2-photon absorption at telecom wavelength has been demonstrated using commercial devices . In these demonstrations, however, the two photons had to have a fixed polarization, determined by the geometry of the device. In order to have a selective 2-photon absorption for the singlet state, interference effects have to be exploited. This is clearly possible using either gas cells as suggested in  for Bell-state analysis, or using solid state devices . More generally, any of the configurations used to produce maximally entangled polarization states via parametric downconversion in nonlinear crystals could be used (see e.g. ), permuting the input and output, see figure 3. For the 1550 nm telecom wavelength, the upconverted photons around 775 nm can be detected with efficient Si avalanche photodiodes. Such simple configurations could be improved using cavities similar to the techniques used in optical parametric oscillators.

Note that since photons are bosons, two photons can be in the anti-symmetric singlet polarization state only if either they propagate in different modes , or they have different wavelengths. When photon pairs are prepared in the singlet state for quantum information experiments, they are usually send in different directions. But in the present case they arrive within the same optical pulse in the same single-mode optical fiber. Hence they can have a singlet component only if the optical spectrum is not arbitrarily sharp, in agreement with the fact that a single spatial mode of perfectly monochromatic light is always 100% polarized. Accordingly, a possibly convenient collinear configuration to measure the singlet component, hence to measure the DOP, consists in 2 type II crystals in series (type II means that the two photons have mutually orthogonal polarizations). The first crystal’s cut should be such that phase matching favors 2-photon absorption with the lower frequency photon polarized vertically, while the second crystal is such that 2-photon absorption is favorable when the lower frequency photon is polarized horizontally. The 2-photon absorptions in the 2 crystals are coherent in the sense that the upconverted photon results from the coherent superposition of the processes taking place in each crystal. The distance between the crystals can thus be adjusted such that only photon pairs in the singlet state are upconverted.

## IV Figures of merit

It is too early to assess the practical value of our proposal, though we plan to work on this issue. With enough engineering efforts, one can expect a compact device. This would be the first direct measurement of the DOP, usually measured indirectly via the 4 Stokes parameters. Accordingly, an improved accuracy to measurement-time ratio might be achieved.

On the conceptual side, let’s assume that one has 2 photons in state (1) where the direction of $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ is random and the DOP $`|\stackrel{}{M}|`$ a priori distribution follows (11). If the coherent measurement produces the outcome ”singlet”, then the a posteriori distribution reads:

$$\rho (M|singlet)=\rho (M)\frac{P(singlet|M)}{P_{singlet}}$$
(12)
where $`P_{singlet}=_0^1\rho (S)P(singlet|S)𝑑S`$ and $`P(singlet|M)`$ is given by (2). In this case the information gain is given by $`I_{singlet}H_0H_{singlet}`$ with the entropies $`H_0=_o^1𝑑M\rho (M)\mathrm{log}_2(\rho (M))`$ and $`H_{singlet}=_o^1𝑑M\rho (M|singlet)\mathrm{log}_2(\rho (M|singlet))`$. The case of ”triplet” outcome is similar. The mean information gain for coherent measurement is thus: $`I_{coh.}=P_{singlet}I_{singlet}+P_{triplet}I_{triplet}`$. This should be compared to the information gain using incoherent measurements. The optimal is obtained when measuring both photons in the same basis. The probability $`P(o_1=o_2|M)`$ that both photons produce the same result $`o_j`$ is then $`P(o_1=o_2|M)=\frac{3+M^2}{6}`$. We found numerically that the information gain using the coherent measurement is always larger than the obtainable gain using incoherent measurements. For PMDs of 20, 30 and 40 ps, the ratio $`I_{coh.}/I_{incoh.}`$ is 7.08, 5.69 and 5.23, respectively. For arbitrary large PMD, the ratio tends to 4.82.

A priori one could imagine that the proposed coherent measurement is optimal (from Shannon’s information point of view) in some cases, but not in others. However, Acin and colleagues  recently proved that it is optimal, whatever the a priori distribution is. This is a rather surprising result obtained in a research on the optimal estimation of 2-qubit entanglement.

## V Conclusion

Thanks to recent conceptual and technological progress, quantum physics starts to reveal its tremendous power for information processing. We presented a scheme based on quantum coherent measurements which provides direct information on the degree of polarization of a single mode optical beam. The measurement is feasible using similar nonlinear crystals as used for photon pair creation via parametric downconversion. The case where depolarization is due to polarization mode dispersion has been analyzed in detail, including the information gain compared to incoherent measurements. This example is of great practical relevance for today’s fiber optic communication systems.

## Acknowledgements

Financial support by the Swiss OFES within the European projects COST 265 and EQUIP (IST-1999-11053) are acknowledged. Help with the figures by Claudio Vinegoni was greatly appreciated.

## Figure Captions

1. Fig. 1 Principle of depolarization due to PMD. The incoming pulse (left of the fiber) is decomposed onto the fast and slow principal polarization states (right of the fiber, see text).
2. Fig. 2 Probability distribution for the DOP in case of Gaussian pulses with a spread of 10 ps and optical fibers with PMDs of 20 ps (full line), 30 ps (dahsed) and 40 ps(dotted line).
3. Fig. 3 A possible collinear configuration using two nonlinear crystal in series.


text:
# Q-Ball Collisions in the MSSM

## 1 Introduction

A scalar field theory with a spontaneously broken $`U(1)`$-symmetry may contain stable non-topological solitons, Q-balls. A Q-ball is a coherent state of a complex scalar field that carries a global $`U(1)`$ charge. In the sector of fixed charge the Q-ball solution is the ground state so that its stability and existence are due to the conservation of the $`U(1)`$ charge. In realistic theories Q-balls are generally allowed in supersymmetric generalizations of the standard model with flat directions in their scalar potentials. Q-balls have been shown to be present in the MSSM where leptonic and baryonic balls may exist and they may be formed in the early universe by a mechanism that is closely related to the Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.

Stable Q-balls can contribute to the dark matter content of the universe. These can be balls with charges of the order of $`10^{20}`$ but also very small Q-balls can be considered as dark matter. On the other hand decaying Q-balls can protect baryons from the erasure of baryon number due to sphaleron transitions by decaying after the electroweak phase transition. Q-ball decay may also result in the production of dark matter in the form of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSPs). This process may explain the baryon to dark matter ratio of the universe.

## 2 Q-ball solutions

Consider a field theory with a U(1) symmetric scalar potential $`U(\varphi )`$ that has a global minimum at $`\varphi =0`$ and the complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ carries a unit charge with respect to the $`U(1)`$-symmetry. The charge and energy of a field configuration $`\varphi `$ are given by

$$Q=\frac{1}{i}(\varphi ^{}_t\varphi \varphi _t\varphi ^{})d^3x$$
(1)
$$E=d^3x[|\dot{\varphi }|^2+|\varphi |^2+U(\varphi )].$$
(2)
The Q-ball solution is the minimum energy configuration at a fixed charge. If it is energetically favourable to store charge in a Q-ball compared to free particles, the Q-ball will be stable. Hence for a stable Q-ball, condition $`E<mQ`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the $`\varphi `$-scalar, must hold.

The Q-ball solution can be shown to be of the form $`\varphi (x,t)=e^{i\omega t}\varphi (r)`$, where $`\varphi (r)`$ is now time independent, spherically symmetric and real. $`\omega `$ is the so called Q-ball frequency, $`\omega [m,m]`$. Q-balls can be characterized by the value of $`\omega `$: the larger $`\omega `$ the larger the charge carried by the Q-ball.

## 3 Q-ball profiles

Q-balls and their cosmological significance have been studied in the MSSM mainly in two different types of potentials that correspond to SUSY broken by a gravity- or gauge-mediated mechanism.

The potentials in these two cases are respectively

$`U_{Gr}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2\varphi ^2(1K\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{M^2}}))+\lambda _1\varphi ^{10}`$ (3)
$`U_{Ga}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^4(1+\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{m^2}}))+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2^2}{m_{Pl}^2}}\varphi ^6.`$ (4)
The parameter values we have chosen are: $`m_1=10^2\text{GeV},K=0.1,\lambda _1=m_{Pl}^6,m_2=10^4\text{GeV},\lambda _2=0.5`$ The large mass scale, $`M`$, is chosen such that the minimum is degenerate.

Q-ball profiles are of different type in these two cases. In the gravity-mediated case the profiles are well approximated by a Gaussian ansatz. The radius of a Q-ball is only weakly dependent on charge and Q-balls are typically thick-walled. In the gauge-mediated case the profile of a ball is more dependent on charge and as charge increases the Q-ball profiles become thin-walled.

Q-ball profiles in the two cases have been plotted in figure 1 in two and three dimensions for different values of $`\omega `$.

## 4 Collisions

Collisions of Q-balls may play an important role in their cosmological history. After the Q-balls have been formed, collisions can alter the charge distribution significantly which in turn may have an effect on the importance of Q-balls to cosmology, e.g. if Q-balls fragment due to collisions they may evaporate and cannot be responsible for the dark matter content of the universe. Q-ball collisions have been previously considered analytically and numerically in various potentials. To address the cosmological issues, however, one needs to calculate cross sections in realistic potentials.

We have studied Q-ball collisions in the gravity- and gauge-mediated cases on a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional lattice for a range of Q-ball sizes (charges). As from figure 1 can be seen, the Q-ball profiles in two and three dimensions are similar and one can expect that the results obtained in these two dimensional simulations well approximate the results from the more realistic three dimensional calculations.

Collisions have been studied for a range of charges, relative phase differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$, and different velocities. In each case the colliding balls have equal charges. Collisions in both potentials have similar features: when the relative phase difference is small the balls fuse. In a fusion process some charge is typically lost as small lumps and radiation. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ increases the balls start to scatter while charge is transferred from one ball to the other. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ grows further the amount of transferred charge decreases until the Q-balls scatter elastically.

By varying the impact parameter the cross-sections for each process and the total cross-section have been calculated. The total, $`\sigma _{tot}`$, geometric, $`\sigma _G`$, fusion, $`\sigma _F`$, and charge-exchange, $`\sigma _Q`$, cross-sections averaged over the relative phase have been plotted in figures 3 and 3 for different $`\omega `$:s in the gravity- and gauge-mediated scenarios.

## 5 Conclusions

Q-ball collisions have been studied in the MSSM with supersymmetry broken by two different mechanisms. Even though the Q-balls in the two cases have differing characteristics, the qualitative features of a collision process are alike: Q-balls either fuse, exchange charge or scatter elastically. In both cases the relative phase difference between the colliding Q-balls determines the type of the collision.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the Finnish Center of Scientific Computing for computation resources. This work has been supported by the Finnish Graduate School in Nuclear and Particle Physics.