text:
# Quantum Radiation of Uniformly Accelerated Spherical Mirrors

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we study quantum radiation generated by a uniformly accelerated motion of a small spherical mirror. This is a special case of the dynamical Casimir effect .

There are several reasons that make studies of the dynamical Casimir effect, that is the effect of vacuum polarization and particle creation in the presence of moving boundaries, important. For a special case when boundaries are moving with constant acceleration, there is some similarity of this problem with problems in a constant gravitational field and Hawking effect. Schwinger  suggestion that the photon production associated with changes in the quantum vacuum state in a system with collapsing dielectric bubble could be responsible for sonoluminescence has generated a lot of publications (see e.g. a review by Milton ). System including mirrors moving in an external gravitational fields were often used in different gedanken experiments in studies of black holes. In particular, Unruh and Wald in their work devoted to the generalized second law of black hole physics , considered a gedanken experiment in which a box with mirrored walls filled with radiation is lowered adiabatically toward a black hole. At any particular moment of time a box is practically at rest in a static gravitational fields and hence its boundaries have a non-vanishing constant acceleration. Unruh and Wald demonstrated that the quantum radiation emitted by the mirror boundaries during the adiabatic transition from initial to final position of the box plays a key role in the understanding of the mechanism providing the fulfillment of the generalized second law for such processes. Moving mirrors may also have an application in studies of quantum radiation created by bubble formation during first order phase transitions in the Early Universe.

In a 2 dimensional spacetime the dynamical Casimir effect is studied quite well . Much less results have been obtained for the relativistic motion of mirrors in physical 4 dimensional spacetime. Quantum radiation from a uniformly accelerated plane mirror was considered in . Quantum effects in the presence of relativistic spherical mirrors which are expanding with uniform acceleration were studied in . Ford and Vilenkin  have extended the plane mirror result to include non-constant acceleration for the case when the acceleration and its derivatives are small.

Recently the interest to the “old” problem of quantum effects in the presence of accelerated mirrors increased. Partially this was stimulated by attempts to obtain a more detailed quantitative description of gedanken experiments with black holes for a more realistic situation, when a 4D mirror has a finite size, is semi-transparent and moves with an acceleration which not constant in time. Since such a problem, especially in an arbitrary external gravitational field is technically very complicated several simplified models were considered. Anderson and Israel  calculated quantum fluxes from a spherical 4D mirror which is expanding or contracting with nearly uniform acceleration. Particle creation for adiabatic expansion or contraction of a spherical mirror and for an oscillating spherical cavity were discussed by Setare and Saharian . Quantum effects in a presence of an expanding or contracting (with constant acceleration) spherical semitransparent 4D mirrors were studied in . Two-dimensional analogue of this problem for an arbitrary acceleration was discussed by Nicolaevici . Similar problem in a more general set-up was considered by Obadia and Parentani . Energy flux and vacuum polarization created by a polarizable body of small size and moving with constant acceleration was calculated in

Very recently systems with mirrors were used for study the problem of the black hole entropy. Using a 2D moving mirror model Mukohyama and Israel  introduced a notion of moving-mirror entropy associated with temporarily inaccessible information about the future. Page  argued that by surrounding a black hole by a spherical reflecting shell (mirror) one can make the black hole entropy less that its Bekenstein-Hawking value.

In this paper we continue studying the quantum effects in the presence of a 4D moving mirror. We assume that a mirror has a spherical form and it is uniformly accelerated. As a model of such a system we consider a scalar massless field obeying the Dirichlet boundary conditions on the surface of a tube generated by a uniformly accelerated motion (with the acceleration $`w`$) of a sphere of radius $`b`$. The complete information about quantum properties of the system is contained in the Feynman Green’s function. To obtain the latter we use Wick’s rotation. In the Euclidean domain the problem is reduced to finding an electric potential in 4D flat space in the presence of a metallic toroidal boundary. The problem we study is greatly simplified by the presence of high symmetry. As a result of this symmetry we can solve the problem by a separation of variables by using the toroidal coordinates and obtain a series representation for the Euclidean Green’s function. After performing an inverse Wick’s rotation we obtain the Hadamard function in the wave-zone regime and use it to calculate the vacuum fluctuations and the vacuum expectation for the energy density flux in the wave zone.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the set up of the problem. We formulate the equation for a massless scalar field in a presence of a uniformly accelerated spherical mirror. We also discuss here Wick’s rotation. In Section 3 we obtain a series representation for the Euclidean Green’s function. An analytical continuation to the Minkowski spacetime and wave-zone regime are discussed in Section 4. In Sections 5 and 6 we calculate $`\phi ^2(x)^{\text{ren}}`$ and the energy density flux in the wave zone.

## 2 Model and Geometry

Our purpose is to study quantum radiation from a uniformly accelerated small spherical body with a mirror-like boundary. In order to describe such a motion it is convenient to introduce in the Minkowski spacetime with a metric

$$ds^2=dT^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2,$$
(2.1)
new (Rindler) coordinates

$$T=\rho \mathrm{sinh}\tau ,Z=\rho \mathrm{cosh}\tau ,X=X,Y=Y.$$
(2.2)
These coordinates cover the right wedge $`R_+`$ of the spacetime where $`Z>|T|`$. A line $`\rho =\rho _0`$, $`X=0`$, $`Y=0`$ represent a world line of a uniformly accelerated observer, moving with a constant acceleration $`w=\rho _0^1`$ (as measured in his reference frame) in the $`Z`$-direction, while the 3-dimensional plane $`\tau `$= const is a set of events which are simultaneous from the point of view of the observer. In these coordinates metric (2.1) is

$$ds^2=\rho ^2d\tau ^2+d\rho ^2+dX^2+dY^2,$$
(2.3)
and the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ of a uniformly accelerated spherical mirror is described by the equation

$$X^2+Y^2+(\rho \rho _0)^2=b^2,$$
(2.4)
where $`b`$ is the radius of the mirror which is smaller than the distance to the horizon $`\rho _0`$. This equation in the original Cartesian coordinates is

$$X^2+Y^2+(\sqrt{Z^2T^2}w^1))^2=b^2.$$
(2.5)
In fact, since (2.5) is invariant under the reflection $`ZZ`$, it describes two surfaces, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ which correspond to the solution of (2.5) with $`Z>0`$ and $`Z<0`$, respectively.

It is evident that for this type of motion, the mirror $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ can affect the state of the field only in the region where $`TZ>0`$, while the region lying under the null plane $`N_{}:TZ=0`$ is causally disconnected from the region of influence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$.

Our aim is to study the influence of an accelerated motion of a spherical mirror on a scalar massless quantum field $`\phi `$ . In our consideration the background geometry is flat. Nevertheless, it is convenient to consider at first a general action for a scalar massless field in curved geometry

$$W[\phi ]=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x^4g^{1/2}\left(g^{\mu \nu }\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }+\xi R\phi ^2\right).$$
(2.6)
The field equation is

$$\mathrm{}\phi \xi R\phi =0,$$
(2.7)
where $`\mathrm{}=g^{1/2}_\mu \left(g^{1/2}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right)`$. The stress-energy tensor, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, for the field has the form

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(12\xi )\phi _{,\mu }\phi _{,\nu }+\left(2\xi \frac{1}{2}\right)g_{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }\phi _{,\alpha }\phi _{,\beta }$$

$$\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi \left(\phi \phi _{;\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\phi _{;\alpha }\phi ^{;\alpha }\right)+\xi \left(R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R\right)\phi ^2.$$
(2.8)
When the parameter $`\xi `$ of non-minimal coupling vanishes, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ reduces to the canonical stress-energy tensor. The case

$$\xi =1/6$$
(2.9)
corresponds to the conformally invariant theory with $`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$.

For our problem, the curvature $`R`$ vanishes, the field $`\phi `$ propagates in the exterior of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and obeys the Dirichlet boundary condition on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$\phi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(2.10)
We denote by $`G^{(1)}(x,x^{})`$ the corresponding Hadamard function

$$G^{(1)}(x,x^{})=0|\widehat{\phi }(x)\widehat{\phi }(x^{})+\widehat{\phi }(x^{})\widehat{\phi }(x)|0.$$
(2.11)
This is symmetric function of its arguments $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ obeying the boundary conditions

$$G^{(1)}(x,x^{})|_{x\mathrm{\Sigma }}=G^{(1)}(x,x^{})|_{x^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0.$$
(2.12)
Hadamard function depends on the choice of the state of the quantum field. Since our problem possesses the invariance with respect to a reflection $`TT`$, we use the state which also obeys the same symmetry. This is evidently a preferable state for which the calculations are greatly simplified. For this state, the Hadamard function $`G^{(1)}(x,x^{})`$ can be obtained by the standard Wick’s rotation prescription.

Namely, let us make a rotation of time $`T`$ in the complex plane

$$Ti𝒯.$$
(2.13)
Under this rotation the metric becomes Euclidean

$$ds_E^2=d𝒯^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2,$$
(2.14)
and the equation of the mirror surface takes the form

$$X^2+Y^2+(\sqrt{Z^2+𝒯^2}w^1)^2=b^2.$$
(2.15)
This surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_E`$ is a 4-dimensional torus $`S^1\times S^2`$, which is obtained by the rotation of a sphere $`S^2`$ of the radius $`b`$ around a circle $`S^1`$ of the radius $`w^1`$ ($`b<w^1`$). Denote by $`G_E(x,x^{})`$ the Euclidean Green function, that is a symmetric (with respect $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$) solution of the equation

$$\mathrm{}_EG_E(x,x^{})=\delta (x^{}x^{}),$$
(2.16)
defined in the exterior of the torus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_E`$ and obeying the boundary conditions

$$G_E(x,x^{})|_{x\mathrm{\Sigma }}=G_E(x,x^{})|_{x^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0.$$
(2.17)
For space-like separation of the arguments, the Hadamard function $`G^{(1)}`$ can be obtained from $`G_E`$ by the Wick’s rotation

$$G^{(1)}(x,x^{})=2G_E(x,x^{})|_{𝒯iT,𝒯^{}iT^{}}.$$
(2.18)
It should be emphasized that using the Euclidean approach greatly simplifies calculations. On the other hand this method has restrictions. In particular, the Green’s functions obtained by the analytical continuation of $`G_E(x,x^{})`$ correspond to the averages of the $`\widehat{\phi }(x)\widehat{\phi }(x^{})`$ for a special quantum state singled out by its $`TT`$ invariance. Moreover, because of the symmetry $`ZZ`$, the corresponding Green’s function obeys the Dirichlet boundary conditions on the both surfaces, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, and hence always gives us a result when two accelerated mirror are present.

In the next sections we shall obtain an expression for the Euclidean Green function and discuss the problem of its analytical continuation to the physical Minkowski spacetime later.

## 3 Euclidean Green Function

The Euclidean Green function $`G_E(x,x^{})`$ coincides with an electric potential at a point $`x`$ created by a point charge located at a point $`x^{}`$ of the 4-dimensional space in the presence of a conducting surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_E`$. This problem can be solved by using the toroidal coordinates, for which the 4-dimensional Laplace operator $`\mathrm{}_E`$ allows separation of variables. The toroidal coordinates $`(\eta ,\psi ,\gamma ,\varphi )`$ are related to the Cartesian coordinates as follows

$$X=\frac{a\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{B}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,Y=\frac{a\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{B}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(3.1)
$$Z=\frac{a\mathrm{sinh}\eta }{B}\mathrm{cos}\psi ,𝒯=\frac{a\mathrm{sinh}\eta }{B}\mathrm{sin}\psi ,$$
(3.2)
where $`B=\mathrm{cosh}\eta \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$. The metric (2.14) in these coordinates takes the form

$$ds_E^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\stackrel{~}{s}^2,\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{a}{B},$$
(3.3)
$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=dH^2+dS^2,$$
(3.4)
where

$$dH^2=d\eta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta d\psi ^2$$
(3.5)
is a metric on a hyperboloid $`H^2`$ and

$$dS^2=d\gamma ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma d\varphi ^2$$
(3.6)
is a metric on the unit sphere $`S^2`$.

In these coordinates surfaces $`\eta =`$const are torii. By substituting (3.1)–(3.2) into (2.15) one can easily find that

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{1}{w^2}b^2},\mathrm{tanh}\eta _0=\sqrt{1w^2b^2},$$
(3.7)
where $`\eta _0`$ is the value of $`\eta `$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_E`$. Points with $`\eta <\eta _0`$ lie in the exterior of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_E`$.

Later we shall use the following expressions in the toroidal coordinates for the square of the distance $`^2`$ from the origin to the point $`x=(X,Y,Z,𝒯)`$ and for the square of the distance $`^2(x,x^{})`$ between points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$

$$^2=a^2\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\eta +\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{\mathrm{cosh}\eta \mathrm{cos}\gamma },$$
(3.8)
$$^2(x,x^{})=\frac{2a^2(\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{cos}\lambda )}{(\mathrm{cosh}\eta \mathrm{cos}\gamma )(\mathrm{cosh}\eta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma ^{})},$$
(3.9)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are geodesic distances on a unit sphere $`S^2`$ and a unit hyperboloid $`H^2`$, respectively. They are defined as

$$\mathrm{cos}\lambda =\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\gamma ^{}+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi \varphi ^{})\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\gamma ^{},$$
(3.10)
and

$$\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{cosh}\eta \mathrm{cosh}\eta ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\psi \psi ^{})\mathrm{sinh}\eta \mathrm{sinh}\eta ^{}.$$
(3.11)
Suppose we have two conformally related 4 dimensional spaces with metrics $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ and $`ds^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$. Then the box-operators in these spaces are related as follows

$$\mathrm{}\frac{1}{6}R=\mathrm{\Omega }^3(\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{R})\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(3.12)
In our case curvatures $`R_E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ for metrics $`ds_E^2`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ given by (3.3) – (3.4) vanish and using (3.12) one gets

$$\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{G}(x,x^{})=\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x,x^{}),$$
(3.13)
where

$$G_E(x,x^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(x)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(x^{})\stackrel{~}{G}(x,x^{}),$$
(3.14)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }(x,x^{})=\frac{\delta (xx^{})}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}}.$$
(3.15)
The operator $`\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}`$ is of the form

$$\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_H+\mathrm{\Delta }_S,$$
(3.16)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_H=_\eta ^2+\mathrm{coth}\eta _\eta +\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }_\psi ^2,$$
(3.17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_S=_\gamma ^2+\mathrm{cot}\gamma _\gamma +\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }_\varphi ^2,$$
(3.18)
are the Laplace operators on the unit hyperboloid and unit sphere, respectively.

Expanding the Green function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ over spherical harmonics $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$ which form a complete set on the unit sphere we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(x,x^{})=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}(p,p^{})Y_\mathrm{}m(q)\overline{Y}_\mathrm{}m(q^{})=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}(p,p^{})P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda ),$$
(3.19)
where $`x=(p,q)`$, $`x^{}=(p^{},q^{})`$, and $`p`$, $`p^{}`$ are points on $`H`$ and $`q`$, $`q^{}`$ are points on $`S`$. Here $`P_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ is the Legendre polynomial and $`\lambda `$ is a geodesic distance (angle) between $`q=(\gamma ,\varphi )`$ and $`q^{}=(\gamma ^{},\varphi ^{})`$ on $`S`$ defined by relation (3.10).

The functions $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}(p,p^{})`$ are 2-dimensional Green functions of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$ which are regular inside the disc $`0\eta <\eta _0`$ and obey the Dirichlet boundary conditions at the boundary of the disc.

Using the Fourier decomposition with respect to the angle variable $`\psi `$ one get the following representation for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}(p,p^{})`$

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mathrm{}}(p,p^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{im(\psi \psi ^{})}𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\eta ^{}),$$
(3.20)
where $`𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\eta ^{})`$ obeys the equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}+\mathrm{coth}\eta \frac{d}{d\eta }\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta }\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\right]𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\eta ^{})=\frac{\delta (\eta \eta ^{})}{\mathrm{sinh}\eta },$$
(3.21)
and the boundary condition

$$𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta _0,\eta ^{})=𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\eta _0)=0.$$
(3.22)
The required Green functions $`𝒢_\mathrm{}m`$ must be also regular at $`\eta =0`$.

Linear independent solutions of the homogeneous version of the equation (3.21) are the associated Legendre functions $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{}}^m`$. For complex values of their argument $`z`$ and parameters $`\nu ,\mu `$ these functions are defined as (see , eq. 3.2.3 and 3.2.5)

$$P_\nu ^\mu (z)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mu )}\left(\frac{z+1}{z1}\right)^{\mu /2}F(\nu ,\nu +1;1\mu ;(1z)/2),$$
(3.23)
$$Q_\nu ^\mu (z)=e^{i\mu \pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\nu 1}\sqrt{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\mu +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +3/2)}z^{\nu \mu 1}(z^21)^{\mu /2}$$

$$\times F(1+\frac{\nu }{2}+\frac{\mu }{2},\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\nu }{2}+\frac{\mu }{2};\nu +\frac{3}{2};z^2).$$
(3.24)
The function $`F`$ which enters these relations is the hypergeometric function

Since $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are independent parameters in the equation, we shall need the Legendre functions both for $`|m|\mathrm{}`$ and for $`|m|>\mathrm{}`$. For the latter case and for the standard definition of $`P_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)`$ these functions vanish, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}m+1)P_{\mathrm{}}^m`$ remains finite in the limit of integer $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$. Thus instead of $`P_\nu ^\mu (z)`$ it is more convenient to use the following functions

$$𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \mu +1)P_\nu ^\mu (z).$$
(3.25)
It is understood, that for integer $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ these functions are defined by continuity. Functions $`𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m`$ are regular at $`z=1`$. We also define

$$𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z)=\frac{e^{\mu \pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\mu +1)}Q_\nu ^\mu (z).$$
(3.26)
Functions $`𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z)`$ and $`𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z)`$ are analytic functions of their complex arguments $`\nu `$, $`\mu `$, and $`z`$ defined in the complex plane $`z`$ with a cut along the real axis lying to the left of $`z=1`$. For integer value $`\mu =m`$ these functions obey the following symmetry relations

$$𝒫_\nu ^m(z)=𝒫_\nu ^m(z),𝒬_\nu ^m(z)=𝒬_\nu ^m(z).$$
(3.27)
Using relation (3.2.13) of  we obtain the following expression for the Wronskian of the functions $`𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z)`$ and $`𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z)`$

$$W[𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z),𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z)]𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z)\frac{d}{dz}𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z)𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z)\frac{d}{dz}𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z)=\frac{1}{1z^2}.$$
(3.28)
The following functions are vanishing at $`z=z_0`$

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^m(z|z_0)=𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)\frac{𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)}{𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)}𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z).$$
(3.29)
The Green function $`𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\eta ^{})`$ is

$$𝒢_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\eta ^{})=𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _<)𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _>|z_0),$$
(3.30)
where $`z_0=\mathrm{cosh}\eta _0`$. Combining the obtained results we get the following representation for the Euclidean Green function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m\mathrm{cos}[m(\psi \psi ^{})]𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _<)𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _>|z_0),$$
(3.31)
where $`\beta _0=1`$ and $`\beta _{m1}=2`$. In order to get this relation we used the symmetry properties (3.27).

Function $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)`$ which enter the definition (3.29) of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^m(z|z_0)`$ evidently does not depend on on the position of the boundary $`z_0`$. Let us calculate now the corresponding boundary independent part of $`\stackrel{~}{G}(x,x^{})`$. Namely, we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,x^{})`$ the expression (3.31) where instead of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}^m`$ we substitute its boundary independent part $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m`$. Using relation 3.11.4 from  we have

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m\mathrm{cos}[m(\psi \psi ^{})]𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_<)𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_>)=Q_{\mathrm{}}(z_<z_>\mathrm{cos}(\psi \psi ^{})\sqrt{(z_>^21)(z_<^21)}).$$
(3.32)
Using this relation together with Heine formula (see equation 3.11.10 of Ref.)

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)P_{\mathrm{}}(t^{})Q_{\mathrm{}}(t)=\frac{1}{tt^{}}$$
(3.33)
we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,x^{})=\frac{(\mathrm{cosh}\eta \mathrm{cos}\gamma )(\mathrm{cosh}\eta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma ^{})}{8\pi ^2a^2(\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{cos}\lambda )},$$
(3.34)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are defined by (3.10)and (3.11). This result implies that $`G_E^0`$ related to $`\stackrel{~}{G}^0`$ by (3.14) coincides with the vacuum Green function

$$G_E^0(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2^2(x,x^{})}.$$
(3.35)
Thus the renormalized Euclidean Green defined as

$$G_E^{\text{ren}}(x,x^{})=G_E(x,x^{})G_E^0(x,x^{})$$
(3.36)
has the following series representation

$$G_E^{\text{ren}}(x,x^{})=\frac{BB^{}}{8\pi ^2a^2}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m\mathrm{cos}[m(\psi \psi ^{})]$$

$$\times 𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta )𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta ^{})\frac{𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _0)}{𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta _0)},$$
(3.37)
where $`B=\mathrm{cosh}\eta \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ and $`B^{}=\mathrm{cosh}\eta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma ^{}`$.

## 4 Wave Zone Regime

We discuss now the problem of analytical continuation of the results obtained in the Euclidean space to the “physical” spacetime with the Minkowski metric. In order to do this it is sufficient to express coordinates $`(\eta ,\psi ,\gamma ,\varphi )`$ in terms of Euclidean coordinates $`(𝒯,X,Y,Z)`$ and after make the Wick’s rotation $`𝒯iT`$. To simplify calculations we assume that the arguments of $`G_E^{\text{ren}}`$ are split in time direction. Namely this object is of interest for our calculations. Thus we have

$$G_E^{\text{ren}}(𝒳,𝒳^{})=\frac{BB^{}}{8\pi ^2a^2}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta )𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(\mathrm{cosh}\eta ^{})\frac{𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m((wb)^1)}{𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m((wb)^1)},$$
(4.1)
where $`𝒳=(𝒯,X,Y,Z)`$ and $`𝒳^{}=(𝒯^{},X,Y,Z)`$. We used also that $`\mathrm{cosh}\eta _0=(wb)^1`$. Simple calculations also give

$$\frac{B^2}{a^2}=\frac{4a^2}{(^2a^2)^2+4a^2(X^2+Y^2)},$$
(4.2)
$$\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta =\frac{(^2+a^2)^2}{(^2a^2)^2+4a^2(X^2+Y^2)},$$
(4.3)
where $`^2=𝒯^2+R^2`$ and $`R^2=X^2+Y^2+Z^2`$.

If we are interested in the wave-zone limit of $`G_E^{\text{ren}}`$ it can be further simplified. This limit can be found if one makes the Wick’s rotation $`𝒯iT`$ first, then puts

$$T=U+R,X=R\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },Y=R\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi },Z=R\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(4.4)
and after this takes the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ with $`(U,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ fixed. Keeping the leading terms one gets

$$\frac{B^2}{a^2}=\frac{a^2z^2}{R^2U^2},$$
(4.5)
$$\mathrm{cosh}\eta =z,z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }/U^2}}.$$
(4.6)
The right-hand side of the expression for $`\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta `$ is less 1. This means that as a result of Wick’s rotation $`\eta `$ takes pure imagine value. In the wave zone we have

$$G_E^{\text{ren}}(U,U^{};R,\mathrm{\Theta })\frac{𝒢(U,U^{};\mathrm{\Theta })}{RR^{}},$$
(4.7)
$$𝒢(U,U^{};\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{a^2zz^{}}{8\pi ^2UU^{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z^{})\frac{𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)}{𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0},$$
(4.8)
where $`z_0=(wb)^1`$.

## 5 $`\phi ^2^{\text{ren}}`$ in the Wave Zone

In the coincidence limit the function $`G_E^{\text{ren}}`$ is finite and gives $`\phi ^2^{\text{ren}}`$. Thus we have the following representation for $`\phi ^2^{\text{ren}}`$ in the wave zone

$$\phi ^2(x)^{\text{ren}}=\frac{a^2}{8\pi ^2R^2U^2}(z,z_0),$$
(5.1)
where

$$(z,z_0)=z^2\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m[𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)]^2\frac{𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)}{𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)},$$
(5.2)
and

$$z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(a\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }/U)^2}},a=\sqrt{\frac{1}{w^2}b^2}.$$
(5.3)
The function $`(z,z_0)`$ depends on constants $`w`$ and $`b`$ which specify the problem. Besides this it depends on the coordinates $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`𝒥^+`$ which enter only through a combination $`U/\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The independence of the result of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a consequence of the invariance of the mirror-like boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, (2.5), under rotation in the $`X`$$`Y`$ -plane. Moreover, the equation (2.5) for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also invariant under a boost transformation in the $`T`$$`Z`$-plane. It can be shown (see e.g. Ref. ) that as the result of this symmetry $`\phi ^2^{\text{ren}}`$ near $`𝒥^+`$ must have the form $`R^2U^2f(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }/U)`$. The fact that our result (5.1) does have the form dictated by the symmetry of the problem gives an independent test of the correctness of the calculations. It is also easy to see that all the dependence on $`U`$ enters through the dimensionless time parameter $`u=U/a`$.

If the size of the ball is small we have $`z_0\mathrm{}`$. In this regime one can use the following asymptotics

$$𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z_0)\frac{(2z_0)^\nu }{\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\frac{1}{2}),Re(\nu )>1/2,$$
(5.4)
$$𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z_0)\frac{(2z_0)^{\nu 1}\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\frac{3}{2})},$$
(5.5)
and hence

$$\frac{𝒬_\nu ^\mu (z_0)}{𝒫_\nu ^\mu (z_0)}\frac{2\pi }{(2z_0)^{2\nu +1}(2\nu +1)[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\frac{1}{2})]^2},Re(\nu )>1/2.$$
(5.6)
Since the asymptotic of this ratio does depend on $`m`$ we can write the small $`b`$ expansion of $`(z,z_0)`$ as follows

$$(z,z_0)=2\pi z^2\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2z_0)^{2\mathrm{}+1}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})]^2}F_{\mathrm{}}(z),$$
(5.7)
where

$$F_{\mathrm{}}(z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m[𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)]^2.$$
(5.8)
The leading (proportional to $`b`$) contribution for small $`b`$ is given by $`\mathrm{}=0`$ term in the series (5.8). Notice that for integer $`m`$

$$𝒫_0^m(z)=2^m(z^21)^{m/2}F(m+1,m;m+1;\frac{1z}{2}),$$
(5.9)
(see formula 3.6.1.1 of ). Using the following property of the hypergeometric function

$$F(b,a;b;\xi )=(1\xi )^a,$$
(5.10)
we get

$$𝒫_0^m(z)=\left(\frac{z1}{z+1}\right)^{m/2}.$$
(5.11)
To calculate $`𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)`$ for $`\mathrm{}>1`$ one can use the following relation

$$𝒫_{\mathrm{}+1}^m(z)=(z^21)\frac{d𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)}{dz}+(\mathrm{}+1)z𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z).$$
(5.12)
In particular, one has

$$𝒫_1^m(z)=(z+m)\left(\frac{z1}{z+1}\right)^{m/2},$$

$$𝒫_2^m(z)=(3z^2+3zm+m^21)\left(\frac{z1}{z+1}\right)^{m/2}.$$
(5.13)
Summation of series (5.12) can be performed in the closed form by using Maple program. It can be shown that $`F_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ is a polynomial of $`z`$ of the order $`2\mathrm{}+1`$. The first few harmonics of $`F_{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ are

$$F_0(z)=z,$$

$$F_1(z)=\frac{1}{2}(5z^32z^23z+2),$$
(5.14)
$$F_2(z)=\frac{z}{2}(63z^418z^370z^2+12z+15).$$

Using these results one can show that the leading contribution to $`\phi ^2(x)^{\text{ren}}`$ for the small radius of the mirror $`bw^1`$ is

$$\phi ^2(x)^{\text{ren}}\frac{bw}{8\pi ^2R^2u^2[1+(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }/u)^2]^{3/2}},$$
(5.15)
where $`u=U/awU`$ is the dimensionless retarded time. By using relations (5.1), (5.7), and (5.14) one can also easily obtain higher corrections to $`\phi ^2(x)^{\text{ren}}`$ as powers of $`bw`$.

## 6 Energy Density Flux in the Wave Zone

The calculation of the energy density flux in the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the wave zone

$$\frac{dE}{dUd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}R^2T_{UU}^{\text{ren}}$$
(6.1)
is similar to the calculation of $`\phi ^2(x)^{\text{ren}}`$ but more involved.

Using (4.8) it is easy to show that when one calculates $`T_{UU}^{\text{ren}}`$ it is sufficient to keep only derivatives with respect to $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$. All other derivatives effectively introduce extra power of $`R^1`$ and hence do not contribute to the flux of the energy density at infinity. Hence in the wave zone we have

$$\frac{dE}{dU}=[(12\xi )_U_U^{}\xi (_U^2+_U^{}^2)]𝒢(U,U^{};\mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(6.2)
where

$$𝒢(U,U^{};\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{a^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{(z,z^{}|z_0)}{UU^{}},$$
(6.3)
$$(z,z^{}|z_0)=zz^{}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)_{\mathrm{}}(z,z^{}|z_0),$$
(6.4)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(z,z^{}|z_0)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _m𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z)𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z^{})\frac{𝒬_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)}{𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^m(z_0)}.$$
(6.5)
In the lowest order in $`bw`$ one has

$$(z,z^{}|z_0)\frac{zz^{}}{z_0}\frac{\sqrt{(1+z)(1+z^{})}+\sqrt{(1z)(1z^{})}}{\sqrt{(1+z)(1+z^{})}\sqrt{(1z)(1z^{})}}.$$
(6.6)
To obtain this result we took into account that only $`\mathrm{}=0`$ contributes in this order, and used expression (5.11).

It is easy to check that

$$\frac{z}{U}=\frac{z(1z^2)}{U}.$$
(6.7)
Thus we have

$$_U=_U|_z+\frac{z(1z^2)}{U}_z|_U.$$
(6.8)
We use notation $`_a|_b`$ to indicate that the partial derivative with respect to $`a`$ is taken by assuming that $`b`$ is fixed. Direct calculations by using Maple give

$$\frac{dE}{dU}\frac{a^2}{8\pi ^2z_0U^4}f(z,\xi ),$$
(6.9)
where

$$f(z,\xi )=z\left[(1+z^2)2\xi (2+z^2+3z^4)\right].$$
(6.10)
Since $`aw^1`$, $`z_0(wb)^1`$ we have

$$\frac{dE}{dU}\frac{bw^3}{8\pi ^2u^4}f(z,\xi ).$$
(6.11)
For small values of $`u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }0,\pi `$, $`zu/|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }|`$ and hence

$$\frac{dE}{dU}\frac{bw^3(12\xi )}{8\pi ^2|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }|u^3}.$$
(6.12)
For large $`u`$ one has

$$\frac{dE}{dU}\frac{bw^3(16\xi )}{8\pi ^2u^4}.$$
(6.13)
## 7 Conclusion

In this paper we considered the vacuum polarization effects in the presence of uniformly accelerated spherical mirrors. We considered a scalar field model. Under assumption that a size of the mirror, $`b`$, is much smaller than the inverse acceleration, $`w^1`$, we calculated the field fluctuation and the energy density flux created by the accelerated body at infinity. This flux is given by (6.11), and for the canonical energy (i.e. for $`\xi =0`$) it is always negative. Its divergence $`U^3`$ near $`U=0`$ is connected with the idealization of the problem: it is assumed that the motion remains uniformly accelerated for an infinite interval of time. The boost-invariance property connected with this assumption significantly simplifies calculations. In particular, the quantity $`dE/(dUd\mathrm{\Omega })`$, which describes the angular distribution of the energy density flux at $`𝒥^+`$ at given moment of the retarded time $`U`$, besides common scale dependence, $`U^4`$, depends on one invariant variable, $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }/aU`$.

It should be emphasized again that due to the symmetry of the problem the Euclidean approach used in this paper gives a result for two-mirror system, one of them moving in $`R_+`$ domain and the other moving in $`R_{}`$ domain. Thus what we obtain as the result of calculations is joint radiation of such two mirrors. Moreover, the analytical continuation of the Euclidean expressions gives the result for the ”vacuum” expectation values for a very special choice of the ”vacuum” state, namely the state which is invariant under boost transformations. It would be interesting to study a similar effect of quantum radiation by a single accelerated mirror and for other quantum states, e.g. for a state obtained from a Minkowski vacuum by switching-on procedure. This kind of problems must be investigated directly in the Minkowski spacetime. Nevertheless, some elements of a construction used in this paper and connected with the boost symmetry may be useful.

Acknowledgments: This work was partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. One of the authors (V.F.) thanks the Tokyo Institute of Technology for its hospitality during the preparation of this paper for publication.


format: text

text:
# Conditions for Nondistortion Interrogation of Quantum System

## Abstract

Under some physical considerations, we present a universal formulation to study the possibility of localizing a quantum object in a given region without disturbing its unknown internal state. When the interaction between the object and probe wave function takes place only once, we prove the necessary and sufficient condition that the object’s presence can be detected in an initial state preserving way. Meanwhile, a conditioned optimal interrogation probability is obtained.
PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 42.50.Ct, 03.67.-a

In 1993, Elitzur and Vaidman proposed the novel concept of interaction-free measurements(IFMs), in which the presence of an absorbing object in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer can be inferred without apparent interaction with the probe photon. As one of the counter-intuitive quantum effects, IFMs have been extensively investigated . Aside from their conceptual significance, IFMs are of obvious application interest too. For instance, people applied the idea of IFM to fields such as quantum cryptography, quantum preparation, interaction-free imaging,counterfactual computation and so on.

In most of these applications, it is desired that the internal state of the object be kept unchanged. However, As emphasized by Vaidman, IFMs in general are not initial state preserving measurements. In the case of a quantum object characterized by its quantum superposition, extra care needs to be taken to avoid disturbing the initial state of the object.

In this letter we consider a more general situation: suppose there is a quantum “black box” and the task is to determine if a quantum object is in it, without changing the (unknown) initial state of the object. We may call such an interrogation a nondistortion interrogation of a quantum system (abbreviated NIQS). For the purpose of NIQS, we let a quantum probe wave partially go through the black box. If the black box is occupied with an object a coupling interaction will entangle the originally separate systems and make them diverge from their respective free evolutions. As a result, the final interference pattern of the probe wave may be changed. However, under some special conditions, some interference stripes possibly entangle an identity transformation in the object subspace. Once the probe wave is projected on these stripes, it will leave the object state undisturbed while the existence of the object can be deduced. In this work we prove the necessary and sufficient condition for the NIQS and give the conditioned optimal probability for it, under certain physical assumptions. To obtain our theorems the following assumptions are necessary:

a) S, the quantum system under interrogation (the quantum object in the black box), is a metastable system whose Hilbert space is denoted as $`H_S`$ with dimension $`n`$. we assume that the state space $`S(H_S)`$ is closed under free evolution.

b) The Hilbert space of the probe system $`D`$ , $`H_D`$ , is composed of two orthogonal subspaces $`H_r`$ and $`H_d`$: $`H_D=H_rH_d`$. The dimension of the space $`H_d(H_r)`$ is $`m(m^{})`$. The initial probe wave function can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}=\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$. Here, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ are chosen from the state space $`S\left(H_r\right)`$ and $`S\left(H_d\right)`$ respectively. We let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ go through the black box and interact with S (if the object is in the box), while $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ is under free evolution.

c) The interaction between $`D`$ and $`S`$ is governed by a unitary operator. We assume the time of the interaction is some known $`t`$. When the interaction is over, any state driven out of the metastable state space $`S(H_S)`$ will quickly decay in an irreversible way to some stable ground state $`|g`$ which is out of $`S(H_S)`$. The decay signal will be registered by some properly arranged sensitive detectors.

In assumption b), the introduction of $`H_r`$ might appear to be redundant since it does not interact with S. But it is actually vital for the purpose of NIQS, because the interaction between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ changes the interference between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ which provides information on what is in the black box. Based on the above assumptions, the following major steps are followed to find out if there is an object in the black box :

i) Let the probe wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$ go through the black box and interact with the quantum object if it is in the box.

ii) The decay signal detectors are used to register any decay event. If a decay is detected, we conclude that the quantum object was in the black box but its initial state is destroyed. Otherwise, go to the next step. This is equivalent to a partial projection measurement on the whole system $`\varrho _{tot}`$:

$$\varrho _{out}=P\rho _{tot}P+P_{}\varrho _{tot}P_{}.$$
(1)
where the operators $`P`$ and $`P_{}`$ refer to unity operators of Hilbert space $`H_SH_D`$ and its complementary space $`\overline{H_SH_D}`$ respectively.

iii)Perform a Von Neumann measurement on the probe wave function (in $`H_D`$). Possible measurement outcomes are characterized by some projectors in an orthogonal projector set $`O`$.

In step iii), we keep in mind that if nothing is in the black box the probe will be in some definite final state corresponding to the free evolution of the initial state. We designate the projector to that state as $`P_e`$. If a successful interrogation of the object can be done, the probe will end up in some different state. For the consideration of universality we require that the probability of successful nondistortion interrogations of the quantum object be independent on its (unknown) initial state.

Let the initial state of the probe wave function be $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}=\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_rS(H_r)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_dS(H_d)`$. The time evolution of the whole system is as follows:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S\alpha e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}|\mathrm{\Psi }_r|\mathrm{\Psi }_S+\beta e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_S$$
(2)
where $`H^S`$ and $`H^D`$ are the free Hamiltonian of the systems $`S`$ and $`D`$ respectively, and $`H^I`$ characterizes the interaction between the two systems. When the black box is empty the interaction Hamiltonian $`H^I`$ vanishes and the above process reduces to the free evolution of two separate systems. In contrast, when the black box is occupied with the quantum object, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ will be driven by $`H^I`$ and a decay could happen, since any component out of the state space $`S(H_DH_S)`$ will decay in an irreversible way. If no decay signal is detected, the quantum state of the whole system is collapsed into the following (a projection on $`H_SH_D`$):

$`\alpha e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}|\mathrm{\Psi }_r|\mathrm{\Psi }_S+\beta (I_dI_S)e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta (I_dI_S)e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}(I_dI_S)|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ (4)
where $`I_d`$ and $`I_S`$ are the unity operators in the Hilbert spaces $`H_d`$ and $`H_S`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{r(d)}^{}=e^{i/\mathrm{}H^Dt}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{r(d)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=e^{i/\mathrm{}H^St}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$. To simplify the future calculations, the above wave function is unnormalized. In Eq(4), we see that the evolution of the system is fully specified by the following operator $`D`$:

$$D=(I_dI_S)e^{i/\mathrm{}_0^t(H^S+H^D+H^I)𝑑t^{}}e^{i/\mathrm{}(H^S+H^D)t}(I_dI_S).$$
(5)
The following theorem provides the necessary condition for NIQS.

Theorem1: The necessary condition that an NIQS can be done is that there exist a pair of vectors $`|\chi ,|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}S(H_d)`$ which satisfy $`\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=cI_S`$ , where $`\left|c\right|1`$.

Proof: When there is no object in the box, the probe ends up in the state $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$. Let $`P_e=(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|+\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|)I_S`$. In presence of the object, the evolution of the probe wave function is modified. At the end of the interrogation, a measurement is done on the probe. To make sure that a successful NIQS can be done, there must exist a projector $`P_I=|\mathrm{\Psi }_I\mathrm{\Psi }_I|I_S`$ in the set $`O`$ which satisfies

$$P_IP_e=0$$
(6)
$$P_I(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}$$
(7)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_IS(H_D)`$ is some normalized vector of the probe and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a nonzero constant. The probability of this outcome is $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2`$. From Eqs. (6) and (7), we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I\left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\beta }+\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}$$
(8)
Let us introduce a wave vector $`|\chi =I_d|\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$, the projection of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ on $`H_d`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\beta `$ are nonzero we deduce that $`|\chi 0`$. Hence, we have

$$\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\beta }+\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=c|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}$$
(9)
where $`c=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\beta }+\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$. Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$ is arbitrary the following must be satisfied:

$$\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=cI_S.$$
(10)
In the most general case, it is a nontrivial task to determine whether two vectors $`|\chi `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ satisfying (10) exist, for a given $`D`$. We give some concrete discussion in the reference.

To find out the sufficient condition for the NIQS the operator $`D`$ needs to be studied further. Under the assumption that Eq(10) holds we may define the operators $`Q^{\left(i\right)}=Tr_S\left[D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|ii|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|D^+\right]`$. Here, $`\{|i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is a set of orthogonal bases in the Hilbert space $`H_S`$. In the Hilbert space $`H_d`$, the kernel space of the operator $`Q^{\left(i\right)}`$ is denoted as $`K_i`$. The intersection of all the $`n`$ kernel spaces is $`K=_{i=1}^nK_i`$. We denote the dimension of the space $`\overline{K}`$, which is the complementary space of $`K`$ in $`H_d`$, by $`l(lm)`$. We pick up some set of orthonormal states $`\{|\chi ,|\chi _1,\mathrm{},|\chi _{l1}\}`$ spanning the space $`\overline{K}`$. Then, Eq(10) can be expressed in the following alternative way:

$$D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}=c|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{l1}{}}|\chi _j|m_{S(j)}.$$
(11)
Here, $`|m_{S(j)}=\chi _j\left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$. By making use of Eq(11) we may provide our main result.

Theorem 2: The necessary and sufficient condition for the NIQS is that Eq(11) holds and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ is linearly independent of the state set $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$.

Proof: We have proved that Eq(11) is the necessary condition. If Eq(11) holds, in Hilbert space $`H_SH_D`$ the final state of the whole system is:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta c|\chi |\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta \underset{j=1}{\overset{l1}{}}|\chi _j|m_{S(j)}.$$
(12)
Considering Eqs. (6) and (7), we have:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}\right)=0$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\chi _j=0$$
(14)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right)=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(15)
Subtracting Eq(15) from Eq(13) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_I|\beta \left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi \right)=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(16)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ requires that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ be linearly independent of the set of vectors $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$.

Now if Eq(11) holds and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ is linearly independent of the state set $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, we may prove the sufficient condition by constructing a projector $`P_I`$ satisfying Eq(6) and Eq(7). We do this by using the Schmidt orthogonalization process. First we define the state set $`N`$ consisting of $`l+1`$ normalized vectors $`\{\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{},\gamma \left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right),|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, where $`\gamma =\frac{1}{\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi }`$ is the normalization coefficient for $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi `$. We assume that $`\alpha 0`$. Since $`|\chi _1,\mathrm{}|\chi _{l1}`$ and $`|\chi `$ are orthogonal to each other and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}c|\chi `$ is linearly independent of $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$, we may deduce that all vectors in the state set $`N`$ are linearly independent. To make an orthonormal set out of $`N`$, we let the first $`l1`$ vectors be $`\{|\chi _j;j=1,\mathrm{},l1\}`$. We then calculate the $`l`$th vector using $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$: $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\gamma ^{}(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta |\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{l1}\chi _i|(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_d^{})|\chi _i)`$, where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is the normalization coefficient. Similarly, we can obtain the ($`l+1`$)th vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_I=\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\left(\gamma \left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}|\gamma \left(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi \right)|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)`$. It is then obvious that the projector $`P_I=|\mathrm{\Psi }_I\mathrm{\Psi }_I|I_S`$ satisfies Eqs(6) and (7). We thus complete our proof.

To clarify the connotation of the above theorems let us consider the following physical picture of NIQS: the quantum object in the black box can be seen as a “scattering object” corresponding to the probe wave. Due to the interaction with the object the probe wave will change its initial coherence. On the other hand, the quantum object is also affected by the probe wave. Thus, each scattering wave component entangles different evolution of the object. If we know all the information on the evolution of the composite system it possibly allows us to choose a proper probe wave such that a successful scattering wave component can be produced. For the purpose of NIQS this component should correspond to the free evolution of the object, at the same time, be orthogonal to any other scattering wave components. ( The form of this component can be obtained by using Schmidt orthogonalization steps outlined in the proof of theorem 2.) Once this scattering wave component is registered by a detector we may deduce the existence of the object in the internal preserving way. In fact, theroem 2 provides the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of this scattering wave component.

Let us denote the Hilbert space spanned by $`\{|\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{},|\chi ,|\chi _1,\mathrm{}|\chi _{l1}\}`$ as $`H_{l+1}`$ and its complementary space in $`H_D`$ as $`H_{l+1}^{}`$. For the success probability of an NIQS we have the following corollary:

Corollary 1: $`P_I`$ obtained by using Schmidt orthogonalization process in $`H_{l+1}`$ (as outlined above) maximizes the success probability $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|^2`$ for a given $`\alpha `$.

Proof: Let $`I_{l+1}`$ and $`I_{l+1}^{}`$ be the unity operators of $`H_{l+1}`$ and $`H_{l+1}^{}`$ respectively. Any Von Neumann projector characterizing a successful nondistortion interrogation output can be written as $`P_I^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_I^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_I^{}|I_S`$ ($`P_I^{}`$ satisfies (5), (6)). Furthermore, we have the following relation:

$`P_I^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(I_{l+1}I_S)P_I^{}(I_{l+1}I_S)+(I_{l+1}^{}I_S)P_I^{}(I_{l+1}^{}I_S)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`dP_I+(I_{l+1}^{}I_S)P_I^{}(I_{l+1}^{}I_S)`$ (18)
where $`|d|1`$. The second equality is because the projector $`P_I`$ satisfying the NIQS conditions ( Eqs(13)-(15)) in $`H_{l+1}H_S`$ is unique. On the other hand, the second term in the last line will never contribute to the projection probability when $`P_I^{}`$ operates on $`\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}+\beta D|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_S^{}`$. Hence, the success probability of $`P_I^{}`$ is:

$`\mathrm{Pr}ob(\alpha )_{P_I^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_I^{}|(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi )\right|^2`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`|d|^2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_I|(\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_r^{}+c\beta |\chi )\right|^2\mathrm{Pr}ob(\alpha )_{P_I}`$ (20)
The above corollary shows that the maximal success probability for the NIQS process is just the probability of this successful scattering wave component when the original probe wave is given. We note that the vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ and $`|\chi `$ satisfying Eq(10) may not be unique. However, once $`|\chi `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ are chosen we may obtain the optimal success probability for these two vectors, by Schmidt orthogonalization steps .

Corollary 2: Under the condition that the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ and $`|\chi `$ are given the optimal success probability of the NIQS is as follows:

$$P_{opt}=\underset{\left|\alpha \right|[0,1)}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{Pr}ob(\alpha )_{P_I}.$$
(21)
To elucidate our result in a more concrete way, let us consider an example recently investigated . As in Fig. 1, the atom is prepared in an arbitrary superposition of the two metastable states $`|m_+`$ and $`|m_{}`$. By absorbing a $`+`$ or $``$ (circularly) polarized photon the atom can make a transition to the excited state $`|e`$. It then decays rapidly to the ground state $`|g`$ in an irreversible way. Now, without disturbing the initial state of the atom we want to find out if it is in the black box located in the lower arm of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. To do that, we use an $`x`$ polarized photon $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|l_++|l_{})`$ as the probe and direct it into the interferometer. The amplitude transmission and reflection coefficients of the two beam splitters are $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`(\beta ,\alpha )`$ respectively so that the photon exits from the upper port of $`PBS_2`$ with certainty when the atom is not in the black box. $`PBS_1`$ changes the state of the incident photon to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{probe}=\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}\left(|u_++|u_{}\right)+\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}\left(|l_++|l_{}\right)`$, where $`l(u)`$ refers to the lower (upper) optical path and $`+()`$ refers to the polarization of the photon. After the first beam splitter, the photon wave function is in a superposition of the upper and lower branches. These correspond to $`H_r`$ and $`H_d`$ in our formulation. Here $`H_r,H_d`$ are two dimensional subspaces with base vectors $`|u_\pm `$ and $`|l_\pm `$. $`H_S`$, the metastable state space of the atom, is a two dimensional space spanned by $`|m_+`$ and $`|m_{}`$. The interaction between $`H_d`$ and $`H_S`$ and the afterward dissipation is characterized by the operator $`D=|l_+|m_{}m_{}\left|l_+|+\right|l_{}|m_+m_+|l_{}|`$. We may further deduce that the space $`\overline{K}`$ is just $`H_d`$. Thus, when choosing $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=|\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|l_++|l_{})`$ and $`|\chi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|l_+|l_{})`$ we find $`\chi \left|D\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(|m_{}m_{}|+|m_+m_+|\right)=\frac{1}{2}I_S`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}\frac{1}{2}|\chi `$ is linearly independent of the state vector $`|\chi _1`$. Therefore, the sufficient and necessary condition for NIQS is satisfied. Following the Schmidt orthogonalization process we can obtain the projector $`P_I`$: $`P_I=\left(\frac{\beta ^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|u_++|u_{}\right)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|l_++|l_{}\right)\right)\left(\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}\left(u_+|+u_{}|\right)\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}\left(l_+|+l_{}|\right)\right)I_S`$. Here, the actual measurement of the probe photon is performed after $`PBS_2`$ with the projector $`P_I^{}=UP_IU^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left(|l_++|l_{}\right)\left(l_+|+l_{}|\right)\right)I_S`$, where the unitary operator U describes the effect of $`PBS_2`$ on the probe photon. Thus, the success probability is $`\mathrm{Pr}ob(\alpha )=\frac{1}{4}\left|\alpha \right|^2\left|\beta \right|^2`$. When $`\left|\alpha \right|=\left|\beta \right|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ the optimal probing probability is obtained: $`P_{opt}=\frac{1}{16}`$. So, when the lower detector fires we can deduce that the atom is in the black box, with success probability 1/16. This example has just been investigated by Pötting et. al .

In our scheme we assume that the interaction between the object and probe system occurs only once. It has been shown that under certain conditions a higher efficiency can be obtained in an iterative way. Some results on this particular scheme have been obtained in ref .

It should be emphasized that the significance of NIQS lies in the coherence of the detected quantum state being preserved in the Hilbert space $`H_S`$. In other words, quantum information in Hilbert space $`H_S`$ will not be contaminated by the probing process. This way to manipulate quantum objects is of potential application in the recently developed quantum information science. Since the detected system need not be restricted to pure states we may also cast our interests on mixed states. As pointed out by Pötting et. al  the nondistortion interrogation provides a tool to monitor a subsystem in a many-particle system without destroying the entanglement between the particles.

In this letter we have studied the process of NIQS under some physical assumptions. We proved the necessary and sufficient condition for NIQS process in our formulation. We obtained the optimal success probability of NIQS when the state vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_d^{}`$ and $`|\chi `$ are given. We also showed that our results apply to IFMs which is a special case of the problem we discussed. As a novel method to manipulate quantum systems NIQS may be applied in future quantum information processing.

Work of Z.W.Z. and G.C.G. was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Fundamental Research Program, and also by the outstanding Ph. D thesis award and the CAS’s talented scientist award entitled to Luming Duan. Research of X.Z. and M.J.F. was supported in part by ARO grant DAAG55-98-1-0367.


text:
# Temperature effects on the 15-85-𝜇m Spectra of Olivines and Pyroxenes

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Mid and far-infrared spectra obtained with the Infrared Space Observatory Short- and Long-Wavelength Spectrometers (SWS and LWS, respectively) have revealed emission bands which have been associated with crystalline silicate dust. The environments include comets, young stellar objects and oxygen-rich dust in outflows and disks associated with late-type stars and planetary nebulae (e.g. Crovisier et al. 2000, Malfait et al. 1999, Waters et al. 1996, Sylvester et al. 1999 and Cohen et al. 1999, respectively). Simple spectral fits indicate that much of the optically thin silicate emission occurs at temperatures in the 50-100 K range (e.g. Sylvester et al. 1999). However, previous laboratory studies (e.g. Mennella et al. 1998, Henning & Mutschke 1997, Day 1976, Agladze et al. 1996) have shown that the optical properties of silicates vary between 295 K and 10 K. In MgO the frequency and FWHM($`\nu `$) of the 24.5 $`\mu `$m (295K) TO mode (Jasperse et al. 1964) vary nearly linearly with temperature between 7.5 and 1950 K (Kachare et al. 1972). A similar study of the effect of 423–873K-temperatures on 3-12$`\mu `$m PAH bands by Joblin et al. (1995) revealed changes in band structure, bandwidth and frequency which indicate that free (as opposed to condensed) PAH molecules carry the astronomical 3.3$`\mu `$m band.

Due to a lack of laboratory data, both simple black body fits and radiative transfer models of these environments have used silicate laboratory spectra obtained at room temperature. In addition to fitting ISO data, spectra obtained for a range of samples and temperatures will also be required for comparison with data from SIRTF, FIRST and the NGST. To begin to quantify the effect of temperature on silicates we compare spectra of two olivines, two orthoenstatites and diopside clinopyroxene at 295 K and 3.5 K.

### 1.1 Choice of Spectral Resolution

At cryogenic temperatures the vibrational states of a solid are substantially depopulated in comparison to their values at 295 K in accord with statistical thermodynamics. From the damped harmonic oscillator model, the width of a peak is related to the lifetime between phonon scattering events \[Wooten 1972, Hofmeister 1999\]. As the number of states decreases, the possibilities of scattering decrease, and the peaks must therefore sharpen. The vibrational bands observed in cryogenic $`10100\mu `$m spectra of *crystalline* silicates \[Day 1976, Henning & Mutschke 1997\] are sharper and deeper than those obtained at room temperature. Medium ($``$1-2 cm-1) resolution spectra (Henning & Mutschke 1997, Mutschke pers. commun. and Mennella et al. 1998) indicate that the bands of crystalline silicates shift in wavelength as the temperature is reduced, and that the magnitude of the shift increases with wavelength. If the spectral resolution is insufficient, very narrow peaks are under-sampled, leading to rounded profiles and incorrect measurements of the wavelength shifts. Therefore, higher-resolution measurements are crucial in the far-IR where lower-resolution data (Mennella et al. 1998) showed that the isolated $`70\mu `$m (143 cm-1) peak of forsterite has a 24 K width of $``$4 cm-1 and a $``$2 cm-1 shift between 295 K and 24 K. We therefore present 0.25 cm-1-resolution transmission spectra of crystalline minerals from the olivine and pyroxene groups at 3.5 K and 295 K.

## 2 Lattice structures and 295 K Band Assignments

### 2.1 Olivines

The general formula for the olivine solid solution series is (MgxFe$`{}_{1x}{}^{})_2`$SiO4; the Mg2+ end-member is forsterite, the Fe2+ end member is fayalite. Olivine minerals have the structure shown in Figure 1. In the figure each tetrahedron represents the SiO$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ anion which consists of an Si atom surrounded by oxygen atoms at each corner of the tetrahedron; M1 and M2 represent the sites of the metal cations. In end-member forsterite both sites are occupied by Mg2+. In olivine some of the Mg2+ in sites M1 and M2 is replaced by Fe2+; in this case there is no preference for substitution between the sites since these two ions have similar radii. The active modes in the 15-85-$`\mu `$m region are (after Hofmeister 1997): bending of the tetrahedral O–Si–O ($`\lambda (295`$K$`)20\mu `$m), rotation of the SiO$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ tetrahedra (four bands between 21 and 26 $`\mu `$m), translation of the SiO$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ tetrahedra ($`50\mu `$m) and translation of the Mg2+ and Fe2+ cations (several of the bands in the 21–30-$`\mu `$m region); two bands are associated with combined translations of the divalent cations and SiO$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ tetrahedra (at $`36.5`$ and $`70\mu `$m in forsterite; at $`94`$ and $`109\mu `$m in fayalite, Fe2SiO4).

### 2.2 Ortho- and Clino-pyroxenes

Minerals in the pyroxene solid solution series (Mgx,Fey,Caz)2Si2O6 where $`x+y+z=1`$, belong to one of two crystal systems: orthorhombic, in which the three crystal axes are orthogonal, and monoclinic, which has two orthogonal and one inclined axis. The structure of orthopyroxene is shown in Figure 2; silicate tetrahedra are joined together by shared oxygen atoms to form long chains along the $`c`$ axis. Once again, Mg2+ and Fe2+ can replace each other in the M1 and M2 sites. The precise band assignments for the orthopyroxenes are unknown. However, comparison with the bands of the clinopyroxenes and olivines suggests that the bands longwards of $`20\mu `$m may involve translations of the cations, whereas bands at wavelengths shorter than $`20\mu `$m involve the deformation of the tetrahedral and inter-tetrahedral O–Si–O bonds.

In clinopyroxenes similar to diopside (there are other types of clinopyroxene), the larger Ca2+ ion ($`r1.12`$Å) occurs only in the M2 sites, whilst the smaller Mg2+ ($`r0.72`$Å) and Fe2+ ($`r0.78`$Å) ions occur in both these and the smaller M1 sites. This changes the alignment of the tetrahedra, resulting in a crystal shape with an inclined $`a`$ axis. Band assignments in diopsides are currently derived by comparison between force-constant calculations and laboratory data. The active modes in the 15-85-$`\mu `$m region are modelled as (Tomisaka & Iishi 1980): bending of the tetrahedral and inter-tetrahedral O–Si–O bonds shortwards of 30 $`\mu `$m at 295 K (at 23.2 and 29.6 $`\mu `$m these may be blended with Mg2+ translations); Mg2+ translations blended with translations of the O–Si–O chain and rotations of the tetrahedra at 32.3 $`\mu `$m; Mg2+ translations blended with tetrahedral rotations at 34.3$`\mu `$m; Ca2+ translations blended with tetrahedral rotations at 40.4 $`\mu `$m; Ca2+ translations at 44.9 $`\mu `$m; finally a broad band at $`66\mu `$m is produced by a zig-zag motion of bridging oxygen atoms in the silicate chain. However, force constant models are not backed-up by laboratory measurements, and the assignments are tentative. Measurements of the effect of isotopic or chemical substitutions are needed for reliable band assignments.

## 3 THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE

### 3.1 Changes in bond length

If the bond length decreases, the energy of the associated phonon increases. (This physics is equivalent to the energy levels of a particle in a box; the effect is frequently observed in pressure studies, e.g. Ferraro 1984). Because frequency increases as pressure increases (or temperature decreases), the wavelength of the infrared peak must decrease. Tetrahedral Si–O bond lengths and bond angles are relatively incompressible in comparison to the spacings between the oxygen and metal ions and inter-tetrahedral oxygen atoms so there is little variation in the wavelength of the 10-$`\mu `$m stretching and 20-$`\mu `$m bending features with temperature (e.g. Day 1976). In contrast, the volumes of the divalent-cation sites are more compressible. Therefore one would expect to see a greater change in the wavelengths of peaks associated with the cation sites.

### 3.2 Changes in band occupancy

The lifetime, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of a phonon (the time between scattering events) is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^12\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\nu (ϵ_2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (ϵ_2)`$ is the full-width-half-maximum of the peak in the imaginary part of the dielectric function, $`ϵ_2`$, in frequency units. (Wooten 1972). When the bands are narrow and weak, the frequency for the atoms vibrating parallel to the propagation direction of the radiation (the longitudinal optic; LO) is similar to the frequency of the atoms vibrating perpendicular to the propagation direction (the transverse optic; TO), thereby creating a symmetrical absorption peak whose shape approaches the Lorentzian shape of its counterpart in $`ϵ_2`$ (Hofmeister and Mao 2001). Absorbance full-width-half-maxima (FWHM) are related to dielectric widths; therefore the widths of the absorbance peaks should be roughly proportional to the dielectric widths in wavenumbers.

At temperature, $`T`$, the occupation of phonon energy levels relative to the ground state is given by the partition function $`q=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{nh\nu }{kT}]`$, where $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant and it is assumed that the phonon frequency, $`\nu `$, is not a function of temperature (this is not true; see Section 3.1). As the temperature is decreased the number of vibrational states decreases and the numbers of phonon-phonon scattering events decrease so that phonon scattering off the crystal sides and defects becomes more important. For phonon-phonon scattering, the lifetime is inversely proportional to the number of phonons available, and hence as the sample is cooled, states are depopulated, and the lifetime increases and peak width decreases. In practise, FWHMs are not often measured and the FWHM temperature dependence is not well understood (see Hofmeister, in prep).

## 4 THE EXPERIMENT

### 4.1 Sample Preparation

Bulk samples of the minerals listed in Table 1 were broken into smaller pieces with a hammer and then ground to powders by hand with a ceramic pestle and mortar. Grain size was measured by visual inspection in a binocular microscope at $`\times 63`$ magnification. Small quantities of powder were mixed with petroleum jelly on 0.8-mm-thick polyethylene substrates. Preliminary room temperature measurements at Washington University indicated that the grain sizes and the numbers of grains on each substrate were sufficient to resolve most infrared bands. At Queen Mary, University of London (QMUL) the samples and substrates were cut down and placed in brass holders. The 295 K and 3.5 K measurements for each mineral were performed with a single sample and the same spectrometer. The only difference between the measurements was the positioning of the sample in the instrument beam and the temperature of the sample. Hence, the substrate, the coverage of the substrate and the column density were *identical* for each measurement of a specimen.

### 4.2 Cryogenics and Spectroscopy

Spectra were obtained at QMUL using a Martin-Puplett polarising Fourier Transform Spectrometer with a mercury arc lamp source and a liquid-helium-cooled bolometer pumped to 1.5 K. For the room temperature (295 K) measurements, the sample was placed in the output beam of the spectrometer; the 3.5-K tests were performed by putting the samples in a filter wheel in front of the detector within the 1.5-K bath in the cryostat. Since the sample was heated by incident radiation from the arc lamp, it was slightly warmer than the bath, at $`3.5\pm 0.5`$K. The spectral resolution was selected by inspection of the interferogram; to resolve the fine structure of end-member forsterite at 3.5 K the resolution must be increased to 0.25 cm-1, whilst a resolution of 2 cm-1 is adequate at 295 K. For consistency, all spectra at all temperatures were obtained at the higher resolution of 0.25 cm-1.

For each temperature, reference spectra of the open aperture and petroleum jelly on a polyethylene slide were obtained and then divided into the spectrum of the sample to remove instrumental and substrate effects. For the 3.5 K transmittance spectra, there is an uncertainty in the flux calibration. Therefore the 3.5 K data were normalised to the level of the 295 K transmittance spectra at 500 $`\mu `$m (20 cm-1) where the temperature dependence is small. The transmittance scale of the room temperature spectra is better than 1$`\%`$ and the uncertainty in the normalisation of the 3.5 K data is $`\pm 10\%`$. The data were then converted to absorbance units ($`A=\mathrm{ln}(Transmittance)`$). Ripples in the spectra at wavelengths $`50\mu `$m are an artifact of imperfections in the thickness and the orientation of the samples and references relative to the beam.

Data were obtained for thick films of forsterite and olivine and for thinner films of olivine, and the pyroxenes. In the thick films, bands shortwards of 45 $`\mu `$m were frequently saturated (these bands were excluded from the figures and the analysis). The olivine and enstatite thin films were too thin for bands longwards of 45 $`\mu `$m to be resolved. The Bramble enstatite and diopside films were of sufficient thickness for the majority of bands to be seen at both temperatures. Since the mass and grain size distribution of the silicate powder is unmeasured, the derived absorbances do not indicate mass density and the absorbance per unit area per unit mass cannot be estimated from these data at present.

### 4.3 Astronomical Data

For comparison of our laboratory data with SWS and LWS spectra from ISO, we present observations of CPD -568032, a planetary nebula whose ISO spectrum was published by Cohen et al. (1999). We have reduced SWS observation 13602083 and LWS observation 08401538 and subtracted a polynomial continuum fit (with no physical significance) to show up the fine structure. Cohen et al. obtained a qualitative match to their spectrum with room-temperature forsterite (Mg2SiO4), orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene, using laboratory data by Koike et al. (1993) multiplied by 65K (forsterite, clinopyroxene) and 90K (orthopyroxene) blackbody continua. Features at 43$`\mu `$m and 62$`\mu `$m were matched with crystalline water ice. The wavelengths and FWHMs of the silicate peaks in their fits are marked in Figures 4 and 5 by horizontal bars and vertical ticks. (It is beyond the scope of this paper to deduce the mineralogy of this source using our new laboratory data.)

## 5 RESULTS

### 5.1 Overview of the laboratory dataset

The 15-85-$`\mu `$m absorbance spectra of the olivines (forsterite and olivine), orthopyroxenes (enstatite and Bramble enstatite) and a clinopyroxene (diopside) are presented in Figure 3.

Since it may be possible to estimate the grain size distribution and column density by electron microscopy at a later date, we present the measured values of absorbance for these samples222This normalisation differs from that presented previously: Bowey et al. (2000) re-normalised pairs of 3.5 K and 295 K absorbance spectra to the absorbance of the highest room temperature peak..

In general, (i) the room temperature spectra look like low-resolution versions of their 3.5 K counterparts, even though the same spectral resolution was used for all these measurements; (ii) the relative absorbance of neighbouring peaks changes as the temperature is reduced; (iii) the wavelength of a peak decreases with temperature and the magnitude of the shift increases with the wavelength of the band. The effect of temperature is most noticeable in the forsterite spectra, with the bands becoming particularly narrow and strong: this difference with degree of ionic substitution is real since this is the only mineral devoid of Fe2+ or other cations substituting for Mg2+ in the crystal structure.

### 5.2 Effect of sample thickness

Comparison of the spectra of the “thick” and “thin” olivine films reveals that thick samples (i.e. larger amounts of powder embedded in the petroleum jelly) are required to see the comparatively weak 50 and 70 $`\mu `$m bands and this has resulted in the saturation of the most prominent features of forsterite and thick olivine at wavelengths $`<40\mu `$m. Hence, saturated features have been excluded from the presented datasets. The room temperature spectra of the thin enstatite and thin olivine films contain no distinguishable features longwards of 45 $`\mu `$m. The Bramble enstatite and diopside films are of intermediate thickness since bands are not saturated and the far-infrared peaks are clearly distinguishable from the underlying ripple.

### 5.3 Band splitting, band enhancements and changes in bandwidth

The detailed structure in the 18–38-$`\mu `$m and 38–80-$`\mu `$m regions are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Band splittings are seen shortwards of 38 $`\mu `$m; whilst wavelength shifts, band enhancements and changes in the full-width-half-maxima (FWHM) of peaks are seen throughout the 18-80-$`\mu `$m range.

#### 5.3.1 Band splitting

In both olivines the degenerate $`21\mu `$m Mg2+ translation and SiO$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ rotation splits into two bands when cooled to 3.5 K (Figure 4). The $`34`$-$`\mu `$m peak in forsterite is saturated, however this Mg2+ translation band is split in the 3.5-K olivine spectrum and the 36.45-$`\mu `$m 295 K Mg2+ translation peak in forsterite is also split at 3.5 K. The band splittings in forsterite are consistent with the peaks produced from different polarisations occurring at the same frequency \[Hofmeister 1997\]; at 295 K this is an unresolved doublet. In the orthopyroxenes the band splitting is seen only in the three bands shortward of 23 $`\mu `$m. Since the band assignments are undetermined in the enstatites, the cause of the splitting is unknown. In the diopside clinopyroxene only the degenerate Si–O–Si deformation at 20.91 $`\mu `$m is split.

#### 5.3.2 Band enhancements

The bands which are most strongly enhanced at low temperature, but which occur in both the room temperature and the 3.5 K spectra, are the unsaturated forsterite peaks, the 25.44-(295 K) to 26.17-$`\mu `$m (3.5 K) olivine band, the 22.12-(295 K) to 23.00-$`\mu `$m (3.5 K) band of Bramble enstatite and the 25.22-(295 K) to 24.80-$`\mu `$m (3.5 K) band of diopside.

Some peaks which do not result from obvious splitting (or changes in the substrate) are seen only in the 3.5-K spectra. Such features occur in the 3.5-K thin enstatite spectrum at 26.41, 29.17 and 34.06 $`\mu `$m. Since similar bands are seen in Bramble enstatite spectra obtained at both temperatures, we suggest that these features are enhanced at 3.5 K. Other peaks are seen in Bramble enstatite but not in enstatite (e.g. the 295-K 22.12-, 31.98-, and 31.08-$`\mu `$m bands); this is probably due to the greater thickness of the Bramble sample and to differences in the metal content in the two minerals. Extra bands are seen in the 3.5 K spectrum of Bramble enstatite at 53.91 $`\mu `$m, and in diopside at 57.16 $`\mu `$m.

#### 5.3.3 Changes in bandwidth

Estimates of the full-width-half-maxima of peaks which are well-separated from adjacent peaks and well-resolved are given in Table 2; peaks which are unresolved doublets at 295 K or are blended with stronger peaks have not been measured. The widths of isolated singlet peaks provide insight into the population of the vibrational modes. FWHM values were extracted with the IDL GAUSSFIT routine which approximates the continuum local to the peak with a quadratic equation and fits a gaussian to the peak. As described in Section 3.2, singlet peaks in the 3.5 K spectra are narrower than those measured at 295 K. With the exception of the forsterite peaks, bandwidths in the 3.5 K spectra are $`90\%`$ of their 295 K-widths, irrespective of the wavelength of the peak. The 31-, 49- and 69-$`\mu `$m bands of 3.5 K forsterite are, respectively, 90%, 45% and 31% of their 295 K widths; these bands arise from phonons along one direction within the lattice.

### 5.4 Wavelength Shift and Splitting Patterns

In Figure 6, the shifts in the peak wavelength of the bands between 295 K and 3.5 K, $`\lambda (295`$K$`)\lambda (3.5`$K$`)`$, are plotted as a function of the wavelength of the respective 295 K peaks.

In general, bands shift to shorter wavelengths at 3.5 K and the magnitude of the band shift increases with increasing wavelength, from $`00.2\mu `$m at 25 $`\mu `$m to $`0.9\mu `$m at 80 $`\mu `$m. However, the shift patterns are quite complicated because different peaks have different origins in the lattice. The situation is complicated in some of these spectra since we have not been able to resolve all the peaks in the thick forsterite and thin enstatite. Measurements of the spectra of other film thicknesses are required to determine the low-temperature behaviour of all the infrared peaks.

The shift patterns and band splittings are similar within a solid solution series if the lattice structure is the same. For example, the $`50`$-$`\mu `$m and $`70`$-$`\mu `$m bands exhibited by forsterite and olivine shift by similar amounts, –0.5 $`\mu `$m and –0.9 $`\mu `$m, respectively, when the minerals are cooled from 295 K to 3.5 K. The increase in the energies of these SiO$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ and combined SiO$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ and Mg2+ translations at 3.5 K indicates a contraction of the lattice as the temperature is reduced; sharpening of the bands is due to a reduction in phonon scattering at 3.5 K.

The ortho- and clinopyroxenes exhibit different shift and splitting patterns. The band shifts in Bramble enstatite and in enstatite increase fairly uniformly with wavelength. However shifts between neighbouring bands in diopside clinopyroxene vary by up to 0.3 $`\mu `$m and between 27 and 41 $`\mu `$m the pattern is almost saw-tooth. The complex shift pattern of diopside is probably caused by the difference in the size and mass of the Ca2+ and Mg2+ cations which respectively occupy the M2 and M1 sites. Band splitting in the three 18–22.5-$`\mu `$m bands is common to both orthoenstatites– the Si–O–Si shifts in both minerals are $`0.0`$ and –0.4 $`\mu `$m and the Mg2+ shifts of the $`22.5`$-$`\mu `$m peak are 0.0 and –0.5 $`\mu `$m. The splittings are caused by a reduction in the widths of the peaks, and by different orientations (polarizations) of the bonds within the lattice because the different crystallographic axes contract with temperature at different rates.

## 6 DISCUSSION

### 6.1 Astrophysical Implications

These determinations of the relationship between temperature and band shifts and band splitting could help in reaching a better understanding of the mineralogy of astronomical regions showing optically thin silicate bands in the far infrared. Such temperature-dependent laboratory measurements could greatly benefit the elucidation of the physical properties of dusty environments.

#### 6.1.1 Limits on the effect of temperature on $`\lambda _{pk}`$

The far-infrared bands observed in many astronomical environments are wavelength-shifted with respect to bands of similar shape observed in room-temperature laboratory spectra (Molster 2000). Wavelength shifts can be introduced by temperature differences, but they can can also be introduced by other factors such as chemical and isotopic composition and degree of crystallinity. To place limits on the contribution of temperature to the wavelength shift of a peak in astronomical data, fits to the ratio, $`R=(\lambda (295`$K$`)\lambda (3.5`$K$`))/\lambda (295`$K$`)`$, for peaks which did not split at 3.5K were obtained over the wavelength ranges specified in Table 3. Linear fits to $`R`$ were obtained using the IDL LINFIT routine; the fit to the upper limit of the diopside shifts was obtained with the IDL POLYFITW routine. Polynomial fits to the wavelength shifts of singlet bands between 295K and 3.5K are plotted in Figure 6 and the coefficients of these fits are are listed in Table 3.

#### 6.1.2 Determination of grain temperatures

Our results indicate that suitable high resolution spectra obtained at a range of cryogenic temperatures can be used to determine the characteristic temperatures of specific grain populations in astronomical spectra. An emission feature which peaks near 69 $`\mu `$m in circumstellar spectra has been identified with forsterite (Malfait et al. 1998). However, the astronomical feature is shifted relative to room temperature laboratory data, which give $`\lambda _{pk}=69.74\mu `$m (Figure 5 and Table 2). In Figure 7(b) we compare the shape of the 69-$`\mu `$m band of our laboratory forsterite spectra obtained at three different temperatures. The spectral resolution of the ISO LWS grating spectrometer at this wavelength was 0.3$`\mu `$m, compared to the laboratory feature’s FWHM of 1.3 $`\mu `$m at 295 K and 0.4 $`\mu `$m at 3.5 K, while the LWS wavelength precision was 0.03$`\mu `$m, compared to the shift of 0.9$`\mu `$m in the peak wavelength between 295 K and 3.5 K. Therefore the derivation of characteristic grain temperatures from ISO spectra is quite feasible (see also Molster 2000) and will be reported on in a subsequent paper (Bowey et al., in preparation). Band splitting and band shifts at other wavelengths, for example the splitting in the 36.5$`\mu `$m forsterite band shown in Figure 7(a), could also be used to determine grain temperatures if the spectral resolution and signal-to-noise of the astronomical data were sufficiently high. The relation between the derived characteristic grain temperatures at different wavelengths may aid the determination of the spatial distribution of the dust.

#### 6.1.3 Effect on inferred mineralogical compositions and dust masses

The absorption coefficients of the forsterite bands are enhanced at 3.5 K compared to room temperature values. In contrast, there is little change in the absorption coefficients of most of the pyroxene features. Therefore, the true mass ratio of forsterite to enstatite could be smaller than estimated using room-temperature laboratory data. More mass is required to reproduce the strengths of many features in ISO spectra using room temperature optical constants, than would be required at the likely temperatures of the astronomical grains. Measurements of the temperature-dependence of the mass absorption coefficients are required in order to obtain the true relative mineralogical composition and dust masses.

## 7 SUMMARY

We have obtained 0.25 cm-1 resolution 15–85 $`\mu `$m spectra of powdered minerals embedded in petroleum jelly at $`295\pm 2`$ K and $`3.5\pm 0.5`$ K. The samples were two olivines, forsterite (Mg2SiO4) and olivine var. peridot Mg1.77Fe0.20Al0.01Ni0.01SiO4, two orthoenstatites, enstatite and Bramble enstatite, and a clinopyroxene (MgCa diopside).

In general:

1. the room temperature spectra look like lower-resolution versions of their 3.5 K counterparts. In both of the olivines the degenerate $`21\mu `$m Mg2+ translation and SiO$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{4}{}^{}`$ rotation splits into two bands when cooled to 3.5 K. The $`34`$-$`\mu `$m peak in forsterite is saturated, however this Mg2+ translation band is split in the 3.5 K olivine spectrum and the 36.45-$`\mu `$m 295 K Mg2+ translation peak in forsterite is also split at 3.5 K. In the orthoenstatites, band splitting is seen only in the three bands shortward of 23 $`\mu `$m. In the MgCa diopside clinopyroxene only the 20.91-$`\mu `$m degenerate Si–O–Si deformation is split. Different sample thicknesses must be measured to verify that no splitting is seen in other bands.
2. the wavelength of a peak decreases with temperature and the magnitude of the shift increases with the wavelength of the band, from $`00.2\mu `$m at 25 $`\mu `$m to $`0.9\mu `$m at 80 $`\mu `$m. However, the shift patterns are quite complicated and depend on lattice structure as well as stoichiometry since they differ between ortho- and clino-pyroxenes. For example, the band shifts in Bramble enstatite and enstatite increase with wavelength. However, in the diopside clinopyroxene the shifts between neighbouring bands vary by up to 0.3 $`\mu `$m – between 27 and 41 $`\mu `$m the pattern is almost saw-tooth. The situation is complicated in these spectra since we have not been able to resolve all the peaks at all temperatures. For the olivines and enstatites the wavelength shifts of bands which are singlets at 295K and 3.5K can be approximated by polynomials of the form $`ax+bx^2`$ where $`x=\lambda _{pk}(295`$ K$`)`$ and coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ differ between minerals. Lower limits to the wavelength shifts for diopside can be obtained using polynomials of this form, however a third order term is required to obtain the upper estimates for wavelength shifts in the 20–41$`\mu `$m region.
3. bands sharpen as the temperature is reduced. At 3.5 K the widths of isolated single bands in the olivine, enstatites and diopside are $`90\%`$ of their 295 K-widths. However, in forsterite, the 3.5-K, 31, 49 and 69-$`\mu `$m bandwidths are, respectively, 90%, 45% and 31% of their 295 K widths.
4. the relative absorbances of neighbouring peaks change and bands sharpen as the temperature is reduced; this effect is most noticeable in the forsterite spectra. Peaks at 53.91 $`\mu `$m in Bramble enstatite and at 57.16 $`\mu `$m in diopside appear only in the 3.5 K spectra.

Our results show that comparison between the band shifts, bandwidths and band splitting in laboratory data obtained at a range of temperatures with astronomical far-infrared spectra can allow a determination of the characteristic temperatures of crystalline grains responsible for the optically thin emission features. Further low-temperature spectra at a range of temperatures are required to ascertain the precise temperature dependence of the shift, since the relationship between $`T`$ and $`\lambda _{pk}`$ is unlikely to be linear between 295K and 3.5K and it is possible that the bands stop shifting at some temperature above 3.5K. Ultimately it may be possible to determine the temperature of distinct grain populations by comparison of the observed peak wavelengths and FWHMs with laboratory spectra. Since the absorption coefficients of bands in laboratory spectra also vary with temperature, new measurements may allow better estimations of grain masses and silicate mineralogy. Additional high-resolution laboratory spectra of a larger variety silicates, at a larger number of temperatures, are desirable for comparison with ISO data and with future measurements obtained by spectrometers on board SIRTF, FIRST and the NGST. These laboratory measurements are planned.

## acknowledgements

CL is supported by a Royal Society Research Fellowship; JEB and CT are supported by PPARC; AMH is supported by NSF under grant AST-9805924. The Bramble enstatite sample was supplied by R.F. Dymek (Washington U.) and the diopside sample was supplied by the Smithsonian Museum. STARLINK, IDL and ISAP software were used for data reduction and analysis. We thank the anonymous referee for a constructive report which has improved this paper.