text:
# Strong-driving-assisted multipartite entanglement in cavity QED

\[

## Abstract

We propose a method of generating multipartite entanglement by considering the interaction of a system of N two-level atoms in a cavity of high quality factor with a strong classical driving field. It is shown that, with a judicious choice of the cavity detuning and the applied coherent field detuning, vacuum Rabi coupling produces a large number of important multipartite entangled states. It is even possible to produce entangled states involving different cavity modes. Tuning of parameters also permits us to switch from Jaynes-Cummings to anti-Jaynes-Cummings like interaction.

\]

Two or more quantum systems are entangled when it is impossible to describe their physical properties by means of a direct product of their respective density operators. Entanglement is a natural consequence of linearity of Hilbert spaces and its controlled generation and measurement have been intensively pursued . In a Gedankenexperiment after Schrödinger , using the properties of quantum theory, the states of an alive and a dead cat are correlated with two microscopic states of a decaying atomic nucleus. The absence of these unusual states in our everyday experience led to intense debate about the validity of quantum theory in macroscopic systems. In recent years, great effort has been put into preparation of the so-called Schrödinger cat states in the laboratory , where the extreme cat states have been reduced to mesoscopic quantum states with classical counterparts, the so-called coherent states. Decoherence processes, their rate being increased with the size of the system, have been claimed to be the mechanism inhibiting the manifestation of entanglement in macroscopic objects. In this sense, realizing bigger Schrödinger cat states in the laboratory will let us test decoherence by monitoring their decay . Meanwhile, multipartite entangled systems are also considered since they are interesting in connection with quantum information .

Cavity QED, where atoms interact with a quantized electromagnetic field inside a cavity, have already proved to be a useful tool for testing fundamental quantum properties . Here, we demonstrate how a large number of multipartite entangled states can be generated by adding a strong coherent field to the system . The coherent drive affords great flexibility in generating entangled states since it provides freedom in choosing the detuning and strength of the field. Our method enables us to entangle different atoms, cavity modes and atoms and cavity modes. Furthermore, it is demonstrated how the external drive has an effect similar to that of a Ramsey field before and after the cavity , if we work in dressed-state basis. It is noteworthy that purely anti-Jaynes-Cummings like interaction is demonstrated.

The interaction of a two-level atom with a single mode of the electromagnetic field, described by the Jaynes-Cummings model , is one of the simplest and most fundamental quantum systems. It is typically realized in cavity QED experiments  in different frequency regimes and configurations. Here, we consider the interaction of a single mode (frequency $`\omega `$) in a cavity of high quality factor with a spatially narrow bunch of $`N`$ two-level atoms (transition frequency $`\omega _o`$), driven additionally by an external classical field (frequency $`\omega _L`$). The associated Hamiltonian reads

$`H=\mathrm{}\omega _o{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\sigma _j+\mathrm{}\omega a^{}a`$ $`+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(e^{i\omega _Lt}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+e^{i\omega _Lt}\sigma _j)`$ (2)
$`+\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a+\sigma _ja^{}),`$
where $`\sigma _j=|g_je_j|`$ and $`\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=|e_jg_j|`$ are the spin-flip operators down and up, respectively, associated with the upper level $`|e_j`$ and lower level $`|g_j`$ of atom $`j`$; $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators associated with the intracavity photon field; $`g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, both chosen to be real, are the coupling constants of the interaction of each atom with the cavity mode and with the driving field, respectively. A more realistic model of the cavity mode would include its interaction with a dissipative environment, finite $`Q`$, and a thermal bath, finite temperature. Here, we are interested in the strong coupling regime, $`g>\kappa `$, where dissipation can be neglected.

The description of the system of Eq. (2) is changed to a reference frame rotating with the driving field frequency

$`H^L=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\sigma _j`$ $`+\mathrm{}\delta a^{}a+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\sigma _j)`$ (4)
$`+\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a+\sigma _ja^{}),`$
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _o\omega _L`$ and $`\delta =\omega \omega _L`$. For the sake of simplicity, we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ hereafter. We define

$`H^L=H_o^L+H_{int}^L,`$ (5)
$`H_o^L=\mathrm{}\delta a^{}a+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\sigma _j),`$ (6)
$`H_{int}^L=\mathrm{}g{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a+\sigma _ja^{}).`$ (7)
The Hamiltonian $`H^L`$ in the interaction picture yields

$`H^I={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}`$ $`(|+_j+_j||_j_j|+e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|+_j_j|`$ (9)
$`e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|_j+_j|)ae^{i\delta t}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where the dressed states $`|\pm _j=(|g_j\pm |e_j)/\sqrt{2}`$ are eigenstates of $`(\sigma _x)_j=\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _j`$ with eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$, respectively. In the strong driving regime $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{g,\delta \}`$, we can realize a rotating-wave approximation and eliminate from Eq. (9) the terms that oscillate with high frequencies

$`H_{eff}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|+_j+_j||_j_j|)(ae^{i\delta t}+a^{}e^{i\delta t})`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _j)(ae^{i\delta t}+a^{}e^{i\delta t}).`$ (11)
A noteworthy feature of Eq. (10), more evident if $`\delta =0`$ and $`N=1`$ are chosen, is the simultaneous realization of Jaynes-Cummings (JC) and anti-Jaynes-Cummings (AJC) interaction, appearing naturally in trapped ions  but not in the context of cavity QED.

Some examples of the possible applications of the interaction described in Eq. (10) are given. If at $`t=0`$, $`N=1`$, the 1-atom-field state is $`|g|0=(|++|)|0/\sqrt{2}`$, the evolved state after a time $`t`$ will be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|\alpha +||\alpha ),`$ (12)
with $`\alpha =g(e^{i\delta t}1)/2\delta `$. The microscopic-mesoscopic entangled state of Eq. (12) is usually called the Schrödinger cat state. Clearly, for the simpler case $`\delta =0`$, we have $`\alpha =igt/2`$, which shows fast resonant generation of Schrödinger cat states as compared with dispersive methods . Rewriting Eq. (12) in the Schrödinger picture,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[`$ $`|g(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t}+e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t})`$ (14)
$`+e^{i\omega _ot}|e(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t})],`$
shows that measurement of the atomic state will produce the so-called even or odd coherent states in the cavity field, depending on whether $`|g`$ or $`|e`$ was found, respectively. Throughout this work, we specify when the final states are written in the Schrödinger picture, as in Eq. (14), to illustrate the unusual way in which phases appear after the conveniently realized transformations. If at $`t=0`$, $`N=2`$, the 2-atom-field state is $`|g_1g_2|0`$, the evolved state after a time $`t`$ will be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[|\varphi _1|2\alpha +|\varphi _2|2\alpha +(|\varphi _3+|\varphi _4)|0\right],`$ (15)
where $`|\varphi _i`$ are the eigenstates of the atomic operator $`_{j=1}^2(\sigma _j^{}+\sigma _j)`$ with eigenvalues $`\gamma _{1,2}=\pm 2`$ and $`\gamma _{3,4}=0`$. The state of Eq. (15) is a bigger and more elaborate microscopic-mesoscopic 2-atom-field entangled state. Measuring the two atoms in the state $`|g_1g_2`$ will produce, in the Schrödinger picture, the field state

$`𝒩\left(e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|2\alpha e^{i\omega t}+e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|2\alpha e^{i\omega t}+2|0\right),`$ (16)
which is a triple mesoscopic field superposition state with not only an “alive” or “dead” cat, but also and primarily an “absent” one. The effective interaction of Eq. (10) lets us create more sophisticated and bigger microscopic-mesoscopic N-atom-field entangled states and field superposition states, which will not be described here. Some of these new states , in fact, present larger quantum interference regions when displayed in phase-space, showing distinctly their quantum nature.

When $`\delta =\pm 2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`|\delta |g`$, Eq. (9) turns into

$`H_{JC}^{(+)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|+_j_j|a+|_j+_j|a^{}),`$ (17)
$`H_{AJC}^{()}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|_j+_j|a+|+_j_j|a^{}),`$ (18)
which represent, in the $`|\pm _j`$ atomic dressed basis, an effective implementation of a Jaynes-Cummings or an anti-Jaynes-Cummings interaction. As is known, the anti-JC interaction does not appear naturally in the context of cavity QED, where the JC model discards the so-called nonconserving energy terms, corresponding to exciting (deexciting) the internal atomic state while creating (annihilating) an intracavity photon. Another noteworthy feature of the interactions described in Eqs. (17) is that they produce, in a controlled manner, absorption and emission of an intracavity photon while preserving the energy mean value of the atomic state. Clearly, the apparent imbalance in the energy stems from the external driving field, which, surprisingly, is intense enough to be considered classical. Furthermore, let us imagine the situation where the atom is initially in the ground state $`|g=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|++|)`$ and performs a JC interaction in the atomic dressed basis $`|\pm `$, following any of the Hamiltonians described in Eqs. (17). Then, by measuring the atom at the end of the interaction in the atomic bare basis $`\{|g,|e\}`$, our procedure is equivalent to a conventional JC evolution with two Ramsey zones, one before and one after the atom-cavity interaction. This result makes Ramsey zones unnecessary and may open new possibilities for phase-sensitive measurements  in closed cavities, as is discussed later.

Let us now concentrate on the possibilities of the studied scheme in the case of interaction of a bunch of N atoms with two quasiresonant normal modes in the cavity, always assisted by a strong external driving field. The associated Hamiltonian, as in (4), with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, reads

$`H^{ab}=`$ $`\mathrm{}\delta _aa^{}a+\mathrm{}\delta _bb^{}b+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\sigma _j)`$ (20)
$`+\mathrm{}g_a{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a+\sigma _ja^{})+\mathrm{}g_b{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}b+\sigma _jb^{}),`$
where $`\{a^{},b^{}\}`$ and $`\{a,b\}`$ are the creation and annihilation operators associated with the two cavity modes, while $`\delta _a=\omega _a\omega _L`$ and $`\delta _b=\omega _b\omega _L`$. We now define

$`H^{ab}=H_o^{ab}+H_{int}^{ab}`$ (21)
with

$`H_o^{ab}=\mathrm{}\delta _aa^{}a+\mathrm{}\delta _bb^{}b+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\sigma _j),`$ (22)
$`H_{int}^{ab}=\mathrm{}g_a{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a+\sigma _ja^{})+\mathrm{}g_b{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{}b+\sigma _jb^{}).`$ (23)
In the interaction picture, defined by the formal separation in Eq. (22), the Hamiltonian changes to

$`\stackrel{~}{H}^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}`$ $`(|+_j+_j||_j_j|+e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|+_j_j|`$ (26)
$`e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|_j+_j|)(g_aae^{i\delta _at}+g_bbe^{i\delta _bt})`$
$`+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$
In the strong driving limit, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{g,\delta _a,\delta _b\}`$, we obtain

$`H_{eff}^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\sigma _x)_j[g_a(ae^{i\delta _at}+a^{}e^{i\delta _at})+g_b(be^{i\delta _bt}+b^{}e^{i\delta _bt})].`$ (27)
This Hamiltonian will produce states with features similar to those produced by the one of Eq. (10), only that now the displacement will act simultaneously on each of the two cavity modes. If at $`t=0`$, with $`N=1`$ and $`\delta _a=\delta _b=0`$, the initial atom-field state is $`|g|0|0=(|++|)|0|0/\sqrt{2}`$, the evolved state at time $`t`$ will be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|+|\alpha |\beta +||\alpha |\beta \right),`$ (29)
with $`\alpha =g_at/2`$ and $`\beta =g_bt/2`$. If $`g_a=g_b`$, we would have $`\alpha =\beta `$. Equation (29) describes an elaborate tripartite entangled state involving one microscopic and two mesoscopic systems. If we measure the atomic state in the bare basis $`\{|g,|e\}`$, we will find the field in the so-called entangled coherent states

$`𝒩_{ab}^\pm \left(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t}|\beta e^{i\omega t}\pm e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t}|\beta e^{i\omega t}\right),`$ (30)
respectively. These states have recently been proposed as an important tool in theory and experiments relating to the field of quantum information . Similar states were proposed recently , entangling the vacuum and a coherent state in two different cavities.

As before, Eq. (26) is taken in the limit where $`\delta _a=\delta _b=\pm 2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The resulting Hamiltonians are

$`H_{ab}^{(+)}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[|+_j_j|(a+b)+|_j+_j|(a^{}+b^{})],`$ (32)
$`H_{ab}^{()}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}[|_j+_j|(a+b)+|+_j_j|(a^{}+b^{})],`$ (33)
with $`g_a=g_b`$. As will be seen, these Hamiltonians are able to produce other kinds of interesting nonclassical states. For example, if at $`t=0`$, and with $`N=1`$, the atom-field state is $`|+|0|0`$, then, after a time interval $`t`$ of the $`H_{ab}^{(+)}`$, the atom-field state will be

$`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{2}gt)|+|0|0i\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{2}gt)|{\displaystyle \frac{(|0|1+|1|0)}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (35)
It is easy to show that if the interaction time $`\tau =\sqrt{2}\pi /4g`$ is taken, the final state will be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0|1+|1|0).`$ (36)
This state is a maximally entangled state between the two cavity modes in the $`\{|0,|1\}`$ subspace. This entangled state was recently produced in cavity QED with a sequence of differently tuned interactions of a single atom with two cavity modes . Equation (26) may also accept the limit $`\delta _a=\delta _b=\pm 2\mathrm{\Omega }`$, combining JC evolution in the one mode and anti-JC evolution in the other one, producing states that are beyond our present scope. Note that a number of other interesting situations can arise by choosing nonzero detuning between the external field and the atomic transition frequency ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$).

So far, all previous results are suitable for implementation in the microwave and optical regimes in cavity QED experiments, with atoms flying through the cavities or conveniently trapped inside them. The microwave regime in the strong coupling limit, involving high-$`Q`$ cavities and long-living Rydberg atomic levels, is more adequate when considering the production and measurement of the proposed nonclassical states. The optical regime, even if enjoying more restricted strong coupling conditions, may profit from the newly designed interactions, in particular Eqs. (10) and (17), in an experimental setup that comfortably incorporates external driving . Open cavities, in both regimes, offer the best possibilities of experimental realization, insofar as direct illumination of the atoms with an external classical field is concerned. Nevertheless, in the case of closed microwave cavities, an external field directly coupled to a second normal cavity mode could be used. Moreover, the external field could be coupled to the same cavity mode, profiting from a known equivalence with the present scheme . This alternative would turn the interactions described in Eqs. (17) into a practical realization of a closed high-$`Q`$ cavity plus two Ramsey zones (without them), thus combining the advantages of these two powerful tools. In the case of an open cavity, one can envisage adding another microwave cavity, always transversal to the crossing atoms, which would keep them continuously driven, satisfying the requirements of the proposed scheme. Spatially narrow bunches of atoms sent through microwave cavities have already been implemented in the laboratory .

Entanglement involving mesoscopic states is known to be very sensitive to decoherence. Nevertheless, the interplay between a continuously pumped entangled state, as the ones discussed in this work, and decoherence processes might lead to a nontrivial dynamics towards an atom-field steady-state. These considerations are under current research and will be published elsewhere.

The question of possible implementation of these ideas in the context of trapped ions is relevant . A careful study of Eq. (2) shows that this interaction could be implemented in a simple way, by means of simultaneous carrier and red sideband excitation, as currently achieved in the laboratory. The condition of strong driving for the carrier could be easily satisfied and the red sideband excitation would require the Lamb-Dicke regime.

It has been shown that an additional driving field in the usual cavity QED experiments, and also in trapped ion systems, can be an important tool for generating multipartite nonclassical states. We expect that accessibility to these broader class of entangled states, from which we presented a reduced number, offers a deeper insight and stimulates the active field of multipartite entanglement.


format: text

text:
# Steady state properties of a mean field model of driven inelastic mixtures.

## I Introduction

Granular materials, a term coined to classify assemblies of macroscopic dissipative objects, are ubiquitous in nature and play a major role in many industrial and technological processes.

Interestingly, when a rarefied granular system is vibrated some of its properties are similar to those of molecular fluids, while others are unique and have no counterpart in ordinary fluids general . A spectacular manifestation of this difference can be observed in a driven mixture of granular particles: if one measures the average kinetic energy per particle, proportional to the so called granular temperature, one finds the surprising result that each species reaches a different value. Such a feature, observed in a recent experiment Menon , is in sharp contrast with the experience with other states of matter. At a more fundamental level such a behavior is in conflict with the Zeroth Law of thermodynamics. This principle states that when two systems globally isolated are brought into thermal contact they exchange energy until they reach a stationary state of mutual equilibrium, characterized by the same value of their temperatures. A corollary to such a principle is the statement that the thermal equilibrium between systems A and B, i.e. $`T_A=T_B`$, and between A and C ($`T_A=T_C`$) implies the thermal equilibrium between B and C Pippard .

On the contrary, when two granular system A and B subject to an external driving force exchange energy they may reach in general a mutual equilibrium, characterized by two constant but different granular temperatures $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$. In addition even when A and C are in equilibrium at the same temperature $`T_C`$ and B and C also have the temperature $`T_C`$ one cannot conclude that A and B would be in mutual equilibrium at the same temperature. In other words, one of the most useful properties of the temperature, i.e. the independence from the thermal substance is lost when one deals with granular materials.

In the present paper we shall investigate the properties of a simple model of two component granular mixture. The motivation of our study relies in the fact that granular materials being mesoscopic objects are often constituted by assemblies of grains of different sizes and/or different physical and mechanical properties. The study of granular mixtures has attracted so far the attention both of theoreticians Dufty  and of experimentalists Menon . In particular Garzó and Dufty have studied the evolution of a mixture of inelastic hard spheres in the absence of external driving forces, a process termed free cooling because associated with a decrease of the average kinetic energy of the system, i.e. of its granular temperature. During the cooling of a mixture, which can be homogeneous or not, according to the presence of spatial density and velocity gradients, each species may have different granular temperatures, although these may result asymptotically proportional, i.e. they might decrease at the same rate.

Menon and Feitosa instead studied several mixtures of vibrated inelastic grains and reported their failure to reach the same granular temperature.

In the present paper our interest will be concentrated on the statistically stationary state obtained by applying an energy feeding mechanism represented by a stochastic driving force.

The most widely used model of granular materials is, perhaps, the inelastic hard sphere model (IHS) IHS , which assumes the grains to be rigid and the collisions to be binary, instantaneous and momentum conserving. The dissipative nature of the collisions is accounted for by values less than $`1`$ of the so called restitution coefficient $`r`$. Even such an idealized model represents a hard problem to the theorist and one has to rely on numerical methods, namely Molecular Dynamics or Event Driven Simulation, or to resort to suitable truncation schemes of the hierarchy of equations for the distribution functions. One of these schemes is represented by the Boltzmann equation based on the molecular chaos hypothesis, which allows to study the evolution of the one-particle distribution function. Its generalization to the two component mixture of inelastic hard spheres has been recently considered by Garzó and Dufty.

Our treatment will depart from previous studies, because we have chosen an even simpler approach based on the so called gases of inelastic (pseudo)-Maxwell molecules. These gases are natural extensions to the inelastic case of the models of Maxwell molecules Ernst1 , where the collision rate is independent of the relative velocity of the particles. Such a feature greatly simplifies both the analytical structure of the Boltzmann equation and the numerical implementation of the algorithm simulating the gas dynamics. Although the constant collision rate is somehow unrealistic one may hope to be able to capture some salient features of granular mixtures, and in particular to reach a better understanding of their global behavior, because the model lends itself to analytical studies.

This type of approach to granular gases had recently a surge of activity since the work of Ben-Naim and Krapivsky BenNaim ; Krapivsky , our group Balda1 ; Balda2 ; Umbm , Ernst and coworkers Ernst2  and Cercignani and collaborators Cercignani ; Carrillo , and is providing a series of new important results concerning the energy behavior and the anomalous velocity statistics of granular systems.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we define the model and deduce the associated Boltzmann equations governing the evolution of the velocity distribution functions of the two species and set up their moment expansion; in section 3 we shall the exact values of the stationary granular temperatures; in section 4 we consider the moments up to the eighth order and compute the distribution functions by means of the so called Sonine expansion. In section 5 we simulate on a computer the dynamics of the inelastic mixture and compute numerically the distribution functions and compare these with the theoretical predictions. Finally in 6 we present our conclusions.

## II Definition of the model

In the following we shall consider a mixture of Maxwell inelastic molecules subject to a random external driving. Let us consider an assembly of $`N_1`$ particles of species $`1`$ and $`N_2`$ particles of species $`2`$. For the sake of simplicity we assume the velocities $`v_i^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =1,2`$, to be scalar quantities. The two species may have different masses, $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ and/or constant restitution coefficients which depend on the nature of the colliding grains but not on their velocities, i.e. $`r_{11},r_{22}`$ and $`r_{12}=r_{21}`$.

The mixture evolves according to the following set of stochastic equations:

$$m_i\frac{dv_i}{dt}=F_i+f_i+\xi _i(t)$$
(1)
where the total force acting on particle $`i`$ is made of three contributions: the impulsive force, $`F_i`$, due to mutual collisions, the velocity dependent force, $`f_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }v_i`$, due to the friction of the particles with the surroundings and the stochastic force, $`\xi _i`$, due to an external random drive. Since we are interested in the rapid granular flow regime, we model the collisions as instantaneous binary events, similar to those occurring in a hard sphere system.

The presence of the frictional, velocity dependent term in addition to the random forcing Puglio , not only mimics the presence of friction of the particles with the container, but also is motivated by the idea of preventing the energy of a driven elastic system ($`\gamma 1`$), to increase indefinitely.

Let us observe that in the absence of collisions the velocity changes are described by the following Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process:

$$m_\alpha _tv_i(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }v_i(t)+\xi _i^\alpha (t)$$
(2)
where the stochastic acceleration term is assumed to have a white spectrum with zero mean:

$$\xi _i^\alpha (t)=0$$
(3)
and variance:

$$\xi _i^\alpha (t)\xi _j^\beta (t^{})=2D\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }\delta _{i,j}\delta (tt^{})$$
(4)
By redefining the bath constants $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{m_\alpha }`$ and $`D_\alpha =\frac{D}{m_\alpha ^2}`$, it is straightforward to obtain the probability distributions of the velocity of each species, $`P_\alpha (v,t)`$. In fact, the Fokker-Planck equations associated with the process (2):

$$_tP_\alpha (v,t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (_vvP_\alpha (v,t))+D_\alpha (_v^2P_\alpha (v,t))$$
(5)
possess the following stationary distribution functions:

$$P_\alpha (v)=\sqrt{\frac{m_\alpha }{2\pi T_b}}e^{\frac{m_\alpha v^2}{2T_b}}$$
(6)
where $`T_b=\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ represents the temperature of the heath-bath, that we fix to be the same for the two species footnote .

In order to represent the effect of the collisions on the evolution of the system we assume that the velocities change instantaneously according to the rules:

$`v_i^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha `$ $`=v_i^\alpha [1+r_{\alpha \beta }]{\displaystyle \frac{m_\beta }{m_\alpha +m_\beta }}(v_i^\alpha v_j^\beta )`$ (7a)
$`v_j^{}_{}{}^{}\beta `$ $`=v_j^\beta +[1+r_{\alpha \beta }]{\displaystyle \frac{m_\alpha }{m_\alpha +m_\beta }}(v_i^\alpha v_j^\beta )`$ (7b)
where the primed quantities are the post-collisional velocities and the primed are the velocities before the collisions. A finite fraction of the kinetic energy of each pair is dissipated during a collision. Between collisions the velocities perform a random walk due to the action of the heat-bath. The typical time $`\tau _c`$ between particle-particle collision is assumed to be large compared to the time between random kicks. On the other hand the typical time scales associated with the bath are $`\tau _{b1}=\frac{m1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$ and $`\tau _{b2}=\frac{m_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ we must also take $`D0`$ in performing the elastic limit, otherwise the kinetic energy would diverge asymptotically. In fact in section V we shall discuss the situation of inelastic particles with vanishing friction, a case already considered in refs. BenNaim  Cercignani .

The evolution equations for the probability densities of finding particles of species $`\alpha `$ with velocity $`v`$ at time $`t`$ for the system subject both to external forcing and to collisions are simply obtained by adding the two effects:

$$_tP_\alpha (v,t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (_vvP_\alpha (v,t))+D_\alpha (_v^2P_\alpha (v,t))+\frac{1}{\tau _c}Q_\alpha (P_1,P_2)$$
(8)
where the collision integrals $`Q_\alpha `$ consist of a negative loss term and a positive gain term respectively:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_1(P_1,P_2)& =P_1(v,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{1+r_{11}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑uP_1(u,t)P_1(\frac{2v(1r_{11})u}{1+r_{11}},t)}\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{(1p)}{1+r_{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1+m_2}{m_2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑uP_1(u,t)P_2(\frac{\frac{m_1+m_2}{m_2}v(\frac{m_1}{m_2}r_{12})u}{1+r_{12}},t)}\hfill \end{array}`$ (9a)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_2(P_1,P_2)& =P_2(v,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1p)}{1+r_{22}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑uP_2(u,t)P_2(\frac{2v(1r_{22})u}{1+r_{22}},t)}\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{p}{1+r_{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1+m_2}{m_1}}{\displaystyle 𝑑uP_2(u,t)P_1(\frac{\frac{m_1+m_2}{m_1}v(\frac{m_2}{m_1}r_{12})u}{1+r_{12}},t)}\hfill \end{array}`$ (9b)
where $`p=N_1/(N_1+N_2)`$. In writing eqs. (9) we have assumed that the collisions occur instantaneously and that collisions involving more than two particles simultaneously can be disregarded. Moreover, all pairs are allowed to exchange impulse regardless of their mutual separation. In this sense we are dealing with a mean field model. In order to proceed further it is convenient to take Fourier transforms of eqs. (9) and employ the method of characteristic functions Bobylev  defined as:

$$\widehat{P}_\alpha (k,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ve^{ikv}P_\alpha (v,t)$$
(10)
The resulting equations read:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _t\widehat{P}_1(k,t)=D_1k^2\widehat{P}_1(k,t)& \mathrm{\Gamma }_1k_k\widehat{P}_1(k,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _c}}[\widehat{P}_1(k,t)p\widehat{P}_1(\gamma _{11}k,t)\widehat{P}_1((1\gamma _{11})k,t)\hfill \\ & (1p)\widehat{P}_1(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}k,t)\widehat{P}_2(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})k,t)]\hfill \end{array}`$ (11a)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _t\widehat{P}_2(k,t)=D_2k^2\widehat{P}_2(k,t)& \mathrm{\Gamma }_2k_k\widehat{P}_2(k,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _c}}[\widehat{P}_2(k,t)(1p)\widehat{P}_2(\gamma _{22}k,t)\widehat{P}_2((1\gamma _{22})k,t)\hfill \\ & p\widehat{P}_2(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21}k,t)\widehat{P}_1((1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})k,t)]\hfill \end{array}`$ (11b)
with

$`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1r_{\alpha \beta }}{2}}`$ (12a)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}`$ $`=[1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\zeta }}(1\gamma _{12})]`$ (12b)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21}`$ $`=[1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\zeta ^1}}(1\gamma _{12})]`$ (12c)
with $`\zeta =m_1/m_2`$

From the mathematical point of view the driven case is very different from the cooling case. As we have seen in the latter case the tails are originated by the presence of a singular point at the origin in the equation for the characteristic function mixture . The singularity is due to the conspiracy of the constant cooling rate and of the scaling form of the evolution equation. Such a singularity is removed in the driven case, thus high velocity tails cease to exist and the distribution will be much more well behaved.

The mathematical structure of eqs. (11) is particularly simple and in fact there exists a standard method of solution. It consists in expanding the Fourier transform $`\widehat{P}_\alpha (k,t)`$ of the distributions $`P_\alpha (v,t)`$ in a Taylor series around the origin $`k=0`$:

$$\widehat{P}_\alpha (k,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(ik)^n}{n!}\mu _n^\alpha (t)$$
(13)
and substituting (13) into eqs. (11).

Equating like powers of $`k`$ we obtain a hierarchy of equations for the $`\mu _n^\alpha (t)`$ which can be solved by a straightforward iterative method. At this stage one can appreciate the mathematical convenience of the Maxwell model. In fact, the coefficients of the Taylor series represent the moments of the velocity distributions

$$\mu _n^\alpha (t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑vv^nP_\alpha (v,t)$$
(14)
Since the evaluation of the moments of a given order requires only the knowledge of the moments of lower order one can proceed without excessive difficulty to any desired order. In practice, we carried on our calculation up to the eighth moment, assuming that the initial distributions were even, so that the odd moments vanish. In order to render the reading of the paper more expeditious we shall report the equations determining the stationary value of the moments in the Appendix.

## III Two Temperature behavior

In order to determine the granular temperatures we equate the coefficients of order $`k^2`$ in eqs. (11) and obtain the governing equations for the second moments:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _c_t\mu _2^{(1)}=\{p[2\gamma _{11}(\gamma _{11}1)]& (1p)(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}^2)2\tau _c\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\}\mu ^{(1)}_2\hfill \\ & +(1p)(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})^2\mu _2^{(2)}+2\tau _cD_1\hfill \end{array}`$ (15a)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau _c_t\mu _2^{(2)}=\{(1p)[2\gamma _{22}(\gamma _{22}1)]& p(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21}^2)2\tau _c\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\}\mu ^{(2)}_2\hfill \\ & +p(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})^2\mu _1^{(2)}+2\tau _cD_2\hfill \end{array}`$ (15b)
The r.h.s. of eqs. (15) represent the balance between the energy dissipation due to inelastic collisions and friction and the energy input due to the bath. We define the global and the partial granular temperatures respectively as $`T_g=pT_1+(1p)T_2`$ and $`T_\alpha =\frac{1}{2}m_\alpha <v_\alpha ^2>`$, where the average is performed over the noise $`\xi _i`$. Since the energy dissipation and the energy supply mechanisms compete, the system under the influence of a stochastic white noise driving achieves asymptotically a statistical steady state. Notice that eqs. (15) feature only the second moments of the velocity distributions, so that the solution is straightforward. Such a state of affairs should be contrasted with the analogue problem of determining the partial temperatures in Boltzmann models Dufty .

Let us start analyzing the behavior of the Maxwell gas in the one component limit limit $`p1`$. The granular temperature approaches its stationary value $`T_1`$ exponentially:

$$T_1(t)=T_1(0)e^{\frac{2t}{\tau }}+T_1(\mathrm{})[1e^{\frac{2t}{\tau }}]$$
(16)
where the constant $`\tau `$ represents a combination of the two characteristic times of the process given by:

$$\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{\gamma _{11}(1\gamma _{11})}{\tau _c}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{m_1}$$
(17)
which shows that $`T_b`$ is an upper bound to the granular temperature. We also obtain a simple relation between the temperature of the bath and the granular temperature $`T_1`$:

$$T_{1}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=m_1\frac{D_1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\frac{\gamma _{11}(\gamma _{11}1)}{\tau _c}}\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=T_b$$
(18)
On the other hand, when the two components are not identical eqs.(15) show that the equilibrium macro-state is specified by two different partial granular temperatures, both proportional to the heath bath temperature. Hence, the temperature ratio is independent from the driving intensity $`D`$ as one can see from the formula:

$$\frac{T_1}{T_2}=\frac{1}{\zeta }\frac{(1p)[2\gamma _{22}(1\gamma _{22})]+p(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21}^2)+2\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{b1}}+(1p)\zeta ^2(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})^2}{p[2\gamma _{11}(1\gamma _{11})]+(1p)(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}^2)+2\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{b2}}+p\zeta ^2(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})^2}$$
(19)
Formula in eq. (19) illustrates the two temperature behavior of an inelastic mixture subject to external driving. Notice that the temperature ratio in the driven case is different from the corresponding quantity in the cooling undriven case, for the same model system. In the undriven case we found that the homogeneous cooling state was characterized by two different exponentially decreasing temperatures, but whose ratio was constant. However, no simple relation exists between the ratio relative to the two cases, on account of the fact that the energy exchanges involved are rather different. Thus, in the presence of a heath bath the inelastic mixture displays the two temperature behavior already reported in the free cooling case Dufty ; mixture  and in experiments Menon . This feature seems to be a general property of inelastic systems. In fig. (1) we display the temperature ratio as a function of the mass ratio $`\zeta `$ for two different values of the inelasticity. Notice that the temperature of the heavier component is lower than the one of the lighter species.

In fig. 2 the ratio of the temperatures of the two species is plotted in the case of an asymmetry in the restitution coefficients parametrized by the form: $`r_{22}=r_{11}x`$ with $`r_{12}=(r_{22}+r_{11})/2`$, for $`p=1/2`$, identical masses and three different values of the coefficient $`r_{11}`$ as shown in figure. One sees that the variation of $`\frac{T_1}{T_2}`$ is much smaller than the corresponding variation with respect to the mass asymmetry shown in fig. 1 in agreement with the experimental observation of reference Menon . It seems reasonable to conclude that the mass asymmetry is the larger source of temperature difference between the two components.

## IV Velocity distribution functions

An interesting aspect of granular systems concerns the nature of the single particle velocity distributions. The inelasticity, in fact, causes marked departures of $`P_\alpha (v,t)`$ from the Gaussian form which characterizes gases at thermal equilibrium. In undriven gases these deviations are particularly pronounced and one observes inverse power law high-velocity tails both in gases of pseudo-Maxwell molecules mixture  and in IHS Ernst . In the driven case, i.e. in systems subject to Gaussian white noise forcing (similar to that represented by eq. (2) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$) exponential tails of the form $`exp(v^{3/2})`$ have been predicted theoretically in inelastic hard-sphere models Ernst  and tested by direct simulation Monte Carlo of the Enskog-Boltzmann equation Montanero . Have these non Gaussian tails a counterpart in Maxwell models? Ben-Naim and Krapivsky BenNaim  on the basis of a re-summation of the moment expansion concluded that the scalar Maxwell models with vanishing viscosity ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$) should display Gaussian-like tails. However, this prediction is in contrast with the argument, employed by Ernst and van Noije in the case of IHS, which consists in estimating the tails of the distribution by linearizing the master equation (9) by neglecting the gain term. This assumption simplifies the analysis and allows us to reach the conclusion that the velocity distribution for large $`v`$ should vanish as:

$$\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}P(v)\mathrm{exp}(v/v_0)$$
(20)
with $`v_0^2=D\tau _c`$. Clearly such a result is in sharp contrast with the result of ref. BenNaim  and seems to indicate that the Sonine expansion does not reproduce faithfully the high-velocity tails in the case of Maxwell models with vanishing viscosity. The test of the limit (20) will be shown in the section 6, where we illustrate the results of our numerical simulations.

On the other hand, the same kind of asymptotic analysis sketched above, allows us to conclude that the presence of a viscous damping is the redeeming feature which renders convergent the Sonine expansion and the associated Gaussian tails. In fact, with a finite value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the asymptotic solution is of the form:

$$\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}P(v)\mathrm{exp}(Cv^2)$$
(21)
We shall test such a prediction in the remaining part of this section and study the velocity distributions of the individual species when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ by constructing the solution to the master equation using the Sonine polynomial expansion method, one of the traditional approaches to the solution of the Boltzmann equation burnett .

We shall also investigate whether the two partial distributions can be cast into the same functional form upon re-scaling the velocities with respect to the partial granular thermal velocity, in other words if it is possible to have a data collapse for the two distributions.

We shall first obtain the steady state values of the first eight moments as illustrated in the Appendix and then compute the approximate form of the distribution functions by assuming that these are Gaussians multiplied by a linear combination of Sonine polynomials.

Let us begin by writing the following Sonine expansion of the distribution functions:

$$f_\alpha (c)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{c^2}[1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n^\alpha S_n(c^2)]$$
(22)
where $`f_\alpha (c)`$ is the re-scaled distribution defined by:

$$f_\alpha (c)=\sqrt{2\mu _2^\alpha }P_\alpha (v).$$
(23)
and $`c^2=v^2/2\mu _2^\alpha `$. The expansion gives the distributions in terms of the coefficients $`a_n^\alpha `$ of the Sonine polynomials $`S_n(c^2)`$. In practice, one approximates the series (22) with a finite number of terms. Since the leading term is the Maxwellian, the closer the system to the elastic limit, the less term suffice to describe the state. The expression of the first polynomials is:

$`S_0(c^2)`$ $`=1`$ (24a)
$`S_1(c^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^2`$ (24b)
$`S_2(c^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^4`$ (24c)
$`S_3(c^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{8}}c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}c^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}c^6`$ (24d)
$`S_4(c^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{35}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{35}{16}}c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{16}}c^4{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}c^6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}c^8`$ (24e)
In order to obtain the first $`m`$ values $`a_m^\alpha `$, we need to compute the re-scaled moments $`c^n_\alpha `$ of the distribution functions up to order $`2m`$. These moments are evaluated in Appendix by means of a straightforward iterative method. At the end, knowing the re-scaled moments, one obtains the following relation for the coefficients:

$$a_n^\alpha =\frac{S_n(c^2)_\alpha }{𝒩_n}$$
(25)
Eq. (25) can be proved by imposing the consistency condition:

$$c^n_\alpha =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑cc^nf_\alpha (c)$$
(26)
in conjunction with the orthogonality property of the Sonine polynomials:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{c^2}S_n(c^2)S_m(c^2)=𝒩_n\delta _{m,n}$$
(27)
where $`𝒩_n`$ is a normalization constant. Notice that in order to obtain our results we have not assumed weak inelasticity, therefore these hold for any value of the restitution coefficients.

The coefficients $`a_m^\alpha `$ up to the fourth order in terms of the re-scaled moments read:

$`a_1^\alpha `$ $`=0`$ (28a)
$`a_2^\alpha `$ $`=[14c^2_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}c^4_\alpha ]`$ (28b)
$`a_3^\alpha `$ $`=[16c^2_\alpha +4c^4_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}c^6_\alpha ]`$ (28c)
$`a_4^\alpha `$ $`=[18c^2_\alpha +8c^4_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{32}{15}}c^6_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{16}{105}}c^8_\alpha ]`$ (28d)
In fig. (3-5) we display the behavior of the Sonine coefficients for both components in the case of equal restitution coefficients $`r=0.5`$ as a function of the mass ratio.

In figs. (6-8) we illustrate the variation of the Sonine coefficients for the two components as a function of the inelasticity for two different values of the mass ratio: $`\zeta =1`$ and $`\zeta =2`$. Notice that the coefficients are monotonic functions of the inelasticity as already noticed in pure systems Ernst .

In fig.(9) we show the distribution functions for the heated system with non vanishing viscosity. The tails become fatter with increasing order of the approximation, i.e. the high energy tails are overpopulated. Moreover, one sees that when $`p=1/2`$ and the restitution coefficients are all equal the species with the larger tails is the lighter. On the other hand, for a system with the same masses, but different restitution coefficients, the more elastic species displays the larger tails. We also show the numerical data obtained by simulating the the dynamics. The agreement is quite satisfactory and validates the approximation method employed.

On the other hand, it is also evident, that the two distributions fail to collapse one over the other after the rescaling of the velocities. This fact is consistent with the different values assumed by the coefficients $`a_n^1`$ and $`a_n^2`$. However, this effect is rather small and can be appreciated only by studying the high velocity region of the distribution functions.

## V Numerical Simulations

To investigate the validity of the previous results and in particular to test the convergence of the Sonine expansion in different situations we shall present in this section numerical results obtained by simulating an ensemble of $`N`$ particles subject to a Gaussian forcing, viscous friction and inelastic collisions.

The scheme consists of the following ingredients:

1. time is discretized, i.e. $`t=ndt`$
2. update all the velocities to simulate the random forcing and the viscous damping:

$$v_i^\alpha (t+dt)=v_i^\alpha (t)e^{\frac{dt}{\tau _b}}+\sqrt{T_b(1e^{\frac{2dt}{\tau _b}})}W(t)$$
(29)
where $`W(t)`$ is a normally distributed deviate with zero mean and unit variance.
3. Choose randomly $`N\frac{dt}{2\tau _c}`$ pairs of velocities and update each of them with the collision rule (7). In this way a mean collision time $`\tau _c`$ per particle is guaranteed.
4. Change the time counter $`n`$ and restart from ii.

In other words, at every step each particle experiences a Gaussian kick thus receiving energy from the bath, whereas it dissipates energy by collision and by damping. For example, by choosing $`dt=1`$, $`m_1/\mathrm{\Gamma }=\tau _{b1}=200`$ and $`\tau _c=25`$, we obtain that each particle in the average experiences $`25`$ Gaussian kicks between two successive collisions and that the resulting average kinetic energy is stationary. In order to compare our numerical simulations with the theoretical predictions we fixed the temperature of the bath to be $`T_b=1`$, i.e. chosen $`D=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The results of such simulations are presented in fig. 9 and show a very good agreement between the theory and the simulation.

On the contrary, the agreement between the Sonine expansion and the simulation is not completely satisfactory when we consider a system subject to a white noise acceleration, but without viscous friction, a driving proposed by some authors Peng , Moon . This can be considered as the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$, $`T_b\mathrm{}`$, keeping constant $`D=T_b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in the model defined by eqs. (8): note that in this case the elastic limit $`r1`$ cannot be performed without taking also the limit $`D0`$ as discussed at the beginning, in order to avoid a divergence of kinetic energy. For the sake of simplicity, we simulated a one component system ($`p=1`$ and $`m=1`$) with vanishing viscosity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, but $`D=0.0008`$, $`\tau _c=250`$ and $`r=0.5`$. Such a choice yields a granular temperature $`T_g=16/15`$, as predicted by our formula (18). Notice that in this case the heath bath temperature diverges and the gas does not have a proper elastic limit, since all moments diverge when $`\gamma 0`$. We observed that the tails of the velocity distribution function are strongly non Gaussian. These decay as a simple exponential as predicted by our simple analysis of the previous section. In fig. (9) we report our simulation results against the Sonine approximation. We observe that the theoretical estimate, in spite of incorporating the exact values of the first eight moments, deviates from the numerical data in the large velocity region. In particular the Sonine expansion can only give Gaussian tails, whereas the simulation indicates a slower exponential decay. The reason for such a discrepancy is to be ascribed to the slow convergence of the expansion when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$.

## VI Discussion and Conclusions

To summarize we have studied the behavior of a model, which perhaps represent the simplest description of a driven inelastic gas mixture, namely an assembly of two types of scalar pseudo-Maxwell molecules subject to a stochastic forcing. We have obtained the velocity distributions for arbitrary values of the inelasticity, of the composition and of the masses by solving the associated Boltzmann equation by means of a controlled approximation, the moment expansion. The distributions were obtained by computing exactly the moments up to the eighth order and then imposing that the corrections to the Maxwell distribution stemming from the inelasticity are Gaussians multiplied by a linear combination of Sonine polynomials with amplitudes determined self-consistently.

The model predicts a steady two temperature behavior which is in qualitative agreement with existing experimental results. The granular temperatures can be obtained by very simple algebraic manipulations for arbitrary values of the control parameters.

By numerical simulations we demonstrated that the velocity distributions are well described by our series representation in the case of systems in contact with a bath at finite temperature $`T_b`$, whilst the series expansion breaks down in the case of systems in contact with bath at infinite temperature, i.e. with zero viscosity.

What can be learned from such a simple model of granular mixture? Besides obtaining a global picture of the behavior of the system with a minimal numerical effort both in the cooling and in the driven case, the model displays the novel feature of two different distribution functions, which remain different even after rescaling by the associated partial granular temperatures. Of course the detailed form of the probability velocity distributions are strictly model dependent, i.e. depend on the assumption of a constant collision rate inherent in Maxwell models. Finally, the vectorial character of the velocities could be included at the cost of a moderate additional effort. A more interesting and difficult problem would be that of including in the mixture case a collision frequency proportional to an appropriate function of the kinetic granular temperatures, generalizing the work of Cercignani Cercignani .

Finally we might ask the general question of the meaning of granular temperature. Our findings seem to indicate that it is still the main statistical indicator of the model granular system we studied. However, with respect to the temperature of a perfectly elastic system it fails to satisfy a very basic requirement which is known as the zeroth principle of thermodynamics.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Cofin 2001 Prot. 2001023848.

*

## Appendix A

In the present Appendix we sketch the derivation of the various moments of the distribution functions. By equating the equal powers of $`k`$ in the master equation (11) we obtain a set linear of coupled equations for the moments. The method of solution is iterative, because the higher moments depend on the lower moments. Thus, for instance, to evaluate the lowest order moments of the distribution functions we must solve the following equations for the steady state value of the fourth moments:

$`(d_{11}^{(4)}4\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\tau _c)\mu _4^{(1)}+d_{12}^{(4)}\mu _4^{(2)}+a_{11}(\mu _2^{(1)})^2+a_{12}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _2^{(2)}+12D_1\tau _c\mu _2^{(1)}`$ $`=0`$ (30a)
$`(d_{22}^{(4)}4\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\tau _c)\mu _4^{(2)}+d_{21}^{(4)}\mu _4^{(1)}+a_{22}(\mu _2^{(2)})^2+a_{21}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _2^{(2)}+12D_2\tau _c\mu _2^{(2)}`$ $`=0`$ (30b)
In turn, the sixth moments are obtained by solving:

$`(d_{11}^{(6)}6\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\tau _c)\mu _6^{(1)}+d_{12}^{(6)}\mu _6^{(2)}+b_{11}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _4^{(1)}+b_{12}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _4^{(2)}+b_{12}^{}\mu _2^{(2)}\mu _4^{(1)}+30D_1\tau _c\mu _4^{(1)}`$ $`=0`$ (31a)
$`(d_{22}^{(6)}6\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\tau _c)\mu _6^{(2)}+d_{21}^{(6)}\mu _6^{(1)}+b_{22}\mu _2^{(2)}\mu _4^{(2)}+b_{21}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _4^{(2)}+b_{21}^{}\mu _2^{(2)}\mu _4^{(1)}+30D_2\tau _c\mu _4^{(2)}`$ $`=0`$ (31b)
Finally the eight moments are the solutions of:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (d_{11}^{(8)}8\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\tau _c)\mu _8^{(1)}& +d_{12}^{(8)}\mu _8^{(2)}+c_{11}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _6^{(1)}+c_{11}^{}(\mu _4^{(1)})^2\hfill \\ & +c_{12}\mu _2^{(1)}\mu _6^{(2)}+c_{12}^{}\mu _4^{(1)}\mu _4^{(2)}+c_{12}^{\prime \prime }\mu _6^{(1)}\mu _2^{(2)}+56D_1\tau _c\mu _6^{(1)}=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (32a)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (d_{22}^{(8)}8\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\tau _c)\mu _8^{(2)}& +d_{21}^{(8)}\mu _8^{(1)}+c_{22}\mu _2^{(2)}\mu _6^{(2)}+c_{22}^{}(\mu _4^{(2)})^2\hfill \\ & +c_{21}\mu _2^{(2)}\mu _6^{(1)}+c_{21}^{}\mu _4^{(2)}\mu _4^{(1)}+c_{21}^{\prime \prime }\mu _6^{(2)}\mu _2^{(1)}+56D_2\tau _c\mu _6^{(2)}=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (32b)
where the general form of the coefficients $`d_{ij}`$ is given by:

$`d_{11}^{(n)}`$ $`=1+p[\gamma _{11}^n+(1\gamma _{11})^n]+(1p)[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12}]^n`$ (33a)
$`d_{12}^{(n)}`$ $`=(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^n`$ (33b)
$`d_{22}^{(n)}`$ $`=1+(1p)[\gamma _{22}^n+(1\gamma _{22})^n]+p[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21}]^n`$ (33c)
$`d_{21}^{(n)}`$ $`=p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^n`$ (33d)
and the coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ are given by:

$`a_{11}`$ $`=6p[\gamma _{11}(1\gamma _{11})]^2`$ (34a)
$`a_{22}`$ $`=6(1p)[\gamma _{22}(1\gamma _{22})]^2`$ (34b)
$`a_{12}`$ $`=6(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^2[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^2`$ (34c)
$`a_{21}`$ $`=6p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^2[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^2`$ (34d)
Finally, the coefficients $`b_{ij}`$ are given by:

$`b_{11}`$ $`=15p\gamma _{11}^2(1\gamma _{11})^2[\gamma _{11}^2+(1\gamma _{11})^2]`$ (35a)
$`b_{22}`$ $`=15(1p)\gamma _{22}^2(1\gamma _{22})^2[\gamma _{22}^2+(1\gamma _{22})^2]`$ (35b)
$`b_{12}`$ $`=15(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^4[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^2`$ (35c)
$`b_{12}^{}`$ $`=15(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^2[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^4`$ (35d)
$`b_{21}`$ $`=15p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^2[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^4`$ (35e)
$`b_{21}^{}`$ $`=15p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^4[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^2`$ (35f)
and $`c_{ij}`$ are

$`c_{11}`$ $`=28p\gamma _{11}^2(1\gamma _{11})^2[\gamma _{11}^4+(1\gamma _{11})^4]`$ (36a)
$`c_{11}^{}`$ $`=70p\gamma _{11}^4(1\gamma _{11})^4`$ (36b)
$`c_{12}`$ $`=28(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^6[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^2`$ (36c)
$`c_{12}^{}`$ $`=70(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^4[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^4`$ (36d)
$`c_{12}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=28(1p)[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^2[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{12})]^6`$ (36e)
$`c_{22}`$ $`=28(1p)\gamma _{22}^2(1\gamma _{22})^2[\gamma _{22}^4+(1\gamma _{22})^4]`$ (36f)
$`c_{22}^{}`$ $`=70(1p)\gamma _{22}^4(1\gamma _{22})^4`$ (36g)
$`c_{21}`$ $`=28p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^6[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^2`$ (36h)
$`c_{21}^{}`$ $`=70p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^4[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^4`$ (36i)
$`c_{21}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=28p[(1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^2[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{21})]^6`$ (36j)
It is useful to consider the behavior of the moments in the one component case. The major simplicity of the resulting formulae allows us to obtain explicit expressions:

$`\mu _2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{D\tau _c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _c+\gamma (1\gamma )}}`$ (37a)
$`\mu _4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{12D\tau _c\mu _2+6\gamma ^2(1\gamma )^2\mu _2^2}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _c+1\gamma ^4(1\gamma )^4}}`$ (37b)
$`\mu _6`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{30D\tau _c\mu _4+15\gamma ^2(1\gamma )^2(\gamma ^2+(1\gamma )^2\mu _2\mu _4}{6\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _c+1\gamma ^6(1\gamma )^6}}`$ (37c)
$`\mu _8`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{56D\tau _c\mu _6+28\gamma ^2(1\gamma )^2(\gamma ^4+(1\gamma )^4)\mu _2\mu _6+70\gamma ^4(1\gamma )^4\mu _4^2}{8\tau _c\mathrm{\Gamma }+1\gamma ^8(1\gamma )^8}}`$ (37d)


text:
# Stationary quantum stochastic processes from the cohomological point of view

## 1 Introduction.

Let $`\nu `$ be a measure on the real axe $``$. Denote $`S=(S_t)_t`$ the flow of shifts acting on the measurable functions $`f`$ on $``$ by the formula $`(S_tf)(x)=f(xt),x,t`$. Then given a number $`r`$ the function $`I_r(t)=\nu ([r,r+t]),t`$, is a $`1S`$-cocycle, i.e. $`I_r(t+s)=I_r(t)+S_t(I_r(s)),t,s`$. Analogously fixing numbers $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ we get that the function $`I_{r_1\mathrm{}r_k}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)=I_{r_1}(t_1)S_{t_1}(I_{r_2}(t_2)S_{t_2}(\mathrm{}I_{r_k}(t_k)\mathrm{}),t_i`$, associated with the tensor product $`\nu ^k`$ is a $`kS`$-cocycle with the characteristic property $`S_{t_1}(I(t_2,\mathrm{},t_{k+1}))I(t_1+t_2,t_3,\mathrm{},t_k)+\mathrm{}+(1)^iI(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{i1},t_i+t_{i+1},t_{i+2},\mathrm{},t_{k+1})+\mathrm{}+(1)^kI(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k)=0,t_i`$. One can consider a ring of cohomologies $`H^{}=H^i`$ generated by the measure $`\nu `$ in this way. The canonical bilinear map $`(x_i,x_j)x_ix_jH^{i+j},x_iH^i,x_jH^j,`$ defining a ring structure in $`H^{}`$ can be obtained from the action of $`S`$ by the formula $`(x_ix_j)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{i+j})=x_i(t_1,\mathrm{},t_i)S_{t_1+\mathrm{}+t_i}(x_j(t_{i+1},\mathrm{},t_{i+j}))`$ (see ). We consider a graded algebra of cohomologies $`A=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_i`$ such that $`A_i`$ consists of additive $`i`$-cocycles of the group of automorphisms $`\alpha `$ associated with stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ over an involutive algebra $`K`$. In our construction $`A_1`$ is generated by the basic operator-valued stochastic measures which are the creation, anihilation and number of particles processes in the important applications. Given an involutive algebra $`K`$ we put $`K_1=K`$ and construct the graded algebra $`\stackrel{~}{K}=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}K_i`$ with respect to a certain linear associative operation $`:K_i\times K_jK_{i+j}`$. In the case when $`K`$ is a Lie algebra one can choose the universal enveloping algebra for $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$. We define a stationary quantum stochastic process as a \*-homomorphism $`j`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ into the standard ring of (abelian) cohomologies of the group $`\alpha `$ such that every $`xK_i`$ is maped to an $`i\alpha `$-cocycle $`j(x)`$. The homomorphism $`j`$ transferes the operation $``$ in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ to the cohomological multiplication $``$. We consider a class of cocycle perturbations of $`j`$ by markovian cocycles. The markovian cocycle perturbation of $`K`$-flow constructed through our procedure determines the associated $`E_0`$-semigroup $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ on the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ which posseses the restriction $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }|_{𝒩_0},𝒩_0𝒩,`$ conjugate to the flow of Powers shifts associated with the initial $`K`$-flow. Using the technics of , it is possible to extract an automorphic part of the $`E_0`$-semigroup. Hence our result defines an analogue of the Wold decomposition for classical stochastic process on completely nondeterministic and deterministic parts. We give several examples where $`j`$ determines quantum stochastic processes on the algebra of canonical commutation or anticommutation relations and the square of white noise correspondingly. The basic ideas are illustrated on the model of markovian perturbations for the group of shifts in $`L^2()`$. In this case the associated markovian cocycles are constructed in the explicit form by means of the inner function techniques.

## 2 Markovian perturbations of the group of shifts in $`L^2()`$.

Let $`S=(S_t)_t`$ be a strong continuous group of unitary operators on a Hilbert space $``$. A strong continuous family of unitaries $`W=(W_t)_t`$ in $``$ is called $`amultiplicative1Scocycle`$ if $`W_{t+s}=W_tS_tW_sS_t,s,t,W_0=I`$. The cocycle $`W`$ is said to be $`amultiplicative1Scoboundary`$ if there exists a unitary opertor $`J`$ defining $`W`$ by the formula $`W_t=JS_tJ^{}S_t,t`$. Every multiplicative cocycle $`W`$ determines a new unitary group $`U=(U_t)_t`$ in $``$ by the formula $`U_t=W_tS_t,t`$. This group can be named a cocycle perturbation of $`S`$. Notice that if $`W`$ is a coboundary, then $`W_tS_t=JS_tJ^{},t,`$ i.e. the coboundary determines the perturbation which is unitary equivalent to the initial group. Consider the group of shifts $`S=(S_t)_t`$ acting in the Hilbert space $`=L^2()`$ by the formula $`(S_tf)(x)=f(x+t),f`$. The group of cohomologies $`H^1(S,L^2())`$ is generated by $`anadditive1Scocycle`$ $`\chi =(\chi _t)_t`$ defined by $`\chi _t(x)=1,t<x0,\chi _t(x)=0`$ otherwise. The cocycle $`\chi `$ satisfies the characteristic properties $`\chi _{t+s}=\chi _t+S_t\chi _s,\chi _t\chi _s=2|ts|^{1/2},t,s`$. Let $`_t`$ be a subspace of $``$ generated by all functions with supports belonging to the segment $`[t,+\mathrm{})`$. Notice that $`_t=S_t_0,t`$. We shall call the multiplicative cocycle $`W`$ by $`markovian`$ if $`W_t|__t=I,t0`$. This property means that $`W`$ doesn’t perturbe ”a future” of the system. The Markov property for perturbations was introduced in . Using the cocycle property $`W_t=S_tW_t^{}S_t,t,`$ we can rewrite the condition of markovianity in the form $`W_t|__0=I,t0`$. It garantees that linear operators $`V_t=U_t|__0,t0,`$ are correctly defined and form a $`C_0`$-semigroup of isometries $`V`$ in the Hilbert space $`_0`$. We call $`V`$ by a semigroup associated with the markovian cocyle perturbation of $`S`$. Given a $`C_0`$-semigroup of isometrical operators $`V`$ in the Hilbert space $`_0`$, one can define the Wold decomposition $`_0=^{(0)}^{(1)}`$ on the subspace $`^{(0)}`$ reducing $`V`$ to the semigroup of unitary operators and the subspace $`^{(1)}`$ reducing $`V`$ to the semigroup of completely nonunitary operators isomorphic to the semiflow of right shifts in $`𝒦L^2(_+)`$, where $`𝒦`$ is a Hilbert space with the dimension equal to the deficiency index of the generator of $`V`$ (see ). The semigroups $`V|_{^{(0)}}`$ and $`V|_{^{(1)}}`$ can be named a unitary part and a shift part of the semigroup $`V`$ correspondingly.

Proposition 2.1. The deficiency index of the generator of the semigroup $`V`$ associated with the markovian cocycle perturbation of $`S`$ equals $`1`$.

Proof.

Consider a family of functions $`\zeta _t=W_t\chi _t,t0`$, where $`\chi `$ is the additive $`1S`$-cocycle defined in the begin of the section. It follows from the definitions of $`\chi `$ and $`W`$ that the family $`\zeta `$ is continuous. Then $`\zeta _{t+s}=W_{ts}\chi _{ts}=W_tS_tW_sS_t(\chi _t+S_t\chi _s)=W_t\chi _t+W_tS_tW_s\chi _s=\zeta _t+V_t\zeta _s,t,s0`$, where we have used the identity $`W_sS_t\chi _t=S_t\chi _t,s,t0`$, following from the markovian property of $`W`$ in the form $`W_s|__0=I`$. Hence $`\zeta =(\zeta _t)_{t0}`$ is an additive $`1V`$-cocycle. Notice that $`(V_{tn}\zeta _t,\zeta _t)=(W_tS_tV_{t(n1)}\zeta _t,W_t\chi _t)=(S_tV_{t(n1)}\zeta _t,\chi _t)=0,n,t>0`$. Therefore the sum $`\xi _t=\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{tn}V_{tn}\zeta _t`$ is well defined and we can write the integral sum $`\xi =\underset{t0}{lim}\xi _t=\underset{0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^t𝑑\zeta _t`$. It follows that $`V_t^{}\xi =e^t\xi `$. So we have proved that the deficiency index of the generator of $`V`$ more or equal to one. Let $`_\zeta `$ be a subspace of $``$ generated by $`U_s\zeta _t,s,t0`$. The cocycle property $`\zeta _{t+s}=\zeta _t+V_t\zeta _s=\zeta _t+U_t\zeta _s,s,t0,`$ leads to the invariance of $`_\zeta `$ under the action of $`U_t,t`$. Moreover $`U_t\zeta _t=W_tS_tW_t\chi _t=W_tS_tW_tS_tS_t\chi _t=S_t\chi _t=\chi _t,t0`$. Hence $`_0_\zeta `$. Put $`^{(1)}=_\zeta _0`$, then the subspace $`^{(0)}=_0^{(1)}`$ is invariant under the action of $`U_t,t`$. Hence the restriction $`V|_{^{(0)}}`$ consists of unitary operators. We get the Wold decomposition $`_0=^{(0)}^{(1)}`$ for the semigroup of isometries $`V`$. Therefore the index of $`V`$ equals the index of $`V|_{^{(1)}}`$ which is one.

Theorem 2.2. Let $`W`$ be a markovian cocycle, then there exists $`s\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}W_t=W_{\mathrm{}}`$ and an isometrical operator $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ defines the Wold decomposition $`_0=^{(0)}^{(1)}`$ for the semigroup $`V`$ associated with the markovian perturbation by $`W`$ such that $`^{(1)}=W_{\mathrm{}}_0`$.

Proof.

Firstly we shall apply the technics which is anlogues to one in the proof of theorem 2.5 in . Notice that $`W_{ts}f=W_sS_sW_tS_sf=W_sf`$ for all $`f_s,s,t0`$ by the markovian property. Hence the sequence $`W_tf`$ converges when $`t`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ for the dense set of vectors $`f`$. Therefore the limit exists by the Banach-Steinhaus theorem. One can see that the subspace $`^{(1)}=_{t0}W_t(_0_t)`$ is generated by the functions $`\zeta _t=W_t\chi _t,t0,`$ which form an additive $`1V`$-cocycle with the orthogonal increaments (see the proof of Proposition 2.1). It follows that the restriction of $`V`$ to $`^{(1)}`$ is unitary equivalent to the semiflow of right shifts in $`L^2()`$.

Let $`𝒱`$ be a subspace of $`_0`$ invariant under the action of the semigroup of right shifts $`S^{}=S^{}|__0`$. Then (see ) $`𝒱=M_\mathrm{\Theta }H_0`$, where $`^1M_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the operator of multiplication by an inner function $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $``$ is the Fourier transform. Notice that $`M_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is an isometrical operator. Denote $`P_{[0,t]}`$ and $`P_{[t,+\mathrm{})}`$ the orthogonal projections on the spaces $`_0_t`$ and $`_t,t0,`$ correspondingly. Given a unitary $`C_0`$-group $`R=(R_t)_t`$ in the Hilbert space $`_0𝒱`$, define a family of unitary operators in $`_0`$ by the formula

$$W_t=(R_tP_{_0𝒱}S_t+P_𝒱)P_{[t,+\mathrm{})}+M_\mathrm{\Theta }P_{[0,t]},t0.$$
$`(2.1)`$
In the following proposition we introduce the model describing all markovian cocycles up to unitary equivalence of perturbations. To be exact, for every markovian cocycle $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ there exists the markovian cocycle $`W`$ of the form given in the proposition such that $`\stackrel{~}{W}_t=J_tW_t,t,`$ where the $`1U`$-coboundary $`J_t=JW_tS_tJ^{}W_tS_t,t,`$ of the group $`U=(W_tS_t)_t`$ is defined by the unitary operator $`J`$ satisfying the relation $`\stackrel{~}{W}_tS_t=JW_tS_tJ^{},t`$.

Proposition 2.3. The family $`W`$ given by (2.1) in $`_0`$ and acting identicaly in $`_0`$ defines a multiplicative markovian cocycle such that $`\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}W_tf=M_\mathrm{\Theta }f`$ for $`f_0`$ and $`\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}W_tf=f`$ for $`f_0`$. The unitary part of the semigroup $`V`$ associated with the markovian cocycle perturbation by $`W`$ is $`R`$.

Proof.

Extend the family $`W`$ defined in (2.1) for $`t0`$ by the formula $`W_t=S_tW_t^{}S_t,t0`$. Consider the set of unitary operators $`U_t=W_tS_t,t`$. Notice that $`U_tM_\mathrm{\Theta }=M_\mathrm{\Theta }S_t,U_tf𝒱,f_t,t0`$. Hence the subspace $`=𝒱(_0)`$ is invariant under action of $`U_t,t,`$ and the restriction $`U|_{}`$ is unitary equivalent to the group $`S`$. To complete the proof notice that the restriction $`U`$ to the subspace $`_0𝒱=`$ coincides with $`R^{}`$.

Theorem 2.4. Given a unitary group $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ which is uniformly continuous or has a pure point spectrum, there exist the inner function $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the unitary group $`R`$ in the Hilbert space $`_0M_\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ unitary equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ such that the markovian cocycle $`(2.1)`$ satisfies the condition $`W_tIs_2,t`$.

Theorem 2.4 for the case of uniformly continuous $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ can be found in ,. The proof for $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ with a pure point spectrum is also constructed in cited papers in the implicit form. One can compare the condition $`WIs_2`$ on the unitary operator $`W`$ appearing in the theorem with the Feldman criterion on the equivalence of Gaussian measures (see ,) and the Araki criterion of the quasi-equivalence for quasifree states of the algebra of canonical commutation relations (see ). It seems that the unitary operators $`W`$ satisfying our condition translate equivalent states one to another. It is also useful to notice that the condition $`W_tIs_2,t,`$ is nessesary and sufficient for the family $`W=(W_t)_t`$ to define an inner cocycle on the hyperfinite factor generated by a quasifree representation of the algebra of canonical anticommutation relations (see ,).

## 3 Stationary quantum stochastic process as \*-homomorphism into a ring of cohomologies.

Let $`K`$ be an involutive algebra and $`K_i=K^i`$. Supply the family $`(K_i)_{i=1}^+\mathrm{}`$ with a linear associative operation $``$ defining left and right actions of every $`xK_i`$ on $`K_j`$ such that $`xy,yxK_{i+j},yK_j`$. We assume that $`K_iK_j=K_{i+j},i,j`$. So we obtained the graded algebra $`\stackrel{~}{K}=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}K_i`$ with respect to the multiplication defined by the operation $``$. If $`K`$ is a Lie algebra, it is possible to take the unversal enveloping algebra for $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ and the multiplication in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ for $``$. Consider a one-parameter $`w^{}`$-continuous group of \*-automorphisms $`\alpha =(\alpha _t)_t`$ on the algebra $`()`$ of all bounded operators in a Hilbert space $``$. Suppose that the action of $`\alpha `$ can be correctly defined on certain involutive algebra $``$ consisting of linear operators (in general unbounded) in $``$. Consider the standard resolvent for $`\alpha `$ constructed from nonhomogeneous chains such that (see )

$$0Hom(,)\stackrel{d_1}{}\mathrm{}Hom(^i,)\stackrel{d_i}{}\mathrm{}$$

where $`d_i(x)(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{i+1})=\alpha _{t_1}(x(t_2,\mathrm{},t_{i+1}))x(t_1+t_2,\mathrm{},t_{i+1})+\mathrm{}+(1)^ix(t_1,\mathrm{},t_i),x=x(t_1,\mathrm{},t_i)Hom(^i,)`$. Denote $`A_i=kerd_i/Imd_{i1}`$, then $`A=_{i=1}^+\mathrm{}A_i`$ is a ring with respect to the multiplication defined by a bilinear map $`(x,y)\stackrel{}{}x(t_1,\mathrm{},t_i)\alpha _{t_1+\mathrm{}+t_i}(y(t_{i+1},\mathrm{},t_{i+j}))A_{i+j},xA_i,yA_j`$.

Every \*-homomorphism $`j`$ of the graded algebra $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ into the graded algebra $`A`$ such that every $`xK_i`$ is translated into an $`i\alpha `$-cocycle $`j(x)`$ we shall call by a stationary quantum stochastic process over the algebra $`K`$. Notice that our definition is based upon the well-known one given in . It is also useful to remark that we don’t need $`0\alpha `$-cohomologies in our construction. Sometimes we can recognize two processes $`j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ determining the cocycles $`j(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{j}(x)`$ differ on the coboundary for the fixed $`x`$ as obtaining one from other by a shift in time. For example, given a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ the $`1\alpha `$-cocycle $`j(x)(t)`$ is differ on the coboundary $`\alpha _t(j(x)(r))j(x)(r)`$ from the $`1\alpha `$-cocycle $`j(x)(r+t)j(x)(r)`$ which is associated with the stationary quantum stochastic process $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ obtained from $`j`$ by a shift in time on $`r`$. In applications we claim that $`j`$ keeps the basic algebraic structure in $`K`$ and the mutiplication $``$ in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ but we do not need to require for $`j`$ the preserving of the multiplication in $`K`$ if it is defined (see the next section). We shall suppose that the operators involved in the image of $`j`$ generate whole $``$.

Proposition 3.1. Let $`j`$ be defined on $`K=K_1`$. Then there exists a unique extension of $`j`$ to whole $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$.

Proof.

Notice that $`j`$ translates the operation $``$ in the cohomological multiplication $``$. Denote $`j^{(i)}=j|_{K_i}`$, then one can obtain the action of $`j`$ by the induction,

$$j_{t_1,\mathrm{},t_{k+l}}^{(k+l)}(xy)=j_{t_1,\mathrm{},t_k}^{(k)}(x)\alpha _{t_1+\mathrm{}+t_k}(j_{t_{k+1},\mathrm{},t_{k+l}}^{(l)}(y)).$$

for all $`xK_k,yK_l`$. Here we use the property $`K_iK_j=K_{i+j}`$.

## 4 Stationary quantum stochastic processes on the algebras of canonical commutation relations, the square of white noise relations and canonical anticommutation relations.

Consider an involutive Lie algebra $`K`$ generated by the elements $`B,B^+,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathbf{1}`$ satisfying the relations $`[B,B^+]=\mathrm{𝟏},[\mathrm{\Lambda },B]=B,[\mathrm{\Lambda },B^+]=B^+`$. Let the operation $``$ is generated by the multiplication in the universal enveloping algebra of $`K`$. One can define a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ over $`K`$ by the formula

$$j(B)=b_t,j(B^+)=b_t^{},$$

$$j(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t,j(\mathrm{𝟏})=t\mathrm{𝟏},$$

where $`b_t,b_t^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ are the bosonic anihilation, creation and number of particles processes (see ).

Analogously if $`K`$ is the Lie algebra generated by the elements $`B^{},B^+,M`$ satisfying the relations of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ which are $`[B^{},B^+]=M,[M,B^\pm ]=\pm 2B^\pm `$, one can consider the universal enveloping algebra of $`K`$ and we obtain the quantum Levy process generated by the square of white noise (SWN) constructed in ,

$$j(B^{})=b_t,j(B^+)=b_t^+,$$

$$j(M)=\gamma t+n_t,$$

where the basic processes $`b_t,b_t^+`$ and $`n_t`$ satisfy the relations of SWN,

$$b_tb_t^+b_t^+b_t=\gamma t+n_t,n_tb_tb_tn_t=2b_t,$$

$$n_tb_t^+b_t^+n_t=2b_t^+,(b_t)^{}=b_t^+,n_t^{}=n_t,$$

with a fixed parameter $`\gamma >0`$ and $`t`$.

The algebra of canonical anticommutation relations (CAR) is generated by elements $`a_t,a_t^{},t,`$ satisfying the relations $`a_ta_s^{}+a_s^{}a_t=ts\mathrm{𝟏},a_ta_s+a_sa_t=0`$. A graded algebra $`K=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}K_i`$ can be obtained in the following way, $`K_i`$ is a tensor product of i-th copies of the algebra of $`2\times 2`$-matrix units. Let elements $`a_k,a_k^{},k,`$ satisfy the canonical anticommutation relations $`a_ka_l^{}+a_l^{}a_k=\delta _{kl}\mathrm{𝟏},a_ka_l+a_la_k=0,k,l`$. Then $`K_i`$ is generated by $`a_k,a_k^{},1ki`$. Determine a canonical operation $``$ by the formula $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n=y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_n`$, where $`y_i=a_i,a_i^{},a_i^{}a_i,a_ia_i^{}`$ if $`x_i=a,a^{},a^{}a,aa^{}`$ correspondingly. Then a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ can be defined by the formula

$$j(a)=a_t,j(a^{})=a_t^{},$$

$$j(a^{}a)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t,j(\mathrm{𝟏})=t\mathrm{𝟏},$$

where $`a_t,a_t^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$ are the basic Fermion processes (see ). Notice that $`j`$ satisfies the relations $`j(a^{})=j(a)^{},j(a^{}a+aa^{})=j(a)^{}j(a)+j(a)j(a)^{}=j(\mathrm{𝟏}),j([a^{}a,a])=[j(a^{}a),j(a)]=j(a)=a_t,j([a^{}a,a^{}])=[j(a^{}a),j(a^{})]=j(a^{})=a_t^{}`$, but it is not the algebraic \*-morphism because $`j(a^{}a)j(a)^{}j(a)`$.

## 5 Cocycle perturbations of $`K`$-flows and the Wold decomposition.

We shall use the notation of previous parts of this paper. Remember that strong continuous family $`W=(W_t)_t`$ of unitary operators in $``$ is named a multiplicative $`\alpha `$-cocycle if $`W_{t+s}=W_t\alpha _t(W_s),s,t`$. Suppose that the action of $`W`$ is correctly defined on $``$, i.e. $`W_txW_t^{}`$ are well defined for all $`t,x`$. Let $`_{t]}`$, $`_{[s}`$ and $`_{[s,t]}`$ be involutive subalgebras of $``$ generated by all increaments of the form $`j(x)(r)j(x)(l),xK_1,`$ where $`lrt`$, $`slr`$ and $`slrt`$ correspondingly. We shall call (see also ) a multiplicative $`\alpha `$-cocycle by markovian (with respect to the stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$) if $`W_t_{t]}W_t^{}_{t]}`$ and $`W_txW_t^{}=x`$ for all $`x_{[t},t0`$.

Theorem 5.1. For any markovian cocycle $`W`$ the formula

$$\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t)=j(x)(t),t0,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t)=W_tj(x)(t)W_t^{},t0,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t()=W_t\alpha _t()W_t^{},xK_1,t,$$

defines a new stationary quantum stochastic process $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ over $`K`$ with an associated group of automorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$.

Proof.

Analogously to the proof of Proposition 2.1 we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t+s)=W_{t+s}j(x)(t+s)W_{t+s}^{}=W_{t+s}(j(x)(t)+\alpha _t(j(x)(s)))W_{t+s}^{}=$$

$$W_t\alpha _t(W_s)j(x)(t)\alpha _t(W_s^{})W_t^{}+W_t\alpha _t(W_sj(x)(s)W_s^{})W_t^{}=$$

$$W_tj(x)(t)W_t^{}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(W_sj(x)(s)W_s^{})=\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t)+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(s)),$$

$`s,t0`$. Here we used the identity $`\alpha _t(W_s)j(x)(t)\alpha _t(W_s^{})=j(x)(t)`$ due to the markovian property $`W_s\alpha _t(j(x)(t))W_s^{}=\alpha _s(W_s^{})j(x)(t)\alpha _s(W_s)=\alpha _s(W_s^{}(j(x)(ts)j(x)(s))W_s)=\alpha _s(j(x)(ts)j(x)(s))=j(x)(t)=\alpha _t(j(x)(t)),s,t0`$. One can extend $`\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t)`$ for $`t0`$ using the cocycle condition for $`\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t)`$. It yealds $`\stackrel{~}{j}(x)(t)=j(x)(t),t0`$. To complete the proof we only need to apply Proposition 3.1.

Proposition 5.2.

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(x)=\alpha _t(x),x_{[0},t0,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(x)=\alpha _t(x),x_{[t},t0.$$

Proof.

It immidiately follows from the markovian property of $`W`$ that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(x)=W_t\alpha _t(x)W_t^{}=\alpha _t(x),x_{[0},t0`$. The markovian property implies that $`W_txW_t^{}=x,x_{[t},t0,`$ which is equivalent to $`\alpha _t(W_t)^{}x\alpha _t(W_t)=x,x_{[t},t0,`$ or $`W_t^{}xW_t=x,x_{[0},t0`$, by the cocycle condition for $`W`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t(x)=W_t\alpha _t(x)W_t^{}=\alpha _t(x),x_{[t},t0`$.

Denote $`𝒩=^{\prime \prime }(),𝒩_{t]}=_{t]}^{\prime \prime }(),𝒩_{[t}=_{[t}^{\prime \prime }()`$ and $`𝒩_{[s,t]}=_{[s,t]}^{\prime \prime }()`$ the corresponding von Neumann algebras. Notice that $`𝒩_{t+s]}=\alpha _t(𝒩_{s]}),t,s`$. We shall call a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ by a K-flow and the group $`\alpha `$ associated with $`j`$ by a group of automorphisms associated with K-flow if the following conditions hold,

$$𝒩_{s]}𝒩_{t]},t>s,$$

$$_t𝒩_{t]}=𝒩,$$

$$_t𝒩_{t]}=\mathrm{𝐂𝟏}$$

(see ).

Proposition 5.3. If there exists a vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is cyclic and separating with respect to $`𝒩`$ and the increaments of a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ are independent in the classical (commutative) sence that $`\varphi (xy)=\varphi (x)\varphi (y),x𝒩_{[t},y𝒩_{t]},t,`$ for the state $`\varphi ()=(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega })`$, then $`j`$ is a $`K`$-flow.

Proof.

Choose $`x_t𝒩_{t]}`$, then $`\varphi ((x\varphi (x)\mathrm{𝟏})y)=\varphi (x\varphi (x)\mathrm{𝟏})\varphi (y)=0`$ for all $`y_t𝒩_{[t}=_t𝒩_{t]}=𝒩`$. Hence $`(x\varphi (x)\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`x=\varphi (x)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic and separating. The result follows from.

Let von Neumann algebras $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{t]}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{[s,t]}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{[t}`$ be associated with the perturbed process $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ in the same way as the algebras $`𝒩_{t]}`$, $`𝒩_{[s,t]}`$ and $`𝒩_{[t}`$ are associated with the process $`j`$.

Proposition 5.4. Let $`j`$ and $`W`$ be a K-flow and a markovian cocycle correspondingly. Then the markovian perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ is also K-flow.

Proof.

One can see that the von Neumann algebras generated by the increaments of $`\stackrel{~}{j}`$ are $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{t]}=W_t𝒩_{t]}W_t^{}𝒩_{t]}`$ by the markovian property. Hence $`_t\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{t]}=\mathrm{𝐂𝟏}.`$ The conditions

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{s]}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{t]},t>s,$$

$$_t\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{t]}=\stackrel{~}{𝒩}$$

are satisfied by the definition.

For a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ one can name the $`E_0`$-semigroup $`\beta _t=\alpha _t|_{𝒩_{0]}},t0,`$ on the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩_{0]}`$ by associated with $`j`$. In the case when $`j`$ is a $`K`$-flow, the semigroup $`\beta =(\beta _t)_{t0}`$ is a flow of Powers shifts , i.e. $`_n\beta _{tn}(𝒩_{0]})=\mathrm{𝐂𝟏},t>0`$ (see ). Fix a stationary quantum stochastic process $`j`$ with the associated $`E_0`$-semigroup $`\beta `$. For a cocycle $`W`$ being markovian with respect to $`j`$ we shall call the $`E_0`$-semigroup $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_t()=W_t\beta _t()W_t^{},t0,`$ on $`𝒩_{0]}`$ by associated with the markovian perturbation of the initial process by $`W`$. Two $`E_0`$-semigroups $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ on the von Neumann algebras $`𝒜`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ correspondingly are called to be conjugate if there exist two injective \*-homomorphisms $`\theta :𝒜\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ and $`\theta ^+:\stackrel{~}{𝒜}𝒜`$ such that $`\beta _t(x)=\theta ^+\beta _t\theta (x),\theta ^+\theta (x)=x,\theta \theta ^+(y)=y,x𝒜,y\stackrel{~}{𝒜},t0`$.

Theorem 5.5. Given a markovian perturbation of the $`K`$-flow $`j`$ with the associated flow of Powers shifts $`\beta `$ on the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩_{0]}`$ acting in the Hilbert space $``$ with a ciclyc vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there exists the von Neumann algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{0]}𝒩_{0]}`$ such that the restriction $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }|_{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{0]}}`$ of the $`E_0`$-semigroup $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ associated with the markovian perturbation is conjugate to $`\beta `$.

Proof.

Put $`_t=[𝒩_{[t}\mathrm{\Omega }],t`$, then the set $`_t,t0,`$ is dense in the Hilbert space $``$. Arguing similarily to the proof of theorem 2.2 one can obtain that there exists $`s\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}W_t=W_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then the injective \*-endomorphism $`\theta :𝒩_{0]}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{0]}𝒩_{0]}`$ given by the formula $`\theta (x)=W_txW_t^{},x𝒩_{[t,0]},t0`$, is well defined because $`W_{ts}xW_{ts}^{}=W_t\alpha _t(W_s)x\alpha _t(W_s^{})W_t^{}=W_txW_t^{}`$ for all $`x𝒩_{[t,0]}`$ by the markovian property $`W_syW_s^{}=y,y𝒩_{[0},`$ which implies that $`W_s\alpha _t(x)W_s^{}=\alpha _t(x)`$ for all $`x𝒩_{[t,0]}`$. It follows that $`\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}W_txW_t^{}f=\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}W_txW_s^{}f=W_{\mathrm{}}xW_s^{}f`$ for all $`f_s,x𝒩_{0]},s0`$. Hence the sequence $`W_txW_t^{}f`$ converges when $`t`$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ for all $`f_{0]}`$ by the Banach-Steinhaus theorem. Analogously it is possible to define the injective \*-homomorphism $`\theta ^+:\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{0]}𝒩_{0]}`$ by the formula $`\theta ^+(x)=W_t^{}xW_t,x\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{[t,0]},t0`$. Notice that $`\theta ^+(x)=W_{\mathrm{}}^{}xW_{\mathrm{}},x\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{0]}`$. One can see that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_t(x)=\theta \beta _t\theta ^+(x),x\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{0]}`$. This proves the theorem.

Earlier it was investigated the existence of ”an automorphic part” in the quantum dynamical semigroup which is completely compatible with the faithful normal state (see ). Theorem 5.5 allows to obtain ”a shift part” of the $`E_0`$-semigroup obtained by a markovian cocycle perturbation from the flow of Powers shifts. So it can be considered as some analogue of the picking out a completely nondetermenistic part in the Wold decomposition for the classical stochastic processes.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Professor Luigi Accardi for kind hospitality during his visit at Centro Vito Volterra Universita di Roma Tor Vergata where a part of this work was done.