format: text

text:
# Quantum control without access to the controlling interaction

## I Introduction

Quantum state control might be described as the preparation, manipulation and measurement of quantum systems. In modern research, especially in the field of quantum optics and quantum communication, the control of simple quantum systems is one of the main goals. Typical problems are the manipulation of the inner degree of an ion in a trap, the polarization of a photon or the preparation of Fock states of light. All these manipulations of quantum systems are performed by the interaction between the controlled system and the particles or fields surrounding it. Quantum state control can be formulated more precisely as follows: the pure states of the quantum system to be controlled are described by the one-dimensional subspaces of a Hilbert space $`_s`$. For simplicity we will assume $`_s`$ to be finite-dimensional. Mainly, there are three actions on a quantum system which one wishes to perform:

1. Initialization of a certain pure state: let $`\rho `$ be an arbitrary density matrix on $`_s`$ and $`|\psi _s`$ be the vector of the state which should be prepared. Then initialization consists in causing the transition $`\rho |\psi \psi |`$.
2. Unitary control: the vector state $`|\psi `$ is transformed to $`u|\psi `$, a density matrix $`\rho `$ to $`u\rho u^{}`$ for any arbitrary unitary matrix $`u`$.
3. Ideal quantum-non-demolition (QND) measurement: Let $`(P_i)_{iI}`$ be a complete orthogonal family of projections (in the sequel referred to as ‘the observable $`(P_i)`$’). Let $`_c`$ be the Hilbert space of any system acting as the measurement apparatus (‘c’ for ‘controller’, as measurement apparatus and controller are in the following assumed to be given by the same system). A measurement of the observable $`(P_i)`$ is a unitary evolution starting in a product state $`|\varphi |\psi _c_s`$ and ending up in the state $`_i|\varphi _iP_i|\psi `$ where $`(|\varphi _i)_{iI}`$ is an orthonormal family of states of the measurement apparatus (‘the pointer positions’). As usual, a ‘measurement for the observable $`A`$’ for any self-adjoint operator $`A`$ is defined by the family of its spectral projections.

Initialization can be performed by a unitary control operation which is conditioned on the result of a former measurement. Hence we shall only deal with measurements and unitary control operations. Furthermore we shall not care about more general types of measurements (positive operator valued measurements) or more general quantum operations (completely positive maps), since they can be obtained from measurements and unitary operations on larger systems (see ) by restriction to the considered system.

Common approaches to quantum control theory  are based on the assumption that the controlling person is able to change the interaction between the system and its controller. This means that one can manipulate a (possibly time-dependent) Hamiltonian $`H`$ acting on $`_c_s`$ or even the system’s free Hamiltonian acting on $`_s`$ by extern access; sometimes it is assumed that one is able to control at least a small perturbation of the Hamiltonian . Of course such an approach is well justified in many realistic physical situations: macroscopic fields should rather be considered as classical parameters determining the system’s Hamiltonian than as an interaction Hamiltonian between system and its environment.

Our motivation for investigating models with no classical control parameters is twofold:

1. Our model can describe many physical situations where one component of a larger quantum system is easier to access than the other parts: imagine a molecule where a given control mechanism for one atom should be used for controlling the other sort of atoms indirectly. Another example is given by several experiments of quantum optics: consider an atom in a cavity controlled by the field mode. Manipulating the field in order to control the atom is clearly an indirect control operation in the sense discussed below.
2. Our model shows a symmetry between measurement procedures and unitary implementations which is covered up in the common approach: consider a unitary evolution $`u`$ on the joint Hilbert space $`_c_s`$ that can be decomposed into a sum

$`u={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}v_jP_j`$

where the operators $`P_j`$ are mutual orthogonal projections and $`v_j`$ are sufficiently distinct unitary transformations on the controller. Then $`u`$ can be used for measuring an observables with spectral projections $`P_j`$. By exchanging the role of controller and system one obtains a control mechanism for the system by switching between states in the image of different projections $`P_j`$.

For a given Hamiltonian we address the question for the set of possible measurements and the set of possible unitary implementations. We show that the answers to both questions are given by a common theory. This is an important justification of our approach.

One might argue that our approach to the problem of quantum control only shifts the problem to the question of how to manipulate the controller’s quantum state. We investigate the mathematical problems arising if such a controller is controlled by a meta-controller and give conditions under which this is possible. We do not discuss the question of how to control the last controller.

Of course this problem is an extension of the problem of quantum mechanical measurements (‘who measures the measuring device?’, compare ). Having in mind the connection to those never-ending debates, in the sequel we will be content with the result that the borderline between system and controller (so to speak the ‘Heisenberg cut of quantum state control’) can be shifted consistently. We are aware of the fact that this shift causes large unsolved philosophical, physical or biological problems, e.g., the problem of the interface between micro- and macrophysics***See e.g. . (if one takes a macroscopic system as the controller), or even the problem of the freedom of will (the brain as the controller). Although we ignore those problems in the sequel, the results presented below give new insights into the structure of the set of measurable observables and implementable transformations.

Our approach does not refer to any assumptions on physical properties of the system and the interaction. It does not even assume that the system is a particle. It might also be one degree of freedom of a particle or any artificial decomposition of a particle’s Hilbert space to a tensor product of two unphysical components. The results presented below should therefore be considered as a structure theory of input, manipulation and read-out of quantum information. The assumption that every dynamical evolution is caused by the Hamiltonian represents the only physical input in such an information theory of quantum state control.

The theory shows that the possibility of performing every kind of measurement is equivalent to the possibility of performing every kind of unitary transformation, since the mathematical conditions on the form of the interaction Hamiltonian coincide.

## II The interface group

We describe the quantum system and its controller by the Hilbert spaces $`_s`$ and $`_c`$, respectively. For simplicity we assume both spaces to be of finite dimension. Let $`W`$ be the group of special unitary transformations acting on $`_c`$ considered canonically as a subgroup of the group of unitary transformations on $`_c_s`$. We assume that all that the experimentalist can do is performing a procedure of the following form: ‘perform a transformation $`w_1W`$, wait the time $`t_1`$, perform $`w_2W`$, …, perform $`w_nW`$, wait the time $`t_n`$.’ Formally, we denote such a procedure by

$`p:=(t_1,w_1,\mathrm{},t_n,w_n)\text{ with }t_i0,w_iW.`$

We denote the set of such procedures by $`P`$. The procedure $`p`$ implements the unitary

$`u_p:=w_ne^{iHt_n}\mathrm{}w_1e^{iHt_1},`$

where $`H`$ is the joint Hamiltonian on $`_c_s`$. Its implementation time $`t_p`$ is

$`t_p:={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}t_j,`$

since we assume that the implementations on the controller can be performed arbitrarily fast.

We consider the set

$`I:=\overline{\{u_p|pP\}}`$

where $`\overline{\{\}}`$ denotes the closure in the norm topology. Obviously, one has $`u_pu_r=u_{rp}`$ where $`rp`$ denotes the procedure obtained by concatenation of the instructions $`r`$ and $`p`$. Since the natural time evolution $`e^{iHt}`$ is quasiperiodic in finite dimensions, $`I`$ contains the unitaries $`e^{iHt}`$ even for negative times and therefore $`I`$ is a group. We shall refer to $`I`$ as the interface group of the quantum control system $`(_s,_c,H)`$. The group $`I`$ describes the set of possible transformations on the composed system. Unfortunately, the only obvious procedure for implementing $`e^{iHt}`$ for negative $`t`$ seems to be given by waiting for a long time until the approximative recurrence of the system. This can take inappropriate long times for large dimensions of $`_c_s`$. A priori, there is no reason why there should be a fast realization for $`e^{iHt}`$ for small $`t`$.

Here we restrict our attention to the particular case where such a fast realization exists, namely that the free Hamiltonian of the system is zero, if the interaction Hamiltonian is written as a sum of tensor products of traceless self-adjoint operators only: the following Lemma is obtained in strong analogy to the first order decoupling technique in :

Lemma 1 Let $`H:=_jA_jB_j`$ be the Hamiltonian acting on the joint Hilbert space $`_c_s`$. Assume every $`A_j`$ to be traceless. Let $`S`$ be a subgroup of $`W`$ acting irreducibly on $`_c`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{sS}{}}sHs^{}=0.`$

Proof: We have $`sHs^{}=_i_ssA_is^{}B_i`$. Obviously, each term of the form $`_{sS}sA_is^{}`$ commutes with each $`sS`$. Due to Schur’s Lemma the map $`A_j_ssA_js^{}`$ can only map on the multiples of the identity matrix. Since every $`A_j`$ is traceless, it maps every $`A_j`$ to zero. $`\mathrm{}`$

Hence we have $`H=_{sS\{1\}}sHs^{}`$. Due to the formula

$`{\displaystyle \underset{sS\{1\}}{}}se^{iHϵ}s^{}=e^{iHϵ}+O(ϵ^2),`$

we have found an approximative implementation of the inverse time evolution $`e^{iHt}`$ with the implementation time $`(|S|1)|t|`$, where $`|S|`$ is the group order of $`S`$.

In the sequel we will assume (if nothing different is said), that the conditions of Lemma 1 are satisfied. This can be justified as follows: decompose an arbitrary Hamiltonian $`H`$ into a sum

$`H:={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_jB_j+A1+1B,`$

with traceless self-adjoint operators $`A_j,B_j,A,B`$. The term $`1B`$ can be cancelled by passing to a rotating frame. Apart from this we are able to cancel $`A`$ by an additional Hamiltonian since we assume to have general access to the controller. In order to work out the structure of the interface group, we use Lie algebraic techniques:

Definition 1 Let $`H`$ be the interaction Hamiltonian acting on the joint Hilbert space $`_c_s`$. Let $`𝒲`$ be the set of self-adjoint traceless operators on $`_c`$. Then the Interface Algebra $``$ is the Lie algebraWe do not claim, that $``$ is the Lie algebra of the Lie group $`I`$, since the group can be considerably enlarged by the closure. generated by the Lie sub algebra $`𝒲`$ and the Hamiltonian $`H`$.

Then Lemma 1 allows us to give an operational meaning to the elements of $``$ :

Since unitary operations of the form $`e^{\pm iHϵ}`$ can (approximatively) be implemented during a short time period in the order of $`ϵ`$, operations of the form $`e^{iA}`$ can be implemented with arbitrarily high accuracy if $`A`$ can be written as sum of multicommutators consisting of $`H`$ and arbitrary self-adjoint operators on the controller. Those control algorithms can be constructed via the well-known formulas

$`e^{i(A+B)}=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(e^{iA/m}e^{iB/m})^m`$

and

$$e^{[A,B]}=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}(e^{iA/m}e^{iB/m}e^{iA/m}e^{iB/m})^{m^2}.$$
(1)
For every $`A`$ in the interface algebra we can therefore approximate every unitary of the form $`e^{iAs}`$ with $`s`$. We rephrase this by claiming that we can simulate the unitary time evolution corresponding to the ‘effective Hamiltonian’ $`A`$. In order to avoid misinterpretations of this suggestive formulation, we emphasize the following:

* The simulation of the evolution $`(e^{iAs})_s`$ is discrete: we can choose a small number $`ϵ`$ and construct a control algorithm implementing $`e^{iAϵ}`$ approximatively. By iteration, we obtain $`e^{iAϵn}`$ for every $`n`$.
* In general the ‘simulated time’ $`s`$ does not coincide with the implementation time for $`e^{iAs}`$. Assume e.g. $`A:=i[H,B]`$ where $`B`$ is an operator on $`_c`$. Using the transformations $`e^{\pm iHϵ}`$ and $`e^{\pm iBϵ}`$ we obtain approximatively $`e^{[H,B]ϵ^2}`$. This term is of second order in the simulation time since the latter is proportional to $`ϵ`$. Using such a scheme, the running time for the simulation goes to infinity for increasing accuracy.

The interface algebra $``$ can be characterized explicitly:

Theorem 1 (Structure of the interface algebra) Set $`H:=_jA_jB_j`$ where $`(A_j)`$ and $`(B_j)`$ are families of traceless self-adjoint operators, linearly independent as $``$-vectors. Let the dimension of $`_c`$ be larger than $`2`$. Then the interface algebra $``$ is given by

$$=𝒲+1$$
(2)
where $``$ is the self-adjoint part of the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`(B_j)`$ and $``$ is the vector space $`\{i[A,B]_{A,B}\}`$.

Proof: Define $`𝒟`$ as the set of self-adjoint operators $`D`$ such that there is an operator $`G𝒲`$ with the property that $`GD`$ is in $``$. This is equivalent to the statement that for every $`G𝒲`$ the operator $`GD`$ is an element of $``$ since every $``$-linear map on $`𝒲`$ can be generated by concatenations and sums of maps of the form $`i[A,.]`$ with $`A𝒲`$ due to Lemma 2 in . We show that $`D,E𝒟`$ implies (a) $`DE+ED𝒟`$ and (b) $`i[D,E]𝒟`$: take two arbitrary non-commuting operators $`G_1,G_2𝒲`$. Easy calculation shows the equation

$`i[G_1D,G_2E]+i[G_1E,G_2D]`$
$`=`$ $`[G_1,G_2](DE+ED).`$
This proves implication (a).

Implication (b) can be seen as follows: choose $`G_1,G_2`$ such that $`G_1^2`$ and $`G_2^2`$ are linearly independent. This is possible for dimension larger than $`2`$. Then

$`i[G_jD,G_jE]=G_j^2i[D,E].`$

Hence

$`(G_1^2\lambda G_2^2)i[D,E].`$

Choose $`\lambda `$ such that $`G_1^2\lambda G_2^2`$ is traceless and hence an element of $`𝒲`$. This proves that $`i[D,E]`$ is in $`𝒟`$. Due to $`DE=(DE+ED)/2(i/2)i[D,E]`$ the complexification $`𝒟+i𝒟`$ of $`𝒟`$ is a algebra over $``$ which is closed under the $`(.)^{}`$-operation. Hence it is a $`C^{}`$-algebra  since it is a subset of a finite dimensional algebra. The following observation shows that $`𝒟`$ contains every element $`B_j`$: Choose an $``$-linear map $`Y:𝒲𝒲`$ with $`Y(A_k)=0`$ for $`kj`$ and $`Y(A_j)=A_j`$. By Lemma .. in  the operator $`(Yid)(H)=A_jB_j`$ is an element of $``$. Hence $`𝒟+i𝒟`$ contains the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`(B_j)_j`$. This proves that $``$ contains the set $`𝒲`$.

In order to show that $``$ contains $`1`$ we define $``$ as the set of operators $`F`$ such that $`1F`$ is an element of $``$. By choosing $`G𝒲`$ in such a way that $`G^2=1`$ one can see that $`D,E𝒟`$ implies that

$`i[D,E],`$

since $`i[GD,GE]=G^2i[D,E]`$.

We have already shown that $``$ contains the set

$`𝒲1.`$

Obviously this $``$-vector space contains $`𝒲`$ and $`H`$. One checks easily that it is closed under commutators: Let $`G_1,G_2𝒲,A_1,A_2,L_1,L_2`$. Then we obtain:

$`i[G_1A_1+1L_1,G_2A_2+1L_2]`$
$`=`$ $`i[G_1,G_2](A_1A_2+A_2A_1)1/2`$
$`+`$ $`(G_1G_2+G_2G_1)i[A_1,A_2]1/2`$
$`+`$ $`G_1[A_1,L_2]+G_2[L_1,A_2]+1[L_1,L_2].`$
The terms $`i[A_j,L_k]`$ are clearly in $``$. $`A_1A_2+A_2A_1`$ is an element of $``$. The operator $`G_1G_2+G_2G_1`$ can be written as a linear combination of a traceless part (which is an element of $`𝒲`$) and a scalar multiple of the identity. Hence $`(G_1G_2+G_2G_1)[A_1,A_2]`$ is an element of $`𝒲1`$. Since the rhs of eq. (2) contains $`H`$ and $`𝒲`$, the proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

The assumption $`dim(_c)3`$ can not be dropped. This could be verified by calculating the interface algebra for $`_s=_c=^2`$ with

$`H=\sigma _x\sigma _x+\sigma _y\sigma _y,`$

with the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _x`$ an $`\sigma _y`$. This is the $`x,y`$-Hamiltonian (as it is often used in solid-states physics ). One can show that $``$ is spanned (as $``$-vector space) by the 10 basis vectors

$`\sigma _x\sigma _j,\sigma _y\sigma _j,\sigma _z1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\sigma _j`$

with $`j=x,y,z`$. We shall not bother about the case $`_c=^2`$. Since we assume to have universal access to the controller we should not only allow unitary operations on the controller but should also take into account unitary operations on the controller coupled to an arbitrary large ancilla system. Such operations might appear as non-unitary operations on the controller in the sense of completely positive trace preserving maps , measurements on the controller and so on. Hence it makes sense to embed the original controller Hilbert space into a larger controller space $`\stackrel{~}{}_c:=_a_c`$ with ancilla space $`_a`$ and calculate the interface algebra by taking the canonical extension of the original Hamiltonian $`H`$, namely $`\stackrel{~}{H}:=1H`$. If we have already $`dim(_c)3`$ an additional extension does not change the structure of the interface algebra given by Theorem 1 except from the fact that $`𝒲`$ is enlarged. There is also another reason for extending the controller Hilbert space in such a way: measurements are only possible if $`_c`$ has sufficiently many ‘pointer states’.

Theorem 1 shows that universal unitary control is possible if and only if the operators $`\{B_j\}_j`$ generate the full algebra of linear maps on $`_s`$. This can be seen as follows: If $`(B_j)`$ generate the whole algebra then $``$ contains the element $`DA`$ for every self-adjoint $`A`$ and every traceless self-adjoint $`D`$. Let $`\lambda _j`$ be the eigenvalues of $`D`$ for the eigenvector $`|j`$. Due to the equation

$`e^{iDAs}(|j|\varphi )=|je^{i\lambda _jAs}|\varphi `$

one can implement the unitary group $`(e^{iAs})_s`$. Assume conversely that the interface algebra contains an operator $`B`$ enabling the implementation of the unitary group $`e^{iAs}`$ in the sense that there is an initial state $`|\varphi `$ of the controller such that

$`e^{iBs}(|\varphi |\psi )=|\varphi e^{iAs}|\psi ,`$

then we have

$`B(|\varphi |\psi )=|\varphi A|\psi .`$

Without loss of generality assume $`|\varphi `$ to be the first basis vector of $`_c`$. Define $`Z:=diag(1,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Consider the $``$-linear map $`L:𝒲𝒲`$ with $`L(W):=diag(\psi |W|\psi ,\psi |W|\psi ,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. $`L`$ is a (non-orthogonal) projection on the $``$-linear span of $`Z`$. Due to Lemma 2 in , $`L`$ can be generated by concatenations and sums of maps of the form $`i[W,.]`$ with $`W𝒲`$ and hence $`(Lid)(B)=:C`$ is in $``$. Since the image of $`L`$ is one-dimensional, $`C`$ is of the form $`ZK`$ with an appropriate self-adjoint operator $`K`$ acting on $`_s`$. We can show that $`K=A`$ due to the equation

$`C(|\varphi |\psi )=|\varphi A|\psi .`$

Hence $`ZA`$ has to be in $``$. This implies that $`A`$ has to be in the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by the set $`\{B_j\}`$. Therefore we have obtained a simple necessary and sufficient condition for the interaction to enable universal unitary control.

## III The ‘Heisenberg cut’ of unitary control

The essential result of the investigations above may be rephrased by the statement that indirect quantum control is possible by operations on the controller only (under suitable assumptions on the interaction).

The question why and in which sense control mechanisms for the controller exist stands outside our theory. At first sight, it seems as if the possibility of controlling the controller by a meta-controller can obviously be explained by a mechanism of the same type. It should be emphasized that there is one ‘detail’ causing problems for doing so: our Lie algebraic approach assumed that the operations on the controller can be implemented arbitrarily fast. This assumption can be justified if the interaction between the meta-controller and the controller is strong compared to the interaction between controller and system. Recalling the fact that control of physical systems becomes more and more a matter of macroscopic forces if we shift the controller towards our muscles (switching a field), this point of view might be justified. If one does not accept such an assumption of ‘increasing force’, the problem of shifting the ‘Heisenberg cut of quantum control’ arbitrarily has to be investigated more carefully. We will do this by taking a chain of $`n`$ finite dimensional quantum systems, where each one is interacting with its 2 nearest neighborsAs an example one might think of a spin chain as in popular models of mathematical solid state physics .. Than we analyze the possibilities of controlling the $`n^{th}`$ site by operations on the first one. Note that there is another detail causing difficulties in applying the theory developed so far: The possibility of simulating the inverse time evolution on the joint system $`_c_s`$ by operations on the controller only relied on the fact that the joint Hamiltonian $`H`$ was assumed to have a decomposition into products of traceless self-adjoint operators. This cannot be the case for a Hamiltonian of the form

$`H:={\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}H_{j,j+1}`$

where $`H_{j,j+1}`$ is the interaction between site $`j`$ and site $`j+1`$ since $`H`$ has clearly a component of the form $`1A`$ where $`1`$ is the identity operator acting on the first site§§§Note that it would be confusing here to pass to a rotating frame with respect to the residual Hamiltonian $`_{j2}H_{j,j+1}`$ since the corresponding transformation does not preserve the tensor product structure on the remaining chain..

As already mentioned, there is another possibility for implementing the inverse time evolution which is simply given by waiting. Of course such a technique is only realistic for quantum systems of small dimensions. The following theorem shows that the ‘Heisenberg-cut’ between the controller and the system to be controlled can be shifted arbitrarily in in a chain of quantum systems with appropriate interactions (provided that one accepts long waiting times for the reccurence of the natural time evolution):

Theorem 2 Let $`_{jn}_j`$ be the Hilbert space of a spin chain of length $`n`$ with the nearest neighborhood interaction

$`H:={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}H_{j,j+1}.`$

Assume every interaction term $`H_{j,j+1}`$ be of the form

$`H_{j,j+1}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}A_k^{(j)}B_k^{(j+1)}`$

where every $`A_k^{(j)}`$ is an operator acting on $`_j`$ and $`B_k^{(j+1)}`$ is an operator acting on $`_{j+1}`$, embedded into the space of the $`n`$ spins. Let the dimension of each $`_j`$ be greater than $`2`$. For every $`j`$ let $`\{A_k^{(j)}\}_k`$ be a set of linearly independent self-adjoint traceless operators. Assume that the set of operators $`\{B_k(j)\}_k`$ generate the complete algebra $`𝒜_j`$ of operators on $`_j`$.

Then the system given by the first $`m`$ sites $`_{jm}_j`$ can be used as a controller for the remaining $`nm`$ sites $`_{j>m}_j`$, i.e., the Lie algebra generated by $`H`$ and the set of traceless self-adjoint operators $`(_{jm}𝒜_j)^{s.a.tl}`$ is the set of self-adjoint traceless operators $`(_{jn}𝒜_j)^{s.a.tl}`$ on the Hilbert space of the complete chain.

Proof: (By induction over $`m`$) For $`m=n`$ the statement is trivial. We assume it to be true for $`m+1`$ and conclude that it is true for $`m`$:

Consider the Lie algebra $`_m`$ generated by $`(_{jm}𝒜_j)^{s.a.tl}`$ and $`H`$. Define $`L`$ to be the map on $`_{jm}𝒜_j`$ annihilating every traceless operator and mapping the identity on itself. By Lemma 2 in  $`Lid^{nm}`$ can be generated by operations on the controller, hence $`(Lid^{nm})(H)=_{m+1jn1}H_{j,j+1}`$ is an element of $`_m`$. Since $`_{jm1}H_{j,j+1}`$ is an element of $`(_{jm}𝒜_j)^{s.a.tl}`$ we conclude that $`H_{m,m+1}`$ is in $`_m`$. Due to Theorem 1 every Lie algebra containing $`(_{jm}𝒜_j)^{s.a.tl}`$ and $`H_{m,m+1}`$ contains $`_{jm+1}𝒜_j`$. This completes the induction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Hence we have proven that arbitrary unitary transformations on the whole chain can be generated by accessing the first site only. In order to measure arbitrary observables of the chain by accessing only the first site it is necessary to couple it to an ancilla quantum system providing enough distinguishable quantum states. With the help of such an ancilla system, every measurements can be performed: we will show in the following section that a controlling interaction which allows universal unitary control allows universal measurements as well.

## IV Correspondence between measurements and implementations

In some sense the problem of manipulating a quantum system by extern control mechanisms is the inverse problem to the measurement problem. In the latter one the state of the quantum system has an effect on the measurement apparatus’s pointer positions, in the former case the controlling apparatus has an effect on the quantum state of the system. Whereas the philosophical problems of understanding measurements in quantum mechanics are often discussed in the literature, the philosophical problems of the reverse process have hardly been discussed so far.

The symmetry between both problems can be described as follows: a measurement can be described as unitary operations on the apparatus conditioned on the system state, whereas unitary quantum state control can be described as unitary operation conditioned on the state (the ‘adjustment’) of the controller.

The only asymmetry is the fact that a measurement must generate entanglement for a generic system state whereas unitary control must avoid entanglement with the controller.

In our model the analogy as well as the difference of the two problems emerge rather clearly. We start by introducing a rather tight definition of QND-measurement (‘quantum non-demolition measurement’). Recall that a QND-measurement is usually defined as a measurement procedure which does not change the eigenstates of the measured observable and only destroys superpositions of eigenstates corresponding to different eigenvalues. In other words, a QND-measurement for the observable $`A`$ is a process mapping the state $`|\varphi |\psi `$ to the state $`_j|\varphi _jP_j|\psi `$, where $`|\varphi `$ is the initial state of the measurement apparatus and $`|\varphi _j`$ are the final pointer states of the apparatus corresponding to the spectral projections $`P_j`$ of $`A`$. They have to be orthogonal in order to enable a perfect distinction between the different measurement values. The notion of a QND-measurement does not include any assumption about the states of the total system during the time period $`[0,T]`$ between the beginning and the end of the procedure. In contrast, we define a CQND-measurement (continuous quantum non-demolition measurement) as a measuring procedure where the eigenstates of the measured observable are not changed at any moment during the measurement procedure. More precisely, we define:

Definition 2 An observable $`A`$ is said to be CQND-measurable if the interface algebra $``$ contains effective Hamiltonians $`G_1,\mathrm{},G_l`$ and ‘times’ $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_l`$ such that there exists an initial state $`|\varphi `$ of the controller with the following properties:

* The concatenation of the corresponding dynamical evolutions $`e^{iG_lr_l}\mathrm{}e^{iG_1r_1}`$ is a measurement in the sense explained in section 1
* The evolution does not disturb any eigenvector $`|\psi `$ of $`A`$ during the measurement procedure, i.e, for every $`jl`$ and $`rr_j`$ we have

$$e^{iG_jr}e^{iG_{j1}r_{j1}}\mathrm{}e^{iG_1r_1}(|\varphi |\psi )=|\varphi _j(r)|\psi $$
(3)
for some vector $`|\varphi _j(r)`$.

The main purpose for introducing this definition is that it allows the use of powerful Lie-algebraic tools in the sequel. We obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of CQND-procedures depending on the interface algebra. Obviously this implies necessary conditions for existence of QND-measurements in the usual sense.

We will show that the ability for performing CQND-measurements of the observable $`A`$ is equivalent to the ability to implement the unitary one-parameter group $`(e^{iAs})_s`$. We define what we mean by the latter:

Definition 3 Let $`A`$ be a self-adjoint operator on $`_s`$. The interaction Hamiltonian $`H`$ is said to enable the implementation of the group $`(e^{iAs})_s`$ if the interface algebra $``$ contains an element $`G`$ and there is a state $`|\varphi `$ of the controller such that

$$G(|\varphi |\psi )=|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }A|\psi $$
(4)
for an appropriate vector $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_c`$.

Our main theorem on the set of possible implementations and the set of possible CQND-measurements is the following:

Theorem 3 Let $`H:=_jA_jB_j`$ be the interaction between a quantum system and its controller with $`A_j`$ and $`B_j`$ as in Theorem 1. Assume $`dim(_c)dim(_s)`$. Let $``$ be the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by the operators $`B_j`$. If $`A`$ is a self-adjoint operator acting on $`_s`$ the following statements are equivalent:

1. The interaction $`H`$ enables a CQND-measurement of $`A`$
2. The interaction $`H`$ enables the implementation of the one-parameter group $`(e^{iAs})_s`$
3. The operator $`A`$ is an element of $``$.

Proof: $`32`$: Due to Theorem 1 the interface algebra $``$ contains an operator of the form $`EA`$ with arbitrary self-adjoint $`E0`$. By initializing the controller to an eigenvector of $`E`$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $`\lambda 0`$ the evolution $`e^{iEAs}`$ implements $`e^{iA\lambda s}`$.

$`31`$: Let $`(P_j)_{jk}`$ be the set of spectral projections of $`A`$. Since $``$ is an algebra the operator $`_jjP_j`$ is an element of $``$. Due to Theorem 1 the Lie algebra $``$ contains the operator $`D_jjP_j=_jjDP_j`$ with $`D:=diag(1,2,\mathrm{},n)(n(n+1)/2)1`$, where $`n`$ is the dimension of $`_c`$. By initializing the controller in the state

$`|\varphi :={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)^T`$

the unitary operator

$`e^{i(_jjDP_j)\pi /(2n)}`$

leads to mutually orthogonal final states of the controller for the states in the image of different spectral projections $`P_j`$: since $`kn`$ (due to $`dim(_c)dim(_s)`$) the vectors $`e^{ijD\pi /(2n)}|\varphi `$ are mutually orthogonal for different $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

$`13`$: Choose operators $`G_j`$ as in Definition 2. Define $`|\varphi _j(r)`$ by the equation

$`e^{iG_jr}e^{iG_{j1}r_{j1}}\mathrm{}e^{iG_1r_1}(|\varphi |\psi )=|\varphi _j(r)|\psi ,`$

for $`r[0,r_j]`$ and every eigenstate $`|\psi `$ of $`A`$. Define $`Q_j`$ to be the projection onto the span of the vectors $`\{|\varphi _j(r)\}_{r[0,r_j]}`$. Due to Lemma 2 in  the operator

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_j:=(Q_j1)G_j(Q_j1)tr((Q_j1)G_j(Q_j1))1`$

is an element of $``$. The operator $`\stackrel{~}{G}_j`$ does not change any eigenstate $`|\psi `$ of $`A`$. This can be seen as follows.

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_j|\varphi _j(r)|\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}|\varphi _j(r)|\psi .`$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{G}_j`$ annihilates every vector in the complement of the span of $`\{|\varphi _j(r)\}`$, every vector in the image of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_j`$ is a product vector with $`|\psi `$ as its second component.

Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{G}_j`$ can be written as a Hamiltonian on $`_c`$ which is conditioned on the eigenvalue of $`A`$, i.e., it has the form

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_j:={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}K_k^{(j)}P_k,`$

where $`K_k^{(j)}`$ are appropriate self-adjoint operators and $`P_k`$ are the spectral projections of $`A`$. Since system states lying in the image of different projections $`P_k`$ lead to orthogonal pointer states by assumption, for every pair $`k,m`$ with $`km`$ there is a $`j`$ such that $`K_k^{(j)}K_m^{(j)}(mod1)`$. Hence there is a linear combination $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{G}_j`$ such that

$`\stackrel{~}{G}=M_kP_k`$

with $`M_kM_m(mod1)`$ for $`km`$. Using the main result of  we conclude that $``$ contains every operators of the form $`_kkDP_k=_kDkP_k`$ with arbitrary traceless self-adjoint $`D`$. Due to Theorem 1 the operator $`_kkP_k`$ is an element of $``$. Since $``$ is an algebra, $`A`$ is an element of $``$ too.

$`23`$: Define $`P`$ as the projection onto the span of $`|\varphi `$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ defined as in equation (4). Then $`\stackrel{~}{G}:=(P1)G(P1)`$ is a nonzero operator of the form $`DA`$ an with appropriate operator $`D`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is an element of the interface algebra, the operator $`A`$ has to be an element of $``$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The connection between measurements and implementations can be made even stronger in the special case that $`A`$ is an observable with equidistant eigenvalues. Consider the operator $`G:=DA`$ where $`D`$ is a operator with equidistant eigenvalues as well. Then the same effective Hamiltonian $`G`$ allows the implementation of $`e^{iAs}`$ by initializing the controller to an eigenstate of $`D`$ with nonzero eigenvalue or measurements of $`A`$ by taking the initial state $`(1,\mathrm{},1)^T`$ for the controller.

## V The algebraic structure of the set of measurable observables

The constructive part of the proof of Theorem 1 gives insights to a question which has been discussed since the early days of quantum mechanics, namely the algebraic structure of the set of observables. For non-commuting observables $`A`$ and $`B`$ the spectral projections of $`A+B`$ are not related to those of $`A`$ and $`B`$ in any obvious way. Hence there is a priori no obvious connection between measurement procedures for $`A`$ and $`B`$ and a procedure measuring $`A+B`$. Similarly, there is no obvious operational meaning for the Jordan product $`(AB+BA)/2`$ and the commutator $`i[A,B]`$. P. Jordan emphasized  that the equation

$`AB+BA=(A+B)^2A^2B^2`$

can reduce the operational meaning of the Jordan product to the operational meaning of the addition of observables since squaring of an observable can be interpreted as renaming its eigenvalues. He argued that the latter meaning is given by the fact that the expectation value of $`A+B`$ is the sum of the expectation values of $`A`$ and $`B`$. Since we are interested only in measurements which project the state onto the eigenspaces, we are not content with this explanation. In contrast, we argue that the algebraic structure of the measurable observables is an implication of the Lie algebraic structure of $``$. The latter structure has a direct operational meaning by its obvious connection to the sequences of local operations required for performing measurements.

In order to show, that measurements of algebraic expressions in $`A`$ an $`B`$ are related to measurements of $`A`$ and $`B`$, we are not allowed to identify measurements of $`A`$ and $`f(A)`$ for an arbitrary bijective function $`f`$ on the spectrum of $`A`$. Note that we constructed measurements (in the proof of Theorem 3) of $`A`$ by simulating effective Hamiltonians of the form $`Df(A)`$ where $`D`$ and $`f(A)`$ is an observable with equidistant eigenvalues. In the following we assume a measurement procedure of any observable $`A`$ to be implemented by an effective Hamiltonian of the form

$`EA,`$

with arbitrary self-adjoint $`E`$. This assumption can be interpreted as follows: If the system is in an eigenstate of $`A`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ then the pointer of the measurement apparatus is moved due to the unitary evolution corresponding to the Hamiltonian $`\lambda E`$, i.e., the pointer is moved in the same way having a velocity proportional to the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. Note that (in the generic case) such an effective Hamiltonian will not lead to mutual orthogonal states of the controller for different eigenvalues $`\lambda `$. There is a pragmatic solution of this problem: if the dimension of $`_c`$ is large there are many examples of Hamiltonians $`E`$ and initial states $`|\varphi `$ such that the states $`e^{i\lambda Es}|\varphi `$ are almost orthogonal for different eigenvalues $`\lambda `$. This can be illustrated by taking an infinite dimensional space $`_c:=L^2()`$, i.e. the set of square integrable functions on the real line and think of $`E`$ as an operator with continuous spectrum. Assume e.g.

$`E:=i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}`$

Take small wave packages as initial states $`|\varphi `$ of the controller. Then the dynamics

$`e^{i\frac{d}{dx}As}`$

shifts the wave package of the controller by the amount $`\lambda s`$ if the system’s state is an eigenstate corresponding to the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$. If the width of the wave package is smaller than $`s`$ times the minimal distance of the eigenvalues of $`A`$, the different wave packages are almost orthogonal.

Assume now we have operations on the controller simulating the effective Hamiltonians

$$H_A:=EA\text{ and }H_B:=FB$$
(5)
with arbitrary $`E,F𝒲`$.

Without knowing $`A`$ and $`B`$ itselfNote that the following schemes assume that the experimentalist knows $`E`$ and $`F`$, but he needs not know the Hamiltonians $`H_A`$ and $`H_B`$ completely., their corresponding ‘measurement Hamiltonians’ $`H_A`$ and $`H_B`$ can be used for constructing measurements for self-adjoint algebraic expressions in $`A`$ and $`B`$:

* measuring (A+B)

Choose $``$-linear maps $`L_A,L_B:𝒲𝒲`$ such that $`L_A(E)=D`$ and $`L_B(F)=D`$ with $`D:=diag(1,\mathrm{},n)_{jn}j`$. Lemma 2 in  provides general rules for simulating $`\stackrel{~}{H}_A:=(L_Aid)(H_A)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_B:=(L_Bid)(H_B)`$ using the time evolutions due to $`H_A`$ and $`H_B`$. By alternating the dynamical evolution due to the Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}_A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_B`$ in small time steps we obtain an approximative simulation of the time evolution corresponding to $`D(A+B)`$. If the dimension $`n`$ of the controller is large enough, there is a parameter $`s^+`$ such that the unitaries $`e^{i\lambda _jDs}`$ lead to mutual orthogonal states for different eigenvalues $`\lambda _j`$ of $`A+B`$ if the controller is initialized to the state $`(1/\sqrt{n})(1,\mathrm{},1)^T`$.
* measuring i\[A,B\]

Apply small steps of time evolutions generated by the effective Hamiltonians $`DA`$ and $`DB`$ followed by a simulation of the evolution due to $`DA`$ and $`DA`$ (note that the linear map $`DD`$ can be implemented by operations on the controller). This simulates an evolution corresponding to the effective Hamiltonian $`Di[A,B]`$ approximatively. As above, this can be used for measuring $`i[A,B]`$.
* measuring (AB+BA)

Assume that $`E`$ and $`F`$ in eq. (5) do not commute (otherwise one can obtain a different effective Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_B`$ by additional operations on the controller). The equation

$`i[EA,FB]+i[EB,FA]=i[E,F](AB+BA)`$

provides a scheme for measuring $`AB+BA`$ as follows: simulate the Hamiltonians $`\stackrel{~}{H}_B:=EB`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_A:=FA`$ by using operations on the controller which exchange $`E`$ and $`F`$. Simulate $`i[E,F](AB+BA)`$ by evolutions corresponding to $`H_A,H_B,\stackrel{~}{H}_A,\stackrel{~}{H}_B`$.

We do not expect, that the procedures presented above are the best ones for practical purposes. Our theory should rather illustrate that the algebraic structure of the set of observables can be understood by analyzing the continuous dynamics of the measurement procedure.

## VI Conclusions

We have shown that universal quantum state control does neither require the possibility of changing the Hamiltonian of the system to be controlled nor the ability to access its interaction Hamiltonian to the controller. We gave necessary and sufficient conditions on the interaction Hamiltonian to enable universal control by local quantum operations on the controller only. Although the ‘true Hamiltonian’ remains constant the experimentalists is able to simulate arbitrary Hamiltonian time evolutions of the controlled system. Hence our investigations should be considered as a model for ‘designing’ effective Hamiltonians although we can not change the true ones. We could show how measurement procedures for $`A+B`$, for $`i[A,B]`$ and $`AB+BA`$ are related to measurement procedures of $`A`$ and $`B`$. This gives new insights to the algebraic structure of the set of quantum observables. We have shown that the algebraic structure can be derived from the Lie algebraic structure of the infinitesimal transformations on the joint system given by the measurement apparatus and the measured system.

Furthermore we could show in which way the quantum state of a spin chain can in principle be controlled by accessing only the first site. This should serve as a more general model for indirect quantum control.

## Acknowledgements

Considerable improvements of the manuscript have been proposed by P. Wocjan. This work has partially been supported by grants of the European Community (project Q-ACTA).


text:
# VLA Detection of the Ionized Stellar Winds Arising from Massive Stars in the Galactic Center Arches Cluster

## 1 Introduction

High-resolution observations of the Galactic center at near-infrared wavelengths first revealed the remarkable Arches stellar cluster located at $`\mathrm{}`$=0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$12, b=0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$02, $``$11′ (or 27.5 pc) in projection from Sgr A (Nagata et al. 1995; Cotera et al. 1996). Here, we assume a distance to the Galactic center of 8.0 kpc (Reid 1993). Nagata et al. (1995) identified the 14 brightest stars in this cluster with JHK photometry and Br$`\gamma `$ and Br$`\alpha `$ hydrogen recombination lines, showing that these stars had the characteristic colors and emission lines of Wolf-Rayet (WR) and He I emission-line stars. The strength of the Br$`\alpha `$ and Br$`\gamma `$ emission lines suggests that these stars are losing mass at rates of Ṁ$``$2$`\times `$10-5 M yr-1. Using K-band spectroscopy, Cotera et al. (1996) also found 12 stars in the cluster with spectra consistent with late-type WN/Of types, and which have Ṁ$``$1$``$20 $`\times `$ 10-5 M yr-1, and v$``$800$``$1200 km s-1.

Recent observations of the Arches cluster indicate that the number of massive stars is much greater than suggested by the initial studies. Serabyn et al. (1998) estimate that at least 100 cluster members have masses $`>`$ 20 M, and Figer et al. (1999) calculate that the total cluster mass exceeds 104 M with as many as 160 O-stars and a stellar density of $`\rho `$ $``$3$`\times `$105 M pc-3. These parameters make the Arches cluster one of the densest and most massive young stellar clusters in the Galaxy. In addition, the ionizing flux (estimated to be a few $`\times `$ 1051 s-1) is sufficient to ionize the surrounding Arched Filaments H II complex (Serabyn et al. 1998; Lang et al. 2001). The relative placement of the Arches cluster and the filamentary nebular features is depicted in Figure 1.

Thermal radio emission from ionized stellar winds is detectable at radio wavelengths and arises from the outer parts of the wind envelope. The classic theory of Panagia & Felli (1975) and Wright & Barlow (1975) predicts that the spectrum of radio emission from a stellar wind is $``$ $`\nu ^{+0.6}`$ for a spherically symmetric, isothermal, stationary wind expanding at a constant velocity. Previous surveys made with the Very Large Array (VLA) of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. have detected radio emission from OB supergiant and Wolf-Rayet stellar winds (Abbott et al. 1986; Bieging et al. 1989). Recently, Lang et al. (1999) detected six radio point sources in the vicinity of a similar Galactic center cluster, the Quintuplet, which have spectra consistent with the theoretical predictions and close positional correspondances with known near-infrared stellar sources. Here, we present multi-frequency VLA observations of the Arches cluster in an attempt to detect stellar wind emission from the individual stars known to be members of this dense cluster.

## 2 VLA Continuum Observations

VLA multi-frequency continuum observations were made of the Arches cluster in July 1999 (A-array) at 4.9 GHz and 8.5 GHz (4 hours each), and in October 1999 (BnA array) at 43.3 GHz (3 hours). The phase center of all observations was the position given for the bright, central source in Nagata et al. (1995): $`\alpha `$,$`\delta `$(J2000)=17 45 50.41, $``$28 49 21.8. Standard procedures for calibration, editing, and imaging were carried out using the AIPS software of NRAO. At all wavelengths, 3C286 was used for flux density calibration, and at 8.5 and 4.8 GHz, 1751-253 was used as a phase calibrator. At 43 GHz, fast switching between the bright source Sgr A and the phase center of the observations (an angular distance of 12$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5) was carried out on a 90 second cycle in order to closely track the phase variations. The resulting spatial resolutions and rms noise levels in the images are 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$79 $`\times `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$33, PA=12$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 and 45 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 at 4.9 GHz; 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$41 $`\times `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$16, PA=2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 and 25 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 at 8.5 GHz; and 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$29 $`\times `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$07, PA=49$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 and 300 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 at 43.3 GHz.

## 3 Results

Figure 2 shows the 8.5 GHz image of the radio sources within a 16″ (0.7 pc) region centered on the bright source at the cluster center. The crosses represent the positions of 9 of the 14 stars in Nagata et al. (1995) which showed Br$`\gamma `$ and Br$`\alpha `$ recombination lines. These positions have been shifted by 0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$05 (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$66) to correct for what appears to be a systematic offset to the West. At 8.5 GHz, eight sources are detected above a 6$`\sigma `$ level and are referred to as AR1$``$8. Seven of the sources (with the exception of AR6) appear to be associated with the stellar positions plotted in Figure 2. AR7 also shows a larger displacement ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\alpha `$=0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5) from the corresponding stellar position than the rest of the radio sources. However, the absolute uncertainty in the near-infrared positions is $``$2″ or less, so an association is quite possible within these limits. Since the a priori probability of finding a 8.5 GHz background source with flux density greater than 0.1 mJy in the region considered is $``$0.005, we conclude that all the radio sources detected are indeed associated with the Galactic center Arches cluster.

The positions and properties of AR1$``$8 are listed in Table 1. Four of these sources are detected in the 4.9 GHz observations (AR1, AR4, AR6, AR7), while the central source AR1 is additionally detected in the 43.3 GHz observations. At 43.3 GHz, AR1 has a flux density of 3.1$`\pm `$0.1 mJy, consistent with the 4.9/8.5 GHz spectral index ($`\alpha `$$``$+0.35). Spectral indices between 4.9/8.5 GHz are calculated for the sources detected at 4.9 GHz. Upper limits for the flux densities at 4.9 GHz can be estimated for the remaining sources, with resulting lower limits for the spectral indices. Seven of the sources show rising spectra in the range of +0.3 to +0.9 with the exception of AR6, which has a nonthermal spectral index ($`\alpha `$=$``$0.7). The sources AR2$``$8 are point sources with angular sizes $``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$25. The deconvolved size of AR1 at 8.5 GHz is 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$11 (0.005 pc), implying a brightness temperature of $``$3000 K, a reasonable value for an ionized wind.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The Nature of the Radio Sources

The spectral indices of the detected sources are consistent with values expected from stellar wind emission. Several of the sources have spectra which are flatter ($`\alpha `$ $``$+0.3) than the predicted $`\alpha `$=+0.6, and AR6 has a negative spectral index ($`\alpha `$ $``$$``$0.7). However, these spectra do not rule out stellar wind detections. About 25% of stellar winds arising from massive stars have been found to have flat or nonthermal spectra in the radio regime (Bieging, Abbott & Churchwell 1989). The precise mechanism that produces these nonthermal spectra is not established, but internal shocks in the wind of a single star (White 1985) or the presence of interacting winds in close binary systems have been proposed (Contreras & Rodríguez 1999). For a typical late-type WN star at the Galactic center, the expected flux density at 8.5 GHz arising from a stellar wind is $``$250 $`\mu `$Jy based on the assumed values of v$``$1000 km s-1, Ṁ$``$5$`\times `$10-5 M yr-1 and T$``$104 K. This value is similar to the flux densities we measure at 8.5 GHz for AR2$``$8. Figure 2 also shows an excellent positional correspondence between the radio sources and the stellar sources detected by Nagata et al. (1995). Table 2 lists the spectral types of these stars as determined by Cotera et al. (1996). The stars have been classified as late-type WN and Of stars, all of which are expected to be losing mass at high rates from their surfaces. As noted above, such stars often exhibit flattened or nonthermal spectral indices due to the presence of a nonthermal component. Therefore, the range of spectra we detect is consistent with predictions for late-type WN stars.

The radio source AR6 is displaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\alpha `$=1″ from the corresponding stellar position of Nagata et al. (1995). At 8.5 GHz, there is a 75 $`\mu `$Jy source (3$`\sigma `$) closer to the stellar position, which may be the correct identifcation. The stellar source at this position has been classified as a WN8 star by Cotera et al. (1996). If this displacement is real, we have then to consider the possibility that AR6 is associated with another star in the cluster. T Tauri stars are sometimes found to have associated nonthermal emission, usually interpreted as gyrosynchrotron produced by electrons accelerated in situ by magnetic reconnection flares near the stellar surface (André et al. 1988; Rodríguez, Anglada, and Curiel 1999). If this is the case, we may be detecting for the first time a young, low mass member of the cluster.

### 4.2 Mass Loss Rates

The flux densities at 8.5 GHz were used to calculate a mass-loss rate based on Panagia & Felli (1975):

$$\frac{\dot{M}}{10^5M_{}yr^1}=0.52\left(\frac{S_{8.5}}{mJy}\right)^{3/4}\left(\frac{v_{\mathrm{}}}{10^3kms^1}\right)\left(\frac{d}{kpc}\right)^{3/2}$$
(1)
where S8.5 is the flux density of the source at 8.5 GHz, v is the terminal velocity of the wind, and d is the distance to the source (8 kpc). We have assumed an electron temperature of T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{e}{}^{}`$=104 K, Z=1, and a mean molecular weight, $`\mu `$=2, due to the enrichment in heavy elements of the late-type WN stars (Leitherer et al. 1997). The mass loss rate of AR1 has the largest value, Ṁ=1.7 $`\times `$ 10-4 M yr-1, comparable only to stars with extreme values for Ṁ, such as in the R136 stellar cluster at the center of 30 Doradus (de Koter et al. 1997). The values of Ṁ for AR2$``$8 are in the range of 3$``$4.5 $`\times `$ 10-5 M yr-1, consistent with values found for for late type WN stars by Leitherer et al. (1997): Ṁ$``$2.5$``$3.9 $`\times `$10-5 M yr-1.

### 4.3 The Arches Cluster and the Interstellar Medium

The rich population of massive stars in the Radio Arc region, which includes both the Arches and Quintuplet clusters (Figer et al. 1999), suggests that the interstellar environment should be strongly influenced by the energetic processes related to such massive star formation and evolution. Ionization of the molecular material in this region and formation of the unusually shaped Arched Filaments and Sickle H II regions can be accounted for by the ionizing fluxes of each cluster (Lang et al. 1997, 2001). In addition, interactions between the winds in the densely-packed Arches cluster may give rise to a shock-heated diffuse “cluster wind”, which could have a temperature as high as 107 K (Cantó, Raga & Rodríguez 2000). This emission is predicted to be detectable in the X-ray regime with the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Studies of the interaction between the massive stars in the Arches and the surrounding interstellar environoment are currently underway at a number of complementary wavelengths.

## 5 Conclusions

We present the following results from our 4.9, 8.5, and 43.3 GHz observations of the Arches Cluster:

(1) Eight radio sources are detected at 8.5 GHz, four sources at 4.9 GHz, and one of them is detected also at 43.3 GHz. Seven of the eight detections show rising spectral indices between 4.9 and 8.5 GHz in the range +0.3 to +0.6, while one source shows a nonthermal spectrum ($``$0.7). All of the detections are consistent with stellar wind emission from mass-losing stars. However, the nonthermal source may be tracing a young, low mass member of the cluster. This is the first detection of emission associated with the members of the Arches cluster at a band other than the near-infrared.

(2) Seven of the eight radio sources are coincident in position with the Br$`\gamma `$ and Br$`\alpha `$ emission-line stellar sources of Nagata et al. (1995), which correspond to the late WN and Of stellar types as classified by Cotera et al. (1996). These positional correspondences further confirm that the ionized winds from stars in the Arches cluster are detected.

(3) Based on the radio flux density, AR1 has a mass-loss rate of $``$2$`\times `$10-4 M yr-1, comparable only to that of the stars in 30 Doradus (de Koter et al. 1997). Mass-loss rates for AR2$``$8 are found to be in the range 3$``$4.5$`\times `$10-5 M yr-1, similar to the large mass loss rates for other late-type WN systems (Leitherer et al. 1997).


text:
# Search for supersymmetric partners of top and bottom quarks at √𝒔=𝟏𝟖𝟗 GeV

## 1 Introduction

This paper reports on a search for scalar partners of quarks (squarks) in data taken by DELPHI in 1997 and 1998 at centre-of-mass energies ($`\sqrt{s}`$) of 183 GeV and 189 GeV. Mass limits for these particles have already been published based on data taken at LEP2 .

Scalar partners of right- and left-handed fermions are predicted by supersymmetric models and, in particular, by the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM) . They could be produced pairwise via $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$/$`\gamma `$. Large Yukawa coupling running for the diagonal elements and important off-diagonal terms make the partners of heavy fermions as the most probable candidates for the charged lightest supersymmetric particle. As a consequence their lighter states are candidates for the lightest charged supersymmetric particle.

Throughout this paper conservation of R-parity is assumed, which implies that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable. The LSP is assumed to be the lightest neutralino which interacts only weakly with matter, such that events will be characterised by missing momentum and energy.

In a large fraction of the MSSM parameter space sfermions are predicted to decay dominantly into the corresponding fermion and the lightest neutralino. Consequently in the search for sbottom particles only the decay into $`b+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^o`$ was considered. For the stop squark, the equivalent decay into $`t+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^o`$ is kinematically not allowed at LEP, and the decay of a stop into a bottom quark and a chargino is disfavoured in view of existing limits on the chargino mass . The dominant two-body decay channel is thus the one into a charm quark and a neutralino.

## 2 Detector description

The DELPHI detector and its performance have been described in detail elsewhere ; only those components relevant for the present analyses are discussed here. Charged particle tracks are reconstructed in the 1.2 T solenoidal magnetic field by a system of cylindrical tracking chambers. These are the Vertex Detector (VD), the Inner Detector (ID), the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) and the Outer Detector (OD). In addition, two planes of drift chambers aligned perpendicular to the beam axis (Forward Chambers A and B) track particles in the forward and backward directions, covering polar angles $`11{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <33^{}`$ and $`147{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <169^{}`$ with respect to the beam ($`z`$) direction.

The VD consists of three cylindrical layers of silicon detectors, at radii 6.3 cm, 9.0 cm and 11.0 cm. All three layers measure coordinates in the plane transverse to the beam. The inner (6.3 cm) and the outer (11.0 cm) layers contain double-sided detectors to also measure $`z`$ coordinates. The VD covers polar angles from $`24^{}`$ to $`156^{}`$. The ID consists of a cylindrical drift chamber (inner radius 12 cm and outer radius 22 cm) covering polar angles between $`15^{}`$ and $`165^{}`$. The TPC, the principal tracking device of DELPHI, consists of a cylinder of 30 cm inner radius, 122 cm outer radius and has a length of 2.7 m. Each end-plate has been divided into 6 sectors, with 192 sense wires used for the dE/dx measurement and 16 circular pad rows used for 3 dimensional space-point reconstruction. The OD consists of 5 layers of drift cells at radii between 192 cm and 208 cm, covering polar angles between $`43^{}`$ and $`137^{}`$.

The average momentum resolution for the charged particles in hadronic final states is in the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p^20.001`$ to $`0.01\left(\mathrm{GeV}/c\right)^1`$, depending on which detectors are used in the track fit .

The electromagnetic calorimeters consist of the High density Projection Chamber (HPC) covering the barrel region of $`40{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <140^{}`$, the Forward ElectroMagnetic Calorimeter (FEMC) covering $`11{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <36^{}`$ and $`144{}_{}{}^{}<\theta <169^{}`$, and the STIC, a Scintillator TIle Calorimeter which extends the coverage down to 1.66 from the beam axis in both directions. The 40 taggers are made of single layer scintillator-lead counters used to veto electromagnetic particles that may be not measured in the region between the HPC and FEMC. The efficiency to register a photon with energy above 5 GeV at polar angles between $`20^{}`$ and $`160^{}`$, measured with the LEP1 data, is greater than 99$`\%`$ . The hadron calorimeter (HCAL) covers 98$`\%`$ of the solid angle. Muons with momenta above 2 GeV/c penetrate the HCAL and are recorded in a set of Muon Drift Chambers.

Decays of b-quarks are tagged using a probabilistic method based on the impact parameters of tracks with respect to the main vertex. $`𝒫_E^+`$ stands for the corresponding probability estimator for tracks with positive impact parameters, the sign of the impact parameter being defined by the jet direction. The combined probability estimator $`𝒫_{comb}`$ includes in addition contributions from properties of reconstructed secondary vertices .

## 3 Data samples and event generators

Data were taken during the 1997 and 1998 LEP runs at mean centre-of-mass energies of 183 GeV and 189 GeV, corresponding to integrated luminosities of 54 pb-1 and 158 pb-1.

Simulated events were generated with several programs in order to evaluate the signal efficiency and the background contamination. All the models used JETSET 7.4  for quark fragmentation with parameters tuned to represent DELPHI data .

Stop events were generated according to the expected differential cross-sections, using the BASES and SPRING program packages . Special care was taken in the modelling of the stop hadronisation . Sbottom events were generated with the SUSYGEN program . The background processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$($`n\gamma `$) and processes leading to four-fermion final states, $`\left(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma \right)^{}\left(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma \right)^{}`$, $`\mathrm{W}_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{W}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{We}\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ were generated using PYTHIA . At the generator level, the cut on the invariant mass of the virtual $`\left(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma \right)^{}`$ in the $`\left(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma \right)^{}\left(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma \right)^{}`$ process was set at 2 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, in order to be able to estimate the background from low mass $`\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$ pairs. The calculation of the four-fermion background was cross-checked using the program EXCALIBUR , which consistently takes into account all amplitudes leading to a given four-fermion final state. The version of EXCALIBUR used does not, however, include the transverse momentum of initial state radiation. Two-photon interactions leading to hadronic final states were simulated using TWOGAM  and BDKRC  for the Quark Parton Model contribution. Leptonic final states with muons and taus were also modelled with BDKRC. BDK  was used for final states with electrons only.

Generated signal and background events were passed through detailed detector response simulation  and processed with the same reconstruction and analysis programs as the real data. The number of background events simulated is mostly several times larger than the number expected in the real data.

## 4 Event selection

In this section the selection to search for stop and sbottom in the decay modes c$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and b$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ , respectively, is presented. In both cases the experimental signatures consist of events with two jets and missing momentum. Since event parameters, such as visible energy, greatly depend on the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ between the squark and the LSP, optimised selection procedures are used for the degenerate ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M10\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$), and the non-degenerate ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M>10\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) mass case. The main differences between stop and sbottom events arise from the hadronisation, which occurs either before ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}`$) or after ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}`$) the decay of the scalar quark (in a large fraction of the MSSM parameter space the width of the sbottom decay into $`b+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^o`$ is greater than the typical QCD scale so that the sbottom does not hadronize before it decays). These differences are visible in particular in the degenerate mass case. Consequently different selections are used for the stop and sbottom analyses in the degenerate mass case whereas the selections are identical in the non-degenerate mass case.

In a first step particles are selected and clustered into jets using the Durham algorithm  with $`y_{cut}=0.08`$. Reconstructed charged particles are required to have momenta above 100 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ and impact parameters to the measured interaction point below 4 cm in the transverse plane and below 10 cm in the beam direction. Clusters in the calorimeters are interpreted as neutral particles if they are not associated to charged particles, and if their energy exceeds 100 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$.

In the second step of the analysis, hadronic events are selected. Only two-jet events are accepted. The following requirements are optimised separately for the two $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ regions:

\[3em\]

For both the stop and sbottom analyses hadronic events are selected by requiring at least eight charged particles, a total transverse energy111The transverse energy $`E_t`$ of a particle is defined as $`E_t=\sqrt{E_x^2+E_y^2}`$ where $`E_x`$ and $`E_y`$ respectively are $`E\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and $`E\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta `$. The angles $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ are respectively the azimuthal and polar angle of the particle. greater than 15 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and a transverse energy of the most energetic jet greater than 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. These three cuts are aimed at reducing the background coming from two-photon processes. Forward Bhabha scattering is suppressed by requiring that the total energy in the FEMC is lower than 25 GeV. Z0($`\gamma `$) processes with a detected photon are reduced by requiring that the total energy in the HPC is lower than 40 GeV. Finally, at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 183 GeV, the requirement for substantial missing energy is fulfilled by demanding that the quantity $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ is lower than 170 GeV. The quantity $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ is the effective centre-of-mass energy after photons radiation from the incoming $`e^+e^{}`$ beams. At $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV, this requirement is replaced by the requirement that the polar angles of the two jets are between $`20^{}`$ and $`160^{}`$.

To select hadronic events in the stop analysis the number of charged particles is required to be greater than five, the total charged energy has to be lower than $`0.3\sqrt{s}`$ (in order to select events with missing energy) and the polar angle of the total missing momentum has to be between $`15^{}`$ and $`165^{}`$, in order to reduce the background from radiative return events. The total energy in the FEMC and HPC has to be lower than 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and 40 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, respectively. The reduction of two-photon processes is ensured by requiring that the total transverse energy is greater than 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and that the quantity $`p_{tt}=\sqrt{p_{tt1}^2+p_{tt2}^2}`$ is greater than 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, where $`p_{tti}`$ is the transverse momentum of jet $`i`$ with respect to the thrust axis projected onto the plane transverse to the beam axis. Finally, the most energetic charged particle is required to have a polar angle between $`30^{}`$ and $`150^{}`$ and a momentum greater than 2 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. Similarly the polar angle of the most energetic neutral particle is required to be between $`20^{}`$ and $`160^{}`$. At $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 183 GeV, the sbottom selection at this step is similar to the stop analysis described above except for the requirement on $`p_{tt}`$ which is replaced by requiring the ratio $`p_{tt}/E_{tot}`$ to be greater than 50% where $`E_{tot}`$ is the total energy of the event. At $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV, the sbottom selection at this step is simplified by removing the above requirement on $`p_{tt}/E_{tot}`$.

After this second step and for both the non-degenerate and the degenerate mass cases, agreement between data and expectations from the Monte Carlo simulation describing standard model processes is found to be good as can be seen from Figures 1a-c showing the visible mass, the charged multiplicity and the fraction of the energy for polar angles between $`30^o`$ and $`150^o`$ at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV. Figures 2a-c show the total energy, the transverse energy and the charged multiplicity of the leading jet, for the degenerate mass case of the stop analysis at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV. Figures 3a-c show the visible mass, the missing transverse energy and the total multiplicity for the degenerate mass case of the sbottom analysis at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV.

In a third step discriminating linear functions  are used in order to achieve optimum rejection power. They have been determined in the following way:

\[3em\]

In this case, the same functions have been used both for the stop and the sbottom analysis. A first discriminating linear function has been determined using training samples of signal and Z0($`\gamma `$) background processes. For the training of a second discriminating linear function, signal and WW background event samples have been used. In the non-degenerate mass case, these two sources of background processes are found to be dominant after the first and second step of the event selection.

Here the main source of background remaining after the first and second step of the event selection is found to be $`\gamma \gamma `$ events. Different functions have been determined for the stop and sbottom analyses using training samples of signal and two-photon events.

Figure 1d shows the discriminating function against the Z$`{}_{}{}^{0}\gamma `$ background for the non-degenerate mass case at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV, Figure 2d and 3d show the discriminating functions for the degenerate mass domains of the stop and sbottom analyses at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV. For these degenerate and non-degenerate mass cases, fair agreements between data and expectations from Monte Carlo describing standard model processes are found. The data and Monte Carlo small disagreement of the discriminating function for the degenerate mass cases shown in Figure 2d is restricted to the negative values of this function which correspond to the region of the bulk of the expectations from Monte Carlo describing standard model processes in particular two-photon interactions leading to hadronic final states which are known to be difficult to modelize. This region does not correspond to the squark signal region. As shown by the hatched areas of Figure 2d, the positive values of this discriminating function correspond to the squark signal region and in this region the agreement between data and expectations from Monte Carlo describing standard model processes is very good.

The final background reduction is performed by sequential cuts. In the non-degenerate mass case, one set of cuts is used to select both stop and sbottom events. It is shown, together with the number of events retained in data and background simulation, in Tables 1 and 2.

In the degenerate mass case two different selections are used for stop and sbottom. These are shown in Table 3 for the stop analysis at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 183 GeV and $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV and in Tables 4 and 5 for the sbottom analysis at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 183 GeV and $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 189 GeV respectively.

## 5 Results

The number of candidates found and the expected background levels are shown in Table 6 and Table 7. There are candidates in common in the stop and sbottom analyses. The total background is given assuming a $``$or$``$ between the degenerate mass case and the non-degenerate mass case for the stop and sbottom analyses. One candidate event from the non-degenerate mass case analysis is shown in Figure 4. The efficiencies of the stop and sbottom signal selection are summarised in Figure 5. They have been evaluated using 35 simulated samples at different points in the ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{q}}}`$,$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$) plane, for squark masses between 50 and 90 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and neutralino masses between 0 and 85 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

No evidence for stop or sbottom production has been found in the two-body decay channels. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{q}}}`$,$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$) regions excluded at 95% confidence level by the search for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{c}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decays, with the 100% branching ratio assumption, both for purely left-handed states (with maximum cross-section) and the states with minimum cross-section. We have also used the results (efficiencies, number of candidates and expected background) of the analyses of the data at 130 - 172 GeV  in order to derive these exclusion regions.

In order to estimate systematic errors coming from detector effects and modelling, the differences of the mean values of the observables used for the above analyses (sequential cuts steps and discriminating linear analyses steps) between real data and simulation are calculated at the level of the first step of the selection described in section 4. The difference $`\delta `$ for the mean value of the observable $`X`$ between real data and simulation is used in order to shift $`X`$ according to $`X+\delta `$ and $`X\delta `$. The analyses described in section 4 then use the shifted observables and the differences in efficiencies and expected background with respect to efficiencies and expected background obtained with the unshifted observables are taken as systematic errors. The relative systematic errors for efficiencies are 10% in the non-degenerate mass case and 15% in the degenerate mass case. The systematic errors for the expected background are given in Table 6 and Table 7.

Systematic errors on efficiencies coming from the modelling of the hadronization of the stop are estimated by switching off the hadronization of the stop. The relative systematic errors for efficiencies are 2% in the non degenerate mass case and 8% in the degenerate mass case.

## 6 Conclusions

In data samples of 54 pb-1 and 158 pb-1 collected by the DELPHI detector at centre-of-mass energies of 183 GeV and 189 GeV searches are performed for events with acoplanar jet pairs. The results are combined with those already obtained at centre-of-mass energies between $`130`$$`172`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ .

At 183 GeV, the search for stop and sbottom quarks, decaying into c$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and b$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, respectively, gives in total 3 candidates (some candidates are in common in the stop and sbottom analyses) well compatible with the expected background of $`3.4\pm 0.5`$.

At 189 GeV, the search for stop and sbottom quarks, decaying into c$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and b$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, respectively, gives in total 9 candidates (some are candidates are also in common in the stop and sbottom analyses) well compatible with the expected background of $`11.6\pm 1.4`$.

For the stop, a mass limit of 79 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is obtained for the state with minimal cross-section, if the mass difference between the squark and the LSP is above 15 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ . A mass limit of 62 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is obtained for the sbottom quark under the same condition.

In the case of maximum cross-section, these numbers are 84 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the stop and 87 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the sbottom.

## Acknowledgements

We are greatly indebted to our technical collaborators, to the members of the CERN-SL Division for the excellent performance of the LEP collider, and to the funding agencies for their support in building and operating the DELPHI detector.
We acknowledge in particular the support of
Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Traffics, GZ 616.364/2-III/2a/98,
FNRS–FWO, Belgium,
FINEP, CNPq, CAPES, FUJB and FAPERJ, Brazil,
Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade, GA CR 202/96/0450 and GA AVCR A1010521,
Danish Natural Research Council,
Commission of the European Communities (DG XII),
Direction des Sciences de la Mati$`\stackrel{`}{\text{e}}`$re, CEA, France,
Bundesministerium f$`\ddot{\text{u}}`$r Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Germany,
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece,
National Science Foundation (NWO) and Foundation for Research on Matter (FOM), The Netherlands,
Norwegian Research Council,
State Committee for Scientific Research, Poland, 2P03B06015, 2P03B1116 and SPUB/P03/178/98,
JNICT–Junta Nacional de Investigação Científica e Tecnol$`\stackrel{´}{\text{o}}`$gica, Portugal,
Vedecka grantova agentura MS SR, Slovakia, Nr. 95/5195/134,
Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia,
CICYT, Spain, AEN96–1661 and AEN96-1681,
The Swedish Natural Science Research Council,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Department of Energy, USA, DE–FG02–94ER40817.