text:
# Multiparticle Entanglement with Quantum Logic Networks: Application to Cold Trapped Ions

## I Introduction

Entanglement is probably the most intriguing aspect of quantum theory Schroedinger . It attracts due attention not only for its epistemological importance Peres  but also as an essential resource for quantum information processing. In particular, quantum computation Nielsen2000 ; Gruska1999 , quantum teleportation Bennett93 , quantum dense coding Bennett92 , certain types of quantum key distributions Ekert91  and quantum secret sharing protocols Hillery99 , are rooted in the existence of quantum entanglement.

Recently, lot of progress has been achieved in investigation of various properties and possible application of quantum entanglement. Nevertheless, many questions are still opened. In particular, it is the problem of multi-particle entanglement Thapliyal99 . Specifically, in contrast to classical correlations, quantum entanglement cannot be freely shared among many objects Coffman ; Wootters . It has been shown recently Dur ; Koashi  that in a finite system of $`N`$ qubits with $`N(N1)/2`$ entangled pairs the maximal possible concurrence (a specific measure of entanglement Wootters ; Hill ) is equal to $`2/N`$. This value of the bipartite concurrence is achieved when the $`N`$ qubits are prepared in a totally symmetric state $`|\mathrm{\Xi }`$, such that all except one qubit are in the state $`|1`$, i.e.

$`|\mathrm{\Xi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|0_j|1^{N1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}\left(|011\mathrm{}1+|101\mathrm{}1+|110\mathrm{}1+\mathrm{}+|111\mathrm{}0\right).`$ (1)
In order to study the multiparticle quantum entanglement in more detail, we have to find ways how to prepare (synthesize) states of the form given by Eq. (1) in various physical systems.

In this paper we will study in detail how $`N`$ qubits can be prepared in entangled states of the form (1). We assume that the qubits are encoded in internal ionic states as originally proposed in the model of quantum processor by Cirac and Zoller c&z . Our paper is organized as follows: Section II is devoted to the description of quantum logic gates and networks. Here we present multi-qubit controlled gates. We show how these gates can be expressed in terms of single-qubit and two-qubit gates, but we argue that for practical purposes it is more appropriate to utilize directly multiple-qubit gates rather than decompose them into elementary single and two-qubit gates.

In Section III we present a logical network with the help of which symmetric states of the form (1) can be synthesized Section IV is devoted to a general problem of synthesis of a pure state of an arbitrary $`N`$ qubit state. We present a simple network using which an arbitrary $`N`$ qubit state can be created. In Section V we apply this algorithm to a specific problem of $`N`$ cold trapped ions. Following the original idea of Cirac and Zoller we show how the states of interest can be created. In the last Section VI we discuss the experimental realization of the proposed scheme on cold trapped ions and we also briefly address the efficiency of using multi-qubit control-NOT gates rather than a network of two-qubit control-NOT gates.

## II Quantum logic gates and networks

Let us start with a brief description of those objects we will use later in the paper. We will follow the notation used in Ref. ekert ; Nielsen2000 . The qubit (quantum bit) is a quantum two-level system in which logical Boolean states 0 and 1 are represented by a pair of normalized and mutually orthogonal quantum states labelled as $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. These two states form a computational basis and any other pure state of the qubit can be written as a coherent superposition $`|\psi =\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ with complex amplitudes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, such that $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$. We may represent a state of a qubit as a point on the Bloch sphere with the parameterization $`\alpha =\mathrm{cos}\vartheta /2`$ and $`\beta =e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}\vartheta /2`$. In quantum or atomic optics the qubit is often represented by a two-level atom (ion) with two selected internal levels denoted as $`|g`$ and $`|e`$. The quantum register of size $`N`$ is a collection of $`N`$ qubits. The quantum logic gate is a quantum device which performs a unitary operation on selected (target) qubits conditioned by states of control qubits during a given interval of time. A gate acting on a single qubit is termed as a single-qubit gate, gates acting on more qubits are referred to as multi-qubit gates. The quantum logic network is a quantum device consisting of several quantum logic gates synchronized in time.

### II.1 Single-qubit rotation

A single-qubit gate corresponds to a unitary operator $`W`$ represented in the computational basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ by the matrix

$`W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W_{00}& \hfill W_{01}\\ \hfill W_{10}& \hfill W_{11}\end{array}\right).`$ (4)
A special case of a single-qubit gate is a single-qubit rotation $`O`$ \[see FIG. 1 (a)\]. Its parameterization depends on the choice of coordinates on the Bloch sphere. We will define it in the matrix form in the basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ as follows

$`O(\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_{00}& R_{01}\\ R_{10}& R_{11}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)& \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where $`\theta `$ refers to the rotation and $`\varphi `$ to the relative phase shift of the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ in the corresponding Hilbert space.

### II.2 Two-qubit and multi-qubit control-NOT gates

A two-qubit control-NOT (CNOT) gate acts on two quantum bits denoted as the control and the target qubit, respectively \[see FIG. 1 (b)\]. If the control qubit ($`m_1`$) is in the state $`|1`$, the state of the target qubit ($`m_2`$) is flipped. Otherwise, the gate acts trivially, i.e. as a unity operator $`𝟙`$. We may characterize this gate with the help of the truth table

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|0_{m_1}|0_{m_2}\hfill & \hfill & |0_{m_1}|0_{m_2},\hfill \\ |0_{m_1}|1_{m_2}\hfill & \hfill & |0_{m_1}|1_{m_2},\hfill \\ |1_{m_1}|0_{m_2}\hfill & \hfill & |1_{m_1}|1_{m_2},\hfill \\ |1_{m_1}|1_{m_2}\hfill & \hfill & |1_{m_1}|0_{m_2}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
A multi-qubit control-NOT (CNOT) gate is defined analogically \[see FIG. 1 (c)\]. The only difference is the number of control qubits. In other words, a multi-qubit $`(\text{control})^q`$-NOT gate acts on $`q+1`$ qubits with $`q`$ control qubits ($`m_1,\mathrm{},m_q`$) and the $`m_{q+1}`$ qubit is target. If all control qubits are in the state $`|1`$, then the state of the target qubit is flipped. Otherwise, the gate action is trivial. The truth table of the multi-qubit $`(\text{control})^q`$-NOT gate acting on $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{q+1}`$ qubits reads as follows

$`\begin{array}{cccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|0_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|0_{m_{q+1}},\hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}\underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}|1_{m_j},\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|1_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|1_{m_{q+1}},\hfill & \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|0_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|1_{m_{q+1}},\hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}|1_{m_j},\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|1_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|0_{m_{q+1}}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (19)
### II.3 Multi-qubit control-$`R`$ gates

A multi-qubit $`(\text{control})^q`$-$`R`$ gate acts on $`q+1`$ qubits. The $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_q`$ qubits represent the control part of the gate while the $`m_{q+1}`$ qubit represents the target \[FIG. 2\]. This gate performs a single-qubit rotation (9) on the target qubit if all control qubits are in the state $`|1`$. Otherwise, it acts trivially. Speaking precisely, if all control qubits ($`m_1,\mathrm{},m_q`$) are in the state $`|1`$, then the operation $`R=R_1^{}\sigma R_2^{}\sigma R_2R_1`$ is applied (from right to left) on the $`m_{q+1}`$ (target) qubit. In the basis of the target qubit $`\{|0_{m_{q+1}},|1_{m_{q+1}}\}`$ we can introduce the matrices

$`R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{i2\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ e^{i2\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),`$ $`\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (24)
$`R_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\varphi }\\ e^{i\varphi }& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`R_1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\varphi }\\ e^{i\varphi }& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (29)
$`R_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)& \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ $`R_2^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)& \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right),`$ (34)
where $`R_1=O(\pi ,\varphi )`$, $`R_1^{}=O^{}(\pi ,\varphi )`$, $`R_2=O(\theta ,0)`$ and $`R_2^{}=O(\theta ,0)`$. The operation $`O(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is defined by the relation (9). The matrix $`\sigma `$ denotes the NOT operation. If not all control qubits are in the state $`|1`$, then the gate performs on the target qubit the operation $`𝟙=_\mathrm{𝟙}^{}𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}^{}𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}_\mathrm{𝟙}`$, where $`𝟙`$ is the unity operator. We may write the truth table of the multi-qubit $`(\text{control})^q`$-$`R`$ gate as follows

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|0_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|0_{m_{q+1}},\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|1_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|1_{m_{q+1}},\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|0_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta |0_{m_{q+1}}e^{i2\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta |1_{m_{q+1}}\right),\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|1_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}\left(e^{i2\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta |0_{m_{q+1}}+\mathrm{cos}\theta |1_{m_{q+1}}\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (39)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}`$ are defined in (19).

If the preparation of a particular class of quantum states does not require the introduction of a relative phase shift $`\varphi `$ between the basis states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, then a reduced quantum logic network is sufficient. In particular, the operation $`R=\sigma R_2^{}\sigma R_2`$ on the target qubit ($`m_{q+1}`$) conditioned by the state of control qubits ($`m_1,\mathrm{},m_q`$) can be realized according to the following truth table

$`\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|0_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|0_{m_{q+1}},\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|1_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|1_{m_{q+1}},\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|0_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta |0_{m_{q+1}}\mathrm{sin}\theta |1_{m_{q+1}}\right),\hfill \\ |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|1_{m_{q+1}}\hfill & \hfill & |\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta |0_{m_{q+1}}+\mathrm{cos}\theta |1_{m_{q+1}}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (44)
The results given above for the multi-qubit control-$`R`$ gates are compatible with the scheme proposed in Ref. barenco , where a decomposition of multi-qubit CNOT gates into a network of two-qubit CNOT gates has been presented. However, this decomposition may require many elementary operations. It seems to be more appropriate for some practical implementations of quantum computing (for example, computing with cold trapped ions c&z ) to implement directly multi-qubit CNOT gates.

## III Quantum logic networks for the state synthesis

In this Section we present quantum logic networks for the synthesis of specific types of coherent superpositions of multi-qubit quantum states. Later we will use this result for construction of an algorithm for a generation of an arbitrary pure quantum state of $`N`$ qubits.

We will consider a quantum register of size $`N`$, i.e. $`N`$ qubits. Let us denote

$`|1^N={\displaystyle _{j=1}^N}|1_{m_j},|1^{N1}|0_{m_k}=\left({\displaystyle _{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j=1}{jk}}^N}|1_{m_j}\right)|0_{m_k}.`$ (45)
Firstly, let us consider a simple network consisting of a multi-qubit control-$`R`$ gate having $`(N1)`$ control qubits ($`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{N1}`$) and a single target qubit ($`t_1`$) \[see FIG. 3\]. Let us assume that all qubits have been initially prepared in the state $`|1`$, i.e. the whole system is in the state $`|1^N`$ and the gate realizes the operation

$`|1^NR_{01}|1^{N1}|0_{t_1}+R_{11}|1^N,`$ (46)
where $`R_{01}`$ and $`R_{11}`$ are defined by the relation (9).

Secondly, let us consider a network with $`(N2)`$ control qubits ($`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{N2}`$) and two target qubits ($`t_1,t_2`$) \[see FIG. 4\]. The network acts on the initial state $`|1^N`$ as follows (each arrow in the figure corresponds to an action of a gate in the sequence)

$`|1^N`$ $``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N1}|0_{t_1}+R_{11}|1^N`$ (47)
$``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N2}|0_{t_1}|0_{t_2}+R_{11}|1^{N1}|0_{t_2}`$
$``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N2}|0_{t_1}|0_{t_2}+R_{11}|1^N.`$
Further, we design a network with $`(N3)`$ control qubits ($`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{N3}`$) and three target qubits ($`t_1,t_2,t_3`$) \[see FIG. 5\]. This network acts as follows

$`|1^N`$ $``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N1}|0_{t_1}+R_{11}|1^N`$ (48)
$``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N2}|0_{t_1}|0_{t_2}+R_{11}|1^{N1}|0_{t_2}`$
$``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N3}|0_{t_1}|0_{t_2}|0_{t_3}+R_{11}|1^{N2}|0_{t_2}|0_{t_3}`$
$``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N3}|0_{t_1}|0_{t_2}|0_{t_3}+R_{11}|1^{N1}|0_{t_3}`$
$``$ $`R_{01}|1^{N3}|0_{t_1}|0_{t_2}|0_{t_3}+R_{11}|1^N.`$
The arrangement of quantum logic networks with more target qubits is straightforward. One has to add another multi-qubit CNOT gate acting on the added target qubit and then one more multi-qubit CNOT gate must be included at the end of the network in order to erase “unwanted” changes on all other terms in a superposition state \[for instance see the $`4^{th}`$ and $`5^{th}`$ line in Eq. (48)\].

As an example let us consider a network that prepares a pure symmetric (with respect to permutations) entangled state with just one qubit in the state $`|0`$ and all others in the state $`|1`$ \[see Eq. (1)\]. It can be shown that this state exhibits the maximum degree of entanglement between any pair of $`N`$ qubits Koashi . The network for the synthesis of the state (1) from the initial state $`|1^N`$ is shown in FIG. 6, where the rotations $`U_j`$ are defined as follows

$`U_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{Nj}{Nj+1}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{Nj+1}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{Nj+1}}& \sqrt{\frac{Nj}{Nj+1}}\end{array}\right),j=1,\mathrm{},N1.`$ (51)
The action of the network in FIG. 6 can be described as follows

$`|1^N`$ $`\stackrel{U_1}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}|1^{N1}|0_1+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{N}}}|1^N`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{CU_1}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}|1^{N1}|0_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}|1^{N1}|0_2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N2}{N}}}|1^N`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}|1^{N1}|0_j+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}}|1^N`$
$`\stackrel{CU_{N1}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}|1^{N1}|0_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}|1^{N1}|0_{N1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}|1^N`$
$`\stackrel{CNOT}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}|1^{N1}|0_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}|1^{N1}|0_N={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|1^{N1}|0_j,`$
where $`|1^N`$ denotes the state with all qubits in the state $`|1`$ and $`|1^{N1}|0_j`$ represents the state of the register with $`(N1)`$ qubits in $`|1`$ and the $`j`$th qubit in the state $`|0`$ \[see the notation in Eq. (45)\].

A very simple example is the synthesis of the GHZ state, i.e. a coherent superposition with all qubits to be in the state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ with the same probability, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Xi }_{GHZ}=(|0^N+|1^N)/\sqrt{2}`$. The corresponding network is shown in FIG. 7. The single-qubit rotation $`R=O(\pi /2,\pi )`$ defined in (9) is applied on the initial state $`|0^N`$ and prepares the superposition $`(|0^N+|0^{N1}|1_1)/\sqrt{2}`$. Applying sequentially all CNOT gates one prepares the GHZ state $`|\mathrm{\Xi }_{GHZ}`$.

## IV Synthesis of an arbitrary pure quantum state

Coherent manipulation with states of quantum registers and, in particular, the synthesis of an arbitrary pure quantum state is of the central importance for quantum computing. One of the important tasks is the preparation of multi-qubit entangled states.

Based on the discussion presented above we can propose an array of quantum logic networks that prepare an arbitrary state from the register initially prepared in the state $`|0^N`$, i.e.

$`|0^N|\psi (N)={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j=0}{x_j\{0,1\}^N}}{\overset{2^N1}{}}}c_j|x_j={\displaystyle \underset{x=00\mathrm{}0}{\overset{11\mathrm{}1}{}}}c_x|x,`$ (53)
where $`x`$ is a binary representation of the number $`2^j`$. The proposed scheme can be generalized on the quantum register of an arbitrary size, but for simplicity we will firstly consider the case of three qubits.

A general state of three qubits is given as

$`|\psi (3)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0|000+e^{i\phi _1}\alpha _1|001+e^{i\phi _2}\alpha _2|010+e^{i\phi _3}\alpha _3|100`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`e^{i\phi _4}\alpha _4|011+e^{i\phi _5}\alpha _5|101+e^{i\phi _6}\alpha _6|110+e^{i\phi _7}\alpha _7|111,`$
where $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _7`$ are real numbers satisfying the normalization condition

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{7}{}}}\alpha _j^2=1,`$ (55)
and $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _7`$ are relative phase factors. The global phase is chosen such that $`\phi _0=0`$.

In what follows we will present the procedure for the synthesis of the state (54). Let us use the abbreviated form of the matrix $`R`$ defined in Eq. (24) which we denote as

$`U_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_j& e^{i2\varphi _j}b_j\\ e^{i2\varphi _j}b_j& a_j\end{array}\right),j=0,\mathrm{},6,`$ (58)
where $`a_j=\mathrm{cos}\theta _j`$ and $`b_j=\mathrm{sin}\theta _j`$. The initial state is $`|000`$. The network presented in FIG. 8 (a) prepares out of the state $`|000`$ the superposition

$`a_0|000e^{i2\varphi _0}b_0|111.`$ (59)
Applying the network in FIG. 8 (b), a new term

$`e^{i2(\varphi _1\varphi _0)}b_0b_1|001`$ (60)
is added to the superposition (59) while the amplitude of the component $`|000`$ is not affected at all. The application of the network given by FIG. 8 (c) adds another new term

$`e^{i2(\varphi _2\varphi _0)}b_0a_1b_2|010`$ (61)
and does not influence the amplitudes of two foregoing terms $`|000`$ and $`|001`$. Repeating this procedure, the network in FIG. 8 (d) adds a new term

$`e^{i2(\varphi _3\varphi _0)}b_0b_0a_1a_2b_3|100.`$ (62)
Analogously, the network shown in FIG. 8 (e) adds a new term

$`e^{i2(\varphi _4\varphi _0)}b_0a_1a_2a_3b_4|011.`$ (63)
while the networks (f), (g) shown in FIG. 8 (f) and (g), add new terms

$`e^{i2(\varphi _5\varphi _0)}b_0a_1a_2a_3a_4b_5|101,`$ (64)
$`e^{i2(\varphi _6\varphi _0)}b_0a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5b_6|110,`$ (65)
respectively. The last network shown in FIG 8 (g) also determines the amplitude of the last term

$`e^{i2(\varphi _7\varphi _0)}b_0a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6|111.`$ (66)
Comparing the output from the networks shown in FIG. 8, determined by the relations (59)–(66), with the expression (54), we get the final results in TABLE 1.

The coherent superposition (54) is completely determined by 15 parameters ($`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _7;\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _7`$). The normalization condition (55) reduces this number to 14. The networks in FIG. 8 are determined by 14 parameters ($`b_0,\mathrm{},b_6;\varphi _0,\mathrm{},\varphi _6`$). Thus, the mapping between the state (54) and the networks is clearly defined. From given values of $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\phi _j`$ one can calculate $`b_j`$ and $`\varphi _j`$ according to the expressions

$`\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\pi \phi _7),\varphi _j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\phi _j\phi _7),j=1,\mathrm{},6`$ (67)
and

$`b_0=\sqrt{1\alpha _0^2},b_j={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _j}{\sqrt{1\underset{k=0}{\overset{j1}{}}\alpha _k^2}}},j=1,\mathrm{},6,`$ (68)
which determine the single-qubit rotations (58).

The state (54) contains terms corresponding to all possible permutations of three qubits. However, a reduced superposition with some terms missing might be desired. For this purpose, we can skip networks responsible for the synthesis of these terms or the corresponding parameter $`b_j`$ can be set to zero. For instance, in the case when the term $`|000`$ does not appear in a final desired quantum state, we begin with the initial state $`|111`$ and skip the network in FIG. 8 (a). If we do not wish, for a change, to generate the term $`|111`$, one may set the parameter $`a_6`$ to zero and the phase factor can be chosen arbitrarily (see the table above).

The scheme can be analogically extended to an arbitrary number of qubits. In what follows we will briefly discuss the extension on four qubits. These can be prepared, in general, in the coherent superposition consisting of 16 terms, i.e. $`|0000`$, $`|0100`$, $`|0010`$, … , $`|1111`$.

The network in FIG. 10 (a) prepares the superposition of the terms $`|0000`$ and $`|1111`$ with corresponding complex amplitudes depending on the choice of the single-qubit rotation $`R_1`$. Application of the network in FIG. 10 (b) running through all possible permutations of four qubits, i.e. $`(c_1,t_1,t_2,t_3)=\{(1,2,3,4);(2,1,3,4);(3,1,2,4);(4,1,2,3)\}`$, adds to the superposition new terms $`|1000,|0100,|0010,|0001`$ with corresponding amplitudes determined by $`R_2`$. Further, we apply the network of the type in FIG. 10 (c) running through the permutations $`(c_1,c_2,t_1,t_2)=\{(3,4,1,2);(2,4,1,3);(2,3,1,4);(1,4,2,3);(1,3,2,4);(1,2,3,4)\}`$ and the terms $`|0011,|0101,|0110,|1001,|1010,|1100`$ (with corresponding amplitudes given by $`R_3`$) will be included to the state under construction. Finally, the network in FIG. 10 (d) running through $`(c_1,c_2,c_3,t_1)=\{(2,3,4,1);(3,4,1,2);(4,1,2,3);(1,2,3,4)\}`$ generates new terms $`|0111,|1011,|1101,|1110`$.

The extension to $`N`$ qubits is analogical. The state synthesis is started from the initial state $`|0^N`$. Firstly, one uses the network for the preparation of superpositions of $`|0^N`$ and $`|1^N`$ with determined amplitudes. Secondly, the networks with one control qubit ($`c_1`$) and $`N1`$ target qubits ($`t_1,\mathrm{},t_{N1}`$) running through all permutations are applied. Then, we employ the networks with two control qubits ($`c_1,c_2`$) and $`N2`$ target qubits ($`t_1,\mathrm{},t_{N2}`$). Further, the networks with more control qubits ($`3,4,\mathrm{},N1`$). These procedures are repeated until we achieve $`N1`$ control qubits (and one target qubit). The synthesis stops and a desired final state is prepared.

## V Realization on cold trapped ions

In previous sections we have proposed a scheme for the synthesis of an arbitrary pure quantum state of a system of $`N`$ qubits. The implementation of the multi-qubit CNOT gate has played the central role in our scheme. It is well known how to decompose multi-qubit gates into a network of single-qubit and two-qubit CNOT gates barenco . However, it seems that a direct implementation of multi-qubit CNOT gates in specific quantum systems is more straightforward and requires less elementary operations (for example laser pulses) than its decomposition.

We demonstrate this idea on a system of cold trapped ions. We will briefly describe the system under consideration and show how multi-qubit gates can be implemented.

The quantum system considered here is a model of a string of $`N`$ atomic ions confined in the linear Paul trap proposed by Cirac and Zoller in 1995 c&z . First experiments on a single ion and two ions were realized by the NIST group in Boulder wineland . Experiments with more ions were done, for example, by the group in Innsbruck blatt .

The confinement of a system of trapped ions along the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ axis can be described by an anisotropic harmonic pseudopontential of frequencies $`\omega _z\omega _r`$, where for the usual choice of trapping radio-frequency (rf) voltage we get $`\omega _r=\omega _x=\omega _y`$. The ions are firstly Doppler cooled and then undergo the sideband cooling. Laser cooling minimize their motional energy and the ions oscillate around their equilibrium positions. In this case we can describe their motion in terms of normal modes. We will consider only the lowest, center-of-mass (COM), vibrational collective mode of the ions along the $`z`$ axis, when all the ions oscillate back and forth as if they were a rigid body. The sideband cooling leaves the ions in the quantum ground motional state, therefore we have to assume the Lamb-Dicke limit, i.e. the photon recoil frequency (corresponding to the laser cooling transition) is much smaller than the frequency of the considered COM mode. The ions in the trap represent qubits with two distinct internal atomic states denoted as $`|g`$ and $`|e`$ with corresponding energy levels $`E_g`$ and $`E_e`$, respectively. We will consider individual-ion-addressing with a laser beam of the frequency $`\omega _L`$ represented by a classical traveling wave. Then, in the interaction picture, in the rotating wave approximation plus the weak coupling regime and in the Lamb-Dicke limit we can write the Hamiltonian corresponding to the interaction between the $`j`$th trapped ion ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and the laser beam tuned on the carrier ($`\omega _L=\omega _0`$)

$`\widehat{𝒜}_j={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_j}{2}}\left(|e_jg|+|g_je|\right)`$ (69)
and on the first red sideband ($`\omega _L=\omega _0\omega _z`$)

$`\widehat{}_j={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_j}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\eta }{\sqrt{N}}}\left(|e_jg|\widehat{a}+|g_je|\widehat{a}^{}\right),`$ (70)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j=|\mathrm{\Omega }_j|e^{i\varphi }`$ is the laser coupling constant, $`\varphi `$ is the laser phase, $`\eta `$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter, $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operator of the quantized COM mode with the frequency $`\omega _z`$, where $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}|n=n|n`$ and $`\omega _0=(E_eE_g)/\mathrm{}`$ is the atomic transition frequency.

Further, we can write the unitary evolution operators via which the action of quantum gates is realized. Firstly, let us consider the evolution operator corresponding to a $`k\pi `$-pulse on the carrier ($`t=k\pi /|\mathrm{\Omega }_j|`$) applied on the $`j`$th ion with the arbitrary initial choice of the laser phase such that

$`\widehat{A}_j^k(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2}}\left(|e_jg|e^{i\varphi }|g_je|e^{i\varphi }\right)\right].`$ (71)
Under the action of this unitary operator the two internal states of the $`j`$-th ion are changed as follows

$`|g_j`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(k\pi /2)|g_je^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(k\pi /2)|e_j,`$
$`|e_j`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(k\pi /2)|e_j+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(k\pi /2)|g_j.`$ (72)
Secondly, we have the evolution operator for a $`k\pi `$-pulse on the first red sideband ($`t=k\pi \sqrt{N}/|\mathrm{\Omega }_j|\eta `$) on the $`j`$th ion choosing the laser phase such that

$`\widehat{B}_j^{k,q}(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ik\pi }{2}}\left(|e_q_jg|\widehat{a}e^{i\varphi }+|g_je_q|\widehat{a}^{}e^{i\varphi }\right)\right],`$ (73)
which implies the transformation

$`|g_j|0`$ $``$ $`|g_j|0,`$
$`|g_j|1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(k\pi /2)|g_j|1ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(k\pi /2)|e_j|0,`$
$`|e_j|0`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(k\pi /2)|e_j|0ie^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(k\pi /2)|g_j|1,`$ (74)
where $`q=I,II`$ and $`|e_I`$ denotes the upper internal level, whereas $`|e_{II}`$ refers to an auxiliary internal level $`|aux`$. In the original proposal c&z  the values of the parameter $`q=I,II`$ refer to the situation where the transition excited by the laser depends on the laser polarization.

The operators (71) and (73) provide us with the possibility to introduce the implementation of the single-qubit rotation and multi-qubit CNOT gate on selected ions (representing qubits). It is obvious from the transformation (V) that the evolution operator (71) corresponds to the single-qubit rotation $`O(k\pi ,\varphi )`$ on the $`j`$th ion \[see the definition (9)\]. The two-qubit CNOT gate (the $`m_1`$th ion is the control and the $`m_2`$th ion is the target) is realized by the evolution operator (from right to left)

$`\widehat{𝒜}_{m_2}^{1/2}(\pi )\widehat{}_{m_1}^{1,I}\widehat{}_{m_2}^{2,II}\widehat{}_{m_1}^{1,I}\widehat{𝒜}_{m_2}^{1/2}(0),`$ (75)
which corresponds to a sequence of pulses as described above. This transformation acts on two ions as

$`|g_{m_1}|g_{m_2}|0`$ $``$ $`|g_{m_1}|g_{m_2}|0,`$
$`|g_{m_1}|e_{m_2}|0`$ $``$ $`|g_{m_1}|e_{m_2}|0,`$
$`|e_{m_1}|g_{m_2}|0`$ $``$ $`|e_{m_1}|e_{m_2}|0,`$
$`|e_{m_1}|e_{m_2}|0`$ $``$ $`|e_{m_1}|g_{m_2}|0.`$ (76)
The ions are assumed to be cooled to the ground vibrational state $`|0`$ before the operation. We have used the notation $`\widehat{B}\widehat{B}(0)`$ in the relation (75). The two-qubit CNOT gate can be extended to the multi-qubit $`(\text{control})^q`$-NOT gate acting on $`q+1`$ ions ($`m_1,\mathrm{},m_q`$ ions represent the control, while the $`m_{q+1}`$th ion is the target) and can be realized by the following evolution operator (from right to left)

$`\widehat{𝒜}_{m_{q+1}}^{1/2}(\pi )\widehat{}_{m_1}^{1,I}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{q}{}}}\widehat{}_{m_j}^{1,II}\right]\widehat{}_{m_{q+1}}^{2,II}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=q}{\overset{2}{}}}\widehat{}_{m_j}^{1,II}\right]\widehat{}_{m_1}^{1,I}\widehat{𝒜}_{m_{q+1}}^{1/2}(0)`$ (77)
corresponding to the transformation

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|g_{m_{q+1}}|0`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|g_{m_{q+1}}|0,|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}|e_{m_j},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|e_{m_{q+1}}|0`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{no}|e_{m_{q+1}}|0,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|g_{m_{q+1}}|0`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|e_{m_{q+1}}|0,|\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q}{}}}|e_{m_q},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|e_{m_{q+1}}|0`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{yes}|g_{m_{q+1}}|0.`$ (78)
It is obvious from Eqs. (V) and (V) that the ions must be kept in the ground motional state. This arrangement eliminates heating processes which lead to decoherence. However, it is still the experimental challenge to cool to the ground state $`|n=0`$ more than two ions.

## VI Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we have shown how multiparticle entangled states can be constructed with the help of multi-qubit quantum gates. We have shown how to implement these gates on the system of cold trapped ions. This allows us to “realize”any multi-qubit control-$`R`$ gate and also any logic network proposed in Sec. III and IV.

To understand the feasibility of this algorithm we present some estimations considering the application of the introduced gates and networks on cold trapped ions.

The main aim of further discussion is to illustrate a range of relevant physical parameters for implementation of proposed scheme. Obviously, specific experimental setups have to be considered separately. We present just rough estimates of minimal times required for realization of desired gate operations.

Let us consider Calcium ions $`{}_{}{}^{40}\text{Ca}_{}^{+}`$ with the “ground” (computational) state $`|g=S_{1/2}`$ and the “excited” (computational) state $`|e=D_{5/2}`$. The lifetime of the ion on the metastable $`D_{5/2}`$ level is 1.045 s.

We will assume $`N`$ ions loaded and confined in the trap. The ions will be individually addressed with a laser beam $`(\lambda =729\text{nm})`$ supposing the Gaussian intensity profile $`I/I_0=\mathrm{exp}(2\rho ^2/w_0^2)`$, where $`\rho `$ denotes the radial distance and $`2w_0=10\mu \text{m}`$ is the beam waist. Further, let the angle between the laser beam and the $`z`$ axis be $`\vartheta =60^{}`$. Then, the recoil frequency of the Calcium ion is $`f_R=2.33\text{kHz}`$, where $`f_R=E_R/h`$, $`E_R=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ and $`h=2\pi \mathrm{}`$. The axial trapping frequency is $`\omega _z/2\pi =110\text{kHz}`$. We can also calculate the Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\eta =\sqrt{E_R/\mathrm{}\omega _z}`$, i.e. $`\eta =0.15`$. The minimum spacing between two neighboring ions is determined by the approximate formula steane1 ; james :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{min}{\displaystyle \frac{2.018}{N^{0.559}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4\pi \epsilon _0m\omega _z^2}}\right)^{1/3},`$ (79)
where $`q`$ is the ion charge, $`m`$ is the ion mass and $`ϵ_0`$ is the permitivity of vacuum.

The multi-qubit CNOT gate on the ions is realized by the evolution operator (77). We will consider three types of elementary operations: (1) $`\pi /2`$-pulse on the carrier $`(𝒜)`$ defined by the relation (71), (2) $`\pi `$-pulse $`(^1)`$ and (3) $`2\pi `$-pulse $`(^2)`$ on the first red sideband (73). Each elementary operation takes a certain time to be implemented on the system of cold trapped ions. Steane et al. addressed in detail the speed of ion trap information processors in steane2 .

Firstly, the single-qubit rotation $`(𝒜)`$ can be made much faster than two-qubit operations $`(^1,^2)`$, because the Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\eta `$ can be set zero (i.e., the laser beam is perpendicular to the $`z`$ axis). Thus, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ can be made large without restrictions on the weak coupling regime characterized by the condition $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega _z`$. We will assume $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|/2\pi =50\text{kHz}`$ and estimate the time required for the single-qubit rotation as $`T_𝒜=\pi /2|\mathrm{\Omega }|=5\mu \text{s}`$.

Secondly, by definition for the operations $`^1`$ and $`^2`$, the Lamb-Dicke parameter must be non zero \[see Eq. (70)\]. This means that some unwanted off-resonant transitions will be present, which may significantly affect times required for the operations $`^{1,2}`$

In Ref. steane2  it has been shown that the minimal time $`T_{}`$ for the realization of the operation $`^1`$ is proportional to the geometric mean of the recoil and trapping frequency, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}ϵ}{\sqrt{N}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_R}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _z}{2\pi }}},`$ (80)
where the imprecision $`ϵ=\sqrt{1F}`$ is defined via the fidelity $`F`$ of the process. The time for the operation $`^2`$ is then $`2T_{}`$.

Once the gate times are estimated, we can determine the minimal total time $`T`$ required for the experimental preparation of the state (1) on Calcium ions. The total time $`T`$ is the sum of times of all operations $`𝒜,^1,^2`$, which appear in the implementation of the network in FIG. 6. The total number of all operations, when preparing the state (1) on $`N`$ ions, is $`2N^2+4N10`$. The explicit expression for the total time reads

$`T=N(𝒜)T_𝒜+N(^1)T_{}+N(^2)2T_{}.`$ (81)
In what follows we will consider several situations with the number of trapped ions varying from 2 to 20. In a given ion trap for different values of ions we obtain different minimal spacings $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{min}`$ \[see Eq. (79)\]. The minimal spacing between ions has to be larger than the half-width of the Gaussian profile of the addressing laser beam. In the Innsbruck experiment xxx  the width of the Gaussian profile is proportional to $`10\mu m`$. Even for 20 ions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_{min}=7.31\mu \text{m}`$ \[see Eq.(79)\] and the given width of the Gaussian profile, the ratio between the light intensity of the laser addressing a given ion to the intensity of the same beam on the neighboring ion is as small as $`1.4\%`$. Therefore, individual ions can be addressed rather efficiently.

As follows from Eq. (80) the minimal time for the gate operation depends on the required fidelity of the process. In our case we consider two values of the fidelity, namely $`F=99\%`$ and $`F=75\%`$. Given these values we can estimate relevant physical parameters.

In TABLE 2 we present results of our estimations. From here we can conclude that for a given lifetime of Calcium ions (1.045 s) one can perform in our scheme a coherent manipulation with up to 20 ions with the fidelity $`99\%`$. It seems to be a very optimistic estimation, however we did not optimize the network itself.

We have chosen the cold trapped ions as an example for the situation when the direct implementation of the multi-qubit CNOT gate (using elementary operations, i.e. in this case laser pulses) is much less demanding than the decomposition of multi-qubit CNOT gates into the network of two-qubit CNOT gates. For instance, let us consider the multi-qubit CNOT gate on six qubits. Using results of Ref. barenco  we can decompose this multi-qubit CNOT gate into the network composed of 12 two-qubit CNOT gates. In addition, this network had to be extended by three additional auxiliary qubits. The multi-bit CNOT gate on $`N`$ ions (77) is realized by $`2N+1`$ laser pulses. Each two-qubit CNOT gate on two ions is then realized using five laser pulses (75). It means that all together 60 pulses have to be used for 12 two-qubit CNOT gates. However, the direct implementation of the multi-qubit CNOT gate on six ions requires only 13 laser pulses. This difference becomes even more significant with the increasing number of the ions. Obviously, smaller the number of pulses easier the scheme can be implemented.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the IST projects EQUIP (IST-1999-11053) and QUBITS (IST-1999-13021). We thank Gabriel Drobný for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in the extra dimensions scenarios

\[

## Abstract

We study the radiative spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking in the extra dimensions scenarios of the standard model extension proposed by Antoniadis et al, Dienes et al. and Pomarol et al.. In the framework of multi-scale effective theory when viewing from the ultraviolet cutoff scale down to the low energy scale, we find that the effects of Kaluza-Klein excitations of bosons can change the sign of the Higgs mass term of the standard model from positive to negative and therefore trigger the electroweak symmetry breaking at 1.6 (2) TeV or so if the compactification scale is assumed to be 0.8 (1.5) TeV or so. New particle contents beyond the SM or supersymmetry are not necessary for this mechanism. We conclude that in the extra dimension scenarios, the radiative correction can naturally induce the desired electroweak symmetry breaking.

\]

The extra dimension (ED) scenario of the standard model (SM) extension is fascinating and is under the vigorous investigation (refer  for a brief review), since it provides a new paradigm which is within the reach of near future experiments and beyond technicolor and supersymmetry (SUSY). Many efforts have been invested in the ED model construction . However, a realistic model requires to answer how to break the electroweak symmetry.

In the SM, to trigger the spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking (SEWSB), the mass term of the Higgs potential is set to be negative by hand. Although the Higgs mechanism is sucessful in explaining the masses of bosons and fermions and their mixing, it is quite unnatural in this respect. The underlying reason for the SEWSB of the SM is still an open question .

There are two main models to explain the SEWSB of the SM: technicolor and SUSY models. In technicolor models, Higgs field is regarded as a composite field of other more fundamental fields. The SEWSB is due to the fermion condensate. The SEWSB of the technicolor version in the ED has been intensively investigated (refer  for a review).

In SUSY models, the radiative symmetry breaking mechanism  is well known . Due to the largeness of top Yukawa couplings, the mass term of the Higgs doublet coupled to u-type quarks can be driven from positive to negative and the SEWSB can be triggered naturally. However, we would like to point out that beside the the largeness of top Yukawa coupling, another important factor which is always under-emphasized is the fact that in softly broken SUSY models there exist couplings with mass dimension (trilinear couplings, for instance) and masses of heavy superpartners (especially the scalars of top-quark partner which contribute to the radiative SEWSB constructively). Without these important terms, the radiative breaking mechanism of the SUSY can not work.

In some ED scenarios, there are a lot of heavy particle spectrum in the reduced 4D effective theory (For example, the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of both vector and Higgs boson are possibly quite heavy). Is it possible for these heavy particles to induce the desired SEWSB at a few TeV, as the scalars of SUSY do? In this work, we will answer this question and study the radiative mechanism in non-supersymmetric ED extension of the SM proposed by Antoniadis et al , Dienes et al.  and Pomarol et al. , where gauge and Higgs bosons are assumed to propagate in the bulk. The case where only vector bosons live in the bulk and and the universal case where all fermions are also assumed to live in the bulk are discussed

Firstly, we examine how it is possible to spontaneously break symmetry in a two-real-scalar system. And we use the multi-mass-scale effective potential method (MEPM) given in the refrences  and . In a theory with more than one scale, MEPM can avoid large logarithms and preserves the validity of perturbation theory. The basic ingredients of the MEPM include the renormalization group equation (RGE) method and the decoupling theorem . One of the advantages of the MEPM is that by using different effective field theories  which are dependent on the field scales, it is convenient to solve the RGEs of the effective potential. Because the RGEs are just the same ones in each interval between mass thresholds.

The effective Lagrangian of the system defined at the ultraviolet cutoff scale (UV) is assumed to be

$`L_{UV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(^\nu H_i)^{}_\nu H_im_{H_i}^2(\mu _{UV})H_i^{}H_i]`$ (2)
$`V(H_1,H_2),`$
where $`H_i,i=1,2`$ are two real scalar fields. We assume $`|m_{H_1}^2(\mu _{UV})|<m_{H_2}^2(\mu _{UV})`$.

Motivated by the effective 4D Lagrangian reduced from the 5D one, the potential $`V(H_1,H_2)`$ is simply assumed to have the form

$`V(H_1,H_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (\mu _{UV})}{4!}}(H_1^4+6H_1^2H_2^2+H_2^4),`$ (3)
where $`\lambda (\mu _{UV})`$ is positive. The potential is invariant under the transformation $`H_1>H_1`$ and $`H_2>H_2`$. In the UV, We can choose $`m_{H_i}^2(\mu _{UV}),i=1,2`$, and $`\lambda (\mu _{UV})`$ as the three free parameters owned by the system. The symmetry is assumed to be unbroken and $`m_{H_i}^2(\mu _{UV})`$ are positive.

At the low energy scale (IR), after $`H_2`$ decouples at its threshold scale $`m_{H_2}`$***Although $`H_2`$ should decouples at $`M_{H_2}=m_{H_2}+\lambda H_1/2`$ as stated in , due to the large mass of KK excitations, the difference between $`m_{H_2}`$ and $`M_{H_2}`$ is omitted here., the obtained effective theory at low energy scale $`\mu _{IR}`$ can be written as

$`L_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\nu H_1)^{}_\nu H_1m_{H_1}^2(\mu _{IR})H_1^{}H_1`$ (5)
$`V(H_1)+\mathrm{},`$
where the dots represent the omitted irrelevant terms and $`V(H_1)`$ can be simply expressed as

$`V(H_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1(\mu _{IR})}{4!}}H_1^4.`$ (6)
This effective Lagrangian also owns a $`Z_2`$ reflection symmetry.

The one-loop RGEs of this system are listed below

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dm_{H_1}^2(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}[\alpha _\lambda m_{H_1}^2(t)+\alpha _\lambda m_{H_2}^2(t)\theta (\mu m_{H_2})],`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dm_{H_2}^2(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}[\alpha _\lambda m_{H_1}^2(t)+\alpha _\lambda m_{H_2}^2(t)]\theta (\mu m_{H_2}),`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _\lambda }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}[3\alpha _\lambda +3\alpha _\lambda \theta (\mu m_{H_2})],`$ (9)
where $`t=ln\mu /\mu _{IR}`$, $`\alpha _\lambda =\lambda /(4\pi )`$, and $`\theta (\mu m_{H_2})`$ is the Heaviside theta function.

At the IR, we assume that $`m_{H_1}^2(\mu _{IR})`$ is negative and the $`Z_2`$ symmetry is broken. The IR free parameters can be chosen as $`v`$ (i.e. the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the field $`H_1`$), $`\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{IR})`$, and $`m_{H_2}`$. The $`\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{IR})`$ should be positive as required by the stability of the vacuum.

The value of $`m_{H_1}(\mu _{IR})`$ is fixed by the relation $`m_{H_1}^2(\mu _{IR})=2\pi /3\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{IR})v^2`$. By solving the RGEs given in eqs. (5-7), it is obvious that below the threshold value of $`m_{H_2}`$, the self coupling $`\lambda `$ will become stronger and stronger with the running of energy scale and the negative mass term $`m_{H_1}^2`$ will be simply driven to be further negative.

When the RGEs run across the threshold value of the $`m_{H_2}`$, the degree of freedom of the $`H_2`$ is activated. If the condition $`|m_{H_1}^2|(t)|<|m_{H_2}^2(t)|`$ is satisfied for $`\mu m_{H_2}`$, it is sufficient for the existence of a scale $`\mu _{cri}`$ where the sign of $`m_{H_1}^2`$ can be flipped from negative to positive. At the scale $`\mu _{cri}`$, the VEV of the $`H_1`$ become zero and the broken symmetry is restored. This condition can be solved out from eqs. (5-7) as

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}\alpha _\lambda v^2|<m_{H_2}^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\lambda }{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H_2}^2}{\mu _{IR}}})^{\frac{1}{3}}.`$ (10)
Therefore, in the IR, for a fixed $`v`$, choosing a proper point in the parameters space of $`m_{H_2}`$ and $`\alpha _\lambda `$ which satisfies the condition given in eqn. (10) as an IR input, and running the RGEs from the IR up to the UV, we can get a point of in the parameter space determined ( $`m_{H_i}^2(\mu _{UV}),i=1,2`$ and $`\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{UV})`$) in the UV. With this set of parameters as an UV input, and running the RGEs from the UV down to the IR, we can definitely get the desired radiative spontaneous symmetry breaking at the critical scale $`\mu _{cri}`$.

The lesson we learn from this case is that if an IR input of a system can trigger the symmetry restoring, then when running from up down to bottom, the UV input determined by the IR input can definitely trigger the symmetry breaking at the same critical scale, since the RGEs are differential equations and are solvable with a specified boundary condition.

Now let’s examine the case in the ED scenarios. We consider a simple extension of the SM to 5D  (It is straightforward to generalize our discuss to cases with high number of extra dimensions). The fifth space-like dimension $`x_5`$ is assumed to compactify on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$. The 5D Lagrangian is defined as

$`_{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}^2+|D_MH|^2V(H)`$ (12)
$`+L_{GF}+\left[i\overline{\psi }_i\sigma ^\mu D_\mu \psi _i+Y_F\overline{\psi }_LH\psi _R\right]\delta (x_5),`$
where $`F_{MN}=_MA_N_NA_M+g_5[A_M,A_N]`$, which is the gauge field tensor defined in 5D, and $`N,M=0,1,2,3,5`$. The group generators index is omitted. Gauge fields $`A_M`$ and Higgs weak doublet field $`H`$ have mass dimension $`3/2`$. $`g_5`$ and $`Y_F`$ are the gauge coupling and the Yukawa coupling, respectively, and have mass dimension $`1/2`$. $`_{GF}`$ is the gauge fixed term. $`V(H)`$ is the usual Higgs potential and has the form

$`V(H)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2H^{}H+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(H^{}H)^2,`$ (13)
$`\mu ^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the mass term and self coupling of H boson, respectively. And $`\lambda `$ has mass dimension $`1`$. Here $`\mu ^2`$ is assumed to be positive and the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry is assumed to be preserve when the compactification occurs. According to the power counting law, the gauge theory defined in 5D is non-renormalizable, due to the fact that the couplings have negative mass dimension.

The fields living in the bulk can be defined to be even under the $`Z_2`$-parity and can be Fourier-expanded as

$`A_M(H)(x_\mu ,x_5)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{nx_5}{R_c}}A_{M(5D)}^n(H_{(5D)}^n)(x_\mu ),`$ (14)
where $`R_c`$ is the compactification size of the fifth dimension, and $`A_{M(5D)}^{(n)}(H_{(5D)}^n),n0`$ are KK excitations. Zero modes are localized on the 3-brane and are fields defined in the SM. Substituting eqn. (14) into eqn. (12), and rescaling fields and parameters with $`\lambda _{5D}=2\pi R\lambda _{4D}`$, $`g_{5D}(Y_{u5D})=\sqrt{2\pi R}g_{4D}(Y_{u4D})`$, $`A_{\mu 5D}^0(H_{5D}^0)=A_{\mu 4D}^0(H_{4D}^0)/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$, $`A_{\mu 5D}^n(H_{5D}^n,A_{55D}^n)=A_{\mu 4D}^n(H_{4D}^n,A_{54D}^n)/\sqrt{\pi R},(n0)`$. Then we get the effective Lagrangian in 4D defined at the UV $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UV}`$ which has a form

$`^{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`_{SM}+\delta ^{ED},`$ (15)
where $`_{SM}`$ is just the Lagrangian of the SM in 4D, and $`\delta ^{ED}`$ contains all interactions of KK excitations with zero modes on 3-brane. The effective theory owns a $`SU_c(3)\times SU_L(2)\times U_Y(1)`$ symmetry. In order to be compatible with the SM, $`A_5`$ (the fifth component of vector boson field) is assumed to have no zero mode. So by utilizing the standard dimension reduction procedure, we specify a basic effective Lagrangian of extra dimension scenarios with the symmetry of the SM.

Two features of the model are remarkable . The first one is universal KK excitation spectrum of fields propagating in the bulk. The mass values of each level of KK excitations can be expressed as $`m_i=i/R_c`$, and are independent of other quantum numbers, spin and charge, for instance.

The second one is that the presence of infinite towers of KK states makes the effective theory non-renormalizable and this is an intrinsic feature for high dimensions theory. In order to have a renormalizable effective theory, an explicit ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is introduced to truncate the infinite KK excitation.

The RGEs of gauge couplings take the form $`d\alpha _g/dt=2b_g\alpha _g/(2\pi )`$, and up to one-loop level, $`b_g`$ is defined as

$`b_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}C_g(G)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}T_g(\mathrm{\Psi }_f)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_g(H)`$ (17)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}C_g(G)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}C_g(A_5)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_g(H)]N_{KK},`$
where $`\alpha _g=g^2/(4\pi )`$, and $`N_{KK}=_{i=1}\theta (\mu m_i)`$, counting the number of activated KK excitations. To understand the RGEs of gauge couplings, it is noticeable that the excitations KK states of vector fields $`A_\mu `$ and scalar fields $`A_5`$ are the adjoint representations of gauge groups, while the complex weak doublet $`H^{(n)}`$ are the fundamental representations of $`SU(2)`$.

It is remarkable that, in the extra dimension scenarios we consider here, KK excitations always drive the 4D gauge couplings of $`SU(3)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ groups to their weak coupling limits. This is just the typical feature of non-Abelian gauge theory, i.e. the asymptotical freedom. Even for the case that all fermions in the SM (the universal case) are assumed to live in the bulk, the couplings of $`SU(3)\times SU(2)`$ are driven to their weak coupling limit.

To simplify our analysis, below we will omit the contributions of the $`U(1)`$ group, due to its small effect to the problem we consider here.

The Yukawa coupling terms of quarks in the SM are assumed to be the contact terms and have the form

$`L_{QUH}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_t\overline{Q}_LHU_R+h.c.,`$ (18)
here $`\overline{Q}_L=(\overline{u}_L,\overline{d}_L)`$, $`H^T=(H^0,H^{})`$, and $`Y_F`$ is the Yukawa couplings.

Due to its large effects, the Yukawa coupling of top quarks should be considered. The RGE of it can be written as $`d\alpha _h/dt=b_h\alpha _h/(2\pi )`$, and up to one-loop level $`b_h`$ is defined as

$`b_h`$ $`=`$ $`6C_c(1+2N_{KK})\alpha _33C_w(1+2N_{KK})\alpha _2`$ (20)
$`+[N_c+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1+2N_{KK})]\alpha _h,`$
where $`\alpha _h=Y_t^2/(4\pi )`$, and $`N_c`$ is the number of color. The $`2`$ before $`N_{KK}`$ is due to the different normalization of zero modes and KK excitations. $`C_c`$ and $`C_w`$ are quadratic Casmir operators of $`SU(3)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ groups for fundamental representations, respectively.

The RGE of self-interaction coupling of Higgs zero mode fields $`\lambda `$ can be expressed as $`d\alpha _\lambda /dt=b_\lambda \alpha _\lambda /(2\pi )`$, and up to one-loop, $`b_\lambda `$ is defined as

$`b_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`3(1+N_{KK})\alpha _\lambda +[(2C_w+4)(1+N_{KK})`$ (23)
$`+(4C_w^2+(2D_B+8)c^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _\lambda }}(1+N_{KK})]\alpha _2`$
$`2N_c(2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _h}{\alpha _\lambda }}1)\alpha _h,`$
where $`D_B=5`$, $`\alpha _\lambda =\lambda /(4\pi )`$, and $`c^{}=1+N_w2/N_w+1/N_w^2`$. $`D_B`$ is to count the degree of freedom of the gauge vector bosons. For $`SU(2)`$, $`N_w=2`$. The first two terms in Eqn. (23) tend to increase $`\alpha _l`$, and the last term tends to decrease it. While KK excitations of bosons always tend to drive $`\alpha _\lambda `$ to be large.

The one-loop RGE of Higgs mass term is expressed in the below form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dm_H^2}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\{(\alpha _\lambda 3C_w\alpha _2+N_c\alpha _h)m_H^2`$ (26)
$`+(\alpha _\lambda 3C_w\alpha _2)N_{KK}m_H^2`$
$`+\left((\alpha _\lambda +(D_B2)C_w\alpha _2)M_{KK}^2\right\},`$
where $`M_{KK}^2=_{i=1}m_i^2\theta (\mu m_i)`$, counting the contributions of KK excitations to the renormalization constant of $`m_H^2`$.

In the UV, there are six free parameters in the effective theory needed to be specified, 1)$`\alpha _3`$ and 2) $`\alpha _2`$, the fine structure constants of gauge group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)`$, 3) $`\alpha _h`$, 4) $`\alpha _l`$ and 5) $`m_H^2`$ and 6) $`M_c`$. While in the low energy scale, there are only two free parameters needed to be specified 1) $`\alpha _l`$, and 2) $`M_c`$, since $`\alpha _3`$, $`\alpha _2`$, $`\alpha _h`$, and $`m_H^2`$ can be determined from experiments or those three free parameters. The $`M_c=1/R_c`$ determines that where KK excitations should be counted. While triviality and stability conditions of Higgs potential in the SM constrain the value of $`\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{IR})`$ . The Landau pole of $`\alpha _\lambda `$ can fix the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UV}`$.

We will concentrate on the analysis of the behavior of $`m_H^2`$ from the IR up to the UV. At the low energy scale (say $`\mu _{IR}=M_z`$, the $`m_H^2`$ is chosen to be negative as required by the SM. And its initial value at IR can be fixed by $`v`$ (the VEV of $`H`$) and the free parameter $`\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{IR})`$.

Before the running scale cross the threshold of the first KK excitations, only the first term in Eqn. 26 contributes which tends to drive $`m_H^2`$ to be further negative. After only few KK excitations are counted, $`m_H^2`$ can change its sign from negative to positive, as shown in figure 1.

As we know, in the SM, the sign of the mass term $`m_H^2`$ completely determines whether the electroweak symmetry is broken or unbroken. The change of $`m_H^2`$ from the negative to the positive value hints the restoring of the broken symmetry. With the same reasoning, as shown in our toy model, we can conclude it is possible to have the radiative SEWSB mechanism in the ED scenarios of the SM.

The underlying reason for the radiative SEWSB is that the KK excitation of bosons are very heavy. With an appropariate value of $`\alpha _\lambda (\mu _{IR})`$, the process of the symmetry restoring can quickly happen after the running scale has crossed the threshold of the first KK excitation.

We also check the case in which only vector bosons live in the bulk, and find that with properly chosen $`M_c`$ and $`\lambda `$, the radiative breaking mechanism exists too. For the universal case, we find that due to the large contribution from KK excitations of top KK excitations and the large top Yukawa coupling, it is relatively hard to find a approperate point which can both invoke SEWB and preserve the validity of perturbation. However, in the universal case of the two Higgs doublets extension of the SM, with the help of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (the ratio of the VEV of the two Higgs doublets), it is still possible to have the radiative SEWSB mechanism induced by KK bosons.

In summary, we investigate the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in the extra dimensions scenarios of the SM extension proposed by Antoniadis et al., Dienes et al. and Pomarol et al.. Utilizing the decoupling theorem and the one-loop renormalization group equations of the parameters of Higgs potential, we find that heavy KK bosons can change the sign of the Higgs mass terms from positive to negative and therefore trigger the SEWSB. We conclude that the radiative mechanism can naturally exist in the ED scenarios, and new particle contents beyond the SM or SUSY are not necessary.


text:
# Use of Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) Detectors for an Advanced X-ray Monitor

## 1 INTRODUCTION

X-ray astronomy is our primary window to the portion of the Universe characterized by high temperatures and explosive behavior. As one progresses from visible light to the extreme UV, our view of the cosmos beyond the local region in the Galaxy is increasingly attenuated by interstellar absorption. However, as we approach 1 keV and the X-ray band, our long-range view becomes clear again. Since X-ray sources generally radiate fewer photons at higher energy, it is no wonder that X-ray astronomy missions historically favor the energy range of 1-10 keV.

Detectors with two-dimensional imaging capability are a workhorse for X-ray astronomy. In the energy range of 1-10 keV, there are two primary types of position-sensitive detectors flown on space-borne missions: gas detectors and solid-state charge-coupled devices (CCDs).

Gas detectors include both “standard” proportional counters and gas-scintillation detectors. Position-sensitive versions of these were used for the Einstein IPC , the ROSAT PSPC , and the ASCA GIS  for the purpose of recording with modest spectral resolution the images formed by focusing X-ray telescopes. Gas detectors are also used to record the X-ray shadows of coded masks for current wide-angle instruments, including the All Sky Monitor of the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), the Wide Field Camera  on the BeppoSAX satellite, and the Wide-Field X-ray Monitor  on the HETE-II Mission, to be launched in mid-2000. The dimensions of these detectors are generally in the range of 8–25 cm, and the position resolution is roughly 0.2–2 mm, sometimes with degraded resolution along the second axis. Gas mixtures with argon and/or xenon as the primary constituent provide very good quantum efficiency for the detection of 1-10 keV X-rays, and pulse height analysis of X-ray events provides modest spectral resolution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E0.080.15`$ at 6 keV). There are a variety of methods for measuring positions of incident X-ray photons; for the proportional counter detectors these include charge division along resistive anodes, pulse rise time differences, and charge collection by discrete wires, by conductive strips on an insulating substrate, or by “pick-up” strips on printed circuit boards. Both types of gas detectors routinely provide time resolution better than 1 ms.

Recently, X-ray CCDs have been used in imaging spectroscopy missions such as ASCA (i.e., in the SIS instrument), the Chandra X-ray Observatory (ACIS ), and Newton-XMM (EPIC). CCDs will also be used in the Soft X-ray Cameras (SXCs) on HETE II, where they will act as one-dimensional position-sensitive detectors in coded-aperture cameras. Generally, CCD detectors provide superior position resolution, in the range of 10–50 $`\mu `$m. CCDs offer improved spectral resolution (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E0.02`$ at 5 keV for the HETE-SXC). They also make it easier to extend the sensitive energy range of the instrument down to $`0.5`$ keV, while the soft X-ray sensitivity in gas detectors is usually limited by the opacity of the entrance window (e.g. Be foil or coated polypropylene).

The use of CCDs in X-ray astronomy missions, however, has its own limitations and difficulties. The dimension of the active area (2–6 cm) is much smaller than the size of gas detectors. X-ray CCDs are currently expensive, and significant resources of power, mass, and volume are needed from the host spacecraft because of the requirements for sophisticated drive electronics and systems for cooling the detectors to very low temperatures. The pixel readout methods for current CCDs provide poor time resolution (typically $`1`$ s) and impose saturation limits for bright sources. There is also susceptibility to performance degradation in space applications, due to radiation damage in the South Atlantic Anomaly or other high background regions.

Other types of detectors, with a range of capabilities for imaging, such as microchannel plate detectors and microcalorimeters, also have their place in the arsenal of detectors for X-ray astronomy, but have characteristics which limit their applicability for instruments which require imaging capability over a large area at reasonable cost. There are also new materials being developed for X-ray cameras, such as Cd-Zn-Te arrays and silicon strip detectors, which are expected to advance our capabilities in hard X-rays, e.g. 10-100 keV. Their limited performance below 5 keV makes it unlikely that these technologies will compete with gas counters or CCDs in the 0.5–10 keV band in the near future.

One may therefore conclude that there are clear tradeoffs between two types of detectors in the current state of the art of X-ray imaging in the main X-ray band. Where detector area or time resolution is a high priority, then the choice of a gas detector would have strong advantages. Missions in this category would include wide-field surveys and bright-source monitors. In the sections below, we describe a new type of gas detector that provides the opportunity for substantial improvements in the field of X-ray all-sky monitors. We outline how these detectors may be adapted for astronomy, and how a mission design for all-sky viewing would achieve major advances in science themes related to both explosive events at short timescale and monitoring functions at long timescales.

## 2 GEM DETECTORS FOR X-RAY ASTRONOMY

In the last few years, workers at CERN have developed the Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) for use in gas-based particle and X-ray detectors . The classical problem with gas counters is that a large detector with fine anode spacing (i.e. for position resolution) and high voltage (for soft X-ray sensitivity and good spectral resolution) encounters substantial risk of electrical breakdown due to the high electric fields close to the anodes. The GEM detectors improve this situation, essentially by working to decouple the stages of electron multiplication and charge collection, so that both functions are not performed by a single conductive array under high voltage.

A GEM foil is a sandwich consisting of thin conductive layers of, e.g., copper separated by a thin polymer film (e.g. 50 $`\mu `$m kapton). The foil is perforated with regularly-spaced and precisely shaped small holes (e.g., 80 $`\mu `$m diameter spaced with a 140 $`\mu `$m pitch). In operation inside a detector, a voltage (350–500 V) is applied between the conductive layers. As illustrated in Figure 1, the electric field lines guide charged particles through the GEM holes, with minimal losses due to collisions with the foil. Electrons are accelerated in the strong fields within the GEM foil, producing secondary ionizations and charge multiplication in the usual manner.

Figure 1 also depicts the operation of a GEM foil in an X-ray detector. When a gas atom in the upper chamber is ionized by an incident X-ray, the initial ionization cloud drifts toward the GEM foil due to a potential difference between the detector window and the upper GEM layer. The electrons are vertically guided through the holes in one or more GEM layers, with charge multiplication in the high electric fields within each layer. The resulting electron cloud then drifts to the readout plane, where the charge is collected via one of several possible electrode configurations.

The GEM was initially developed for detectors that utilize a “microstrip gas counter” (MSGC). This detector utilizes plated conductive strips on an insulating substrate, like a printed circuit board, rather than a grid of self-supported wires. High voltage is applied between the conductors in the strip. An orthogonal strip or an array of pickup electrodes serves to locate the event along the second axis. MSGC detectors (without GEMs) have flown on balloon flights , and will be flown in the JEM-X instrument  on the INTEGRAL mission (2002).

The GEM was invented to provide the charge multiplication remote from the readout plane and to reduce the required high voltages on the microstrip readout. In the next development, a double layer of GEM foils was used to provide sufficient charge multiplication (e.g. gain factors of $`10^4`$), so that the readout tracks could collect the charge without operating at high voltage . GEM technology has been successful in achieving this goal in both double-GEM and GEM \+ MSGC configurations. These detectors are successfully used outside of CERN (e.g. ), and GEM + MSGC detectors are now in “mass production” assembly for the HERA-B experiment (CP symmetry violation in B mesons) at the DESY accelerator in Hamburg, Germany .

We believe that GEM-based position-sensitive proportional counters with wireless conductive strip readout planes for charge collection (i.e. without MSGCs) could be of great advantage for the implementation of a number of future X-ray astronomy missions. They may fulfill a vision of X-ray detectors with moderate cost, large format, and excellent position resolution, while retaining the high quantum efficiency of the noble gases for recording incident X-rays.

In moving from particle physics applications to the space environment, several issues immediately arise. The use of GEM detectors in space will be most practical with sealed units in contrast to the gas-flow detectors used in ground-based laboratories. All of the materials used in the detector, including the GEM foils, the GEM mounts, and the readout planes, must not contribute contamination via out-gassing. The detectors must be able to survive the launch and space environments and operate reliably for many years. Thus, the design must consider the vibration, acoustic, and shock loads of a typical mission and also the requirement to remain under tension and perform reliably over a substantial range of ambient temperatures. The detectors must also feature readout schemes involving relatively simple electronics that consume little power, e.g., a few watts or less per detector, in order to be efficient and affordable for small missions.

It is highly desirable that the detector system feature a readout plane design and electronics concept that are clearly appropriate for SMEX and MIDEX-class missions. One must first consider whether the readout paradigms used in the particle physics versions of GEM detectors are suitable in this regard. For use in particle physics experiments, each strip in a surface-mount readout plane is connected to an electronic measurement chain. This scheme requires a very large number ($`>1000`$) of measurement chains. A highly integrated readout system for microstrip-type detectors has been developed in Europe for use at CERN and other accelerator facilities. The system includes the use of a single chip, called the “HELIX 128”, with 128 low noise charge sensitive preamplifiers and control circuitry that can be read out in pipeline fashion. There is also a compatible “SUFIX” (SUpport chip For helIX) chip that includes an analog to digital converter designed to interface directly with the HELIX 128 chip. The output from the SUFIX chip is a serial stream of digital signals representing the charge detected in each of 128 strips or channels. This technology is promising for future space applications of gas detectors, but the electronics package for an instrument comprising more than a few detectors may require a powerful CPU manager, a large amount of power, and a relatively large volume. While these consequences may not be inevitable, the economic application of this technology may not be optimal for space borne missions at the present time.

The readout concept we intend to develop uses an array of electrodes similar to those previously used by the developers of the GEM . However, rather than connecting each individual electrode to a preamplifier and measurement chain, as is the practice in particle physics experiments, we would connect the preamplifiers and measurement chains to groups of anodes via resistive strips. This technique is analogous to the method for determining event positions that was successfully implemented for the RXTE ASM. Below, we describe our approach in further detail.

We baseline a readout plane consisting of orthogonal arrays of conductors for charge collection plated onto a substrate (see Figure 2). The ”X” and ”Y” grids are isolated from each other by a thin insulating layer. The X grid traces are arranged into three groups (A, B and C) in order to help characterize the spatial profile of the events in the detector. Each group is made up of multiple sets of a small number (provisionally 4) of adjacent traces; the sets of traces are arranged in cyclic fashion, i.e., ABCABC…(see Figure 2). The traces for each group are connected to a resistive strip, each end of which is, in turn, connected to readout amplifiers. The traces forming the Y grid are also subdivided into groups and connected to resistive strips. The charge produced by each event will be split among various X and Y traces and then further split between the amplifier chains at the two ends of the associated resistive strips. Signal charge that reaches each end of each resistive strip will be amplified for subsequent processing including threshold detection, background event identification, event energy and position determination, and digitization.

It is important that systems utilizing our readout and electronics concept be able to identify and reject non-X-ray background. We expect that this can be accomplished in our design by two methods. First, the total charge generated by most non-X-ray events will exceed a high level threshold setting. Second, energetic charged particles, as opposed to X-ray photons, will leave a long track of secondary ionization that will normally produce an extended cloud of electrons at the readout grid resulting in a charge signal being produced in many of the sensing grid traces. In contrast, an X-ray event will be more localized and produce a charge signal in only a few of the grid traces. Background events can then be rejected by identifying coincidences among all 3 of the A, B, and C outputs. We expect this approach to achieve a background rejection efficiency of 95%. A simplified schematic of the front-end and background detection electronics is shown in Figure 3.

## 3 OBJECTIVES FOR AN ADVANCED X-RAY MONITOR

The X-ray sky is extremely variable. This variability ranges from $`<`$1 ms to days to years. Intensity changes by ten orders of magnitude have been seen in some soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs), while even the most persistent X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei (AGN) commonly vary by a factor of two or more. Space missions in the last decades generated productive science applications related to X-ray monitoring. Recently, X-ray source variability has been witnessed with unprecedented clarity during the 4.5 years of observations with RXTE (launched 12/95). This mission includes a scanning All Sky Monitor (ASM) and pointed instruments that provide 1 $`\mu `$s time resolution. Additional insights have been gained from the Italian-Dutch BeppoSAX  Mission (launched 5/96). Scientific advances from these observatories substantiate the perspective that high energy astrophysics often requires a joint consideration of temporal and spectral variability and a strong commitment to multifrequency observations.

In a recent NASA opportunity for new missions in the Small Explorer (SMEX) class, we proposed an “Advanced X-ray Monitor” (AXM) as a concept that synthesizes the capabilities of GEM detectors and the scientific advantages of all-sky viewing. The AXM would generate self-contained science investigations and will further provide invaluable and rapid guidance to other programs for scheduling observations and for interpreting results. The AXM data and results would constitute a public archive, and community science programs would be funded via competitive grants administered through NASA’s Astrophysics Data Program and Astrophysics Theory Program. The AXM has 2 primary design goals:

* To observe nearly the entire sky, continuously, so as to measure temporal and spectral properties of outbursts and flares which last from seconds to hours,
* To monitor “persistent” X-ray sources with sufficient sensitivity to provide detailed light curves for many accreting compact objects in the Galaxy and extragalactic AGN.

The AXM concept consists of 31 cameras, each consisting of a GEM detector mounted below a two-dimensional coded-mask aperture. The camera fields of view (FOV) would combine to cover the entire sky, except for a small exclusion zone in the direction of the Sun. The cameras would operate in the range of 1.5 to 12 keV, and they are designed to achieve sensitivity to sources that appear for times as short as 1 ms as well as sources that persist for many years. The baseline AXM detection capability is $`300`$ mCrab ($`5\sigma `$) in 1 s and $`1`$ mCrab ($`3\sigma `$) in 1 day, where 1 mCrab is $`2.4\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 at 2-10 keV. The AXM would be launched into a $``$600 km equatorial orbit. Each “good” event would be telemetered to the ground with 0.3 mm spatial resolution, $`122\mu `$s temporal resolution, and 64 channels of spectral resolution, providing enormous flexibility for scientific analyses. The design lifetime is 3 years, with substantial probability for longer operating lifetime.

The mounting orientations for the 31 AXM cameras are shown in Figure 4. They resemble the 32 faces and vertices of a soccer ball, with 1 camera eliminated (center of figure) to avoid the saturating effect of the Sun’s X-rays. The chosen epoch for Figure 4 is the vernal equinox; the Sun is at the center of the figure (position 0.0, 0.0). The 15 camera centers highlighted in red point in the solar hemisphere, while 16 in blue view the opposite hemisphere. The “+” symbols show the positions of 334 sources currently monitored with the RXTE ASM; these cluster in the Magellanic Clouds and along the Galactic plane. The dashed green lines for each camera indicate offset angles of 20, which corresponds to half transmission through the coded mask. The sum of the transmission contributions produce approximately uniform exposure over the celestial sphere, excluding only the $`3`$% region near the Sun, as well as $`30`$% of the sky blocked by the Earth. A summary of design specifications and sensitivity estimates for the AXM are given in Table 1.

The routine on-line data analysis would consist of three stages. First, the intensities of catalogued sources will be determined as a function of time (for several “standard” time intervals) together with confirmation or correction of the aspect of the cameras. Second, searches for new sources will be conducted. We would use cross-correlation imaging techniques, e.g. at 100 s and 1-day time intervals to determine rough locations and intensities. The data selection intervals would then be optimized to yield precise source positions. Third, the data analyses would then be iterated to re-derive the intensities of previously known and new sources to produce the final AXM results for a permanent public archive.

The results of the preliminary, on-line analysis for X-ray intensities and new source alerts would be disseminated via the internet within $`30`$ minutes of each ground station pass, in a manner similar to what is done for RXTE ASM data. The final results would be made public as soon as practical, e.g. 1 week after the observations are made.

## 4 AXM SCIENCE PROGRAM

The AXM design would address many scientific objectives that can be conveniently divided into three broad themes:

* The science of jets and other cosmic explosions

Several types of rare, explosive events produce X-ray emission on timescales from seconds to hours, e.g. ejections of relativistic jets in microquasars  , flares in fast X-ray novae , flashes from SGRs , gamma ray bursts , and giant flares from active coronae . There is a common thread among these diverse systems: these dramatic events are infrequent and unpredictable, and scientific progress is impeded by the difficulty in gaining detailed observations. With continuous viewing of 70% of the sky and 75 cm2 of active detector area, the AXM offers substantial improvements for the capture rate of rare, explosive events. For comparison, the RXTE ASM cameras view 3.9% (FWHM) of the sky with typically $`20\mathrm{cm}^2`$ of effective area, and with a duty cycle of $`40`$%, imposed by the satellite orbit which traverses the SAA and other regions with high particle flux. The AXM also opens substantial opportunity for the discovery of infrequent, brief outbursts of types hitherto unknown.

* Long term spectral and temporal evolution of persistent sources

Continuous all-sky viewing also provides long exposure times that may help to address science issues that involve evolution on timescales from several hours to several years. In terms of both the density of coverage and the sensitivity threshold per day, the AXM design offers large improvements over the RXTE ASM, e.g. a six-fold increase in signal to noise per day for faint sources, with reduced vulnerability to systematic errors related to, e.g., the ASM’s limited anode number, time-dependent calibrations, and noisy regions of the satellite orbit. The AXM would produce X-ray light curves which show variability in incredible detail, e.g. tracing the spectral evolution of black hole binaries , or tracking the excursions of accretion flow in low-magnetic-field neutron star systems . Spin changes would be measured over long baselines for all accretion-powered pulsars to test evolving physical models for accretion torques and disk-magnetosphere interaction . Pulsar spin changes in the anomalous X-ray pulsars would test the “magnetar” hypothesis and the possible association with SGRs .

The AXM would substantially contribute to the science of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) in several ways. There would be daily measurements of $``$15 BL Lac objects brighter than 1 mCrab, with sensitivity to major eruptions (e.g. factor of 5 or more) for $``$80 other BL Lacs with mean flux $`\stackrel{>}{}`$0.3 mCrab. Since the X-ray outbursts signify synchrotron emission that is correlated with inverse Compton emission at much higher frequencies , this X-ray monitoring capability would greatly enhance the productivity of the rapidly evolving TeV observatories (Whipple, HEGRA, CAT, etc), while the instruments expected during the AXM era (VERITAS, HESS) are again $`50\times `$ more sensitive. For emission-line AGN, multifrequency studies would be supported with frequent X-ray measurements of dozens of objects in several subclasses. Furthermore, the utility of using long-term X-ray power spectra to provide estimates for the mass of the central black hole would be explored in earnest for the first time .

* Empowerment of other observatories and multifrequency science

All sky monitors provide alerts for new X-ray sources and for major changes in known sources. These services provide observing opportunities that strongly enhance the productivity of space missions and ground based programs involved in high energy astrophysics. In the 2003-2007 time frame, the X- and gamma-ray missions will include Chandra, XMM, INTEGRAL, and GLAST, and it is extremely important that these observatories conduct their pointed observations with full awareness of the opportunities that all-sky viewing would provide.

There are also substantial ground based programs that are intimately tied to the data from X-ray monitors. These include the TeV observatories, noted above, the Greenbank Interferometer (which monitors high-energy sources in the radio band), and several optical programs involving both university consortia and the growing networks of amateur optical astronomers. There are also sophisticated plans for robotic observatories (e.g. Perugia, Torino, Sarah, La Palma, Liverpool Telescope) that can contribute productive programs for optical or IR monitoring of X-ray sources in outburst.

The advantages of combining pointed X-ray observations with all-sky monitoring and ground-based support are abundantly clear. Scientific productivity is strongly enhanced by rapid response to outbursts, state changes, etc. Alert criteria can be tailored to fit the detailed requirements of individual research programs. Furthermore, as shown by the RXTE ASM, the global views of source behavior seen in long-term X-ray light curves are widely used to provide context for, and thereby enable more secure interpretation of, the pointed observations.

We briefly illustrate the performance of the AXM for 3 types of explosive X-ray sources mentioned above. We have taken the X-ray light curves from the RXTE PCA (1 s bins) for the miscroquasar GRS1915+105 , the fast X-ray nova V4641 Sqr , and the SGR 1900+14 , and then simulated what the AXM would see from these sources. We scaled the PCA count rates to an effective area of 70 cm2 (4.8 % of 1 PCU), added a background count rate of 75 c/s, and then imposed statistical noise on each bin. This is tantamount to having a dominant source in a $`20^{}`$ circle on the sky, and then selecting only the detector positions that are open to the source (and the diffuse background) through the coded mask. These detector positions are generally located in two cameras. The results are shown in Figure 5. It is clear that the AXM contributes rich temporal information applicable to the science of jets and other types of cosmic explosions.