text:
# Low-energy muon-transfer reaction from hydrogen isotopes to helium isotopes

———————————————————————–

## Abstract

Direct muon transfer in low-energy collisions of the muonic hydrogen Hμ and helium (He++) is considered in a three-body quantum-mechanical framework of coordinate-space integro-differential Faddeev-Hahn-type equations within two- and six-state close coupling approximations. The final-state Coulomb interaction is treated without any approximation employing appropriate Coulomb waves in the final state. The present results agree reasonably well with previous semiclassical calculations.

PACS number(s): 36.10.Dr

Experimental investigation of the low-energy muon transfer in collision of muonic hydrogen Hμ (bound state of a hydrogen isotope and muon $`\mu ^{}`$) and He is important for muon catalyzed fusion cycle of hydrogen isotopes Rafelski-1991 . If the hydrogen is contaminated by He, then the muon-catalyzed fusion of hydrogen isotopes will be affected by muon transfer from Hμ to He. This makes the study of muon transfer from Hμ to He of special relevance. The study of such collisions involving three charged particles is also interesting from a theoretical point of view as an example of rearrangement scattering with Coulomb interaction in the final state. Such reactions with post-collision Coulomb interaction between clusters appear frequently in atomic and molecular physics.

Recently, we formulated ska1  a few-body quantum-mechanical description of direct muon-transfer reaction from Hμ to different nuclei using the Faddeev-Hahn-type few-body equations Faddeev-1961 ; Hahn-1968  in the close-coupling approximation. We applied this formulation successfully to the study of muon transfer among various hydrogen isotopes. In that study there was no final-state Coulomb interaction. Later on we extended this approach to the study of muon transfer from hydrogen isotopes to He and Li, where the final-state Coulomb interaction is appropriately included in the calculational scheme ska4 . Next we included heavier targets such as, C, O ska4 ; ska3 , Ne, S, and Ar ska5 , in the scheme, where appropriate polarization potentials were included in addition to the final-state Coulomb interaction. In case of these heavy targets the muon transfer rates from Hμ agree well with the existing experimental results ska4 ; ska3 ; ska5 . In case of these heavier targets there is evidence ska5 ; xyz  that the muon is absorbed in a specific final state of the heavy nuclei, and hence, the muon-transfer rates were calculated in a two-state close-coupling approximation including a single state each of the target and the incident Hμ.

In this report, we perform a two- and six-state calculation of direct muon-transfer from Hμ to He isotopes and compare with other calculations. The reaction we study is

$$(\text{H}_\mu )_{1s}+\text{H}e^{++}(\text{H}e_\mu )_{1s}^++\text{H}^+,$$
(1)
where $`\text{H}e^{++}`$ represents the He nucleus and $`(\text{H}e_\mu )_{1s}^+`$ the hydrogen-like bound state of $`\text{H}e^{++}`$ and a muon. The present study is meant to test the accuracy and the convergence trend of our approach. For the lighter target such as He, muon transfer could take place via direct as well as compound molecular formation. The experimental rates include the molecular formation Tresch1-1998 . The method we consider here is not applicable to muon transfer via molecular formation. The experimental transfer rates via molecular formation leads to much higher results in the case of target He while compared to the theoretical result of direct muon transfer. For heavier targets, such as C, O, Ne, Ar etc., the molecular rates are highly suppressed and the muon transfer takes place essentially via the direct channel and our theoretical direct rates are in agreement with experiment ska4 ; ska3 ; ska5 .

For the theoretical treatment of a three-body muon-transfer rearrangement process, Faddeev-type equations Faddeev-1961 , especially the modified version proposed by Hahn Hahn-1968 , appear to be very suitable. The two possible asymptotic two-cluster configurations of the above rearrangement problem are conveniently tackled by a set of two coupled Faddeev-Hahn-type equations for components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_1+\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, where each component carrys the asymptotic boundary condition for a specific configuration renat . These equations are very useful to incorporate distortion potentials for specific initial and final asymptotic states Hahn-1972 . It is possible to include the final-state Coulomb interaction explicitly in these equations, so that a low-order approximation to these equations produces the correct asymptotic behavior Hahn-1972 .

Here we quote the Faddeev-Hahn-type two-component equations used in the close coupling type approximation for the calculation of muon transfer rates ska1 ; ska3 . We denote He++ by $`\mathrm{𝟣}`$, the hydrogen isotope(s) by $`\mathrm{𝟤}`$ and muon by $`\mathrm{𝟥}`$. Below the three-body breakup threshold, following two-cluster asymptotic configurations are possible in the system 123: $`(\mathrm{𝟤𝟥})\mathsf{1}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟣𝟥})\mathsf{2}`$. These two configurations correspond to two distinct physical channels, denoted by 1 and 2, respectively. These configurations are determined by the Jacobi coordinates $`(\stackrel{}{r}_{j3},\stackrel{}{\rho }_k)`$: $`\stackrel{}{r}_{13}=\stackrel{}{r}_3\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2=(\stackrel{}{r}_3+m_1\stackrel{}{r}_1)/(1+m_1)\stackrel{}{r}_2`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}_{23}=\stackrel{}{r}_3\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{\rho }_1=(\stackrel{}{r}_3+m_2\stackrel{}{r}_2)/(1+m_2)\stackrel{}{r}_1`$, where $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$, $`m_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3,`$) are coordinates and masses of the particle $`i`$, respectively.

Let us introduce the total three-body wave function as a sum of two components Hahn-1968

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_3)=\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\stackrel{}{r}_{23},\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)+\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\stackrel{}{r}_{13},\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\stackrel{}{r}_{23},\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)`$ is quadratically integrable over the variable $`\stackrel{}{r}_{23}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\stackrel{}{r}_{13},\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$ over $`\stackrel{}{r}_{13}`$. The components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ carry the asymptotic boundary condition for channels 1 and 2, respectively. The second component is responsible for pure Coulomb interaction in the final state. These components satisfy the following set of two coupled equations ska3

$`[E`$ $``$ $`(H_0+V_{23}(\stackrel{}{r}_{23}))]\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\stackrel{}{r}_{23},\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`[(V_{23}(\stackrel{}{r}_{23})+V_{12}(\stackrel{}{r}_{12}))U_C(\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)]\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\stackrel{}{r}_{13},\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$
$`[E`$ $``$ $`(H_0+V_{13}(\stackrel{}{r}_{13}))U_C(\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)]\mathrm{\Psi }_2(\stackrel{}{r}_{13},\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`[(V_{13}(\stackrel{}{r}_{13})+V_{12}(\stackrel{}{r}_{12}))]\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\stackrel{}{r}_{23},\stackrel{}{\rho }_1)`$
where $`E`$ is the center-of-mass energy, $`H_0`$ the total kinetic energy operator, $`V_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r}_{ij})`$ the pair potential $`(ij=1,2,3)`$, $`U_C`$ the final-state Coulomb interaction. For both $`U_C=0`$ and $`U_C0`$, Eqs. 3 and 4 are equivalent to the underlying Schrödinger equation for the problem. Hence a converged solution of these equations should lead to the true dynamical solution of the problem. However, an approximate (low-order) close-coupling solution of these equations with the proper final-state Coulomb interaction $`U_C`$ should lead to a more converged solution when compared with a similar solution with $`U_C=0`$ as we shall see in the following. At higher energies the effect of the explicit inclusion of the Coulomb potential $`U_c`$ in the equations above is reduced and the transfer rates for $`U_c=0`$ tends towards those for $`U_c0`$.

We solve the integro-differential form of the Faddeev-Hahn equation by the close-coupling approximation scheme involving up to six states. This procedure consists in expanding the wave function components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ in terms of eigenfunctions of subsystem Hamiltonians in initial and final channels, respectively. Although, these subsystem eigenfunctions are not orthogonal to each other, the components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ satisfy a coupled set of equations incorporating the correct asymptotic behavior of the wave function. Consequently, there is no problem of overcompleteness as encountered in similar expansion approaches for rearrangement reactions based on the Schrödinger equation. The resultant coupled Faddeev-Hahn-type equations are then projected on the expansion functions. After a partial-wave projection this leads to a set of one-dimensional coupled integro-differential equations for the expansion coefficients, which is solved numerically. The mathematical details of the approach have appeared elsewhere and we refer the interested readers to the original references ska1 ; ska4 .

First, we restrict ourselves to a two-level approximation by choosing in the relevant close-coupling expansion the hydrogen-like ground states $`(\text{H}_\mu )_{1s}`$ and $`(\text{He}_\mu )_{1s}^+`$, where H $`={}_{}{}^{1}\text{H}_{}^{+}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}\text{H}_{}^{+}`$, and He = $`{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}_{}^{++}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}_{}^{++}`$. Numerically, stable and converged results were obtained in these cases. The rates $`\lambda _{\text{tr}}`$ $`/10^6`$ sec-1 for both $`U_C=0`$ and $`U_C0`$ at low energies are presented in Table I together with the results of Refs. W-1992 ; Matv-1973 ; Sultanov-1999 . Next we extend the calculation to the six-state model where we include the Hμ(1s,2s,2p) and (He$`{}_{\mu }{}^{})^+`$(1s,2s,2p) states of both muonic hydrogen and helium. These transition rates for both $`U_C=0`$ and $`U_C0`$ are also shown in Table I. All rates have converged to the precision shown in this table. The present results are consistent with the phenomenological isotope effect, e.g., the rate decreases from 1H to 2H iso2 . The effect of including the (2s,2p) states in the calculational scheme is also explicit.

The present six-state calculation, when compared with the two-state calculation, shows the trend of convergence. We see that at high energies the $`U_c0`$ rates tend towards the $`U_c=0`$ rates. This is illustrated in Table I for the two-state model for two systems. However, the effect of the inclusion of $`U_c`$ is significant at low energies. The two-state rates with $`U_c=0`$ are the least converged. The six-state rates with $`U_c=0`$ show the direction of convergence. From an analysis of our results reported in Table I, we find, as expected, the six-state results with $`U_c0`$ are the most converged. The two-state rates with $`U_c0`$ are more converged than the three-state rates with $`U_c=0`$. The explicit inclusion of the final-state Coulomb interaction $`U_C`$ has enhanced the convergence and has led to more consistent rates. The present six-state results for $`U_C0`$ are very close to the semiclassical results of Ref. W-1992  for all four systems considered. However, the agreement with the results of Ref. Matv-1973  is poor; the present rates for 1Hμ (2Hμ) are roughly double (ten times) the rates of Ref. Matv-1973 . Considering the very qualitative and semiclassical nature of the calculation of Ref. Sultanov-1999 , the fair agreement with the present few-body quantum treatment and with Ref. W-1992  is encouraging.

The study of three-body charge transfer reactions with Coulomb repulsion in the final state has been the subject of this report. We have studied such reactions employing a detailed few-body description of the rearrangement scattering problem by solving the Faddeev-Hahn-type equations Faddeev-1961 ; Hahn-1968  in coordinate space. To provide correct asymptotic form in the final state the pure Coulomb interaction has been incorporated directly into the equations. It is shown that within this formalism, the application of a close-coupling-type ansatz leads to satisfactory results already in low-order approximations for direct muon-transfer reactions between hydrogen isotopes and light nuclei $`\text{He}^{++}`$. Because of computational difficulties, in this application we have considered up to six states in the expansion scheme (1s,2s,2p on each center $``$ Hμ and He$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$), which may not always be adequate. Further calculations with larger basis sets are needed to obtain accurate converged results. However, the inclusion of three basis states on each center is expected to build in a satisfactory account of the polarization potential in the model and should lead to physically acceptable results. The agreement of the present rates with those of the semiclassical model also assuring.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the financial support from Fundação de Amparo ã Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo of Brazil. The numerical calculations have been performed on the IBM SP2 Supercomputer of the Departamento de Física - IBILCE - UNESP, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil.


format: text

text:
# Cosmological model differentiation through weak gravitational lensing

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The mass inhomogeneities in the Universe leave an imprint in the light traveling through it: that is gravitational lensing. The retrieval of this information can be of singular value to narrow down cosmological models.

The statistical shape distortion of distant galaxies, or cosmic shear, is is one of the aspects of gravitational lensing in the weak regime (small deflection angles), and has been observed by several groups (see Mellier 1999 for a review up to this year, and for more recent measurements see Van Waerbeke et al. 2000; Wittman et al. 2000; Fischer et al. 2000; Bacon, Refregier & Ellis 2000; Kaiser, Wilson & Luppino 2000; Maoli et al. 2001; Rhodes, Refregier & Groth 2001; Van Waerbeke et al. 2001; Hoekstra, Yee & Gladders 2001). Concomitantly, theoretical works in the area indicated that such measurements can be very revealing about the large-scale structure of the universe (Kaiser & Squires 1993; Bernardeau, Van Waerbeke & Mellier 1997; Jain, Seljak & White 2000; Bartelmann & Schneider 1999, 2001), in addition to the study of individual galaxy clusters. The main attractive of gravitational lensing being that it probes mass directly, avoiding issues such as mass-light bias.

The perspective of a growing number and quality of weak lensing measurements stimulates the question of how far the use of weak gravitational lensing as an astrophysical and cosmological tool can go, and how much can be achieved. That ultimately depends on the extension and quality of the lensing maps, the amount of information that can be extracted from them, and the ability of this information to differentiate between theoretical models.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential of weak gravitational lensing maps to differentiate between different cosmological models. We incorporate limitations resulting from the presence of noise and cosmic variance for several lensing measures, including a morphological analysis, the Minkowski functionals (Matsubara & Jain 2001; Sato et al. 2001).

Theoretical predictions for lensing measures can be obtained by two approaches. The first is the analytical, which is based on gravitational lens theory, and resorts frequently on perturbation theory to calculate expressions for various statistics in an assumed model. The second approach is to simulate realizations of lensing maps in a chosen model, and directly measure the quantities of choice. Here we review the first, and use the second for an application example.

We obtain that even for modest field sizes (9 degrees2), and noise at the level of current surveys, the cluster normalized cold dark matter models (SCDM, OCDM, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) can be differentiated with significant confidence. Second order statistics (convergence variance and lensing measures dependent on it) proved to be the best discriminatory analyses for these models. However, we also obtain that higher order statistics (measures that are sensitive to non-Gaussian features of lensing maps) can differentiate between some models in certain circumstances. This result is particularly important when aiming to differentiate cosmological models that have the same power spectrum, but distinct non-Gaussian properties. We suggest that Minkowski functionals should be included in the row of statistics normally used to extract information from lensing maps, because their morphological characterization of maps contains information that is independent of measures such as the probability distribution function of the convergence.

The paper is organized as the following. In Section 2 we briefly review how lensing maps can be generated and analyzed, and we introduce a measure of the differentiation between two models through a chosen lensing statistic. In Section 3 we compare three cosmological models (SCDM, OCDM, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) as saw through weak gravitational lensing. Our conclusions are in Section 4.

## 2 Lensing Map

### 2.1 Generation

The image distortion of background galaxies by weak gravitational lensing can be expressed by the distortion matrix (Bartelmann & Schneider 2001)

$$𝒜(𝜽)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\kappa \gamma _1& \gamma _2\\ \gamma _2& 1\kappa +\gamma _1\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is called the convergence, and $`\gamma \gamma _1+i\gamma _2=|\gamma |e^{2i\phi }`$ is the shear.

Matrix $`𝒜`$ transforms a circular source image in an ellipse with semi-axis stretched by a factor $`(1\kappa \pm |\gamma |)^1`$ from the original radius, and magnification $`\mu =(\text{det}𝒜)^1=[(1\kappa )^2\gamma ^2)]^1`$.

The shear can be directly estimated from ellipticity measurements of background galaxies, and shear and convergence can be mapped in each other through

$$\gamma (𝜽)=\frac{1}{\pi }𝒲(𝜽𝜽^{})\kappa (𝜽^{})d^2𝜽^{},$$
(2)
with

$$𝒲(𝜽)=\frac{1}{(\theta _1i\theta _2)^2},$$
(3)
or through the relation between their Fourier transforms

$$\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(𝒍)=\frac{l_1^2l_2^2}{l^2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1(𝒍)+\frac{2l_1l_2}{l^2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(𝒍).$$
(4)
We can compute the components $`𝒜_{ij}`$ of the distortion matrix by calculating the angular deflection of a photon traveling from a comoving distance $`w`$ through a gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$𝒜_{ij}(𝜽)=2_0^wg(w^{},w)_i_j\mathrm{\Phi }(𝜽,w^{})dw^{},$$
(5)
where

$$g(w^{},w)=\frac{f_K(w^{})f_K(ww^{})}{f_K(w)},$$
(6)
and $`f_K(w)`$ is the curvature-dependent comoving angular diameter distance.

From equation (5) and using Poisson equation,

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{2}H_o^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m\frac{\delta }{a},$$
(7)
where $`\delta `$ is the density contrast and $`a`$ is the scale factor, we can write the convergence as

$$\kappa (𝜽)=\frac{3H_o^2}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_m_0^wg(w^{},w)\frac{\delta (𝜽,w^{})}{a(w^{})}𝑑w^{}.$$
(8)
The convergence is a weighted projection of the mass inhomogeneities between source and observer.

In this work we concentrate on the convergence field $`\kappa (𝜽)`$ as our lensing map. It can be derived from a real or simulated shear map through equation (4), or computed directly from a N-body simulation of $`\delta (𝜽,w)`$ and the use of equation (8). We choose the second approach for our application example at Section 3.

### 2.2 Statistics

Here we review some statistics used to characterize the convergence field, the angular power spectrum, second and higher order statistics, the probability distribution function (PDF), and Minkowski functionals.

The convergence field can be expanded in Fourier modes, and their amplitude averaged for each wavelength. That is the direct calculation of the angular power spectrum of the convergence from a real or simulated lensing map,

$$P_\kappa (l)|\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(𝒍)|^2.$$
(9)
An analytical prediction for the convergence angular power spectrum can be obtained from equation (8), and be expressed as a weighted integral of the time-evolving density power spectrum $`P_\delta (k,w)`$

$$2\pi l^2P_\kappa (l)=36\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2l^2_0^{w_o}\frac{g^2(w,w_o)}{f_K^2(w)}a^2(w)P_\delta \left[k=\frac{l}{f_K(w)},w\right]𝑑w.$$
(10)
However, the angular power spectrum does not contain all the statistical information about the $`\kappa `$-map. All the information in the phases of the complex Fourier modes is lost. These phases carry the non-Gaussian features of the map, which are important signatures of non-linear evolution, and also of models of structure formation containing non-Gaussian initial conditions (as opposed to most of the inflationary scenarios).

The Fourier transform of the angular power spectrum of the convergence is the angular two-point correlation function $`C_\kappa (r)=\kappa (𝜽)\kappa (𝜽+𝒓)`$. The convergence field variance $`\sigma _\kappa ^2\kappa ^2`$ can be seen as the value of the angular two-point correlation function at the origin, $`\sigma _\kappa ^2=C_\kappa (0)`$, and expressed as (Jain & Seljak 1997; Bernardeau, Van Waerbeke & Mellier 1997)

$$\kappa ^2=36\pi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2_0^{\mathrm{}}k𝑑k_0^{w_o}\frac{g^2(w)}{a^2(w)}P_\delta (k,w)W_2^2\left[kf_K(w)\theta _s\right]𝑑w,$$
(11)
where $`W_2=2J_1(x)/x`$ is the Fourier transform of the top-hat window function ($`J_1`$ is the Bessel function of first order). Expressions for higher order powers, $`\kappa ^3`$ and $`\kappa ^4`$, can be similarly obtained as integrals of the bispectrum and trispectrum, respectively. See Hui (1999), and Munshi & Jain (2000), or Cooray & Hu (2001) for more elegant expressions. Related statistics are the skewness $`S=\kappa ^3/\sigma _\kappa ^3`$, the kurtosis $`K=(\kappa ^4/\sigma _\kappa ^4)3`$, or the more general moments $`S_N=\kappa ^N/\sigma _\kappa ^{2(N1)}`$.

The probability distribution function contains in principle more information than the variance and higher order moments of the convergence field taken individually, which can be calculated from the PDF itself,

$$\kappa ^N=F(\kappa )\kappa ^N𝑑\kappa .$$
(12)
The PDF can be expanded around a Gaussian through the Edgeworth approximation (Jusziewicz el al. 1995)

$$F(\kappa )=\frac{e^{\kappa ^2/2\sigma _\kappa ^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\kappa }\left\{1+\sigma _\kappa \frac{S_3}{3!}\text{H}_3(\kappa /\sigma _\kappa )+\sigma _\kappa ^2\left[\frac{S_4}{4!}\text{H}_4(\kappa /\sigma _\kappa )+\frac{S_3^2}{6!}\text{H}_6(\kappa /\sigma _\kappa )\right]+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(13)
where $`\text{H}_\eta `$ is the Hermite polynomial of order $`\eta `$.

Minkowski functionals contain all the morphological information about a convex body, and for a Gaussian field they can be calculated exactly (Winitzki & Kosowsky 1998). That makes the Minkowski functionals of the convergence maps a very interesting statistic to use (Matsubara & Jain 2001; Sato et al. 2001). A threshold value $`\nu `$ defines excursion sets in which the value of $`\nu (𝜽)\kappa (𝜽)/\sigma _\kappa `$ is larger than the threshold: $`v_0(\nu )`$ is the fractional area of the map above the threshold, $`v_1(\nu )`$ the boundary length (per area), and $`v_2(\nu )`$ the Euler characteristic. This last functional is equivalent to the topological genus of the map, roughly speaking, the number of disconnected regions minus the number of holes.

Approximate expressions for the Minkowski functionals can be obtained through perturbation theory about the exact expressions for a Gaussian field (Matsubara 2000)

$`v_0(\nu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{erfc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\sqrt{2}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{2\pi }}}e^{\nu ^2/2}\sigma _\kappa S_3^{(0)}\text{H}_2(\nu ),`$ (14)
$`v_1(\nu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1}{\sigma _\kappa }}\text{e}^{\nu ^2/2}\left\{1+\sigma _\kappa \left[{\displaystyle \frac{S_3^{(0)}}{6}}\text{H}_3(\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{S_3^{(1)}}{3}}\text{H}_1(\nu )\right]\right\},`$ (15)
$`v_2(\nu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1^2}{\sigma _\kappa ^2}}\text{e}^{\nu ^2/2}\left\{\text{H}_1(\nu )+\sigma _\kappa \left[{\displaystyle \frac{S_3^{(0)}}{6}}\text{H}_4(\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{2S_3^{(1)}}{3}}\text{H}_2(\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{S_3^{(2)}}{3}}\right]\right\},`$ (16)
where $`\sigma _1^2(\kappa )^2`$, and skewness parameters are defined by $`S_3^{(0)}\kappa ^3/\sigma _\kappa ^4`$ , $`S_3^{(1)}(3/4)\kappa ^2(^2\kappa )/(\sigma _\kappa ^2\sigma _1^2)`$ and $`S_3^{(2)}3(\kappa \kappa )(^2\kappa )/\sigma _1^4`$.

### 2.3 Differentiation

Here we introduce a measure aimed to quantify the difference between two models, or a model and an observational result, under a chosen lensing map analysis (Guimarães 2001). This quantity is also aimed to allow the comparison of different lensing statistics, for instance, being able to point which analysis is the most appropriate to use when trying to differentiate between models through weak lensing. We construct one such quantity in Appendix A.

The differentiation $`𝒟`$ between models $`A`$ and $`B`$ under the lensing analysis $`Y`$ is defined as

$$𝒟[Y]1e^{\chi ^2/2},$$
(17)
where

$$\chi ^2\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{[\overline{Y}_A(p_i)\overline{Y}_B(p_i)]^2}{\sigma _A^2(p_i)+\sigma _B^2(p_i)}.$$
(18)
$`\overline{Y}_A(p_i)`$ is the mean value of the lensing measure $`Y`$ for model $`A`$ at $`N`$ values of the analysis parameter $`p`$, and its variance is $`\sigma _A^2(p_i)`$. Equivalently for model $`B`$. Equation (18) is a particular discrete form of the more general expression (40), when the parameter interval is divided in $`N`$ equal-size segments.

According to this definition, the differentiation is quantified on a scale from 0 to 1. For models that are similar under a given analysis $`𝒟[Y]0`$, and for very distinct models $`𝒟[Y]1`$. If one wants to study a set of models, it is desirable to find which lensing measures give the largest differentiations, so the discrimination between models is robust. On the other hand, if one has an observational result, the interest is to find which model gives the lowest differentiation for the chosen analysis. That is the best fit model.

If we assume that the differentiation has a Gaussian distribution, then it follows that its variance is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2[𝒟]=\chi ^2e^{\chi ^2}.$$
(19)
## 3 Study of Weak Lensing Maps

### 3.1 Map construction

We compare three important cosmological models, SCDM, OCDM, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (see table 1). We used the Hydra N-body code (Couchman, Thomas & Pearce, 1995) to simulate the large-scale mass distribution in these models by evolving 1283 particles from a redshift $`z=50`$ to $`z=0`$. The particle coordinates at juxtaposed boxes from a redshift $`z=1`$ (our assumed source redshift) to $`z=0`$ were saved, and projected into a middle plane in each box (the orientation and origin of the projections were randomized). The resulting set of 2D density contrast fields (in 10242 grids) at those positions in redshift space were used as a discrete approximation for the computation of the convergence field according to equation (8), that is usually refered to as multiple-plane lens method.

The main source of noise in real lensing maps is the intrinsic ellipticities of the background galaxies. We simulated this noise by adding a Gaussian random field to the pure convergence following Van Waerbeke (2000), which showed that this is a good approximation. We then used a top-hat window of radius $`\theta _s`$ to smooth the map, which can be described by

$$\kappa (𝜽)=\kappa _o(𝜽)+n(𝜽),$$
(20)
where $`\kappa _0(𝜽)`$ is the smoothed pure convergence, and $`n(𝜽)`$ is the smoothed noise field. The noise part is a Gaussian correlated field of variance $`\sigma _n^2`$,

$$\sigma _n^2=\frac{\sigma _ϵ^2}{2n_g\pi \theta _s^2},$$
(21)
where $`\sigma _ϵ^2=0.16`$ was the intrinsic ellipticity variance adopted, and $`n_g=60`$ arcmin-2 was the mean source galaxy density assumed. The top-hat smoothing of the original Gaussian random field introduces correlations in the noise at scales bellow twice the smoothing radius.

Figure 1 shows some realizations of the $`\kappa `$-maps. We generated 25 realizations for each model, however, because we only used one N-body simulation for each model, the $`\kappa `$-maps generated cannot be considered to be totally independent. That is not a source of major concern for our objectives in this work.

### 3.2 Statistics and differentiation results

We applied a number of statistical measures to the convergence maps of the three cosmological models. We considered pure (no noise) and noisy maps of field sizes 3$`\times `$3 degrees2, and 1$`\times `$1 degree2. For each analysis we calculated the differentiation $`𝒟`$ according to equation (17) between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and SCDM, and between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM.

Figure 2 shows the results for the angular power spectrum of the convergence for a field smoothed with $`\theta _s=0.25`$ arcmin, and its differentiation between models. The total power of the convergence field, $`P_\kappa `$, is just given by the sum of the power of the pure field $`P_{\kappa _o}`$ and the power of the noise field $`P_n`$ (a power law), because the two fields are uncorrelated (by construction),

$$P_\kappa (l)=P_{\kappa _o}(l)+P_n(l),$$
(22)
and its variance can also be fragmented as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2[P_\kappa ]=\mathrm{\Delta }^2[P_{\kappa _o}]+\mathrm{\Delta }^2[P_n]+\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_o\stackrel{~}{n}^{}]+\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_o^{}\stackrel{~}{n}].$$
(23)
For low values of the wavenumber $`l`$ (large scales) noise gives a small contribution to the power of the convergence, but the variance of the measured power is large due to the restricted sampling. This large variance implies a lower differentiation between models at low $`l`$. For high $`l`$ (small scales) the measured power is suppressed by the field smoothing at wavenumber values above $`l_s\theta _s^1`$. The noise field gives a major contribution to the total power and power variance, such that the examined models become indistinguishable as quantified by the low values of $`𝒟[2\pi l^2P(l)]`$ in this case. Note that the analyzed maps have different areas ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM 9.6 degrees2, SCDM 15.6 degrees2, and OCDM 12.3 degrees2), therefore the power variances cannot be directly compared.

The addition of noise transforms the probability distribution function for the pure convergence field $`F_{\kappa _o}`$ according to the convolution

$$F_\kappa (x)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}F_{\kappa _o}(y)\frac{e^{(xy)^2/\sigma _n^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _n}𝑑y.$$
(24)
For a small smoothing angle $`\theta _s`$ the noise variance $`\sigma _n^2`$ is large, so the convolution has a large effect on the pure convergence PDF. In contrast, for a large $`\theta _s`$, $`\sigma _n^2`$ is small, and $`F_\kappa `$ does not differ substantially from $`F_{\kappa _o}`$. This effect is illustrated on Figure 3, which shows the results for the probability distribution function of the $`\kappa `$ field, and the integrated PDF differentiation in the interval $`0.04<\kappa <0.04`$. The differentiation curves indicate that noise reduces the differentiation between models, but moderately. Smoothing has a much more visible role in reducing this differentiation - the convergence maps for different models are made more homogeneous by smoothing, and therefore made more alike. The map size also has a major effect on the ability of the PDF analysis to differentiate between models, because the variance of the PDF measurement increases with a reduced field size.

Figure 4 shows the convergence variance $`\kappa ^2`$ as a function of the smoothing angle, and its model differentiation. Because the pure convergence and noise fields are uncorrelated, the convergence variance can be written as

$$\kappa ^2=\kappa _o^2+\sigma _n^2,$$
(25)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\sigma _\kappa ^2]=\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\sigma _{\kappa _o}^2]+\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\sigma _n^2]+2\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\kappa _on].$$
(26)
Noise dominates for small field smoothing, because $`\sigma _n^2\theta _s^2`$, while the variance of the pure field decreases with a smaller power ($`\sigma _{\kappa _0}^2\theta _s^{0.8}`$), and is negligible for large $`\theta _s`$ (error-bars are increased though). The curves for $`𝒟\left[\kappa ^2\right]`$ demonstrates that the field variance is a powerful analysis to discriminate between the models considered, even for small maps.

The mean third power of the field is a direct measure of its deviation from Gaussianity, and its value is not affected by the noise field (see Figure 5), because $`n=n^3=0`$,

$$\kappa ^3=\kappa _o^3.$$
(27)
Unfortunately the noise field increases $`\kappa ^3`$ error-bars, reducing the differentiation between models

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\kappa ^3]=\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\kappa _o^3]+\mathrm{\Delta }^2[n^3]+2\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\kappa _o^2n]+2\mathrm{\Delta }^2[\kappa _on^2].$$
(28)
Figure 5 also shows the results for the related quantity skewness, $`S=\kappa ^3/\sigma _\kappa ^3`$. Its null differentiation between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM, and not null between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and SCDM, suggests that the convergence skewness is sensitive to the mass density, and insensitive to the cosmological constant.

Figure 6 shows the results for the mean fourth power of the convergence field $`\kappa ^4`$, and kurtosis $`K=(\kappa ^4/\sigma _\kappa ^4)3`$. The contribution of the noise field can be visualized in the expression

$$\kappa ^4=\kappa _o^4+n^4+6\kappa _o^2n^2,$$
(29)
where $`n^4=3\sigma _n^4`$. This coupling of the pure field with the noise field, $`\kappa _o^2n^2`$ term, allows the model differentiation for $`\kappa ^4`$ to be larger for the noisy maps than for the pure ones. The kurtosis of Gaussian fields is null, and that is what is observed for noisy convergence maps at small and large smoothing angles. At small $`\theta _s`$ because noise dominates, and at large $`\theta _s`$ because of the extreme field smoothing.

Some Minkowski functionals curves for the convergence field are shown at Figure 7, and the differentiation results for this analysis of the models are shown at Figure 8. Minkowski functionals are very sensitive to noise and smoothing. The morphology of the convergence maps for the examined models seem to not differ greatly as described by the functionals. However for noisy fields the second and third functionals have considerable discriminatory power at small smoothing angles. It is in principle counter-intuitive that noisy maps would have a larger differentiation than pure convergence maps, but as seen in the case of the $`\kappa ^4`$ analysis, noise can introduce a “statistical contaminant”. The discussion on Minkowski functionals of noisy maps presented in Appendix B may be useful in understanding this effect.

Another interesting result to note is the low differentiation between models under the first Minkowski functional analysis (fractional area), which can be saw as a cumulative PDF. Figure 3 shows a strong differentiation between models under the PDF analysis, so the results for $`𝒟[v_0]`$ could seem contradictory with those for $`𝒟[PDF]`$, however when we remember that Minkowski functionals are displayed as functions of the threshold $`\nu =\kappa /\sigma _\kappa `$ this apparent discrepancy disappears. This observation suggests that the large PDF differentiation between the models is due primarily to their very distinct convergence variances.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We study the potential of weak gravitational lensing maps to differentiate between different cosmological models, using a variety of statistical measures, including morphological analysis, and taking in account the effects of noise and the uncertainties resulting from a limited field size.

We reviewed how gravitational lensing maps can be generated, and also revisited some statistics that can be used to characterize the lensing maps, or extract information from them. We introduced the quantity $`𝒟`$, which quantifies the differentiation between two sets of lensing maps under a given statistic. We used simulations of convergence maps in three cosmological models ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, SCDM, and OCDM) to study and compare these models. Several of the analyses considered here were also investigated in previous works, with results consistent with ours. The novelties presented in this paper are the quantitative description of the differentiation between models (which proved to be very useful), the possibility to compare side-by-side different statistics, and a systematic consideration of the role of noise and field size in all lensing measures. It was also the first time that the Minkowski functionals for noisy maps were calculated.

Our results show, as expected, that the lensing measures of small fields have large variance, because of limited sampling. These large variances imply a small value for the differentiation $`𝒟`$: the observation of a too small sky patch does not allow the discrimination of cosmological models. Other general behavior, independent of the analysis or model considered, is the approximation of the differentiation values obtained for pure and noisy convergence maps when the smoothing angle is large. As smoothing increases the noise variance decreases (noise becomes irrelevant for a sufficiently high smoothing angle), but the pure convergence is also homogenized, and the differentiation between models becomes small. Our results suggest that it is advantageous for model discrimination purposes to use a minimum smoothing, even considering that this implies a noisier map.

For purposes of discriminating the three models examined in our simulations, the variance and the angular power spectrum of the convergence (two of the most simple and popular analysis) proved to be very good lensing measures. Even for small field sizes, and noisy maps, the convergence variance can differentiate between the models at a great confidence level (if the smoothing is not too extreme).

Higher order statistics ($`\kappa ^3`$, skewness, $`\kappa ^4`$, kurtosis, and Minkowski functionals) have higher variances (error bars) in general, and lower discriminating power for the examined models. However, the information obtained from these statistics is precious for its independence from the information offered by statistics such as field variance, and angular power spectrum. It is possible to imagine two cosmological models that have the same mass power spectrum, but different non-Gaussian features. We found that the second Minkowski functional ($`v_1`$) is an equal or better model discriminant than the more commonly used third functional (the topological genus), and is very competitive in relation to other measures. This suggests that Minkowski functionals should be included in the row of available statistics to maximally extract information from weak lensing maps. They should be particularly useful to differentiate models that have the same PDF, but distinct morphology.

The presence of noise makes the extraction of information about non-Gaussian features of the pure convergence much more intricate. While for the analyses that are blind to non-Gaussianities (variance and angular power spectrum) the noise term is clearly isolated from the pure convergence term, for analyses sensitive to non-Gaussianities (with exception of $`\kappa ^3`$) the noise terms are entangled with the pure convergence terms (see equations , , , and \[47-49\]). So, even for a simple noise model as the one used in our simulations, the modification of the lensing measures due to noise is nontrivial. That implies that the retrieval of information about the pure convergence field (and ultimately, from the underlying large-scale structure and cosmological model) from noisy maps is also nontrivial - even more when the noise field is not well known. Minkowski functionals are a particularly severe example of this entanglement between the pure convergence with noise (as shown in Appendix B).

The complicated analytical description of lensing measures sensitive to non-Gaussian features of noisy maps, and the intrinsic difficulty of incorporating observational aspects trough the analytical approach, favors the use of simulations over an analytical approach for observational predictions, or parameter estimation from real lensing maps. These arguments add to the work of Jain, Seljak & White (2000), which points to the limitations of perturbation theory in providing accurate predictions for most weak lensing statistics at small scales (low smoothing).

Different statistics of weak gravitational lensing maps reveal distinct features of its originating cosmic mass distribution and geometry. Therefore, a comprehensive and realistic study of the underlying cosmological model through weak lensing requires the use of a set of statistics, and the understanding of how these statistics and their variances are affected by observational constraints such as field size and the presence of noise.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Robert Brandenberger for very helpful discussions, and Uroš Seljak for providing codes and valuable knowhow. I also thank the Departments of Physics at Princeton and Rutgers for the use of their facilities during the realization of this work. The research at Brown was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-FG0291ER40688, Task A.

## Appendix A Construction of the Differentiation

### A.1 Simple case

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be models or observations, $`Y`$ an analysis of lensing maps, and $`\sigma ^2`$ its variance. $`Y_A`$ and $`Y_B`$ are the result of applying the analysis $`Y`$ on maps of $`A`$ and $`B`$. $`Y_A`$ is assumed to follow a normal distribution of mean value $`\overline{Y}_A`$ and variance $`\sigma _A^2`$

$$F[Y_A]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _A}e^{(Y_A\overline{Y}_A)^2/2\sigma _A^2}.$$
(30)
Equivalently for $`B`$.

We define the analysis difference between the two models as

$$D=\frac{Y_AY_B}{\sqrt{\sigma _A^2+\sigma _B^2}}.$$
(31)
It is easy to see that $`D`$ is a unit normal distribution,

$$F[D]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{(D\overline{D})^2/2},$$
(32)
where the expectation value of $`D`$ is

$$\overline{D}=\frac{\overline{Y}_A\overline{Y}_B}{\sqrt{\sigma _A^2+\sigma _B^2}}.$$
(33)
In fact, we are interested in the absolute value of $`D`$, so the distribution function for $`|D|`$, is

$`F[|D|]`$ $`=`$ $`F[D]+F[D]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left[e^{(D\overline{D})^2/2}+e^{(D+\overline{D})^2/2}\right].`$
If $`D=0`$ we say the two models are similar. So the probability of $`D=0`$ gives a good measure of how similar the two models are under the analysis $`Y`$:

$$F_{|D|}(0)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}e^{\overline{D}^2/2},$$
(35)
which is normalized to 1 over integration in $`\overline{D}`$ (from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$).

Two very different models ($`\overline{D}0`$) have $`F_{|D|}(0)0`$; in contrast, two similar models have a large probability that $`|D|=0`$. The maximum possible value for $`F_{|D|}(0)`$ is obtained when $`\overline{D}=0`$, which implies

$$\mathrm{max}\left[F_{|D|}(0)\right]=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}$$
(36)
We can finally define the differentiation between the two models under the analysis $`Y`$ as

$$𝒟[Y]1\frac{F_{|D|}(0)}{\mathrm{max}[F_{|D|}(0)]}=1e^{\overline{D}^2/2}.$$
(37)
### A.2 Generalization

We can generalize the differentiation for statistics that are functions of a parameter $`p`$ (e.g. the angular power spectrum as a function of the wavenumber $`l`$, or a Minkowski functional as a function of the threshold $`\nu `$). Note that $`p`$, and the analysis itself, can be a vector.

The same elements used before for the simple case can be generalized to $`Y_{A,B}(p)`$, $`\sigma _{A,B}(p)`$,

$$D(p)=\frac{|Y_A(p)Y_B(p)|}{[\sigma _A^2(p)+\sigma _B^2(p)]^{1/2}}.$$
(38)
Using a reasoning similar to the one used in the simple case, we can obtain

$$𝒟[Y]=1e^{\chi ^2/2},$$
(39)
where

$$\chi ^2\left[W(p)𝑑p\right]^1\overline{D}^2(p)W(p)𝑑p,$$
(40)
and $`W(p)`$ is a window function (which limits the parameter domain).

Note that the discrete form of $`\chi ^2`$ assumes a very recognizable representation (equation ). It becomes then clear that the maximization of $`𝒟[Y]`$ is equivalent to the minimization of $`\chi ^2`$, best know as the least square method.

The differentiation can be further generalized to include the effects of covariance by

$$\chi ^2=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i,j}{\overset{N}{}}[\overline{Y}_A(p_i)\overline{Y}_B(p_i)](\text{M}^1)_{ij}[\overline{Y}_A(p_j)\overline{Y}_B(p_j)],$$
(41)
where

$$\text{M}_{ij}[Y_A(p_i)Y_B(p_i)][Y_A(p_j)Y_B(p_j)]$$
(42)
is the covariance matrix, and the brackets denote ensemble average. Note however that we did not include the effects of covariance in our calculations in Section 3.

## Appendix B Minkowski functionals of noisy maps

The problem of expressing the Minkowski functionals for the noisy convergence map $`\kappa `$ in terms of the functionals for the pure convergence $`\kappa _0`$ and the smoothed noise $`n`$ seems to be an open issue. For the first functional, the fractional area, we found a solution, which can be obtained when one makes use of the fact that this functional is the cumulative probability function

$$v_0(\nu )=_{\nu \sigma }^+\mathrm{}F(x)𝑑x,$$
(43)
and writes the convergence probability distribution function $`F_\kappa `$ as the convolution of $`F_{\kappa _0}`$ and $`F_n`$ (equation ), obtaining

$$v_0^{(\kappa )}(\nu )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left[\frac{d}{d\nu ^{}}v_0^{(n)}(\nu ^{})\right]v_0^{(\kappa _0)}\left(\frac{\sigma _\kappa \nu \sigma _n\nu ^{}}{\sigma _{\kappa _0}}\right)𝑑\nu ^{}.$$
(44)
Another approach is to use the approximations (14-16) and calculate how their terms change for a noisy map. In fact, these approximations should be better representations of the noisy map than of the pure map, because noise addition makes the convergence closer to a Gaussian field.

The term $`\sigma _1^2(\kappa )^2`$ can be decomposed as

$$(\kappa )^2=(\kappa _0)^2+(n)^2,$$
(45)
and it can be useful to note that

$$\kappa (𝜽)\kappa (𝜽^{})=C_\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(|𝜽^{}𝜽|),$$
(46)
where $`C_\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(r)`$ is the second derivative of the two-point correlation function. From (46) follows that $`(\kappa )^2=C_\kappa ^{\prime \prime }(0)`$.

The skewness parameters $`S_3^{(0)}`$ is altered by the addition of noise by

$$S_3^{(0)}=\frac{\kappa ^3}{(\sigma _{\kappa _0}^2+\sigma _n^2)^2},$$
(47)
and to obtain $`S_3^{(1)}`$ and $`S_3^{(2)}`$ one needs to calculate

$$\kappa ^2(^2\kappa )=\kappa _0^2(^2\kappa _0)+\kappa _0^2(^2n)+n^2(^2\kappa _0+^2n),$$
(48)
$$(\kappa \kappa )(^2\kappa )=(\kappa _0\kappa _0)(^2\kappa _0)+(2\kappa _0n+nn)(^2\kappa _0)+(\kappa +n)(\kappa +n)(^2n).$$
(49)


text:
# A Quantum Rosetta Stone for Interferometry

## I  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and parameter estimation

In this section we briefly describe the measurement-sensitivity limits due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and how, in general, quantum entanglement can be used to achieve this sensitivity. There are several stages in the procedure where quantum entanglement can be exploited, both in the state preparation and in the detection. First, we derive the Heisenberg limit, then we give the usual shot-noise limit, and we conclude this section with entanglement enhanced parameter estimation.

Suppose we have a $`(N+1)`$-level system. Furthermore, we use the angular momentum representation to find the minimum uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ in an observable $`\widehat{Q}`$ that is a dual to the angular momentum operator $`\widehat{J}_z`$. That is, $`\widehat{Q}`$ and $`\widehat{J}_z`$ obey a Heisenberg uncertainty relation ($`\mathrm{}=1)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q\mathrm{\Delta }J_z\frac{1}{2}.$$
(1)
When we want minimum uncertainty in $`\widehat{Q}`$ (minimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$), we need to maximize the uncertainty in $`\widehat{J}_z`$ (maximal $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_z`$). Given the eigenstates $`\{|m\}_{m=N/2}^{+N/2}`$ of $`\widehat{J}_z`$: $`\widehat{J}_z|m=m|m`$, let us, for example, take the state of the form $`|\psi =(N+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}_{m=N/2}^{+N/2}e^{i\varphi _m}|m`$, which consists of equally distributed eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}_z`$. The variance in $`\widehat{J}_z`$ is then given by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }J_z)^2=\psi |\widehat{J}_z^2|\psi \psi |\widehat{J}_z|\psi ^2=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{N^2}{4}+\frac{N}{2}\right).$$
(2)
It immediately follows that the leading term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_z`$ scales with $`N`$.

If we choose the quantum state $`|\psi =2^{\frac{1}{2}}(|m=\frac{N}{2}+e^{i\varphi }|m=\frac{N}{2})`$, we obtain

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }J_z)^2=\frac{N^2}{4}.$$
(3)
Using the equality sign in Eq. (1), i.e., minimum uncertainty, and the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_z`$, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=1/N`$.

By contrast consider a quantum state of the form $`|\psi =2^{\frac{N}{2}}_{m=N/2}^{+N/2}e^{i\varphi _m}(_NC_{m+N/2})^{\frac{1}{2}}|m`$, which is a binomial distribution of the eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}_z`$. The variance in $`\widehat{J}_z`$ in this case is given by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }J_z)^2=\frac{N}{4},$$
(4)
which, then, corresponds to the usual shot-noise limit.

This result gives the spread of measurement outcomes of an observable $`\widehat{Q}`$ in a $`(N+1)`$-level system. However, it is not yet cast in the language of standard parameter estimation. The next question is therefore how to achieve this Heisenberg-limited sensitivity when we wish to estimate the value of a parameter $`\phi `$ in $`N`$ trials.

The shot-noise limit (SL), according to estimation theory, is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. We give a short derivation of this value and generalize it to the quantum mechanical case. Consider an ensemble of $`N`$ two-level systems in the state $`|\phi =(|0+e^{i\phi }|1)/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ denote the two levels. If $`\widehat{A}=|01|+|10|`$, then the expectation value of $`\widehat{A}`$ is given by

$$\phi |\widehat{A}|\phi =\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(5)
When we repeat this experiment $`N`$ times, we obtain

$${}_{N}{}^{}\phi |\mathrm{}_1\phi |\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑁}{}}\widehat{A}^{(k)}\right)|\phi _1\mathrm{}|\phi _{N}^{}=N\mathrm{cos}\phi .$$
(6)
Furthermore, it follows from the definition of $`\widehat{A}`$ that $`\widehat{A}^2=\text{1}\text{1}`$ on the relevant subspace, and the variance of $`\widehat{A}`$ given $`N`$ samples is readily computed to be $`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2=N(1\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )=N\mathrm{sin}^2\phi `$. According to estimation theory , we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{SL}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A}{|d\widehat{A}/d\phi |}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}.$$
(7)
This is the standard variance in the parameter $`\phi `$ after $`N`$ trials. In other words, the uncertainty in the phase is inversely proportional to the square root of the number of trials. This is, then, the shot-noise limit.

Quantum entanglement can improve the sensitivity of this procedure by a factor of $`\sqrt{N}`$. We will first employ an entangled state

$$|\phi _N|N,0+e^{iN\phi }|0,N,$$
(8)
where $`|N,0`$ and $`|0,N`$ are collective states of $`N`$ qubits, defined, for example, in the computational basis $`\{|0`$, $`|1\}`$, as

$`|N,0`$ $`=`$ $`|0_1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N`$ (9)
$`|0,N`$ $`=`$ $`|1_1|1_2\mathrm{}|1_N.`$ (10)
The relative phase $`e^{iN\phi }`$ can be obtained by a unitary evolution of one of the modes of $`|\phi _N`$. Here, in the case of Eq. (8), each qubit in state $`|1`$ acquires a phase shift of $`e^{i\phi }`$. When we measure the observable $`\widehat{A}_N=|0,NN,0|+|N,00,N|`$ we have

$$\phi _N|\widehat{A}_N|\phi _N=\mathrm{cos}N\phi .$$
(11)
Again, $`\widehat{A}_N^2=\text{1}\text{1}`$ on the relevant subspace, and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }A_N)^2=1\mathrm{cos}^2N\phi =\mathrm{sin}^2N\phi `$. Using Eq. (7) again, we obtain the so-called Heisenberg limit (HL) to the minimal detectable phase:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{HL}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }A_N}{|d\widehat{A}_N/d\phi |}=\frac{1}{N}.$$
(12)
The precision in $`\phi `$ is increased by a factor $`\sqrt{N}`$ over the standard noise limit. Detailed descriptions of phase estimation have been given by Hradil , and Lane, Braunstein, and Caves .

As shown in Bollinger et al, Eq. (12) is the optimal accuracy permitted by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In quantum lithography, one exploits the $`\mathrm{cos}(N\phi )`$ behaviour, exhibited by Eq. (11), to print closely spaced lines on a suitable substrate . Gyroscopy and entanglement-enhanced frequency measurements  exploit the $`\sqrt{N}`$ increased precision. The physical interpretations of $`A_N`$ and the phase $`\phi `$ will differ in the different protocols. In the following section we present three distinct physical representations of this construction. We call this the quantum Rosetta stone. Of particular importance is the interplay between the created states $`|\phi _N`$ and the measured observable $`\widehat{A}_N`$ in Eq. (11). In section III we present three types of quantum states and observables that yield Heisenberg-limited sensitivity.

## II  Quantum Rosetta stone

In this section we discuss the formal equivalence between the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the Ramsey spectroscope, and a logical quantum gate.

In a Mach-Zehnder interferometer , the input light field is divided into two different paths by a beam splitter, and recombined by another beam splitter. The phase difference between the two paths is then measured by balanced detection of the two output modes (see Fig. 1a). A similar situation, which we will omit in our discussion, can be found in Stern-Gerlach filters in series , and the technical limitations of such a device has been discussed by Englert, Schwinger, and Scully .

With a coherent laser field as the input the phase sensitivity is given by the shot noise limit $`N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where $`N`$ is the average number of photons passing though the interferometer during measurement time. When the number of photons is exactly known (i.e., the input is a Fock state $`|N`$), the phase sensitivity is still given by $`N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, indicating that the photon counting noise does not originate from the intensity fluctuations of the input beam . In the next section we will see how we can improve this sensitivity.

In a Ramsey spectroscope, atoms are put in a superposition of the ground state and an excited state with a $`\pi /2`$-pulse (Fig. 1b). After a time interval of free evolution, a second $`\pi /2`$-pulse is applied to the atom, and, depending on the relative phase shift obtained by the excited state in the free evolution, the outgoing atom is measured either in the ground or the excited state. Repeating this procedure $`N`$ times, the phase $`\phi `$ is determined with precision $`N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. This is essentially an atomic clock. Both procedures are methods to measure the phase shift, either due to the path difference in the interferometer, or to the free-evolution time in the spectroscope. When we use entangled atoms in the spectroscope, we can again increase the sensitivity of the apparatus.

A third system is given by a qubit that undergoes a Hadamard transform $`H`$, then picks up a relative phase and is then transformed back with a second Hadamard transformation (Fig. 1c). This representation is more mathematical than the previous two, and it allows us to extract the unifying mathematical principle that connects the three systems. In all protocols, the initial state is transformed by a discrete Fourier transform (beam splitter, $`\pi /2`$-pulse or Hadamard), then picks up a relative phase, and is transformed back again. This is the standard “quantum” finite Fourier transform, such as used in the implementation of Shor’s algorithm . It is not the same as the classical algorithm in engineering.

As a consequence, the phase shift (which is hard to measure directly) is applied to the transformed basis. The result is a bit flip in the initial, computational, basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$, and this is readily measured. We call the formal analogy between these three systems the quantum Rosetta stone.

The importance of the Rosetta stone was that, by giving an example of writing in three different languages: Greek, Demotic, and Hieroglyphics, it enabled the French scholar Jean François Champollion to crack the code of the hieroglyphs, which was not understood until his work in 1822 . In discussing quantum computer circuits with researchers from the fields of quantum optics or atomic clocks, we find the “quantum Rosetta stone” a useful tool to connect those areas of research to the language of quantum computing – which can be as indecipherable as hieroglyphs to such researchers.

These schemes can be generalized from measuring a simple phase shift to evaluating the action of a unitary transformation $`U_f`$ associated with a complicated function $`f`$ on multiple qubits. Such an evaluation is also known as a quantum computation. Quantum computing with generalized Mach-Zehnder interferometers has been proposed by Milburn , and later linear optics quantum computation has been suggested by Cerf, Adami, and Kwiat . Recently, Knill, Laflamme and Milburn demonstrated an efficient linear optics quantum computation . Implementations of quantum logic gates have also been proposed by using atoms and ion traps . According to our Rosetta stone, the concept of quantum computers is therefore to exploit quantum interference in obtaining the outcome of a computation of $`f`$. In this light, a quantum computer is nothing but a (complicated) multiparticle quantum interferometer .

This logic may also be reversed: a quantum interferometer is therefore a (simple) quantum computer. Often, when discussing, Heisenberg-limited interferometry with complicated entangled states, one encounters the critique that such states are highly susceptible to noise and even one or a few uncontrolled interactions with the environment will cause sufficient degradation of the device and recover only the shot-noise limit . Apply the quantum Rosetta stone by replacing the term “quantum interferometer” with “quantum computer” and we recognize the exact same critique that has been leveled against quantum computers for years. However, for quantum computers, we know the response–to apply quantum error-correcting techniques and encode in decoherence free subspaces. Quantum interferometry is just as hard as quantum computing! The same error-correcting tools that we believe will make quantum computing a reality, will also be enabling for quantum interferometry.

## III  Quantum enhancement in phase measurements

There have been various proposals for achieving Heisenberg-limited sensitivity, corresponding to different physical realizations of the state $`|\phi _N`$ and observable $`\widehat{A}_N`$ in Eq. (11). Here, we discuss three different approaches, categorized according to the different quantum states. We distinguish Yurke states, dual Fock states, and maximally entangled states.

### A Yurke states

By utilizing the $`su(2)`$ algebra of spin angular momentum, Yurke et al. have shown that, with a suitably correlated input state, the phase sensitivity can be improved to $`1/N`$ . Similarly, Hillery and Mlodinow, and Brif and Mann have proposed using the so-called minimum uncertainty state or the “intelligent state”. The minimum uncertainty state is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_x\mathrm{\Delta }J_y=|\widehat{J}_z|/2`$, and such a state with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J_y0`$ can yield the Heisenberg limited sensitivity under certain conditions .

Let $`\widehat{a}^{}`$, $`\widehat{b}^{}`$ denote the creation operators for the two input modes in Fig. 1a. In the Schwinger representation, the common eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}^2`$ and $`\widehat{J}_z`$ are the two-mode Fock states $`|j,m=|j+m_A|jm_B`$, where

$`\widehat{J}_x`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}+\widehat{b}\widehat{a}^{})/2;\widehat{J}_y=i(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}\widehat{b}\widehat{a}^{})/2;`$ (13)
$`\widehat{J}_z`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b})/2;\widehat{J}^2=\widehat{J}_x^2+\widehat{J}_y^2+\widehat{J}_z^2.`$ (14)
The interferometer can be described by the rotation of the angular momemtum vector, where $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}=N=2j`$, and the 50/50 beam splitters and the phaser shift are corresponding to the operators $`e^{i\pi \widehat{J}_x/2}`$ and $`e^{i\phi \widehat{J}_z}`$, respectively.

For spin-1/2 fermions, the entangled input state (which we call the ‘Yurke state’) $`|\phi _N_\mathrm{Y}`$ is given by

$`|\phi _N_\mathrm{Y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|j=\frac{N}{2},m=\frac{1}{2}+|j=\frac{N}{2},m=\frac{1}{2}\right]`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|\frac{N+1}{2},\frac{N1}{2}_{AB}+|\frac{N1}{2},\frac{N+1}{2}_{AB}\right],`$ (16)
where the notion of $`|j,m`$ follows the definition given in Eq. (14) and the subscripts $`AB`$ denote the two input modes. For bosons, a similar input state, namely $`|j=N/2,m=0+|j=N/2,m=1`$, has been proposed . The measured observable $`\widehat{A}_N`$ is given by $`\widehat{J}_z`$. After evolving the state $`|\phi _N_\mathrm{Y}`$ (in the Ramsey spectroscope or the Mach-Zehnder interferometer with phase shift $`\phi `$), the phase sensitivity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ can be determined to be proportional to $`1/N`$ for special values of $`\phi `$ (Fig. 2a). Although the input state of Eq. (16) was proposed for spin-1/2 fermions, the same state with bosons also yields the phase sensitivity of the order of $`1/N`$ .

### B Dual Fock states

In order to achieve Heisenberg-limited sensitivity, Holland and Burnett proposed the use of so-called dual Fock states $`|N_A|N_B`$ for two input modes $`A`$ and $`B`$ of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer . Such a state can be generated, for example, by degenerate parametric down conversion, or by optical parametric oscillation .

To obtain increased sensitivity with dual Fock states, some special detection scheme is needed. In a conventional Mach-Zehnder interferometer only the difference of the number of photons at the output is measured. Similarly, in atom interferometers, measurements are performed by counting the number of atoms in a specific internal state using fluorescence. For the schemes using dual Fock-state input, an additional measurement is required since the average in the intensity difference of the two output ports does not contain information about the phase shift (Fig. 2b).

One measures both the sum and the difference of the photon number in the two output modes . The sum contains information about the total photon number, and the difference contains information about the phase shift. Information about the total photon number then allows for post-processing the information about the photon-number difference. A combination of a direct measurement of the variance of the difference current and a data-processing method based on Bayesian analysis was proposed by Kim et al. Recently, Wisemen and co-workers have proposed an adaptive measurement scheme, where the optimal input state, however, is different from the dual Fock states .

For atom interferometers, a quantum nondemolition measurement is required to give the total number of atoms . In a similar context, Yamamoto and co-workers devised an atom interferometry scheme that uses a squeezed $`\pi /2`$ pulse for the readout of the input state correlation .

Due to its simple form, the dual Fock-state approach may shed a new light on Heisenberg-limited interferometry. In particular, exploiting the fact that atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate can be represented by Fock states, Bouyer and Kasevich, as well as Dowling, have shown that the quantum noise in atom interferometry using dual Bose-Einstein consensates can also be reduced to the Heisenberg limit .

### C Maximally entangled states

The third, and last, category of states is given by the maximally entangled states. There have been proposals to overcome the standard shot noise limit by using spin-squeezed states . However, it was demonstrated by Wineland and co-workers  that the optimal frequency measurement can be achieved by using maximally entangled states , which have the following form:

$$|\phi _N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|N,0_{AB}+|0,N_{AB}\right).$$
(17)
This state has an immediate resemblence with the state in Eq. (11) after acquiring a phase shift of $`e^{iN\phi }`$. Although partially entangled states with a high degree of symmetry were later shown to have a better resolution in the presence of decoherence , these maximally correlated states are of great interest for optical interferometry.

In terms of quantum logic gates, the maximally correlated state of the form of Eq. (17) can be made using a Hadamard gate and a sequence of C-NOT gates (see Fig. 3). Note that one distinctive feature, compared to the other schemes described above, is that the state of the form Eq. (17) is the desired quantum state after the first beam splitter in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, not the input state (Fig. 2c). In that the desired input state is described as the inverse beam-splitter operation to the state of Eq. (17).

All the interferometric schemes using entangled or dual-Fock input states show a sensitivity approaching $`1/N`$ only asymptotically. However, using the maximally correlated states of Eq. (17), the phase sensitivity is equal to $`1/N`$, even for a small $`N`$.

## IV Quantum lithography and maximally path-entangled states

Quantum correlations can also be applied to optical lithography. In recent work it has been shown that the Rayleigh diffraction limit in optical lithography can be circumvented by the use of path-entangled photon number states . The desired $`N`$-photon path-entangled state, for $`N`$-fold resolution enhancement, is again of the form*** We call the state of the form $`|N,0+|0,N`$ as the NOON state, and the High NOON state for a large $`N`$. given in Eqs. (8) and (17).

Consider the simple case of a two-photon Fock state $`|1_A|1_B`$, which is a natural component of a spontaneous parametric down-conversion event. After passing through a 50/50 beam splitter, it becomes an entangled number state of the form $`|2_A|0_B+|0_A|2_B`$. Interference suppresses the probability amplitude of $`|1_A|1_B`$. According to quantum mechanics, it is not possible to tell whether both photons took path $`A`$ or $`B`$ after the beam splitter.

When parametrizing the position $`x`$ on the surface by $`\phi =\pi x/\lambda `$, the deposition rate of the two photons onto the substrate becomes $`1+\mathrm{cos}2\phi `$, which has twice better resolution $`\lambda /8`$ than that of single-photon absorption, $`1+\mathrm{cos}\phi `$, or that of uncorrelated two-photon absorption, $`(1+\mathrm{cos}\phi )^2`$. For $`N`$-photon path-entangled state of Eq. (17), we obtain the deposition rate $`1+\mathrm{cos}N\phi `$, corresponding to a resolution enhancement of $`\lambda /(4N)`$.

It is well known that the two-photon path-entangled state of Eq. (17) can be generated using a Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interferometer  and two single-photon input states. A 50/50 beam splitter, however, is not sufficient for producing path-entangled states with a photon number larger than two .

As depicted in Fig. 3, the maximally correlated state of the form of Eq. (17) can be made using a Hadamard gate and a sequence of $`N`$ C-NOT gates. However, building optical C-NOT gates normally requires large optical nonlinearities. Consequently, in generating such states it is commonly assumed that large $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ nonlinear optical components are needed for $`N>2`$.

Knill, Laflamme, and Milburn proposed a method for creating probabilistic single-photon quantum logic gates based on teleportation. The only resources for this method are linear optics and projective measurements . Probabilistic quantum logic gates using polarization degrees of freedom have been proposed by Imoto and co-workers, and Franson’s team . In particular, Pittman, Jacobs, and Franson have experimentally demonstrated polarization-based C-NOT implementations .

Using the concept of projective measurements, we have previously demonstrated that the desired path-entangled states can be created when conditioned on the measurement outcome . This way, one can avoid the use of large $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ nonlinearities . In the next section we discuss the path-entanglement generation based on projective measurements, and its application to Heisenberg-limited interferometry.

## V Projective measurements and Heisenberg-limited interferometry

As is discussed in the previous sections, the Yurke state approach has the same measurement scheme as the conventional Mach-Zehnder interferometer (direct detection of the difference current), but it is not easy to generate the desired correlation in the input state . On the other hand, the dual Fock-state approach finds a rather simple input state, but requires a complicated measuremet schemes. In this section we describe a method for creating a desired correlation in the Yurke state approach directly from the dual Fock state by using the projective measurements.

Consider the scheme depicted in Fig. 4. The input modes are transformed by the beam splitters as follows:

$`\widehat{a}^{}`$ $`it\widehat{a}^{}+r\widehat{u}^{},`$ (18)
$`\widehat{b}^{}`$ $`it\widehat{b}^{}+r\widehat{v}^{},`$ (19)
where $`i=\sqrt{1}`$, and $`it`$ and $`r`$ are the transmission and reflection coefficients given by $`t^2+r^2=1`$. In our convention, a 50/50 beam splitter, for example, is identified as $`t=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`r=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

The modes $`\widehat{u}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{v}^{}`$ further pass through an additional 50/50 beam splitter, which is characterized by the transformations:

$`\widehat{u}^{}`$ $`(i\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{c}^{})/\sqrt{2},`$ (20)
$`\widehat{v}^{}`$ $`(i\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{d}^{})/\sqrt{2}.`$ (21)
Suppose the input state is given by the dual Fock state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}=|N,N={\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{a}^{})^N(\widehat{b}^{})^N}{N!}}|0.`$ (22)
Accordingly, the beam splitter transformation, e.g., for the mode $`a`$, can be written as

$`(\widehat{a}^{})^N`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{}_{N}{}^{}C_{k}^{}(\widehat{a}^{})^{Nk}(\widehat{u}^{})^kr^k(it)^{Nk}.`$ (23)
Let both modes pass through a beam splitter, and recombine the reflected modes $`u^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$ in a 50/50 beam splitter as depicted in Fig. 4. We post-select events on a two-fold detector coincidence at the output modes of this beam splitter. Assuming ideal detectors, this will restrict the final state of the outgoing modes $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$. Then, from Eq. (21), we have

$`\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{v}^{}`$ $`i\left[(\widehat{c}^{})^2+(\widehat{d}^{})^2\right]/2,`$ (24)
$`(\widehat{u}^{})^2`$ $`\left[(\widehat{c}^{})^22i\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{d}^{}(\widehat{d}^{})^2\right]/2,`$ (25)
$`(\widehat{v}^{})^2`$ $`\left[(\widehat{c}^{})^22i\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{d}^{}+(\widehat{d}^{})^2\right]/2.`$ (26)
We note that only $`(\widehat{u}^{})^2`$ and $`(\widehat{v}^{})^2`$ terms are selected by the detection of a single photon at each detector. The output state conditioned on a two-fold coincident count is given by

$`|N,N{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[|N,N2+|N2,N\right],`$ (27)
where $`A=\sqrt{N(N1)/2}r^2t^{2N2}`$, and the maximum probability success is obtained when $`r^2=\frac{1}{N}`$ and, $`t^2=\frac{N1}{N}`$. The output state of the form Eq. (27) shows the exact correlation for the Yurke state . The generation of the desired correlations described in section III A can thus be obtained from the dual Fock state $`|N,N`$ with probability $`|A|^2`$. Note that this probability has its asymptotic value of $`1/(2e^2)`$, independent of $`N`$.

A similar correlation can also be ontained by post selecting the outcome, conditioned upon only one photon detection by either one of the two detectors. The analysis becomes simpler than the one decribed above: one photon either from mode $`a`$ or from $`b`$ is to be detected. In this case, however, one needs to allow a non-detection protocol  since one of the two detectors should not be fired.

In this section we described generation of quantum correlation by using projective measurments, where the fundamental lack of which-path information provides the entanglement between the two output modes. Using a stack of such devices with appropriate phase shifters has been proposed for generating maximmally path-entangled state of the form Eq. (17) . In atom interferometry a similar technique for the the generation of such a correlation has been proposed  with selective measurements on two interfering Bose condensates .

## VI summary

In this paper we discuss the equivalence between the optical Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the Ramsey spectroscope, and the quantum Fourier transform in the form of a specific quantum logic gate. Based on this equivalence, we introduce the so-called quantum Rosetta stone.

The interferometers and spectroscopes can yield Heisenberg-limited phase sensitivity when suitable input states are chosen. We presented three types of such states and showed that they need non-local correlations of some sort. Path-entangled multi-photon states can be generated using projective measurements. These states yield $`1/N`$ sensitivity also for small $`N`$, and are essential for applications such as quantum lithography. The dual Fock-state approach to Heisenberg-limited interferometry must be accompanied by “non-local” detection schemes. The generation of a suitable correlation from the dual Fock state via projective measurements may be useful in that it avoids complicated signal processing or quantum nondemolition measurements. One can also construct a single-photon quantum nondemolition device and a quantum repeater in this paradigm . Many more important insights are expected by the application of the quantum Rosetta stone to quantum metrology and quantum information processing.

## acknowledgement

This work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We wish to thank D.S. Abrams, C. Adami, N. J. Cerf, J. D. Franson, P. G. Kwiat, T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, C. P. Williams, and D. J. Wineland for helpful discussions. We would also like to acknowledge support from the ONR, ARDA, NSA, and DARPA. P.K. and H.L. would like to acknowledge the National Research Council.


text:
# Experimental study of quantum decoherence using nuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

Quantum decoherence has been studied using nuclear magnetic resonance(NMR). By choosing one qubit to simulate environment, we examine the decoherence behavior of two quantum systems: a one qubit system and a two qubit system. The experimental results show agreements with the theoretical predictions. Our experiment schemes can be generalized to the case that the environment is composed of multiple qubits.
PACS number(s):03.67

1. INTRODUCTION

Quantum decoherence is a purely quantum-mechanical effect through which a system loses its coherence behavior by getting entangled with its environment degrees of freedom . A real quantum system always interacts with its surrounding environment. The time evolution induced by the interaction introduces entanglement between the system and environment when the system initially lies in a superposition of states. Quantum decoherence can be viewed as the consequence of such entanglement. When the state of the system is described by the reduced density matrix through tracing over the environment degrees of freedom, decoherence makes the off-diagonal matrix elements approach 0, and leaves diagonal ones unaltered. Quantum decoherence is thought as a main obstacle for experimental implementations of quantum computation and has been widely studied in theory -. Some theoretical and experimental schemes have also been proposed to solve the problem of decoherence in order to fully use coherence in quantum information-. Myat.C.J. et al observed and studied decoherence by coupling an ion in a Paul trap to a reservoir that can be controlled. Their experimental results tested their theoretical predictions.

As a useful tool to research the microscopic world through the macroscopic signal, nuclear magnetic resonance can be used to study the fundamental problems in quantum mechanics. Besides some quantum algorithms have been implemented on NMR quantum computers, a quantum harmonic oscillator was simulated by S. Somaroo et al , and the complementarity was tested by X.Zhu et al . In this paper, we will study quantum decoherence using NMR. Although we choose one nucleus to simulate the environment, our schemes can be generalized to the case that the environment is composed of multiple nuclei.

2. The decoherence behavior of a one qubit system

For the simplest case, we choose a sample containing two coupled spin 1/2 nuclei to implement experiments. The two nuclei are defined as qubit 1 and qubit 2 which represent the quantum system and environment, respectively. The experimental scheme is shown in Fig.1. $`R(\theta )`$ denotes a rotation operation for qubit 2, and $`H`$ denotes the Walsh-hadamard transform for qubit 1 . Experiments start with the pseudo-pure initial state $`|>_1|>_2`$ by using spatial averaging, where $`|>_i`$ (i=1 or 2) denotes the spin ’down’ state of qubit $`i`$. $`H`$ and $`R(\theta )`$ transform $`|>_1|>_2`$ into $`(|>_1|>_1)(a(\theta )|>_2+b(\theta )|>_2)/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$. After the control-not operation is applied, the system and environment lie in the entangled state described as

$$\rho _{s+e}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}|a|^2& ab^{}& ab^{}& |a|^2\\ a^{}b& |b|^2& |b|^2& a^{}b\\ a^{}b& |b|^2& |b|^2& a^{}b\\ |a|^2& ab^{}& ab^{}& |a|^2\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where a constant factor is ignored. The state of the system is represented by the reduced density matrix

$$\rho _s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& ab^{}a^{}b\\ a^{}bab^{}& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where the off-diagonal elements describe the coherence behavior. When $`\theta `$ is chosen as different values, entangled states with different amount of entanglement are gotten . It is clear that the coherence of the system depends on $`\theta `$.

Our experiments use carbon-13 labelled chloroform dissolved in d6-acetone and carbon-13 trichloroethylene(TCE) dissolved in d-chloroform as two samples. TCE’s structure is shown in Fig.2. 1H is decoupled during the experiments. The two 13C nuclei are assigned as qubit 1 and qubit 2, respectively. Data are taken at controlled temperature (22$`{}_{}{}^{0}C`$) with the Bruker DRX 500 MHz spectrometer of Beijing Normal University. For chloroform, the resonance frequencies $`\nu _1=125.76`$ MHz for 13C, and $`\nu _2=500.13`$ MHz for $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$. The coupling constant $`J_{12}`$ is measured to be 215 Hz. For TCE, the resonance frequencies $`\nu _1=125.7869009`$MHz (117ppm in the spectrum), $`\nu _2=\nu _1+903.6Hz`$. The coupling constant $`J_{12}=103.1`$ Hz.

The pulse sequence $`[\theta ]_x^2[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^{1,2}\frac{1}{4J_{12}}[\pi ]_x^{1,2}\frac{1}{4J_{12}}[\frac{\pi }{2}]_y^2`$ transforms the initial state $`|>_1|>_2`$ into an entangled state. $`[\theta ]_x^2`$ denotes a rectangular pulse along x-axis for qubit 2, and $`\frac{1}{4J_{12}}`$ denotes the evolution caused by the magnetic field for $`\frac{1}{4J_{12}}`$ when pulses are closed. In NMR experiments, the entangled state can be described by the following deviation density matrix

$$\rho _{pp}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}cos^2(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})& cos^2(\frac{\theta }{2})\\ sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin^2(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin^2(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})\\ sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin^2(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin^2(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})\\ cos^2(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})& sin(\frac{\theta }{2})cos(\frac{\theta }{2})& cos^2(\frac{\theta }{2})\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
This is the case that $`a=cos(\frac{\theta }{2})`$, and $`b=sin(\frac{\theta }{2})`$ in Equation(1). By tracing $`\rho _{pp}`$ over the environment degrees of freedom, the state of the system is described as

$$\rho _{spp}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& sin\theta \\ sin\theta & 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where the dependence of the coherence on $`\theta `$ can be represented by a sine function. In the NMR spectrum, the sum of the amplitudes of the two peaks of 13C is proportional to the off-diagonal element in equation (4).

Fig.3a and Fig.3b show the experimental results when the sample is chosen as chloroform. When 13C and 1H lie in an entangled state, the amplitudes of the two NMR peaks of 13C are almost equal as shown in Fig.3a, where $`\theta =50.3^{}`$. When $`\theta `$ is chosen as different values, the dependence of the coherence on $`\theta `$ is shown in Fig.3b. The experimental data points can be fitted as a sine-shaped curve with the period $`1.96\pi `$. The error is about $`2.0\%`$. It mainly results from the imperfection of pulses. When $`\theta =0`$ or $`\pi `$, 13C and 1H lie in a maximally entangled state . If we ask only about the state of 13C, it lies in a completely mixed-state, in which the coherence completely disappears. When $`\theta =\pi /2`$ or $`3\pi /2`$ , 13C and 1H lie in a product state. The coherence of 13C is maximal. We will discuss this case in detail. If the pulse sequence $`[\theta ]_x^2[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^{1,2}`$ is applied to the initial state $`|>_1|>_2`$, 13C and 1H are still in a product state. The spectrum of 13C is shown in Fig.4a, where $`\theta =50.3^{}`$. The amplitudes of two peaks varies versus $`\theta `$ shown in Fig.4b, in which they are marked by ’$`\mathrm{}`$’ and ’$``$’,respectively. Nevertheless, their sum, which is corresponding to the coherence of the system, is independent of $`\theta `$ as shown by the line marled by ’\*’ in Fig.4b.

Experimental results of TCE are shown by Fig.5a and Fig.5b. A carbon spectrum is shown in Fig.5a when $`\theta =27^{}`$. The dependence of the coherence on $`\theta `$ is shown in Fig.5b. The period of the sine-shape curve is $`1.83\pi `$. The error is about $`8.5\%`$. Because the difference of the two 13C nuclei in TCE is much less than the difference of 13C and 1H in chloroform, the selective pulses used in the latter experiment are less perfect than the former experiment. The error is larger when the sample is changed to TCE.

Our scheme can be generalized to the case that the environment is composed of $`N(N>1)`$ qubits. The quantum network is shown in Fig.6. For convenience, we set the rotation operation as the same form $`R(\theta )`$. After the system gets entangled with qubits in environment one by one, its state is represented as

$$\rho _{spp}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& sin^N\theta \\ sin^N\theta & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
When $`N\mathrm{}`$, the coherence approach 0, if $`sin\theta \pm 1`$. In our generalized scheme, the qubits in environments are independent. We call this mode ”ideal gas” mode. The result above is in agreement with the one which is gotten by harmonic oscillator mode in theory .

3.The decoherence behavior of a two qubit system in an entangled state

If a two qubit system lies in an entangled state, the off-diagonal elements in its density matrix also represent the coherence. We choose carbon 13-labelled trichloroethylene dissolved in d-chloroform as a sample. The two 13C nuclei, which are defined as qubit 1 and qubit 2, are assigned as the system, and the 1H, which is defined as qubit 3, is assigned as environment. The influence of the other nuclei can be ignored. The pseudo-pure initial state $`|>_1|>_2`$ is also prepared by spatial averaging . 1H is decoupled until the entangled state of the system is prepared. We choose composite pulse decoupling, and NOE can be ignored due to the short decoupling time. The following pulse sequence $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^{1,2}\frac{1}{4J_{12}}[\pi ]_x^{1,2}\frac{1}{4J_{12}}[\frac{\pi }{2}]_y^2`$ transforms $`|>_1|>_2`$ into a basis entangled state

$$\rho _s(0)=I_x^1I_x^2I_z^1I_z^2I_y^1I_y^2,$$
(6)
where $`I_x^k`$, $`I_y^k`$ and $`I_z^k(k=1,2)`$ are respectively the matrices for the three components of the angular momentum of the spins. As soon as the system lies in the entangled state, the decoupling pulses are closed. The system and environment will evolute in the magnetic field. In the rotating frame, the Hamitonian is represented as

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{12}I_z^1+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{32}I_z^3+2\pi J_{12}I_z^1I_z^2+2\pi J_{23}I_z^2I_z^3+2\pi J_{13}I_z^1I_z^3$$
(7)
where $`\omega _i/2\pi (i=1,2,3)`$ are the resonance frequencies of spins 1,2, and 3, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{12}=\omega _1\omega _2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{32}=\omega _3\omega _2`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is set to 1. We choose $`\omega _2/2\pi `$ as the frequency of the rotating frame. By applying a hard (nonselective) pulse $`[\pi ]_x^{1,2,3}`$ in the middle of an evolution period t, the chemical shift evolution during this period can be refocused , so that the system in the entangled state evolutes under

$$H_{eff}=2\pi J_{12}I_z^1I_z^2+2\pi J_{23}I_z^2I_z^3+2\pi J_{13}I_z^1I_z^3,$$
(8)
where the last two terms describe the interaction between the system and environment. Only these two terms cause the system to evolute, because entangled basis states are the eigenstates of $`I_z^1I_z^2`$ . After evolution time t, by tracing over the environment degrees of freedom, the state of the system can be represented as

$$\rho _s(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\\ cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where $`\phi _{13}=\pi J_{13}t`$, and $`\phi _{23}=\pi J_{23}t`$. In NMR experiments, this equation is equivalent to the following one

$$\rho _s(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
The off-diagonal elements are called double quantum coherence, which can be observed through a readout pulse $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^2`$ which transforms the system into the state represented as

$$\rho _{sr}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ i& 0& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})\\ icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& 0& i\\ cos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& icos(\phi _{13}+\phi _{23})& i& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
The coherence behavior can be observed in the NMR spectrum.

Experimental data are also taken at controlled temperature (22$`{}_{}{}^{0}C`$) with a Bruker DRX 500 MHz spectrometer. The coupling constants $`J_{12}=103.1`$Hz, $`J_{23}=201.3`$Hz, and $`J_{13}=9.23`$Hz. 1H is again decoupled during recording the FID signal in order to simplify the spectrum. From the view of quantum mechanics, decoupling also can be thought as the process of tracing over the environment degrees of freedom to get the reduced density matrix of the system. We will discuss this point in detail in another paper. Fig.7a is the carbon spectrum through the readout pulse $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^2`$ when the evolution time is 3.50ms. Fig.7b shows that the amplitude of the left peak of C1(see Fig.2) in the spectrum varies versus the evolution time. The experimental data points can be fitted as function $`5.8cos(2\pi t/T)`$, where $`T=8.72ms`$. In theory, $`T=9.50`$ms. The error is about $`8.2\%`$. It mainly results from the imperfection of pulses, and the effect of decoherence which cannot be controlled.

If environment is composed of multiple qubits, the interaction between the system and environment is represented as

$$H_i=\underset{k=3}{\overset{N+2}{}}(2\pi J_{1k}I_z^1I_z^k+2\pi J_{2k}I_z^2I_z^k).$$
(12)
Under the evolution induced by $`H_i`$, the state of the system is described as

$$\rho _{12}(t)=I_x^1I_x^2\underset{k=3}{\overset{N+2}{}}cos(\phi _{1k}+\phi _{2k})I_z^1I_z^2I_y^1I_y^2\underset{k=3}{\overset{N+2}{}}cos(\phi _{1k}+\phi _{2k}),$$
(13)
where $`\phi _{1k}=\pi J_{1k}t`$, and $`\phi _{2k}=\pi J_{2k}t`$. If $`N\mathrm{}`$, the coherence usually approachs to 0 very fast,if $`t0`$. The decoherence of the system is also caused by the entanglement between the system and environment.

4. Conclusion

In our experiments, we examine quantum decoherence of two systems by two experimental schemes. For the one qubit system, the entanglement between the system and environment is realized a quantum network. For the two qubit system, such entanglement results from the evolution induced by the interaction between the system and environment. Although the two schemes seem different, the interaction is their common prerequisite. We can get the results when the environment is composed of multiple qubits by generalizing our schemes. It is unnecessary to consider the state of the environment. In fact, we usually cannot describe the state of environment clearly. Through the entanglement between the system and environment, the environment degrees of freedom are introduced into the state of the system. Decoherence is the result of tracing over such degrees of freedom. If real environment consists of multiple particles each of which has more than two degrees of freedom, our results are still correct.

Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China. We are also grateful to Professor Shouyong Pei of Beijing Normal University for his helpful discussions on the theories in quantum mechanics and Miss Jinna Pan and for her help during experiments.

Figure Captions

1. Quantum network used to study the decoherence behavior of a one qubit system. Qubit 1 and qubit 2 are defined as the system and environment, respectively. $`H`$ denotes the Walsh-hadamard transform, and $`R(\theta )`$ is a rotation for qubit 2.
2. The structure of trichloroethylene. The two $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nuclei are assigned as qubit 1 and qubit 2, respectively.
3. The experimental results when 13C and 1H of chloroform lie in entangled states. Fig.3a is the carbon spectrum when $`\theta =50.3^{}`$. Fig.3b shows the dependence of the coherence on $`\theta `$. The experimental data points can be fitted as a sine-shaped curve with the period $`1.96\pi `$.
4. The experimental results when 13C and 1H of chloroform lie in product states. Fig.4a is the carbon spectrum when $`\theta =50.3^{}`$. The amplitudes of two peaks varies versus $`\theta `$ are also shown in Fig.4b, in which they are marked by ’$`\mathrm{}`$’ and ’$``$’, respectively. Their sum, which is corresponding to the coherence of the system, is independent of $`\theta `$ as shown by the line marked by ’\*’.
5. The experimental results when two 13C nuclei of trichloroethylene lie in entangled states. Fig.5a is the carbon spectrum when $`\theta =27^{}`$. Fig.5b shows the dependence of the coherence on $`\theta `$. The experimental data points can be fitted as a sine-shaped curve with the period $`1.83\pi `$. 1H is decoupled during the whole experiments.
6. The generalized experimental scheme when environment is composed of qubit 2, qubit 3, …, and qubit N+1. Qubit 1 denotes the system.
7. The experimental results when the two 13C nuclei of trichloroethylene in the entangled state evolute under $`H_{eff}`$(see the text). Fig.7a is the carbon spectrum through the readout pulse $`[\frac{\pi }{2}]_x^2`$ when the evolution time is 3.50ms. Fig.7b shows that the amplitude of the left peak of C1(shown in Fig.2) varies versus the evolution time which is denoted as t. The experimental data points can be fitted as function $`5.8cos(2\pi t/T)`$, where $`T=8.72ms`$. 1H is decoupled during recording the FID signal.