text:
# Storage Qubits and Their Potential Implementation Through a Semiconductor Double Quantum Dot

## I Introduction

Quantum systems serving as computational devices have been shown to potentially be able to perform information processing tasks intractable for devices relying on classical physics. This additional computational power provided by quantum information processing devices, i.e. quantum computers, has motivated a large number of different proposals for possible implementations (see  and references therein). A quantum computer should be able to perform a large number of gating operations within the typical decoherence time. One of the main problems with solid state quantum computer proposals based on the charge degrees of freedom, is to find a way to overcome the “fast” decoherence times. This is a general problem: coherent quantum manipulations (gating) usually implies a need for strong external coupling to the qubit degrees of freedom, on the other hand strong coupling usually causes fast decoherence. A major step in overcoming this problem has been recently proposed by Biolatti et al. . In their proposal they suggest ultrafast gate operations (UGO) using laser pulses to drive energy-selected interband optical transitions. In the UGO proposal the qubit is implemented using excitonic degrees of freedom. UGO is much faster than gating by time dependent electrical fields.

Our paper is concerned with the question of finding a possible scheme to measure the state of a qubit in a solid state quantum computation implementation: in fact a further requirement for a quantum computer realization is the possibility of performing projective measurements on qubits . For the purpose of error correction one would like to be able to perform intermediate projective measurements on single qubits, during the operation time of the quantum computer. For this to be possible, it is necessary to extract the information from a qubit on a time scale shorter than the decoherence time, $`T_2`$. Once again one faces the problem of short decoherence time. The problem, in this case, is even more acute since there is also a typical time, $`T_1`$, for the decay of the information in the qubit, due to the finite excitonic lifetime. Short $`T_1`$ limits the available time for the measurement process, even when no gating operations are being performed. There have been many recent proposals for measuring the quantum state of a solid state implemented qubit, using single-electron transistor (SET) , tunnel junctions  and ballistic point-contact detector . These proposals as well as other models,  which could be adapted to measure qubits implemented using quantum dots, involve continuous measurements schemes , i.e. schemes in which the current through the point-contact or SET is being continuously measured. Regarding the UGO proposal continuous measurements schemes suffer major drawbacks. Since measurement induces decoherence in the measured system, in the proposed measurement schemes there should be no net current flowing through the point-contact or SET until one decides to measure. Thus the measurement process involves switching on of electric fields, involving again time scales which are long compared to the decoherence time $`T_2`$, and the excitonic life time $`T_1`$. Furthermore in these proposed measurement schemes even when there is no net current flow through the measurement apparatus, i.e. no electric field, still there are current fluctuations. These current fluctuations induce a random electric potential in the qubit, i.e. decoherence. In this paper we will show a possible way to overcome these problems via the use of a “storage qubit”. First we will introduce the idea of the storage qubit, then the measurement of the qubit by the storage qubit will be described and finally we will present a possible implementation of the storage qubit using a double quantum dot (QD) structure.

## II Storage qubit

The idea of a storage qubit (S-qubit) is to transfer the information from the qubit to another qubit (the S-qubit) where the information can reside for a long time, i.e. the S-qubit posses a large $`T_1`$ compared to the original qubit. Moreover through the use of a S-qubit one can increase the spatial distance between the qubit and the measurement device, decreasing the decoherence rate when no measurement is taking place. Due to its relatively large $`T_1`$, the information inside the S-qubit can be extracted by the proposed continuous measurement schemes, without affecting the qubit. The S-qubit will measure the qubit in a time that is “short” compared to the decoherence time, and store the information. The generic way to describe this measurement is through the “controlled not” or c-not gate, which is also referred to as the measurement gate . The measurement of the qubit by the S-qubit is thus described in the following way:

$$(\alpha |0_{QB}+\beta |1_{QB})|0_{SQB}\alpha |0_{QB}|0_{SQB}+\beta |1_{QB}|1_{SQB},$$
(1)
where $`|i_{QB}`$ and $`|j_{SQB}`$ ($`i,jϵ\{0,1\}`$), are the qubit and S-qubit states respectively . This sort of measurement is just the standard Von Neumann measurement model in which the time evolution operator is the generator of translations in the pointer basis , and the shift in the pointer basis is made accordingly to the initial state of the qubit: if the qubit is initially in state $`|0_{QB}`$ the pointer state is shifted by $`0`$, if the qubit is initially in state $`|1_{QB}`$ the pointer is shifted by $`1`$.

## III Implementation of a storage qubit

We now consider a possible implementation of a S-qubit with the use of the double dot (DD) system described in a recent paper by Hohenester et al. . This proposed S-qubit could be used for measuring the quantum state of the qubit implementation proposed in the UGO scheme. We thus start by describing the computational subspace as defined accordingly to UGO proposal . The qubit is implemented through excitonic degrees of freedom in a QD. The two possible states of the qubit, $`|0_{QB}`$ and $`|1_{QB}`$ consist of the absence and presence of a ground-state exciton in the QD respectively.

The S-qubit designed to measure the excitonic state of the QD, consists of two coupled semiconductor QDs. Through the application of an external gate voltage a surplus hole occupies the DD system. The S-qubit states are thus defined as excess hole in right QD, $`|R`$ and excess hole in the left QD, $`|L`$ . The original symmetry between the two states is lifted through the application of an electric field $`F=15kV/cm`$ in the growth direction . Due to this field the energy levels are lowered in the left dot with respect to the right. For the measurement process of the qubit by the S-qubit we propose the use of coherent population transfer in coupled semiconductor QDs, as recently proposed in Ref. . The coherent population transfer (in this case the transfer of excess hole from the left to the right QD) is achieved through a Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage (STIRAP) . The idea is to use the Coulomb interaction, between the exciton in the QD and the surplus hole in the DD to detune the coherent population transfer in the DD (see Fig.1).

For the DD to be an implementation of a S-qubit one should check the following properties: first the measured information about the state of the QD stored inside the DD should be long-lived, that is states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$ should be long-lasting, i.e. the tunneling between them should occur on a much larger time scale than the decoherence process $`T_2`$, and the exciton recombination time $`T_1`$, in the QD. Second the measurement of the qubit by the S-qubit should be fast and reliable. For the measurement to be fast, the typical time for extracting information on the excitonic state of the QD should be much shorter than $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. For the measurement to be reliable, the energy shift of the DD states due to the existence of an exciton on the QD should be larger than the energy uncertainty of the laser pulses and larger than the typical width of the energy levels due to interaction with the environment.

It should be mentioned that in the coming sections the estimates presented are based on the same parameters used in Ref., except for the distance between the two QDs which has been extended to $`100\AA `$. This change of the distance between the dots will be discussed extensively when describing the measurement scheme.

### A Estimation of storage life time

We begin by showing that the states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$ are long lived. A rough estimate  of the tunneling rate, $`\nu `$, between these two states can be given by their overlap times an attempt frequency ($`\nu _0`$), $`\nu =\nu _0\mathrm{exp}\left(2r/\xi \right)`$, where $`r`$ is the distance between the two QDs and $`\xi `$ is the localization length.

$`\nu _0`$ is of the order of several pico-seconds and it can be approximated by $`\nu _0\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m_hl^2}`$, where $`l=50\AA `$ is the well width. The localization length can be estimated by $`\xi \frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2m_h(VE)}}`$, where $`VE=200meV`$ is the effective potential barrier between the two hole states and $`m_h=0.34m_0`$ ($`m_0`$ is the free electron mass) is the hole mass. Taking the distance between the two QDs to be $`r=100\AA `$, one gets a tunneling time of the order of one nano-second. The naive approximation for the tunneling time between the two DD states, $`|R`$ and $`|L`$, is orders of magnitude larger than the typical time $`T_2`$, for the QD exciton state.

In a more refined estimate of the tunneling time between the two hole states, one has to consider the effects of the coupling to the phonon environment. The major effect of the coupling to phonons is an activational process. As mentioned there is an applied external electric field in the growth direction. Due to this field the energy levels are lowered by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E20meV`$ in the left dot with respect to the right. Therefore there is a further exponential reduction term $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{k_BT})`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature and $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, when tunneling from $`|L`$ to $`|R`$. This factor is due to the fact that the tunneling is inelastic and one has to consider the probability of absorbing a phonon of energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Through this activational factor, for temperatures of the order of a few Kelvin, the time information is stored in state $`|L`$ is extremely long, and the transition between $`|L`$ to $`|R`$ is highly improbable .

### B Measurement using a STIRAP process

Before describing the proposed measurement process we give a short description of the STIRAP process in the DD structure. The STIRAP process consists of three states, two of which are the long-lived lower energy states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$, between which there are no dipole allowed transitions. Both these levels ( $`|R`$ and $`|L`$) are instead dipole coupled to a third, higher energy state, in this case a charged exciton state labeled $`|X^+`$. Through the use of two delayed laser pulses coherent population transfer can be achieved between $`|L`$ and $`|R`$ without ever occupying state $`|X^+`$. The first pulse (“Stokes”), is tuned to the $`R`$-$`X^+`$ resonance and the second pulse (“pump”) is tuned to the $`L`$-$`X^+`$ resonance.

For the STIRAP process to be effective the coupling of the excited state $`|X^+`$ to the two long lived states should be of the same order. Moreover the two long lived states should be non-degenerate. In Ref. this is achieved first by an electric field (in the growth direction) which lifts the original degeneracy of states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$ and second, whereas the hole states are localized, the electron wave function in the excited state $`|X^+`$ is split between the two QDs. This splitting of the electron wave function allows the coupling between the $`|X^+`$ state to the two states $`|R`$ and $`|L`$ to be of the same order. In our proposed scheme for an implementation of a S-qubit, we have increased the parameter for the spatial separation between the two wells to $`r=100\AA `$. This localizes the ground state and the first excited states of the electron in one of the QDs. To have an electron wave function  which is spread in a similar way over the two QDs, which is needed for an effective STIRAP process, one can think of two options. The first is using a charged exciton in which the holes are in the ground states in both QD and the electron is in a high energy level in the QD, i.e. comparable to the confining potential. Thus in this case the proposed $`|X^+`$ excited state of our implementation scheme is composed of two localized hole functions in the two QDs and an electron wave function which is split between the wells (see Fig.2).

A second possibility is to have the holes again in their ground state and the electron excited to a continuum level above the QD confining potential. In this case the charged exciton state is a hybrid state of a confined exciton state for the hole and a bulk exciton state for the electron. The typical length scales for the hole wave function are given in this case by the confining potential width, $`l=50\AA `$ and for the electron by the Bohr radius, $`a_B=95\AA `$. Both the above possible excited states for $`|X^+`$ are very susceptible to decoherence. Especially the hybrid state where the electron is in a continuum level bound to the hole by Coulomb interaction is prone to decoherence: in fact outside the QD the electron is not shielded by the QD confining potential from interacting with phonons or other decoherening mechanisms.

The measurement of the QD state (exciton or absence of exciton in the QD) is based on exploiting the Coulomb interaction between the exciton and the charged states in the DD, i.e. hole in left (right) dot and charged exciton. The idea is to use the shift of the energy levels in the DD due to Coulomb interaction with the QD, to detune the coherent population transfer, in a way similar to what is done in the c-not gating operation in Ref. . The presence of an exciton in the QD prevents the coherent transfer of the excess hole from the left QD to the right QD of our DD by detuning the STIRAP process (see Fig.1).

Concerning decoherence, one requires from the measurement device, i.e. the DD, to not decohere the QD when no measurement is taking place. This requirement is fulfilled since the presence of the hole in the DD apparatus does not disturb the QD states rather it causes a constant (time independent on the scale of the computation time) shift of the energy levels. Thus the measuring device will not affect the quantum computer when the measurement is not taking place.

Regarding the typical time on which the measurement takes place, the measurement of the state of the QD by the DD occurs on a time scale which is given by the duration of the laser pulses “Stokes” (“pump”) which induce the coherent population transfer. The duration of the laser pulses is of the order of $`10ps`$ . Thus the typical time for extracting information on the state of the QD is fast compared to the excitons dephasing and recombination times (the dephasing time being of the order of $`100ps`$ ).

### C Shift of the energy levels of the double quantum dot

The measurement process of the QD by the DD is done via the detuning of the STIRAP process. The STIRAP process is rather robust: since in the adiabatic limit its efficiency is unaffected by the perturbations of the virtual intermediate state and also it lacks sensitivity to small detuning of this state, still it is susceptible to detuning. In order for the STIRAP to take place one needs the adiabatic condition to be fulfilled, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau 1`$, where $`\tau `$ is the duration of the pulses overlap and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the typical Rabi frequency associated with the STIRAP process. A much stronger constraint is that the initial and final levels have to be in resonance in order to fulfill the energy conservation requirement during the transfer . For the measurement process we need the STIRAP to take place only when there is no exciton in the QD.

We shall now show how the existence of an exciton destroys the probability for a STIRAP process to take place by, first, detuning the intermediate level such that the adiabatic condition is not fulfilled, and, more important, by moving the final and initial levels out of resonance. When an (energy) detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ of the pump laser from resonance with the $`L`$-$`X^+`$ transition and a detuning of the Stokes laser from the $`R`$-$`X^+`$ transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ are introduced, the Hamiltonian for the three-level system within the rotating wave approximation introducing has the form

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}[(\mathrm{\Omega }_p|X^+L|+\mathrm{\Omega }_s|X^+R|+h.c)+2\mathrm{\Delta }_p|X^+X^+|+2(\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_s)|RR|],$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ are the coupling Rabi frequencies, corresponding to the pump and Stokes respectively.

We first consider the case when the two photon resonance condition applies, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p=\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. The instantaneous eigenstates and eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian Eq. 2 are given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|a_0=\hfill & \mathrm{cos}\theta |L\mathrm{sin}\theta |R,& \omega _0=0\hfill \\ |a_\pm \hfill & \mathrm{sin}\theta |L\pm \mathrm{cot}^{\pm 1}\varphi |X^++\mathrm{cos}\theta |R,& \omega _\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }_p\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\theta `$ is the mixing angle defined by, $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_p}{\mathrm{\Omega }_s}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is given by the detuning and Rabi frequencies and is of no importance in the ensuing discussion. $`|a_0`$ is referred to as the “dark state” since it includes no contributions from the “leaky state” $`|X^+`$.

The condition for an adiabatic transfer is given by $`|\omega ^\pm \omega _0|\tau 1`$. For the parameters used in the Hohenester et al.  paper ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,p}=1.0meV,\tau =10ps`$) when the the laser detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ becomes of the order of the effective Rabi frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{eff}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2}`$, the adiabatic condition is no longer fulfilled. In this case the STIRAP process is detuned when the levels in the DD are shifted such that the energy difference for the transition $`L`$-$`X^+`$ is shifted by more than $`1.0meV`$. When the adiabatic condition is no longer fulfilled one has a non-vanishing probability for occupying the leaky state. Once the leaky state is occupied there is high probability of a transition to a different state, i.e. not one of the three states used for the STIRAP process. In this way the hole transfer from the left QD to the right does not take place.

As described in the Appendix, we have estimated that, when the electron wave function of the excited exciton state is split between the two QD, then up to a distance of $`170\AA `$ between the QD and DD, the energy level shift in the DD due to the presence of an exciton in the QD is bigger than $`1.0meV`$ (see Fig.3). It is worthwhile to note that using an excited state which is a hybrid between a bulk exciton for the electron and a confined exciton for the hole we obtain an energy level shift in the DD bigger than $`1.0meV`$ for distances up to $`150\AA `$. It is therefore not crucial to get the excited electron localized inside the QDs, since from our estimates any excited electron state can provide the needed energy shift for distances up to $`150\AA `$. It is also interesting to note that the excited electron state which is split between the two dots, gives an energy shift which is quite similar to what one would obtain by using two point like charges (each of charge $`\frac{e}{2}`$) sitting in the center of the two dots (see Fig.3). This means that the point like approximation is quite good for the localized excited electron state.

For the case when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, the STIRAP process is destroyed much sooner. Taking even a small non zero $`ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Delta }_s1`$ one does not get a dark state any more. The zero eigenvalue moves to a value of the order of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_0\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2ϵ}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{eff}^2}`$ which changes the dark state, $`|a_0`$, such that it includes contributions from the leaky state, $`|X^+`$, which are of the same order as $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_0`$. Since in this case the energy conservation requirement is not fulfilled, i.e. the final and initial levels are not in resonance, in order to see if the STIRAP process takes place one needs to compare the energy uncertainty of the pulse with the difference in the energy shift of the initial and final states. Therefore the condition for the STIRAP to take place is given by $`ϵ\tau 1`$ . Since $`\tau =10ps`$ it would be enough to have the energy shift larger than $`0.5meV`$. In Fig.4 we show the difference in energy between the initial state, $`|L`$ and the final state, $`|R`$, of the DD when there is an exciton in the QD. This energy difference is much more susceptible to the existence of an exciton in the QD and is shown to be greater than $`0.5meV`$ up to distances of $`300\AA `$ between the QD and DD centers (for details of the calculation see the Appendix).

The reason for which it is much easier to detune the transition with respect to the initial and final states (hole in $`|L`$ , hole in $`|R`$) rather than the initial (or final) state with regards to the intermediate state is due to the different charge configurations. The intermediate, leaky, state ($`|X^+`$) couples in a weaker way to an exciton in the QD since the detuning is basically due to a dipole-dipole interaction, whereas for the initial and final states the detuning is due to a charge-dipole interaction.

A possible alternative measurement scheme is the use of a two $`\pi `$ pulse process. In this process one would first excite the system from the initial state to the intermediate, leaky, state via a $`\pi `$ pulse then using a further $`\pi `$ pulse drive the system from the intermediate state to the final state, i.e. hole in right QD. There are two strong arguments in favor of using the STIRAP over this alternative idea. First of all in order to use the two $`\pi `$ pulse method it is necessary to detune it, i.e. detune one of the two transitions involving the intermediate state. Since the coupling of this state to the exciton state in the QD is weaker, this method of implementing a measurement would be less effective. Second in variance to the STIRAP process using the two $`\pi `$ pulse process would involve the occupation of the intermediate, leaky, state, thus involving unwanted transitions, i.e. losses.

## IV Summary

To summarize, we have provided a measurement scheme which is fast compared to the short decoherence times typical of semi-conductor implementation schemes of a quantum computer. We have proposed the idea of a storage qubit which is used to measure the quantum computer’s qubit state and to store the information for a longer time so it can be extracted using conventional methods, e.g. using a SET  or a point contact . A possible implementation of a storage qubit using the stimulated Raman adiabatic passage process was presented. This implementation scheme was shown to fulfill all the necessary requirements for a storage qubit: the information is stored in the storage qubit for a much longer time scale than in the qubit, and it is possible to perform a fast and reliable measurement of the qubit by the storage qubit.

There are some issues concerning the scalability of the specific implementation scheme suggested for a storage qubit. One could argue that having a double quantum dot as a small measuring device for each quantum computer qubit might constitute a too strong constraint on the scalability of the quantum computer. This constraint on scalability is twofold: first one might question whether it is possible to arrange geometrically all these quantum dots and double quantum dots such that each quantum dot has a neighboring double dot and still have the possibility for an operating quantum computer. Secondly one might remark that qubits are difficult enough to construct and having such a measurement scheme enlarges the difficulty by at least a factor of two. These arguments are not overwhelming: first of all it is possible to conceive a geometrical configuration in which the quantum computer is arranged on a plane while the storage double dot structures are located in planes above and below it. Another possibility is to consider measuring only certain qubits in the quantum computer i.e. specific quantum dots. The information can be transferred to these measurable quantum dots in a cellular automaton sort of scheme.

## V Acknowledgments

We are grateful to P. Zoller, U. Hohenester, E. Biolatti and R. Ionicioiu for fruitful discussions. This work was supported in part by the European Commission through the Research Project SQID within the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme.

## Estimate of the shift of the transition frequency in the DD apparatus

In the appendix we first calculate the detuning of the pump laser from resonance with the $`L`$-$`X^+`$ transition, due to the shifting of the energy levels in the DD and then the difference in the energy shift of the initial and final states, both due to the presence of an exciton in the ”computing” QD (CQD). We begin by discussing the relative position of the two structures, the CQD and the DD: the presence of the hole state $`|L>`$ in the DD, will modify, through Coulomb interaction, the length of the dipole in the CQD. In this respect, growing the DD on the QD substrate in the direction opposite to the field, i.e. with the DD hole aligned and closer to the CQD electron than to the CQD hole, will induce a larger dipole in the CQD keeping the external field unchanged. This would affect in a positive way the quantum computing process since it could be used to enhance the biexcitonic shift between excitons in different CQD’s and a large biexcitonic shift is at the core of the quantum computing scheme proposed in Ref.. Therefore this is the arrangement we will consider in our calculations.

Since both structures (DD and CQD) are in the strong confinement regime, i.e. the typical length scale associated to the harmonic potential is much smaller than the effective Bohr radius, we can assume for $`|X^+`$ the factorized form $`|X^+=|L|X`$, where $`𝐫|X=\psi _e^{dd}(𝐫)\psi _h^{dd}(𝐫)`$ consists of a ground state hole in the right QD ($`\psi _h^{dd}(𝐫)`$) and an excited electron wave function $`\psi _e^{dd}(𝐫)`$. Similarly the exciton wave function in the CQD structure will be factorized as $`\psi _{exc}(𝐫)=\psi _e^{qd}(𝐫)\psi _h^{qd}(𝐫)`$, where $`\psi _{h(e)}^{qd}(𝐫)`$ is the hole (electron) single particle wave function.

It should be noted that the single particle wave functions we have defined are obtained solving the Schrödinger equation including the Coulomb interaction. As a first approximation the effects of Coulomb interaction on bounded, low energy states, i.e. the hole states in the DD and on the states in CQD, can be neglected. This is not the case for the excited electron wave function $`\psi _e^{dd}(𝐫)`$, whose shape is definitely influenced by the Coulomb interaction with the two holes.

Due to the factorization described above, the transition frequency shift will be given by the Coulomb interaction between the CQD exciton and $`|X`$, i.e. one does not need to consider the change in the left hole state $`|L`$ due to the state $`|X`$. The expression for the energy shift becomes:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{X^+}\mathrm{\Delta }E_L`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle d^3r_1d^3r_2d^3r_3d^3r_4\psi _e^{qd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏})^2\psi _h^{qd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})^2\psi _e^{dd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑})^2\psi _h^{dd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟒})^2}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟒}|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟒}|}}\right),`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{X^+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L`$ are, respectively, the energy shifts of states $`|X^+`$ and $`|L`$ due to the existence of an exciton in the CQD.

To calculate the expression (4), we assume a three dimensional Gaussian form for the ground state single particle wave functions $`\psi _e^{qd}`$, $`\psi _h^{qd}`$ and $`\psi _h^{dd}`$. In the quantum dot plane, in which the confining potential is modeled as a harmonic potential of frequency $`\mathrm{}\omega _i^j`$, $`i=e,h`$ and $`j=qd,dd`$, their width is given, as expected, by $`\lambda _i^j=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_i\omega _i^j}`$. The values used are $`\mathrm{}\omega _e^{qd(dd)}=30meV`$ for the electron states (both in the CQD and the DD) and $`\mathrm{}\omega _h^{qd}=24meV`$ for the hole state in the CQD and $`\mathrm{}\omega _h^{dd}=5meV`$ for the hole state in the DD . In the growth direction $`z`$, in which the potential is modeled as a square well large $`a`$, the width is taken to be $`\sqrt{z^2}`$, where the average is done over the ground state of the corresponding infinite square well. Replacing the wave functions in the $`z`$ direction by Gaussians in this way simplifies the calculations. This is a good approximation, since the difference between the two functions, i.e. single particle wave function and Gaussian approximation, is very small. For the excited, delocalized, state $`\psi _e^{dd}`$ we consider two different possibilities, the first corresponding to a state only weakly bounded (by the confining potentials) in the $`z`$ direction, the second to a state bounded (only due to Coulomb interaction) in the $`z`$ direction. In the first case, $`\psi _e^{dd}`$ is modeled as the sum of two Gaussians, each on them centered in one of the two dots of the DD structure. Their width in the in-plane directions is still given by the confining harmonic potential, i.e. $`\lambda _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{dd}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_i\omega _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{dd}}`$, while in the growth direction (instead of using $`\sqrt{z^2}`$) it is simply given by the box size $`a`$. This choice accounts both for the wider spreading of the excited state and for the fact that the state is still confined by the DD wells. In the second case, the in-plane structure of $`\psi _e^{dd}`$ remains the same, while its $`z`$ component is a Gaussian centered in the middle of the DD structure and of width $`100\AA `$, i.e. roughly the effective Bohr radius of the material.

In this approximation, the expression (4) can be reduced to a sum of two dimensional integrals, which are numerically easy to calculate. The calculation of the transition frequency shift (see Fig. 3) shows that, independently of the choice for $`\psi _e^{dd}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E1meV`$ when the distance between the two structures CQD and DD is of the order of $`150\AA `$.

The calculation of the difference in energy shifts of the states $`|L`$ and $`|R`$ is much simpler, since one has only to calculate the following expression

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_L\mathrm{\Delta }E_R`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle d^3r_1d^3r_2d^3r_3\psi _e^{qd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏})^2\psi _h^{qd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})^2\left(\psi _h^{dd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑})^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_h^{dd}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑})^2\right)}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑}|}}\right),`$ (9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_h^{dd}(𝐫)`$ is the ground state hole wave function in the right QD. Using the previous approximations, we obtain the detuning of the final and initial states presented in Fig.4 as a function of the distance between the CQD and DD.


format: text

text:
# NEW TEMPERATURES OF DIFFUSE INTERSTELLAR GAS: THERMALLY UNSTABLE GAS

## 1 Introduction

In 1977 McKee & Ostriker (MO) extended the two-phase model of Field, Goldsmith, & Habing (1969) by including supernovae (SN). Their interstellar medium (ISM) has four phases, if one includes the Warm Ionized Medium, and is dominated by individual SN explosions. The Hot Ionized Medium (HIM) fills the interior of SN remnants and powers their blast waves, which sweep up the gas inside the bubbles and pile it into the shells. Soon this shocked gas starts to cool and recombine rapidly, forming the Cold Neutral Medium (CNM). Soft X-rays produced by adjacent HIM penetrate the outsides of CNM clouds, heating the gas to form the Warm Neutral Medium (WNM).

The swept-up gas consists of two distinct neutral phases in physical contact, each in thermally stable equilibrium with equal thermal pressures. It is difficult to study such gas in individual SN remnants, but for superbubbles the general picture of hot gas inside a swept-out volume surrounded by dense walls is well corroborated by modern multiwavelength studies, for example in Eridanus (Heiles, Haffner, & Reynolds 1999).

Theoretical CNM and WNM temperatures are derived by calculating the equilibrium temperature as a function of thermal pressure. There exist two stable ranges of equilibrium, the CNM and the WNM with temperatures $`50`$ and $`8000`$ K, separated by a region of unstable temperatures (Wolfire et al 1995; WHMTB). Stable thermal pressure equilibrium, and thermal pressure equality between the phases, is a cornerstone of the MO theory.

Observational temperatures are derived in different ways for the CNM and WNM. For the CNM, the most accurate temperatures come from comparing 21-cm line absorption and emission profiles. The line opacity $`\frac{1}{T}`$; only the CNM produces significant absorption lines, while the CNM and WNM both contribute to emission. In contrast, most WNM temperatures are derived from linewidths. 21-cm linewidths provide upper limits to temperature, while in some cases combining them with heavy element linewidths from optical/UV spectra provides actual temperatures (see review by Heiles 2000).

Kulkarni & Heiles (1987; KH) summarized temperature measurements of the CNM and WNM, confining their analysis to 21-cm line absorption/emission measurements because very few UV data were available at that time. For the CNM, they discussed single-dish results in terms of the conventional interpretation of clouds within which the temperature increases outwards. As briefly discussed below, each derived temperature is the lowest one in its cloud. Expressed as histograms, these coldest-cloud derived temperatures are broadly distributed over the range $`20300`$ K (Mebold et al 1982, MWKG; Dickey, Salpeter, & Terzian 1978, DST; Payne, Salpeter, & Terzian 1982, PST). In addition, there is a weakly significant statistical relationship between the derived CNM temperature and the 21-cm line opacity, called the $`T\tau `$ relation. For the WNM, KH found that the limited data supported a lower limit $`5000`$ K, but they cautioned that the result needed confirmation.

In contrast, interferometric maps of a field around 3C147 (Kalberla, Schwarz, & Goss 1985, KSG) provide a completely different picture. For the CNM, the components are roughly isothermal and have colder temperatures ($`3474`$ K). For the WNM, which contributes $`80\%`$ of the mass, temperatures lie in the thermally unstable range ($`5002000`$ K). The high angular resolution should make these results reliable. However, such results are available in only a few fields. The fact that they conflict with the single-dish results is disturbing. The single-dish results are the ones always quoted in reviews because of their much larger statistical sample for the CNM; it is worth noting, though, that for the WNM the single-dish sample is no larger than the interferometric one.

Here we present a statistical summary of new single-dish temperatures. For the CNM they are derived from HI absorption/emission line data; for the WNM they are upper limits based on linewidths. We introduce a new analysis technique for absorption/emission observations. Our results are consistent with the 3C147 results. For the CNM, we find lower temperatures than previous single-dish workers; these are more in line with theoretical prediction for the CNM. For the WNM we find that most of the gas WNM is at thermally unstable temperatures; this disagrees with the MO theory.

## 2  New 21-cm Line Observations

### 2.1  Observations and reduction technique

Heiles and Troland (2001) are performing a survey of Zeeman splitting of HI absorption lines with the Arecibo telescope111The Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which is operated by Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.. These data have long integration times, which produces excellent signal/noise and makes them unsurpassed for obtaining temperatures. Our results are more accurate and cover more sources than the best previous surveys, which are the Arecibo work by DST222We find about half the DST absorption profiles to exhibit large differences from ours, with DST components being wider and multiply-peaked; some of DST’s profiles were corrupted by local oscillator stability problems (Dickey, private communication). This completely explains the disagreement of Greisen and Liszt (1986) with DST for 3C348. and PST, and the Bonn/NRAO work by MWKG. Here we report on 24 sightlines, 19 of which have $`|b|>20^{}`$ but otherwise are randomly selected within Arecibo’s declination range $`0^{}39^{}`$.

Each absorption spectrum consists of very obvious velocity components and we represent their optical depths by a set of $`N`$ Gaussians. Thus we least squares fit the observed spectrum $`\frac{T_{abs}}{T_C}=e^\tau `$, where

$$\tau =\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{N1}\tau _{0n}e^{[(VV_{0n})/\delta V_n]^2};$$
(1)
here $`\frac{T_{abs}}{T_C}`$ is the absorption profile divided by the continuum source strength and $`(V_{0n},\delta V_n)`$ are (central velocity, $`\frac{1}{e}`$ width) of component $`n`$. We assume that each component is an independent physical entity, and is isothermal. This is consistent with the findings of KSG.

Each HI emission spectrum contains structure but, also, is wider than its associated absorption spectrum, as is well known. We assume that the emission spectrum $`T_{em}=T_{CNM}+T_{WNM}`$, where $`T_{CNM}`$ is the contribution from the aforementioned CNM components. $`T_{WNM}`$ is the contribution from $`K`$ additional wide Gaussians to represent the WNM; $`K`$ is small number and often just one. The spin temperatures in these additional components are so high that they have negligible optical depth and produce no easily discernible features in the absorption spectrum.

In least-squares fitting the emission, we include the absorption of more distant CNM Gaussians by less distant ones. Letting $`T_n`$ be the spin temperature of component $`n`$, which is also the kinetic temperature,

$$T_{CNM}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{N1}T_n(1e^{\tau _n})e^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{M1}\tau _m},$$
(2)
where the subscript $`m`$ with its associated optical depth profile $`\tau _m`$ represents each of the $`M`$ CNM clouds that lie in front of cloud $`n`$. For multiple absorption components, we experiment with all possible orders along the line of sight and choose the one that yields the smallest residuals. We also include the absorption of each WNM component by the CNM by assuming that a fraction $`_k`$ lies in front of all the CNM and is unabsorbed, with the rest all lying behind; thus

$$T_{WNM}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{K1}[_k+(1_k)e^\tau ]T_{0k}e^{[(VV_{0k}/\delta V_k]^2},$$
(3)
where the subscript $`k`$ represents each WNM component. Note that $`T_{0k}`$ is a brightness temperature, not a kinetic temperature. In most cases $`_k`$ is indeterminant and we can only distinguish between the two extremes $`_k=(0,1)`$. The differences for different orderings are sometimes not statistically significant but nevertheless lead to differences in the derived CNM temperatures. These differences reflect the uncertainties in $`T_n`$ more than the conventional errors derived from least squares fits. Additional uncertainties can occur if there are unresolved subcomponents. We defer discussion of these details to the more comprehensive paper (Heiles and Troland 2001).

Previous single-dish authors, in contrast, implicitly assume that clouds are not isothermal. They derive the spin temperature of a cloud at the peak of its absorption profile. Thus each point on their histograms represents the lowest derived temperature for that particular cloud. This temperature, however, is not the coldest temperature in the cloud, because the line of sight also passes through warmer gas.

### 2.2  Sample result: 3C18

Figure 1 exhibits the results for 3C18 \[located at $`(\mathrm{},b)=(119^{},53^{})`$\], which is a simple profile and good for an illustrative example. In the top panel the solid line is the observed absorption spectrum $`\frac{T_{abs}}{T_C}`$, which we fit with the three CNM components whose depths and halfwidths are indicated; the dash-dot line is the fit. In the bottom panel the solid line is the observed emission spectrum $`T_{em}`$. The dashed curve is $`T_{CNM}`$; the dotted is $`T_{WNM}`$ fit with $`K=1`$, which is unabsorbed by the CNM because the lowest residuals are obtained with $`=1`$. The full fitted curve is the sum, shown as dash-dot, which is a good fit except in the extreme line wings where stray radiation makes the data suspect (e.g. Hartmann & Burton 1997).

For 3C18, the WNM component has halfwidth 10.0 km s-1, which corresponds to purely thermal broadening at $`T=2200`$ K; this is an upper limit on the kinetic temperature $`T_K`$. For the three CNM components, left-to-right on Figure 1, the halfwidths are $`(2.5\pm 0.03,6.3\pm 0.07,1.1\pm 0.15)`$ km s-1 and spin temperatures are $`32\pm 1`$, $`43\pm 6`$, and $`46\pm 9`$ K. The ratios of total linewidth to thermal linewidth are $`(2.04\pm 0.07,4.50\pm 0.63,0.75\pm 0.18)`$; the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty on the last ratio is statistically consistent with a ratio $`1`$, as it must be. The (WNM, CNM) components contribute $`N(HI)=(3.2,1.8)\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, respectively. The WNM/CNM ratio is $`1.8`$, which is close to our global average.

### 2.3  Our ensemble of WNM temperatures

Our 49 WNM components have linewidths that correspond to upper limits on the kinetic temperature. The top two panels of Figure 2 exhibit histograms of these limits, one for number of components and one for column density. Not included on these histograms is one absorption component for which the spin temperature was derived: $`T_{spin}=725`$ K, $`N(HI)=1.4\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. Including this, 20 of the WNM components ($`40\%`$) have $`T_K=5005000`$ K. These contain $`>47\%`$ of the total WNM column density; this is a lower limit because the WNM temperatures are upper limits. Because these components are not visible in absorption, their spin temperatures exceed $`500`$ K. This range, $`5005000`$ K, is approximately the thermally unstable range that separates CNM from WNM.

### 2.4  Our ensemble of CNM temperatures

Our 86 CNM temperatures are derived from absorption/emission data and are values, not upper or lower limits. The bottom two panels of Figure 2 exhibit histograms of these temperatures. The two histograms exhibit broad peaks in the range $`T=2575`$ K. 47 of the CNM components ($`54\%`$) have temperatures in this range; these contain $`61\%`$ of the total CNM column density. We also see colder gas: 10 components ($`11\%`$) containing $`5\%`$ of the mass have $`T=1025`$ K. We discount the four small-$`N(HI)`$ components having $`T<10`$ K: they are weak and the temperatures have large errors. We find no support for the weakly significant $`T\tau `$ relation reviewed by KH.

### 2.5  Ratio of CNM and WNM components and mass

For WNM gas ($`T>500`$ K), we found 49 components with total $`N(HI)=107\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. For CNM gas ($`T<200`$ K) we found 80 components having a total $`N(HI)=65\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. In the mildly ambiguous range $`T=200500`$ K we found 6 components with total $`N(HI)=7.5\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. Thus, the ratio of CNM to WNM is, in terms of number of components, 1.6; in terms of mass, 0.60. Overall, our results indicate that about $`60\%`$ of all the neutral atomic ISM is WNM, with $`T>500`$ K.

### 2.6  Temperatures from optical/UV absorption line observations

To derive kinetic temperatures from an atomic optical/UV absorption line, one decomposes it into Gaussian components. Then one does the same with the 21-cm emission line toward the star, fixing the central velocities to be the same. The comparison of line widths separates the thermal and turbulent broadening. The derived temperatures are upper limits because the HI line comes from a much larger angular area so the nonthermal component of its width may be larger than that of the heavy element lines. Such temperatures are probably the best one can do for the WNM, but for CNM gas they are much less accurate than those derived from 21-cm absorption/emission line data.

Spitzer & Fitzpatrick (1995) and Fitzpatrick & Spitzer (1997) use this technique towards two high-latitude stars and derive temperatures and column densities for 21 diffuse neutral components. Of this total, 3 components have $`T>5000`$ K, 13 have $`T<500`$ K, and 5 have $`T`$ in the unstable $`5005000`$ K range; thus, $`24\%`$ of the components are thermally unstable; these contain $`63\%`$ of the mass.

One can derive excitation temperatures of the low-J states of H2 using UV absorption lines (Shull et al 2000; Spitzer, Cochran, & Hirshfeld 1974). These tend to agree with previous 21-cm line temperatures and are systematically higher than ours. If our temperatures are correct, then the low-J states are nonthermally populated, as are the high-J ones.

## 3 DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON WITH THEORY

### 3.1  The WNM

Both our new HI and the optical/UV observations show that much of the WNM—at least $`47\%`$—lies at temperatures that are unstable to isobaric perturbations. Our Arecibo data show this departure from thermal stability in a statistically convincing manner. Previous 21-cm line studies have hinted at this result. In emission/absorption studies, MWKG decomposed emission line profiles into Gaussians, with similar results; however, they didn’t explicitly point out this departure. Verschuur & Magnani (1994) and Heiles (1989) analyzed emission profiles and found numerous components with widths in this range, but without absorption data could not conclusively state that the kinetic temperatures were indeed so high.

The large fraction of WNM in the thermally unstable regime violates a fundamental cornerstone of equilibrium ISM models such as MO, which all rely on thermal pressure equilibrium to push the gas into one of the thermally stable CNM or WNM phases. This result seems to push us towards other types of model. Two possibilities include time-dependent models such as the supernova-dominant model of Gerola, Kafatos, and McCray (1974) and turbulence-dominated models such as Vázquez-Semadeni, Gazol, & Scalo (2000).

### 3.2  The CNM

Figure 2 exhibits the histogram of derived spin temperatures for all CNM components. Both most of the components and most of the mass have $`T=2575`$ K. This is in marked contrast to previous results, where histograms were broad over the ranges $`20140`$ K (MWKG) and $`50300`$ K (DST, PST). Our range is narrower and, moreover, temperatures extend to very low values, with significant contributions down to $`T=10`$ K.

The peak above $`T25`$ K agrees very well with the high angular resolution results of KSG and, also, theory. WHMTB included all known processes in calculating their standard model, for which the CNM equilibrium temperatures range from $`25200`$ K (the corresponding densities are $`n_{HI}10004`$ cm-3). Our observed temperature range is smaller and corresponds to $`n_{HI}25020`$ cm-3 and $`\frac{P}{k}=100001500`$ cm-3 K. These numbers are in accord with ISM pressure measurements (Jenkins, Jura, & Lowenstein 1983).

Temperatures as low as our $`1020`$ K range can occur in the absence of the PAH-type grains that produce grain heating (WHMTB; Bakes and Tielens 1994). In this case, heating is by photoionization of Carbon and cooling by electron recombination onto ionized Carbon (Spitzer 1978). Such cold (and even colder) gas was invoked by Heiles (1997) to help understand the existence of tiny-scale atomic structure; the present results are encouraging for that interpretation.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge conversations with John Dickey, Alex Lazarian, Jeff Linsky, Chris McKee, Paolo Padoan, Tom Troland, Enrique Vázquez-Semadeni, and Ellen Zweibel. This work was partly supported by NSF grant AST9530590 to the author.


text:
# Interaction between Noncommutative Open String and Closed-String Tachyon

## I. Introduction

The concept of a quantized spacetime was first proposed by Snyder , and has received much attention over the past few years \[2-6\]. Especially interesting is a model of open strings propagating in a constant antisymmetric $`B`$ field background. Previous studies show that this model is related to the noncommutativity of D-branes , and in the zero slope limit to noncommutative gauge theories .
In the present paper we would like to construct a vertex operator which describes an emission of the ground-state tachyon of the closed string out of the noncommutative open string. Such a vertex operator has been considered in the ordinary open string theory , and for the emission of a graviton in the literatures ,. Let us call such a tachyon the closed-string tachyon. Contrary to the open-string tachyon, the closed-string tachyon can be emitted from any point of the open string. The vertex operator contains a multiplicative coupling constant $`g(\sigma )`$, which depends on $`\sigma `$ as $`g(\sigma )=\mathrm{sin}^2\sigma `$ in $`0\sigma \pi `$. When the constant antisymmetric $`B`$ field is present, the open string becomes noncommutative at both end-points. In this case we will find that such a vertex operator exists only when the momentum of the closed-string tachyon is subject to some constraints coming from the background $`B`$ field.
In Sec.II the model of noncommutative open string is summarized. In Sec.III we construct the vertex operator for the closed-string tachyon. The final section is devoted to concluding remarks.

## II. Noncommutative open string

In order to fix notations let us summarize the model of bosonic open string propagating in a constant antisymmetric $`B`$ field background. In the conformal gauge the world sheet action of the open string is

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2\sigma [\eta _{\mu \nu }_\alpha X^\mu ^\alpha X^\nu ϵ^{\alpha \beta }B_{\mu \nu }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu ],$$
(2.1)
where $`\eta _{00}=1`$,$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an oriented world-sheet with boundary (signature (-1, 1)) and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is assumed to be constant. For simplicity we have set $`2\alpha ^{}=1`$. The equation of motion and boundary conditions follow from this action

$$_\alpha ^\alpha X^\mu =0,$$
(2.2)
$$\eta _{\mu \nu }X^\nu +B_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\nu |_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0.$$
(2.3)
We are looking at a D25-brane with the constant $`B`$ field. From (2.2) and (2.3) one obtains the following solution

$$X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=q^\mu +a_0^\mu \tau +(\frac{\pi }{2}\sigma )B_\nu ^\mu a_0^\nu +\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in\tau }(ia_n^\mu \mathrm{cos}n\sigma B_\nu ^\mu a_n^\nu \mathrm{sin}n\sigma ).$$
(2.4)
The conjugate momentum is given by

$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}(\eta _{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\nu +B_{\mu \nu }X^\nu )`$ (2.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}G_{\mu \nu }a_n^\nu e^{in\tau }\mathrm{cos}n\sigma ,`$
where

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }B_\mu ^\rho B_{\rho \nu }.$$
(2.6)
According to the Dirac quantization for this constrained system,, we obtain the following commutation relations:

$$[X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),P_\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _c(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})$$

$$[P_\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),P_\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=0,$$
(2.7)
$$[X^\mu (\tau ,\sigma ),X^\nu (\tau ,\sigma ^{})]=i\pi \theta ^{\mu \nu }\{1ϵ(\sigma +\sigma ^{})\},$$

where $`ϵ`$ is the sign function, and the noncommutative parameter $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is defined as

$$\theta ^{\mu \nu }=B_\rho ^\mu (G^1)^{\rho \nu }.$$
(2.8)
From (2.7) one finds commutators for normal modes

$$[a_m^\mu ,a_n^\nu ]=m\delta _{m+n,0}(G^1)^{\mu \nu },$$

$$[q^\mu ,a_n^\nu ]=i\delta _{n,0}(G^1)^{\mu \nu },$$
(2.9)
$$[q^\mu ,q^\nu ]=0.$$

Now let us write (2.4) as follows111There is an ambiguity in the zero mode when $`X(\tau ,\sigma )`$ is divided into $`X_+`$ and $`X_{}`$. However, there causes no effect in the result.:

$$X(\tau ,\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}[X_+(\tau +\sigma )+X_{}(\tau \sigma )],$$

$`X_+`$ $`=`$ $`q+(a_0Ba_0)(\tau +\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}Ba_0+i{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}e^{in(\tau +\sigma )}(a_nBa_n),`$ (2.10)
$`X_{}`$ $`=`$ $`q+(a_0+Ba_0)(\tau \sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}Ba_0+i{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}e^{in(\tau \sigma )}(a_n+Ba_n).`$
In the following we use a complex number $`z=e^{\tau +i\sigma }`$. By the replacement $`\tau i\tau `$ in (2.10) we have

$$X_+(z)=q+\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{sinh}\beta \alpha _0ie^\beta \alpha _0\mathrm{ln}z+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}z^ne^\beta \alpha _n,$$

$$X_{}(\overline{z})=q+\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{sinh}\beta \alpha _0ie^\beta \alpha _0\mathrm{ln}\overline{z}+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}\overline{z}^ne^\beta \alpha _n,$$
(2.11)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha _n`$ are defined by

$$B=\mathrm{tanh}\beta ,$$

$$a_n=\mathrm{cosh}\beta \alpha _n.$$
(2.12)
The ”metric” $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ in (2.6) is related to the ”vielbein” $`\xi =\mathrm{cosh}^1\beta `$ through equations

$$G=1B^2=1\mathrm{tanh}^2\beta =\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta =\xi \xi .$$
(2.13)
Commutation relations for $`\alpha _n`$ and $`q`$ are

$$[\alpha _m,\alpha _n]=m\delta _{m+n,0},$$

$$[q,\alpha _0]=i\mathrm{cosh}\beta .$$
(2.14)
The Virasoro operator is then given by the energy-momentum tensor $`T_\pm (z)`$

$$L_n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑zz^{n+1}T_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{2}:\alpha _k\alpha _{nk}:,$$

$$T_\pm (z)=\frac{1}{2}:J_\pm (z)^2:,$$
(2.15)
$$J_\pm (z)=i_zX_\pm (z)=e^\beta \alpha _nz^{n1}$$

and satisfies the same Virasoro algebra as in the ordinary open string theory without the $`B`$ field.

## III. Vertex operator for closed string tachyon

Let $`V(z,\overline{z})`$ be the vertex operator which describes the emission of the closed string tachyon out of the noncommutative open string. The Virasoro operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}(f)`$ of this interacting system is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(f)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma (\stackrel{~}{T}_{00}f^0+\stackrel{~}{T}_{01}f^1),$$
(3.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor with

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{00}=\frac{1}{2}:(\dot{X}^2+X^2):+V,\stackrel{~}{T}_{01}=:\dot{X}X^{}:,$$
(3.2)
and $`f^\alpha `$ is expressed by an arbitrary function $`f(\tau \pm \sigma )`$ as

$$f^0=\frac{1}{2}[f(\tau +\sigma )+f(\tau \sigma )],f^1=\frac{1}{2}[f(\tau +\sigma )f(\tau \sigma )].$$
(3.3)
All operators are considered in the interaction picture. Equation (3.1) can be rewritten into the free Virasoro operator plus the vertex part

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(f)=L(f)+V(f),$$
(3.4)
where

$$L(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\sigma f(\tau +\sigma ):\frac{1}{2}(\dot{X}+X^{})^2:,$$

$$V(f)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma f^0(\tau ,\sigma )V(\tau ,\sigma ).$$
(3.5)
Note that $`V(\tau ,\sigma )`$ is not an even function of $`\sigma `$. In the complex number

$$L(f)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑zzf(z)T_\pm (z).$$
(3.6)
Here the integration path is a closed path around the origin.
The operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}(f)`$ should satisfy the Virasoro algebra

$$[\stackrel{~}{L}(f),\stackrel{~}{L}(g)]=i\stackrel{~}{L}(f\stackrel{}{}g)+\text{anomaly term}.$$
(3.7)
This is equivalent to following equations:

$$[L(f),V(g)][L(g),V(f)]=iV(f\stackrel{}{}g),$$
(3.8)
$$[V(f),V(g)]=0.$$
(3.9)
In the following we look for the vertex operator which satisfies Eqs.(3.8) and (3.9). Let us assume

$$V(z,\overline{z})=U_+(z)U_{}(\overline{z})$$
(3.10)
and

$$U_\pm (w)=:\mathrm{exp}\{ikX_\pm (w)\}:.$$
(3.11)
We then calculate the operator product expansion of $`T_\pm (z)`$ and $`U_\pm (w)`$. First we find the contraction

$$<X_\pm (z)X_\pm (w)>=\mathrm{ln}(zw)(e^\beta \mathrm{cosh}\beta 1)\mathrm{ln}z+\text{const}.$$
(3.12)
If we define $`\varphi _\pm (w)`$ by $`\varphi _\pm (w)=ikX_\pm (w)`$, then it follows that

$$<J_\pm (z)\varphi _\pm (w)>=\frac{1}{zw}k+(e^\beta \mathrm{cosh}\beta 1)k\frac{1}{z}.$$
(3.13)
Since

$$<J_\pm (z)U_\pm (w)>=<J_\pm (z):\mathrm{exp}\varphi _\pm (w):>=<J_\pm (z)\varphi _\pm (w)>\frac{U_\pm (w)}{\varphi _\pm (w)},$$
(3.14)
one gets, dropping the $`\pm `$ suffices,

$`<T(z)U(w)>`$ $`=`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:J(z)J(z):U(w)>`$
$`=`$ $`:J(z)<J(z)U(w)>:+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J(z)^{}J(z)^{}U(w)^,`$
$`=`$ $`i_zX(z)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zw}}k+(e^\beta \mathrm{cosh}\beta 1)k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}]{\displaystyle \frac{U(w)}{\varphi (w)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[]^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2U(w)}{\varphi ^2(w)}}.`$
The first $`1/(zw)`$ term becomes

$$_z\varphi (z)\frac{1}{zw}\frac{U(w)}{\varphi (w)}=\frac{1}{zw}_wU(w)+\text{regular term}.$$
(3.16)
The second $`1/z`$ term is regular around $`z=w`$. The third bracket squared-term reduces to

$$[]^2=[\frac{1}{zw}k\overline{\beta }k\frac{1}{z}]^2=\frac{k^2}{(zw)^2}2\frac{k\overline{\beta }k}{zw}\frac{1}{z}+\frac{k\overline{\beta }^2k}{z^2},$$
(3.17)
where

$$\overline{\beta }1e^\beta \mathrm{cosh}\beta .$$
(3.18)
To sum up we have the operator product expansion

$$T(z)U(w)=\frac{k^2/2}{(zw)^2}U(w)+\frac{1}{zw}_wU(w)\frac{k\overline{\beta }k}{zw}\frac{1}{z}U(w)+\text{regular term}.$$
(3.19)
The third term in the right-hand side violates the conformal covariance of $`U(w)`$. So, in the following we will put a constraint for the momentum $`k`$

$$k\overline{\beta }k=0.$$
(3.20)
Thus we find that the vertex operator $`U(w)`$ has the conformal weight $`h=k^2/2`$. The equation (3.19) without the third term is equivalent to the equation

$$[L(f),U(w)]=(k^2/2)[wf(w)]U(w)+wf(w)U(w).$$
(3.21)
When

$$k^2=2,$$
(3.22)
the right-hand side becomes a total derivative $`[wf(w)U(w)]`$. Compatibility of (3.22) with (3.20) will be discussed later. In this case one finds the equation

$$[L(f),V(w,\overline{w})]=_w[wf(w)V(w,\overline{w})]+_{\overline{w}}[\overline{w}f(\overline{w})V(w,\overline{w})].$$
(3.23)
In the real time formulation the right-hand side can be written as

$`i_\alpha [f^\alpha V]+2f^0V`$ $`=`$ $`i_0[f^0V]i_1[f^1V]+2f^0V`$
$`=`$ $`i_0f^0Vif^0_0Vi_1[f^1V]+2f^0V`$
$`=`$ $`i_1f^1Vi_0f^0Vi_1[f^1V]+2f^0V,`$
so that we obtain

$$[L(f),V(g)]=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑\sigma g^0\{i_\sigma f^1Vif^0_\tau Vi_\sigma (f^1V)+2f^0V\}.$$

Hence there holds

$`[L(f),V(g)][L(g),V(f)]`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }d\sigma g^0[_\sigma f^1V+_\sigma (f^1V)](fg)`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }d\sigma [g^0_\sigma f^1f^1_\sigma g^0]V(fg)`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }d\sigma [f^1_\sigma g^0+f^0_\sigma g^1]V(fg)`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }d\sigma [(fg)(\tau +\sigma )+(fg)(\tau \sigma )]V(fg)`$
$`=`$ $`iV(f\stackrel{}{}g).`$
This assures Eq.(3.8).
Now let us discuss the compatibility of Eq.(3.20) with Eq.(3.22). The Eq.(3.18) can be rewritten as

$$\overline{\beta }=\pm e^\beta \mathrm{sinh}\beta .$$
(3.26)
Hence Eq.(3.20) is equivalent to the equation

$$B_{\mu \nu }k^\nu =0.$$
(3.27)
This gives $`k_i=k_j=0`$ for $`i,j`$ with $`B_{ij}0`$ for the canonical form. The on-shell condition $`k^2=2`$ holds only with the elements in the subspace $`B_{ij}=0`$. \[A possible four-dimensional example satisfying these two conditions is $`(k_0,k_1,0,0)`$ with $`k_1^{2}k_0^{2}=2`$ for $`B_{01}=0`$, $`B_{23}0`$. The three-dimensional momentum $`(k_1,0,0)`$ turns out to be in the direction of the magnetic field $`(B_1B_{23},0,0)`$.\] From the constraints (3.20) and (3.22) one can deduce

$$2=ke^{\pm \beta }\mathrm{cosh}\beta k=ke^{\pm 2\beta }k=k\mathrm{cosh}2\beta k.$$
(3.28)
Let us then rewrite the vertex operator $`V(z,\overline{z})=U_+(z)U_{}(\overline{z})`$ into the normal product. Making use of the formulas (3.28) we have

$`V(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`:e^{ikX_+(z)}::e^{ikX_{}(\overline{z})}:`$ (3.29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(z\overline{z})^2}{z\overline{z}}}:e^{ik[X_+(z)+X_{}(\overline{z})]}:={\displaystyle \frac{(z\overline{z})^2}{z\overline{z}}}:e^{2ikX(z,\overline{z})}:.`$
Here, $`K2k`$ corresponds to a momentum of an external field coupled to the noncommutative open string $`X(z,\overline{z})`$. Since $`K^2=(2k)^2=8`$ ( we have set $`2\alpha ^{}=1`$), this means that the external field is the ground-state tachyon of the closed string. The coupling constant factor $`g(\sigma )=(z\overline{z})^2/z\overline{z}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\sigma `$. This behavior is the same as in the ordinary open string theory without the $`B`$ field.
Finaly it still remains to check Eq.(3.9). This equation is true if vertex operators $`V(z,\overline{z})`$ and $`V(w,\overline{w})`$ are commutable with each other. In order to see this, let us note the following equations:

$$U_+(w)U_{}(\overline{z})=\frac{(w\overline{z})^2}{w\overline{z}}:U_+(w)U_{}(\overline{z}):=U_{}(\overline{z})U_+(w),$$
(3.30)
$$U_\pm (z)U_\pm (w)=\frac{(zw)^2}{zw}:U_\pm (z)U_\pm (w):=U_\pm (w)U_\pm (z).$$
(3.31)
By using these equations one can see

$`[V(z,\overline{z}),V(w,\overline{w})]`$ $`=`$ $`[U_+(z)U_{}(\overline{z}),U_+(w)U_{}(\overline{w})]`$ (3.32)
$`=`$ $`U_+(z)[U_{}(\overline{z}),U_+(w)]U_{}(\overline{w})+U_+(w)[U_+(z),U_{}(\overline{w})]U_{}(\overline{z})`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
This proves Eq.(3.9).

## IV. Concluding remarks

We have drived the vertex operator (3.29) which describes an emission of the closed-string tachyon out of the noncommutative open string. Such a vertex operator has been shown to exist only when the momentum of the closed-string tachyon is subject to the constraints Eqs.(3.20) and (3.22). The vertex operator has a multiplicative coupling constant given by $`g(\sigma )=\mathrm{sin}^2\sigma `$, $`0\sigma \pi `$. This behavior is the same as in the ordinary open string theory without the $`B`$ field.
The external closed-string tachyon field has been seen to couple only with those components (for the four-dimensional example in Sec.III: $`X_0`$, $`X_1`$) of the open string coordinates, which are not coupled with the $`B`$ field. The system breaks down into two dynamically independent subsystems: one consisting of the components (for the four-dimensional example in Sec.III: $`X_2`$, $`X_3`$) of $`X`$ coupled with the $`B`$ field and the other consisting of the remaining components ($`X_0`$, $`X_1`$ ) coupled with the closed-string tachyon. This seems to be the reflection of the general feature of the string interaction that the closed string cannot be coupled with the massless vector which is a member of the open string, since there does not exist a vertex of the type ”closed-closed-open”.
The graviton is also coupled with the noncommutative open string. In the standard weak field approximation of the gravitational field $`g_{\mu \nu }(X)`$, the vertex operator is given as

$$V=ϵ_{\mu \nu }J_+^\mu (z)U_+(z)U_{}(\overline{z})J_{}^\nu (\overline{z})=ϵ_{\mu \nu }J_+^\mu (z)e^{2ikX(z,\overline{z})}J_{}^\nu (\overline{z}),$$
(4.1)
where $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }`$ is a polarization tensor and required constraints are

$$k^2=0,k\overline{\beta }k=0.$$
(4.2)
In this case there is no $`\sigma `$-dependent coupling factor. The form of (4.1) is the same as in Ref..
For simplicity we have dealt here with the neutral-open string with opposite charges at both ends. We remark that the whole discussion is valid also for the charged-open string with an arbitrary charge at each end .