text:
# Magnetic Field Tomography

## 1 Introduction

For two decades, the invention of cooling and trapping techniques for neutral atoms boosts the field of cold atomic physics and several years ago even led to the realization of the long expected goal of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in dilute atomic gases, followed by a wealth of remarkable experiments on atom lasing and superfluidity of condensed gases. Most trapping configurations are based on light forces or magnetic field gradients or combinations of both. The most frequently used trap for neutral atom trapping is the Magneto-Optical Trap (MOT) Raab87 . MOTs have allowed the confinement of more than $`10^{10}`$ atoms Gibble92  at temperatures well below $`100\mu \mathrm{K}`$ and densities up to $`10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Radiation trapping by the optically thick cloud, however, sets a limit to further compression due to photon rescattering Walker90 . Even employing more sophisticated schemes Ido00 , the highest phase space density achieved today remains at about one order of magnitude below the threshold to Bose-Einstein condensation. The phenomenon of radiation trapping is intrinsically connected to the fact that in magneto-optical traps the restoring force comes from the radiation pressure exerted by the laser beams. Alternative trapping schemes based on the dipole force of far-detuned laser beams avoid the radiation trapping problem Chu86 ; Han00 . A different approach is to exploit the weak interaction of the dipole moment of paramagnetic atoms with magnetic field gradients. Magnetic fields can be designed to generate local minima in free space capable of acting as trapping potentials. Several types of magnetic traps have been successfully used in BEC experiments like the Time-Orbiting Potential (TOP) trap Petrich95  and various Ioffe-Pritchard (IP) type traps Pritchard83 , Mewes96 . Because magnetic traps are generally weak, large magnetic fields and loading with precooled atoms is required. Generally the atoms are precooled in a standard MOT and then transferred into the magnetic trap. In the absence of laser light the magnetic trap requires a new kind of cooling mechanism. The only mechanism that has successfully led to BEC up to now is Forced Radiofrequency Evaporation Hess86 ; Anderson95 . A necessary condition for evaporation to work is that the rate of elastic collisions between the trapped atoms be large enough to maintain the cloud in thermal equilibrium during the evaporation process which must take place within a period shorter than the trap lifetime Monroe93 . Large collision rates mean big atomic clouds and/or steep trapping potentials.

This work is motivated by our need to characterize our cloverleaf trap which is, in principle, a Ioffe-Pritchard type trap Ketterle99 . The necessity of optimizing the efficiency for loading, trapping and evaporative cooling sets tight conditions for the design of the magnetic coils and the current supplying circuitry. *E.g.*, the field gradient must be rather strong and capable of being varied over a wide range. It is important to calibrate the secular frequencies, which essentially govern the shape of the trapped atomic cloud, as a function of the control parameters. Therefore we need a precise control of the fields and a suitable way of measuring and monitoring them. Measuring magnetic fields is usually performed with Hall probes. However, very often the region of space to be analyzed is within a vacuum recipient and thus not accessible to massive probes. We use the idea of fluorescence imaging magnetic fields Kaenders96  to develop a simple technique for the instantaneous mapping of magnetic field equipotential lines in two dimensions within a closed vacuum recipient. This technique that we call Magnetic Field Tomography (MFT) can even be extended to allow a three-dimensional reconstruction of the complete magnetic vector field. The method provides a simple and reliable diagnostic tool for quantifying the field distribution of our magnetic trap for any set of values of the control parameters.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present our magnetic trapping experiment and briefly expose our approach to calculating the magnetic field distribution. In section 3, we introduce our Magnetic Field Tomography technique. We tested the technique and present experimental results in section 4, where we also show how to process the experimental data and compare the results to the calculated fields. We conclude our paper with a general discussion.

## 2 The Magnetic Trap

Magnetic traps are usually built with current carrying coils or permanent magnets Tollett95 . In the first case, high magnetic field gradients generally require high currents flowing through the coils. In special cases, high gradients may be achieved with lower currents Desruelle98 ; Haensch99 . The main constraints for the design of the coils for the cloverleaf trap arise from the geometry of the vacuum chamber and by the power supply available: in our setup, the minimum distance between the coils and the center of the trap is $`15\mathrm{mm}`$. We apply up to $`300\mathrm{A}`$ and need to dissipate the $`10\mathrm{kW}`$ resistive heat by cooling the coils with a high-pressure water flow passing through the hollow wires. Our magnetic cloverleaf trap is schematically shown in Figure 1. Radial confinement of the atoms is assured by four pairs of coils in anti-Helmholtz configuration (off-center coils in Fig. 1) producing a quadrupolar waveguide field along the symmetry axis. Axial confinement is realized via a magnetic bottle (inner and outer axially centered coils in Fig. 1). The (inner) pinch coils create the necessary field curvature, and a pair of (outer) antibias coils in Helmholtz configuration compensates the large central offset produced by the pinch coils to a variable amount. As said earlier, to initiate run-away evaporative cooling, we must be able to realize large interatomic elastic collision rates. This is achieved by compressing the magnetic trap: at the time of loading the trap from the MOT the mean secular frequency is typically $`\omega _{trap}2\pi \times 20\mathrm{Hz}`$ (the transfer efficiency is best when the curvatures of the MOT and the magnetic trap are approximately matched), and the secular frequency of the fully compressed trap is $`\omega _{trap}2\pi \times 200\mathrm{Hz}`$. In the case of the cloverleaf trap, the compression is controlled via the antibias field.

Precise control of the magnetic field bias is also important because it fixes an offset for the resonant radiofrequency used for evaporative cooling: The evaporating surface Ketterle96  is set by the condition that the radiofrequency balances the shift of the atomic energy levels induced by the local magnetic field $`\mathrm{}\omega _{rf}=\left|\mu 𝐁(𝐫)\right|`$. In practice, the magnetic trap is compressed until the bias amounts to only a few Gauss. This means that fluctuations should be very small which is not trivial because the bias results from the subtraction of two large magnetic fields, the magnetic bottle field and the antibias field. For our setup this calls for a current stability superior to $`10^4`$. Furthermore, when loading the magnetic trap or releasing the atoms, we need to be able to quickly switch on and off the magnetic field, *i.e.* typically faster than within $`100\mu \mathrm{s}`$ Anderson95 . In summary, the current control circuitry has to fulfill several demanding requirements, since we ask for high current, low noise, independent tuning of part of the current, and fast switching. The details of the current switch will be detailed elsewhere Muniz01 .

Once the geometry of the coils is known, calculating the magnetic fields $`𝐁(𝐫)`$ is very easy. For simple geometrical shapes of the coils, one can use analytic formulae Bergeman87  containing elliptical integrals. For complicated shapes of the coils or asymmetric arrangements, we numerically integrate the Biot-Savart formula

$$𝐁(𝐫)=\frac{\mu _0I}{4\pi }_C\frac{d𝐬\times \left(𝐫𝐬\right)}{\left|𝐫𝐬\right|^3},$$
(1)
where $`𝐬=𝐬(\varsigma )`$ is the current path parametrized in small steps $`\varsigma `$. From such calculations, we determine to first order the following data characterizing our cloverleaf trap close to its center. The magnetic field gradient per ampere produced by the current $`I_{clov}`$ flowing through the cloverleaf coils is $`_rB_{clov}/I_{clov}=0.438\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{A}`$. The curvature of the magnetic bottle field generated by the current $`I_{pinch}`$ in the pinch coils is in radial direction $`_r^2B_{pinch}/I_{pinch}=0.186\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{A}`$ and in axial direction $`_z^2B_{pinch}/I_{pinch}=0.373\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{A}`$. And the magnetic field amplitude produced by the pinch and the antibias fields at the trap center are $`B_{pinch}/I_{pinch}=0.767\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{A}`$ and $`B_{anti}/I_{anti}=2.693\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{A}`$. We usually work with the currents $`I_{clov}=I_{pinch}=285\mathrm{A}`$ and $`I_{anti}`$ variable. Inaccuracies in the geometric shape of the coils limit the level of precision of the calculations to $`10\%`$ uncertainty. However, as we will show later, we can calibrate the calculations using the MFT method and achieve uncertainties lower than $`2\%`$.

The absolute value of the magnetic fields $`|𝐁(𝐫)|`$ is shown in Figure 2 for two different values of the antibias current. For low antibias current (left side), $`I_{anti}=50\mathrm{A}`$, the trap is roughly isotropic at the center, the mean curvature of the magnetic field is small, and there is a large magnetic field offset, $`B(0)=100\mathrm{G}`$. However, when we apply a high antibias current, $`I_{anti}=85\mathrm{A}`$, the trap is axially elongated, radially compressed, and the magnetic field offset is small, $`B(0)=1\mathrm{G}`$.

## 3 Magnetic Field Tomography

The basic idea of magnetic field tomography can be subsumed as ”laser excitation spectroscopy on Zeeman-shifted electronic transitions with spatially resolved fluorescence detection”. We are detailing this idea in the following. The Hamiltonian of atoms with the electron total angular momentum $`\mu _J=g_J\mu _B𝐉`$ and the nuclear spin $`\mu _I=g_I\mu _N𝐈`$ subject to a magnetic field $`𝐁`$ reads Metcalf99

$`H_{hfs}+H_B`$
$`=`$ $`A_J\mathrm{𝐈𝐉}+B_J{\displaystyle \frac{6(\mathrm{𝐈𝐉})^2+3\mathrm{𝐈𝐉}2I(I+1)J(J+1)}{2I(2I1)2J(2J1)}}`$
$`\mu _J𝐁\mu _I𝐁`$
The first term corresponds to the magnetic dipole interaction, and $`A_J`$ is called the hyperfine constant. For sodium it takes the values $`A_J(3{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{})=885.8\mathrm{MHz}`$ and $`A_J(3{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{})=18.65\mathrm{MHz}`$ Metcalf99 . The second term corresponds to the electrostatic interaction of the nuclear quadrupole moment. The constant of the quadrupole interaction for sodium, $`B_J(3{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{})=2.82\mathrm{MHz}`$, is small but not negligible. The next two terms describe the interaction of the atom with the external magnetic field. The contribution containing the nuclear magneton $`\mu _N`$ is negligibly small. It is interesting to point out the behavior of the fully stretched spin states $`|F=J+I,m_F=\pm F`$. For those states the shift due to the interaction (3) is linear in $`|𝐁|`$. The shifts of all other states, since our magnetic trap operates in an intermediate regime of magnetic fields where the hyperfine coupling is perturbed by the magnetic fields, are conveniently numerically calculated as the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. In order to keep the analysis simple, we will first concentrate on the fully stretched states. However, we will need to stress the full expression to describe several features of our observations.

When a laser is irradiated on an electronic transition with Zeeman degeneracy, the situation gets more complicated, because the Zeeman substates can be coupled by the laser, optical pumping takes place, and the energy levels are additionally shifted by the dynamical Stark-effect by an amount that depends on the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{𝐝𝐄}/\mathrm{}`$, where $`𝐝`$ denotes the electric dipole moment of the transition, and $`𝐄`$ denotes the electrical field amplitude of the light. We will focus here on an approximation that holds in our experiment, *i.e.* the Rabi frequency is weak compared to the Larmor frequency $`\omega _L=\mu 𝐁/\mathrm{}`$. Then the energy levels are mainly shifted by the Zeeman-effect, and we may disregard the light shift. In this case, the magnetic field direction lends itself naturally as the quantization axis, because the Hamiltonian is diagonal with respect to this axis.

For a laser irradiated on an electronic resonance to induce transitions, these transitions must be allowed by selection rules. Electric dipole transitions *e.g.* require $`F^{}F=0,\pm 1`$ and $`m_F^{^{}}m_F=0,\pm 1`$, where the prime denotes the excited level. In an external magnetic field these transitions are not degenerate, so that magnetic field probing via observation of the fluorescence as a function of laser detuning is not unambiguous. If we choose our atomic transition so that the total angular momentum of the upper level is superior by $`1`$ to that of the lower level, $`F^{}=F+1`$, and if we apply a particular laser polarization, *i.e.* $`\sigma ^+`$ or $`\sigma ^{}`$ respectively, we drive a so-called cycling transition, *i.e.* the excited state can only decay into the very same ground state (see Fig. 3). The cycling transition involves the levels $`S_{1/2},F=2,m_F=\pm 2`$ and $`P_{3/2},F^{}=3,m_F^{}=\pm 3`$. Assume for example a laser beam irradiated along the $`z`$-axis, $`𝐤=k\widehat{𝐞}_z`$, inside a magnetic field oriented in the same direction, $`𝐁=B_z\widehat{𝐞}_z`$. The choice of the $`z`$-axis defines the labelling of the light polarization, *i.e.* the light polarization called $`\sigma ^{}`$ is the one that excites transitions with $`m_F^{}m_F=1`$. Let us consider a $`\sigma ^{}`$ polarized red-detuned laser $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$. For atoms subject to a positive magnetic field, $`B_z>0`$ the laser then drives the cycling transition $`m_F=F=2`$ and $`m_F^{}=F^{}=3`$, while atoms that are subject to negative $`B_z<0`$ are off resonance. By inverting either the polarization or the detuning, we probe the atoms that are subject to negative $`B_z`$. This simple picture only holds if we can assume to have a strong magnetic offset field in $`z`$-direction, $`|𝐁||B_z|`$, which is the case for the field to be investigated here. We will see that the condition is less restrictive than it seems in the first place.

Because our cycling transition effectively realizes a two-level atom, the expression for the resonance fluorescence in terms of scattered photon numbers $`S`$ per probing time $`t_{probe}`$ takes a very simple form:

$$S=\frac{I}{\mathrm{}\omega }\sigma N_{at}t_{probe},$$
(3)
where $`I`$ is the intensity of the irradiated light, $`N_{at}`$ the number of atoms in the interaction zone, and the optical cross section is

$$\sigma =\frac{\sigma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^1(\mu ^{}\mu )𝐁\right]^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \times 9.89\mathrm{MHz}`$ is the natural linewidth of the sodium $`D2`$ line, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\sigma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }I/\mathrm{}\omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency. For the cycling transition between the fully stretched states we find $`(\mu ^{}\mu )𝐁=\mu _B(g_F^{}m_F^{}g_Fm_F)\varsigma |𝐁|=\pm \mu _B\varsigma |𝐁|`$ for $`\sigma ^\pm `$ polarized light, where $`\varsigma =\mathrm{sign}(B_z)`$ and the Landé factors are $`g_F=1/2`$ and $`g_F^{}=2/3`$.

The light is scattered at a nondegenerate transition between magnetic sublevels so that we have to weight the coupling strength (*i.e.* the Rabi frequency) with the relative strength of the specific transition. The relative coupling strength can be expressed by $`\{6j\}`$ symbols which reflect the fine and the hyperfine structure coupling and by $`(3j)`$ symbols for the coupling of the atomic angular momenta to the magnetic field Metcalf99 . For the cycling transition of interest, the relative coupling strength is $`1`$. In those cases where $`𝐁`$ is not perfectly parallel to $`\widehat{𝐞}_𝐳`$, the coupling strength depends on the relative orientation of the polarization of the irradiated light and the magnetic field direction $`\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}`$. Those effects can be included in our description by using a modified Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}}`$. However, we will see later that we do not need to specify the functional dependence for our purpose.

The above considerations hold for single atoms interacting with a magnetic and an optical field. In the following, we will address the question how these atoms can be utilized for magnetic field tomography. We consider spatially inhomogeneous fields $`𝐁(𝐫)`$ and $`𝐄(𝐫)`$ and specify the physical situation further by assuming that the spatial extend of the magnetic field is much larger than the interaction zone of the atoms with the light field. In fact, we will use a hot atomic beam perpendicularly intersected by a thin sheet of laser light. This allows us to disregard the impact of the magnetic field gradient on the atomic motion. We define our coordinate system by calling the propagation direction of the laser beam $`z`$-axis and the normal vector of the light sheet plane $`y`$-axis (see Fig. 4). The light sheet may be displaced along the $`y`$-axis by an amount $`y_0`$ and has an inhomogeneous Gaussian intensity distribution along the $`x`$-axis so that the intensity can be written

$$I(x,y)=2P/\pi w_0^2e^{2x^2/w_0^2}\chi _{[y0d/2,y0+d/2]}(y),$$
(5)
where $`w_01\mathrm{cm}`$ is the beam waist and $`P100\mathrm{mW}`$ the laser power. The laser light has a well-defined polarization $`\sigma ^\pm `$ or $`\pi `$. The atomic beam is assumed to provide a homogeneous atomic density in the interaction region $`n(𝐫)n_09\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

The fluorescence is collected along the $`y`$-axis, *i.e.* we integrate the fluorescence signal across the thin slice. A lens system images the scattered light so that we obtain a spatially modulated photon flux which can be expressed through a generalization of equation (3) by

$`S_{\mathrm{\Delta },y_0,\varsigma }(x,z)`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha t_{probe}{\displaystyle _{d/2}^{d/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{I(x,y)}{\mathrm{}\omega }}n(𝐫)\sigma (𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta })𝑑y`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha t_{probe}n_0d\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}}(x,y_0,z)^2}{4\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^1\varsigma \mu _B|𝐁(x,y_0,z)|\right]^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}}(x,y_0,z)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}.`$
The $`z`$ dependence of the Rabi frequency comes from the dependence of the coupling strength on the relative orientation of $`\widehat{\epsilon }`$ and $`𝐁`$. The photon flux arriving at the image plane is recorded with a CCD camera. The proportionality constant $`\alpha `$ can be estimated knowing the camera pixel size $`d_{pxl}=9\mu \mathrm{m}`$, its sensitivity (including quantum efficiency and electronic gain) $`\eta _{CCD}=1\mathrm{count}/100\mathrm{photons}`$, the light collection solid angle of the imaging lens system $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{sa}=0.06\%`$, and its magnification $`\varsigma _{mag}=0.17`$,

$$\alpha =\frac{d_{pxl}^2}{\varsigma _{mag}^2}\eta _{CCD}\mathrm{\Omega }_{sa}.$$
(7)
We typically integrate the signal for $`t_{probe}=500\mathrm{ms}`$.

Equation (3) immediately reveals that, because we assumed strong magnetic fields, the fluorescence nearly vanishes everywhere where the resonance condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pm \mathrm{}^1\mu _B|𝐁(𝐫)|`$ is not satisfied, or in other words, the laser light slices the magnetic field at a given field strength $`|𝐁(𝐫)|=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu _B`$. The spatial distribution of the fluorescence reflects the modulus of the magnetic field. This situation is depicted in Figure 2 by a plane that interpenetrates the magnetic potential. For a given detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, light sheet position $`y_0`$, and polarization $`\lambda `$ we expect the fluorescence image $`S_{\mathrm{\Delta },y_0,\varsigma }(x,z)`$ to form a narrow ridge along a closed path which basically traces a two-dimensional equipotential contour line of the magnetic field constraint to the plane of the laser light sheet (see Fig. 5). At the top of the fluorescence ridge the photon count rate reads

$`S_{\mathrm{\Delta },y_0,\varsigma }(x,z)`$ $``$ $`\alpha t_{probe}{\displaystyle \frac{n_0d\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}}(x,y_0,z)^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}}(x,y_0,z)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}},`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }=\varsigma \mu _BB(𝐫).`$ We see that the location of the ridge is not influenced by the dependence of the Rabi frequency on $`\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}`$, but the height of the ridge is modulated. Furthermore, the contrast of this modulation vanishes as saturation is approached, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Another reason for a modulated fluorescence is the imperfect homogeneity of the atomic density $`n(𝐫)`$. This contribution, however, is easily avoided by normalizing the fluorescence image with an image at zero magnetic field.

As we stated earlier, the cloverleaf trap is, in axial direction, a magnetic bottle, *i.e.* the trapping potential is situated on top of a large magnetic field offset pointing in $`z`$-direction. In this case, $`B_z/|𝐁|+1`$, and we get the whole equipotential line using a single $`\sigma ^+`$ (or $`\sigma ^{}`$) laser polarization. However, this does not hold true for very compressed traps when the field offset is compensated by a homogeneous antibias field. Then in some regions of space, we may have $`B_z/|𝐁|<0`$. For the same reason, quadrupolar fields (or more generally, fields which are antisymmetric with respect to the $`z`$-axis) are only half imaged with a single circularly polarized laser. However, if we irradiate linearly polarized light, which is a linear superposition of left and right circularly polarized light, we get the complete image $`_{\varsigma =\pm 1}S_{\mathrm{\Delta },y_0,\varsigma }(x,z)`$.

## 4 The Experiment

In our experiment, we use a fast atomic beam to probe the magnetic field. Hot sodium atoms are ejected from a heated oven through a fine nozzle. After a $`2\mathrm{m}`$ long distance, they arrive at the interaction region as a $`2\mathrm{cm}`$ wide highly collimated and homogeneous beam: We verified that the radial velocity distribution $`v_{}`$ is narrow enough to allow us to neglect the transversal Doppler effect at the $`D2`$ atomic resonance, $`kv_{}<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The atoms enter the magnetic field with a velocity satisfying $`_tB/B\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ which allows the assumption that the atomic spin adiabatically follows the fields.

In the interaction region the atoms cross a beam of near-resonant laser light. When magnetic fields are present, the fluorescence scattering is spatially modulated by the inhomogeneous Zeeman-shift of the resonant levels. The fluorescence can conveniently be imaged to a CCD camera. Blurring of the images by column integration along the imaging direction can be avoided by only irradiating a thin sheet of light whose plane is orthogonal to the imaging axis. In this way, two spatial dimensions of the magnetic field are directly imaged and the third is probed by moving the light sheet back and forth. The strength of the magnetic field is measured by tuning the laser light to the Zeeman-shifted resonances, thus slicing the magnetic potential at a depth that can precisely be set by the laser frequency (see Fig. 2).

Our experiment is sketched in Figure 4, and an example of a fluorescence image in shown in Figure 5(a). For this image we operated our cloverleaf trap at full current $`I_{clov}=285\mathrm{A}`$, applied $`I_a=80\mathrm{A}`$ antibias current, and located the laser light sheet at the center of the trap. The ring-shaped border corresponds to atoms being resonant with laser light blue-shifted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi \times 50\mathrm{MHz}`$. Therefore, the magnetic field along this border line is $`|𝐁(𝐫)|=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu _B=36\mathrm{G}`$.

By recording images of the equipotential lines for various detunings and various positions of the laser light slices along the imaging axis, we are able to reconstruct the magnetic field in three dimensions. To demonstrate this, we record several images like the one shown in Figure 5(a) with varied parameters. From the fluorescence maximum of every recorded image, we extract the closed ridge. For this purpose, we have written a data analyzing program which, from an arbitrary starting point, is capable of climbing the closest maximum and discerning the path to follow the ridge. We plot all ridges into a common picture. For example, the right hand side of Figure 5(b) shows the equipotential lines for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi \times 50\mathrm{MHz}`$ and $`I_{anti}=40\mathrm{A}`$ at various positions of the slice, thus forming an equipotential surface, $`|𝐁(𝐫)|=const`$. If we know the surfaces for all values of $`const`$, we can reconstruct the three-dimensional magnetic vector field $`𝐁(𝐫)`$. To record equipotential surfaces at other magnetic field strengths, we repeat the procedure for different laser detunings. This is demonstrated in Figure 5(c) where we kept the light sheet at the trap center and varied the detunings between $`10\mathrm{MHz}`$ and $`50\mathrm{MHz}`$. Figure 5(d) shows the equipotential lines for fixed detuning of $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi \times 50\mathrm{MHz}`$ and centered light sheet position but varied antibias current.

The left hand sides of the Figures 5(a-d) show the result of calculations using formula (1). In order to improve the calculations, we calibrated them by measurements using a procedure to be detailed in the following paragraph. The remaining small discrepancies between theory and experiment are probably due to the inhomogeneous intensity distribution within the laser beam.

When we drive the $`D2`$ line with $`\sigma ^+`$ light, five transitions between the hyperfine levels $`{}_{}{}^{2}S_{1/2}^{},`$ $`F=2`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}P_{3/2}^{},`$ $`F^{^{}}=3`$ satisfy the selection rule $`m_F^{}m_F=1`$. Under certain conditions, we experimentally observe all of them simultaneously, since the laser can be resonant with different transitions simultaneously at different regions of space, where the magnetic field has different values $`|𝐁(𝐫)|=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }/\left[\mu _B(g_F^{}m_F^{}g_Fm_F)\right]`$. The right hand side of Figure 6(a) shows such a fluorescence image. When performing the calculations (left hand side of the figure), it is essential to take into account the nonlinear dependence of the Zeeman-shift on the magnetic field for transitions between non-stretched states (Paschen-Back regime of the hyperfine structure). For calculating the curves in Fig. 6(a), we numerically diagonalize the matrix (3) for the ground and excited hyperfine level.

Furthermore, we observe that the fluorescence light is polarized and that the polarization of is spatially modulated by the magnetic field. For the images shown in Figure 6(b) and (c), we filtered the fluorescence light in front of the camera with a linear polarizer. The fluorescence ridge does not move, however, its contrast is strongly modulated and changes when we set the transmitting axis of the polarizer along $`\widehat{\pi }=\widehat{𝐞}_z`$ (Figure 6(b)) or $`\widehat{\pi }=\widehat{𝐞}_x`$ (Figure 6(c)). The behavior is easily understood in terms of the radiation pattern of an atomic dipole inside a magnetic field. In all directions orthogonal to $`𝐁`$ the atom emits linearly polarized $`\sigma `$ light. In the plane which is sliced by our laser light sheet, our cloverleaf trap yields $`𝐁(x,0,z)\widehat{𝐞}_y`$, so that we expect linearly polarized light, indeed. And since $`𝐁(x,0,z)`$ rotates along the fluorescence ridge, the polarization of the scattered light does so, as well. The left two pictures show the result of calculations according to

$$S_{\mathrm{\Delta },y_0,\varsigma }^{(\pi )}(x,z)=S_{\mathrm{\Delta },y_0,\varsigma }(x,z)\frac{|𝐁(𝐫)\times \widehat{\pi }|}{|𝐁(𝐫)|}.$$
(9)
The resolution of the MFT method can be defined as the halfwidth of the fluorescence ridge observed at the CCD camera. With this definition, the width $`2\delta z`$ of the emerging contour line in $`\widehat{𝐞}_z`$ direction immediately follows from equation (3), $`2\delta z=\mathrm{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{\epsilon }\widehat{𝐁}}^2}/(\mu _B_z|𝐁|)`$. Thus it depends on the magnetic field gradient and on the (power-broadened) linewidth of the $`D2`$ resonance. In terms of magnetic fields the resolution is given by $`\delta B=_z|𝐁|\delta z`$, and we see that, even if we work below saturation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we are not sensitive to magnetic field variations that are weaker than $`\delta B3.6\mathrm{G}`$. Figure 7 shows cuts through fluorescence images along a line defined by $`x=y=0`$ for various laser intensities. The fluorescence rate increases proportionally with low laser intensities, but saturates at high intensities. The highest spatial resolution found was about $`1\mathrm{mm}^3`$ at a location where the axial field gradient was $`_z|𝐁|50\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{cm}`$ which corresponds to $`\delta B5\mathrm{G}`$. We could, in principle, use narrower (Raman) transitions. However, the fluorescence rate will be lowered as well, thus requiring a more sensitive detection system.

The MFT method can also be used to precisely determine the amount of antibias current necessary for exact compensation of the offset field created by the pinch coils. For this purpose, we set the antibias current to some value $`I_{anti}`$, observe the fluorescence distribution (Fig. 5(a)) on-line, and find the laser detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at which the fluorescence disappears. This gives us the minimum of $`B_z`$. We repeat this procedure for various antibias currents and obtain two curves, one for $`\sigma ^{}`$ and one for $`\sigma ^+`$ polarized light. The curves intersects near $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. At this detuning the antibias is perfectly compensated, *i.e.* the magnetic trap has maximum compression. The curves are shown in Figure 8. The compensation current is $`I_{anti}=(86.1\pm 1.1)\mathrm{A}`$. As we see, the uncertainty of this method is rather small. Furthermore, the slopes of the curves in Figure 8 yield the calibration of the pinch coils, $`B_{pnch}/I_{clov}=0.830\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{A}`$, and of the antibias coils, $`B_{anti}/I_{anti}=2.743\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{A}`$, at the center of the trap. We can now utilize these data to correct our magnetic field calculations based on Formula (1). We also calibrated the current $`I_{clov}`$ using the same method and obtained values for the cloverleaf trap parameters that agree well with the above ones.

## 5 Conclusion

In conclusion, magnetic fields have been probed using a technique well-suited for fast three-dimensional tomographic reconstruction of a magnetic field within a volume which is not accessible to material detectors like Hall probes, *e.g.* within an ultra-high vacuum. The drawback of this method is that the resolution is obviously limited by the natural linewidth of the transition, so that it is only applicable for large magnetic fields and large field gradients. A solution to this problem could be the use of radiofrequency-optical double resonance schemes Martin88 ; Helmerson92 .

The MFT method is well adapted to investigating magnetic trapping fields for neutral atoms. In particular, it permits precise mapping of the trap geometry and fast localisation of its minimum. The response time of the MFT method is only limited by the time required for optical pumping. Therefore the method could be extended for monitoring rapid changes in the magnetic field strength being as fast as a few $`10\mathrm{ns}`$ using stroboscopic imaging or even for real-time control of the magnetic trap configuration. We conclude that, since this technique only requires a hot atomic beam and a weak tunable laser beam, we believe it to be a simple and versatile diagnostic instrument for probing magnetic fields.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge financial support from the São Paulo State Research Foundation FAPESP and Ph.W. C. wishes to thank the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst DAAD for financial support. R.K. also acknowledges support from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNRS.


format: text

text:
# Entropy production and wave packet dynamics in the Fock space of closed chaotic many-body systems.

## I Introduction

Highly excited many-particle states in many-body systems quite often can be presented as “chaotic” superpositions of shell-model basis states, see recent calculations for complex atoms , multicharged ions , nuclei  and spin systems . The origin of this phenomenon relates to a very high density of many-particle energy levels, which increases drastically with an increase of energy. Indeed, the number $`N`$ of combinations in the distribution of $`n`$ particles (or quasi-particles) over $`m`$ “orbitals” (single-particle states) is exponentially large ($`Nm!/n!(mn)!`$ in a Fermi system). Therefore, the spacing $`D`$ between many-body levels is exponentially small and a “residual” interaction $`V`$ between the particles can mix a huge number of the basis states of a mean field $`H_0`$ (Slater determinants), when forming exact eigenstates of the total Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$.

The onset of chaos for highly excited states, as well as for many-particle spectra, has been recently studied in great detail in terms of the Two-Body Random Interaction (TBRI) model which was invented about three decades ago . In this model all two-body matrix elements are assumed to be independent and random variables, therefore all dynamical correlations are neglected. Thus, the TBRI model is essentially the random matrix model, however, it differs from standard Random Matrix Models where the two-body nature of interaction is not taken into account (see, e.g.  and review ).

One of the important results obtained recently  in the frame of this model is the Anderson-like transition which occurs in the Fock space determined by many-particle states of $`H_0`$. The critical value $`V_{cr}`$ for this transition is determined by the density of states $`\rho _f=d_f^1`$ of those basis states which are directly coupled by a two-body interaction . When the interaction is very weak, $`V_0d_f`$ , exact eigenstates are delta-like functions in the unperturbed basis, with a very small admixture of other components which can be found by the standard perturbation theory. With an increase of the interaction, the number of principal components $`N_{pc}`$ increases and can be very large, $`N_{pc}1`$. However, if the interaction is still not too strong, $`\pi ^2\sqrt{d_fD}V_0d_f`$  , the eigenstates are sparse, with extremely large fluctuations of components. In order to have ergodic eigenstates which fill some energy range (see below), one needs to have the perturbation large enough, $`V_0d_f`$(for a large number of particles this transition is sharp and, in fact, one needs the weaker condition, $`V_0d_f`$ ).

Above the threshold of chaos, $`V_0d_f`$, the number of principal basis components in an eigenstate can be estimated as $`N_{pc}\mathrm{\Gamma }/D`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the spreading width of the strength function. In such chaotic eigenstates any external weak perturbation is exponentially enhanced. The enhancement factor can be estimated as $`\sqrt{N_{pc}}1/\sqrt{D}`$, see e.g.  and references therein. This huge enhancement have been observed in numerous experiments when studying parity violation effects in compound nuclei (see, for example, review ).

In recent works  the theory of many-body chaos has been extended to quantum computers. Since in this case the density of energy levels is extremely high, it is often impossible to resolve particular many-body levels. This happens for the injection of an electron into a many-electron quantum dot, for the capture of an energetic particle by a nucleus or atom, or for different models of quantum computer with a large number of interacting qubits (spins). In this case the approach based on the study of stationary chaotic eigenstates turns out to be not an adequate one, and one should consider the time evolution of a wave function and entropy .

In contrast to the study of spectra and eigenstates, the analysis of the evolution of wave packets in random matrix models is based mainly on numerical results. In the first line, one should mention the numerical study  of Band Random Matrices that describe quasi-1D disordered models with finite number of channels. Recently, the attention has been paid to the so-called Wigner Band Random (WBRM) model  which is used in the study of generic properties of strength functions in dependence on the strength of interaction . In particular, in Refs. the problem of the quantum-classical correspondence for the time evolution of wave packets was under close study. We note that the WBRM model serves as convenient random matrix model for different quantum systems, and in many aspects can be compared with the TBRI model .

In this paper we study generic properties of the evolution of wave packets in the energy shell, paying the main attention to the time-dependence of the entropy, width of packets, and inverse participation ratio. We derive analytical estimates for these quantities and check numerically our predictions with the use of the TBRI and WBRM models.

## II Time evolution of chaotic many-body states

Exact (“compound”) eigenstates $`|k`$ of a many-body Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$ can be expressed in terms of simple shell-model basis states $`|f`$ (eigenstates of $`H_0`$), or by products of qubits in a model of quantum computer:

$$|k=\underset{f}{}C_f^{(k)}|f;|f=a_{f_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{f_n}^+|{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }vacuum^{\prime \prime }.$$
(1)
Here $`a_s^+`$ are creation, or spin-raising, operators (in the latter case, the ground state $`|{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }vacuum^{\prime \prime }`$ corresponds to the situation with all spins down), and $`C_f^{(k)}`$ are components of compound eigenstates $`|k`$ formed by the residual interaction $`V`$.

In what follows, we consider the time evolution of the system for the case when compound eigenstates are chaotic. By this term we mean that the number of principal components is very large, $`\sqrt{N_{pc}}1`$, and the components $`C_f^{(k)}`$ can be treated as uncorrelated amplitudes with the gaussian distribution around their mean values, see details in . Let us assume that initially ($`t=0`$) the system is in a specific basis state $`|0`$ (with certain orbitals occupied, or, in the case of a quantum computer, when the state with certain spins “up” is prepared). This state can be presented as a sum over exact eigenstates of the total Hamiltonian $`H`$:

$$|0=\underset{k}{}C_0^{(k)}|k.$$
(2)
Then the time-dependent wave function reads as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{k,f}{}C_0^{(k)}C_f^{(k)}|f\mathrm{exp}(iE^{(k)}t).$$
(3)
Here the sum is taken over the compound states $`k`$ and basis states $`f`$, and we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

The probability $`W_0=|A_0|^2=|0|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2`$ to find the system in the initial state is determined by the amplitude

$`A_0=0|\mathrm{exp}(iHt)|0={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|C_0^{(k)}|^2\mathrm{exp}(iE^{(k)}t)`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑EP_0(E)\mathrm{exp}(iEt)}.`$ (5)
Here we replaced the summation over a large number of the eigenstates by the integration over their energies $`EE^{(k)}`$, and introduced the strength function (SF) $`P_0(E)`$ which is also known in the literature as the local spectral density of states, LDOS,

$$P_0(E)\overline{|C_0^{(k)}|^2}\rho (E),$$
(6)
with $`\rho (E)`$ as the density of exact eigenstates.

As one can see, the probability $`W_0`$ is entirely determined by the strength function (6). It is well known that in many applications this function has the Breit-Wigner (BW) form with a half-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2\pi \rho H_f^2`$. In our case $`\rho =\rho _f`$ is the density of directly coupled basis states and $`H_f^2=\overline{\left|H_{0f}\right|^2}`$ is the variance of the non-zero off-diagonal elements of $`H`$, defined by the residual interaction $`V`$. One should remind that in real situations the second moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ of the SF is always finite due to a finite range of interaction in the energy representation. Therefore, the Breit-Wigner form of the SF can occur for a finite energy range only, determined by the energy width of the interaction.

However, it was recently shown (see e.g.  and references therein) that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ defined by the above expression, is of the order (or larger) of the mean-square-root width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ of the SF itself, the form of the SF in the TBRI model is very close to the Gaussian. Strong deviations of the SF from the BW-dependence have been observed numerically when studying the structure of the SF and eigenfunctions of the Ce atom . Also, numerical data  have revealed that the form of the SF in nuclear shell models is much closer to the Gaussian rather that to the BW. This results from the fact that the three orbitals $`s`$, $`d_{3/2}`$ and $`d_{5/2}`$ included into the nuclear shell-model calculation , have close mean-field energies and the residual interaction $`V`$ plays the dominant role in the Hamiltonian matrix.

Recent analytical results  for the TBRI model allow to describe the whole transition for the SF from the BW regime to that of the Gaussian. This model is characterized by two-body random matrix elements which determine the residual interaction $`V`$ between $`n`$ Fermi-particles occupying $`m`$ orbitals (single-particle states), see details and references, for example, in . It was shown that in general case the SF is given by the following approximate expression ,

$$P_0(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{(E_0+\delta _0(E)E)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(E)/4},$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)2\pi \overline{\left|H_{0f}\right|^2}\rho _f(E).$$
(8)
One can see that the general expression (7) is of the Breit-Wigner form, however, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ as some function of the total energy $`E`$. Here $`\delta _0(E)`$ is the correction to the unperturbed energy level $`E_0`$ due to the residual interaction $`V`$, and $`\rho _f(E)`$ is the density of those basis states $`|f`$ which are directly coupled by the interaction $`H_{0f}`$ with the initial state $`|0`$. It was shown  that for the TBRI model the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ has the Gaussian form with the variance which depends on the model parameters. In the case of relatively small (but non-perturbative) interaction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2\pi \rho _fH_f^2\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ is very broad (i.e. it does not change significantly within the energy intervals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$) and can be treated as the constant, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In the other limit case of a strong interaction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, the dependence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ in (7) is the leading one, and the slow dependence in the denominator can be neglected. One should note that the simple expression (8) for the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ has to be modified in this limit, see details in .

The second moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ of the SF can be found from the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=\underset{f0}{}H_{0f}^2`$. Here the summation is taken over the off-diagonal matrix elements $`H_{0f}`$ which couple the initial state $`|0`$ with the others $`|f`$. For the TBRI model the analytical expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ has been obtained in ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=\frac{1}{4}V_0^2n(n1)(mn)(mn+3)$$
(9)
where $`V_0^2`$ is the variance of the off-diagonal matrix elements of the two-body residual interaction $`V`$. In fact, for Fermi-particles the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ turns out to be the same for any basis state $`|0`$.

Let us first start with the probability $`W_0(t)`$ of the system to stay in the initial state. In two limit cases of small and very large times, the dependence $`W_0`$ is shown  to be of the following forms,

$$W_0(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2\right);t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}$$
(10)
and

$$W_0(t)=C\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_pt\right);t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2}.$$
(11)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is the imaginary part of the pole of the SF (see Eq.(7) in the complex energy plane. In the case when the SF has the standard BW form, we have the obvious relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ where the latter is given by the Fermi golden rule. In other limit of a strong interaction, when the SF has the Gaussian form, the expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is not simple. The transition from one regime of the time dependence of $`W_0(t)`$ to another is schematically shown in Fig.1.

Now we estimate the probabilities $`w_f=|A_f(t)|^2`$ to find the system in other basis states. For a very small time we have,

$$w_f=|f|e^{iHt}|0|^2|H_{0f}|^2t^2.$$
(12)
Note, that only the states directly connected to the initial state are populated at this time scale. One can estimate the population of these states for a larger time by substituting the time-dependent wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=A_0(t)\psi _0+_fA_f(t)\psi _f`$ into the Schrodinger equation,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{dA_f}{dt}=H_{0f}(t)A_0+\underset{k}{}H_{fk}(t)A_k.$$
(13)
Here $`k,f0`$ and $`H_{0f}(t)H_{0f}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _{0f}t)`$. Note that the second term in the right-hand-side may be treated as a random variable with the zero mean value. Indeed, $`A_kH_{0k}`$, therefore, $`\overline{H_{fk}(t)H_{0f}}=0`$. The variance of this term is $`\overline{_k|H_{fk}(t)A_k|^2}=\overline{|H_{fk}(t)|^2}_k|A_k|^2=\overline{|H_{fk}(t)|^2}(1|A_0|^2)`$. Comparing this with the first term in the right-hand-side of Eq.(13), one may conclude that the second term is not very important for small times when $`A_0(t)1`$. Neglecting the second term and assuming $`|A_0(t)|=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2\right)`$ which is valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<<\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, we obtain ,

$`w_f=|H_{0f}|^2|{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}|A_0(t)|e^{i\omega _{0f}t}dt|^2`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|H_{0f}|^2}{\omega _{0f}^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}}\left|e^{(i\omega _{0f}\mathrm{\Gamma }_/2)t}1\right|^2,`$ (15)
where $`\omega _{0f}=E_fE_0`$. This approximate estimate shows that only the basis states within the energy interval $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be substantially populated (if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, this energy interval is equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$).

For large time, the result is different for perturbative and chaotic regimes. In the perturbative regime the expression (14) for $`w_f`$ is the final one. In the chaotic regime the asymptotic expression for $`t\mathrm{}`$ can be obtained in the following way. The projection of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ (see Eq. (3)) onto the state $`f`$ gives

$$w_f(t)=w_f^s+w_f^{fluct}(t),$$
(16)
$`w_f^s={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|C_0^{(k)}|^2|C_f^{(k)}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{\rho (E)}P_0(E)P_f(E)}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{(E_0E_f)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_t/2)^2}}.`$ (18)
Here the result is written for the case when the SF has the BW form both for initial $`|0`$ and final state $`|f`$ with the corresponding half-widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^f`$. In this case the resulting form of $`w_f^s`$ is, approximately, again the Breit-Wigner with the new half-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^f2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. However, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$, the form of $`w_f^s`$ is close to the Gaussian with the variance $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_E)_t^22\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ .

The term $`w_f^{fluct}(t)`$ can be written in the form,

$$w_f^{fluct}(t)=\underset{k,p;kp}{}C_0^{(k)}C_f^{(k)}C_0^{(p)}C_f^{(p)}\mathrm{exp}(i(E^{(k)}E^{(p)})t).$$
(19)
At large time, $`t\mathrm{}`$, the terms in the sum rapidly oscillate and one can put $`\overline{w_f^{fluct}(t)}=0`$. Thus, asymptotically the distribution of the components in the time-dependent wave function is close to that given by the form of the strength function (see Eqs.(6, 7)), with a slightly larger spreading width.

Note that similar expression for $`W_0`$ contains the term $`|C_0^{(k)}|^4`$. For gaussian fluctuations of the components $`C_0^{(k)}`$, one can get $`\overline{|C_0^{(k)}|^4}`$ = 3 $`(\overline{|C_0^{(k)}|^2})^2`$ which is the known result in the Random Matrix Theory . Therefore, if the number of principal components $`N_{pc}`$ in the SF is very large, the probability to find the system in the initial state $`|0`$ at large time is, at least, three times larger than the probability to find the system in any other state $`|f`$, see Figs. 2,3.

In these figures the distribution of probabilities $`w_f`$ in the TBRI model is shown after a very long time $`t=40`$ for two different strengths of interaction (in fact, the time $`t`$ is measured in units $`\mathrm{}/d_0`$ where $`d_0=<ϵ_{s+1}ϵ_s>`$ is the mean level spacing between single-particle energies $`ϵ_s`$). In both cases $`n=6`$ Fermi-particles occupy $`m=12`$ orbitals, therefore, the total number of many-particle states (the size of the Hamiltonian matrix) is $`N=924`$ . The distribution of $`ϵ_s`$ is taken random with $`d_0=1`$. Two-body matrix elements are taken as gaussian random entries with the zero mean and variance $`V_0^2`$, and in order to reduce the fluctuations, the distribution $`w_f`$ is obtained with an average over a number $`N_g`$ of matrices with different random realizations. Initially, only one basis state $`n_0=462`$ was populated at the center of the energy spectrum, in order to avoid the asymmetry of the distribution in the basis representation.

The two different values of $`V_0`$, for which the distributions $`w_f`$ are obtained, are chosen in such a way that in one case, see Fig.2, the strength function has the Breit-Wigner form, and in the other, the form is very close to the Gaussian (Fig.3). We should remind that the above two forms occur in the energy representation, however, the results are shown in the basis representation. These two representations are related through the density of states which is known to be of the Gaussian form for large number of particles and orbitals .

One can see that in both cases, Fig.2-3, the probability to stay in the original basis state is much larger than in the nearest ones. Comparing with the result of the standard random matrix theory, one can say that there is a noticeable difference (namely, the enhancement factor in Fig.3 is about 2.3, instead of 3.0).

## III The cascade model

One of the important question is how the entropy of quantum isolated systems increases in time at the transition to equilibrium. It is natural to define the entropy of a many-body state through the Shannon entropy,

$$S(t)=\underset{k}{}w_k\mathrm{ln}w_k=W_0\mathrm{ln}W_0\underset{f0}{}w_f\mathrm{ln}w_f.$$
(20)
Here $`W_0(t)=\left|A_0(t)\right|^2`$ is the probability for the system to be in the initial state, and $`w_f(t)=\left|A_f(t)\right|^2`$ is the probability to be in the basis state $`|f`$. In what follows we assume that the initial conditions are $`W_0(0)=1`$ and $`w_f(0)=0`$, therefore, the entropy is equal to zero for $`t=0`$.

In order to study the evolution of a many-particle system with two-body interaction, it is convenient to introduce sub-classes for all basis states in the following way. The first class contains those $`N_1`$ basis states which are directly coupled with an initial state by the two-body interaction given by matrix elements $`H_{0f}`$ of the interaction. Correspondingly, the second class consists of $`N_2`$ basis states which are coupled with the initial one in the second order of the perturbation, this coupling is determined by $`H_{0\alpha }H_{\alpha f}`$ , etc.

Let us first consider the evolution for a large time $`t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2}`$ (below we assume the BW shape of the SF). For this case the probabilities of the states in different classes can be determined by the “probability conservation equations”,

$$\frac{dW_0}{dt}=\mathrm{\Gamma }W_0$$

$$\frac{dW_1}{dt}=\mathrm{\Gamma }W_0\mathrm{\Gamma }W_1$$

$$...........$$

$$\frac{dW_k}{dt}=\mathrm{\Gamma }W_{k1}\mathrm{\Gamma }W_k$$
(21)
$$...........$$

Here $`W_k`$ is the probability for the systems to be in the class $`k`$. The first term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }W_{k1}`$ in the right-hand-side of (21) is responsible for the flux from the previous class, and the second term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }W_k`$ describes the decay of the states in the class $`k`$, into the next class $`k+1`$. We assume that the probability of the return to the previous class can be neglected. This is a valid approximation if the number of states $`N_{k+1}`$ in the next class is large in comparison with $`N_k`$ of the previous class. This approach can be compared with those based on the Caley tree model  where the flow from each state goes into other $`M`$ states, therefore, $`N_kM^k`$ with $`M1`$. Note that here we consider a system which is far from the equilibrium. Indeed, if the system is in the equilibrium, the probabilities of all states within the energy shell defined by the relation $`\left|E_fE_0\right|\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, are of the same order, $`w_fN_{pc}^1`$, with $`N_{pc}`$ as the total number of states inside the energy shell. Therefore, in order to neglect the return flux, one needs the condition $`w_f=W_k/N_k1/N_{pc}`$ to be fulfilled.

Equations (21) have the simple solution,

$$W_0=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)$$

$$W_n=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^n}{n!}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }t\right)=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^n}{n!}W_0.$$
(22)
The maximal probability $`W_n=\frac{n^n}{n!}\mathrm{exp}(n)1/\sqrt{2\pi n}`$ to be in the class $`n`$ determined by the condition $`\frac{dW_n}{dt}=0`$ , occurs for $`t=n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ , therefore, this solution (22) can be considered as a cascade in the population of different classes . Indeed, at small times $`t\tau 1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the system is practically in the initial state, at times $`t\tau `$ the flow spreads into the first class, for $`t=n\tau `$ it spreads into the $`n`$th class, etc. For an infinite chain one can easily check the normalization condition,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W_n=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^n}{n!}=1.$$
(23)
## IV Time dependence of the entropy

The above expressions allow us to find the time-dependence of the entropy,

$`S(t){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}W_n\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{W_n}{N_n}}=`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }t\mathrm{ln}M+\mathrm{\Gamma }te^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^n}{n!}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^n}{n!}},`$ (25)
where $`w_f\frac{W_n}{N_n}`$ stands for the population of basis states of the class $`n`$ with $`N_n`$ as the number of states in this class (in fact , for $`tn\tau `$ one needs to count only the states inside the energy shell since the population of the states outside the energy interval with $`\left|E_fE_0\right|>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is small, see Eq.(14)). Here we have used the relations $`N_n=M^n`$ and $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)^n}{n!}n=\mathrm{\Gamma }t\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$. Two last terms in the right-hand-side of Eq.(24 ) turn out to be smaller than the first one, therefore, one can write,

$$S(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }t\mathrm{ln}M[1+f(t)]$$
(26)
with some function $`f(t)1`$ which slowly depends on time.

In this estimate for the increase of entropy, we did not take into account the influence of fluctuations of $`w_f`$. One can show that for gaussian fluctuations of the coefficients $`A_f`$ with the variance given by their mean-square values, for large number of principal components $`N_{pc}(t)\mathrm{exp}(S(t))`$ the entropy should be corrected by a small factor of the order of $`\mathrm{ln}2`$ (see, for example, ).

If one neglects the second term in (26), we obtain a linear increase of the entropy, which means that the number of principal components $`N_{pc}(t)`$ increases exponentially fast with time. This behavior can be compared with a linear increase of dynamical entropy $`S_{cl}(t)`$ in classical chaotic systems where $`S_{cl}(t)`$ was found to be related to an exponential divergence of close trajectories in the phase space ($`S_{cl}(t)\lambda t`$ with $`\lambda `$ as the Lyapunov exponent, see, for example ). The non-trivial point is that the linear increase of entropy also occurs for systems without the classical limit, see recent paper .

Note, that for a small time the function $`W_0(t)`$ has the form $`W_0(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2)`$ (see (10)), not the exponential dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$ . Therefore, one should modify the expression for the entropy in order to make it valid for small times. For this, we replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ in Eq.(22) by a more accurate expression, $`\mathrm{ln}(W_0)`$, which gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2`$ for small time $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ for large time $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ , therefore,

$$W_n=\frac{(\mathrm{ln}W_0^1)^n}{n!}W_0.$$
(27)
It is easy to check that the normalization condition is fulfilled again,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W_n=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{ln}W_0^1)^n}{n!}W_0=W_0\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}(W_0^1))=1.$$
(28)
For the entropy one obtains

$$S=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W_n\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{W_n}{N_n}\right)$$
(29)
At small time $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$the entropy is given by two terms, $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$ (direct transitions), therefore,

$`S(t)=W_0(t)\mathrm{ln}W_0(t)W_1(t)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{W_1}{N_1}}\right)`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2(1+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2}{N_1}}\right)^1)`$ (31)
This expression can be compared with the direct calculation based on the relation $`w_f=|H_{0f}t|^2`$,

$$S(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2t^2+t^2\underset{f}{}\left|H_{0f}\right|^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{H_{0f}^2t^2}\right)$$
(32)
There is an agreement between Eqs.(30) and (32) since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=_f\left|H_{0f}\right|^2=N_1\overline{H_{0f}^2}`$ .

Let us now discuss the whole time dependence of the entropy, including large times $`t`$ when the system is close to the equilibrium. In a finite system of particles any basis state can be reached, starting from an initial state, in several “interaction steps” $`(H_{0\alpha }H_{\alpha \beta }H_{\beta \gamma }...)`$ . For example, in the system of $`n=6`$ particles three steps is needed since the two-body interaction can not move more than two particles from one basis state to another. If the number of classes $`n_c`$ is finite, the states in the last class do not decay (there is no term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }W_{n_c}`$ in the last equation in (21)), and the probability to be in the last class is determined from the normalization condition $`W_{n_c}=1_{k=0}^{n_c1}W_k`$. The additional condition is that the considered basis states should be inside the energy interval, $`\left|E_fE_0\right|min(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, thus limiting the number $`N_n`$ of the basis states in each class. Note that the value of $`W_n`$ is restricted from below by the equilibrium relation $`W_nN_n/N_{pc}`$ . These limitations make “exact” expression for the entropy very complicated. Instead, we can propose the following simple expression which is approximately valid in systems with a small number of classes ($`n_c1`$),

$$S(t)=W_0(t)\mathrm{ln}W_0(t)(1W_0(t))\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{(1W_0(t))}{N_{pc}}\right)$$
(33)
This expression takes into account the normalization condition $`\underset{f0}{}w_f=1W_0`$ and has a reasonable behavior for both small and large times.

## V Numerical results for the entropy

Now we compare the obtained analytical expressions with numerical data for the TBRI model. For the case when the strength function (SF) has the Breit-Wigner form, the time dependence of the entropy is shown in Fig.4 for the parameters of Fig.2, $`n=6,m=12,V_0^20.003,\mathrm{\Gamma }_00.50,\mathrm{\Delta }_E1.16`$, with the average over $`N_g=2`$ Hamiltonian matrices.

The number $`M`$ of the basis states directly coupled by the random two-body interaction, is determined by the expression ,

$$M=n(mn)+\frac{n(n1)(mn)(mn1)}{4},$$
(34)
where the first term gives the number of one-particle transitions, and the second stands for two-particles transitions. In our case of $`n=6`$ particles and $`m=12`$ orbitals, the total number of basis states is $`N=924`$ and $`M=261`$. The effective number of classes in the cascade model can be determined from the relation $`M^{n_c}=N`$. This gives $`n_c=\mathrm{ln}N/\mathrm{ln}M1.2`$. Thus, we can use the simple expression (33) to describe the dependence of the entropy on time analytically. The data in Figs.4-5 demonstrate an excellent agreement between the numerical and analytical results.

We should note that the theoretical dependence (33) which gives quite good approximate description of the data on the whole time scale, has the parameter $`N_{pc}`$ (effective number of principal components in the stationary distribution $`w_f(t\mathrm{}))`$ which is related to the limiting value of the entropy, $`N_{pc}=\mathrm{ln}S(\mathrm{})`$. It can be estimated analytically as discussed above from the width of the energy shell; when plotting the solid curves in Figs.4-5 we have used the exact value found numerically.

To avoid confusion, we should explain that the actual number of classes in the case of $`n=6`$ particles and $`m=12`$ orbitals is equal to $`3`$ since all basis states can be populated in the third order in the two-body interaction. However, the number of states in the second, $`k=2`$, and third, $`k=3`$, classes are much smaller than it may follow from the exponential relation $`N_k=M^k`$ (in practice, this relation may be justified for a large number of particles only). This is the reason why the one-class formula (33) works so well.

It is also instructive to compare the entropy with the linear time dependence,

$$S(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }t\mathrm{ln}M$$
(35)
that stems from Eq.(26) if the first term is taken only. This dependence globally corresponds to the data on some time scale, however, the actual dependence for $`S(t)`$ clearly differs from the linear one (see inset in Fig.4). Note that the quadratic increase of energy occurs on a very small time scale only. As for the oscillations of the entropy for a very large time close to an equilibrium, this phenomenon will be discussed below.

For a strong interaction, when the form of the SF is very close to the Gaussian, numerical data are reported in Fig.5 for $`n=6,m=12`$ and for $`n=7,m=13`$. The interaction strength is chosen in order to have the same ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/\mathrm{\Delta }_E1.8`$, as in Fig.4.

In this case the half-width of the strength function is determined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2\pi \rho _fH_{0f}^2`$ is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$. As a result, the role of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the expressions (26) and (33) plays the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$. In both cases numerical data give strong evidence of a linear increase of the entropy,

$$S(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_Et\mathrm{ln}M,$$
(36)
before the saturation. It is clearly seen that this analytical estimate gives a correct value for the slope of $`S(t)`$. The shift is due to the initial time scale where the time dependence is quadratic, this fact is neglected in the estimate.

It should be pointed out that the linear dependence of $`S(t)`$ in Fig.5 is much more pronounced than in the BW-region (compare with Fig.4 for which the SF is of the Breit-Wigner form). Our results indicate a clear difference between the two cases related to the Breit-Wigner and Gaussian forms of the SF. This point is somehow supported by recent studies  where it was shown that for a relatively weak interaction ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is small in comparison with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$) resulting in the Breit-Wigner form of the SF, there is no detailed quantum-classical correspondence for the evolution of wave packets in the energy space. On the other hand, in the Gaussian region (with the Gaussian form for the SF), the detailed quantum-classical correspondence is possible . In the latter case one can expect a linear growth for the entropy, as it was found in classical models . The principal difference between these two cases (in what concerns the quantum-classical correspondence and the possibility of the localization in the energy shell) for the first time has been discussed in Ref..

## VI Width of packets and inverse participation ratio

The width of the wave function in the basis representation can be measured through the variance,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)=\underset{f}{}\left(n_fn_0\right)^2\left|A_f(t)\right|^2=\left(1W_0(t)\right)\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_f(t)\right|^2;$$

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_f(t)\right|^2=\frac{_f(n_0n_f)^2\left|A_f(t)\right|^2}{_f\left|A_f(t)\right|^2},$$
(37)
where $`n_f`$ and $`n_0`$ label corresponding basis states, $`f0`$, and we have used the normalization condition $`_f\left|A_f(t)\right|^2=1W_0(t)`$ . The function $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_f(t)\right|^2`$ is a slow function of time, it changes from the effective band-width of the Hamiltonian matrix, entirely determined by the matrix elements $`H_{0f}`$, to the final width of the wave packet in the basis representation, which is defined by the width of the energy shell (approximately equal to $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }E`$). Therefore, the leading time dependence is given by the term $`1W_0(t)`$.

For relatively small times before the saturation, we can use the simple estimate $`w_f|H_{0f}t|^2`$, which results in the following quadratic dependence,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)t^2\underset{f}{}\left(n_fn_0\right)^2H_{0f}^2=t^2V_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2.$$
(38)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is some constant related to an effective band-width of the Hamiltonian matrix. The linear dependence for the width of packet, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=tV_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, corresponds to a generic ballistic-like behavior of wave packets found for the WBRM model .

Note that the band-width of the Hamiltonian matrix can be much larger than the final width of the wave packet due to the dependence of the latter on the interaction strength. Therefore, the linear increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ can be very fast, and quickly it becomes saturated on the time scale of the applicability of the expansion in $`Ht`$, see Eq. (38).

Before comparing the obtained expressions with numerical data, let us first analyze the time dependence of the number of principal components $`N_{pc}(t)`$ for wave packets in the basis representation. It is natural to define $`N_{pc}`$ through the entropy, $`N_{pc}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(S(t))`$. This definition has been widely used in different applications, see for example, .

The number of principal components can be also defined through the inverse participation ratio $`l_{ipr}`$:

$$\left(l_{ipr}\right)^1=\left|A_f\right|^4\underset{k}{}\frac{W_k^2}{N_k}W_0^2\underset{k}{}\frac{(\mathrm{ln}W_0^1)^{2k}}{k!k!N_k}.$$
(39)
Here we used Eq.(27) for $`W_k`$. The sum in Eq.(39) gives the following result for the infinite number of classes (this may be a reasonable approximation for time $`t<<n_c\tau `$)

$$\left(l_{ipr}(t)\right)^1=W_0^2I_0\left(\frac{2\mathrm{ln}(W_0^1)}{\sqrt{M}}\right),$$
(40)
where $`I_0(z)`$ stands for the modified Bessel function and we used the relation $`N_n=M^n`$.

This expression has the following asymptotics,

$`\left(l_{ipr}(t)\right)^1=W_0^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_1}}(\mathrm{ln}W_0^1)^2\right)`$ (41)
$`12t^2(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_1}}),`$ (42)
for small time, and

$$\left(l_{ipr}(t)\right)^1=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}})t\right)$$
(43)
for large time. Therefore, $`N_{pc}`$ defined through the inverse participation ratio $`l_{ipr}`$ also may have an interval of exponential increase in time (if the number of classes $`n_c`$ is not small and we can extend the summation over $`k`$ in Eq. (39) to infinity) . Here we again neglected the fluctuations of $`A_f(t)`$ which may increase the value of $`l_{ipr}^1`$ up to the factor $`3`$.

For a system with small number of classes on can suggest the following approximate expression,

$$\left(l_{ipr}(t)\right)^1=W_0^2+\frac{(1W_0)^2}{l_{ipr}(\mathrm{})}.$$
(44)
This expression takes into account the normalization condition $`\underset{f0}{}w_f=1W_0`$ and has a reasonable behavior for both small and large time.

In any system with finite number of particles the energy shell contains finite number of basis states. For a stationary chaotic state the number of principal components is estimated as $`N_{pc}^{st}\mathrm{\Gamma }/D`$ where $`D`$ is the mean energy distance between many-particle levels (we assume here that the spreading width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of exact eigenstates is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$). In the non-stationary problem this leads to the saturation of $`N_{pc}(t)`$ to the value $`N_{pc}(\mathrm{})2N_{pc}^{st}`$, and to the maximal value $`S\mathrm{ln}N_{pc}(\mathrm{})`$ for the entropy (see above and in Ref. ).

Numerical data for the TBRI model for the case when the SF is of the Breit-Wigner form are summarized in Fig.6 for the same parameters as in Fig.2 and Fig.4. Three quantities are plotted here: the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$, the number of principal components $`N_{pc}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(S(t))`$ and $`l_{ipr}(t)=(|A_f(t)|^4)^1`$ determined by the inverse participation ratio. For $`N_{pc}(t)`$ two curves are given, one is due to the analytical expression (33) for the entropy, and another is computed directly from the evolution of the TBRI model, with additional average over $`N_g=2`$ number of realization of random Hamiltonian.

From the reported data one can see that the time dependence of the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ of packets is quite simple. Namely, on the first very short time scale the increase of the width is linear in time (see also inset in Fig.6 where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ is shown on this time scale), and after, the width quickly saturates. This behavior is in the correspondence with analytical estimates discussed above, and with numerical results found in the WBRM model .

In contrast to this time dependence, the increase of the number of principal components $`N_{pc}(t)`$ is very different, both for $`N_{pc}(t)`$ defined by the entropy and for the $`l_{ipr}(t)`$ determined by the inverse participation ratio. Indeed, both $`N_{pc}(t)`$ and $`l_{ipr}(t)`$ increase slowly in time before the saturation to their limit values. The absolute difference between these two quantities is not important since the definition of $`l_{ipr}`$ is given up to some factor which is sensitive to the type of fluctuations in $`A_f(t)`$. As we already noted, the gaussian fluctuations decrease the value of $`l_{ipr}`$ by the factor $`3`$.

One of the most interesting facts which can be drawn from these data is a big difference for characteristic time scales which correspond to the saturation. Indeed, if the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ completely saturates at time $`t0.5`$, both $`N_{pc}`$ and $`l_{ipr}`$ manifest a very slow saturation by the time $`t20`$. This means that the mechanism for the width increase is different from that responsible for the increase of the number of principal components in the wave packet.

To explain this phenomenon let us consider the initial time scale for the time dependence of $`N_{pc}`$ and $`l_{ipr}`$, where one can detect an approximate linear increase of the entropy $`S(t)`$. The very point is that at small times $`t\tau `$ the wave function has a large number of holes since only directly connected basis states are populated. For a system with a large number $`n`$ of particles the fraction of these states is exponentially small $`(\mathrm{exp}(n))`$ due a two-body nature of the interaction. With an increase of time, for $`t\tau =\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1`$ , the states in other classes start to be filled and the holes begin disappear. This stage for $`t<n_c\tau `$ corresponds to an exponential increase of the number of principal components and linear increase of the entropy.

It is instructive to analyze the evolution of wave packets on a smaller time scale of the ballistic spread, see Fig.7. These data confirm theoretical expectations according to which at small times only those basis states that belong to the first class, are involved in the dynamics. Indeed, large gaps are clearly seen in the distribution of $`w_f`$, which persist during all the time of the ballistic-like spread. These gaps reduce the number of the principal components, however, they are not important for the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$, see Eq.(37).

An important peculiarity of the wave dynamics is that initially all basis states of the first class are excited. One can see that for a very small time $`t=0.2`$ the whole available region $`1<f<N`$ is filled with approximately the same amplitudes $`w_f=|H_{0f}t|^2`$. With an increase of time, the amplitudes grow and form the envelope of the packet, in accordance with Eq.(14). One should stress that the quadratic time dependence for the second moment of a packet on this short-time scale occurs not due to a linear spread of the front of the wave packet, but due to a specific growth of the amplitudes of those basis states which are located inside the energy shell.

The remarkable effect is a kind of oscillations for all quantities of Fig.6. Similar oscillations (however, not so strong) are also present in the time dependence of the entropy $`S(t)`$, see Fig.4. Since the period $`T6.5`$ of these oscillations is much larger than the time scale $`t0.5`$ of the ballistic spread of wave packets, it is clear that this effect is entirely related to the dynamics in the Fock space formed by different classes. The origin of these oscillations can be explained in terms of the cascade model discussed in Section III. Indeed, one can expect a strong effect of a reflection due to the finiteness of the Fock space. The first reflection occurs for $`t_0n_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)^1`$, therefore, the period of oscillation is $`T2t_0`$. One can see that this estimate gives the correct result for $`T`$ with $`n_c1.5`$. The latter value is close to our rough estimate $`n_c1.2`$ for an effective number of classes.

To compare the data for $`l_{ipr}`$ defined by the inverse participation ratio with the analytical expression (44), we have plotted separately both results for a larger time scale $`t40`$ in Fig.8. One can see that our estimate (44) gives quite accurate description of the data on a large time scale up to $`t20`$. After this time, the saturation occurs and all local time dependence may be treated as fluctuations around the limiting value. The data presented in this figure give strong evidence of the effectiveness of our analytical approach.

Let us now come to the case when the form of the strength function is close to the Gaussian. In Fig.9 one can see that the analytical expressions connecting the probability $`W_0(t)`$ to stay in an initial basis state, with the time dependence of the number of principal components $`N_{pc}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(S(t))`$ and $`l_{ipr}(t)`$, give correct global description of numerical data. When comparing with the previous case of the BW-form of the SF, see Figs.6,8, one can conclude that for a strong interaction (when the Gaussian dependence for the SF emerges) the behavior of all quantities do not reveal strong oscillations. This effect is related to the fact that the time scale for the saturation of the width of packets is of the same order as for the saturation of both $`N_{pc}`$ and $`l_{ipr}`$. In such a case the effect of reflection in the Fock space is suppressed by a strong spread of packets in the energy shell.

One can see, that there is a quite strong difference in the time-dependence of all discussed above quantities for the two extreme cases of the Breit-Wigner and Gaussian forms of the strength function. In the BW-case the two effects (ballistic-like spread of packets and the cascade-like evolution in the Fock space) have very different time scales, and both these effects can be distinguished in the dynamics. Contrary, in the second case of the Gaussian form of the SF, two time scales are comparable. Therefore, the two effects coexist on the same time scale and, as a result, the global time-dependence turns out to be much simpler.

## VII Comparison with Wigner Band Random matrices

In this Section we discuss numerical results obtained for the WBRM model for the same quantities as the considered above. The dynamics of wave packets in this model has been recently studied in  in the connection with the problem of quantum-classical correspondence. Here, instead, we concentrate our attention on the correspondence between the evolution of packets in the WBRM and TBRI models.

As was mentioned, the WBRM model is quite close to the TBRI model. It consists of two parts, one of which is a diagonal matrix with increasing “energies” $`ϵ_j`$ and another is a band matrix $`V_{ij}`$,

$$H_{ij}=ϵ_j\delta _{ij}+V_{ij},$$
(45)
where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the delta-function. In original papers  the “unperturbed spectrum” was taken in the form of the “picked fence”, $`ϵ_j=jD`$, where $`D=\rho _0^1`$ is the spacing between two close energies and $`j`$ is a running integer number. We consider here the case with random values $`ϵ_j`$ with the mean spacing $`D`$, reordered in an increasing way, $`ϵ_{j+1}>ϵ_j`$. As for the off-diagonal matrix elements $`V_{ij}`$, they are assumed to be gaussian random and independent variables inside the band $`|ij|b`$, with the zero mean, $`<V_{ij}=0>`$, and the variance $`<V_{ij}^2>=V_0^2`$. Outside the band, the matrix elements vanish. Thus, the control parameters of this model are the ratio $`V_0/D`$ of a typical matrix element to the mean level spacing, and the band-width $`b`$. As one can see, the first term in (45) corresponds to a “mean field” $`H_0`$, and the interaction $`V`$ has a finite energy range.

For the first time the SF for the WBRM has been analyzed in Ref. . It was analytically found that the form of the strength function essentially depends on one parameter $`q=\frac{\rho _0^2V_0^2}{b}`$ only. Wigner has proved  that for a relatively strong perturbation, $`V_0D`$, in the limit $`q1`$ the form of the LDOS is the Lorentzian,

$$W_{BW}(\stackrel{~}{E})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}}{\stackrel{~}{E}^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}^2},\stackrel{~}{E}=EDj,$$
(46)
which nowadays is known as the Breit-Wigner (BW) dependence. Here the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ refers to the center of the distribution. The half-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}`$ of the distribution (46) is given by the Fermi golden rule,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}=2\pi \rho _0V_0^2$$
(47)
In other limit $`q1`$ the influence of the unperturbed part $`H_0`$ can be neglected and the shape of the SF tends to the shape of density of the states of the band random matrix $`V`$, which is known to be the semicircle.

Recently, Wigner’s results have been extended in  to matrices $`H`$ with a general form of $`V`$, when the variance of the off-diagonal matrix elements decreases smoothly with the distance $`r=\left|ij\right|`$ from the principal diagonal. In this case the effective band size $`b`$ is defined by the second moment of the envelope function $`f(r)`$ . Another important generalization of the WBRM studied in , is an additional sparsity of the matrix $`V`$, which may mimic realistic Hamiltonians. In such a form, the WBRM model is closer to the TBRI model, however, in the latter the sparsity of the interaction is due to a two-body nature of the interaction. As a result, the positions of zero elements are not completely random as in the WBRM model, see details in .

Random matrix models of the type (45) are very useful for the understanding generic properties of the SF. The condition for the SF to be of the BW form in the WBRM model has simple form ,

$$D\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}\mathrm{\Delta }_b;\mathrm{\Delta }_b=bD.$$
(48)
The left part of this relation indicates the non-perturbative character of an interaction, according to which many of unperturbed basis states are strongly coupled by an interaction. On the other hand, the interaction should not be very strong, namely, the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}`$ determined by Eq.(47), has to be less than the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ of the interaction in the energy representation. The latter condition is generic for systems with finite range of the interaction $`V`$. One should stress that, strictly speaking, the BW form (46) is not correct since its second moment diverges. As was shown in , outside the energy range $`|\stackrel{~}{E}|>\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ the SF in the model (45) decreases with the energy faster than a pure exponent.

Note, that in the TBRI model the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ is irrelevant since there is no sharp border of the interaction and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ is of the order of the whole energy spectrum. For this reason, instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ it is more convenient to use the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2`$ of the SF which may have the classical limit . The latter quantity can be expressed through the off-diagonal matrix elements of the interaction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=_jV_{ij}^2`$ for $`ij`$, therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E^2=2bV_0^2`$. As a result, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b=\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_E^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}`$ and Eq.(48 ) can be written as

$$D\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}\mathrm{\Delta }_E\sqrt{\pi }.$$
(49)
Numerical data  for the WBRM model show that on the border $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}2\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ the form of the SF is quite close to the Gaussian, and this transition from the BW dependence to the Gaussian-like turns out to be quite sharp. Although the extreme limit of a very strong interaction, $`q1,`$ (or, the same, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$) has been studied by Wigner in the WBRM model (45) , the semicircle form of the SF seems to be unphysical. Indeed, this form is originated from the semicircle dependence of the total density $`\rho _V(E)`$ defined by $`V`$ only, therefore, when neglecting the term $`H_0`$. Thus, the case $`VH_0`$ in terms of the TBRI model means that the residual interaction is much stronger than the mean-field part $`H_0`$, which is physically irrelevant.

Numerical data for the WBRM model in the case of the BW-dependence of the SF are given in Fig.10. When comparing with the corresponding quantities discussed above for the TBRI model (see Fig.6) we should note the following. First of all, one can see that the simple analytical expression (33 ) gives a correct description of the increase and saturation of the entropy $`S(t)`$. The same we can say about the expression (44) for the number of principal components defined through the inverse participation ratio.

Second, we would like to stress that the global time dependence for all quantities is quite similar to that found for the one-class variant of the TBRI model. Relatively simple structure of the Wigner band random matrices allows one to perform a detailed comparison of the data with analytical estimates. Indeed, the application of the relation (38) for the WBRM model gives,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(t)=\frac{2}{3}t^2V_0^2b^3,$$
(50)
see also Ref.. Therefore, for the parameters of Fig.10 we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=Bt`$ with $`B=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}b^{3/2}V_0950`$ which is in a good agreement with numerical data. We can also find the critical time $`t_d`$ after which the ballistic spread of the packet terminates. For this, we estimate the maximal width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ of packet via the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ of the SF, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$. This leads to the estimate $`t_m\sqrt{6}/b`$, therefore, for Fig.3 we have $`t_m21`$ which perfectly corresponds to the data. The latter estimates have been also checked for other values of $`V_0`$ and $`b`$, with the same good correspondence between simple estimates and numerical data.

Comparing global time dependence of the quantities presented in Fig.10 with the results for the TBRI model, see Fig.6, one can see that the main difference is the type of oscillations for the width of packets $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ . Namely, in contrast to the TBRI model where the period of oscillations is much larger than the time scale $`t_m`$ of the ballistic spread, in Fig.10 the period $`T`$ is just defined by the ballistic spread, $`T2t_m`$. This very fact demonstrate the principal difference between the two models.

Indeed, for the WBRM model there is no specific evolution in the Fock space which is due to a two-body nature of interaction. Formally, the cascade model can be applied to the WBRM model with the number of classes $`n_c=1`$, since all states within the energy band $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b=bD`$ start to be involved in the dynamics immediately. This means that in contrast to the TBRI model, in the WBRM model there is only one mechanism for the oscillations, namely, the reflection inside the energy shell which is populated ergodically, when time is running. No oscillations are detected for the number of principal components (the data for larger times are not shown), this confirms our conclusion about one kind of the reflection from the edges of the energy shell. It is interesting to note that the number of principal components does not reveal noticeable oscillations on the time scale of the ballistic spread since on this scale the value of $`N_{pc}`$ is very small.

The difference between these two models can be also seen when comparing the structure of wave packets in the basis representation at some instant times before the saturation (compare Fig.11 with Fig.7). In contrast to Fig.7 where many ”holes” can be realized in the distribution $`w_f`$, for the WBRM model the filling of the available energy range of size $`2bD`$ occurs ergodically. In both cases very strong fluctuations are present, which are expected to be gaussian, see discussion in . It is important to stress, that in order to reveal this difference, we should avoid the ensemble average which washes out the presence of holes (if different Hamiltonian matrices have different unperturbed spectrum). This fact reflects one of basic peculiarities of the TBRI model, namely, the non-ergodic character of the matrices (the average over the spectrum inside one (very big) matrix may give completely different result from that obtained by an ensemble average, see references in the review ).

Finally, we present the data for the WBRM in the case of the Gaussian form of the strength function, see Fig.12. Here we also can see oscillations for the width of packets. As for the number of principal components found from the inverse participation ratio, numerical data manifest the oscillations, as well, with the same period as for the width of packets. In average, the numerical data for $`S(t)`$ and $`l_{ipr}`$ are well described by the simple analytical expressions relating these quantities to the probability $`W_0(t)`$ to stay in the initial state.

The most interesting result which can be drawn from the numerical data presented in Fig.10 and Fig.12, is a clear difference in the time dependence of the entropy $`S(t)`$. Comparing the data in the insets, one can conclude that linear increase of the entropy occurs for the case when the form of the SF is close to the Gaussian, but not for the case of the BW-form. Indeed, it is hard to indicate clear time scale of a linear increase of $`S(t)`$ in Fig.10, in contrast to Fig.12 where the linear time dependence is clearly seen (apart from a very small time scale). This very fact may be of quite generic, since in the TBRI model we also see a non-linear character of the entropy increase in the BW-regime.

## VIII Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council. One of us (F.M.I.) gratefully acknowledges the support by CONACyT (Mexico) Grant No. 34668-E.


text:
# Distinguishing 𝑛 Hamiltonians on ℂ^𝑛 by a single measurement

## Acknowledgements

We thank P. Wocjan for useful discussions and important corrections. This work has been supported by grants of the project Q-ACTA of the European Union.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Two classical scalar fields are minimally coupled to gravity in the Kachru–Shulz–Silverstein scenario  with a rolling fifth radius. One of these fields is time-dependent only, while the other is the dilaton. We consider the most general four-dimensional homogeneous and isotropic Robertson–Walker metric  (with a time-dependent scale factor), naturally generalized to a five-dimensional Randall–Sundrum  context. We find a Tolman wormhole solution  for a $`\text{I}\text{R}\times \text{S}^3`$ brane with Lorentz metric and for $`\text{I}\text{R}\times \text{AdS}_3`$ brane with positive definite metric. The solution represents a collapsing Universe which starts expansion just before encountering a big crunch singularity. The Universe reaches a moment of minimal spatial volume. This minimum volume edgeless achronal spacelike hypersurface is called a bounce . The wormhole is time-dependent and the bounce involves the entire Universe.
Our analysis will be along the lines of the one in .

## 2 The Model

The action for gravity coupled to two scalars is:

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑r(_{MATTER}^{\left(5\right)}+_{GRAVITY}^{\left(5\right)})},`$ (1)
where:

$`_{MATTER}^{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{|g^{\left(5\right)}|}^\mu \varphi ^\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(5\right)}\sqrt{|g^{\left(5\right)}|}U(\varphi )\sqrt{|g^{\left(4\right)}|}V(\varphi )\delta (r),`$ (2)
$`_{GRAVITY}^{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\sqrt{|g^{\left(5\right)}|}R.`$ (3)
Here, $`g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(4\right)}`$ is the pull-back of the five-dimensional metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(5\right)}`$ to the domain wall taken to be at $`r=0`$. The wall is represented by a delta-function source with coefficient $`V(\varphi )`$, parametrising its tension. The scalar $`\varphi (t,r)`$ is:

$`\varphi (t,r)=\psi (t)+\chi (r).`$ (4)
We make the ansatz that both the potentials $`U`$ and $`V`$ are of Liouville type:

$`U(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`U_0e^{\alpha \varphi },`$ (5)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V_0e^{\beta \varphi }`$ (6)
and that the metric is:

$`ds^2=se^{A(r)}dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{A(r)}g(t)}{\left[1+\frac{ϵ}{4}(x^2+y^2+z^2)\right]^2}}(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)+qf(t)dr^2.`$ (7)
This is a natural generalisation of the most general four-dimensional homegeneous and isotropic Robertson–Walker metric  to a five-dimensional Randall–Sundrum context . The scale factor $`g(t)`$ is a strictly positive function (we are working with a mostly-plus metric) and the function $`f(t)`$ is strictly positive as well (the metric is never degenerate).The factors $`s`$ and $`q`$ are signs ($`s^2=q^2=1`$). The curvature parameter is $`ϵ=+1`$ (for spherical spatial three-sections) or $`ϵ=1`$ (for hyperbolical spatial three-sections).
The energy–momentum tensor for the scalar fields is:

$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(5\right)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi g^{\left(5\right)}{}_{}{}^{\alpha \beta }+U(\varphi )\right]`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|g^{\left(4\right)}|}}{\sqrt{|g^{\left(5\right)}|}}}V(\varphi )\delta (r)g_{ab}^{\left(4\right)}\delta _\mu ^a\delta _\nu ^b.`$
Einstein’s equations $`G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2T_{\mu \nu }`$, equivalently written in terms of the Ricci tensor as $`R_{\mu \nu }=\kappa ^2(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{\left(5\right)}T_\alpha ^\alpha )`$, are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}e^AA^2+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}e^AA^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{f}}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{g}}{g}}`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}\dot{\psi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}se^AU+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{f^{1/2}}}e^AV\delta (r),`$
$`2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}e^AA^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f}}e^AA^{\prime \prime }`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}\dot{g}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}\ddot{g}`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}e^AgU+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}e^A{\displaystyle \frac{g}{f^{1/2}}}V\delta (r),`$
$`A^2+2A^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{4s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f}}e^A`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2s}}\ddot{f}e^A{\displaystyle \frac{3q}{4s}}\dot{f}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}e^A`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}qfU+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa ^2}{3}}qf^{1/2}V\delta (r),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}\dot{\psi }\chi ^{}.`$
The $`tr`$-equation, (12), implies:

$`\kappa \dot{\psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}(t)}{f(t)}},`$ (13)
$`\kappa \chi ^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}A^{}(r).`$ (14)
When $`\beta =\frac{\kappa }{2\sqrt{3}}`$, the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ can be written in the form:

$`V\left(\varphi (t,r)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qf^{1/2}}}W,`$ (15)
where $`W`$ is a constant.
Let us assume that the potential $`U(\varphi )`$ can be written as a function of $`t`$ and $`r`$ in the separable form:

$`U\left(\varphi (t,r)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{qf}}U_1(r)+e^AU_2(t)\right].`$ (16)
At the end we will recast the potential $`U`$ back into the original exponential form (5).
Einstein’s equations then reduce to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{f}}{f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{g}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵs}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}=0,`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{g}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_2={\displaystyle \frac{C}{qf}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}^2}{f^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{f}}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{2s}{3}}U_2={\displaystyle \frac{2sD}{qf}},`$
$`A^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}W\delta (r)=Ce^A,`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{8}}A^22A^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}U_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}W\delta (r)=De^A,`$
where $`C`$ and $`D`$ are separation constants.
We will be looking for a bounce solution in the form:

$`g(t)=f(t)=Bt^2+h>0,`$ (22)
where $`B`$ is a positive constant, not equal to 1 (so that the pull-back of the metric to 4 dimensions is flat only asymptotically***The curvature of the brane is $`R=\frac{66B}{Bt^2+h}`$.), and $`h`$ is another strictly positive constant.
Upon substitution of the solutions (22) into the Einstein’s equations, (19) gives:

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵs}{3}}.`$ (23)
On the otherhand, $`B`$ must be positive. Therefore $`B=\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`ϵ`$ and $`s`$ must have opposite signs. Thus the solution is either a brane with spherical three-sections and Lorentz metric or a brane with hyperbolical three-sections and positive definite metric. Clearly, these two solutions can also be related by a Wick rotation (time $`t`$ is changed to $`it`$ and the positive-curvature spacetime becomes a negative-curvature spacetime).
Einstein’s equations (19) and (19) are consistent if we choose

$`U_2(t)=\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{g}^2(t)}{g^2(t)}},`$ (24)
where $`\sigma `$ is a constant.
The next Einstein’s equation, (19), yields that the separation constant $`C`$ is $`\frac{8ϵq}{3}`$ and that $`\sigma =\frac{3}{2s}`$.
The remaining time-dependent Einstein’s equation, (19), gives $`D=\frac{C}{4}=\frac{2ϵq}{3}`$.
The $`r`$-dependent Einstein’s equations (21) and (21) yield:

$`U_1(r)=10ϵqe^{A(r)}{\displaystyle \frac{21}{8}}A^{}(r)^2`$ (25)
and these two equations reduce to a single equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}W\delta (r)={\displaystyle \frac{2ϵq}{3}}e^A.`$ (26)
A solution of this equation is of KSS  type:

$`A(r)=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k|r|+1)^2}},`$ (27)
where $`k`$ is a constant, such that $`k^2=\frac{4ϵq}{3}`$. Therefore $`ϵ`$ and $`q`$ must have the same signs ($`k^2=4/3`$). The constant $`W`$ in brane tension $`V`$ is $`12k`$.
The equation of motion for the scalar field:

$`^2\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta U(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|g^{\left(4\right)}|}}{\sqrt{|g^{\left(5\right)}|}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}\delta (r)=0,`$ (28)
after integration over the fifth dimension in an infinitesimal interval, gives a jump condition acrross the brane:

$`A^{}(+0)A^{}(0)=4k.`$ (29)
Let us now write the potential $`U\left(\varphi (t,r)\right)=\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}\left[\frac{1}{qf}U_1(r)+e^AU_2(t)\right]`$ back in the exponential form $`U=U_0e^{\alpha \varphi }`$. Substituting the solution (27) for $`A(r)`$ into (25) gives:

$`U_1(r)=4ϵqe^{A(r)}.`$ (30)
Using this form of $`U_1(r)`$, together with (24) for $`U_2(t)`$ and the value of $`B`$, we easily find that:

$`U\left(\varphi (t,r)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{4ϵh}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^A}{g^2}}=U_0e^{\frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{3}}\varphi }.`$ (31)
For a realistic model, one has to choose $`h`$ sufficiently small.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank B. Dolan, V. Gueorguiev, G. Savvidy, S. Sen and especially C. Kennedy for many useful discussions. Comments from C. P. Burgess, S. Giddings, I. Novikov, A. Strominger and N. Tetradis were also very helpful. The financial support of the EU, grant: HPRN–CT–1999–00161, is gratefully acknowledged.