text:
# Phase Diagram of the Electron-Doped Cuprate Superconductors

In the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate superconductors, the superconducting (SC) states appear as holes or electrons are doped into the antiferromagnetic (AF) insulator. The SC states in the electron-doped cuprates have $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-symmetry as those in the hole-doped cuprates do, which suggests existence of a common mechanism in both kinds of cuprates. The doping ranges in which the AF states and the SC states exist in the electron-doped cuprates are, however, defferent from those in the hole-doped cuprates. In the hole-doped cuprates, the AF states exist in narrow doping range ($`0\delta \stackrel{<}{_{}}0.02`$), and the SC states exist in wide doping range ($`0.05\stackrel{<}{_{}}\delta \stackrel{<}{_{}}0.25`$). In the electron-doped cuprates, on the other hand, the AF states exist in wider range ($`0.13\stackrel{<}{_{}}\delta 0`$) and the SC states appear in narrower range ($`0.18\stackrel{<}{_{}}\delta \stackrel{<}{_{}}0.13`$) than those in the hole-doped cuprates.

In our previous study we have obtained the $`T\delta `$ phase diagram in the hole-doped region with the AF fluctuations in the fluctuation-exchange (FLEX) approximation and the SC fluctuations in the self-consistent $`t`$-matrix approximation, which have been based on the ingap state and the super-exchange interaction $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ obtained in the $`d`$$`p`$ model by using the slave boson technique and the $`1/N`$-expansion theory. We have obtained the phase diagram including the AF state, the SC state with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-symmetry and the spin gap phenomenon induced by the SC fluctuation, which are consistent with those observed in the hole-doped cuprates.

In the present study we investigate the $`T\delta `$ phase diagram in the electron-doped region by calculating the superconducting transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the antiferromagnetic transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`1/T_1T`$ of NMR by using the same approximation as that taken in our previous study. Obtained phase diagram has common features as those in the hole-doped region, including the AF state, the SC state and the spin gap phenomenon. Doping-dependences of $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, $`T_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ (spin gap temperature) are, however, different from those in the hole-doped systems. The AF state exists approximately in 3 times wider range than those obtained in the hole-doped region. The SC state, on the other hand, appears in narrower range. In addition we show that the spin gap phenomenon appears in narrower range than those obtained in the hole-doped region. The electron-hole asymmetry is due to the intrinsic nature of the in-gap state described in the followings, while the electron-hole asymmetry has been studied by single band models such as the $`t`$$`J`$ model or the single band Hubbard model by introducing the long range hoppings.

We take the $`d`$$`p`$ model which is a kind of the two-band Hubbard model for describing the electronic system in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _p{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}c_{𝐤\sigma }^+c_{𝐤\sigma }+\epsilon _d{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}d_{i\sigma }^+d_{i\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`N_\mathrm{L}^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i𝐤\sigma }{}}\{t_{i𝐤}c_{𝐤\sigma }^+d_{i\sigma }b_i^++h.c.\},`$
which is treated within the physical subspace where local constraints $`\widehat{Q}_i=_\sigma d_{i\sigma }^+d_{i\sigma }+b_i^+b_i=1`$ strictly hold in order to exclude double occupancy of d-holes. In the above, $`c_{𝐤\sigma }`$, $`d_{i\sigma }`$ and $`b_i`$ are annihilation operators for a $`p`$-hole with a wave vector $`𝐤`$ and spin $`\sigma `$, a pseudo fermion representing a single occupation of $`d`$-hole of $`i`$-th site and a slave boson representing a vacancy of the $`d`$-hole of $`i`$-th site, respectively, and $`t_{i𝐤}=t_𝐤\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐑_i)`$, with $`t_𝐤=2t_{dp}[1\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}k_xa+\mathrm{cos}k_ya)]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ , where $`a`$ is the lattice constant (we set $`a=1`$), and $`N_\mathrm{L}`$ is the total number of lattice sites. Here $`\epsilon _p`$ and $`\epsilon _d`$ stand for the energies of the $`p`$\- and $`d`$-levels measured from the chemical potential $`\mu `$, respectively, and $`t_{dp}`$ stands for the $`d`$$`p`$ transfer.

The $`1/N`$-expansion is a suitable method for treating correlations systematically. First, the strong local correlations are suitably included in the self-energy in the leading order of $`1/N`$-expansion. The quasi-particle Green’s functions of the leading order in the $`1/N`$-expansion are given by

$`G_0(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =\pm }{}}A_\gamma (𝐤)/(\omega E_\gamma (𝐤)+\mathrm{i0}^+),`$ (2)
with $`E_\gamma (𝐤)=\frac{1}{2}[\epsilon _p+\omega _0+\gamma ((\epsilon _p\omega _0)^2+4bt_𝐤^2)^{1/2}]`$ , $`A_\gamma (𝐤)=\gamma (E_\gamma (𝐤)\omega _0)/(E_+(𝐤)E_{}(𝐤))`$, where $`\gamma =`$ and $`+`$ denote the ingap state and the $`p`$-band, and $`N`$ represents the degeneracy of $`d`$-hole ($`N=2`$ in the present case). The binding energy $`\omega _0`$ and the number $`b`$ of the slave boson are self-consistently determined together with $`\mu `$, and then $`\mu `$ is located in the ingap state.

The system is the charge transfer (CT) type of the Mott insulator at hole doping rate $`\delta =0`$ and in the region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{c}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\epsilon _p\epsilon _d`$ stands for the CT gap, and the total hole number is given by $`n=1+\delta `$. In the hole-doped region, doped $`p`$-holes form the quasi-particle band called as the ingap state inside the CT gap near the $`p`$-band. It is due to the resonating state of the slave boson, which corresponds to the Zhang-Rice singlet. Those results are consistent with the results of optical experiments.

In the electron-doped region where vacancies of $`d`$-holes are doped, on the other hand, the ingap state is the $`d`$-like band inside the CT gap near the localized $`d`$-state. The band width and the intensity of the in-gap state approximately equal $`\omega _0`$ and $`b`$, respectively, and are proportional to $`|\delta |`$ when $`|\delta |1`$. The intensity in the electron-doped region is almost 3 times larger than that in the hole-doped region, $`i.e.`$ the intrinsic electron-hole asymmetry induced by the local correlation on the $`d`$-sites. Those basic features are not changed by taking the higher order terms in the $`1/N`$-expansion. Those results are consistent with the results obtained recently by the dynamical mean field theory (DMFT) in the two-band Hubbard model.

Next, concerning the intersite correlations, it has been shown that the super-exchange interaction $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ is the most dominant term within $`O(1/N)`$ in the vicinity of the CT insulator. We derive the coupled equations of the AF fluctuations and the SC fluctuations which are induced in the ingap state by $`J_\mathrm{s}`$. The AF fluctuations via $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ are given by

$$V(𝐪,\omega )=J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)/(1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )),$$
(3)
with $`J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)=J_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{cos}(q_x)+\mathrm{cos}(q_y))`$ and the irreducible spin susceptibility

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤+𝐪,𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dxf(x)}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤+𝐪,x)G(𝐤,\omega +x)^{}`$
$`+`$ $`G(𝐤+𝐪,\omega +x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,x)],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=b^2t_𝐤^2t_𝐤^{}^2/((E_{}(𝐤)\omega _0)^2(E_{}(𝐤^{})\omega _0)^2)`$ and $`f(E)=(\mathrm{exp}\{E/T\}+1)^1`$.

It was shown that a component with the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry among various components of the spin-fluctuation-mediated interaction contributes dominantly to the pairing interaction. We take only the component with the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry of the pairing interaction as

$$v_d=N_\mathrm{L}^2\underset{𝐤}{}\underset{𝐤^{}}{}\psi _𝐤V(𝐤𝐤^{},0)\psi _𝐤^{},$$
(5)
with $`\psi _𝐤=\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)`$.

The irreducible pairing susceptibility $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{p}}(𝐪,\omega )=N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\psi _𝐤^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐪𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}x`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`[f(x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,x)G(𝐪𝐤,\omega x)`$
$``$ $`f(x)G(𝐤,\omega x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐪𝐤,x)]`$
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=b^2t_𝐤^2t_𝐤^{}^2/((\pi T)^2+\omega _0^2)^2`$. In the above equations, both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$ are the vertices connecting $`p`$\- and $`d`$-holes.

Self-energy corrections due to the SC fluctuations in the $`t`$-matrix approximation are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )=\psi _𝐤^2N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐪𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dx}`$
$`\times [f(x)T(𝐪,x+\omega )\mathrm{Im}G(𝐪𝐤,x)`$
$`g(x)\mathrm{Im}T(𝐪,x)G(𝐪𝐤,x\omega )^{}],`$ (7)
with the $`t`$-matrix of the SC fluctuations

$`T(𝐪,\omega )=v_d^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )/(1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )),`$ (8)
where $`g(E)=(\mathrm{exp}\{E/T\}1)^1`$.

Self-energy corrections due to the AF fluctuations in the fluctuation exchange (FLEX) approximation are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )=N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤𝐪}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dx}`$
$`\times [g(x)\mathrm{Im}V(𝐪,x)G(𝐤𝐪,\omega x)`$
$`f(x)V(𝐪,\omega x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤𝐪,x)].`$ (9)
The renormalized Green’s function is given by

$`G(𝐤,\omega )=[G_0(𝐤,\omega )^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )]^1,`$ (10)
Both the SC and AF fluctuations are self-consistently treated by solving the coupled equations (3)-(10).

Using the solutions of the above coupled equations, we calculate the NMR relaxation rate,

$$1/T_1T=N_\mathrm{L}^1\underset{q}{}F_{ab}(𝐪)\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\chi ^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )/\omega ,$$
(11)
where $`\chi ^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )/(1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega ))`$ and $`F_{ab}(𝐪)`$ are the form factors. In the cuprates, $`1/T_1T`$ indicates the degree of the AF fluctuation.

We define $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ as the temperature determined by the condition,

$`\tau =1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)\alpha =0`$ (12)
, where $`\alpha `$ represents the degree of the $`3`$-dimension ($`3`$D) effect in the quasi-$`2`$D electronic system. In the present model, $`1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)`$ does not reach zero at finite temperatures by the effect of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )`$, because we take a 2D electronic system in the calculation of the above coupled equations. We take $`\alpha =0.5`$ in the present study so as to have finite $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ of $`O(100\mathrm{K})`$.

We define $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ as the temperature determined by the condition,

$`\zeta =1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐐)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐐,0)\beta =0`$ (13)
, where $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$ and $`\beta `$ represents the degree of the $`3`$D effect. In the present model $`1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐐)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐐,0)`$ also does not reach zero at finite temperatures by the effect of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )`$ in the 2D electronic ststem. We take $`\beta =0.02`$ in the present study.

We define $`T_0`$ as the temperature at which the AF fluctuations begin to be appreciable ($`\frac{}{T}(1/T_1T)|_{T=T_0}=50(1/T_1T)|_{T=0.08,\delta =0.1}`$ in the present study). It is assumed that $`T_0`$ is the upper boundary of the anomalous metallic phase in the hole-doped cuprate.

In actual numerical calculations, throughout the present study, we set $`2t_{dp}=1.0`$ (eV), $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.5`$ and $`J_\mathrm{s}=0.1`$. For example, we have $`\omega _0=0.0780`$ and $`b=0.0515`$ at $`\delta =0.1`$. The total number of discrete points taken for the $`𝐪`$-summation over the 2D first Brillouin zone is 32 $`\times `$ 32. The $`\omega `$-integral over the region from $`2\omega _0`$ to $`2\omega _0`$ is replaced by the $`\omega `$-summation of $`80`$ discrete points.

Figure 1 shows the $`T`$-$`\delta `$ phase diagram obtained by solving the above coupled equations, where the phase diagram in the hole-doped region ($`\delta >0`$) has been obtained in our previous study. The AF state in the electron-doped region persists to higher doping rate $`\delta 0.13`$ than the doping rate $`\delta 0.05`$ where that in the hole-doped region persists. The SC state appears in narrower doping range $`0.19\stackrel{<}{_{}}\delta \stackrel{<}{_{}}0.13`$ than the doping range where that in the hole-doped region appears. In addition it is shown that the spin gap appears in the doping range $`0.16\stackrel{<}{_{}}\delta \stackrel{<}{_{}}0.13`$, which is consistent with the results observed by NMR very recently. Those features account for the phase diagrams observed both in the electron-doped cuprates and in the hole-doped cuprates.

The AF fluctuations dominate in the region of $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}\stackrel{<}{_{}}T\stackrel{<}{_{}}T_0`$, while the SC fluctuations dominate in the region of $`T_\mathrm{c}<T\stackrel{<}{_{}}T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$. This crossover behavior induces the anomalous $`T`$-dependence of $`1/T_1T`$ as shown in Fig. 2. As a result of the domination by the SC fluctuations, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ has a maximum at $`\delta 0.1`$ and decreases with $`\delta `$ decreasing in the hole-doped region. If the AF state is removed, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in the electron-doped region has a maximum at $`\delta 0.1`$ and decreases as $`|\delta |`$ decreases.

Figure 2 shows $`T`$-dependences of $`1/T_1T`$. At $`\delta \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.12`$, $`1/T_1T`$ increase as $`T`$ decreases until the system reaches $`T=T_\mathrm{N}`$. At $`\delta =0.130.16`$, $`1/T_1T`$ has a maximum at the spin gap temperature $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ and decreases as $`T`$ decreases in the region of $`T_\mathrm{c}<T<T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$, which is the spin gap phenomenon induced by the SC fluctuation. If the AF state were to be removed, $`1/T_1T`$ has a maximum at $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ in the region of $`\delta \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.12`$, and then $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ continues to increase with $`|\delta |`$ decreases.

Figure 3 shows $`T`$-dependences of $`\tau `$ defined in eq. (12) (the solid lines) and $`\zeta `$ defined in eq. (13) (the dotted lines). At $`\delta =0.130.18`$, $`\tau `$ decreases as $`T`$ decreases and reaches zero at $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$. At $`\delta \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.12`$, $`\zeta `$ decreases as $`T`$ decreases and reaches zero at $`T=T_\mathrm{N}`$, while $`\zeta `$ does not reach zero in the region of $`\delta 0.13`$. The upturn at $`\delta =0.13`$ and the saturation at $`\delta =0.140.16`$ in the $`T`$-dependences of $`\zeta `$ are mainly due to the SC fluctuations, while those at $`\delta \stackrel{<}{_{}}0.16`$ are due to the decrease of the AF fluctuation.

In the phase diagram obtained in the present study, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ depend on the phenomenological parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively, representing the degree of the 3D effect depending materials. The qualitative features of the $`\delta `$-dependences of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ are, however, independent of the choice of these parameters, and $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ is determined without indefiniteness. By solving the coupled equations (3)-(10) for the anisotropic 3D system, ambiguities due to these parameters should be excluded.

In summary, we have obtained a unified phase diagram accounting for the phase diagrams observed both in the electron-doped cuprates and in the hole-doped cuprates including the AF states, the SC states and the spin gap phenomena. The AF fluctuations and the SC fluctuations induced in the ingap states by $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ are the key factors for describing those, especially the spin gap phenomena. The electron-hole asymmetry on the $`\delta `$-dependences of $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{SG}}`$, is the result from the differences of intrinsic nature of the ingap states due to the strong correlation on the $`d`$-sites in the $`d`$$`p`$ model.

The present work has been partially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.


format: text

text:
# Spin dependent momentum distributions of proton-deuteron clusters in 3He from electron scattering on polarized 3He: theoretical predictions

## I Introduction

With the knowledge of solving precisely few-nucleon equations, the availability of high precision nucleon-nucleon (NN) potentials and the insight into the electromagnetic nucleonic current operator it is seducing to ask very detailed questions about spin dependent momentum distributions inside light nuclei and the way to access them through electron scattering taking final state interactions fully into account. Momentum distributions of polarized $`\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{p}`$ clusters in spin orientated 3He have been studied before, see for instance . We address here the question whether these distributions are accessible through the $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{p})d`$ or $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{d})p`$ processes. Optimal kinematical conditions are that the polarisations of 3He and of the knocked out proton (deuteron) and the momenta of the final proton and deuteron are collinear to the photon momentum. As we will show the longitudinal and transverse response functions will lead, up to known factors, directly to the searched for spin dependent momentum distribution of the $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{d}`$ clusters in 3He. One can also define a proper asymmetry, which carries corresponding information. Of course this can only be true in plane wave impulse approximation and for the absorption of the photon on a single nucleon. Rescattering effects in the final state as well as meson exchange currents will disturb the outcome. The strength of that disturbance again will depend on the photon momentum Q with the hope that it decreases with increasing Q.

We formulate the electromagnetic process in Sec. II and also display there the searched for $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{d}`$ cluster momentum distributions of 3He. Sec. III shows our results for the $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{p})d`$ and $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{d})p`$ processes based on the AV18 NN potential  and precise solutions of the corresponding Faddeev equations. Since our predictions depend on the full dynamics in a highly nontrivial manner, a future experimental verification will be an important test for the understanding of few-nucleon dynamics. We end with a brief summary in Sec. IV.

## II Theory

The spin dependent momentum distribution of proton-deuteron clusters inside the 3He nucleus is defined as:

$$𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)\mathrm{\Psi }M||\varphi _dM_d|\stackrel{}{q}_0\frac{1}{2}m\stackrel{}{q}_0\frac{1}{2}m|\varphi _dM_d||\mathrm{\Psi }M,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}_0`$ is the proton momentum (the deuteron momentum is $`\stackrel{}{q}_0`$); $`m`$, $`M_d`$ and $`M`$ are spin magnetic quantum numbers for the proton, deuteron and the considered nucleus, respectively.

We introduce our standard basis in momentum space

$`|pq\alpha |pq(ls)j(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})J𝒥M(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})TM_T,`$ (2)
where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are magnitudes of Jacobi momenta and the set of discrete quantum numbers $`\alpha `$ comprises angular momenta, spins and isospins for a three-nucleon (3N) system. Then $`𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)`$ can be evaluated as

$`𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)=|{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}(\delta _{l0}+\delta _{l2})\delta _{s1}\delta _{j1}\delta _{t0}C(1I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};M_d,MM_d,M)`$ (3)
$`C(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I;MM_dm,m,MM_d){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dpp^2\varphi _l(p)pq_0\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }Y_{\lambda ,MM_dm}^{}(\widehat{q}_0)|^2.`$ (4)
In Eq. (3) $`pq_0\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are the partial wave projected wave function components of 3He in momentum space and $`\varphi _l(p)`$ are the s- and d-wave components of the deuteron.

Further we rewrite $`𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)`$ as

$`𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)=|{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =0,2}{}}Y_{\lambda ,MM_dm}(\widehat{q}_0)C(1I_\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};M_d,MM_d,M)`$ (5)
$`C(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_\lambda ;MM_dm,m,MM_d){\displaystyle \underset{l=0,2}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dpp^2\varphi _l(p)pq_0\alpha _{l\lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2.`$ (6)
and define an auxiliary quantity $`H_\lambda (q_0)`$ as

$`H_\lambda (q_0){\displaystyle \underset{l=0,2}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dpp^2\varphi _l(p)pq_0\alpha _{l\lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi },\lambda =0,2.`$ (7)
Note that the set $`\alpha _{l\lambda }`$ contributes only for the deuteron quantum numbers $`s=1`$, $`j=1`$ and $`t=0`$. Further $`I_\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\frac{3}{2}`$ for $`\lambda =2`$. It is clear that using this quantity $`H_\lambda (q_0)`$ the spin dependent momentum distribution $`𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)`$ can be constructed for any combination of magnetic quantum numbers and direction $`\widehat{q}_0`$.

In this paper all our calculations are based on the NN force AV18 . We display $`H_\lambda (q_0)`$ in Fig. 1. Note that $`\lambda `$ is the relative orbital angular momentum of the proton with respect to the deuteron inside 3He. As we see from Fig. 1, the $`s`$-wave ($`\lambda `$ = 0) dominates the momentum distribution $`𝒴`$ for the small relative momenta and has a node around $`q_0`$ = 400 MeV/c. Near that value and above the $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave contributions are comparable.

In Fig. 2 we show the quantities $`𝒴(M,M_d,m;\stackrel{}{q}_0)`$ for $`\stackrel{}{q}_0`$ pointing in the direction of the spin quantisation axis and the 3He nucleus polarised with $`M=1/2`$. The polarisations of the proton and deuteron are chosen as $`M_d=0,m=1/2`$ and $`M_d=1,m=1/2`$, respectively. We see an interesting shift in the minima from $`q_0`$= 300 to 500 MeV/c, if the polarisation of the proton (deuteron) switches from a parallel (perpendicular) to an antiparallel (parallel) orientation in relation to the spin direction of 3He. This strong spin dependence leads to a pronounced spin asymmetry defined as

$`A{\displaystyle \frac{𝒴(M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=0,m=\frac{1}{2};|\stackrel{}{q}_0|\widehat{z})𝒴(M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=1,m=\frac{1}{2};|\stackrel{}{q}_0|\widehat{z})}{𝒴(M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=0,m=\frac{1}{2};|\stackrel{}{q}_0|\widehat{z})+𝒴(M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=1,m=\frac{1}{2};|\stackrel{}{q}_0|\widehat{z})}}.`$ (8)
and shown in Fig. 3.

Next we ask the question, how this quantity can be accessed experimentally. The cross section for the process $`e+^3\mathrm{He}e^{}+p+d`$ has the form

$`\sigma =\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left\{\left(v_LW_L+v_TW_T+v_{TT}W_{TT}+v_{TL}W_{TL}\right)+h\left(v_T^{}W_T^{}+v_{TL^{}}W_{TL^{}}\right)\right\}\rho ,`$ (9)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}`$, $`v_i`$ and $`\rho `$ are analytically given kinematical factors, and $`h`$ is the helicity of the incoming electron. The response functions $`W_i`$, which contain the whole dynamical information, are constructed from the current matrix elements taken between the initial bound state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }M`$ and the final scattering state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{()}M_dm`$ . They are given as

$`W_L=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{()}M_dm|j_0(\stackrel{}{Q})|\mathrm{\Psi }M\right|^2\left|N_0\right|^2,`$

$`W_T=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{()}M_dm|j_{+1}(\stackrel{}{Q})|\mathrm{\Psi }M\right|^2+\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{()}M_dm|j_1(\stackrel{}{Q})|\mathrm{\Psi }M\right|^2\left|N_{+1}\right|^2+\left|N_1\right|^2,`$

$`W_{TT}=2\mathrm{}(N_{+1}(N_1)^{}),`$

$`W_{TL}=2\mathrm{}(N_0(N_{+1}N_1)^{}),`$

$`W_T^{}=\left|N_{+1}\right|^2\left|N_1\right|^2,`$

$`W_{TL^{}}=2\mathrm{}(N_0(N_{+1}+N_1)^{})`$ (10)
Note that $`W_T^{}`$ and $`W_{TL^{}}`$ contribute only in the case when the initial electron is polarized. This is our standard notation $`N`$ of the nuclear matrix element, where the indices $`0`$ and $`\pm 1`$ stand for the zeroth component and the transverse spherical components of the current. The general 3N current operator contains the single nucleon contributions as well as two- and three-nucleon exchange terms

$`j_\mu (\stackrel{}{Q})=j_\mu (\stackrel{}{Q};1)+j_\mu (\stackrel{}{Q};2)+j_\mu (\stackrel{}{Q};3).`$ (11)
In the nonrelativistic limit, which we use, the three contributing pieces of the single nucleon current operator (the charge density, the convection and the spin current) can be written in the 3N momentum space as

$`j_0(\stackrel{}{Q};1)={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(Q)\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{Q}|},`$ (12)
$`j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q};1;\mathrm{conv})={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\frac{q_\tau }{m_N}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(Q)\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{Q}|},`$ (13)
$`j_\tau (\stackrel{}{Q};1;\mathrm{spin})={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\frac{Q\tau \sigma _\tau }{2m_N}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_M(Q)\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{Q}|},`$ (14)
where $`m_N`$ is the nucleon mass and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(Q)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_M(Q)`$ are sums of isospin projection operators for the neutron and proton joined by the electric ($`G_E`$) and magnetic ($`G_M`$) nucleon form factors, respectively (see ). We assumed that $`\stackrel{}{Q}\widehat{z}`$.

Let us now decompose the scattering state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{()}M_dm`$ in the following way

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{()}M_dm|\varphi _dM_d\stackrel{}{q}_fm+|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{\mathrm{rest}}M_dm.`$ (15)
The first term is just a product of the deuteron wave function $`|\varphi _dM_d`$ and a relative momentum eigenstate of the spectator nucleon $`|\stackrel{}{q}_fm`$. The other term accounts for the proper antisymmetrization of the final state and all rescattering contributions.

If the many-nucleon contributions to the 3N current ($`j_\mu (\stackrel{}{Q};2)`$ and $`j_\mu (\stackrel{}{Q};3)`$) and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{pd}^{\mathrm{rest}}M_dm`$ can be neglected (PWIA assumption), then the current matrix elements take the following form

$`N_0^{\mathrm{PWIA}}(M,M_d,m)=G_E(Q){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}(\delta _{l0}+\delta _{l2})\delta _{s1}\delta _{j1}\delta _{t0}C(1I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};M_d,MM_d,M)`$ (16)
$`C(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I;MM_dm,m,MM_d)Y_{\lambda ,MM_dm}(\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}_f{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{}{Q}})`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2p|\stackrel{}{q}_f{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{}{Q}|\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi _l(p)`$ (18)
$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{conv}\mathrm{PWIA}}(M,M_d,m)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_f}{m_N}}Y_{1\tau }(\widehat{q}_f)N_0^{\mathrm{PWIA}}(M,M_d,m)`$ (19)
$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{PWIA}}(M,M_d,m)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{Q}{m_N}}G_M(Q)C({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};m\tau ,\tau ,m)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}(\delta _{l0}+\delta _{l2})\delta _{s1}\delta _{j1}\delta _{t0}C(1I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};M_d,MM_d,M)`$ (21)
$`C(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I;MM_dm+\tau ,m\tau ,MM_d)Y_{\lambda ,MM_dm+\tau }(\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}_f{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{}{Q}})`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2p|\stackrel{}{q}_f{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{}{Q}|\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi _l(p)`$ (23)
In the laboratory frame $`\stackrel{}{p}_N+\stackrel{}{p}_d=\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and by definition of the Jacobi momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_f=\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{p}_N\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{p}_d`$, thus $`\stackrel{}{q}_f\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{Q}=\stackrel{}{p}_d`$. The second argument of the 3He wave function component is therefore just the deuteron lab momentum. For the parallel kinematics ($`\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{p}_N\stackrel{}{p}_d`$) the matrix element $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{conv}\mathrm{PWIA}}`$ is zero.

In this particular situation, and for the initial target spin parallel to $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ ($`M=\frac{1}{2}`$) only few combinations of the magnetic quantum numbers contribute to the nuclear matrix elements $`N_0^{\mathrm{PWIA}}`$ and $`N_{\pm 1}^{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{PWIA}}`$. Because of the choice of the parallel kinematics and the property of the spherical harmonics these are $`M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=0,m=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=1,m=\frac{1}{2}`$ in $`N_0^{\mathrm{PWIA}}`$, $`M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=0,m=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=1,m=\frac{1}{2}`$ in $`N_1^{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{PWIA}}`$ and $`M=\frac{1}{2},M_d=1,m=\frac{1}{2}`$ in $`N_{+1}^{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{PWIA}}`$.

Furthermore, if we compare the expressions given in Eqs. (14) and (16) to the one in Eq. (3) we find that the searched for spin dependent momentum distributions $`𝒴`$ of 3He are connected to $`N_i^{\mathrm{PWIA}}`$ by

$`𝒴(M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},M_d=0,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};|\stackrel{}{p}_d|\widehat{z})=`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(G_E)^2}}\left|N_0^{\mathrm{PWIA}}(M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},M_d=0,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right|^2=`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_N^2}{Q^2(G_M)^2}}\left|N_1^{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{PWIA}}(M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},M_d=0,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right|^2`$ (26)
and by

$`𝒴(M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},M_d=1,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};|\stackrel{}{p}_d|\widehat{z})=`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(G_E)^2}}\left|N_0^{\mathrm{PWIA}}(M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},M_d=1,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right|^2=`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_N^2}{Q^2(G_M)^2}}\left|N_{+1}^{\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{PWIA}}(M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},M_d=1,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right|^2.`$ (29)
In the case of parallel kinematics $`W_{TT}`$, $`W_{TL}`$ and $`W_{TL^{}}`$ vanish. This follows from the fact that the conditions on the magnetic quantum numbers, $`M`$, $`M_d`$ and $`m`$, given in products of $`N_0`$, $`N_{+1}`$ and $`N_1`$ cannot be simultaneously fulfilled. For an experiment with unpolarized electrons, the cross section (7) contains then only the longitudinal ($`W_L`$) and transverse ($`W_T`$) response functions:

$`\sigma =\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left(v_LW_L+v_TW_T\right)\rho ,`$ (30)
Thus the standard “L-T” separation is required in order to access individually $`W_L`$ and $`W_T`$.

Another possibility is offered by an experiment with a polarized electron beam. In this case no further separation of response functions is required, since

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma (h=+1)\sigma (h=1)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_T^{}\rho }}=|N_{+1}|^2|N_1|^2.`$ (31)
Therefore under these extreme simplifying assumptions the response functions $`W_L`$, $`W_T`$ and $`W_T^{}`$ carry directly the searched for information. Note that in case of $`W_T`$ ($`W_T^{}`$) only one of the two parts gives a nonzero contribution.

The full dynamics adds antisymmetrization in the final state. (Note our single nucleon current operator as given in Eqs. (10)-(12) acts only on one particle. Antisymmetrization in the final state is equivalent to the action of the current on all three particles). Then of course rescattering to all orders in the NN $`t`$-operator has to be included. On top one should add at least two-body currents. We have described how to do that before at several places . Here we only remark that we employ standard $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like exchange currents related to the NN force AV18, which we use throughout the paper, and that adequate Faddeev equations for 3He and for the treatment of FSI have been solved precisely.

## III Results

Since we work strictly nonrelativistically we want to keep the 3N c.m. energy, $`E_{3N}^{c.m.}`$, below the pion threshold. But in that regime we would like to study many kinematical configurations and also include higher three-momenta $`Q`$ of the photon. We display in Table I the kinematical conditions, for which our studies have been carried through. In parallel kinematics one can distinguish three cases for the momentum orientations of the final proton and deuteron, which we denote by $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$, and which are depicted in Fig. 4. Thus for $`C_2`$ the final momenta of proton and deuteron are parallel to $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$, whereas in $`C_1`$ and $`C_3`$ only one of them lies in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$, the other is opposite. Table I shows for an (arbitrarily selected) initial electron energy of 1.2 GeV various relevant variables: the electron scattering angle, the proton and deuteron momenta $`p_N`$ and $`p_d`$, the photon energy $`\omega `$, the three momentum of the photon $`Q`$ and finally the 3N c.m. energy $`E_{3N}^{c.m.}`$. The additional label distinguishes the three cases $`C_1`$ to $`C_3`$. We see that for each fixed $`p_d`$ value we cover a certain range of $`Q`$-values. The three $`C_1`$ configurations with $`E_{3N}^{c.m.}>`$ 140 MeV are above the pion threshold and have to be taken with caution. We evaluated all the cases of Table I but do not show all in case the results are similar. Fig. 5 displays $`W_L/(G_E)^2`$ for $`M_d=0`$, $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`M_d=1`$, $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ against the available $`Q`$-values according to Table I. According to Eqs. (17) and (18) in PWIA $`W_L/(G_E)^2`$ is just the searched for $`𝒴`$ and thus trivially independent of $`Q`$. Symmetrising the final state but still neglecting rescattering is called PWIAS, while predictions including additionally FSI are denoted by Full. We see a change of patterns in going from $`p_d`$= 100 to 200 and from 400 to 500 MeV/c. As seen from Table I this is related to the different motions of the final proton and deuteron, in other words one switches from the configuration $`C_1`$ to $`C_2`$ and then to $`C_3`$. Symmetrisation (PWIAS) has little effect at $`p_d`$= 10 (not shown) and 100 MeV/c but has a big one for the smaller $`Q`$ values in case of $`p_d`$= 200–400 MeV/c and for all $`Q`$-values in case of $`p_d`$= 500–600 MeV/c. Rescattering plays mostly a strong role. In case of $`C_1`$ ($`p_d`$= 10 and 100 MeV/c) its effects are relatively small and diminish nicely with increasing Q. In case of $`C_2`$ ($`p_d`$= 200–400 MeV/c) its role is dramatic for $`p_d`$= 300 and 400 MeV/c, which has to be expected since the proton and the deuteron travel together with a low relative energy $`E_{3N}^{c.m.}`$. In case of $`C_3`$ the two particles travel again opposite to each other as for $`C_1`$ and $`E_{3N}^{c.m.}`$ decreases with increasing $`Q`$. In this case the by far dominant contribution to the very strong deviation from PWIA comes from antisymmetrization in the final state and FSI leads to a relatively mild modification in case of $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ but a significantly larger one for $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$. Thus we see quite different outcomes depending on the cases and these theoretical predictions would be very interesting to be compared to data.

In case of $`W_T`$ and $`W_T^{}`$ the spin operator appears in the current and moreover one can see the effects of the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like MEC’s. Nevertheless the situation for $`\frac{2m_N^2}{Q^2(G_M)^2}W_T`$ shown in Fig. 6 is roughly spoken similar to the one for $`W_L/(G_E)^2`$. (We regard only $`W_T`$ but of course $`W_T^{}`$ carries the same information.) Additionally one observes the effects of MEC’s, which are pronounced for $`p_d`$= 300 and 400 MeV/c.

In view of all that, can we identify kinematic regions to pin down the searched for momentum distributions using $`W_L`$ or $`W_T`$ ? We choose the cases of the closest approach of PWIA and Full calculations (with MEC’s in case of $`W_T`$) for the different $`p_d`$ values. They are displayed in Figs. 7 and 8 together with the spin dependent momentum distributions $`𝒴`$ from Fig. 2. In case of $`m=1/2`$ the values of closest approach extracted from $`W_L`$ and $`W_T`$ differ for the larger $`q_0`$ values, where they also do not reach $`𝒴`$. Only to the left of the zero of $`𝒴`$ they agree with each other and with $`𝒴`$. For $`m=1/2`$ the predictions for $`W_L`$ and $`W_T`$ agree with each other but do not show the strong dip of $`𝒴`$. For the smaller $`q_0`$-values they agree with $`𝒴`$. As a consequence of these results the asymmetry $`A`$ formed out of those values of closest approach cannot follow the asymmetry formed out of the $`𝒴`$’s. Only the values extracted for $`W_L`$ show a mild similarity with the searched for $`A`$, as shown in Fig. 9.

## IV Summary

Based on the NN force AV18 and consistent $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like exchange currents we investigated within the Faddeev framework the process $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{p})d`$ (or $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}}(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{d})p`$). The aim was to have access to the spin-dependent momentum distribution of polarized $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{d}`$ clusters in polarized 3He. That distribution would provide interesting insight into the 3He wave function. We restricted ourselves to a nonrelativistic regime, where the 3N c.m. energy of the final state should stay below the pion threshold. In that kinematical regime we explored the longitudinal and transverse response functions $`W_L`$ and $`W_T`$, as well as $`W_T^{}`$, as a function of the final deuteron and the allowed photon momenta. All the spins and momenta are chosen parallel or antiparallel to the photon momentum. While in PWIA $`W_L`$ and $`W_T`$ ($`W_T^{}`$) up to known factors yield directly the searched for spin-dependent momentum distribution, FSI and MEC’s preclude in most cases the direct access to that distribution. The response functions $`W_L`$ and $`W_T`$ multiplied by appropriate factors have been mapped out in a wide kinematical range and this theoretical outcome should be checked experimentally. It presents the present day state-of-the-art insight into the dominant photon absorption process and the few-nucleon dynamics. It is only at small deuteron momenta $`p_d2\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m}^1`$ that the searched for momentum distribution can be accessed within the constrained kinematics we have chosen.

Right now we have no reliable estimate for the amount of relativistic corrections nor insight into the stability of our results under exchange of nuclear forces and consistent MEC’s. Clearly work in that respect should be envisaged.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to Dr. H. Gao and Dr. D. Dutta, who inspired us to perform this study. We would also like to thank Dr. M.O. Distler for an interesting discussion about experiments with polarized electrons. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (J.G.), the Polish Committee for Scientific Research and by NFS grant # PHY0070858. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray T90 of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.


text:
# Entanglement and the 𝑆𝑈(2) phase states in atomic systems

## I Introduction

It has been recognized that entanglement phenomenon touches on the conceptual problems of reality and locality in quantum physics as well as the more technological aspects of quantum communications, cryptography, and computing. In particular, the methods of quantum key distribution in communication channels secured from eavesdropping are based on the use of entangled states  (for recent review, see Refs. ). In turn, the realization of quantum computer  is dependent on the ability to form entangled states of initially uncorrelated single-particle states .

In recent years, many successful experiments have been performed to verify the violation of Bell’s inequalities and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) equality  and to develop the methods of engineered entanglement for quantum cryptography and quantum key distribution. In particular, the recent advances in the field of cavity QED and techniques of atom manipulation, trapping, and cooling enable a number of experiments which investigates the entanglement in the atomic systems (see  and references therein).

It has been shown recently  that a pure entangled state of two atoms can be obtained in an optical resonator through the exchange by a single photon. The main idea in Ref.  is that a single excitation of the system is either carried by a photon or shared between the atoms. If the photon can leak out from the resonator, the absence of photon counts in the process of continuous monitoring of the cavity decay can be associated with the presence of the pure entangled atomic state. The importance of this scheme is caused by the fact that its realization seems to be easy available with present experimental technique.

The main objective of this paper is to show that the entangled states in the ”atoms plus photons” systems of the type discussed in  can be represented by the so-called $`SU(2)`$ phase states corresponding to the $`SU(2)`$ algebra of the odd ”spin”

$`j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}2n\\ n\end{array}\right)1\right],`$ (3)
where $`2n`$ is the even number of atoms and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the number of cavity photons. In particular, the system considered in Ref.  corresponds to the phase states of ”spin” $`j=1/2`$. The $`SU(2)`$ phase states were introduced in  for an arbitrary spin and then generalized in  to the case of the $`SU(2)`$ subalgebra in the Weyl-Heisenberg algebra of photon operators (for recent review, see ). From the mathematical point of view, this is the system of

$`N=2j+1`$ (4)
qubits defined in the Hilbert space

$`_N=(𝐂^2)^N`$ (5)
with the componentwise action of $`SU(2)^N`$. In particular, we show that these states violate the classical realism and discuss their realization.

On the other hand, we will discuss a new condition of entanglement has been proposed recently . Let us note in this connection that, in the usual treatment of entanglement, the entangled states of a two-component (in general, multi-component) system are considered as the nonseparable states with respect to the subsystems (e.g., see ). For example, if the individual components of a two-component system are described by the states $`|\xi _i`$ and $`|\chi _i`$, respectively, the state

$`|\psi _{ent}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i|\xi _i|\chi _i,`$ (6)
$`\xi _i|\xi _k=\chi _i|\chi _k=\delta _{ik},{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|b_i|^2=1`$ (7)
is entangled if $`b_i0`$ for at least two distinct values of the subscript $`i`$. From the mathematical point of view, the entanglement is caused by the combination of the superposition principle in quantum mechanics with the tensor product structure of the space of state of the two- or multi-component system .

Very often, the existence of entanglement is verified in terms of violation of Bell’s inequalities and their generalizations . Another way is based on the use of GHZ theorem . A possibility to introduce more general inequalities is also discussed .

It should be noted that the use of Bell’s inequalities and their numerous generalizations demonstrate nothing but the nonexistence of hidden variables. Moreover, it is possible to say that the unique, general, and mathematically correct definition of entanglement still does not exist (e.g., see Ref. ).

An interesting approach has been proposed recently . Considering the state shared between Alice and Bob as a quantum communication channel, the authors of Ref.  concluded that the information in the case of entanglement is carried mostly by the correlations between the ends of the channel. These correlations manifest themselves by means of the local measurements on the sides of the channel .

Following , consider a composite system defined in the Hilbert space

$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{(\mathrm{})},\mathrm{}2.`$ (8)
Let $`G`$ be the group of dynamical symmetry of a subsystem in the composite system. Then the Hermitian operators $`g`$ associated with representation of $`G`$ in $`^{(\mathrm{})}`$ define the set of local measurement on the corresponding side of the channel provided by a state $`|\psi `$. For example, in the case of $`^{(\mathrm{})}=𝐂^2`$, corresponding to the EPR spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system, $`G=SU(2)`$ and the set of local measurements can be specified by the infinitesimal generators of the $`SL(2)`$ group

$`\{g\}=\{\sigma _k^{(\mathrm{})}\},k=1,2,3,`$ (9)
which is the complexification of the $`SU(2)`$ group.

It was shown in  that the maximum correlation between the ends of the channel corresponds to the states such that

$`g,g=0.`$ (10)
This statement can be illustrated by the atoms-plus-photons systems under consideration. Consider first the set of two identical two-level atoms. Let $`|e_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`|g_{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the excited and ground atomic states of the $`\mathrm{}^{th}`$ atom, respectively. Then, the entangled, maximum excited atomic states in the system ”$`2`$ atoms plus $`1`$ photon” considered in  are

$`|\psi _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|e_1g_2\pm |g_1e_2).`$ (11)
Then, the local measurement $`g`$ can be described by the Pauli matrices

$`\sigma _1^{(\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`|e_{\mathrm{}}g_{\mathrm{}}|+|g_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}|,`$ (12)
$`\sigma _2^{(\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`i|e_{\mathrm{}}g_{\mathrm{}}|+i|g_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}|,`$ (13)
$`\sigma _3^{(\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`|e_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}||g_{\mathrm{}}g_{\mathrm{}}|,`$ (14)
i.e., by the infinitesimal generators of the algebra $`SL(2)`$. It is now a straightforward matter to check that

$`i,\mathrm{}\psi _\pm |\sigma _i^{(\mathrm{})}|\psi _\pm =0,`$ (15)
where averaging is taken over the states (4). Another example is provided by the GHZ states

$`|\psi _\pm ^{(GHZ)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|e_1e_2e_3\pm |g_1g_2g_3),`$ (16)
corresponding to the maximum atomic excitation in the $`3+3`$-system. It is easily seen that the averaging of the local operators (3) over (5) gives the same result as (4).

This property (4) can be used to define the entangled states.

We will show that the $`SU(2)`$ phase states of spin $`j`$ defined by Eq. (1) in a $`2n+n`$-type atom-photon system obey the nonseparability conditions, have the property (4), and manifest the violation of classical realism expressed in terms of the GHZ  and CHSH (Clauser-Horne-Shimoni-Holt)  conditions.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we consider the representation of the $`SU(2)`$ phase states. As a particular example, we examine the system of two identical two-level atoms, interacting with a single cavity photon and show that the maximum entangled atomic states of the Ref.  belong to the class of the $`SU(2)`$ phase states of spin $`j=1/2`$. Let us stress that hereafter the maximum entanglement is defined in the usual way by the maximum of reduced entropy (e.g., see Refs. ). Then, we generalize this result on the case of $`2n+n`$ system. As a nontrivial example we consider in Sec. III the system of four identical two-level atoms interacting with the two cavity photons. In this case, the set of entangled, maximum excited atomic states is provided by the six orthogonal $`SU(2)`$ phase states of spin $`j=5/2`$. For these states, we prove violation of classical realism through the use of GHZ and CHSH conditions. In Sec. IV, we discuss how the entangled atomic states can be achieved in the process of steady-state evolution. In particular, we show that the maximum entanglement can be achieved if the initial state of the system contains the photons and does not contain the atomic excitations. We also show that the presence of the cavity detuning hampers the creation of pure entangled states and that the parasitic influence of detuning can be compensated through the use of the Kerr medium inside the cavity. Finally, in Sec. V, we briefly discuss the obtained results.

## II Representation of the $`SU(2)`$ phase states

An arbitrary spin $`j`$ can be described by the generators $`J_+,J_{},J_z`$ of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra such that

$`[J_+,J_{}]=2J_z,[J_z,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm ,`$ (17)
$`J^2=J_z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_+J_{}+J_{}J_+)=j(j+1)\times \mathrm{𝟏},`$ (18)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit operator in the $`2j+1`$ dimensional Hilbert space. Since

$`J_\pm =J_x\pm iJ_y,`$ (19)
it is possible to say that the generators $`J_+,J_{},J_z`$ in (6) correspond to the Cartesian representation of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra. Following , on can introduce the representation in spherical coordinates via the polar decomposition of (6) of the form

$`J_+=J_rϵ,J_r=J_r^+,ϵϵ^+=\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (20)
where the Hermitian operator $`J_r`$ corresponds to the radial contribution, white $`ϵ`$ gives the exponential of the azimuthal phase operator. It is a straightforward matter to show that $`ϵ`$ can be represented by the following $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ matrix

$`ϵ=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ e^{i\psi }& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (26)
in the $`2j+1`$-dimensional Hilbert space. Here $`\psi `$ is an arbitrary real parameter (reference phase). The eigenstates of the operator (8)

$`ϵ|\varphi _n^{(j)}=e^{i\varphi _n^{(j)}}|\varphi _n^{(j)},n=1,\mathrm{},(2j+1),`$ (27)
form the basis of the so-called phase states

$`|\psi _n^{(j)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}e^{ik\varphi _n^{(j)}}|\psi _k`$ (28)
dual with respect to the basis of individual states $`|\psi _k`$ of the Hilbert space.

As a physical example of some considerable interest, consider now the system of the two identical two-level atom interacting with the single cavity photon (see ). If the cavity photon is absorbed by either atom, the atomic subsystem can be observed in the following states

$`|\psi _1=|e_1g_2,|\psi _2=|g_1e_2,`$ (29)
where $`|e_1g_2=|e_1|g_2`$ and $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ denote the excited and ground atomic states, respectively. The subscript marks the atom. Using the atomic basis (11), we can construct the following representation of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra:

$`J_+=|e_1g_2g_1e_2|,J_{}=|g_1e_2e_1g_2|,`$ (30)
$`J_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|e_1g_2e_1g_2||g_1e_2g_1e_2|).`$ (31)
This representation formally corresponds to (6) at the spin $`j=1/2`$. Then, the corresponding exponential of the phase operator (8) takes the form

$`ϵ=|e_1g_2g_1e_2|+e^{i\psi }|g_1e_2e_1g_2|.`$ (32)
In turn, the phase states (9) and (10) are

$`|\varphi _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|e_1g_2+e^{i\varphi _\pm }|g_1e_2),`$ (33)
$`\varphi _\pm =\psi /2+(11)\pi /2.`$ (34)
It is easily seen that the phase states (14) form the set of entangled atomic states in the two-atom system under consideration. Definitely, these states obey the nonseparability condition. It is also seen that (14) coincides with the maximally entangled states (2) of Ref.  when the reference phase $`\psi =0`$.

Consider now a general $`2n+n`$ system at $`n1`$. Then, the maximum excited atomic states

$`|\psi _i=|\{e\}_n,\{g\}_n,`$ (35)
can be used to construct a representation of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra (6) of spin $`j`$ defined in (1). Here $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and

$`N=2j+1=\left(\begin{array}{c}2n\\ n\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
is the total number of such a states. In the basis (15), we can construct the polar decomposition of the $`SU(2)`$ algebra of spin (1) and the corresponding exponential of the phase operator (8) and the phase states (10). Let us rename the states (15) as follows

$`|\psi _k|\psi _k^{},k^{}k1=0,\mathrm{},N1.`$ (39)
Then, the $`SU(2)`$ phase states (10) take the form

$`|\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}e^{ik^{}\varphi _k}|\psi _k^{},`$ (40)
where

$`\varphi _k=(\psi +2k\pi )/N.`$ (41)
These states (16) form a basis dual with respect to (15) and spanning the Hilbert space of the maximum excited atomic states in the $`2n+n`$ system under consideration. By construction, the phase states (16) are nonseparable with respect to contributions of individual atoms and thus entangled . Let us stress that the choice of the phase factors in (16) is irrelevant to entanglement, which holds for arbitrary phase factors. This choice is caused by the aspiration for getting the dual with respect to (15) basis of entangled states.

It is easily seen that the states (16) obey the condition (4). In fact, the action of the flip-operators $`\sigma _{1,2}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ in (3) on the states (16) leads to the change of the number of either excited or de-excited atoms:

$`\sigma _{1,2}^{(\mathrm{})}|\psi _k\{\begin{array}{cc}|\{e\}_{n1},\{g\}_{n+1}& \mathrm{}\{g\}\\ |\{e\}_{n+1},\{g\}_{n1}& \mathrm{}\{e\}\end{array}`$ (44)
and therefore $`\sigma _{1,2}^{(\mathrm{})}=0`$ in the case of averaging over the states (16). Since each state (15) contains equal number of excited and de-excited atoms, the action of the parity operator in (3) on the phase states (16) should lead to the state which differ from (16) by the multiplication of a certain $`n`$ terms by the factor of $`1`$. Hence

$`\sigma _3^{(\mathrm{})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}}1{\displaystyle \underset{i=N/2+1}{\overset{N}{}}}1\right)=0.`$ (45)
By construction, $`N`$ is always an even number.

Thus, the $`SU(2)`$ phase states (16), corresponding to the maximum excited atomic states in the $`2n+n`$ system, are entangled because they are nonseparable and, at the same time, obey the condition (4) for the local measurements. In the next Section, we show that the states (16) manifest violation of classical realism as well.

Before we begin to discuss this subject, let us note that the $`SU(2)`$ phase states of the atomic system under consideration with integer spin do not provide the entanglement. Consider as an example the system of three identical two-level atoms, interacting with a single cavity photon. There are the three excited atomic states

$`|e_1g_2g_3,|g_1e_2g_3,|g_1g_2e_3`$ (46)
and the three dual phase states of the type of (16)

$`|\psi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|e_1g_2g_3+e^{i\varphi _k}|g_1e_2g_3+e^{2i\varphi _k}|g_1g_2e_3).`$ (47)
It is clear that the states (18) are the phase states of spin $`j=1`$. Here

$`\varphi _k=(\psi +2k\pi )/3,k=0,1,2.`$ (48)
It is easily seen that the phase states (18) cannot be factorized with respect to atoms. At the same time, the average of the parity operator $`\sigma _3^{(\mathrm{})}`$ in (3) over the states (18) is

$`k,\mathrm{}\psi _k|\sigma _3^{(\mathrm{})}|\psi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$ (49)
although the averages of the flip-operators are

$`k,\mathrm{}\psi _k|\sigma _{1,2}^{(\mathrm{})}|\psi _k=0.`$ (50)
Thus, the nonseparable states (18) do not obey the condition (4). At the same time, these states do not manifest the maximum entanglement as well. Let us stress that the nonseparability is not a sufficient condition of maximum entanglement . For example, from the measurement of the state of the first atom we can only learn that either the atoms $`2`$ and $`3`$ are both in the ground state with reliability or they are in the two-atom entangled state of the type discussed in . Similar result can be obtained for the system of three atoms, interacting with two cavity photons. The only maximum entangled state of the system of three atoms is provided by the superposition of GHZ states (5).

## III The $`4+2`$-system

To show that the phase states (16) of a $`2n+n`$ system violate the classical realism, consider the system of four identical two-level atoms interacting with two cavity photons. The maximum excited atomic states at $`n=2`$ are

$`|e_1e_2g_3g_4,|e_1g_2e_3g_4,|e_1g_2g_3e_4,`$ (51)
$`|g_1e_2e_3g_4,|g_1e_2g_3e_4,|g_1g_2e_3e_4.`$ (52)
These orthonormal states form the six-dimensional basis of the Hilbert space in which the representation of the generators (6) has the form

$`J_+=\sqrt{5}|e_1e_2g_3g_4e_1g_2e_3g_4|+\sqrt{8}|e_1g_2e_3g_4e_1g_2g_3e_4|`$ (53)
$`+3|e_1g_2g_3e_4g_1e_2e_3g_4|+\sqrt{8}|g_1e_2e_3g_4g_1e_2g_3e_4|`$ (54)
$`+\sqrt{5}|g_1e_2g_3e_4g_1g_2e_3e_4|,`$ (55)
$`J_3={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}|e_1e_2g_3g_4e_1e_2g_3g_4|+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}|e_1g_2e_3g_4e_1g_2e_3g_4|`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|e_1g_2g_3e_4e_1g_2g_3e_4|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|g_1e_2e_3g_4g_1e_2e_3g_4|`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}|g_1e_2g_3e_4g_1e_2g_3e_4|{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}|g_1g_2e_3e_4g_1g_2e_3e_4|`$ (58)
By construction, they describe the spin $`j=5/2`$ system. In turn, the exponential of the phase operator (8) takes the form

$`ϵ=|e_1e_2g_3g_4e_1g_2e_3g_4|+|e_1g_2e_3g_4e_1g_2g_3e_4|`$ (59)
$`+|e_1g_2g_3e_4g_1e_2e_3g_4|+|g_1e_2e_3g_4g_1e_2g_3e_4|`$ (60)
$`+|g_1e_2g_3e_4g_1g_2e_3e_4|+e^{i\psi }|g_1g_2e_3e_4e_1e_2g_3g_4|.`$ (61)
Then, the six phase states (9) have the form (16) with $`N=6`$ and

$`\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{3}},k=0,1,\mathrm{},5.`$ (62)
As well as (16), these states are nonseparable and hence entangled and obey the condition (4) for local variables.

To show that these phase states violate the classical realism, let us first represent the states (16) at $`N=6`$ in the following way

$`|\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|\chi _{1k}+e^{i\varphi _k}|\chi _{2k}+e^{2i\varphi _k}|\chi _{3k}),`$ (63)
where

$`|\chi _{1k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|e_1e_2g_3g_4+e^{5i\varphi _k}|g_1g_2e_3e_4),`$ (64)
$`|\chi _{2k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|g_1e_2e_3g_4+e^{3i\varphi _k}|e_1g_2g_3e_4),`$ (65)
$`|\chi _{3k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|g_1e_2g_3e_4+e^{i\varphi _k}|e_1g_2e_3g_4).`$ (66)
It is easily seen that each set of six states $`|\chi _{pk}`$ with $`p=1,2,3`$ and $`k=0,\mathrm{},5`$ consists of the nonseparable and hence entangled states. Consider, for example, the states $`|\chi _{1k}`$ in (22). Because of the definition of the phase angle $`\varphi _k`$ at $`N=6`$, they consist of the three sets of the pairwise orthogonal states

$`\{|\chi _{10},|\chi _{13}\},\{|\chi _{11},|\chi _{14}\},\{|\chi _{12},|\chi _{15}\}.`$ (67)
It is also seen that the second and third sets here are obtained from the first set by the successive rotations of the reference frame.

Now the violation of classical realism can be proved through the use of the GHZ theorem . Consider first the state $`|\chi _{10}`$ in (22). It is easy to verify that this state obey the conditions

$`i,\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\sigma _i^{(\mathrm{})}|\chi _{10}=|\chi _{10}`$ (68)
and

$`\sigma _1^{(1)}\sigma _1^{(2)}\sigma _2^{(3)}\sigma _2^{(4)}|\chi _{10}`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _{10},`$ (69)
$`\sigma _2^{(1)}\sigma _2^{(2)}\sigma _1^{(3)}\sigma _1^{(4)}|\chi _{10}`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _{10},`$ (70)
$`\sigma _1^{(1)}\sigma _2^{(2)}\sigma _1^{(3)}\sigma _2^{(4)}|\chi _{10}`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _{10},`$ (71)
$`\sigma _1^{(1)}\sigma _2^{(2)}\sigma _2^{(3)}\sigma _1^{(4)}|\chi _{10}`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _{10},`$ (72)
$`\sigma _2^{(1)}\sigma _1^{(2)}\sigma _2^{(3)}\sigma _1^{(4)}|\chi _{10}`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _{10},`$ (73)
$`\sigma _2^{(1)}\sigma _1^{(2)}\sigma _1^{(3)}\sigma _2^{(4)}|\chi _{10}`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _{10}.`$ (74)
It is possible to say that these equalities (23) and (24) express a kind of EPR ”action at distance” in the maximum excited states of the system of four atoms interacting with two photons. In other words, the correlations represented by (23) and (24) permit us determine in a unique way the state of the fourth atom via measurement of the states of other three atoms.

The operator equalities (23) and (24) can be used to obtain the relations similar to those in the GHZ theorem. Following , we have to assign the classical quantities $`m_i^{(\mathrm{})}`$ to the local operators. Here

$`m_1^{(\mathrm{})},m_2^{(\mathrm{})}=\pm 1.`$ (75)
Then, it follows from (23) that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_1^{(\mathrm{})}=1.`$ (76)
At the same time, it follows from (24) that

$`[\sigma _1^{(1)}\sigma _1^{(2)}\sigma _2^{(3)}\sigma _2^{(4)}][\sigma _1^{(1)}\sigma _2^{(2)}\sigma _1^{(3)}\sigma _2^{(4)}][\sigma _1^{(1)}\sigma _2^{(2)}\sigma _2^{(3)}\sigma _1^{(4)}]|\chi _{10}`$ (77)
$`=|\chi _{10}.`$ (78)
Employing the classical variables instead of the local operators allows this to be cast into the form

$`(m_1^{(1)})^3m_1^{(2)}(m_2^{(2)})^2m_1^{(3)}(m_2^{(3)})^2m_1^{(4)}(m_2^{(4)})^2=1.`$ (79)
Since $`(m_1^{(\mathrm{})})^2=(m_2^{(\mathrm{})})^2=1`$, we get an equivalent equality

$`m_1^{(1)}m_1^{(2)}m_1^{(3)}m_1^{(4)}=1,`$ (80)
which contradicts (25). Hence, the state $`|\chi _{10}`$ in (22) obey the GHZ theorem. Similar result can be obtained for all other states in (22) and hence, for the phase states (21).

Our consideration so far have applied to the local measurements touching on a single atom. We now note that the phase states (21) allow another kind of entanglement in the case of pairwise measurement. Consider again the state $`|\chi _{10}`$ in (22) and assume that the measurements $`a`$ and $`b`$ corresponds to a pair of atoms:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _a|e_1e_2e_1e_2|+\mathrm{sin}\theta _a(|e_1e_2g_1g_2|`$ (81)
$`+`$ $`|g_1g_2e_1e_2|)\mathrm{cos}\theta _a|g_1g_2g_1g_2|,`$ (82)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _b|e_3e_4e_3e_4|+\mathrm{sin}\theta _b(|e_3e_4g_3g_4|`$ (83)
$`+`$ $`|g_3g_4e_3e_4|)\mathrm{cos}\theta _b|g_3g_4g_3g_4|.`$ (84)
Assume now that we make the two measurements $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ with the angles $`\theta _1=\pi `$ and $`\theta _{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}=\pi /2`$ and the two more measurements $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ with the angles $`\theta _{}^{}{}_{b}{}^{}=\theta _b`$, respectively. Then, the averaging over the state $`|\chi _{10}`$ gives

$`ab=ab^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _b,a^{}b=\mathrm{sin}\theta _b=a^{}b^{}.`$ (85)
Employing the CHSH inequality

$`|ab+a^{}b+a^{}b^{}ab^{}|2`$ (86)
then gives

$`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\mathrm{sin}\theta _b|1.`$ (87)
Violation of this inequality and hence, of the classical realism occurs at small negative $`\theta _b`$, when we can put

$`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\mathrm{sin}\theta _b|1+|\theta _b|>1.`$ (88)
Similar consideration can be done for all over states in (22) through the use of proper pairwise measurements. At the same time, the phase states (21) do not manifest entanglement with respect to the pairwise measurements.

The phase states (16) for the $`6+3`$, $`8+4`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ systems, corresponding to the spin (1) equal to $`19/2,69/2,\mathrm{}`$, respectively, can be considered as above.

## IV Initial conditions and atomic entanglement

It is clear that the evolution of the $`2n+n`$ system strongly depends on the choice of initial conditions. To trace the proper choice leading to the atomic entanglement, let us ignore the relaxation processes. Then, the steady-state evolution of the $`2n+n`$ system under consideration is governed by the Hamiltonian

$`H=\mathrm{\Delta }a^+a+\omega _0𝒩+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}(R_{\mathrm{}}^+a+a^+R_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (89)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the cavity detuning, $`\omega _0`$ is the atomic transition frequency, $`\gamma `$ is the atom-field coupling constant, operators $`a`$ and $`a^+`$ describe the cavity photons,

$`𝒩=a^+a+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}|e_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(\mathrm{})},`$ (90)
and the atomic operators are defined as follows

$`R_{\mathrm{}}^+=|e_{\mathrm{}}g_{\mathrm{}}|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(\mathrm{}^{})}.`$ (91)
Here $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ denotes the unit operator in the two-dimensional Hilbert space of the $`\mathrm{}^{th}`$ atom. It is seen that $`[𝒩,H]=0`$. It is also seen that the atomic operators are similar, in a certain sense, to the local operators (3). In fact

$`R_{\mathrm{}}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1^{(\mathrm{})}\pm i\sigma _2^{(\mathrm{})}}{2}}.`$ (92)
Consider first the case of two atoms and single cavity photon when $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$ and the Hamiltonian (28) coincides with that of Ref. . For simplicity, we use here the same coupling constant $`\gamma `$ for both atoms. Our consideration can easily be generalized on the case of coupling constant depending on the atomic position. Let us note that, in the case of only two atoms, the Hamiltonian (28) can be represented as follows

$`HH_\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }a^+a+\omega _0𝒩_\varphi +\gamma \sqrt{2}(^+a+a^+),`$ (93)
where

$`𝒩_\varphi =a^+a+{\displaystyle \underset{k=\pm 1}{}}|\varphi _k\varphi _k|`$ (94)
and

$`^+=|\varphi _+g_1g_2|.`$ (95)
Here $`|\varphi _\pm `$ denote the phase states (14).

Using the Hamiltonian (29) as the generator of evolution, for the time dependent wave function we get

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=e^{iH_\varphi t}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=[C_{}(t)|\varphi _{}`$ (96)
$`+C_+(t)|\varphi _+]|0_{ph}+C(t)|g_1g_2|1_{ph},`$ (97)
where $`|\mathrm{}_{ph}`$ denotes the states of the cavity field. The coefficients $`C_\pm (t)`$ and $`C(t)`$ in (30) are completely determined by the initial conditions and normalization condition.

It is easily seen that the state $`|\varphi _{}|0_{ph}`$ is the eigenstate of the Hamiltonian (29). Hence, at

$`C_{}(0)=1,C_+(0)=C(0)=0,`$ (98)
the atomic phase state $`|\varphi _{}`$ in (14) provides the stationary, maximum entangled atomic state in the system under consideration . At the same time, it is not very clear how to prepare such a state.

Therefore we consider a more realistic initial state provided by excitation of either atom, while the cavity field is in the vacuum state. To realize such a state, we can assume, for example, that one of the atoms (initially de-excited) is trapped in the cavity, while the second atom (initially excited) slowly passes through the cavity like in the experiments discussed in . assume for definiteness that

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|e_1g_2|0_{ph}.`$ (99)
Then, the coefficients of the wave function (30) take the form

$`C_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\omega _0t},`$ (100)
$`C_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t\right)e^{i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)t},`$ (101)
$`C(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma }{\mathrm{\Omega }}}e^{i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)t}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (102)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[2\gamma ^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2]^{1/2}`$. At first site, the probabilities

$`P_\pm (t)=|0|_{ph}\varphi _{pm}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2=|C_\pm (t)|^2`$ (103)
to observe the states (14) corresponding to the maximum atomic entanglement, are

$`P_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (104)
$`P_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (105)
respectively. At the same time, the absence of photon counts, which is considered in  as a sign of the atomic entanglement, corresponds here to the case when both probabilities $`P_\pm (t_k)=1/2`$ at a certain time $`t_k`$. In other words, the mutually orthogonal entangled states (14) have the same probability to be observed at $`t=t_k`$. This means that there is no atomic entanglement at all but we definitely know which atom is in the excited state.

Consider one more realistic initial state when both atoms are trapped in the cavity in de-excited state, while the cavity field contains a photon:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|g_1g_2|1_{ph}.`$ (106)
Then, for all times we get $`C_{}(t)=0`$ and

$`C_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma \sqrt{2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}e^{i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)t}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (107)
$`C(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t\right)e^{i(\omega _0+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)t}.`$ (108)
Hence, under this initial condition, the entangled state $`|\varphi _{}`$ cannot be achieved at all, while the second entangled state $`|\varphi _+`$ in (14) can be achieved. It is seen that, in the case of initial state (32), the probability to detect the photon is

$`P_{ph}(t)=|C(t)|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t.`$ (109)
This expression takes the minimum value

$`\mathrm{min}P_{ph}=P_{ph}(t_m)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}`$ (110)
at $`t=t_m=\pi (2m+1)/2\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`m=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. At the same time $`t_m`$, the probability to have the entangled atomic state $`|\varphi _+`$ takes the maximum value

$`P_+(t_m)=|C_+(t_m)|^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2}{2\gamma ^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2}}.`$ (111)
It is seen that the pure atomic entanglement with $`P_+(t_m)=1`$ is realized at $`t=t_m`$ only in the absence of the cavity detuning when $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$.

The parasitic influence of the cavity detuning can be compensated through the use of Kerr medium filling the cavity. In this case, the Hamiltonian (28) should be supplemented by the term

$`H_\kappa =\kappa (a^+a)^2,`$ (112)
which leads to the following renormalization of the Rabi frequency

$`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =\sqrt{2\gamma ^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }+\kappa )^2/4}.`$ (113)
Then, the proper choice of the Kerr parameter $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should lead to the pure entangled atomic state $`|\varphi _+`$ at a certain times.

Consider now the case of four atoms and two photons. In contrast to the previous case, neither phase state in (21) is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian (28). Then, the choice of the initial state either as a state with two excited atoms or as a state with one excited atom plus cavity photon does not lead to a pure atomic entanglement. As in the case of two atoms, the pure atomic entanglement can be reached under the choice of the state with the absence of the atomic excitations in the initial state. The influence of the cavity detuning can be compensated by the presence of Kerr medium as well as in the case of two atoms.

## V Conclusion

Let us briefly discuss the obtained results. For the system of two identical two-level atoms interacting with a single photon has been proposed in  it is shown that the maximum entangled atomic states are represented by the $`SU(2)`$ phase states of spin $`1/2`$. Moreover, it is shown that the $`SU(2)`$ phase states of the half-integer spin $`j`$ (1) form a certain class of maximum entangled atomic states in the system of $`2n`$ atoms interacting with $`n`$ photons. In particular, the violation of classical realism is shown.

It should be noted in this connection that the above considered $`SU(2)`$ phase states do not represent a unique way to construct the maximum entangled states in the multi-atom systems and that some other symmetries, for example the $`SU(𝒩)`$ can be considered as well. Moreover, in some cases the $`SU(2)`$ phase states cannot be used to determine the maximum entangled states at all. Consider for example the case of two identical two-level atoms interacting with two photons, when the atomic subsystem can be specified by the four states

$`|e_1e_2,|e_1g_2,|g_1e_2,|g_1g_2.`$ (114)
By performing a similar analysis to that described in section II, it is easy to construct the corresponding set of the $`SU(2)`$ phase states

$`|\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|e_1e_2+e^{i\varphi _k}|e_1g_2+e^{2i\varphi _k}|g_1g_2+e^{3i\varphi _k}|g_1e_2),`$ (115)
$`\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2}},k=0,1,2,3,`$ (116)
which do not manifest the maximum entanglement. At the same time, the general criterion (4) permits us to determine infinitely many maximum entangled states in this case . An example is provided by the following set of orthonormal maximum entangled states

$`|\psi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|e_1e_2+|g_1g_2+i|e_1g_2+i|g_1e_2),`$ (117)
$`|\psi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|e_1e_2|g_1g_2i|e_1g_2+i|g_1e_2),`$ (118)
$`|\psi _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i|e_1e_2+i|g_1g_2+|e_1g_2+|g_1e_2),`$ (119)
$`|\psi _4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i|e_1e_2+i|g_1g_2+|e_1g_2|g_1e_2).`$ (120)
In fact, the Eq. (4) gives a general condition , while the $`SU(2)`$ phase states can manifest the maximum entanglement only under a certain condition (special choice of the effective spin (1)).

Nevertheless, the $`SU(2)`$ phase states considered in sections II and III represent an important example of the atomic entangled states. First of all, they can be easily realized in the atomic systems in a cavity. In fact, these states have a simple physical meaning. In addition to (9), the $`SU(2)`$ phase states can be defined to be the eigenstates of the Hermitian ”cosine” operator

$`C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ+ϵ^+),`$ (121)
where $`ϵ`$ is defined by Eq. (8). This operator $`C`$ can be considered as a ”Hamiltonian”, describing the correlations between the different atoms. For example, in the case of the two atoms interacting with the single photon, the operator $`C`$ takes the form

$`C=\sigma _+^{(1)}\sigma _{}^{(2)}+\sigma _{}^{(2)}\sigma _+^{(1)},`$ (122)
where

$`\sigma _\pm ^{(\mathrm{})}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1^{(\mathrm{})}\pm i\sigma _2^{(\mathrm{})}}{2}}.`$ (123)
The operator structure of (33) coincides with that of the so-called model of plane rotator, which is a particular case of the Heisenberg model of ferromagnetism widely used in statistical physics  and in quantum information theory .

Let us also stress that the $`SU(2)`$ phase states similar to those considered in sections II and III, have been discussed recently in the context of quantum coding .

It is also known that the $`SU(2)`$ phase states have direct connection with the quantum description of polarization of spherical photons emitted by the multipole transitions in atoms and molecules . Therefore, the polarization entanglement of photons can be examined in direct analogy to the above discussed atomic entanglement . At the same time, the consideration of spherical photons requires the use of more quantum degrees of freedom. Consider as an example the cascade decay of a two-level atom specified by the transition

$`|J=2,m=0|J^{}=0,m^{}=0.`$ (124)
Here $`J,J^{}`$ and $`m,m^{}`$ denote the angular momentum and projection of the angular momentum of the excited and ground atomic states, respectively. This transition gives rise to an entangled photon twins . Each photon carries spin $`1`$, but because of the conservation of the angular momentum in the process of radiation, the sum of projections of the angular momenta of the two photons should be equal to zero. Denoting the state of a photon with given $`m`$ by $`|m`$, we get the three possible states of the photon subsystem

$`|+1|1,|0|0,|1|+1.`$ (125)
These three ”individual” states can be used to construct the dual basis of the $`SU(2)`$ phase states

$`|\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(|+1|1+e^{i\varphi _k}|0|0`$ (126)
$`+e^{2i\varphi _k}|1|+1,`$ (127)
$`\varphi _k={\displaystyle \frac{\psi +2k\pi }{3}},k=0,1,2`$ (128)
similar to (18). It can be easily seen that these states manifest the maximum entanglement.

Similar entangled states have been discussed in the context of the so-called biphoton excitations  (photon pairs in symmetric Fock states). They can also be used in quantum cryptography .

Let us stress that the general condition of the type of (4) is also valid in the case of states (34). However, the definition of local measurement should be changed in this case. Because of the number of degrees of freedom per photon is equal to three, the Hermitian operators associated with the $`SU(3)`$ group should be considered instead of the infinitesimal generators of the $`SL(2)`$ group. For example, the set of the Stokes operators of the Ref. , corresponding to the representation of the $`SU(3)`$ subalgebra in the Weyl-Heisenberg algebra of spherical photons, can be used to define the complete set of local measurements in this case.

It is shown in section IV that the realization of a pure atomic entanglement in the $`2n+n`$-type atom + photon systems strongly depends on the choice of initial state. Viz, the entangled states can be reached in the process of steady-state evolution only if all $`2n`$ atoms are initially in the de-excited states, while the cavity contains just $`n`$ photons. This condition has an intuitively clear explanation: the excitations of different atoms have the same probability and therefore each photon in the $`2n+n`$-system is shared with a couple of atoms.

It is also shown in section IV that the presence of the cavity detuning hampers the creation of a pure entangled atomic state. This negative effect can be compensated through the use of Kerr medium in the cavity.

We now note that the practical realization of a long-lived, maximum entanglement in a quantum mechanical system strongly depends on the interaction between this system and environment. The point is that the state of a closed quantum mechanical system changes periodically, providing the maximum entanglement as an instant event only at a certain times (see section IV). Such a periodicity is caused by a finite number of degrees of freedom in the system. To destruct such a periodicity, it is necessary to connect the system to a ”heat bath”, which would tune in the system to a required state. In Ref. , it has been proposed to support the atomic entanglement by the cavity losses. In this case, the absence of the photon counting outside the cavity can be associated with the existence of the entangled atomic state in the cavity.

Let us stress that an advantage of the use of the $`SU(2)`$ phase states as the maximum entangled atomic states consists in the simple preparation of the initial states discussed in section IV.

In view of realization of atomic entanglement with present experimental technique, it seems to be more convenient if the existence of entangled state in a cavity would manifest itself via a signal photon rather than the absence of photon leakage from the cavity. In this case, there should be at least the two modes such that one of them (the cavity mode) provides the correlation between the atoms, while the second can freely leave the resonator to signalize the existence of the entanglement. Such a process can be realized through the use of the Raman process in atoms shown in Fig. 1 (e.g., see ). Here the dipole transitions are allowed between the levels $`1`$ and $`2`$ and $`2`$ and $`3`$, while forbidden between $`1`$ and $`3`$ because of the parity conservation. In the simplest case, we should assume that the two identical atoms of this type are located in a cavity, which has a very high quality with respect to the pumping mode $`\omega _P`$, while the Stokes photons with frequency $`\omega _{Sk}`$ can leak away freely.

Assume that the atoms are initially in the ground state $`1`$, the Stokes field is in the vacuum state, and the pump field consists of a single photon. The evolution of the system can lead to the absorption of the cavity photon by either atom with further emission of the Stokes photon, which leaves the cavity. After that, the atoms are in entangled state, corresponding to the excitation of the atomic level $`3`$ shared between the atoms. Since the inverse process cannot be realized without assistance of the Stokes photon, such a state represents a durable atomic entangled state.

It is clear that the above consideration of the atomic entanglement in the multi-atom system can be generalized with easy on the case of Raman process in atoms. In other words, the $`SU(2)`$ phase states similar to (16) form the class of the maximum entangled atomic states in the case of Raman-type processes in the three-level atoms as well. An evident advantage of the use of the Raman process is the long-lived maximum entanglement in atomic subsystem.

One of the authors (A.S.) would like to thank Dr. A. Beige, Prof. P.L. Knight, Prof. A. Vourdas, and Prof. A. Zeilinger for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Recently the supersymmetric pp-wave backgrounds, as well as the anti-de Sitter (AdS) backgrounds, have been widely studied as supergravity vacua. A maximally supersymmetric pp-wave solution for the eleven-dimensional supergravity theory was found in , and one for the type IIB supergravity theory was found in . Relations between the pp-wave background and the AdS background are crucial for the point of view of the AdS/CFT correspondence  where the pp-wave background is recognized as an approximation of the AdS background. The plane wave space is obtained as the limiting space from arbitrary space shown first by Penrose , and this idea is extended to supergravity and superstring theories 111This limiting procedure had appeared in the context of the Wess-Zumino-Witten model in ..

The maximally supersymmetric solution of the IIB supergravity consist of the pp-wave metric and the self-dual null homogeneous 5 form flux

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^{}dx^+4\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{i}=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(x^{\widehat{i}})^2(dx^{})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{i}=1}{\overset{8}{}}}(dx^{\widehat{i}})^2`$
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda dx^{}(dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4+dx^5dx^6dx^7dx^8)`$ (1.1)
with a constant dilaton. It has 32 Killing spinors preserving the solution. Recently it was discussed in detail that the solution (1.1) is obtained as a Penrose limit of the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$background . Since the pp-wave solution (1.1) is obtained as a limiting case of the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$solution by the Penrose limit , the isometry algebra of the former should be also obtained from the latter by some limiting procedure. The Penrose limit is usually discussed as a mapping between metrics in terms of local coordinates. By using canonical symmetry generators written in terms of local coordinates, this mapping directly tells the relation of generators, thus of algebras.

In this paper we examine an In$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$n$`\ddot{\mathrm{u}}`$-Wigner (IW) contraction  of algebra which is independent of choice of local coordinates. Then the Penrose limit maps not only the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$metric into pp-wave metric but also the super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra into the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave algebra222We refer the isometry algebra of the pp-wave metric as the pp-wave algebra. as an IW contraction. The IW contraction from the AdS algebra to the pp-wave algebra for the bosonic case is discussed in the section 2, and the one for the supersymmetric case is in the section 3.

## 2  From AdS algebra to pp-wave algebra

The AdS$`{}_{d}{}^{}\times `$SD-d algebra is given, in terms of dimensionless momenta $`P`$’s and rotations $`M`$’s, as

$`\begin{array}{ccc}[P_a,P_b]=M_{ab}\hfill & ,& [P_a^{},P_b^{}]=M_{a^{}b^{}}\hfill \\ [P_a,M_{bc}]=\eta _{ab}P_c\eta _{ac}P_b\hfill & ,& [P_a^{},M_{b^{}c^{}}]=\eta _{a^{}b^{}}P_c^{}\eta _{a^{}c^{}}P_b^{}\hfill \\ [M_{ab},M_{cd}]=\eta _{bc}M_{ad}+3\mathrm{terms}\hfill & ,& [M_{a^{}b^{}},M_{c^{}d^{}}]=\eta _{b^{}c^{}}M_{a^{}d^{}}+3\mathrm{terms}\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.4)
where $`a=0,1,\mathrm{},d1`$ and $`a^{}=d,\mathrm{},D1`$ stand for vector indices of AdSd and SD-d respectively. The symmetry group is isomorphic to SO$`(d1,2)\times `$SO$`(Dd+1)`$ which has a flat limit to ISO$`(d1,1)\times `$ ISO$`(Dd)`$ by the following IW contraction .

1. Rescale the translation generators $`P`$’s using the radii of the AdSd and SD-d , $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ respectively, as

$`P_aRP_a,P_a^{}R^{}P_a^{}.`$ (2.5)
2. Then take $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`R^{}\mathrm{}`$.

In the limit, $`P`$’s become the linear momenta and $`M`$’s are the Lorentz generators. Taking large limit of the radii, $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$, corresponds to reducing an AdS$`\times `$S space into a flat space.

Besides the flat limit, as any other metrics the AdS$`\times `$S metric allows a limit giving a plane wave metric ( Penrose limit ) . The Penrose limit can be understood as an IW contraction of the AdS$`\times `$S algebra into the pp-wave algebra.

1. Define the light cone components of the momenta $`P`$ and boost generators $`P^{}`$ as

$`P_\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(P_{D1}\pm P_0),P_{\widehat{i}}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}P_i\hfill \\ P_i^{}\hfill \end{array}\right\},P_{\widehat{i}}^{}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}P_i^{}M_{0i}\hfill \\ P_i^{}^{}M_{(D1)i^{}}\hfill \end{array}\right\}.`$ (2.10)
where $`\widehat{i}=1,\mathrm{}..,D2,i=1,\mathrm{},d1,i^{}=d,\mathrm{},D2.`$
2. Suppose the plane wave propagates with respect to $`x_+`$ time. The transverse translation and boost generators are rescaled with the dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as

$`P_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}P_+,P_{\widehat{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}P_{\widehat{i}},P_{\widehat{i}}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}P_{\widehat{i}}^{}.`$ (2.11)
3. Then take $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ limit.

In the limit, $`P_+`$ becomes a center, and it can be treated as a constant.

To see them explicitly the AdS$`\times `$S algebra (2.4) is rescaled following to (2.5) and (2.11)

$`\begin{array}{ccc}[P_+,P_i]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}R^2}P_i^{}\hfill & ,& [P_{},P_i]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R^2}P_i^{}\hfill \\ [P_+,P_i^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}P_i^{}^{}\hfill & ,& [P_{},P_i^{}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}P_i^{}^{}\hfill \\ [P_+,P_i^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}}P_i\hfill & ,& [P_{},P_i^{}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}P_i\hfill \\ [P_+,P_i^{}^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}}P_i^{}\hfill & ,& [P_{},P_i^{}^{}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}P_i^{}\hfill \\ & & \\ [P_i,P_j]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{R^2}M_{ij}\hfill & ,& [P_i^{},P_j^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}M_{i^{}j^{}}\hfill \\ [P_i^{},P_j^{}]=\mathrm{\Omega }^2M_{ij}\hfill & ,& [P_i^{}^{},P_j^{}^{}]=\mathrm{\Omega }^2M_{i^{}j^{}}\hfill \\ [P_i,P_j^{}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\eta _{ij}(P_+\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_{})\hfill & ,& [P_i^{},P_j^{}^{}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\eta _{i^{}j^{}}(P_++\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_{})\hfill \\ & & \\ [P_{\widehat{i}},M_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}]=\eta _{\widehat{i}[\widehat{j}}P_{\widehat{k}]}\hfill & ,& [P_{\widehat{i}}^{},M_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}]=\eta _{\widehat{i}[\widehat{j}}P_{\widehat{k}]}^{}\hfill \\ [M_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}},M_{\widehat{k}\widehat{l}}]=\eta _{\widehat{k}\widehat{j}}M_{\widehat{i}\widehat{l}}+3\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}\hfill & ,& \mathrm{others}=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.23)
By taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ limit, (2.23) becomes the plane wave algebra,

$`[P_{},P_{\widehat{i}}^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}P_{\widehat{i}},[P_{},P_{\widehat{i}}]=4\sqrt{2}\lambda _{\widehat{i}}^2P_{\widehat{i}}^{},[P_{\widehat{i}},P_{\widehat{j}}^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta _{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}P_+`$
$`[P_{\widehat{i}},M_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}]=\eta _{\widehat{i}[\widehat{j}}P_{\widehat{k}]},[P_{\widehat{i}}^{},M_{\widehat{j}\widehat{k}}]=\eta _{\widehat{i}[\widehat{j}}P_{\widehat{k}]}^{}`$ (2.24)
$`[M_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}},M_{\widehat{k}\widehat{l}}]=\eta _{\widehat{k}\widehat{j}}M_{\widehat{i}\widehat{l}}+3\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s},\mathrm{others}=0`$
where

$`\lambda _{\widehat{i}}=\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda _i=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}\hfill \\ \lambda _i^{}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R^{}}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (2.27)
This is the symmetry algebra of the pp-wave metric . $`P_+`$ is a central element in (2.24) allowing arbitrary rescaling 333In  $`P_+`$ is rescaled as $`\lambda ^2P_+`$, and $`P`$’s and $`P^{}`$’s are $`e^{}`$’s and $`e`$’s respectively. Or $`e^{}`$’s can be recognized as $`\lambda ^2e^{}`$ corresponding to $`P^{}`$, but this prohibits the flat limit $`\lambda 0`$ in their superalgebra.  with $`\lambda `$.

Furthermore the flat limit is taken by $`R,R^{}\mathrm{}`$ in (2.23) or $`\lambda _{\widehat{i}}0`$ in (2.24). Although this flat limit algebra is different from the direct flat limit from the AdS algebra, the $`D`$-dimensional Poincare group ISO($`D1,1`$) can be recovered by supplying spontaneously broken generators consistently.

## 3  From Super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra to Super-pp wave algebra

We extend the previous analysis to the supersymmetric case and show the maximally supersymmetric IIB pp-wave algebra  is obtained by a contraction of the super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra. In this case the Jacobi identities of the superalgebra give a restriction on the scale parameters $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ in (2.4), as $`R=R^{}`$. We start with the super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra following to the notation of Metsaev and Tseytlin . In 10 dimensional IIB theory the supersymmetry generators $`Q_A`$ are chiral Majorana spinors and are SL(2,R) doublet $`(A=1,2)`$. The gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}},(\widehat{a}=0,1,..,9)`$ in 10 dimensions are composed using those of AdS5, $`\gamma _a,(a=0,1,..,4)`$, and of S5, $`\gamma _a^{},(a^{}=5,..,9)`$, as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\gamma _a\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\sigma _1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{}=\mathrm{𝟏}\gamma _a^{}\sigma _2,`$ (3.1)
and satisfy

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{b}}\}=2\eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\hfill & ,& \eta _{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=(++++,+++++)\hfill \\ \{\gamma _a,\gamma _b\}=2\eta _{ab}\hfill & ,& \eta _{ab}=(++++)\hfill \\ \{\gamma _a^{},\gamma _b^{}\}=2\eta _{a^{}b^{}}\hfill & ,& \eta _{a^{}b^{}}=(+++++).\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.4)
The supercharges $`Q_A`$’s are satisfying

$`Q_A=Q_A{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0123456789}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\sigma _3.`$ (3.5)
The charge conjugation matrix $`𝒞`$ in 10 dimensions is taken as

$`𝒞=CC^{}i\sigma _2`$ (3.6)
where $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are respectively the charge conjugations for AdS5 and S5 spinors.

The bosonic part of supersymmetric AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra is (2.4) with $`d=5,D=10`$. In addition to it the odd generators $`Q_A`$ satisfy

$`[Q_A,P_a]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}Q_B\gamma _aϵ_{BA}`$ , $`[Q_A,P_a^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_B\gamma _a^{}ϵ_{BA}`$
$`[Q_A,M_{ab}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_A\gamma _{ab}`$ , $`[Q_A,M_{a^{}b^{}}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_A\gamma _{a^{}b^{}}`$
$`\{Q_{\alpha \alpha ^{}A},Q_{\beta \beta ^{}B}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{AB}\left[2iC_{}^{}{}_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}^{}(C\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }P_a+2C_{\alpha \beta }(C^{}\gamma ^a^{})_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}P_a^{}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{AB}\left[C_{}^{}{}_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}^{}(C\gamma ^{ab})_{\alpha \beta }M_{ab}C_{\alpha \beta }(C^{}\gamma ^{a^{}b^{}})_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}M_{a^{}b^{}}\right]`$
where we omit to write the chiral projection operators.

For the present purpose we rewrite this algebra in terms of 10-dimensional covariant gamma matrices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s, rather than $`\gamma `$’s. It is convenient to introduce following matrices

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01234}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}^{}i\sigma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{56789}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\sigma _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_9J.`$ (3.8)
The AdS superalgebra (3) are rewritten as

$`[Q_A,P_{\widehat{a}}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_0I\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}}ϵ_{BA}`$
$`[Q_A,M_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}`$ (3.9)
$`\{Q_{\widehat{\alpha }A},Q_{\widehat{\beta }B}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\delta _{AB}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{a}}P_{\widehat{a}}+iϵ_{AB}\left[𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0IM_{ab}+𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a^{}b^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_9JM_{a^{}b^{}}\right]`$
using with the useful relation in the first line

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0I)={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_9J).`$ (3.10)
Associating with the rescaling of $`P`$’s by $`R`$ as in (2.5) the dimensionless supercharge $`Q_A`$ is rescaled as

$`P_aRP_a,P_a^{}RP_a^{},Q_A\sqrt{R}Q_A.`$ (3.11)
Corresponding to the rescaling of bosonic generators (2.11) the components of the supercharges are rescaled with proper weights. The $`Q_A`$ is decomposed as

$`Q_A`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{+A}+Q_A,Q_{\pm A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_0).`$ (3.12)
The supercharges are rescaled as

$`Q_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}Q_+,Q_{}Q_{}`$ (3.13)
in the superalgebra of the AdS$`{}_{}{}^{5}\times `$S5 to obtain the well defined Penrose limit.

The super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra (3.9) after the rescaling of the $`P`$’s, (2.5) with $`R=R^{}`$ and (2.11), and those of $`Q`$’s , (3.11) and (3.13), becomes

$`\begin{array}{ccc}[Q_{+,A},P_{}]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R}Q_{+,B}Iϵ_{BA}\hfill & ,& [Q_{,A},P_+]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}R}Q_{,B}Iϵ_{BA}\hfill \\ [Q_{+,A},P_{\widehat{i}}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\sqrt{2}R}Q_{,B}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}}ϵ_{BA}\hfill & ,& [Q_{,A},P_{\widehat{i}}]=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}Q_{+,B}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+I\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}}ϵ_{BA}\hfill \\ [Q_{+,A},P_i^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\sqrt{2}}Q_{,A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\hfill & ,& [Q_{,A},P_{\widehat{i}}^{}]=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}Q_{+,A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}}\hfill \\ [Q_{+,A},P_i^{}^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\sqrt{2}}Q_{,A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}}\hfill & ,& [Q_{\pm ,A},M_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}]=\frac{1}{2}Q_{\pm ,A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}\hfill \\ \mathrm{others}=0\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (3.19)
$`\{Q_{+,A},Q_{+,B}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\delta _{AB}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+P_+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}R}}ϵ_{AB}\left[𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}IM_{ij}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}JM_{i^{}j^{}}\right]`$ (3.20)
$`\{Q_{+,A},Q_{,B}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\delta _{AB}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{2}}P_{\widehat{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{R}}ϵ_{AB}\left[𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iIP_i^{}+𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{}JP_i^{}^{}\right]`$
$`\{Q_{,A},Q_{,B}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\delta _{AB}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}R}}ϵ_{AB}\left[𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}IM_{ij}+𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}JM_{i^{}j^{}}\right].`$
Here we have used relations following from (3.10),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm I{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm J{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{2}}.`$ (3.21)
It is important that negative power terms of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ disappear due to the presence of the chiral and the light cone projections. Therefore we can take the Penrose limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ of the algebra to obtain

$`\begin{array}{ccc}[Q_A,P_{}]=\lambda Q_B(I+J)ϵ_{BA}\hfill & ,& [Q_A,P_i]=\lambda Q_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_iIϵ_{BA}\hfill \\ [Q_A,P_{\widehat{i}}^{}]=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}Q_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}}\hfill & ,& [Q_A,P_i^{}]=\lambda Q_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}Jϵ_{BA}\hfill \\ [Q_A,M_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}]=\frac{1}{2}Q_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{i}\widehat{j}}\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (3.25)
$`\{Q_A,Q_B\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i\delta _{AB}\left[𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+P_++𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P_{}+𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{i}}P_{\widehat{i}}\right]`$
$`+4\sqrt{2}i\lambda ϵ_{AB}\left[𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^iP_i^{}+𝒞J\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{}P_i^{}^{}\right]`$
$`+2i\lambda ϵ_{AB}\left[𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}M_{ij}+𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}J\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}M_{i^{}j^{}}\right]`$
where $`\lambda =1/(2\sqrt{2}R)`$. This is the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave algebra obtained in .

Furthermore the flat limit is taken by $`R\mathrm{}`$ in (3.19) and (3.20) or $`\lambda 0`$ in (3).

## 4  Summary and Discussions

In this paper we have derived the super-pp-wave algebra taking with an IW contraction of the super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$algebra. It is stressed that the Jacobi identities of this algebra (2.23), (3.19) and (3.20) hold for any value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\lambda `$, and the algebra has well defined even in their zero limits. It explains naturally why the pp-wave and the flat supersymmetry are maximally supersymmetric as the super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$. The number of bosonic generators in AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S$`^5`$and pp-wave algebra are same since their algebras are connected by the contraction.

The relation between the super-AdS background and the super-pp-wave background at algebraic level is practical to construct mechanical actions for branes in the super-pp-wave background. Any form field in the latter can be obtained from the former. This approach manifests symmetries of super-pp-wave systems whose dynamics and spectrum will be analyzed elegantly.