format: text

text:
# Quantum entanglement and Bell inequalities in Heisenberg spin chains

\[

## Abstract

We show that in one-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg model two-qubit thermal entanglement and maximal violation of Bell inequalities are directly related with a thermodynamical state function, i.e., the internal energy. Therefore they are completely determined by the partition function, the central object of thermodynamics. For ferromagnetic ring we prove that there is no thermal entanglement at any temperature. Explicit relations between the concurrence and the measure of maximal Bell inequality violation are given.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ud, 75.10.Jm

\]

Over the past few years much effort has been put into studying the entanglement of quantum systems both qualitatively and quantitatively. Entangled states constitute indeed a valuable resource in quantum information processing . Entanglement in systems of interacting spins  as well as in systems of indistinguishable particles  has been investigated. In particular entanglement in both the ground state  and thermal state  of a spin-1/2 Heisenberg spin chain have been analyzed in the literature. The intriguing issue of the relation between entanglement and quantum phase transition  have been addressed in a few quite recent papers .

From a conceptual perspective one can say that these investigations aim to provide a bridge between quantum information theory and theoretical condensed matter physics. This is done by considering thermal equilibrium in a canonical ensemble. In this situation the system state is given by the Gibb’s density operator $`\rho _T=\mathrm{exp}\left(H/kT\right)/Z,`$ where $`Z=`$tr$`\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(H/kT\right)\right]`$ is the partition function, $`H`$ the system Hamiltonian, $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant which we henceforth will take equal to 1, and $`T`$ the temperature. As $`\rho (T)`$ represents a thermal state, the entanglement in the state is called thermal entanglement. It is important to stress that, although the central object of statistical physics, the partition function, is determined by the eigenvalues of $`H`$ only, thermal entanglement properties generally require in addition the knowledge of the energy eigenstates.

On the other hand the violation of Bell inequalities  was considered as a means of determining whether there is entanglement. In 1989 Werner  demonstrated that that there exists states which are entangled but do not violate any Bell–type inequality, i.e., not all entangled states violate a Bell inequality. Further studies  showed that the maximal violation of a Bell inequality does not behave monotonously under local operation and classical communications. So Bell violations can only be considered an entanglement witness . More recently the relation between Bell inequalities and the usefulness for quantum key distribution and quantum secret sharing have been clarified . Moreover it has been showed that even multipartite bound entangled states can violate Bell inequalities .

In this paper we shall study the Heisenberg qubit chains by exploring further connections between entanglement and other relevant physical quantities. We will study the relations between the concurrence, an entanglement measure for two qubits, with thermodynamic potentials such as the internal energy $`U`$ and magnetization $`M.`$ The latter quantities are defined as

$$U=\frac{1}{Z}\frac{Z}{\beta },\text{ }M=\frac{1}{Z\beta }\frac{Z}{B},$$
(1)
where $`\beta =1/T`$ and $`B`$ is a magnetic field. We shall establish a remarkably simple relation between the concurrence for the thermal state and the internal energy. A direct relation between the maximal violation of the Bell inequality and the internal energy will be given as well.

We first briefly review the definition of concurrence . Let $`\rho _{12}`$ be the density matrix of a pair of qubits $`1`$ and $`2.`$ The density matrix can be either pure or mixed. The concurrence corresponding to the density matrix is defined as

$$C=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4,0\},$$
(2)
where the quantities $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3`$ $`\lambda _4`$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues of the operator

$$\varrho _{12}=\rho _{12}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho _{12}^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y).$$
(3)
The nonzero concurrence implies that the qubits 1 and 2 are entangled. The concurrence $`C_{12}=0`$ corresponds to an unentangled state and $`C_{12}=1`$ corresponds to a maximally entangled state.

The Heisenberg model and pairwise entanglement. We consider a physical model of a chain of $`N`$ qubits, namely, a chain of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles in which neighboring particles interact via the anisotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian $`H=H(\mathrm{\Delta },B),`$ with a magnetic field

$`H=J{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{i+1}+(\mathrm{\Delta }1)\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{i+1z}\right)+B{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma _{iz},`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i=(\sigma _{ix},\sigma _{iy},\sigma _{iz})`$ is the vector of Pauli matrices and $`J`$ is the exchange constants. The positive and negative $`J`$ correspond to the antiferromagnetic (AFM) and ferromagnetic (FM) case, respectively.

In order to enact translational invariance for finite $`N`$ we assume periodic boundary conditions, i.e., $`N+11,`$ turning the chain into a ring. Therefore $`H`$ becomes invariant under cyclic shifts generated by the right shift operator $`T.`$ The latter being defined by its action on the product basis, $`T|m_1,\mathrm{},m_{N1},m_N=|m_N,\mathrm{},m_1,m_{N1},`$ where $`m_i=0`$ (1) represents the state of spin up (down). Another fact is that that $`[H,S_z]=0,`$ which guarantees that reduced density matrix $`\rho _{12}`$ of two nearest-neighbor qubits, say qubit 1 and 2, for the thermal state has the form

$$\rho _{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u^+\hfill & & & \\ & w_1\hfill & z^{}\hfill & \\ & z\hfill & w_2\hfill & \\ & & & u^{}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(5)
in the standard basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}.`$ Here $`S_\alpha =_{i=1}^N\sigma _\alpha /2`$ $`(\alpha =x,y,z)`$ are the collective spin operators. The reduced density matrix is directly related to various correlation functions $`G_{\alpha \beta }=\sigma _{1\alpha }\sigma _{2\beta }=`$tr$`(\sigma _{1\alpha }\sigma _{2\beta }\rho _T)`$. Then matrix elements can be written in terms of the correlation functions and the magnetization per site $`\overline{M}=M/N`$ as

$`u^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\pm 2\overline{M}+G_{zz}),`$ (6)
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(G_{xx}+G_{yy}+iG_{xy}iG_{yx}).`$ (7)
In the deriving of above equation, we have used the translation invariance of the Hamiltonian. From the above equation we find the following relations which will be useful later $`u^+u^{}=\overline{M},u^++u^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+G_{zz}\right),Re(z)=\frac{1}{4}(G_{xx}+G_{yy}).`$ All the information needed is contained in the reduced density matrix, from which the concurrence quantifying the entanglement is readily obtained as

$$C=2\mathrm{max}[0,|z|\sqrt{u^+u^{}})],$$
(8)
which can be expressed in terms of the correlation functions and the magnetization as seen from Eq.(7).

Isotropic Heisenberg model. Now we consider the Heisenberg $`XXX`$ model described by the Hamiltonian $`H(1,0)`$. We first notice that $`H`$ admits a continuous $`SU(2)`$ group of symmetries. This can be easily checked in that $`H`$ commutes with the Lie-algebra generators $`S_\alpha ,`$ In particular the isotropic Hamiltonian also commutes with the operators

$$Q_\alpha =\sigma _\alpha ^N(\alpha =x,y,z)$$
(9)
that generate $`Z_2`$ sub-groups of $`SU(2).`$ The rich rotational symmetry structure of the $`XXX`$ model along with translational invariance will play a key role in our study of the ring entanglement.

Form the $`Z_2`$ symmetry immediately follows

Proposition 1. For any temperature the magnetization $`M`$ is vanishing and the nondiagonal element $`z`$ is real.

Proof: By definition one has $`M=N\sigma _{1z}=NZ^1\text{tr(}\sigma _{1z}e^{\beta H})=NZ^1\text{tr(}\sigma _x^N\sigma _{1z}\sigma _x^Ne^{\beta H})=NZ^1\sigma _{1z}=M.`$ Moreover $`z=\sigma _{1+}\sigma _2=Z^1\text{tr(}\sigma _{1+}\sigma _2e^{\beta H})=Z^1\text{tr(}\sigma _x^N\sigma _{1+}\sigma _2\sigma _x^Ne^{\beta H})=\sigma _{2+}\sigma _1=z^{}.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

In passing we notice that the reality of the correlation function $`\sigma _i^+\sigma _j^{}`$ can be proven in a more general context possibly with $`Z_2`$-symmetry broken. Indeed it is easy to check that it is sufficient that there exist a symmetry $`S`$ of the Hamiltonian swapping the $`j`$-th with the $`i`$-th lattice site i.e., $`S\sigma _j^+S=\sigma _i^+.`$ This is the case, for example, for the $`XXX`$ on a ring with $`S`$ given by a geometrical symmetry of the lattice, e.g., a reflection.

In view of Prop. 1 the concurrence has the following simplified form, $`C=2\mathrm{max}[0,|z|u^+].`$ Furthermore, from the relations for $`u`$, $`v`$, and $`z`$ established above we find that the concurrence is completely determined by the correlation functions $`G_{\alpha \alpha }(\alpha =x,y,z),`$ i.e.,

$$C=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,|G_{xx}+G_{yy}|G_{zz}1)].$$
(10)
This result is due to the $`Z_2`$ symmetry generated by $`\sigma _x^N.`$ By using the global $`SU(2)`$ symmetry and the translation invariance it is starightforward to check that $`G_{xx}=G_{yy}=G_{zz}`$ and $`G_{xx}=U/(3JN)`$. Then we get

Proposition 2 For the isotropic Heiserberg model the concurrence of nearest–neighbor qubits is directly obtained from the internal energy, i.e.,

$$C=\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{max}[0,2|\overline{U}/J|\overline{U}/J3)].$$
(11)
In Ref.  it has been shown that in the Heiserberg even-site antiferromagnetic ($`J=1`$) $`XXX`$ model  there exists a direct relation between the pairwise entanglement and the ground state (GS) energy $`E_{GS}`$:

$$C=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}(0,E_{GS}/N1).$$
(12)
The key step for the proof of this relation is to prove that the nondiagonal element $`z<0`$ for the ground state. Note that this relation is obtained for the case of antiferromagnetic and even-number qubits. One can guess that the nondiagonal element $`z`$ is also negative for the thermal state of the antiferromagnetic model. In fact we can prove a more general result given by

Proposition 3  The internal energy is always negative and the off–diagonal element $`z`$ is negative (positive) for the antiferromagnetic (ferromagnetic) rings.

Proof: First, from the tracelessness of the Pauli operators, it is immediate to check that in the limit of $`T\mathrm{}`$ one has $`U=0.`$ The internal energy is known to be a non-decreasing function of the temperature ($`U/T=(\mathrm{\Delta }H)^2/T^20`$) $`U`$ is negative. Since we know that $`z=U/(6JN),`$ we conclude that $`z<0`$ for the antiferromagnetic case and $`z>0`$ for the ferromagnetic case $`\mathrm{}`$

The combination of the Prop. 2 and 3 gives rise to

Theorem 1 The concurrence of the nearest-neighbor qubits in the Heisenberg model is given by

$$C=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,\frac{U}{JN}1]\hfill & \text{for AFM,}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,\frac{U}{3JN}1]\hfill & \text{ for FM.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
In the limit $`T0`$ in the antiferromagnetic even-site model, the thermal state become the nondegenerate ground state. As we expected Eq.(13) reduces to Eq.(12) in this limit. Theorem 1 establishes a direct relation between the concurrence and a macroscopic thermodynamical function, the internal energy. Then the entanglement is uniquely determined by the partition function of the system. Notice that Theorem 1 has no restriction to $`J>0`$ and $`N`$ even (like in Ref ). Eqs. (13) clearly show that in AFM (FM) rings the concurrence is a not increasing (decreasing) function of the temperature.

From the obvious fact

$`|\sigma _z\sigma _z|=Z^1|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e^{\beta E_i}i|\sigma _z\sigma _z|i|`$ (14)
$`Z^1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e^{\beta E_i}\sigma _z\sigma _z|iZ^1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e^{\beta E_i}=1,`$ (15)
one has that $`1U/3JN=G_{zz}1.`$ Therefore we obtain a general result which is applicable for both even and odd number of qubits.

Corollary 1 At any temperature there is no thermal entanglement between two qubits in the FM $`XXX`$ Heisenberg rings.

Now we discuss the case of AFM. When the temperature increases the internal energy will increase but the concurrence decrease. When the internal energy arrives at $`NJ`$ the concurrence becomes zero.

The temperature $`T_c`$ at which the concurrence vanishes is called the threshold temperature. In a short summary we have

Corollary 2 At temperatures lower than $`T_c`$ there exists thermal entanglement between two qubits in the AFM $`XXX`$ Heisenberg rings.

$`T_c`$ is determined by the equation $`u(N):=U(T_c)/(NJ)=1.`$ From the numerical evidences of Refs.  and  we conjecture that $`u(N)`$ is a non-increasing (non-decreasing) function of $`N`$ for $`N`$ even (odd). Therefore since it has been estimated $`u(\mathrm{})>1`$  and $`u(3)<1,u(5)>1`$  one obtains that the ground state of the AFM Heisenberg is always entangled except for the case $`N=3`$.

Now we give the examples of 2 and 3 qubit for the illustration of our general results. For two-qubit model the partition function is given by $`Z=3e^{2\beta J}+e^{6\beta J}`$, then the internal energy follows $`6J(e^{2\beta J}e^{6\beta J})/Z`$. From Eq.(13) the concurrence is found to be zero for the FM rings and $`C=\mathrm{max}\{0,[\mathrm{exp}(8\beta J)3]/[\mathrm{exp}(8\beta J)+3]\}`$ for the AFM . The threshold temperature is then determined by $`\mathrm{exp}(8\beta J)=3`$ and it is given by $`T_c=8J/\mathrm{ln}3.`$ For three-qubit model the partition function is given by $`8\mathrm{cosh}(3\beta J)`$, and then the internal energy is $`3J\mathrm{tanh}(3\beta J),`$ from which and Eq.(13) we can find that the concurrence is zero for the FM rings as we expected and $`C=\mathrm{max}\{0,\mathrm{tanh}(3\beta J)1\}/2.`$ Hence we recover the result that there is no pairwise thermal entanglement for the three-qubit Heisenberg ring . Next we discuss Bell inequality.

Bell inequality. The most commonly discussed Bell–inequality is the CHSH inequality. The CHSH operator ($`\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{a^{}},\stackrel{}{b},\stackrel{}{b^{}}`$ are unit vectors) reads

$$\widehat{B}=\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{b}+\stackrel{}{b^{}})\stackrel{}{\sigma }+\stackrel{}{a^{}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{b^{}})\stackrel{}{\sigma }.$$
(16)
In the above notation, the Bell inequality reads

$$\left|\widehat{B}\right|=\left|\text{tr}(\rho \widehat{B})\right|2,$$
(17)
where $`\rho `$ is an arbitrary two–qubit state. The maximal amount of Bell violation of a state $`\rho `$ is given by

$$=2\sqrt{u+\stackrel{~}{u}},$$
(18)
where $`u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ are the two largest eigenvalues of $`T_\rho T_\rho ^{}.`$ The matrix $`T_\rho `$ is determined completely by the correlation functions being a $`3\times 3`$ matrix whose elements are $`(T_\rho )_{nm}=`$tr$`(\rho _{12}\sigma _n\sigma _m).`$ Here $`\sigma _1\sigma _x,\sigma _2\sigma _y,`$ and $`\sigma _3\sigma _z`$ are the usual Pauli matrices. We call the quantity $``$ the maximal violation measure, which indicates the Bell violation when $`>2`$ and the maximal violation when $`=2\sqrt{2}.`$ The violation measure is a function of the correlation functions and does not depend on the magnetization.

For the isotropic Heisenberg model the matrix $`T_\rho `$ is easily obtained as diag$`[G_{xx},G_{xx},G_{xx}]`$ and the violation measure becomes

$$=2\sqrt{2}|G_{xx}|=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2\sqrt{2}U}{3JN}\hfill & \text{For AFM},\hfill \\ \frac{2\sqrt{2}U}{3JN}\hfill & \text{For FM}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
As we expected, the violation measure is completely determined by the internal energy just as the concurrence.

From Eqs.(13) and (19) we arrive at an explicit relation between the concurrence and the violation measure

$$C=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}}1]\hfill & \text{For AFM},\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,\frac{}{2\sqrt{2}}1]\hfill & \text{For FM}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
From the above relation we know that the concurrence is larger than zero when the Bell inequality is violated. When $`2\sqrt{2}/3<2`$ for the AFM rings the state is entangled, but the Bell inequality is not violated. The result is general for arbitrary $`N.`$ The maximal value of $``$ is $`2\sqrt{2},`$ therefore the concurrence is zero for the FM rings. Next we consider the general model with anisotropy and magnetic fields.

General models including anisotropy and magnetic fields. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ one obtains an anisotropic model which has no longer a global SU(2)- symmetry. The corresponding Hamiltonian $`H(\mathrm{\Delta },0)`$ still commutes with the $`z`$ component of the total spin. So the concurrence is given by Eq.(10). For this model we have the following relations $`\overline{U}/J=G_{xx}+G_{yy}+\mathrm{\Delta }G_{zz},`$ where $`\overline{U}=U/N`$ is the internal energy per site. The combination of the relation and Eq.(10) gives

$$C=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,|\overline{U}/J\mathrm{\Delta }G_{zz}|G_{zz}1)].$$
(21)
Then if we calculate the concurrence, we need to know the correlation function $`G_{zz}`$ and the partition function. The partition function itself is not sufficient for determining the entanglement. In particular for $`XY`$ model, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0,`$ the concurrence reduces to $`C=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,|\overline{U}/J|G_{zz}1)].`$ We still need to know the correlation function $`G_{zz}`$ to calculate the concurrence.

Now we consider the $`XXX`$ model with a magnetic field, i.e., the Hamiltonian $`H(1,B).`$ Now the magnetization is no long zero and hence $`u^+u^{}.`$ For this model we have the relation $`\overline{U}/J=G_{xx}+G_{yy}+G_{zz}+B\overline{M}=4Re(z)+2(u^++u^{})1+B\overline{M}`$. Here we have used the relation $`G_{xx}+G_{yy}+G_{zz}=4Re(z)+2(u^++u^{})1.`$ Since $`u^+u^{}=\overline{M},`$ we can express $`u`$ and $`v`$ in terms of $`z`$ ,$`\overline{U}/J,`$ and $`M.`$ Finally the concurrence is $`C=2\mathrm{max}\{0,|z|\frac{1}{4}[(\overline{U}/J4Re(z)+1B\overline{M})^24\overline{M}^2]^{1/2}\}.`$ To calculate the entanglement we need to know, beside the partition function, the non-diagonal element $`z.`$

Comments. Our discussions above are applicable to more general Heisenberg Hamiltonians such as

$$=\underset{ij}{}(J_{i,j}^x\sigma _{ix}\sigma _{jx}+J_{i,j}^y\sigma _{iy}\sigma _{jy}+J_{i,j}^z\sigma _{iz}\sigma _{jz}),$$
(22)
where $`J_{i,j}^\alpha (\alpha =x,y,z)`$ are arbitrary exchange constants. For this model we still have the $`Z_2`$ symmetry \[$`H,\sigma _x^N]=0.`$ Therefore the concurrence for the two qubits $`i`$ and $`j`$ of the thermal state is given, with an extra $`i,j`$ dependence, by Eq.(10). If $`J_{i,j}^x=J_{i,j}^y=J_{i,j}^z,`$ then it is easy to check that the Hamiltonian $``$ has a global $`SU(2)`$-symmetry. Therefore the concurrence becomes $`C=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{max}[0,2|G_{zz}|G_{zz}1)],`$ which is determined solely by the correlation function $`G_{zz}.`$

Conclusions.  In this paper we have discussed thermal entanglement and Bell inequality violation in the Heisenberg qubit rings. In the isotropic case we found that there exists a simple relation between the pairwise entanglement for the thermal Gibb’s state and the internal energy. This result is noteworthy and somewhat surprising in that it allows to directly connect entanglement properties with a thermodynamical potential and thus eventually with the partition function. In particular one can conclude that, at any temperature (above the threshold temperature), no pairwise thermal entanglement exists in the FM (AFM) rings.

We also determined a simple relation between the measure of maximal violation of Bell inequality and the internal energy. This in turn allows to explicitly show the relation between the concurrence and the violation measure. The key ingredient in our derivations has been the vast symmetry group of the $`XXX`$ model. The study of the relation between thermal entanglement and thermodynamical quantities for spin models with a poorer symmetry structure is, we believe, an intriguing challenge for future investigations.

The authors thanks for the helpful discussions with Dr. Irene D’Amico and Prof. V.E.Korepin, H. Fu and A. I. Solomon. This work has been supported by the European Community through grant IST-1999-10596 (Q-ACTA).


text:
# A Hall–Drift Induced Magnetic Field Instability

## Abstract

In the presence of a strong magnetic field and under conditions as realized in the crust and the superfluid core of neutron stars the Hall–drift dominates the field evolution. We show by a linear analysis that for a sufficiently strong large–scale background field depending at least quadratically on position in a plane conducting slab an instability occurs which rapidly generates small–scale fields. Their growth rates depend on the choice of the boundary conditions, increase with the background field strength and may reach $`10^3`$ times the ohmic decay rate. The effect of that instability on the rotational and thermal evolution of neutron stars is discussed.

In the presence of a magnetic field the electric conductivity becomes a tensor and, what is more, two non–linear effects are introduced into Ohm’s law: the Hall–drift and the ambipolar diffusion. However, if the conducting matter consists of electrons and one sort of ions and no neutral particles take part in the transport processes the ambipolar diffusion is absent . Such a situation is realized e.g. in crystallized crusts of neutron stars and/or in their cores if the neutrons are superfluid, but the protons are normal and the electrons may therefore collide with protons but effectively not with the neutrons.

The effect of the Hall–drift on the magnetic field evolution of isolated neutron stars has been considered by a number of authors (see e.g. ). They discussed the redistribution of magnetic energy from an initially large–scale (e.g. dipolar) field into small–scale components due to the non–linear Hall–term. Though the Hall–drift is a non–dissipative process, the tendency to redistribute the magnetic energy into small scales may accelerate the field decay considerably.

Indeed, when starting with a large–scale magnetic field the Hall–cascade derived in  will generate small–scale field components down to a scalelength $`l_{crit}`$, where the ohmic dissipation begins to dominate the Hall–drift. Considering numerically the evolution of a magnetic field in a sphere consisting of spherical harmonics up to a multipolarity $`l=5`$, Shalybkov & Urpin  concluded that the inclusion of higher harmonics will not influence the magnetic evolution. This conclusion is what we want to put in question.

In some of the above–mentioned investigations numerical instabilities are reported if either too many harmonics were taken into account  or the initial field is too strong . Also, when considering the thermomagnetic field generation in the crust of young neutron stars , where small–scale modes are the first ones to be excited numerical instabilities occurred caused exclusively by the Hall–drift.

Here we want to show that all the observed instabilities are very likely in their essence not of numerical origin but have physical reasons. In presuming that we felt strongly supported by the close analogy of the linearized field evolution equation including Hall–drift to the induction equation including the so–called $`\stackrel{}{\omega }\times \stackrel{}{j}`$–effect introduced by Rädler . Within the framework of mean–field dynamo theory (see e.g. ) he demonstrated the possible occurrence of magnetic instabilities in an electrically conducting fluid if a shear flow acts together with an electromotive force (e.m.f.) perpendicular to the current density $`\stackrel{}{j}\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}`$.

To prove the existence of a Hall–drift induced instability we employ a simplified model: We assume spatial constancy of the conductive properties of the matter and show that under special conditions with respect to the (large–scale) background field strength and geometry an instability occurs which quickly transfers magnetic energy from the background field to small–scale perturbations. We present the result of a linearized analysis which returns only growth rates and the spatial structure of the unstable field modes. Only a fully non–linear analysis is able to yield saturation values of the excited small–scale modes.

The instability may work in different physical systems but is probably most efficient in modifying the field decay in compact astrophysical bodies. Then it will act only during an episode of the field decay, which unavoidably leads to a zero field. This episode, however, may have observable consequences.

In the absence of motions and of ambipolar diffusion, the equations which govern the magnetic field are

$`\dot{\stackrel{}{B}}=c\mathrm{curl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{4\pi \sigma }}(\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}+\omega _B\tau _e(\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{e}_B))\right)`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{B}=0,`$
where $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`\sigma `$ the electric conductivity caused by electrons, $`\tau _e`$ the electron relaxation time and $`\omega _B=e|\stackrel{}{B}|/m_e^{}c`$ the electron Larmor frequency, with $`e`$ being the elementary charge and $`m_e^{}`$ the effective mass of an electron. $`\stackrel{}{e}_B`$ is the unit vector in $`\stackrel{}{B}`$–direction. An estimate of the two terms on the r.h.s. of (1) gives rise to the supposition that the Hall–drift becomes important only if $`\omega _B\tau _e>1`$.

Using standard arguments one can immediately state that in the absence of currents at infinity the total energy of any solution of (1) is bound to decrease monotonically to zero since the Hall–term $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{e}_B`$ is unable to deliver energy (nor to consume it).

For simplicity we assume the conductive properties of the matter to be constant in space and time, that is, we assume constant $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau _e/m_e^{}`$. Thus, the induction equation can be rewritten in dimensionless variables such that it no longer contains any parameter and the magnetic field evolution is solely determined by its initial configuration $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{x},0)`$. For that purpose we normalize the spatial coordinates by a characteristic length $`L`$ of the model (for a neutron star it could be, e.g., its radius or the thickness of its crust), the time by the ohmic decay time $`4\pi \sigma L^2/c^2`$ and the magnetic field by $`B_N=m_e^{}c/e\tau _e`$. The governing equations in these dimensionless variables read

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{B}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{B}\mathrm{curl}(\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{B}),\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{B}=0,$$
(2)
where the differential operations have to be performed with respect to the now dimensionless spatial and time coordinates $`x,y,z`$ and $`\tau `$, respectively.

Stepping now into the search for instabilities we first have to define a proper reference state $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$. In order to avoid difficulties in defining the term “instability” and to facilitate the calculations we assume $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ to be constant in time. Consequently we are forced to assume the existence of an additional e.m.f. which prevents $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ from decaying. Although appearing to be very artificial, we find this measure to be legitimate as long as the results of the stability analysis are applied to real physical situations obeying the constraint that the background field $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ is changing only slightly during the considered period of time.

Linearization of (2) about $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ yields

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{b}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{b}\mathrm{curl}(\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}_0\times \stackrel{}{b}+\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{b}\times \stackrel{}{B}_0),\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{b}=0$$
(3)
describing the behavior of small perturbations $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ of the reference state.

With respect to the magnetic energy balance Eq. (3) shows a remarkable difference to Eq. (2). Along with the term $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{b}\times \stackrel{}{B}_0`$ which is again energy–conserving now as a second Hall–term $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}_0\times \stackrel{}{b}`$ occurs which may well deliver or consume energy (from/to $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ !) since in general the integral $`_V(\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}_0\times \stackrel{}{b})\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{b}dV`$ will not vanish. This reflects the fact that the linearized Hall–induction equation describes the behavior of only a part of the total magnetic field. Actually, perturbations may grow only on expense of the energy stored in the background field. Considering (3), we can determine a scale below which the ohmic dissipation dominates the Hall-drift. Estimating $`|\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}_0|`$ and $`|\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{b}|`$ by $`\overline{B}_0`$ and $`\overline{b}/l`$, respectively, we find the critical scale of $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ to be $`l_{crit}1/\overline{B}_0`$, which is de–normalized $`l_{crit}L/(\omega _{\overline{B}_0}\tau _e)`$, identical with the expression derived in  considering the Hall–cascade in analogy with the turbulent flow of an incompressible fluid.

Let us now specify the geometry of our model and the background field. We consider a slab which is infinitely extended both into the $`x`$– and $`y`$–directions but has a finite thickness $`2L`$ in $`z`$–direction. The background field is assumed to be parallel to the surface of the slab pointing, say, in $`x`$–direction and to depend on the $`z`$ coordinate only, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{B}_0=f(z)\stackrel{}{e}_x`$. Guided by the conditions under which the above–mentioned magnetic instability  may work, we conclude that $`f(z)`$ has to be at least quadratic thereby ensuring that the first term in (3) is able to play the role of the shear flow, the second the role of the $`\stackrel{}{\omega }\times \stackrel{}{j}`$–term. Note, that by this choice $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}_0\times \stackrel{}{B}_0`$ represents a gradient. Thus the unperturbed evolution of the background field is not at all affected by the Hall–drift; in the absence of an e.m.f. it would decay purely ohmically!

Further on we decompose a perturbation $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ into a poloidal and a toroidal component, $`\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{b}_p+\stackrel{}{b}_t`$, which can be represented by scalar functions $`S`$ and $`T`$, respectively, by virtue of the definitions

$$\stackrel{}{b}_p=\mathrm{curl}(\stackrel{}{e}_z\times S),\stackrel{}{b}_t=\stackrel{}{e}_z\times T,$$
(4)
ensuring $`\mathrm{div}\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ for arbitrary $`S,T`$.

For the sake of simplicity we will confine ourselves to the study of plane wave solutions with respect to the $`x`$– and $`y`$–directions, thus making the ansatz

$$\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& S\hfill \\ & T\hfill \end{array}\right\}(\stackrel{}{x},\tau )=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}& s\hfill \\ & t\hfill \end{array}\right\}(z)\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{x}}+p\tau ),$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}}=(k_x,k_y)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{x}}=(x,y)`$ and $`p`$ is a complex time increment. It guarantees as well the uniqueness of the poloidal–toroidal decomposition since from $`\underset{\mathrm{@}!\mathrm{@}!\mathrm{@}!\mathrm{@}!\stackrel{~}{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(S,T)=0`$ it follows $`(S,T)=0`$ with $`\underset{\mathrm{@}!\mathrm{@}!\mathrm{@}!\mathrm{@}!\stackrel{~}{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ being the 2–dimensional lateral Laplacian (see ). With (5) we obtain from (3) two coupled ordinary differential equations

$`ptt^{\prime \prime }`$ $`+\stackrel{~}{k}^2t`$ $`=`$ $`ik_xf(s^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{k}^2s)ik_xf^{\prime \prime }s`$ (6)
$`pss^{\prime \prime }`$ $`+\stackrel{~}{k}^2sik_yf^{}s`$ $`=`$ $`ik_xft,`$
where the dash denotes the derivative with respect to $`z`$. Together with appropriate boundary conditions Eqs. (6) define an eigenvalue problem with respect to $`p`$.

We consider two types of boundary conditions (BC): For the vacuum condition we assume $`\mathrm{curl}\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ outside the slab and require continuity of all components of $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ across the boundary. For the perfect–conductor condition an electric field must be prevented from penetrating into the region outside the slab, that is, the normal magnetic and tangential electric field components must vanish at the boundary. In terms of the scalars $`s`$ and $`t`$ this means $`[s]=\left[s^{}\right]=t=0`$ for the vacuum condition and $`s=t^{}=0`$ for the perfect conductor condition where $`[.]`$ denotes the jump across a boundary. For $`t^{}=0`$ to be valid the vanishing of $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ at the boundary is required. Making use of the vacuum solutions vanishing at infinity for either halfspace, $`z1`$ and $`z1`$, respectively, the vacuum boundary condition for $`s`$ can be expressed as $`s^{}=\stackrel{~}{k}s`$ for $`z=\pm 1`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{k}=|\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}}|`$.

Obviously, three distinguishable combinations of the boundary conditions are possible: vacuum on either side (VV), perfect conductor on either side (PP), vacuum on one and perfect conductor on the other side of the slab (PV). The latter choice comes closest to neutron star conditions if we think of the crust being neighboured upon a superconducting core on the one and a region with very low conductivity on the other side. The VV boundary condition may in turn be appropriate for a galactic disc. Since both the PV and the VV BC were to be considered, we choose sufficiently curved background field profiles, which obey them, i.e. $`f(z)=B_0(1+z)(1z^2)`$ and $`f(z)=B_0(1z^2)`$ for BC=PV and BC=VV , respectively.

For certain ranges of the wave numbers $`k_x,k_y`$ and for $`B_03`$ we found eigenvalues $`p`$ with a positive real part, i.e. exponentially growing perturbations. The dependence of the growth rate $`\mathrm{}(p)`$ on the wave numbers for $`B_0=1000`$ and BC$`=`$PV is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 2 shows the dependence of growth rate and wave number $`k_x`$ of the fastest growing mode on $`B_0`$.

An interesting feature is, that the maximum growth rates occur for all $`B_0`$ considered at $`k_y=0`$. Of course this asymmetry is due to the choice of the background field: once it was chosen parallel to the $`y`$–direction the maximum growth rates would occur at $`k_x=0`$. Another interesting result is the dependence of the growth rate on the boundary conditions. BC$`=`$PV yields the largest values, by a factor $`1.6\mathrm{}3`$ larger than for BC$`=`$VV, while BC$`=`$PP results in very small growth rates. Note that the most unstable eigenmodes are always non–oscillatory, though oscillating unstable ones exist.

Evidently, the obtained growth rates are in agreement with the constraint, formulated above: In comparison with the background field decay the growth of the most unstable perturbations is a fast process; thus we may consider it as ‘episodically unstable’.

With respect to the asymptotic behavior $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ for a fixed (unnormalized!) background field one has to note that the time increment $`p`$ is normalized on the ohmic decay rate ($`\sigma ^1`$). From Figure 2 it can be inferred $`\mathrm{}(p)B_0^q,q<1`$ for $`B_0100`$, which means that in the limit of negligible dissipation the growth rate in physical units tends to zero.

Figure 3 shows the eigensolutions $`(s,t)(z)`$ of the fastest growing mode for three different values of $`B_0`$ and BC$`=`$PV. One can observe that with increasing $`B_0`$ the toroidal field becomes more and more small–scaled and concentrated towards the vacuum boundary. In contrast, the corresponding poloidal field remains large–scaled.

The magnetic field structure of the fastest growing mode for $`B_0=2000`$ and BC$`=`$PV is shown in Fig. 4.

Clearly, any assignment of the results gained by help of a very simplified model to astrophysical objects has to be done with great care. Even when accepting the plane layer as a reasonable approximation of a neutron star’s crust one has to concede that the very specific profiles of $`\stackrel{}{B}_0`$ assumed above may only exemplify the field structure in the crust.

An acceptable approximation of the radial profile of a dipolar crustal field as given e.g. in  will in general have to allow for a linear part and non–zero values at the boundaries. Moreover, the strong dependence of the conductive properties on the radial co–ordiante should anyway be taken into account.

To get an impression of possible consequences for the evolution of neutron stars we now simply assume, that the real $`\stackrel{}{B}`$–profile is sufficiently “curved” (i.e. its second derivative is big enough) and associate the parameter $`B_0`$ with a typical value of the field.

Assuming further electric conductivity and chemical composition to be constant, $`\sigma =5\times 10^{26}`$s-1 and the relative atomic weight $`A/Z=25`$, respectively, we find the normalization field at a density $`\rho =10^{14}`$g cm-3 to be $`7\times 10^{10}`$G (see e.g. ). That is, for typical (inner) crustal magnetic fields ranging between $`7\times 10^{12}`$G and $`1.4\times 10^{14}`$G we find a $`B_0`$ between $`100`$ and $`2000`$ and the e–folding time of the most rapidly growing unstable mode to be $`0.0035`$ and $`0.0003`$ times the Ohmic decay time, respectively. Thus, an initial perturbation will quickly evolve to a level at which the linear analysis is no longer feasible, that is, at which it starts to drain a remarkable amount of energy out of the background field.

We want to emphasize again that a sufficient curvature of the background field profile is a necessary condition for the occurrence of an unstable behavior. Therefore neither the derivation of the well–known helicoidal waves (whistlers) nor its modification presented in  could reveal it because a homogeneous background field is used.

With even more care we may speculate about possible observational consequences. The instability discussed here may perhaps act effectively in the crust of not too young (age $`t10^5`$ yrs) neutron stars. For those stars, the small–scale field modes initially generated or existing in the crust have already been decayed and the magnetic field is concentrated almost completely in the large–scale, say, dipolar mode. Simultaneously, in the process of cooling the coefficient $`m_e^{}c/e\tau _e`$ becomes smaller and smaller until the nonlinear Hall term in (2) dominates the linear ohmic term. From that moment the Hall–instability may rise small–scale modes down to scale lengths $`l_{crit}`$ on expense of the dipolar mode. This would lead to a change of the spin–down behaviour of isolated neutron stars. Deviations from the “standard” rotational evolution will occur when the dipolar field decreases rapidly due to the instability. This may lead to the observation of braking indices $`n>3`$  during the action of that instability. Another possible observational consequence is due to enhanced Joule heating, which will keep the neutron star warmer than standard cooling calculations predict after an age critical for the onset of the Hall–instability ($`10^5`$ yrs). Third, the strong small-scale field components cause strong small–scale Lorentz forces which may be able to crack the crust. This could be observable in glitches or, depending on the available energy even in Gamma– and X–ray bursts .

The authors are grateful to K.–H. Rädler, D. Konenkov and K. Baumgärtel (AIP), K. Gärtner (Weierstrass Inst. Berlin), A. Reisenegger (PUC Chile) and D. Yakovlev (Joffe Inst. St. Petersburg) for helpful discussions.