text:
# Measurement of the photon-proton total cross section at a center-of-mass energy of 209 GeV at HERA

## 1 Introduction

A measurement of the photon-proton total hadronic cross section at the high center-of-mass energy of the HERA $`ep`$ collider provides a test of the asymptotic behavior of total cross sections. The energy dependences of the $`pp`$, $`\overline{p}p`$, $`Kp`$ and $`\pi p`$ total cross sections are successfully parameterized by the exchanges of Regge trajectories . Phenomenological fits  based on Regge theory are able to describe all the hadronic total cross sections in the full energy range using the form

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=As^ϵ+Bs^\eta ,`$ (1)
where $`s`$ is the square of the center-of-mass energy and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants. The parameters $`\alpha _{IP}(0)=1+ϵ`$ and $`\alpha _{IR}(0)=1\eta 0.55`$ denote the intercepts of the Pomeron and Reggeon trajectories, respectively. At the highest energies, the Pomeron intercept describes the weak energy dependence of hadronic total cross sections by the form $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}s^ϵ`$, where $`0.08<ϵ<0.096`$ .

The soft hadronic behavior of the photon is well described by the vector-meson dominance model (VDM) , in which the photon is considered to be a superposition of the light vector mesons ($`\rho ^0`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$), which interact with the proton. This model has been well tested at low energies . If, at asymptotic energies, the photon can be entirely described by the VDM, the same universal energy dependence is expected for the hadron-proton and photon-proton total cross sections. Furthermore, if these total cross sections are dominated by the exchange of a Pomeron trajectory at high energies, the $`pp`$, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross sections will be related.

This paper reports a new ZEUS measurement of the photon-proton total cross section, using the reaction $`e^+pe^+\gamma pe^+X`$. The energy of the scattered positron was measured, thus providing a determination of the photon energy; the limited angular acceptance for the scattered positron restricted the virtuality of the tagged photon to very small values, $`Q^2<0.02\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. This measurement requires the accurate determination of the acceptance of the positron-tagging calorimeter. For this reason, the experiment was performed under closely controlled conditions of the positron-beam parameters, resulting in a reduction of systematic effects. The detector acceptance for the hadronic final-state $`X`$ in the above reaction is sensitive to the topologies and relative fractions of the photoproduction subprocesses. For the previous ZEUS measurements , the subprocess cross sections were extracted through fits to the distribution of the energy deposits in the main ZEUS calorimeter. Detailed studies of several of the subprocesses have subsequently been published by ZEUS , permitting improved estimates of the respective cross sections. In the present paper, these subprocess measurements are used as constraints to obtain a more accurate measurement of the photoproduction total cross section than was previously possible. Because of these improvements, the results of this paper supersede those of the previous publications . The photon-proton total cross section has also been measured at a similar center-of-mass energy by the H1 Collaboration .

## 2 Kinematics

The photon-proton total cross section has been measured in the process $`e^+pe^+\gamma pe^+X`$, where the interacting photon is almost real. The event kinematics may be described in terms of Lorentz-invariant variables: the photon virtuality, $`Q^2`$, and the event inelasticity, $`y`$, defined by

$$Q^2=q^2=(kk^{})^2$$

and

$$y=\frac{pq}{pk},$$

where $`k`$, $`k^{}`$ and $`p`$ are the four-momenta of the incoming positron, scattered positron and incident proton, respectively. The square of the photon-proton center-of-mass energy is given by

$$W_{\gamma p}^2=(q+p)^2.$$

These variables can be expressed in terms of the experimentally measured quantity $`E_e^{}`$ using

$$Q^2=Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2+4E_eE_e^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\vartheta }{2},$$

$$y=1\frac{E_e^{}}{E_e}\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\vartheta }{2}1\frac{E_e^{}}{E_e},$$

$$W_{\gamma p}=2\sqrt{E_eE_py},$$

where

$$Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2=\frac{m_e^2y^2}{1y},$$

$`E_e`$, $`E_e^{}`$ and $`E_p`$ are the energies of the incoming positron, scattered positron and incident proton, respectively, $`\vartheta `$ is the positron scattering angle with respect to the initial positron direction and $`m_e`$ is the positron mass. The scattered positron was recorded in a positron tagger close to the beam line, restricting the production angle, $`\vartheta `$ (and hence $`Q^2`$), to small values. The photon virtuality ranged from the kinematic minimum, $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^210^7\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, up to $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}^20.02\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, given by the acceptance of the positron tagger. The median $`Q^2`$ is about $`5\times 10^5`$ GeV2.

The equivalent photon approximation  relates the electroproduction cross section to a photoproduction cross section. The double-differential $`ep`$ cross section can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{ep}(y,Q^2)}{dydQ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}\left[\right({\displaystyle \frac{1+(1y)^2}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(1y)}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2}{Q^2}})\sigma ^{\gamma p}_T(y,Q^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1y)}{y}}\sigma _L^{\gamma p}(y,Q^2)],`$ (2)
where $`\sigma _T^{\gamma p}`$ is the cross section for interactions between the proton and a photon with transverse polarization, and $`\sigma _L^{\gamma p}`$ is the cross section for interactions with longitudinally polarized photons. The longitudinal cross section is expected to be small ($`\sigma _L^{\gamma p}/\sigma _T^{\gamma p}<0.1\%`$ ), and has been ignored, as has the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`\sigma _T^{\gamma p}`$ ($`<`$0.1% in the range of $`Q^2`$ of this measurement ).

Integrating Eq. (2) over $`Q^2`$ gives the single $`ep`$ differential cross section in terms of the $`\gamma p`$ total cross section:

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{ep}(y)}{dy}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left[\frac{1+(1y)^2}{y}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2}{Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2}\frac{2(1y)}{y}\left(1\frac{Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2}{Q_{\mathrm{max}}^2}\right)\right]\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}(y)=F_\gamma (y)\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}(y).$$
(3)
Integrating Eq. (3) between $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, and neglecting the weak $`y`$-dependence of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}(y)`$ in the integral, the electroproduction cross section is

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{ep}=_{y_1}^{y_2}F_\gamma (y)\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}(y)𝑑y=f_\gamma \sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p},$$

where

$`f_\gamma ={\displaystyle _{y_1}^{y_2}}F_\gamma (y)𝑑y,`$ (4)
and $`y_1=0.42`$ and $`y_2=0.56`$ are derived from the minimum and maximum detected positron energies, respectively (see Section 3).

## 3 Experimental conditions

The data were taken with the ZEUS detector during a dedicated run in 1996, when HERA collided 820 GeV protons with 27.5 GeV positrons. The proton and positron beams each contained 177 colliding bunches, together with 3 additional unpaired proton and 31 unpaired positron bunches. These additional bunches were used for background studies. The time between bunch crossings was 96 ns.

The ZEUS detector has been described in detail elsewhere . Most important for this measurement are the uranium-scintillator sampling calorimeter (CAL) , the central tracking detector (CTD)  and two lead-scintillator calorimeters close to the $`e^+`$ beampipe at $`Z=107`$ m (photon tagger) and $`Z=35`$ m (positron or “35m” tagger) . The CAL is separated into three parts, forward111The ZEUS coordinate system is a right-handed Cartesian system, with the $`Z`$ axis pointing in the proton beam direction, referred to as the “forward direction”, and the $`X`$ axis pointing left towards the center of HERA. The coordinate origin is at the nominal interaction point. The pseudorapidity is defined as $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)`$, where the polar angle, $`\theta `$, is measured with respect to the proton beam direction. The azimuthal angle is denoted by $`\varphi `$.  (FCAL, $`2.6^{}<\theta <36.7^{}`$), barrel (BCAL, $`36.7^{}<\theta <129.1^{}`$), and rear (RCAL, $`129.1^{}<\theta <176.2^{}`$). Each CAL part is longitudinally segmented into electromagnetic (EMC) and hadronic (HAC) sections. Each section is further subdivided transversely into cells of typically $`5\times 20\mathrm{cm}^2`$ ($`10\times 20\mathrm{cm}^2`$ in RCAL) for the EMC and $`20\times 20\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for the HAC sections. The total number of CAL cells is 5918. The CAL relative energy resolution for electromagnetic showers is $`\sigma _E/E0.18/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$ and for hadronic showers is $`\sigma _E/E0.35/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$ under test-beam conditions. The CAL also provides timing information, with a resolution of 1 ns for energy deposits greater than 4.5 GeV. The CTD operates in a 1.43 T solenoidal magnetic field, and has a relative transverse-momentum resolution for full-length tracks of $`\sigma _{p_T}/p_T=0.0058p_T0.00650.0014/p_T`$, with $`p_T`$ measured in GeV. The photon-tagger relative energy resolution is $`\sigma _E/E=0.23/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$, and the 35m-tagger relative energy resolution is $`\sigma _E/E=0.19/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$. Both the photon tagger and the 35m tagger are also equipped with shower-position detectors. These consist of both horizontal and vertical scintillator strips providing a position resolution of 0.3 cm in both $`X`$ and $`Y`$.

The luminosity was measured via the Bethe-Heitler bremsstrahlung process $`epe\gamma p`$, using the photon tagger , which detects photons with scattering angles smaller than $`\vartheta =180^{}\theta =0.54`$ mrad. The accumulated luminosity used for this measurement was 49.26 $`\pm `$ 0.54 (syst.) nb-1.

For this measurement, the hadronic final-state $`X`$ was detected in the main ZEUS detector and the final-state positrons were tagged in the 35m tagger after traversing a window in the beam pipe. The geometric acceptance of the 35m tagger restricts the kinematic range of the detected positrons to approximately $`5<E_e^{}<20\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`Q^2<0.02\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The calculation of the geometric acceptance of the 35m tagger is complicated because the scattered positrons detected in the 35m tagger traverse the positron beampipe after passing through two bending magnets and three quadrupoles. Furthermore, scattered positrons have lower energy than the beam positrons and progressively leave the magnetic axis and are subject, in particular, to quadrupole fringe fields. Particular care, therefore, was taken to tune the beamline simulation before calculating this acceptance.

During normal HERA running, the positron-beam position and tilt at the interaction point vary over time. The positron-beam tilt may be monitored using the position of bremsstrahlung photons detected in the photon tagger. For this dedicated run, the beam position and tilt were controlled, carefully monitored and found to be very stable.

Bremsstrahlung data were taken immediately preceding the primary photoproduction data run to determine the effect, on the 35m-tagger bremsstrahlung acceptance, of variations in the positron-beam tilt and to tune beamline and detector simulations. From these data, the 35m-tagger acceptance was found to depend on the horizontal ($`X`$) tilt, but not significantly on the vertical ($`Y`$) tilt. The positron-energy interval of $`12<E_e^{}<16\mathrm{GeV}`$ was chosen for the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}`$ measurement as the range least sensitive to variations of the positron-beam tilt. From this range of selected positron energies, the photon flux factor as determined from Eq.(4) is $`f_\gamma =0.004916`$.

## 4 Event selection and background subtraction

Events were selected online by the three-level trigger system of ZEUS. The CAL is segmented into trigger towers  that are approximately projective; the towers consist of an EMC and a HAC part. In RCAL, the main component used in the CAL trigger, the EMC section of a typical trigger tower consists of two cells. The trigger required a measured energy deposit of more than 5 GeV in the 35m tagger in coincidence with a summed energy deposit in the RCAL EMC trigger towers of either more than 464 MeV (excluding the 8 towers immediately adjacent to the beampipe) or 1250 MeV (including those towers). In addition, the timing information from the CAL was required to be consistent with an $`ep`$ collision.

The offline event-selection cuts on the 35m tagger and reconstructed RCAL energies were tighter than those applied at the trigger level. A positron energy in the range $`12<E_e^{}<16\mathrm{GeV}`$ (see Section 3) was required in the 35m tagger. The energy requirement in the RCAL EMC section, summed over all cells above threshold, was: either more than 600 MeV (excluding the trigger towers immediately adjacent to the beampipe); more than 1550 MeV (including those towers); or the sum of any two trigger towers was more than 850 MeV.

The CAL trigger-tower energies for every event were readout , permitting detailed trigger-efficiency studies. The offline energy thresholds were found to be well above the region of low-energy trigger inefficiencies, so that the resulting event selection was unaffected by the trigger cuts.

Positron-proton and positron-gas bremsstrahlung events in coincidence with RCAL energy deposition comprise the largest backgrounds in the online sample. Most of these background events were rejected offline by a cut on the photon-tagger energy, $`E_\gamma <1\mathrm{GeV}`$. The residual $`(1.26\pm 0.26)\%`$ positron-gas bremsstrahlung background in the sample was estimated using events associated with unpaired positron bunches, and was statistically subtracted from the photoproduction distributions used to calculate the cross section. The remaining number of events is $`N=22533\pm 162`$.

The background from proton-gas collisions, as measured using proton-only bunches, was found to be negligible. The final event sample was corrected for two background effects:

* a $`0.99\pm 0.01`$ correction factor was applied to remove bremsstrahlung events which remained in the sample owing to the $`97.0\%`$ acceptance of the photon tagger;
* a $`1.043\pm 0.002`$ factor was applied to correct for photoproduction events lost due to overlays with bremsstrahlung events; the probability of overlay events was estimated using events triggered from random $`ep`$ bunch crossings.

## 5 Simulation of photoproduction processes

The various physical processes that contribute to the hadronic total cross section are characterized by different distributions in energy and angle of the particles in the final state. To determine the acceptance of the CAL (see Section 6) for the various contributing processes, the simulation of the photoproduction sample was separated into the following subprocesses:

* elastic: $`\gamma pVp`$, where $`V`$ is one of the light vector mesons $`\rho ^0`$, $`\omega `$ or $`\varphi `$;
* proton dissociative: $`\gamma pVN`$, where $`N`$ is a hadronic state into which the proton diffractively dissociates;
* photon dissociative: $`\gamma pGp`$, where $`G`$ is a hadronic state into which the photon diffractively dissociates;
* double dissociative: $`\gamma pGN`$;
* hard non-diffractive: $`\gamma pX`$;
* soft non-diffractive: $`\gamma pX`$.

The first four processes are diffractive, in the sense that they can be parameterized at high energies in Regge theory by the exchange of a Pomeron trajectory. The hard non-diffractive part of photoproduction consists, in leading-order QCD, of direct and resolved photon components, which can be calculated perturbatively. The largest contribution to the cross section comes from the soft non-diffractive process. Two independent Monte Carlo (MC) samples were generated to simulate the various hadronic final states for photoproduction. The first sample was generated using PYTHIA 5.7 , with radiative corrections calculated by HERACLES 4.6 , and events from each of the subprocesses were selected separately. For the second sample, HERWIG 5.9  was used for the non-diffractive reactions, while the diffractive processes were again generated with PYTHIA. Hard non-diffractive photoproduction events were simulated in both MC generators at leading order with parton showers, using CTEQ4L  and GRVG LO  for the proton and photon parton distributions, respectively; a minimum transverse momentum of the partonic hard scatter, $`\widehat{p}_T^{\mathrm{min}}`$ = 2.5 GeV, was used. These two samples were passed through the trigger and detector simulations and offline analysis.

## 6 Acceptance of the hadronic final state

To find the overall acceptance of the CAL, a weighted sum of the MC photoproduction subprocesses was simultaneously fitted to the invariant mass of the hadronic final state detected in the CAL, $`M_X^{\mathrm{CAL}}`$, and the number of CAL cells, $`N_{\mathrm{cells}}`$, in the data. The CAL acceptance for each subprocess was calculated as the fraction of generated events that pass the RCAL offline cuts; these individual acceptances are shown in Table 1. The overall acceptance of the CAL was then calculated using the fitted fraction and the acceptance for each subprocess. Because the data distributions were not described perfectly by the MC, the distribution of the soft non-diffractive subprocess, which is the MC process least constrained by experiment, was re-weighted. The re-weighting function was calculated separately for each of the following distributions: the pseudorapidity of the CAL cells, the total transverse energy and the RCAL energy.

To determine the subprocess fractions, the direct-to-resolved cross-section ratio was fixed to that used in the PYTHIA MC generator and factorization was assumed to estimate the double dissociative cross section by using

$$\frac{\sigma (\gamma pVp)}{\sigma (\gamma pVN)}=\frac{\sigma (\gamma pGp)}{\sigma (\gamma pGN)}.$$

The elastic $`\rho ^0`$ , $`\omega `$  and $`\varphi `$  cross sections, the elastic to proton-dissociative ratio , and the photon-dissociative fraction  were all fixed to values obtained from ZEUS measurements extrapolated to the $`W_{\gamma p}`$ of the present measurement. This reduced the fit parameters to two: the soft and hard non-diffractive fractions.

The data and fitted MC distributions of $`M_X^{\mathrm{CAL}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{cells}}`$ are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The subprocess contributions are also shown. The detailed description of the systematic uncertainty calculation, shown as a band in the figures, is given in Section 9. As a consistency check, the RCAL energy distribution, which is not used in the fit, is shown in Fig. 3 with the MC distributions. In Fig. 4, a comparison of the data and MC distributions is shown for various CAL quantities. Overall, the data are well described by the fitted MC samples. The CAL acceptance is $`A_{\mathrm{CAL}}=0.781_{0.016}^{+0.022}(\mathrm{syst}.)`$. The largest contribution to the systematic uncertainty results from the different MC models used to calculate the acceptance and is discussed in Section 9.

## 7 Acceptance of the 35m tagger

The acceptance of the 35m tagger for scattered positrons was determined from a PYTHIA MC simulation of photoproduction. The bremsstrahlung data were used to determine the parameters of the incoming positron beam to be used in the BREMGE MC generator .

For the range of bremsstrahlung photon and positron energies relevant to the current measurement, bremsstrahlung photons were detected in the photon tagger and bremsstrahlung positrons in the 35m tagger with high efficiency. In particular, the photon-tagger acceptance for photons with energy greater than 1 GeV was $`97.0\%`$. The 35m-tagger acceptance for scattered bremsstrahlung positrons was defined to be the number of events containing a positron with $`E_e^{}>5\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the 35m tagger and a photon with energy $`E_\gamma >5\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the photon detector, divided by the total number of events containing a photon with energy $`E_\gamma >5\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the photon detector. Because the 35m-tagger bremsstrahlung acceptance was found to be sensitive primarily to variations in the horizontal plane, the MC alignment tuning was restricted to the $`X`$-vertex position and $`X`$ tilt. Four distributions of both bremsstrahlung data and bremsstrahlung MC  events were used to form a $`\chi ^2`$, which was minimized with respect to the MC $`X`$-vertex position and $`X`$ tilt: the photon energy; the positron energy; the 35m-tagger bremsstrahlung acceptance; and the average positron $`X`$ position versus energy measurement. The bremsstrahlung data and MC distributions after tuning are shown in Fig. 5. There is good agreement between data and MC events except in Fig. 5c) for photon energies above $``$15 GeV. This region is not used in the current measurement.

The tuned values were used in the generation of PYTHIA MC samples and the 35m-tagger photoproduction acceptance was calculated. In Fig. 6, the measured and simulated energy spectra of the scattered positron are compared. Figure 7 shows the correlation between the scattered-positron position and energy, as measured with the 35m tagger, for the data and Monte Carlo simulation. The agreement between the data and the PYTHIA events is good. The resulting 35m-tagger photoproduction acceptance for $`12<E_e^{}<16`$ GeV is $`A_{35\mathrm{m}}=0.693\pm 0.050(\mathrm{syst}.)`$.

## 8 Radiative corrections

The positron that initiates the $`\gamma p`$ interaction is subject to QED radiation in both the initial and final states. This changes the kinematics of the reaction and hence the measured cross section. The effect of QED radiation on the measurement can be greatly reduced by excluding hard initial-state bremsstrahlung. This was achieved by a veto on photons with energy larger than 1 GeV in the photon detector. The influence of radiation on the measured cross section can be described by a correction factor which is the ratio of the Born cross section to that including QED radiation.

The calculation of the correction factor was carried out with the HERACLES MC program that includes the positron-beam angular divergence at the interaction point. The result for the correction factor is $`0.981\pm 0.007(\mathrm{syst}.)`$.

The systematic uncertainties on the correction factor were estimated from the range of values obtained for different parameterizations of the cross section, from a comparison with the analytic calculation of HECTOR 1.11  and from varying the values of the photon-energy cut and angular acceptance within the experimental uncertainties.

## 9 Systematic uncertainty estimation

The systematic uncertainties in the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}`$ measurement come primarily from the uncertainties in the determination of the CAL and 35m-tagger acceptances.

The systematic uncertainty on the CAL acceptance was estimated by varying the CAL energy scale by $`\pm `$3%, leading to an effect of $`{}_{0.008}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.006}`$. The 35m-tagger energy scale was varied by $`\pm `$3% and led to a small effect. The measured elastic cross sections , the fraction of the photon-dissociative processes , and the elastic to proton-dissociative cross-section ratio  were also varied by one standard deviation in the fitting procedure. The uncertainty due to the measured photon-dissociative cross section was $`{}_{0.010}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.008}`$; the others gave small effects. The uncertainty in modeling the non-diffractive hadronic final state was determined from a comparison of the PYTHIA and HERWIG MC simulations. This led to a +0.019 uncertainty. Several strategies were employed to fit the experimental distributions by varying the fractions of the processes shown in Table 1. A fit yielding the fractions of elastic, photon dissociation and hard and soft non-diffraction was performed. The resulting elastic and photon-dissociative fractions were found to be consistent with the ZEUS measurements, extrapolated to the $`W_{\gamma p}`$ of the present measurement. Global fits were made simultaneously to a number of experimental distributions or separately to individual distributions; the resulting systematic uncertainties on the CAL acceptance were negligible. Adding all of the above contributions in quadrature results in a CAL acceptance of $`0.781_{0.016}^{+0.022}`$.

The sources of largest systematic uncertainty in the 35m-tagger acceptance are: the uncertainty in modeling the trajectories of the scattered positrons, i.e., the $`X`$-vertex position ($`\pm `$0.027); the geometric description of the positron-beam angular spread ($`\pm `$0.021); the details of the HERA beamline simulation ($`\pm `$0.020); the uncertainty on the energy calibration of the photon detector ($`\pm `$0.015), and its energy nonlinearity ($`\pm `$0.020). All of the contributions, of which the above are the most important, are added in quadrature and result in an uncertainty on the 35m-tagger acceptance of $`\pm `$0.050.

The 35m-tagger acceptance calculation was checked using an event sample containing two or more jets in the CAL, which was taken with a trigger independent of the 35m tagger. For these events, the inelasticity $`y`$ can be determined from CAL energies only. The probability for these events to have a positron detected in the 35m tagger was compared to the probability determined from the tuned photoproduction MC simulation; the simulated events and data were consistent within the quoted systematic uncertainty.

## 10 Results

The measured photon-proton total cross section is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}=\frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{corr}}}{f_\gamma A_{35\mathrm{m}}A_{\mathrm{CAL}}},$$

where $`N`$ is the number of events passing the selection cuts ($`22533\pm 162`$), $`=`$ is the integrated luminosity ($`49.26\pm 0.54`$ nb-1), $`f_\gamma `$ is the photon flux factor (0.004916), $`A_{35\mathrm{m}}`$ is the 35m-tagger acceptance ($`0.693\pm 0.050`$), and $`A_{\mathrm{CAL}}`$ is the CAL acceptance ($`0.781_{0.016}^{+0.022}`$). The correction factor, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{corr}}`$, is the product of the radiative correction to the electroweak Born-level cross section (0.981 $`\pm `$ 0.007), the correction for bremsstrahlung background events in which the bremsstrahlung photon was lost due to the photon-tagger acceptance (0.99 $`\pm `$ 0.01), and the correction for photoproduction events lost due to an accidental overlay with bremsstrahlung events (1.043 $`\pm `$ 0.002). The 35m-tagger acceptance and CAL acceptance were assumed to be independent of each other. All acceptances and correction factors were calculated for the $`195<W_{\gamma p}<225`$ GeV range of this measurement.

The photoproduction total cross section, measured at the average photon-proton center-of-mass energy of 209 GeV, is

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}=174\pm 1(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 13(\mathrm{syst}.)\mu \mathrm{b}.$$

## 11 Discussion of results

The photon-proton total cross section as a function of the center-of-mass energy is shown in Fig. 8. The present result is in good agreement with a measurement from H1  at a similar center-of-mass energy and is consistent with the previous ZEUS measurements , which it supersedes. The low-energy data  are also shown in Fig. 8. The present result can also be compared with an earlier ZEUS measurement  of the inclusive electroproduction cross section in the range $`0.11Q^20.65\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Extrapolating the cross section to $`Q^2=0`$, using the generalized VDM, yields the photoproduction total cross section. This is much more model dependent and leads to a cross section of $`187\pm 5(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 14(\mathrm{syst}.)\mu `$b at a center-of-mass energy of $`W_{\gamma p}=212`$ GeV, in agreement within errors with the present measurement.

Fits of hadronic total cross sections and an investigation of their universal high-energy behavior have been carried out by Donnachie and Landshoff  using the form of Eq. (1). A similar fit has been performed by Cudell et al.  based on more recent hadronic data. A ZEUS fit of the form

$`\sigma _{tot}=AW_{\gamma p}^{2ϵ}+BW_{\gamma p}^{2\eta },`$ (5)
where $`W_{\gamma p}`$ is in GeV, to the existing $`\gamma p`$ data  and including the present measurement has been performed and is shown as the solid curve in Fig. 8. The present fit has been restricted to $`W_{\gamma p}>4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the Reggeon intercept ($`\alpha _{IR}(0)=1\eta `$) has been fixed to the value found by Cudell et al., $`\eta =0.358\pm 0.015`$. The resulting fit parameters are:

$`A=57\pm 5\mu \mathrm{b};B=121\pm 13\mu \mathrm{b};ϵ=0.100\pm 0.012.`$ (6)
The resulting value of $`ϵ`$, related to the Pomeron intercept ($`\alpha _{IP}(0)=1+ϵ`$), is in good agreement with $`ϵ=0.093\pm 0.002`$ found by Cudell et al., a value derived primarily from $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ data.

A fit including a soft- and hard-Pomeron trajectory by Donnachie and Landshoff (DL98)  also agrees with the present measurement within uncertainties, as shown by the dot-dashed curve in Fig. 8. Other models  based on the existing hadron-hadron total cross-section data are also in agreement with this measurement.

The optical theorem and VDM provide a connection between the photon-proton total cross section and the forward elastic scattering amplitudes for photoproduction of vector-meson states, $`V`$, via

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}=\sqrt{16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma p\gamma p}}{dt}}|_{t=0}}={\displaystyle \underset{V=\rho ^0,\omega ,\varphi }{}}\sqrt{16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{f_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma pVp}}{dt}}|_{t=0}}.`$
The forward elastic scattering amplitudes for the $`\gamma p\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma pVp`$ cross sections have been assumed to be purely imaginary and $`f_V`$ are the photon to vector-meson coupling constants.

Summing only over the light vector-meson states $`\rho ^0`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$, using the exclusive photoproduction differential cross sections from ZEUS measurements , and values of $`f_V^2/4\pi `$ = 2.20, 23.6 and 18.4  for $`\rho ^0`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$, respectively, a value of $`111\pm 13(\mathrm{exp}.)\mu \mathrm{b}`$ is obtained for the photon-proton total cross section at $`W_{\gamma p}=70`$ GeV. The $`\rho ^0`$ meson contributes about 85% of this value. The photon-proton total cross section at a center-of-mass energy of $`W_{\gamma p}=70`$ GeV, obtained by interpolation between the present measurement and the lower energy measurements using the fit described by Eqs. (5) and (6), is $`139\pm 4`$ $`\mu \mathrm{b}`$. Given the additional theoretical uncertainties in the VDM calculation of 111 $`\mu \mathrm{b}`$, these results are consistent.

The present measurement can also be used to test factorization, which connects $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma p`$ and $`pp`$ total cross sections according to

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma \gamma }\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{pp}=(\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p})^2.$$
(7)
The $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross section has been measured at high energies by the OPAL  and L3  collaborations. Using Eq. (7) at the energy of the OPAL and L3 measurements requires an interpolation from the present measurement to lower center-of-mass energies. Using the fit described by Eqs. (5) and (6) and the Cudell et al. parameterization of the $`pp`$ total cross sections, a value $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma \gamma }`$ = $`436\pm 28`$ nb ($`468\pm 30`$ nb) is obtained for a center-of-mass energy of 68 (95) GeV, in agreement with the OPAL measurement of $`439_{41}^{+45}`$ ($`464_{62}^{+76}`$) nb at those energies. Measurements from L3 agree within uncertainties with those from OPAL for $`W_{\gamma \gamma }<100`$ GeV. Thus the present $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}`$ measurement is consistent with the factorization hypothesis of Eq. (7).

At $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ = 120.4 GeV, L3  finds $`572.0\pm 3.3(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 53(\mathrm{exp}.\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 89(\mathrm{MC}\mathrm{syst}.)`$ nb, while at an energy of 158.7 GeV, they find $`734.1\pm 8.7(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 102(\mathrm{exp}.\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 202(\mathrm{MC}\mathrm{syst}.)`$ nb. There is an additional uncertainty of $`\pm 5\%`$ due to the luminosity measurement. Interpolations from the present $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}`$ measurement give $`491\pm 35`$ nb and $`521\pm 43`$ nb, respectively. Within the large systematic uncertainties of the L3 measurement, these data are also consistent with factorization.

In earlier parameterizations , the high-energy dependence has effectively been determined from the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ data. The compatibility of the current ZEUS $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\gamma p}`$ measurement with this high-energy behavior indicates a universality of the energy dependence of the photon-proton total cross section with respect to that of hadron-proton total cross sections.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the DESY directorate for their strong support and encouragement. The special efforts of the HERA machine group in the collection of the data used in this paper are gratefully acknowledged. We thank the DESY computing and network services for their support. The design, construction and installation of the ZEUS detector have been made possible by the ingenuity and effort of many people from DESY and home institutes who are not listed as authors. We are grateful for the helpful discussions and correspondence with A. Arbuzov, D. Bardin, M. Block, H. Spiesberger and T. Sjöstrand.


format: text

text:
# Pancharatnam revisited

## 1 Introduction

Consider a pair of vectors $`|A`$ and $`|A^{}=e^{i\alpha }|A`$ representing one and the same quantal state $`A`$. Let us ask: what is their relative phase? Probably everyone would agree that the answer to this question is $`\alpha `$. Less obvious, however, is the case when the pair of vectors represent different quantal states. Apparently no one had asked this question until Pancharatnam $`^\mathrm{?}`$ came up with a physical prescription for the relative phase between distinct polarisation states of light. Although his analysis concerned classical light it has been realised that Pancharatnam’s concept of relative phase has a quantal counterpart with surprisingly rich structure related to the geometry of the quantum state space. This counterpart, known as quantum parallel transport, is the origin of the geometric phase first discovered for cyclic adiabatic evolution $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and later generalised to nonadiabatic $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and noncyclic $`^\mathrm{?}`$ pure state evolutions, as well as to mixed quantal states $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

The purpose of this report is to describe some recent ideas concerning the concept of relative phase. To do this we first describe Pancharatnam’s original idea and how it relates to the geometry of quantum state space. The basic observation in this context is the experimental fact $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the maximum of the interference oscillations, obtained when a variable phase shift is introduced to one of the interfering states $`A`$ and $`B`$, is shifted when $`AB`$. This shift constitutes the desired concept of relative phase. To develop this idea in detail, let us suppose that $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ are two normalised Hilbert space representatives of the nonorthogonal states $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively, and assume further that $`|A`$ is exposed to the $`U(1)`$ shift $`e^{i\chi }`$. The resulting interference pattern is determined by

$$I=\left|e^{i\chi }|A+|B\right|^2=2+2|A|B|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}A|B]$$
(1)
that attains its maximum at the Pancharatnam relative phase $`\varphi \mathrm{arg}A|B`$. This phase reduces naturally to the $`U(1)`$ case whenever $`|B=e^{i\alpha }|A`$ as it yields $`\varphi =\alpha `$.

Pancharatnam’s prescription of relative phase has a peculiar property that arises when two in-phase ($`\varphi =0`$) vectors $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ are sent through a polariser that projects onto a third state $`C`$. The resulting state vectors are $`|C^{}=|CC|A`$ and $`|C^{\prime \prime }=|CC|B`$. Their relative phase becomes

$$\mathrm{arg}^{}C|C^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{arg}A|CC|BB|A\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C),$$
(2)
where we have used the assumption that $`\mathrm{arg}A|B=0`$. The right-hand side $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$ of Eq. (2) is independent of the choice of Hilbert space representatives of the three states $`(A,B,C)`$ and is therefore a property of the quantum state space. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$ further fulfils the following two important properties that makes it related to oriented area $`^\mathrm{?}`$:

* It is additive: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C,D)=\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)+\mathrm{\Delta }(A,C,D)`$.
* It depends upon orientation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,C,B)=\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$.

Indeed, in the case of qubits (two-level systems) these properties lead to the following natural geometric interpretation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$ known as the geometric phase. Let us take $`A`$ at the north pole, $`B`$ with polar angles $`(\theta ,\phi )`$, and $`C=B+dB`$ with polar angles $`(\theta +d\theta ,\phi +d\phi )`$ being infinitesimally close to $`B`$ on the Bloch sphere. It yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,B+dB)=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )d\phi `$, which is minus one-half the solid angle enclosed by the spherical triangle defined by the three points $`A,B,B+dB`$ on the Bloch sphere. Thus, for a finite spherical triangle defined by any $`A,B,C`$ on the Bloch sphere one may divide the geodesic line connecting $`B`$ and $`C`$ into small pieces and use the properties a) and b) to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)=\mathrm{\Delta }(A,C,B)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B,C),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B,C)`$ is the enclosed solid angle.

In the next section we apply the above ideas to mixed quantal states. Section 3 contains a description of Pancharatnam’s relative phase for nonclassical two-photon polarisation states. Generalising the above solid angle formula to any continuous path on the Bloch sphere raises the question how such a quantity can be tested experimentally. In section 4 a general procedure how this can be achieved is described. A spatial dual to Pancharatnam’s original idea concerning internal states is discussed in section 5. The paper ends with the conclusions.

## 2 Generalisation to mixed states

Suppose a mixed quantal state evolves as $`\rho _A\rho _B=U\rho _AU^{}`$ with $`U`$ unitary. How is Pancharatnam’s prescription of relative phase generalised to such states? Here, we discuss such a generalisation that was discovered in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in the context of interferometry.

The mixed state phase in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is based on the observation that the evolution governed by the unitarity $`U`$ of any density operator may be described as

$$\rho _A=\underset{k}{}w_k|A_kA_k|\rho _B=\underset{k}{}w_k|B_kB_k|,$$
(4)
where each $`|B_k=U|A_k`$. Evidently, each such orthonormal pure state component of the density operator contributes to the interference according to Eq. (1). Thus, the total interference profile becomes

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}w_k\left|e^{i\chi }|A_k+|B_k\right|^2`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`2+2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}w_k|A_k|B_k|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}A_k|B_k],`$
where we have used that the $`w_k`$’s sum up to unity. This takes a more transparent and explicitly basis independent form when writing the interference profile in terms of the quantity $`\text{Tr}(U\rho _A)`$ as

$$I=2+2|\text{Tr}(U\rho _A)|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}\text{Tr}(U\rho _A)].$$
(6)
The important observation from Eq. (6) is that the interference oscillations produced by the variable $`U(1)`$ phase $`\chi `$ is shifted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{arg}\text{Tr}(U\rho _A)`$ for any mixed state $`\rho _A`$. This shift reduces to Pancharatnam’s original prescription when $`\rho _A=|AA|\rho _B=|BB|`$. These two facts are the central properties for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ being a natural generalisation of Pancharatnam’s relative phase to mixed states. Moreover, the visibility of the interference pattern is $`|\text{Tr}(U\rho _A)|0`$, which reduces to the expected $`|A|B|`$ in Eq. (1) for pure states.

The oriented area introduced in Eq. (2) may be generalised to the sequence $`\rho _A\rho _B\rho _C`$ of nondegenerate aaaIf the density operators are degenerate their eigenbases are not unique and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$ in Eq. (7) below becomes undefined density operators, all with the same set of eigenvalues $`\{w_k\}`$, but with different sets of eigenvectors $`\{|A_k\}`$, $`\{|B_k\}`$, $`\{|C_k\}`$. First, let us introduce the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A_k,B_k,C_k)`$ for each set of pure state components corresponding to one and the same eigenvalue $`w_k`$. In terms of these we may take the mixed state generalisation of Eq. (2) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)=\mathrm{arg}\left[\underset{k}{}w_k|A_k|U|A_k|e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(A_k,B_k,C_k)}\right],$$
(7)
where $`U`$ now takes $`\rho _A`$ to $`\rho _C`$ via $`\rho _B`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$ in Eq. (7) is nonadditive due to its nonlinear dependence upon the additive pure state quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A_k,B_k,C_k)`$, but it depends upon the orientation of the unitary path $`U`$ as it fulfils $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A,C,B)=\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)`$.

For a mixed qubit state $`\rho _A=\frac{1}{2}(1+r)|A_0A_0|+\frac{1}{2}(1r)|A_1A_1|`$, where $`A_k|A_l=\delta _{kl}`$ and $`1r1`$, we have $`|A_0|U|A_0|=|A_1|U|A_1|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(A_0,B_0,C_0)=\mathrm{\Delta }(A_1,B_1,C_1)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,B_0,C_0)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus, if the $`\rho `$’s are nondegenerate ($`r0`$) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(A,B,C)=\mathrm{arctan}\left[r\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\right],$$
(8)
which is the mixed state generalisation of Eq. (3) and reduces to the pure state case when $`|r|=1`$.

## 3 Two-photon relative phase

Pancharatnam’s original work applies to polarised classical light waves as well as to quantal single photon states. In this section we generalise this situation to nonclassical entangled two-photon polarisation states.

Consider first a photon pair being prepared in a product polarisation state $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_0=|A|A^{}|AA^{}`$. Suppose each of these states undergo pure rotations around some spherical triangle on the Bloch sphere defined by the points $`A,B,C`$ and $`A^{},B^{},C^{}`$, respectively. According to the theory of geometric phases the final states pick up the phases $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B,C)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(A^{},B^{},C^{})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, respectively. Thus, the total state $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0\mathrm{\Pi }_f=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ acquires the relative phase $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\varphi =\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Pi }_0|\mathrm{\Pi }_f=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{2},$$
(9)
after traversing the pair of loops.

Now, in presence of entanglement this additive property has to be modified as follows. Any entangled two-photon polarisation state can be written on Schmidt form as

$$|\mathrm{\Pi }_0=\sqrt{\lambda }|AA^{}+\sqrt{1\lambda }|A_{}A_{}^{},$$
(10)
where $`A|A_{}=A^{}|A_{}^{}=0`$. The real-valued parameter $`0\lambda 1`$ determines the degree of entanglement $`\mathrm{\Xi }|12\lambda |`$ with $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ ranging from $`0`$ (maximally entangled states) to $`1`$ (product states). Suppose again that each of the two states $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ is rotated around some spherical triangle so that they pick up the phases $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, respectively. On the other hand, the orthogonal states $`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}^{}`$ are taken around paths with opposite orientation, but enclose the same area so that they pick up the phases $`+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, respectively. Thus, the photons acquire the relative phase

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Pi }_0|\mathrm{\Pi }_f=\mathrm{arctan}\left[(12\lambda )\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{2}\right],$$
(11)
and the visibility

$$|\mathrm{\Pi }_0|\mathrm{\Pi }_f|=\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{2}+(12\lambda )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{2}}1.$$
(12)
is reduced as the state now is noncyclic, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0\mathrm{\Pi }_f\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. Comparing Eqs. (9) and (11) we may write

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{tan}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\mathrm{tan}\varphi }\right|=\mathrm{\Xi },$$
(13)
which demonstrates that the degree of entanglement is the cause of the nonlinear relation between $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and the one-photon solid angles $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. This nonlinearity is particularly striking in the maximally entangled case, where the right-hand side of Eq. (13) vanishes and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ can only take the values $`0`$ or $`\pi `$.

An interesting relation between the two-photon phase and the mixed state phase discussed in the previous section may be obtained by letting the loop $`A^{},B^{},C^{}`$, say, be reduced to a point. In this case, the relative two-photon phase becomes

$$\varphi =\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Pi }_0|\mathrm{\Pi }_f=\mathrm{arctan}\left[(12\lambda )\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\right],$$
(14)
which is the mixed state phase in Eq. (8) if we put $`\lambda =(1+r)/2`$. This illustrates the fact that a mixed state can always be lifted into a pure state by attaching an ancilla. Thus, the mixed state phase for a single polarised photon is equivalent to that obtained for a pure polarisation entangled two-photon state by keeping the polarisation of the ancilla photon fixed.

An experiment to investigate the interference between $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_f`$ was proposed in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This experiment is based on sending a polarisation entangled photon pair through a Franson type interferometer $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the longer arms local rotations are applied in such a way that $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_f`$ is obtained. In one of the shorter arms the $`U(1)`$ shift $`e^{i\chi }`$ is added to $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. To observe a superposition of $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_f`$ we require that the source produces photon pairs randomly $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This is the case with the source for polarisation entangled photon pairs demonstrated experimentally in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. If the photons arrive simultaneously in the output detectors, they both either took the shorter path ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$) or the longer path ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_f`$). Thus, the measured coincidence profile becomes

$$I=\left|e^{i\chi }|\mathrm{\Pi }_0+|\mathrm{\Pi }_f\right|^2=2+2|\mathrm{\Pi }_0|\mathrm{\Pi }_f|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Pi }_0|\mathrm{\Pi }_f],$$
(15)
which verifies the two-photon Pancharatnam phase in Eq. (11) and the reduced visibility in Eq. (12).

## 4 Test of geometric phase

Consider the continuous path $`\eta :t[0,\tau ]|A_tA_t|=U_t|A_0A_0|U_0^{}`$ of normalised pure state projectors with $`A_0|A_\tau 0`$ and $`U_t`$ unitary. Dividing the path into small pieces and using the additive property a) described in Sec. 1, we obtain the geometric phase associated with $`\eta `$ as

$$\varphi _g[\eta ]=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{arg}\left(A_0|A_\tau A_\tau |A_{[(N1)\tau /N]}\mathrm{}A_{[\tau /N]}|A_0\right).$$
(16)
$`\varphi _g[\eta ]`$ is a property of the path $`\eta `$ as it is independent of the lift $`\eta \stackrel{~}{\eta }:t[0,\tau ]|A_t`$ and, in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, of the particular subdivision of the path. A parallel lift is defined by requiring that each $`A_{[(j+1)\tau /N]}|A_{[j\tau /N]}`$, $`j=0,\mathrm{},N1`$, be real and positive, which in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit takes the form

$$A_t|\dot{A}_t=0.$$
(17)
For such a parallel lift, we obtain $`\varphi _g[\eta ]`$ as

$$\varphi _g[\eta ]=\mathrm{arg}A_0|A_\tau .$$
(18)
We here argue that the geometric phase for any such path $`\eta `$ can be made experimentally accessible as a Pancharatnam relative phase. The idea is based on Uhlmann’s $`^\mathrm{?}`$ approach to the geometric phase for any quantal state $`\rho _t`$ using the purification $`W_t`$ such that $`W_tW_t^{}=\rho _t`$. For the unitary pure state path $`\eta `$ we may write $`W_t=U_t|A_0A_0|\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$, where an ancilla state $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t=\stackrel{~}{U}_t|A_0`$ is attached to the system. Now, a parallel purification is obtained by choosing $`\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$ so that

$$W_t^{}\dot{W}_t=\text{hermitian}.$$
(19)
For such a parallel purification, the quantity

$$\beta =\mathrm{arg}\text{Tr}[W_0^{}W_\tau ],$$
(20)
takes, in the pure state case, the form

$$\beta =\mathrm{arg}\stackrel{~}{A}_\tau |A_\tau =\mathrm{arg}A_0|\stackrel{~}{U}_\tau ^{}U_\tau A_0,$$
(21)
which can be shown $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to fulfil $`\beta =\varphi _g[\eta ]`$.

Now, for pure states the purification does not need any entanglement between the system and the ancilla. Thus, the above procedure should work as a superposition effect for the system alone. To see this, consider the lift $`\eta |A_t=U_t|A_0`$ and the auxiliary path $`|\stackrel{~}{A}_t=\stackrel{~}{U}_t|A_0`$, both in the Hilbert space of the system. By letting the auxiliary path be exposed to a $`U(1)`$ shift $`e^{i\chi }`$, the interference profile at each instant of time $`\tau `$ reads

$$I=\left|e^{i\chi }|\stackrel{~}{A}_\tau +|A_\tau \right|^2=2+2|\stackrel{~}{A}_\tau |A_\tau |\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}\stackrel{~}{A}_\tau |A_\tau ]$$
(22)
that attains its maximum at the relative phase $`\varphi _\tau =\mathrm{arg}A_0|\stackrel{~}{U}_\tau ^{}U_\tau )|A_0`$. This phase is generally related to the geometric phase as $`\varphi _\tau =\varphi _g[\eta ]+\gamma _\tau `$, where $`\gamma _\tau `$ is the accumulation of local phase changes along $`\eta `$. However, in analogy with the above purification approach, $`\gamma _\tau `$ can be made to vanish at each instant of time by choosing the auxiliary $`\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$ so that it fulfils the parallelity condition (19). In other words, if $`\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$ fulfils Eq. (19) it is assured that $`\varphi _\tau `$ is identical to the geometric phase associated with the continuous path $`\eta `$.

To illustrate this idea, consider a spin$`\frac{1}{2}`$ initially polarised in the $`+z`$ direction and undergoing precession around the axis $`𝐧=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ,0,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ under the action of the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \sigma _x+\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _z\right),$$
(23)
$`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ being the standard Pauli spin operators in the $`x`$ and $`z`$ direction, respectively. If we put $`\stackrel{~}{U}_t=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{H}t)`$ and insert $`|+z+z|`$ and $`H`$ into Eq. (19), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \sigma _z.$$
(24)
Thus, the Pancharatnam phase difference becomes

$$\varphi _\tau =+z|\stackrel{~}{U}_\tau ^{}U_\tau |+z=\mathrm{arctan}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{tan}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)+\frac{\phi }{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(25)
with $`\phi `$ the precession angle of the spin. This is precisely the noncyclic geometric phase $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{gc}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{gc}`$ is the solid angle enclosed by the path $`\eta `$ and the shortest geodesic connecting its end-points on the Bloch sphere $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Furthermore, the state $`|zz|`$ acquires the relative phase $`+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{gc}`$ under the action of the unitarities $`U_t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$. Thus, according to Eq. (8) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau =\mathrm{arctan}\left[r\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{gc}}{2}\right],$$
(26)
which is the mixed state generalisation of Eq. (25). An explicit neutron interferometer experiment implementing the procedure described in this section has been proposed in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This experiment tests the geodesically closed solid angle in noncyclic precession of the neutron spin.

## 5 Dual set up

It has been demonstrated $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that Pancharatnam’s relative phase for an internal spin degree of freedom may be tested in interferometry. In such an experiment the spin state is changed due to some local interaction in one of the beams, while the other beam is exposed to a variable $`U(1)`$ shift. Here, we argue that the spatial beam-pair itself may acquire an unambiguous Pancharatnam relative phase, dual to the usual phase acquired by the spin state. This dual phase could be tested polarimetrically by letting both a nontrivial spin-space interaction and a spin measurement be delocalised to both the spatial beams.

Let us first briefly review the Pancharatnam relative phase for a precessing spin$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system. The evolution of the state vector reads

$`|A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|+z+\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|z`$
$`|A_f`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi /2}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|+z+e^{i\phi /2}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|z,`$ (27)
where $`\phi `$ is the precession angle and $`|\pm z`$ are eigenvectors of the Pauli spin operator $`\sigma _z`$ in the $`z`$ direction. The Pancharatnam relative phase between $`|A_0`$ and $`|A_f`$ is

$$\varphi =\mathrm{arg}A_0|A_f=\mathrm{arctan}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{tan}\frac{\phi }{2}\right),$$
(28)
where we have assumed that $`A_0|A_f0`$. This phase could be tested in neutron interferometry by letting one beam be exposed to a time-independent uniform magnetic field in the $`z`$ direction and applying a variable phase shift $`e^{i\chi }`$ to the other beam. The last beam-splitter in the interferometer makes the two spin states $`A_0`$ and $`A_f`$ to interfere, yielding the output interference profile as $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$I=\left|e^{i\chi }|A_0+|A_f\right|^2=2+2|A_0|A_f|\mathrm{cos}[\chi \mathrm{arg}A_0|A_f]$$
(29)
with visibility

$$|A_0|A_f|=\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\phi }{2}}.$$
(30)
Now, the basic set up to test the dual Pancharatnam relative phase was proposed in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for neutrons and is sketched in Fig. 1. It consists of three steps:

* A superposed spatial beam state is created by sending a beam of neutrons polarised along the $`+z`$ direction through a beam-splitting crystal plate with transmission probability $`T`$ and reflection probability $`R`$. With $`0`$ and $`1`$ the two spatial beam states, this yields the total state vector

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|A_0|+z=\left[\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|0+\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|1\right]|+z,$$
(31)
where we have set $`\sqrt{T}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$.
* The $`0`$beam is exposed to a magnetic field $`𝐁_0=B_0\widehat{𝐱}`$ and the $`1`$beam is exposed to $`𝐁_1=B_1\widehat{𝐱}`$, as shown in Fig. 1. $`𝐁_0`$ and $`𝐁_1`$ are time-independent and uniform over some finite spatial region. The change in the spin state in each beam is described by the unitary operators

$`U(\phi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi _0\sigma _x/2},`$
$`U(\phi _1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi _1\sigma _x/2},`$ (32)
where $`\sigma _x`$ is the Pauli spin operator in the $`x`$ direction. Here, $`\phi _0B_0`$ and $`\phi _1B_1`$ are the Larmor precession angles. By introducing the spatial state vectors

$`|A^+`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\phi /4}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|0+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\phi /4}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|1,`$
$`|A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\phi /4}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|0+e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }\phi /4}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|1`$ (33)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\phi _0\phi _1`$ and $`\chi =(\phi _0+\phi _1)/2`$, we may write the final total state vector as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[e^{i\chi /2}|A^++e^{i\chi /2}|A^{}\right]|+z`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[e^{i\chi /2}|A^+e^{i\chi /2}|A^{}\right]|z.`$
* A spin analyser measures the spin in the $`z`$ direction in each beam, as shown in Fig. 1. The interference profile $`I`$ in the $`+z`$ spin channel, say, is proportional to the sum of $`+z`$ detections in the two spatially separated analysers. This is dual to the interference measurement in a single spatial channel, while summing over the two spin states, in the set up designed to measure the spin$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Pancharatnam relative phase $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The interference profile in the $`+z`$ spin channel reads

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\left|e^{i\chi /2}|A^{}+e^{i\chi /2}|A^+\right|^2`$ (35)
$``$ $`2+2|A^{}|A^+|\mathrm{cos}\left[\chi \mathrm{arg}A^{}|A^+\right].`$
Thus, by keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi B_0B_1`$ fixed and varying $`\chi B_0+B_1`$ the dual Pancharatnam relative phase $`\mathrm{arg}A^{}|A^+`$ and visibility $`|A^{}|A^+|`$ can be measured.

## 6 Conclusions

We have discussed extensions of Pancharatnam’s prescription of relative phase to mixed states and entangled two-photon states. The solid angle relation for single qubit states becomes nonlinear in these extensions and we have discussed experiments to test this nonlinearity. A continuously evolving quantal state is associated with a geometric phase at each point along the path in state space. For a given lift of such a path we have proposed a general procedure to systematically cancel the accumulation of local phase changes relative a specific auxiliary path in Hilbert space. This guarantees that Pancharatnam’s relative phase between the two paths in Hilbert space is identical to the geometric phase. Finally, we have argued that a spatially delocalised state may acquire a dual Pancharatnam relative phase that could be measured polarimetrically. We hope that these ideas may lead to new experimental tests of Pancharatnam’s prescription of relative phase as well as to trigger further extensions to the theory of interference.

## Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Jeeva Anandan, Artur Ekert, Marie Ericsson, Björn Hessmo, Daniel Oi, Arun Pati, and Vlatko Vedral for collaboration on Pancharatnam’s phase. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council.

## References

## Figure Captions

Fig.1. Set up for testing the dual Pancharatnam relative phase. The source prepares a coherent superposition of the two spatial beam states $`0`$ and $`1`$, both being spin-polarised perpendicular to the plane of the set up. Each beam is exposed to a magnetic field in a common direction in the plane of the set up, but with different strength $`B_0B_1`$. The dual Pancharatnam relative phase is measured by the pair of spin analyzers by keeping the difference $`B_0B_1`$ fixed, while varying the sum $`B_0+B_1`$.