text:
# Quantum nondemolition measurement of a light field component by a feedback compensated beam splitter

## Abstract

In conventional quantum nondemolition measurements, the interaction between signal and probe preserves the measured variable. Alternatively, it is possible to restore the original value of the variable by feedback. In this paper, we describe a quantum nondemolition measurement of a quadrature component of the light field using a feedback compensated beam splitter. The noise induced by the vacuum port of the beam splitter is compensated by a linear feedback resulting in an effective amplification of the observed variable. This amplification is then be reversed by optical parametric amplification to restore the original value of the field component.

The measurement backaction required by the uncertainty principle is a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. In particular, this principle can be applied in quantum communications to prevent or detect eavesdropping . However, most measurements in quantum optics are performed by irreversibly absorbing the measured light. It is therefore a special challenge to devise experimental realizations of back-action evasion measurements that allow the non-destructive observation of light field properties . Usually, quantum nondemolition measurements of the light field are realized by a non-linear coupling between the signal field and a meter field . In the following, a simple beam splitter will be used to couple the signal and the meter fields. While this method initially adds noise to the observed property of the signal field, it has been shown that this noise can be compensated by a measurement dependent feedback . The result of this compensation is an amplification of the observed field component. By reversing this amplification in an optical parametric amplifier, the original value of the observable is restored. It is then possible to realize a quantum nondemolition measurement of a quadrature component using only one single mode parametric amplification step performed after the original beam splitter measurement. This approach thus represents a considerable simplification compared to the previous realizations of quadrature quantum nondemolition measurements which used two mode parametric amplification in order to couple the meter mode to the signal mode .

Figure 1 shows the experimental setup required for this quantum nondemolition measurement. The quantum nondemolition measurement is composed of a sequence of three distinct steps, the beam splitter measurement, the linear feedback, and the parametric amplification. In the first step, an unknown input state $`\psi _{\text{in}}`$ is mixed with the vacuum at the beam splitter. The product state of the input state and the vacuum can be expressed in terms of the quadrature component $`x_S`$ of the signal mode and the quadrature component $`x_M`$ of the meter mode following the mixing of the modes at the beam splitter described by the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}_{BS}`$. For a reflectivity of $`1q^2`$, the wavefunction of this quantum state reads

$`x_S;x_M\widehat{U}_{BS}\psi _{\text{in}};\text{vac.}=`$ (1)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[(1q^2)\left(x_S{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{1q^2}}}x_M\right)^2\right]\sqrt{1q^2}x_M+qx_S\psi _{\text{in}}.`$ (2)
It is then possible to obtain a measurement result $`x_m`$ for the x-component of the input field by measuring the meter variable $`x_M`$, rescaling the result such that $`x_m=x_M/\sqrt{1q^2}`$. The non-normalized output state in the signal field conditioned by this measurement reads

$`\psi _{BS}(x_m)=`$ (3)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(1q^2)}{\pi }}\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_S\mathrm{exp}\left[(1q^2)\left(x_Sqx_m\right)^2\right](1q^2)x_m+qx_S\psi _{\text{in}}x_S}.`$ (4)
The measurement probability is given by $`P(x_m)=\psi _{BS}(x_m)\psi _{BS}(x_m)`$. The output amplitude of each component $`x_S`$ now depends on the input amplitude at a x-value given by both $`x_S`$ and the measurement result.

In the second step, the dependence of the output value of x on the noisy measurement result is compensated by feedback. This feedback can be described by a displacement operator $`\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\frac{1q^2}{q}x_m.$$
(5)
The output state then reads

$`\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)\psi _{BS}(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(1q^2)}{\pi }}\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_S\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1q^2}{q^2}\left(qx_Sx_m\right)^2\right]qx_S\psi _{\text{in}}x_S}.`$ (6)
The output component $`x_S`$ is now associated with the input amplitude of $`qx_S`$. The vacuum noise component mixed into the signal by the beam splitter has been compensated completely, leaving only an effective amplification of the original field component $`x_S`$ by a factor of $`1/q`$. This noiseless amplification has been realized experimentally by P.K. Lam and coworkers . Equation (6) is a fully quantum mechanical formulation of this noiseless amplification setup.

In the final step of the quantum nondemolition measurement, the original value of $`x_S`$ is restored by a parametric amplification described by the squeezing operator $`\widehat{S}(q)`$ with

$$\widehat{S}(q)x_S=\sqrt{q}qx_S.$$
(7)
This operation attenuates $`x_S`$ back to its original value while simultaneously amplifying the conjugate quadrature component. The output state of this sequence of beam splitter measurement, feedback displacement, and parametric amplification is then given by

$`\widehat{S}(q)\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)\psi _{BS}(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(1q^2)}{\pi q^2}}\right)^{1/4}{\displaystyle 𝑑x_S\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1q^2}{q^2}\left(x_Sx_m\right)^2\right]x_S\psi _{\text{in}}x_S}.`$ (8)
Note that this state is not normalized, because the measurement probabilities are given by $`P(x_m)=\psi _{BS}(x_m)\psi _{BS}(x_m)`$. Both the measurement statistics and the measurement back-action are thus described by equation (8). Since the output value of $`x_S`$ is now equal to the input value, the measurement may be described by an operator commuting with the quadrature operator $`\widehat{x}_S`$, such that

$$\widehat{S}(q)\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)\psi _{BS}(x_m)=\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)\psi _{\text{in}}.$$
(10)
The operator $`\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)`$ is the generalized measurement operator for finite resolution quantum nondemolition measurements previously introduced in . Expressed in terms of the quadrature operator $`\widehat{x}_S`$, it reads

$`\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\pi \delta x^2\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(x_m\widehat{x}_S)^2}{4\delta x^2}}\right]`$ (11)
with $`4\delta x^2={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{1q^2}}.`$ (12)
The probability distribution over measurement results $`P(x_m)`$ and the normalized output state $`\psi _{\text{out}}(x_m)`$ are then given by

$`P(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{P}_{\delta x}^2(x_m)\psi _{\text{in}}`$ (13)
$`\psi _{\text{out}}(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{P(x_m)}}}\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)\psi _{\text{in}}.`$ (14)
Note that the squared measurement resolution $`4\delta x^2`$ is given by the ratio of the transmission and the reflectivity of the beam splitter.

Since the measurement back-action represented by $`\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)`$ is the minimum required by the uncertainty principle, the feedback compensated beam splitter represents an alternative realization of optimal quantum optical tapping . The experimental effort should be greatly reduced by the use of a single mode parametric amplification instead of the two mode amplification applied in  according to the proposal of . Moreover, the formalism developed above allows an assessment of a simple beam splitter measurement without feedback and of noiseless amplification  in terms of an operator product of the measurement operator $`\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)`$ and the corresponding unitary transformations,

Beam splitter measurement: (15)
$`\psi _{BS}(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)\widehat{S}(1/q)\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)\psi _{\text{in}}`$ (16)
Noiseless amplification: (17)
$`\widehat{D}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)\psi _{BS}(x_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}(1/q)\widehat{P}_{\delta x}(x_m)\psi _{\text{in}}.`$ (18)
Every step of the quantum nondemolition measurement can thus be described by its own operator. This allows an in depth analysis of the information and noise dynamics in quantum measurements. In particular, it should be noted that equation (15) represents the losses of the beam splitter without feedback in terms of a measurement dependent unitary transformation. The intensity loss caused by the beam splitter seems to originate from the dependence of the displacement operator on the classical information $`x_m`$. This indicates that the loss in intensity at the beam splitter is directly related to the classical information gain represented by the measurement result $`x_m`$. The implications for photon losses can be investigated by applying the operator formalism to single photon states or to low amplitude coherent states. The efficiency of photon loss compensation may be relevant for implementations of eavesdropping strategies for single photon quantum communication. An investigation of photon loss compensation should also provide practical insights into non-classical photon-field correlations, since the measurement only registers the reflected field amplitude, not the photon losses. By performing photon counting measurements on the transmitted signal field to monitor the changes in photon number, a simplified version of the experiment proposed in  can be realized.

In conclusion, we have described the realization of a quantum nondemolition measurement of a quadrature component by a feedback compensated beam splitter setup. This setup is more simple than previous realizations, since it requires only a single mode parametric amplification. The operator formalism describing the three sequential steps allows a theoretical investigation of the information dynamics in the quantum nondemolition measurement, in a beam splitter without feedback, and in noiseless amplification. Both the proposal for experiment and the formalism for its description should thus provide a helpful tool for the development of quantum communication technologies.


format: text

text:
# The lagrangian description of representations of the Poincare group

## 1 THE DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRAINTS

It is well known that the particles with the value of spin more than two arise naturally when quantizing such classical objects as the relativistic oscillator , string  or discrete string . The challenging problem for these kinds of theories is to construct the lagrangian description both for free and for interacting particles with the higher spins.

In order to kill ghosts and all other superfluous representations the field theoretical lagrangians, describing irreducible Poincare representations must possess some gauge invariance. Along with the basic fields such lagrangians in general include additional ones. The role of these fields is to single out the irreducible representation of the Poincare group. Some of them are auxiliary, others can be gauged away. After a gauge fixing and solving the equations of motion for auxiliary fields one is left with the only essential field, describing the irreducible representation of the Poincare group. In general this field corresponds to the Young table with $`k`$ rows and is described by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{n_2},\mathrm{},\rho _1\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _{n_k}}^{(k)}(x)`$ which is the $`n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_k`$ rank tensor field symmetrical with respect to the permutations of each type of indices. In addition, this field is subject to the mass shell condition and transversality conditions for each type of indices. Further, all traces of the basic field must vanish. The correspondence with a given Young table implies, that after symmetrization of all indices from $`i`$ \- th row with one index from $`j`$ \- th row $`(i<j)`$ the basic field vanishes, for example

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{\mu _\mathrm{𝟏}\mu _\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{}\mu _{𝐧_\mathrm{𝟏}},\nu _\mathrm{𝟏}\}\nu _\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{}\nu _{𝐧_\mathrm{𝟐}},\mathrm{},\rho _\mathrm{𝟏}\rho _\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{}\rho _{𝐧_𝐤}}^{(k)}(x)=0.$$
(1)
To describe all irreducible representations of the Poincare group simultaneously it is convenient to introduce an auxiliary Fock space generated by the creation and annihilation operators $`a_\mu ^{i+},a_\mu ^j`$ with Lorentz index $`\mu =0,1,2,\mathrm{},D1`$ and additional internal index $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. These operators satisfy the following commutation relations

$$[a_\mu ^i,a_\nu ^{j+}]=g_{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ij},$$
(2)
$$g_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1),$$
(3)
where $`\delta ^{ij}`$ is usual Cronecker symbol.

The general state of the Fock space depends on the space - time coordinates $`x_\mu `$

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle }\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\mathrm{},\rho _1\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _{n_k}}(x)\times `$
$`a_{\mu _1}^{1+}a_{\mu _2}^{1+}\mathrm{}a_{\mu _{n_1}}^{1+}\mathrm{}a_{\rho _1}^{k+}a_{\rho _2}^{k+}\mathrm{}a_{\rho _{n_k}}^{k+}|0`$ (4)
and the components $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{n_1},\mathrm{},\rho _1\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _{n_k}}^{(k)}(x)`$ are automatically symmetrical under the permutations of indices of the same type. The norm of states in this Fock space is not positively definite due to the minus sign in the commutation relation (2) for the time components of the creation and annihilation operators. The transversality conditions for the components leading to the positively definite norm of physical states are equivalent to the following constraints on the physical vectors of the Fock space

$$L^i|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,L^i=a_\mu ^ip_\mu .$$
(5)
These operators $`L^i`$ along with their conjugates $`L^{i+}=a_\mu ^{i+}p_\mu `$ and mass shell operator $`p_\mu ^2`$ form the following algebra with only nonvanishing commutator

$$[L^i,L^{j+}]=p_\mu ^2\delta ^{ij}.$$
(6)
This simple algebra was considered in  in the framework of the BRST approach, which automatically leads to the appearance of all auxiliary fields in the lagrangian. Since the constraints are of the first class the corresponding nilpotent BRST charge can be constructed straightforwardly. As a result the description of mixed symmetry (not only totally symmetric) fields was obtained. However, all these fields describe the reducible representations of the Poincare group due to the absence of tracelessness and mixed symmetry conditions in the initial system of the constraints.

On the other hand, the same algebra of operators arises in the case of massive particles. The only difference is that the right hand side of the relation (6) is now nonvanishing operator. Moreover, this operator can have different eigenvalues $`p_\mu ^2=m_n^2`$ for the different physical states. Therefore the procedure of construction of the nilpotent BRST charge for this simple system of constraints is complicated , since now constraints $`L^{i\pm }`$ are of the second class.

The tracelessness conditions correspond in the Fock space to the constraints

$$L^{ij}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(7)
with $`L^{ij}=a_\mu ^ia_\mu ^j,`$ for $`ij`$ and $`L^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}a_\mu ^ia_\mu ^j,`$ for $`i=j`$, while the mixed symmetry properties follow from the constraints

$$T^{ij}|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,i<j,$$
(8)
with $`T^{ij}=a_\mu ^{i+}a_\mu ^j.`$ The operators $`L^{ij},L^{ij+}`$ ($`i,j`$ are arbitrary) and $`T^{ij}`$, $`T^{ij+},(ij)`$, along with the additional operators

$$H^i=T^{ii}+\frac{D}{2}=a_\mu ^{i+}a_\mu ^i+\frac{D}{2},$$
(9)
form the Lie algebra $`SO(k+1,k)`$. The rank of this algebra is $`k`$ and corresponding Cartan subalgebra contains all operators $`H^i`$. One can choose the operators $`L^{11}`$ and $`T^{i,i+1}`$ as $`k`$ simple roots. The positive and negative roots are, correspondingly, $`L^{ij},T^{rs},(1r<sk)`$ and $`L^{ij+},T^{rs},(1s<rk)`$. It means, that the tracelessness and the mixed symmetry conditions are equivalent to annihilation of physical states in the total Fock space by the positive roots of the Lie algebra $`SO(k+1,k)`$. As it can be easily seen, the Cartan generators (9) are strictly positive in the Fock space and have to be excluded from the total set of constraints. Therefore the standard BRST charge has to be modified for the given realization of the $`SO(k+1,k)`$ algebra.

In the present talk we give the lagrangian description of the massive reducible representations of the Poincare group and its irreducible massless representations with the corresponding Young tableaux having two or one rows. The later lagrangian can be straightforwardly reduced to the lagrangian of , describing the irreducible massless higher spin fields (see also ). Though in both cases the corresponding system of constraints contains both the ones of the first and the second class, the nontrivial structure of trilinear ghost terms in the BRST charge makes it nilpotent. The method used for these constructions can be generalized for arbitrary representations of Poincare group as well.

## 2 REDUCIBLE MASSIVE CASE

To demonstrate the general method of BRST construction with the second class constraints of the considered type we begin with the simplest example of nonvanishing mass. In this section we consider the system with constraints

$$L^0=p_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2,$$

$$L^1=p_\mu a_\mu ,L^{1+}=p_\mu a_\mu ^+,$$

This system is intermediate between the systems in  and  because it describes the massive particle together with all its daughter (due to the absence of the constraints $`L^{\pm 11}`$ in the theory are present particles with lower spins).

The commutation relation (6) (we are considering the case of one oscillator i.e., $`i,j=1`$) means that $`L^{\pm 1}`$ are the second class constraints. The simplest way to construct BRST - charge with corresponding constraints  is to consider massless case in $`D+1`$ dimensions with constraints

$$L^0=p_\mu ^2+p_D^2,\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},D1,$$

$$L^1=p_\mu a_\mu p_Da_D,$$

$$L^{1+}=p_\mu a_\mu ^+p_Da_D^+.$$

Following to the standard procedure we introduce additional set of anticommuting variables $`\eta _0,\eta _1,\eta _1^+`$ having ghost number one and corresponding momenta $`𝒫_0,𝒫_1^+,𝒫_1`$ with commutation relations:

$$\{\eta _0,𝒫_0\}=\{\eta _1,𝒫_1^+\}=\{\eta _1^+,𝒫_1\}=1.$$
(10)
and consider the total Fock space generated by creation operators $`a_\mu ^+,a_D^+,\eta _1^+,\eta _0,𝒫_1^+`$. In terms of the nilpotent BRST - charge which corresponds to the given system of constraints

$$Q=\eta _0L^0+\eta _1^+L^1+\eta _1L^{1+}\eta _1^+\eta _1𝒫_0$$
(11)
the BRST invariant lagrangian can be written as follows

$$L=𝑑\eta _0\chi |Q|\chi .$$
(12)
In order to describe the massive particle we fix the following $`x_D`$ dependence of the Fock space vector $`|\chi `$ in (12):

$$|\chi =U|\chi ^{}=e^{ix_Dm}|\chi ^{}.$$
(13)
The result of the substitution of (13) in the expression (12) is

$$L=𝑑\eta _0\chi ^{}|\stackrel{~}{Q}|\chi ^{},$$
(14)
The new BRST - charge $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is nilpotent due to unitarity of the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=U^1QU`$. Our choice of $`x_D`$\- dependence in the exponent in (13) leads to the presence in the BRST charge of the correct massive operator $`\stackrel{~}{L}_0=p_\mu ^2+m^2`$ The same trick with the dimensional reduction will be applied in the consequent sections to more complicated cases. It is exactly the heart of the approach, which makes it possible to construct the nilpotent BRST charge in the presence of the second class constraints. The nilpotency of the BRST - charge evidently does not depend from the unitary transformation of the type (13).

In order to be physical, the lagrangian must have zero ghost number. It means that the most general expressions for the vector $`|\chi ^{}`$ is

$$|\chi ^{}=|S_1+\eta _1^+𝒫_1^+|S_2,+\eta _0𝒫_1^+|S_3,$$
(15)
with vectors $`|S_i`$ having ghost number zero and depending only on bosonic creation operators $`a_\mu ^+,a_D^+`$

$$|S_i=\varphi _{\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{}\mu _n}^n(x)a_{\mu _1}^+a_{\mu _2}^+\mathrm{}a_{\mu _n}^+(a_D^+)^n|0.$$
(16)
The nilpotency of the BRST - charge leads to the invariance of the lagrangian (14) under the following transformations

$$\delta |\chi ^{}=\stackrel{~}{Q}|\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(17)
The parameter of transformation must have ghost number $`1`$ and can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒫_1^+|\lambda ,`$ where $`|\lambda `$ belong to the Fock space generated by $`a_\mu ^+,a_D^+`$ and depends on the space - time coordinates.

After the substitution of equation (15) into the lagrangian (14) and integration with respect to $`\eta _0`$ the lagrangian is expressed only via the fields $`|S_i`$

$`L=S_1|\stackrel{~}{L}^0|S_1+S_2|\stackrel{~}{L}^0|S_2+`$
$`S_1|\stackrel{~}{L}^{1+}|S_3+S_3|\stackrel{~}{L}^1|S_1S_3||S_3`$ (18)
$`S_2|\stackrel{~}{L}^1|S_3S_3|\stackrel{~}{L}^{1+}|S_2,`$
with the following notations used

$$\stackrel{~}{L}^0=p_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2$$
(19)
$$\stackrel{~}{L}^1=L^1ma_D$$
(20)
$$\stackrel{~}{L}_1^+=L^{1+}a_D^+m,$$

The corresponding equations of motion are:

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_0|S_1\stackrel{~}{L}_1^+|S_3=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{L}_0|S_2\stackrel{~}{L}_1|S_3=0,`$
$`|S_3\stackrel{~}{L}_1|S_1+\stackrel{~}{L}_1^+|S_2=0.`$ (21)
While the gauge transformation law (17) in the component form looks as follows

$$\delta |S_1=\stackrel{~}{L}_1^+\lambda ,$$
(22)
$$\delta |S_2=\stackrel{~}{L}_1\lambda ,$$
(23)
$$\delta |S_3=\stackrel{~}{L}_0\lambda .$$
(24)
Then using the gauge transformations one can show , that the fields $`|S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ as well as $`a_D^+`$ dependence in $`|S_1`$ can be gauged away. Finally one obtains conditions

$$(p_\mu ^2+m^2)|S_1=L^1|S_1=0$$
(25)
as the result of the equations of motion.

Alternatively, one can first gauge away field $`|S_2`$ and $`a_D^+`$ dependence in fields $`|S_1`$ and $`|S_3`$, then express the field $`|S_3`$ using its own equation of motion in terms $`|S_1`$ and put back into the lagrangian (2) to obtain

$$L=S_1|p_\mu ^2+(p_\mu a_\mu ^+)(p_\nu a_\nu )+m^2|S_1$$

The lagrangian (2) (or (2)) describes all spins from zero to infinity with mass equal to $`m`$. Due to the luck of the tracelessness constraint, each spin $`n`$ in the state $`|S_1`$ is followed also by spins $`n2,n4\mathrm{}`$ on this level.

So, in this Section we demonstrated the method of BRST construction in the presence of two second class constraints $`[L^1,L^{1+}]=p_\mu ^2=L^0m^2`$. The price for this was the introduction of additional creation and annihilation operators $`a_D^+`$ and $`a_D`$ in the Fock space with corresponding modification of the representation for the basic operators $`L^1,L^{1+}`$. In the next Section the method will be generalized for more complicated systems of constraints.

## 3 IRREDUCIBLE MASSLESS CASE

### 3.1 BRST construction

The fields we are going to describe using the approach given in the previous Section correspond to the following Young tableaux

(26)
and have the mass equal to zero i.e., $`L^0=p_\mu ^2`$. Constraints describing these fields are those given in the first section, for $`i,j=1,2`$, namely $`E^\alpha =(L^{ij},T)`$, $`E^\alpha =(L^{+ij},T^+)`$ and $`^A=(L^0,L^i,L^{+i})`$.

The operators $`E^{\pm \alpha }`$ and $`H^i`$ form the algebra of group $`SO(3,2)`$, which can be written in the compact form as

$`[H^i,E^\alpha ]=\alpha (i)E^\alpha ,`$
$`[E^\alpha ,E^\alpha ]=\alpha ^iH^i,`$
$`[E^\alpha ,E^\beta ]=N^{\alpha \beta }E^{\alpha +\beta },`$ (27)
The corresponding nilpotent BRST charge for this subsystem of constraints can be constructed as follows .

First we construct the auxiliary representations of generators of the $`SO(3,2)`$ group using the Verma module after introduction of the additional creation and annihilation operators $`[b_I,b_J^+]=\delta _{IJ}`$, $`I,J=1,\mathrm{},4`$ The number of the oscillators is equal to the number of positive roots of the algebra $`SO(3,2)`$ and the vector $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends also on the creation operators $`b_I^+`$.

Namely let us introduce the vector in the space of Verma module

$`|n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4_V=`$ (28)
$`(L^{11+})^{n_1}(L^{12+})^{n_2}(L^{22+})^{n_3}(T^+)^{n_4}|0_V`$
where $`n_iN`$ and $`E^\alpha |0_V=0`$. The corresponding vector in the Fock space generated by the creation and operators $`b_I^+`$ is

$`|n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4=`$ (29)
$`(b_1^+)^{n_1}(b_2^+)^{n_2}(b_3^+)^{n_3}(b_4^+)^{n_4}|0.`$
Mapping the vectors in the Verma module onto the vectors in the Fock space one obtains the representations of the generators of $`SO(3,2)`$ (see  for the general construction) algebra in terms of $`b_I`$, $`b_I^+`$ and constant parameters $`h^i`$, which characterize the highest weight representation $`H_i|0_V=h_i|0_V`$. However since the vectors in the Fock space form orthogonal basis and the corresponding vectors in Verma module do not, the correspondence between this two spaces is incomplete. In order to establish the complete correspondence one has to modify the scalar product in the Fock space under the condition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1|K|\mathrm{\Phi }_2={}_{V}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_2_{V}^{}.$$
(30)
with he Kernel operator $`K`$

$$K=Z^+Z,$$
(31)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_i}{}}(L^{11+})^{n_1}(L^{12+})^{n_2}(L^{22+})^{n_3}(T^+)^{n_4}|0_V\times `$ (32)
$`0|(b_1)^{n_1}(b_2)^{n_2}(b_3)^{n_3}(b_4)^{n_4}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_i!}}.`$
Next define

$$^i=H^i+\stackrel{~}{H^i}_{aux.}+h^i,$$
(33)
$$^{\pm \alpha }=E^{\pm \alpha }+E_{aux.}^\alpha (h),$$
(34)
where we have explicitly extracted the dependence on parameters $`h_i`$ in the auxiliary representations of Cartan generators. The corresponding nilpotent BRST charge with no $`H^i`$ dependence has the form

$`\stackrel{~}{Q_1}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha >0}{}}\left(\eta _\alpha ^\alpha +\eta _\alpha ^\alpha \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}N^{\alpha \beta }\eta _\alpha \eta _\beta 𝒫_{\alpha +\beta }`$ (35)
where, as a consequence of the procedure of dimensional reduction described in the previous Section the parameters $`h^i`$ have to be substituted by the expressions

$$\pi ^i=H^i\stackrel{~}{H}_{aux}^i\underset{\beta >0}{}\beta (i)(\eta _\beta 𝒫_\beta \eta _\beta 𝒫_\beta ).$$
(36)
Indeed, after the construction of the standard nilpotent BRST charge $`Q_1`$ treating $`^{\pm \alpha }`$ and $`^i`$ as first class constraints, one considers the auxiliary phase space $`(x_i,p^i)`$ with $`p^i=h^i`$. After that one makes the similarity transformation $`\stackrel{~}{Q_1}=e^{i\pi ^ix_i}Q_1e^{i\pi ^ix_i}`$ analogous to the one considered in the previous section. This transformation removes the dependence on the $`\eta _i`$ ghost variables, which correspond to the Cartan generators $`^i`$. Then the $`𝒫_i`$ independent part of the transformed BRST charge is nilpotent and equals to (3.1).

The inclusion of the constraints $`^𝒜`$ $`(L^0,L^i,L^{i+})`$ into the total BRST charge $`Q`$ is trivial, namely

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}=\stackrel{~}{Q_1}+\stackrel{~}{Q_2}$$
(37)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{Q_2}=\eta _0L^0+\eta _iL^{i+}+\eta _i^+L^i\eta _i^+\eta _i𝒫_\mathcal{0}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha >0,A,B}{}}(\eta _A\eta _\alpha ^+𝒫_{}𝒞_{\alpha ,𝒜}^{}+\eta _𝒜\eta _\alpha 𝒫_{}𝒞_{\alpha ,𝒜}^{})`$ (38)
in self explanatory notations. This completes the procedure of constructing nilpotent BRST charge for our system.

The BRST invariant lagrangian can be written as

$$L=𝑑\eta _0\chi |K\stackrel{~}{Q}|\chi ,$$
(39)
being invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\delta |\chi =\stackrel{~}{Q}|\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(40)
Following the lines of the previous section, after the integration over the ghost variables and elimination of auxiliary fields using the equations of motion and the BRST gauge transformations one arrives to the final expression for the lagrangian  describing all massless irreducible representations of the Poincare group with the corresponding Young tableaux having two rows

$`L=`$
$`S_1|L^0L^{+1}L^1L^{+2}L^2L^{+1}L^{+1}L^{11}`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+2}L^{12}L^{+2}L^{+2}L^{22}2L^{+11}L^0L^{11}`$
$`L^{+11}L^1L^1L^{+12}L^0L^{12}L^{+12}L^1L^2`$
$`2L^{+22}L^0L^{22}L^{+22}L^2L^2`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+11}L^1L^{11}L^{+1}L^{+12}L^2L^{11}+`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+22}L^1L^{22}L^{+1}L^{+22}L^2L^{12}`$
$`L^{+2}L^{+11}L^1L^{12}+L^{+2}L^{+11}L^2L^{11}`$
$`L^{+2}L^{+12}L^1L^{22}L^{+2}L^{+22}L^2L^{22}+`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+1}L^{+22}L^{11}L^{22}L^{+1}L^{+2}L^{+12}L^{11}L^{22}+`$
$`L^{+2}L^{+2}L^{+11}L^{11}L^{22}+3L^{+11}L^{+22}L^0L^{11}L^{22}+`$
$`L^{+11}L^{+22}L^1L^1L^{22}L^{+11}L^{+22}L^1L^2L^{12}+`$
$`L^{+11}L^{+22}L^2L^2L^{11}+`$
$`L^{+1}L^{+11}L^{+22}L^1L^{11}L^{22}+`$
$`L^{+2}L^{+11}L^{+22}L^2L^{11}L^{22}|S_1`$ (41)
where the field $`|S_1`$ is constrained as

$$T|S_1=0$$
(42)
$`L^{\{ij}L^{kl\}}|S_1=0`$ (43)
In particular, the equation (42) leads also to the following property of the basic field

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n,\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n}(x)=`$
$`(1)^n\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n,\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n}(x),`$ (44)
when the numbers of indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ coincide.

The lagrangian (3.1) is invariant under the transformations

$$\delta |S_1=(L^{1+}+L^{2+}T)|\lambda $$
(45)
with the parameter of gauge transformations $`|\lambda `$ constrained as follows

$$L^{ij}|\lambda =T^2|\lambda =0$$
(46)
obviously the constraints on the basic field (42) -(43) are also invariant under the gauge transformations (45).

Let us note, that neglecting the $`a_\mu ^{2+}`$ dependence in the field $`|S_1`$ one obtains the lagrangian given in  for irreducible massless higher spin fields.

### 3.2 Examples

Let us construct the explicit form of the lagrangians for some simple Young tableaux which correspond to lower orders in the expansion of the field $`|S_0`$.

$``$ : $`|S_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }(x)a_\mu ^{1+}a_\nu ^{2+}|0`$
The lagrangian (3.1) for this antisymmetric field in terms of the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu \rho }=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu ,\rho }+_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho ,\mu }+_\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }`$ has the standard form

$$L=\frac{1}{3}F_{\mu \nu \rho }^2$$
(47)
and is invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }(x)=_\mu \lambda _\nu (x)_\nu \lambda _\mu (x).$$
(48)
$``$ : $`|S_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }(x)a_\mu ^{1+}a_\nu ^{1+}a_\rho ^{2+}|0`$
The symmetry with respect to the first two indices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \mu ,\rho }`$ which is guaranteed by the construction and the condition (42) lead to the following property of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \nu ,\mu }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \rho ,\nu }=0.$$
(49)
The lagrangian (3.1) for the third rank tensor field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }`$ can be written in the form

$`L=2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \mu ,\rho }_\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \nu ,\rho }`$
$`4\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\mu _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \nu ,\rho }2\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\rho _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\sigma }+`$
$`6\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\sigma \sigma ,\rho }+3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \mu ,\rho }_\rho _\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \nu ,\sigma },`$ (50)
and is invariant under the gauge transformations

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho }(x)=_\mu \lambda _{\nu ,\rho }(x)+_\nu \lambda _{\mu ,\rho }(x)`$
$`_\rho \lambda _{\mu ,\nu }(x)_\rho \lambda _{\nu ,\mu }(x),`$ (51)
the gauge transformation parameter being traceless $`\lambda _{\mu ,\mu }=0`$.

$``$ : $`|S_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }(x)a_\mu ^{1+}a_\nu ^{1+}a_\rho ^{2+}a_\sigma ^{2+}|0`$
The field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ can be related to the field $`C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ which has symmetries of the Weyl tensor

$$C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }=C_{\nu \mu ,\rho \sigma }=C_{\mu \nu ,\sigma \rho },$$
(52)
$$C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }=C_{\rho \sigma ,\mu \nu },$$
(53)
in terms of relations

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }+C_{\mu \sigma ,\nu \rho })`$ (54)
$`C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\rho \nu ,\mu \sigma }).`$ (55)
Strictly speaking $`C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ is not a Weyl tensor because its traces do not vanish. However, one can obtain from (3.1) the following lagrangian

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \tau }_\sigma ^2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{\mu \tau ,\nu \rho }_\sigma ^2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \tau }+`$
$`3C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \rho }_\sigma ^2C_{\mu \tau ,\nu \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}C_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }_\sigma ^2C_{\rho \tau ,\rho \tau }+`$
$`2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }_\mu _\tau C_{\tau \rho ,\nu \sigma }+2C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }_\mu _\tau C_{\tau \sigma ,\nu \rho }`$
$`6C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \sigma }_\mu _\nu C_{\tau \rho ,\tau \sigma }6C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \rho }_\mu _\sigma C_{\sigma \tau ,\nu \tau }+`$
$`3C_{\mu \rho ,\nu \rho }_\mu _\nu C_{\sigma \tau ,\sigma \tau }`$ (56)
invariant under the gauge transformations

$`\delta C_{\mu \nu ,ab}(x)=_\mu \lambda _{\nu ,ab}(x)2_a\lambda _{\mu ,\nu b}(x)`$
$`(\mu a,\nu b)`$ (57)
$$\lambda _{\mu ,\mu \nu }=\lambda _{\mu ,\nu \nu }=0,\lambda _{\mu ,\nu \rho }=\lambda _{\mu ,\rho \nu }$$
(58)
$$\lambda _{\mu ,\nu \rho }+\lambda _{\nu ,\rho \mu }+\lambda _{\rho ,\mu \nu }=0$$
(59)
where the symmetrization over couples of Greek and Latin indices is assumed. It can be shown that the vanishing of all traces of this tensor on mass shell follows from this lagrangian . Therefore one can conclude that the lagrangian (3.2) consistently describes the free field theory of the Weyl tensor.

## 4 DISCUSSION

The approach we have described can be straightforwardly generalized to the particles which belong to an arbitrary representations of the Poincare group as well. Another challenging problem is construction of the theory of interacting higher spin fields. It is known that the particles with the higher spins can propagate through the background having the constant curvature, in particular through the AdS space (see  and the references therein), as well as interact with the constant electromagnetic field or symmetrical Einstein spaces . The utilization of the technique of the Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics leads also to the description of the particle with spin 2 on the background of the constant curvature , and on the background being real “Kahler – like” manifold . In the highlight of these developments it seems interesting to generalize this technique also for the description of the interaction of higher spin fields with some gravitational background. The inclusion of gravitational background will obviously lead to the modification of the system of constraints presented in the BRST charge. The problem of constructing of the nilpotent BRST charge for these kinds of physical systems can in turn reveal an allowed types of gravitational backgrounds where the higher spin fields can propagate consistently.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to G. Thompson for bringing the reference  to our attention. This investigation has been supported by the grant of the Committee for collaboration between Czech Republic and JINR. The work of Č.B. was supported by the grant of the Ministry of Education of Czech Republic VZ/400/00/18. The work of A.P. and M.T. was supported in part by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, grant 99-02-18417 and the joint grant RFBR-DFG 99-02-04022.


text:
# Thoughtful comments on ‘Bessel beams and signal propagation’

## Abstract

In this paper we present thoughtful comments on the paper ‘Bessel beams and signal propagation’ showing that the main claims of that paper are wrong. Moreover, we take the opportunity to show the non trivial and indeed surprising result that a scalar pulse (i.e., a wave train of compact support in the time domain) that is solution of the homogeneous wave equation ( vector ($`\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B}`$) pulse that is solution of Maxwell equations) is such that its wave front in some cases does travel with speed greater than $`c`$, the speed of light . In order for a pulse to posses a front that travels with speed $`c`$, an additional condition must be satisfied, namely the pulse must have finite energy. When this condition is fulfilled the pulse still can show peaks propagating with superluminal (or subluminal) velocities, but now its wave front travels at speed $`c`$. These results are important because they explain several experimental results obtained in recent experiments, where superluminal velocities have been observed, without implying in any breakdown of the Principle of Relativity.

In this paper we present some thoughtful comments (C$`{}_{1}{}^{}𝐂_4)`$ concerning statements presented in the paper ‘Bessel beams and signal propagation’  and also some non trivial results concerning superluminal propagation of peaks in particular electromagnetic pulses in nondispersive media.

In  the author recalls that the experimental results presented in  showed that Bessel beams generated at microwave frequencies have a group velocity greater than the velocity of light $`c`$ (in what follows we use units such that $`c=1`$)111In  we scrutinized the experimental results of . We presented there a simple model showing that all particulars of the data (including the slowing of the superluminal velocity of the peak along the propagation direction) can be qualitatively and quantitatively understood as a scissor’s like effect. Moreover in  we called the readers attention that in  peaks of finite aperture approximations (FAA) to particular acoustical Bessel pulses called $`X`$-waves (first discoverd by Lu and Greenleaf () have been see to travel at supersonic speed i.e., with velocity greater than $`c_{s\text{ }}`$, the sound speed parameter appearing on the homogenous wave equation (HWE). In  and  it is also predicted the possibilty of launching FAA to superluminal electromagnetic $`X`$-waves, a fact that has been confirmed experimentally in the microwave region in  and in the optical region in . A review concerning the different facets of ‘superluminal’ wave motion under different physical conditions can be found in .. His intention was then to show that the signal velocity, defined according to Brillouin and Sommerfeld (B&S) was also superluminal. We explicitly shows that the particular example used by the author of , given by the Bessel beam of his eq.(3) does not endorse his claim. Contrary to the author’s conclusion this beam has no fronts in both space and time domains, hence cannot satisfy B&S defintion of a signal. Moreover, the beam given by eq.(3) of  travels rigidly with a superluminal speed. We prove then that there are two classes of general Bessel pulses satisfying B&S definition of signal. A solution of the HWE corresponding to class I is such that the group speed is always less than $`c`$ whereas its front moves with speed $`c`$.222Of course, this is a kind of generalized reshaping phenomena which cannot endures for ever. It lasts until the peak of the wave catches the front. A solution of the HWE of the class II travels rigidly at superluminal speed if care is not taken of the energy content of the pulse. We present also some necessary comments concerning solutions of Maxwell equations associated with Bessel beams of classes I and II.

We start by recalling the general solution of the HWE $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ in Minkowski spacetime ($`M,\eta ,D`$) \[10-12\]. In a given Lorentz reference frame \[10-12\] $`I=/t\mathrm{sec}TM`$, we choose cylindrical coordinates ($`\rho ,\phi ,z`$) naturally adapted to the $`I`$ reference frame, where $`\rho =(x^2+y^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`x=\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi `$ and $`y=\rho \mathrm{sin}\phi `$, with ($`x,y,z`$) being the usual cartesian coordinates naturally adapted to $`I`$. Writting

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\rho ,\phi ,z)=f_1(\rho )f_2(\phi )f_3(t,z),$$
(1)
and substituting eq.(1) in the HWE we get the following equations (where $`\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are separation parameters),

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\left[\rho ^2\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\rho \frac{d}{d\rho }+(\rho ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\nu ^2)\right]f_1=0,\\ \left(\frac{d^2}{d\phi ^2}+\nu ^2\right)f_2=0,\\ \left(\frac{^2}{t^2}\frac{^2}{z^2}+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)f_3=0.\end{array}.$$
(2)
The first of eqs.(2) is Bessel’s equation, the second one implies that $`\nu `$ must be an integer and the third is a Klein-Gordon equation in two dimensional Minkowski spacetime.333In 4-dimensional spacetime the Klein-Gordon equation possess families of luminal and superluminal solutions, besides subluminal solutions. See  and references therein. In what follows ( without loss of generality for the objectives of the present paper) we choose $`\nu =0`$ (and also $`\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$). Then, we obtain as a solution of eqs.(2) a wave propagating in the $`z`$-direction, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{J_0}(t,\rho ,z)=J_0(\rho \mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{exp}[i(\omega t\overline{k}z)],$$
(3)
where the following dispersion relation must necessarily be satisfied,

$$\omega ^2\overline{k}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(4)
The dispersion relation given by eq.(4) may look strange at first sight, but there are evidences that it can be realized in nature (see below) in some special circunstances.

C1. It is quite clear that the wave described by eq.(3), called in  a Bessel beam444Note that in  the author writes $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and $`\overline{k}=\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta `$., has phase velocity $`v_{ph}=\omega /\overline{k}>1`$. However, we point out that the statement done in  is false, namely: ‘As known, in the absence of dispersion the group velocity $`v_{gr}`$ of a Bessel pulse is equal to the phase one 555The references  in  are the references  in the present paper. since all the components at different frequencies propagate with the same velocity’. To prove its falsity recall that there exists a Lorentz reference frame \[10-12\]

$$I^{}=(1v_{gr}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(/t+v_{gr}/z\right)\mathrm{sec}TM,$$
(5)
which is moving with velocity $`v_{gr}=d\omega /d\overline{k}<1`$ in relation to the frame $`I`$ in the $`z`$-direction. In the coordinates naturally adapted to the frame $`I^{}`$ the frequency of the wave is $`\omega ^{}=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which means that in the frame $`I^{}`$ the Bessel beam is stationary. This proves our statement that for Bessel beam the group velocity is always less than the velocity of light $`c.`$

C2. Now, we show how to build two different classes (I and II) of solutions of the HWE by appropriate linear superpositions of waves of the form given by our eq.(3).

Class I. Suppose, following B&S \[13,14 \] that a signal is defined as a pulse with a finite time duration at the origin $`z=0`$ where a physical device generated it. We model our problem as a Sommerfeld problem  for the HWE (with cylindrical symmetry), i.e., we want to find the solution of the HWE with the following conditions (called in what follows Sommerfeld conditions),

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\rho ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`AJ_0(\rho \mathrm{\Omega })[\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(tT)]\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t`$
$`=`$ $`AJ_0(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑\omega \mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{\mathrm{e}^{i\omega T}1\right\}}{\omega \omega _0}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\rho ,z)}{z}}|_{z=0}`$ $`=`$ $`AJ_0(\rho \mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑\omega \text{ }\overline{k}(\omega )\text{ }\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{\mathrm{e}^{i\omega T}1\right\}}{\omega \omega _0}}.`$ (6)
In eq.(6) $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ is the Heaviside function, $`A`$ and $`\omega _0=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are constants, $`\mathrm{}`$ means real part and $`\overline{k}(\omega )`$ is given below and for simplicity we take $`T=N\tau _0=2\pi N/\omega _0`$, with $`N`$ an integer. Now, to solve our problem it is enough to get a solution of the third of eqs.(2). We have,

$$f_3(t,z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{d\omega }{\omega \omega _0}\left\{\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tTv_{gr}z)}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tv_{gr}z)}\right\}$$
(7)
where $`v_{gr}=\overline{k}(\omega )/\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an appropriate path in the complex $`\omega `$-plane. We note $`lim_\omega \mathrm{}v_{gr}=1.`$ Putting eq.(7) into the third of eqs.(2) we see that the dispersion relation given by eq.(4) must be satisfied. To continue we write,

$$\overline{k}(\omega )=\sqrt{(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })}.$$
(8)
There are two branch points at $`\omega =\pm \mathrm{\Omega }`$. The corresponding branch cuts can be taken as the segment ($`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }`$) in the real $`\omega `$-axis. Following $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from positive values of $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ above and close to the real axis, the root in eq.(8) acquires a phase factor $`e^{i\pi }=1`$ when passing from $`\mathrm{}\omega >\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\mathrm{}\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then, on the real $`\omega `$-axis we have,

$$\overline{k}(\omega )=\{\begin{array}{c}|\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}|,\omega >\mathrm{\Omega }\\ |\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}|,\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }\end{array}$$
(9)
a result that is necessary in order to calculate the value of $`f_3`$ for $`(tv_{gr}z)>0`$. We are not going to investigate this case here, since we are interested in the behavior of $`f_3`$ for the case where $`(tz<0)`$. In this case, we must close the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the upper half plane. Since there are no poles inside the contour we get that

$$f_3(t,z)=0\text{ for }tz<0.$$
(10)
Now, it is easy to verify the intensity of the wave which is solution of the HWE and satisfies the Sommerfeld conditions given by eq.(6) has a maximum for $`\omega =\omega _0`$, i.e., the waves with frequency near $`\omega _0`$ have always a much greater amplitude than all others. Under these conditions let us write,

$$\omega t\overline{k}z=(\omega _0t\overline{k}_0z)+(t\frac{z}{v_{gr0}})(\omega \omega _0),$$
(11)
where $`v_{gr0}=(d\omega /d\overline{k})|_{\omega =\omega _0}<1`$ and $`v_{ph0}=\omega _0/\overline{k}_0>1`$. We can write an approximation for the function $`f_3(t,z)`$ denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{f}_3(t,z)`$ as,

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_3(t,z)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\left\{\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _0(tz/v_{ph0})}\underset{\omega _0\mathrm{}\omega }{\overset{\omega _0+\mathrm{}\omega }{}}\frac{d\omega }{\omega \omega _0}\left\{\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tTz/v_{gr0})}\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tz/v_{gr0})}\right\}\right\}.$$
(12)
We see that $`\stackrel{~}{f}_3(t,0)`$ is equal to $`f_3(t,0)`$ if we suppress in the expression for this function the frequencies very different from $`\omega _0`$. Now, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_3(t,0)`$ has support on the whole temporal axis, i.e., in the interval $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, but it is taken by some authors (like, e.g., ) as representing a wave that begin gradually at $`t=0`$ and ends gradually at $`t=T`$. Of course, no wave of the kind of $`\stackrel{~}{f}_3`$ can be build by any physical device. The importance of the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}_3(t,z)`$ is that, as emphasized by B&S  it shows that we can associate a group velocity to pulse peaks in general (and of Bessel beams in particular) satisfying the Sommerfeld conditons (eq.(6)) and that the group velocity in this case is less than the velocity of light. This means that after a while the back end of the wave that is travelling at speed $`c(=1)`$ will catch the peak. The wave reshapes even when propagating in vacuum.

A general subluminal $`J_0`$-Bessel beam can be written as,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B(t,\rho ,z)=J_0(\rho \omega )^1[T(\omega )]\mathrm{e}^{i\overline{k}z}$$
(13)
where $`T(\omega )`$ is an appropriate transfer function and $`^1`$ is the inverse Fourier transform. Now, the peaks of FAA to acoustical pulses of the form given by eq.(13) (i.e., the waves at $`z=0`$ are not zero only in the time interval $`0<t<T`$) have been seen travelling at subluminal speed666Of course, in this case the speed paramenter appearing in the HWE must be $`c_s`$, the sound speed in the medium, and the word subluminal speed used must be understood as a speed less than $`c_s`$. in an experiment described in , thus endorsing the above analysis.

Class II. We now return to the dispersion relation given by eq.(4) and write,

$$\overline{k}=k\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{\Omega }=k\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(14)
where $`\theta `$ is a constant called axicon angle . It results that

$$\omega =\pm k.$$
(15)
We immediately verify that

$$J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega tkz\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(16)
is a solution of the HWE whose beam width is proportional to $`1/\omega \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, thus being frequency dependent. The dependency of the beam width on frequency will cause the beam to have a pulse response that is independent of position. Indeed, suppose that the source is driven by a frequency distribution $`B(\omega )`$, i.e., we have a pulse

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_X(t,\rho ,z)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega B(\omega )J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega tkz\mathrm{cos}\theta )},\text{ }\omega =k.$$
(17)
If $`J_{0\text{ }}`$were not dependent on frequency the integral in eq.(17) would be simply the inverse Fourier transform of the source spectrum and we return to class I solutions. However, here $`J_0`$ is dependent on frequency and also on position and consequently modifies the pulse spectrum in such a way to make the time response of the pulse dependent on radial position. We put an index $`X`$ in the wave given by eq.(17) because pulses of this kind have been named $`X`$-waves by Lu and Greenleaf since 1992 . Even more, taking $`B(\omega )=Ae^{a_0|\omega |}`$ ($`A`$ and $`a_0>0`$ being constants), we can easily verify (c.r., pages 707 and 763 of ) that we can write for $`\mathrm{sin}\theta >0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_X(t,\rho ,z)=A_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{e}^{a_0|\omega |}J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tz\mathrm{cos}\theta )}$$
(18a)
$$=A_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{e}^{a_0\omega }J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{cos}(\omega \mu )$$

$$=\frac{A}{\left[\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\left[a_0+i\mu \right]^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}+\frac{A}{\left[\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\left[a_0i\mu \right]^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$
(18b)
$$=\frac{A\sqrt{2}\left\{\left[\left[\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +a_0^2\mu ^2\right]^2+4a_0^2\mu ^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}+\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +a_0^2\mu ^2\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\{[\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +a_0^2\mu ^2]^2+4a_0^2\mu ^2\}^{\frac{1}{2}},}$$

(18c)
where $`\mu =(`$ $`tz\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$.

Eq.(18c) shows that this wave is a real solution of the HWE. We recall that if in eq.(18a) we use as integration interval $`0<\omega <\mathrm{}`$, we get only the first term in eq.(18b). In this case we have a complex wave that has been called the broad band $`X`$-wave in \[4-6\]. These waves and the more general ones given by eq.(18b) propagate without distortion with superluminal velocity given by $`1/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, but of course they cannot be produced in the physical world because (like the plane wave solutions of the HWE) they have infinity energy, as it is easy to verify. Waves that are solutions of the linear relativistic wave equations and that propagate in a distortion free mode, have been called UPWs (undistorted progressive waves) in .

Now, we show that a X-pulse even if it has compact support in the time domain (thus being of the form of a B&S signal) is such that its front propagates with superluminal speed. To prove our statement we look for a solution of the HWE satisfying the following Sommerfeld conditions777$`B(\omega )`$ is taken in this example as a function such that $`\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega B(\omega )J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}`$ has support in the interval $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$.,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_X(t,\rho ,0)& =& \left[\mathrm{\Theta }(t+T)\mathrm{\Theta }(tT)\right]\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega B(\omega )J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_X(t,\rho ,z)}{z}|_{z=0}& =& i\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(t+T)\mathrm{\Theta }(tT)\right]\mathrm{cos}\theta \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega B(\omega )J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )k(\omega )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t},\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
and $`k(\omega )=\omega `$. Proceeding in the same way as in the Sommerfeld problem of class I solution presented above we obtain as a solution of the HWE (for $`z>0`$),

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_X(t,\rho ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\overline{\omega }B(\overline{\omega })J_0(\overline{\omega }\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta ){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tz\mathrm{cos}\theta )}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega \overline{\omega })T}\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega \overline{\omega })T}}{i(\omega \overline{\omega })}}\right]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega B(\omega )J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i\omega (tz\mathrm{cos}\theta )}\text{for }\left|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|<T\hfill \\ 0\text{for }\left|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|>T\hfill \end{array}.`$
We see that for $`\left|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|<T`$ the integral in eq.(20) is not zero. Since the axicon angle $`\theta >0`$, then $`1>\mathrm{cos}\theta <0`$ and it follows that the pulse is not zero for $`z>t`$ and $`t>T`$, what means that the wave front of our pulse propagates with superluminal speed! Of course, the pulse is zero for $`z<(tT)/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ or $`z>(t+T)/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. We observe that the above result is true even a single Bessel pulse, i.e., when $`B(\omega )=\delta (\omega \omega _0)`$, a result that we mentioned in .

How to compare this finding with the famous B&S result  stating that a wave pulse which propagates in a dispersive medium with loss has a front propagating at maximum speed $`c`$? Some things are to be recalled in order to get a meaningful answer. The first is that B&S example refers to a propagation of a ‘plane’ wave truncated in time (which, of course, has infinite energy) satisfying the Sommerfeld conditions (analogous to eq.(6)) and propagating in a dispersive medium with loss. A careful analysis  shows that the same problem in a dispersive medium with gain reveals that in this case we can find two kinds of solutions ( both of of infinite energy). In one of these kinds, by appropriately choosing the integration path in the complex $`\omega `$-plane we obtain as result that the front of the wave may travel with superluminal speed. This situation is somewhat analogous to what happen with some possible mathematical solutions of the tachyonic Klein-Gordon equation in two dimensional Minkowski spacetime . This equation is important because it can be associated with the so called telegraphist equation.

The reason for our finding that the $`X`$-pulse propagating in a nondispersive medium, although of compact support in the time domain, is such that its front travel at superluminal speed is the following; the solution given by eq.(20) is not of compact support in the space domain and as such has infinite energy as can be easily verified. Only for a pulse of finite energy we can warranty that its front always travel with a speed that cannot be greater than maximum speed. Indeed, suppose we produce on the plane $`z=0`$ a pulse like the one given by eq.(20), except that it has a finite lateral circular width of radius $`a`$, i.e.,it is taken as zero for $`\rho >a`$. Such a pulse is called a FAA to the pulse given by eq.(20) and as can be easily verified has finite energy. If such a pulse does not spread with infinite velocity during its build up, then after it is ready, i.e., at $`t=T`$ it occupies a region of compact support in space given by $`\left|\stackrel{}{x}\right|<R`$, where $`R`$ is the maximum linear dimension involved. Such a field configuration can then be taken as part of the initial conditions for a strictly hyperbolic Cauchy problem at $`t=T`$. For such a problem it is well known the mathematical theorem that stablishes that  the time evolution of the pulse must be such that it is null for $`\left|\stackrel{}{x}\right|>R+c(tT)`$. In conclusion, it is not sufficient for a wave to be of compact support in the time domain (i.e., to be a pulse) to assure that the wave front of the pulse moves in a nondispersive medium at maximum speed $`c`$. In order for the wave front to move with velocity $`c`$ it is necessary that the pulse possess finite energy, and in order for this condition to be satisfied the pulse must have compact support in the space domain after its build up. We recall here that in  the peaks of FAA to acoustical pulses given by eq.(18) (with appropriated $`B(\omega )`$) have been seen traveling with velocities $`c_s/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, thus confirming the theory developed above.

$`𝐂_3`$. We now examine the claim of  that a wave given by our eq.(17), with $`B(\omega )=1`$, i.e.,

$$U(t,\rho ,z)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega tkz\mathrm{cos}\theta )},\text{ }\omega =k.$$
(24)
is a pulse with support only in the $`z`$-axis at points $`z=t/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and with value at that points $`\delta (0)`$. The calculations presented in  are wrong. Before we prove our statement let us recall that  quotes Brillouin: ‘a signal can be defined as a pulse of finite temporal extension, that is, of infinite extension in the frequecy domain’.888This definition is due to Sommerfeld. See . The wave given by eq.(21) has an infinite extension in the frequency domain but it is not a pulse of finite time domain (for a fixed $`z`$). Indeed, as theorem 11 on page 22 in Sneddon’s book  stablishes: a function which is bounded in the time domain has an infinite extension in the frequency domain, but it is not true that a function with an infinite frequency spectrum is necessarily bounded in the time domain. A trivial example of the last statement is the case of a Gaussian pulse, whose Fourier transform is itself a Gaussian. In the particular case of the wave given by eq.(21) it is immediate to realize that the integral is nothing more than the Fourier transform of a $`J_0`$ function, and the value of the integral is given in many books, in particular on page 523 of Sneddon’s book . We have,

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega J_0(\omega \rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{e}^{i(\omega tkz\mathrm{cos}\theta )}$$
(25a)
$$=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{2}{\sqrt{\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (tz\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}}\text{ for }|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta |<\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \text{ }\\ 0\text{ for }|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta |>\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \end{array}$$
(25b)
Eq.(22b) shows that $`U(t,\rho ,z)`$ has support in the entire time axis provided that $`|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta |<\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta `$. When $`\rho =0`$, since $`U`$ is real (as can be seen directly from eq.(22a) we must have that $`|tz\mathrm{cos}\theta |=0`$ and the function $`U`$ is singular. We see that the result expressed by eq.(22b) is compatible with the one given by eq.(18b) if we take the limit for $`a_00`$.

C4. Finally, we investigate the claim (done in  and attributed to ) that the wave function given by eq.(3) represents an electric field. This claim is a nonsequitur. Indeed, the scalar solutions of the HWE can be used to generated solutions of the Maxwell system using the Hertz potential method (see, e.g.). In particular, superluminal solutions of the HWE can be used to produce superluminal solutions of Maxwell equations . If we choose a magnetic Hertz potential $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m=\mathrm{\Phi }_{J_0}\widehat{z}`$ it is a simple exercise to show that the transverse electric and magnetic fields do not show any dependence on $`J_0`$. Only the $`B_z`$ component of the electromagnetic field configuration has a $`J_0`$ dependence. Explicitly we have from the well known formulas $`\stackrel{}{E}=/t(\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}=\times \times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m`$ that,

$`E_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{ }E_\phi =i\omega \mathrm{\Omega }J_1(\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )\text{e}^{i(\omega t\overline{k}z)},\text{ }E_z=0,`$
$`B_\rho `$ $`=`$ $`k\mathrm{\Omega }J_1(\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )\text{e}^{i(\omega t\overline{k}z)},`$
$`B_z`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )}{\mathrm{\Omega }\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{J_0(\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_2(\mathrm{\Omega }\rho )}{2}}\right]\text{e}^{i(\omega t\overline{k}z)},`$
$`\omega ^2\overline{k}^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (26)
With an electric Hertz potential we obtain a solution where only the $`E_z`$ component has a $`J_0`$ dependence. As such, we conclude that the electromagnetic beams observed in  and also in  are not $`J_0`$ beams. A careful analysis of the solutions of Maxwell equations in cylindrical symmetry shows that there are not $`J_0`$ solutions representing transverse electric fields. The existence of only one peak observerd in the experiments done in  must be due to the $`J_1/\rho `$ term in $`E_\phi `$. A more detailed analysis will be reported elsewhere.

Our conclusions are as follows: (i) our results show that the main claims of  are wrong and/or misleading and leads to equivocated conclusions concerning recent experimental results showing superluminal motion of peaks of particular electromagnetic field configurations in nondispersive media; (ii) we also prove a non trivial result, namely that the condition that a wave is of finite time duration is not a sufficient condition for its front to propagate with the speed $`c`$. It is necessary in order for the front to travel with speed $`c`$ that the pulse possess finite energy, and thus as explained above it must (after being prepared by the launching device) have support only in a compact space region when ready;999We mention here that any electromagnetic pulse fulfilling this condition spreads, a result that may be called the non focusing theorem . (iii) only FAA to superluminal solutions of the HWE (acoustical case) and to superluminal solutions of Maxwell equations can be produced in nature, because only waves of this kind have finite energy. These FAA exhibit peaks propagating with superluminal speeds even in the vacuum, but since their fronts propagate with speed $`c`$ this kind of phenomenom does not implies in any danger for the Theory of Relativity.

Acknowledgments: W.A.R., D.S.T. and A.L.X.Jr. are grateful to Motorola Industrial Ltda. for a research grant. A. L. X. Jr. would like also to thank FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) for financial support under contract 00/03168-0. The authors are also grateful to Dr. J. E. Maiorino and Professor J. Vaz Jr. for useful discussions.

References

 D. Mugnai, Bessel beams and signal propagation, in publication in Phys. Lett A (2001).

 D. Mugnai, A. Ranfagni and R. Ruggeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (2000) 4830.

 W. A. Rodrigues Jr, D. S. Thober and A. L. Xavier, Causal explanation of observed superluminal behavior of microwave propagation in free space, http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0012032, (2001) in publication in Phys. Lett. A (PLA10711).

 W. A. Rodrigues, Jr. and J. Y. Lu, Found. Phys. 27 (1997) 435.

 J.Y. Lu and J. F. Greenleaf, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelec. Freq. Cont. 39 (1992) 19.

 J.Y. Lu and J. F. Greenleaf, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelec. Freq. Cont. 39 (1992) 441.

 E. Capelas Oliveira and W. A. Rodrigues, Jr, Ann. der Physik 7 (1998) 654.

 P. Saari and K. Reivelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1997) 4135.

 J. E. Maiorino and W. A. Rodrigues, Jr., What is Superluminal Wave Motion?, (electronic book at http://www.cptec.br/stm, Sci. and Tech. Mag. 4(2) 1999).

 R. K. Sachs and H. Wu, General Relativity for Mathematicians, Spring Verlarg, New York, 1977.

 W.A . Rodrigues, Jr. and M. A. F. Rosa, Found. Phys. 19 (1989) 705.

 W. A. Rodrigues, Jr. and E. Capelas de Oliveira, Phys. Lett. A 140 (1989) 479.

 A. Sommerfeld, Optics, Academic Press, New York, 1952.

 L. Brillouin, Wave Propagation and Group Velocity, Academic press, New York, 1960.

 F. A. Mehmeti, Transient Tunnel Effect and Sommerfeld Problem, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1996.

 G. Nimtz, Ann. der Physik 7 (1998), 618.

 J. Durnin, J. J. Miceli, Jr. and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987)1499.

 I. S. Gradsteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series and Products, 4th edition, prepared by Yu.V. Geronimus and M. Yu. Tseytin, translated by A. Jeffrey, Academic Press, New York, 1965.

 X. Zhou, Possibility of a light pulse with speed greater than $`c`$, in publ. in Phys. Lett. A (2001).

 R. Fox, C. G. Kuper and S. G. Lipson, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 316 (1970) 515.

 P. Moretti and A. Agresti, N. Cimento B 110 (1995) 905.

 M. E. Taylor, Pseudo Differential Operators, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1981.

 R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics, vol. 2, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1966.

 I. N. Sneddon, Fourier Transforms, Dover Publ. Inc., New York, 1995

 J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1941.

 W. K. H. Panofski and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1962.

 T. T. Wu and H. Lehmann, J. Appl. Phys. 58 (1985) 2064.


text:
# Carbon substitution effect in MgB2

\[

## Abstract

We investigated carbon substitution effect on boron plane of superconducting MgB2. MgB2 and MgB1.8C0.2 samples are synthesized under high pressure furnace. MgB1.8C0.2 are characterized as AlB2-type single phase with smaller B-B distance. During the superconducting transition, two distinct onset temperatures are observed in MgB1.8C0.2.

\]

Since the discovery of superconducting property in MgB2 by Akimitsu et al., much efforts are spent on understanding the type of carriers and the way of optimization with chemical substitution. As far as we know, chemical substitution of elements are focused mostly on Mg-site surrounded by neighboring 12 boron cages, with an exception of 10B isotope effect by Bud’ko et al. Several alkali and alkali earth and group III elements are thoroughly tested, such as Al, Be , and Li, however, decrease of transition temperature is observed in all cases, partly due to the structural instability introduced by ion size difference between Mg and substituting elements. If the structural uniqueness is essential in finding superconducting borides, possibility may be low to find superconductivity among the existing diboride compounds containing heavy elements as suggested by structural analysis.

With these in mind, we focused on the chemical substitution on boron plane itself, which carries superconducting property. On the crystallographic point of view, boron shares similarity in structure with B4C, C(graphite), and BN in its rhombohedral phase and may be substituted with those similar materials with high melting points. In this paper, we will report our result on the carbon substitution effect on boron site of MgB2.

MgB2 and MgB1.8C0.2 samples are synthesized with high pressure furnace. Starting materials are powders of Mg (99.8%, Alfa), amorphous B (99.99%, Alfa), and carbon (high purity activated charcoal, Wako). Stoichiometric amounts of powders are weighed, thoroughly mixed in an agate mortar, and pressed into pellets. The pellets are placed in a tungsten vessel with a close-fitting cap, reacted one hour at 850 C, and subsequently annealed at 500 C for 12 hours under 20 atm of high purity argon atmosphere. Some amounts of magnesium turnings (99.9%, Acros) are used as getters inside the furnace.

Figure 1(a) show x-ray $`\theta `$-2$`\theta `$ diffraction patterns of MgB2 and MgB1.8C0.2 measured with Cu Kα source with 2$`\theta `$ step of 0.05. In both patterns, single group of AlB2-type reflections and small amounts of MgO impurities (shown with asterisks) are observed and any other impurities of B, C, or Mg is not observed within accuracy. Our calculation of hexagonal cell parameters for MgB2, $`a_H=3.083`$ Å and $`c_H=3.520`$ Å is quite close to reported one: $`3.086`$ and $`3.524`$ Å.(Here, peak positions of MgO are used as internal standards.) Parameters are also calculated for MgB1.8C0.2: $`a_H=3.070`$ Å and $`c_H=3.520`$ Å. From these results, we notice that only $`a_H`$(B-B distance) decreases and $`c_H`$(separation between B planes) is not varied with carbon substitution. This is more clear from Fig. 1(b), showing the movement of (100), (101), and (002) lines with carbon substitution.

Comparison with the result of other elements is intriguing at this point. In Al3+-substitution (hole doping), both $`a`$\- and $`c`$-axis length decrease with doping, and the change in $`c`$-axis is significant at high doping limits ($``$ 0.25 Al). For Be2+-substitution (no doping, ion size effect), it is well-known that Be cannot dope Mg site because it forms stable phase of BeB2. And in Li+-substitution (electron doping), $`c`$-axis does not vary and $`a`$-axis length decreases with doping concentration ($``$ 0.3 Li), quite similar to our result: C4+ ion is smaller than B3+ and electron doping is expected from ionic picture.

In order to see the changes in superconducting properties, dc resistivity is measured on a closed-cycle He refrigerator (Janis, CCS350), with a standard four-point probe technique with polished rectangular sample of dimension $``$ 2$`\times `$5$`\times `$1 mm3, where electrical contact is made with silver epoxy (Dotite) and thermal one with grease (Apiezon, N). Figure 2 shows the sample resistivities normalized with the values at 50 K and inset shows the region of phase transition. Normal state resistivity level of MgB2 and MgB1.8C0.2 is different by two orders of magnitude, such as $`\rho (50`$K$`)`$ = 93 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm (MgB2) and 19 m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm (MgB1.8C0.2), partly due to the low density of our MgB1.8C0.2 pellet. However, their normal state power-law dependence($`\rho `$ a $`+`$ bT2) and residual resistivity ratio ($`\rho `$(T$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{\text{C}}{}^{}`$ )/$`\rho `$(300K) $``$ 0.55) are quite similar. In MgB2, the resistivity drops at 38.8 K and the transition is completed within 1 K, as shown in the inset, which is quite close to the report of Akimitsu et al.

Compared with MgB2, the transition width is very broad($``$ 8 K) in MgB1.8C0.2, which begins at 41 K and ends at 33 K. Also, the resistivity shows two distinct onset temperatures indicated with $``$ symbols in the inset (T$`{}_{c1}{}^{}`$ 41 K and T$`{}_{c2}{}^{}`$ 37 K). Considering the single group of AlB2-type patterns of x-ray, structural inhomogeneity may not be related with this observation, however, some intergrain effect should be counted. According to our preliminary results of different doping concentrations, structural segregation begins at some higher doping and MgB1.8C0.2 is near optimum in its property. Because carbon substitution gives influences in effective mass and charge valency of undoped boron planes, we speculate some changes in phonon or electronic structure corresponding to this carbon substitution. In this respect, further progresses with boron plane substitution are anticipated.

This work was supported by KRF-99-041-D00185 and by the KOSEF through the CSCMR. We acknowledge the help of J. H. Bae, Y. J. Kim, and S. C. Kim of Univ. of Seoul.