format: text

text:
# Fundamental constants in effective theory

## 1 Introduction.

Experimental bounds on possible variation of fundamental constants in nature are discussed in comprehensive review . Since we live well below the Planck energy scale, we canot judge which of them are really fundamental, i.e. cannot be derived from the underlying trans-Planckian physics. Here we discuss this problem using the effective relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT) arising as emergent phenomenon in quantum liquids , or in other condensed matter systems . Since the trans-Planckian physics of a quantum liquid – the microscopic atomic physics – is well known at least in principle, this allows us to look at the problem of fundamental constants from the outside, i.e. from the point of view of an external observer who does not belong to the low-energy world of the effective RQFT. This observer knows both the effective and microscopic physics. He or she knows the origin of the ‘constants’ which enter the effective theory, and thus can judge whether they are fundamental within the effective theory, and whether they remain fundamental at the more fundamental (i.e. more microscopic) level.

The status of fundamental constants in quantum liquids depends on the energy scale used: the low-energy scale where the effective theory is applicable, or the atomic scale of the ”Theory of Everything”. Within the effective theory the status of constants also depends on the observer who measures them: the ‘inner’ observer belonging to the world of the low-energy quasiparticles, or the external observer who belongs to the world of microphysics. In Table (1) we shall use the following criteria of fundamentality. The first line shows whether (+) or not (-) the constant is fundamental from the point of view of an inner observer. The constant is fundamental if it cannot be derived within the effective theory used by the inner onbserver. The second line refers to the external observer if he uses the effective theory only. For him the fundamental constant is the phenomenological parameter. In complete equilibrium of a quantum liquid, and in the absence of external perturbations, this phenomenological parameter is completely fixed and thus can be considered as a fundamental. Finally the third line corresponds to Weinberg criterion : the constant is not fundamental if it can be derived from the parameters of microscopic physics.

In the Table we consider the status of following constants: the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$; the speed of light $`c`$, i.e. the maximum attainable velocity in the effective theory; and the Newton’s gravitational constant $`G`$. From 19 parameters of the Standard Model we discuss only one – the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$, which has a direct analog in superfluid 3He-A .

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{constant}^{}& \mathrm{}& G& c& \alpha \\ \mathrm{effective}\mathrm{theory}\mathrm{inner}\mathrm{observer}& +& +& +& \\ \mathrm{effective}\mathrm{theory}\mathrm{external}\mathrm{observer}& +& +& & \\ \mathrm{microphysics}& +& & & \end{array}$$
(1)
Let us now discuss the status of each of 4 constants.

## 2 Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$

Inspection of the RQFT emerging in quantum liquids demonstrates that within this scheme we have only one fundamental constant – the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$. It is fundamental both within the effective RQFT at low energy and in the microscopic physics of liquids (all signs in $`\mathrm{}`$-column of Eq. (1) are $`+`$). Quantum mechanics is built in quantum liquids, which are essentially quantum objects. It is the quantum zero point motion of atoms which gives rise to the ground state of the 3He-A liquid, where the low-energy fermionic and bosonic collective modes behave as relativistic chiral fermions, and gauge and gravitational fields. The limit $`\mathrm{}=0`$ simply does not exist, since there is no vacuum at $`\mathrm{}=0`$, and thus no effective theory.

In quantum liquids belonging to the same universality class of Fermi- points as 3He-A, all physical laws of our world are more or less reproduced in the low-energy corner, except for quantum mechanics. In principle, it is not excluded that in the more comprehensive systems, quantum mechanics will also acquire the status of an emergent low-energy phenomenon , with the minus sign in the third line of the $`\mathrm{}`$-column. Since this does not happen in our quantum liquids, we have no solid basis for discussion of the possibility of varying $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 3 Speed of light

The metric of the effective ‘Minkowski’ space-time, in which the ”relativistic” quasiparticles (fermions and bosons) propagate along the geodesic curves in anisotropic quantum liquids, has the following local structure in case of anisotropic quantum liquid: $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,c_x^2,c_y^2,c_z^2)`$. The analog of speed of light – the maximum attainable speed for low-energy fermions or/and bosons – depends on the direction of their propagation. Since for an external observer there is no unique speed of light $`c`$, we have the minus sign in the second and third lines of the $`c`$-column in Eq. (1).

The question, which arises in case of the anisotropic speed of light: What ‘speed of light’ enters the Einstein relation $`M=mc^2`$ between the rest energy and the mass of the object? More generally: Which $`c`$ enters physical equations?

The answer to this question is rather simple: the speed of light $`c`$ never enters explicitly any physically reasonable equation if it is written in covariant and gauge invariant form. The speed of light is hidden within the metric tensor, which is the relevant dynamical variable. For example, the above metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,c_x^2,c_y^2,c_z^2)`$ enters the energy spectrum of massive particle in the following way: $`E^2=M^2+g^{ik}p_ip_k`$, or $`g^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu +M^2=0`$, where $`M`$ is the rest energy. In these equations there is no $`c`$.

Usually the mass is determined as the response of momentum to velocity: $`p_i=M_{ik}v^k`$. Since the velocity of the particle is $`v^i=dE/dp_i`$, one obtains for the mass tensor: $`M_{ik}=Eg_{ik}`$. If the linear reponse of the momentum to velocity is considered one has

$$M_{ik}(\mathrm{linear})M_{ik}(𝐯=0)=Mg_{ik}.$$
(2)
This equation contains the rest energy $`M`$, but does not contain $`c`$ and $`m`$ explicitly. The same is valid for any equation which is written in covariant form: they never contain $`m`$ and $`c`$ separately.

In the effective theory, the problem of the fundamenatlity of $`c`$ is rather peculiar. For an inner observer living in the liquid, who uses the rods and clocks made of low-energy quasiparticles, the ”speed of light” does not depend on the direction of propagation. Moreover it does not depend on the velocity of the inner observer with respect to the liquid. This happens because of the physical Lorentz contraction experienced by his rods made of quasiparticles; his clock made of quasiparticles experience the retardation of time. All this conspire to make the inner observer to believe that the speed of light is fundamental. Such low-energy observer can savely divide the rest energy $`M`$ by his $`c^2`$. He will obtain what he thinks is the mass of the object, and this belief will be shared by all the low-energy inner observers. In this sense the speed of light is fundamental and the first line of Table (1) contains the plus sign.

However, for the external observer who lives outside the quantum liquid and uses the rigid rods and laboratory clocks in his experiments, the speed of massless quasiparticles is anisotropic even in the low-energy limit, i.e. in the range of applicability of the effective theory. He or she finds that, say, in 3He-A the ”speed of light” varies from 3 cm/s to 60 m/s depending on the direction. This means that for external observer the speed of light is not fundamental both in the microscopic and effective theories (the minus sign both in the second and third lines of (1)).

## 4 Newton’s constant

In some (very special) cases  the action for the effective gravitational field in quantum liquids is similar to the Einstein action

$$S_{\mathrm{Einstein}}=d^4x\frac{\sqrt{g}}{16\pi G}$$
(3)
As in the case of Sakharov’s induced gravity , the analog of the gravitational constant $`G`$ in quantum liquids is determined by the Planck energy cut-off $`E_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$ (played by the amplitude of the superfluid gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) and by the number of the chiral fermionic species: $`G^1N_FE_{\mathrm{Planck}}^2/\mathrm{}`$. Since $`G`$ is determined by the microscopic physics, it is not fundamental on the microscopic level – minus sign in third line.

In quantum liquids the effective $`G`$ depends on temperature , $`G^1(T)=G^1(0)+\gamma N_FT^2/\mathrm{}`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the dimensionless factor of order unity. Since the temperature correction does not contain the microscopic parameters and thus in principle can be obtained within the effective theory, $`G`$ is not fundamental even on the effective level. But its vacuum value $`G(T=0)`$ is fundamental for an inner observer.

Moreover, the phenomenological parameter $`G(T=0)`$ of the effective theory as viewed by the external observer has a definite value for the quantum liquid isolated from the environment. That is why it can be considered as the fundamental constant of the effective theory, whence the plus sign in the second line of $`G`$-column.

## 5 Fine structure constant

In logarithmic approximation, the action for effective electrodynamics emerging in 3He-A (and in other systems of the Fermi-point universality class) is :

$$S_{\mathrm{em}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}𝑑td^3x\frac{\sqrt{g}}{16\pi \alpha }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
An analog of the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ is not fundamental both on microscopic and effective levels, since it logarithmically depends both on ultraviolet and on infra-red cut- off parameters. If the largest infra-red cut-off is supplied by temperature, one has $`\alpha ^1N_F\mathrm{ln}(E_{\mathrm{Planck}}/T)`$, where $`N_F`$ is again the number of chiral fermionic species, and the ultraviolet cut-off is determined by the same Planck scale $`E_{\mathrm{Planck}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ which enters the effective Newton’s constant . It is the same effective electrodynamics as was discussed by Zeldovich . Dependence on $`E_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$ shows that $`\alpha `$ is not fundamental on the microscopic level; the dependence on the low-energy scale demonstrates that it is not fundamental within the effective theory too. In contrast to Newton’s constant, in the limit of $`T=0`$ and zero mass of all the Standard Model fermions the constant $`\alpha `$ vanishes. That is why the $`\alpha `$-column contains only the minus signs in Eq. (1).

Equation 4 does not contain speeds of light $`c_x`$, $`c_y`$ and $`c_z`$ explicilty: these functions are hidden in the metric field. The anisotropic speed of light is the crucial argument that the decomposition of the dimensionless running coupling $`\alpha `$ into dimensionful $`e^2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ is meaningless: $`e^2`$ and $`c`$ do not enter explicitly any covariant and gauge invariant equations. For example, the energy levels of the electron in the hydrogen atom is determined by $`\alpha `$ and by the rest energy $`M_e`$ of the electron :

$$E_{n,j}=M_e\left[1\frac{\alpha ^2}{2n^2}\frac{\alpha ^4}{2n^4}\left(\frac{n}{j+1/2}\frac{3}{4}\right)+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(5)
Let us recall that in contrast to the quantity $`e`$, the physical electric (or other) charge of elementary particles in Standard Model and its analog in 3He-A are dimensionless (integer or fractional) quantities determined by geometry. They are determined either by gauge groups in fundamental qauge theories or by momentum-space topology in quantum vacua of the Fermi-point universality class.

The only fundamental constant which enters explicitly the electromagnetic action is $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 6 What constants are really fundamental?

Thus, in our example of the relativistic quantum field theory arising in quantum liquids, the only fundamental constant is $`\mathrm{}`$. Since it is fundamental it is possible to use it as a conversion factor of energy to frequency as is stated by Duff in  (of course, with the following reservations: (i) energy is additive while frequency is not; (ii) as distinct from frequency the magnitude of energy depends on the choice of zero energy level; (iii) the frequency can be bounded from above due to, say, discreteness of time, while the energy is not bounded: it can be the sum of energies of many low-energy particles; etc.).

However, it is not completely excluded that $`\mathrm{}`$ can arise as a result of a more fundamental theory above the Planck scale which gives rise to the quantum mechanics in the low-energy scale .

In such case the only fundamental constants which remain in the effective RQFT are the dimensionless charges and dimensionless topological quantum numbers  which enter the topological terms in effective action. Such terms are naturally dimensionless, since they are determined either by gauge groups or by the topological invariants in real and in momentum spaces. In 3+1 systems, such invariants describe the chiral anomaly , and other anomalies. In 2+1 systems, these topological quantum numbers lead to quantization of physical parameters such as Hall and spin Hall conductivities, which being written in the covariant form are integer of rational numbers.


text:
# The helicity amplitudes A1/2 and A3/2 for the D₁₃(1520) resonance obtained from the 𝛾⃗𝑝⃗→𝑝𝜋⁰ reaction

## Abstract

The helicity dependence of the $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}p\pi ^0`$ reaction has been measured for the first time in the photon energy range from 550 to 790 MeV. The experiment, performed at the Mainz microtron MAMI, used a 4$`\pi `$-detector system, a circularly polarized, tagged photon beam, and a longitudinally polarized frozen-spin target. These data are predominantly sensitive to the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ resonance and are used to determine its parameters.

preprint: APS/123-QED

I. Introduction. – Over many years, measurements of the accessible observables in $`\eta `$ and single-pion photoproduction have been the basis of theoretical activity aiming to extract the properties of the baryon resonances beyond the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For example, the properties of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance, which dominates $`\eta `$ photoproduction near threshold, can be extracted from the measurements of total and differential cross sections Krus2 ; Krus3  without strong model-dependence.

The situation is not so straightforward for the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ resonance, since in both single-pion and $`\eta `$ photoproduction other resonances also contribute. In fact, the photo-decay amplitudes $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`A_{3/2}`$ for this resonance, extracted using the VPI SAID  and Glasgow Glas  partial wave analyses of single-pion production, are significantly different from those evaluated by Mukhopadhyay et al. Mukh  and Tiator et al. Tiat  who used mainly $`\eta `$ production data. This discrepancy can be resolved by using the selectivity of polarization observables which allow the small, non-dominant resonances to be discerned via their interference with the dominant multipoles.

As is well-known, nine single and double polarization observables have to be measured to carry out a completely model-independent multipole analysis of single-pion photoproduction. However, as shown by Beck et al. Beck , some constraints can be applied in order to perform an almost model-independent analysis with fewer observables. A typical constraint is the low partial waves approximation, which can be applied only in a limited energy range. With increasing photon energy, the measurement of a more comprehensive set of single and double polarization data becomes very important. The sensitivity of an observable to small multipoles can reflect a corresponding sensitivity to the more weakly excited resonances. Figure 1 illustrates such sensitivity in the energy region from 450 MeV up to 1 GeV for the helicity dependent differential cross section $`(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega })_{3/2}(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega })_{1/2}`$ for the $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}p\pi ^0`$ channel. This was obtained using circularly polarized photons and longitudinally polarized nucleons and the subscripts $`3/2`$ and $`1/2`$ indicate the relative nucleon-photon spin configurations, parallel and antiparallel, respectively. This cross section difference is plotted as a function of the photon energy at $`\theta ^{}=90^{}`$, where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the pion angle in the CM-system. The full curve represents the standard solution of the Unitary Isobar Model (UIM) UIM , while the dotted, dashed and dashed-dotted curves represent solutions in which the coupling constant of the $`D_{13}(1520)`$, the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ and the $`P_{11}(1440)`$ resonances, respectively, was set to zero. The difference between the standard and modified solutions indicates the sensitivity of this observable to the different resonances. As is clearly seen in Figure 1, the influence of the $`D_{13}`$ resonance is rather strong as the cross section difference even changes sign. By contrast, the sensitivity to $`P_{11}`$ is almost negligible and the sensitivity to $`S_{11}`$ is not very pronounced. This observable is therefore well suited to extract the parameters of the $`D_{13}`$ resonance.

In this letter, we present the first results for the helicity dependent differential cross section of the $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}p\pi ^0`$ reaction in the energy range between 550 and 790 MeV. These data were obtained during the GDH experiment GDH1 ; GDH2  at the Mainz microtron MAMI, which studied the helicity structure of the partial cross sections and their contributions to the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule.

II. Experimental setup. – The main characteristics of the experimental setup are summarized here, but more details may be found in Refs. GDH1  and Mac . The experiment was conducted with the tagged photon facility tag  at the MAMI accelerator in Mainz. Circularly polarized photons were produced by bremsstrahlung of longitudinally polarized electrons Aule . The electron polarization (routinely about 75%) was monitored during the data taking by a Møller polarimeter.

Longitudinally polarized protons were provided by a frozen-spin butanol ($`C_4H_9OH`$) target Brad . The proton polarization was measured using NMR techniques. Maximum polarization values close to 90% were obtained with a relaxation time of about 200 h.

Photoemitted hadrons were registered by the large acceptance detector DAPHNE Audi . DAPHNE essentially is a charged particle tracking detector with cylindrical symmetry. It covers polar angles $`\theta _{lab}=21^{}`$ to $`159^{}`$.

III. Data analysis. – The identification methods for hadrons in DAPHNE have been described previously in detail Mac ; Brag  and only the main features will be recalled here.

Protons were identified using the range method Brag  making simultaneous use of all of the charged particle energy losses in the DAPHNE scintillator layers to discriminate between protons and $`\pi ^\pm `$ and to determine their kinetic energies. However, the range method can be applied only to particles stopped inside DAPHNE. This condition is satisfied by most of the protons stemming from the $`p\pi ^0`$ channel; only protons emitted with $`\theta _{lab}<25^{}`$ and at $`E_\gamma >700`$ MeV cannot be identified.

The presence of a single charged track recognized as a proton was used as the signature for the $`p\pi ^0`$ channel. The main background in this case originates from the $`p\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channels. The separation between the single and double photoproduction channels was obtained from the analysis of the missing mass spectrum $`\gamma ppX`$ 2pi .

The absolute efficiency of the $`p\pi ^0`$ channel identification was evaluated using a GEANT based simulation and found to be between 85% and 95%.

Prior to the main experiment, data for detector calibration and for tests of the analysis methods were taken with the same apparatus using an unpolarized pure liquid hydrogen target. The total unpolarized cross sections for $`\gamma pn\pi ^+`$ and $`\gamma pp\pi ^0`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region were found to be in a good agreement GDH1  with previously published data and with predictions of multipole analyses. This confirms that the detector response is well understood. Figure 2 shows the differential cross sections for $`\gamma pp\pi ^0`$ in the energy range 550 MeV $`<E_\gamma <`$ 790 MeV Preo , compared to the data of Ref. Krus1  and to the results of the UIM UIM  model and the SAID SAID  multipole analysis. The agreement shows that the detector response is similarly well understood in this higher energy region.

As discussed previously GDH1 , in the analysis of data taken using the butanol target, the background contribution of the reactions on C and O nuclei could not be fully separated event-by-event from the polarized H contribution. However, this background from spinless nuclei is not polarization dependent and cancels when the difference between events in the 3/2 and 1/2 states is taken. For this reason only the differential cross section difference can be directly extracted from the measurement with the butanol target.

IV. Results and discussion. – By using the methods described above, the helicity dependent differential cross section $`(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega })_{3/2}(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega })_{1/2}`$ was obtained as a function of pion angle $`\theta ^{}`$ in the CM-system in the photon energy region from 550 MeV up to 790 MeV Preo . The results are presented in Figure 3. The errors shown are statistical only. The systematic uncertainties contain contributions from charged particle identification (2.5%), photon flux normalization (2%), photon polarization (3%) and target polarization (1.6%). The addition of these errors in quadrature leads to a total systematic error of about 5%.

At lower photon energies, the data are in a good agreement with model predictions, but there is a clear systematic discrepancy when the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ resonance is approached. In order to extract information about this resonance, a fit of our unpolarized and polarized differential cross sections, based on the UIM UIM , has been performed.

Since our data cover only the angular region around $`\theta ^{}=90^{}`$, additional cross sections were included in the fit to reduce the model dependence of this procedure. These were the $`p\pi ^0`$ data from Leuk , which contain unpolarized differential cross sections with full polar angle coverage in the energy region 200 MeV $`<E_\gamma <`$ 790 MeV, the photon asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for 250 MeV $`<E_\gamma <`$ 440 MeV, and the $`n\pi ^+`$ and $`p\pi ^0`$ polarized differential cross sections in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance region (180 MeV $`<E_\gamma <`$ 450 MeV), measured in the GDH experiment Preo . In this way, all the resonant partial wave amplitudes up to a photon energy of 800 MeV could be simultaneously determined in the fit.

Within the UIM framework, seven free parameters have been used in our fit: six resonance couplings and the pseudoscalar-pseudovector mixing parameter (PS/PV), which mostly affects the amplitudes $`E_{0+}^{1/2}`$ and $`M_1^{1/2}`$, see Ref. UIM . A modification of the resonance couplings only affects the imaginary part of the resonance amplitude in the corresponding partial wave. The resulting modification factors for the $`D_{13}`$ resonance compared to the standard UIM couplings have been found to be 1.11$`\pm `$0.01 ($`M_2^{1/2}`$) and 0.81$`\pm `$0.01 ($`E_2^{1/2}`$) while the other parameters remained unchanged within the fitting errors. This modified UIM solution is shown in Figures 2 and 3 by the dotted curves.

The $`D_{13}(1520)p\gamma `$ helicity amplitudes $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`A_{3/2}`$ were then evaluated from the modified UIM solution. In principle, the transition from the electric and magnetic representation to helicity amplitudes is model dependent since a separation between resonant and background multipole components has to be performed. Once the separation is done, the standard recipe described in Ref. arnd  can be used. Since the $`D_{13}`$ partial wave amplitudes are almost purely imaginary at the resonance position, the model dependence is weak. Because the background is real, only the imaginary partial wave amplitudes are required to calculate the helicity couplings from electric and magnetic partial waves. This situation is related to the nearly perfect Breit-Wigner shape of the $`D_{13}(1520)`$. Taking a resonance position of 1520 MeV, a resonance width of 120 MeV, and a pion branching ratio of 0.55 (from PDG PDG ), the helicity amplitudes $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`A_{3/2}`$ were found to be -0.038$`\pm `$ 0.003 GeV-1/2 and 0.147 $`\pm `$ 0.010 GeV-1/2, respectively. The errors are a combination of the statistical fitting errors and the estimated model errors due to the uncertainties in the $`D_{13}`$ resonance parameters. Using the same method, the helicity amplitudes were extracted from the standard UIM (MAID2000) solution and from the SAID (SM01) solution. These results are summarized in Table 1 together with the latest PDG estimate PDG .

As pointed out by Workman et al. Work , the photon asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also quite sensitive to the parameters of the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ resonance. This observable has been recently measured for the $`\gamma pp\pi ^0`$ channel in Yerevan Adam  and for the $`\gamma pn\pi ^+`$ channel at GRAAL Ajak . A comparison has therefore been made between our modified UIM solution and these new data, as shown in Figure 4. In the same figure, the results of the standard UIM and SAID solutions are also plotted. The modified UIM solution is in satisfactory agreement with the $`n\pi ^+`$ data, but tends to disagree with the $`p\pi ^0`$ data. However, preliminary data from GRAAL for this latter channel bart  agree better with the theories and in this case the sensitivity to the parameters of the $`D_{13}`$ resonance is small.

In conclusion, our first data on the helicity dependent cross sections for $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction can be used to determine the photo coupling parameters of the $`D_{13}`$ resonance, due to the almost exclusive sensitivity of the helicity difference to this resonance. However, other data are needed to reconstruct a sufficient number of partial waves. Existing unpolarized cross sections and photon asymmetry data for the $`\gamma pn\pi ^+`$ channel seem to be good candidates for this purpose. Our data imply that $`A_{1/2}`$ is larger (in absolute value) by about 60% and $`A_{3/2}`$ is smaller by about 12% compared to the standard PDG values.

The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent support of the accelerator group of MAMI. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 201, SFB 443 and Schwerpunktprogramm 1034), the INFN–Italy, the FWO Vlaanderen–Belgium, the IWT–Belgium, the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council, the DAAD, and the Grant-in-Aid, Monbusho, Japan.


text:
# Regularity Bounds on Zakharov System Evolutions

## 1. introduction

We consider the initial value problem for the Zakharov system  on $`^2`$

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}iu_t+\mathrm{\Delta }u=nu,& u:^2\times [T_{},T^{}],\\ \mathrm{}n=\mathrm{\Delta }|u|^2,& n:^2\times [T_{},T^{}],\\ (u,n,\dot{n})(0)=(\varphi ,a,b).\end{array}$$

Suppose $`b`$ is such that there exists $`V:^2^2`$ with $`b=V`$. Then the Zakharov system may be rewritten in Hamiltonian form with Hamiltonian

(1.2)
$$H(u,\overline{u},n,V)=_^2|u|^2+\frac{1}{2}(n^2+|V|^2)+n|u|^2dx.$$

For initial data $`\varphi `$ small enough in $`L^2`$ we can condlude from conservation of (1.2) that

(1.3)
$$u(t),n(t),\dot{n}(t)_{H_1}=u(t),n(t),\dot{n}(t)_{H^1\times L^2\times \widehat{H}^1}C\varphi ,a,b_{H_1}$$

where $`H_1:=H^1\times L^2\times \widehat{H}^1`$ and $`\widehat{H}^1`$ is defined by $`b_{\widehat{H}^1}=V_{L^2}`$. Local wellposedness of (1.1) for data $`(\varphi ,a,b)H_1`$ was established in , , with the lifetime of existence satisfying

(1.4)
$$T>\varphi ,a,b_{H_1}^\alpha \text{for some}\alpha >0.$$

(The regularity requirements for the local results in ,  have subsequently been improved in .) Hence, for data implying a priori $`H_1`$ control (1.3), the local result may be iterated to prove the existence of global-in-time solutions of (1.1). In fact, global solutions of the initial value problem (1.1) had been shown to exist earlier  ($`d=1`$)  ($`d=2`$) using energy methods in spaces requiring more regularity than $`H_1`$.

###### Remark 1.

The initial value problem (1.1) has solutions which blow up in finite time , . At present, there is no criteria known which identifies those initial data leading to blow up and those leading to global-in-time solutions. This paper provides regularity bounds on those global solutions obtained by iterating the local wellposedness result using a priori $`H_1`$ control.

Let $`\mathrm{}^1F`$ denote the solution of the inhomogeneous wave equation with zero data,

(1.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}n=F,\\ (n,\dot{n})(0)=(0,0).\end{array}$$

Let $`W(a,b)`$ denote the solution of

(1.6)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}n=0\\ (n,\dot{n})(0)=(a,b).\end{array}$$

Note that $`\mathrm{}^1F`$ and $`W(a,b)`$ may be explicitly represented using the Fourier transform. The (formal) solution of the second equation in (1.1) is

(1.7)
$$n=W(a,b)+\mathrm{}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }|u|^2).$$

Substituting this expression for $`n`$ into the first equation in (1.1) gives

(1.8)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}u_t=i\mathrm{\Delta }uiW(a,b)ui\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }(|u|^2)u,\\ u(0)=\varphi .\end{array}$$

Note that the regularity properties of the data $`a,b`$ and of $`u`$, inferred from solving (1.8), determine the regularity properties of $`n`$ through (1.7).

Let $`𝒮`$ denote the Schwarz class. Consider initial data $`\varphi ,a𝒮,b𝒮\widehat{H}^1`$ implying a priori $`H_1`$ control (1.3). How do the regularity properties of the global solution $`(u(t),n(t))`$ behave as $`t\mathrm{}`$? In particular, can we describe, or at least bound from above and below, $`u(t),n(t),\dot{n}(t)_{H_s}`$ for $`s1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$? These estimates quantify the shift of the conserved $`L^2`$ mass in frequency space. In particular, the upper bounds we obtain in this paper limit the rate of transfer from low frequencies to high frequencies. By the note following (1.8), it suffices to understand $`u(t)_{H^s}`$.

The local result for (1.8) implies

(1.9)
$$\underset{t[0,T]}{sup}u(t)_{H^s}\varphi _{H^s}+C\varphi _{H^s}$$

which iterates to give an exponential bound $`u(t)_{H^s}C^{|t|}.`$ Bourgain observed that a slight improvement of (1.9)

(1.10)
$$\underset{t[0,T]}{sup}u(t)_{H^s}\varphi _{H^s}+C\varphi _{H^s}^{1\delta },0<\delta <1,$$

implies the polynomial bound $`u(t)_{H^s}C|t|^{\frac{1}{\delta }}.`$ This observation was exploited in  to prove polynomial bounds on high Sobolev norms for solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation and certain nonlinear wave equations.

Staffilani ,  improved the degree of the polynomial upper bound using a different approach to prove (1.10) in the case of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. The crucial bilinear estimate used in this approach has recently been improved  giving a slightly better polynomial estimate. This paper adapts the arguments from  for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation to prove similar polynomial bounds on high Sobolev norms for the global solutions of (1.1) constructed in , .

###### Theorem 1.

Assume $`(\varphi ,a,b)𝒮\times 𝒮\times (𝒮\widehat{H}^1)`$. Global solutions of (1.1) satisfying (1.3) also satisfy

(1.11)
$$u(t)_{H^s}C|t|^{(s1)+}.$$

The question of lower bounds showing growth of high Sobolev norms remains a fascinating open question. For a more thorough discussion, including model equations other than the Zakharov system, see the book of Bourgain .

## 2. Reduction to bilinear estimate

Our goal is to bound $`u(t)_{H^s}`$ for $`u`$, the solution of (1.8), with $`t[0,T]`$ and $`T`$ as in (1.4). Since $`u(t)_{L^2}=\varphi _{L^2}`$ for all $`t`$, it suffices to bound $`B^su(t)_{L^2}`$ where $`B=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Let’s assume $`s=2m`$ for $`1m`$ to avoid certain technical issues involving fractional derivatives below. Let $`,`$ denote the standard $`L_x^2`$ inner product, $`f,g=_^2f\overline{g}𝑑x.`$ By the fundamental theorem of calculus,

(2.1)
$$B^su(t)_{L^2}^2=B^su(0)_{L^2}^2+_0^t\frac{d}{d\sigma }B^su(\sigma ),B^su(\sigma )𝑑\sigma .$$

We calculate

(2.2)
$$I=2\mathrm{}_0^tB^s\dot{u}(\sigma ),B^su(\sigma )𝑑\sigma .$$

Now, using the equation (1.8), we find

(2.3)
$$I=2\mathrm{}_0^tB^s\mathrm{\Delta }u(\sigma ),B^su(\sigma )𝑑\sigma +$$

$$2\mathrm{}_0^tB^s[W(a,b)(\sigma )u(\sigma )],B^su(\sigma )𝑑\sigma +2\mathrm{}_0^tB^s[\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }(|u|^2)u(\sigma )],B^su(\sigma )𝑑\sigma .$$

Denote the three terms on the right-side of (2.3) by $`I_1+I_2+I_3`$. Upon writing $`\mathrm{\Delta }=B^2`$ and integrating by parts, the first term $`I_1`$ is seen to have a real integrand so this term is zero. The term $`I_2`$ involves $`B^s(W(a,b)u)`$. Various terms arise from the Leibniz rule for differentiating a product. The most dangerous of these is $`W(a,b)B^su`$ but, since $`W(a,b)`$ is a real-valued function, this term leads to a purely real integrand in (2.3) and so disappears. Hence, the term $`I_2`$ leads to a sum of terms of the form

(2.4)
$$C\mathrm{}_0^t[B^{s_1}W(a,b)(\sigma )][B^{s_2}u(\sigma )],B^su(\sigma )𝑑\sigma ,$$

where $`s=s_1+s_2,1s_1s,0s_2s1,s_1,s_2`$,

We can multiply by a smooth cutoff function in time $`\psi _T\chi _{[0,T]}`$ and estimate these terms via the Hölder inequality by

(2.5)
$$B^{s_1}W(a,b)_{L_{x,t[0,T]}^2}B^{s_2}u_{L_{xt}^4}B^su_{L_{xt}^4}.$$

The Strichartz estimate for the paraboloid and properties of $`X_{s,b}`$ spaces111The space $`X_{s,b}`$ is defined using the norm $`u_{X_{s,b}}=\left((1+|k|)^{2s}(1+|\lambda +|k|^2|)^{2b}|\widehat{u}(k,\lambda )|^2𝑑k𝑑\lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$  imply for $`b=\frac{1}{2}+`$,

(2.6)
$$B^{\stackrel{~}{s}}u_{L_{xt}^4}C_Tu_{X_{\stackrel{~}{s},b}}.$$

The local wellposedness result ,  gives

(2.7)
$$u_{X_{\stackrel{~}{s},b}}Cu(0)_{H^{\stackrel{~}{s}}}$$

Therefore, the second term $`I_2`$ in (2.3) is estimated by a sum of terms of the form

(2.8)
$$a,b_{H^{s_1}\times H^{s_11}}u(0)_{H^{s_2}}u(0)_{H^s}.$$

The first factor is bounded by a constant which depends upon the initial data $`a,b`$. The second factor may be interpolated between $`\varphi _{H^1}`$ and $`\varphi _{H^s}`$ which leads to the bound

(2.9)
$$|I_2|C\underset{0s_2s1}{}u(0)_{H^s}^{1+\frac{s_21}{s1}}Cu(0)_{H^s}^{2\frac{1}{s1}}.$$

It remains to bound $`I_3`$. Since differentiation in $`x`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the Leibniz rule shows

(2.10)
$$I_3=2\mathrm{}\underset{\begin{array}{cc}0\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3s& \\ \sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3=s& \end{array}}{}c_{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3}_0^t\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }(B^{\sigma _1}uB^{\sigma _2}\overline{u})B^{\sigma _3}u,B^su𝑑\tau .$$

In case $`\sigma _3=s`$, the resulting integrand is purely real so this term disappears. Consider first those terms with $`\sigma _3s2`$ and after treating these we will consider the terms with $`\sigma _3=s1`$. Since we are interested in proving a local-in-time estimate, we can insert a smooth cutoff $`\psi _T\chi _{[0,T]}`$ and wish to bound

(2.11)
$$|\psi _T(t)_0^t\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }(B^{\sigma _1}uB^{\sigma _2}\overline{u})B^{\sigma _3}uB^s\overline{u}𝑑\tau |.$$

A formal “integration by parts” (which is justified rigorously in the next section when we define $`(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$) allows us to bound by

(2.12)
$$|\psi _T(t)_0^t(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}(B^{\sigma _1}uB^{\sigma _2}\overline{u})(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}(B^{\sigma _3}uB^s\overline{u})𝑑\tau |$$

and Cauchy-Schwarz reduces matters to controlling

(2.13)
$$(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}(B^{\sigma _1}uB^{\sigma _2}\overline{u})_{L_{xT}^2}(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}(B^{\sigma _3}uB^s\overline{u})_{L_{xT}^2}.$$

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`0s_1`$ and $`1s_2,s_1s_2.`$ For $`b>\frac{1}{2}`$,

(2.14)
$$(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}([B^{s_1}u_1][B^{s_2}\overline{u_2}])_{L_{xT}^2}Cu_1_{X_{s_1+1,b}}u_2_{X_{s_2\frac{1}{2},b}}.$$

The estimate is also valid if the complex conjugation is moved from $`u_2`$ to $`u_1`$ on the left-side of (2.14).

Suppose the proposition is true. The bilinear expressions in (2.13) are estimated

(2.15)
$$u_{X_{\sigma _1+1,b}}u_{X_{\sigma _2\frac{1}{2},b}}u_{X_{\sigma _3+1,b}}u_{X_{s\frac{1}{2},b}}.$$

Using the local result we know $`u_{X_{\stackrel{~}{s},b}}Cu(0)_{H^{\stackrel{~}{s}}}`$ and upon interpolating the various $`H^{\stackrel{~}{s}}`$ norms between $`H^1`$ and $`H^s`$ (using (1.3)) bounds (2.15) by

(2.16)
$$Cu(0)_{H^s}^{\frac{\sigma _1+\sigma _2\frac{1}{2}1+\sigma _3+s\frac{1}{2}1}{s1}}.$$

Recalling that $`\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3=s,`$ the exponent simplifies to $`2\frac{1}{s1}`$, just as in (2.9).

Now, consider a term in (2.10) with $`\sigma _3=s1`$. Evidently, $`\sigma _1=1,\sigma _2=0`$ or $`\sigma _1=0,\sigma _2=1`$. In this case, we apply Cauchy-Schwarz directly to the term as it appears in (2.10) to bound by

(2.17)
$$\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }(B^{\sigma _1}uB^{\sigma _2}\overline{u})_{L_{xT}^2}B^{\sigma _3}uB^s\overline{u}_{L_{xT}^2}.$$

The second factor is readily estimated using Bourgain’s refinement of the Strichartz inequality  to give

(2.18)
$$u_{X_{\sigma _3+\frac{1}{2}+,b}}u_{X_{s\frac{1}{2},b}}Cu_{X_{s\frac{1}{2}+,b}}^2.$$

The first factor in (2.17) is bounded using a variant of Proposition 2.1.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Let $`0s_1,1s_2,s_1s_2`$. For $`b>\frac{1}{2}`$,

(2.19)
$$\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }([B^{s_1}u_1][B^{s_2}\overline{u_2}])_{L_{xT}^2}Cu_1_{X_{s_1+1,b}}u_{X_{s_2,b}}.$$

The estimate is also valid if the complex conjugation is moved from $`u_2`$ to $`u_1`$ on the left-side of (2.19).

Combining (2.18), (2.19) shows (2.17) may be bounded using $`\sigma _1=1,\sigma _2=0`$ or $`\sigma _1=0,\sigma _2=1`$ and $`\sigma _3=s1`$,

$$u_{X_{1,b}}u_{X_{1,b}}u_{X_{s\frac{1}{2}+,b}}^2Cu_{X_{s\frac{1}{2}+,b}}^2.$$

The local result and interpolation bounds this by

$$Cu(0)_{H^s}^{2(\frac{s\frac{1}{2}1}{s1})+}=Cu(0)_{H^s}^{2\frac{1}{s1}+}$$

which (up to the $`+`$) is the same as in (2.9), (2.16).

Summarizing, the two Propositions above show that the integral term in (2.1) is bounded by

$$Cu(0)_{H^s}^{2\frac{1}{s1}+}.$$

We may assume that $`B^su(t)_{L^2}B^su(0)_{L^2}`$ for otherwise $`(\text{1.10})`$ is automatic. Therefore, we can divide (2.1) through by $`B^su(t)_{L^2}`$ and with $`L^2`$ conservation observe (1.10) holds with $`\delta =\frac{1}{s1}`$ proving Theorem 1.

The next section establishes the Propositions and defines $`(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ used in the treatment of $`\sigma _3s2`$ terms above.

## 3. Bilinear Estimates

In this section, we present a proof of Proposition 2.1. Along the way we will observe explicit properties of the operator $`\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which allow us to justify step (2.12) in the previous section. Proposition 2.2 will follow from modifications of the proof of Proposition 2.1.

The operator $`\mathrm{}^1`$ was defined as the mapping taking the inhomogeneity $`F`$ to the solution of the linear initial value problem (1.5). It can be explicitly represented using the Fourier transform as

(3.1)
$$\mathrm{}^1F(x,t)=e^{ikx}\left[e^{i\lambda t}\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\lambda }{|k|})e^{i|k|t}\frac{1}{2}(1\frac{\lambda }{|k|})e^{i|k|t}\right]\frac{\widehat{F}(k,\lambda )}{(\lambda |k|)(\lambda +|k|)}𝑑k𝑑\lambda $$

where $`\widehat{F}`$ denotes the space-time Fourier transform of $`F`$. A Taylor series argument show that the apparent singularities along $`\lambda \pm |k|=0`$ do not occur and that

(3.2)
$$\left|\widehat{\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }F}(k,\lambda )\right|C\left|\widehat{F}(k,\lambda )\right|\frac{|k|}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)}+|\widehat{F}(k,\lambda )|_{\{\lambda =|k|\}}|\frac{|k|}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)}.$$

From an $`L^2`$ point-of-view, it is therefore natural to define for real numbers $`\alpha `$,

(3.3)
$$\widehat{(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^\alpha }(k,\lambda )=\left|\widehat{F}(k,\lambda )\right|\left(\frac{|k|}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)}\right)^\alpha +|\widehat{F}(k,\lambda )|_{\{\lambda =|k|\}}|\left(\frac{|k|}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)}\right)^\alpha .$$

In particular, we have defined the operator $`\left(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ which appears in the statement of Proposition 2.1. For two functions of space-time, $`F,G`$, which are cutoff to $`t[0,T]`$, consider the expression (analagous to (2.11))

(3.4)
$$(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })(F)G𝑑x𝑑t=\widehat{(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })(F)}\widehat{G}𝑑k𝑑\lambda .$$

We insert (3.2) and take the absolute value under the integral sign. Then, upon writing $`\frac{|k|}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)}=\frac{|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\frac{|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$ we observe that

(3.5)
$$\left|(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })(F)G𝑑x𝑑t\right|\left|(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{G}𝑑x𝑑t\right|.$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{F}(x,t)=e^{i(kx+\lambda t)}|\widehat{F}(k,\lambda )|𝑑k𝑑\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is similarly defined. For proving $`L^2`$-type estimates, the distinction between $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is unimportant. In particular, the “integration by parts” step (2.12) is validated.

Now that $`(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ has been given a precise meaning, we turn our attention to proving the inequality (2.14)

###### Proof of Proposition 2.1.

Since $`\widehat{\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }}(k,\lambda )\frac{|k|}{\lambda \pm |k|}`$, we see that $`\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be as bad as one derivative in $`x`$. Therefore, the number of derivatives on both the left-side and right-side of (2.14) is $`s_1+s_2+\frac{1}{2}`$. The desired estimate (2.14) may be reexpressed using duality and certain renormalizations as

(3.6)
$$_{}d(k,\lambda )\left(\frac{|k|}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{(1+|k_1|)^1c(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b}\frac{(1+|k_2|)^{\frac{1}{2}}c(k_2,\lambda _2)}{(1+|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2|)^b}d_{L^2}c_1_{L^2}c_2_{L^2}$$

where $`_{}`$ is shorthand for $`\underset{\begin{array}{cc}k=k_1+k_2& \\ \lambda =\lambda _1+\lambda _2& \end{array}}{}`$ and without loss we may assume $`d,c_1,c_20`$. The choices of $`\pm `$ in (3.6) are assumed to be independent in the following analysis. In fact, this is only the first contribution arising from the right-side of (3.3). The other “on-light-cone” piece may be similarly estimated. We analyze (3.6) in cases depending upon the size of $`|k_1|,|k_2|.`$

Case 1. $`|k_1|,|k_2|10`$.
We may ignore $`|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+|k_1|)^1(1+|k_2|)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and then drop the (potentially helpful) wave remnant $`(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ to bound the left-side of (3.6) by

(3.7)
$$_{}d(k,\lambda )\frac{c_1(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b}\frac{c_2(k_2,\lambda _2)}{(1+|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2|)^b}.$$

Fourier transform properties show this equals $`\widehat{𝒟},\widehat{𝒞_1}\widehat{𝒞_2}=𝒟,𝒞_1𝒞_2`$ where $`𝒟,𝒞_1,𝒞_2`$ are functions of space and time whose Fourier transforms are $`d,\frac{c_1(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b},\frac{c_2(k_2,\lambda _2)}{(1+|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2|)^b}`$, respectively. By Hölder, we can estimate by $`𝒟_{L_{xT}^2}𝒞_1_{L_{xT}^4}𝒞_2_{L_{xT}^4}`$ and obtain (3.6) in this case using Plancherel and the Strichartz inequality for the paraboloid as written in ,

(3.8)
$$\frac{a(k,\lambda )}{(1+|\lambda +|k|^2|)^b}𝑑k𝑑\lambda _{L^4(_x^2\times _t)}a_{L_{k\lambda }^2},b>\frac{1}{2},$$

The standard steps going from(3.7) through $`L^2L^4L^4`$ to (3.6) will be omitted from the discussion below.

Case 2. $`|k_1||k_2|,|k_1|10.`$
The case defining conditions imply $`|k||k_1|.`$ We again ignore the wave remnant and use $`(1+|k_1|)^1`$ to cancel away $`|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`(1+|k_2|)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. We again encounter (3.7) and complete this case with the $`L^2L^4L^4`$ Hölder argument using (3.8).

Case 3. $`|k_1||k_2|,|k_2|10|k_2||k|`$.
The numerator $`(1+|k_1|)^1`$ is not helpful in this case so we exploit the denominators in (3.6) to cancel $`|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`(1+|k_2|)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Since $`k=k_1+k_2,\lambda =\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$, the triangle inequality implies

(3.9)
$$\mathrm{max}(|\lambda \pm |k||,|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2|,|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)|\pm |k|+|k_2|^2|k_1|^2||k_2|^2|k|^2.$$

Case 3.A. $`|\lambda \pm |k||`$ is the max in (3.9).
We use the large denominator to cancel $`|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`(1+|k_2|)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and proceed as with (3.7).

Case 3.B. $`|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2|`$ is the max in (3.9).
Most of the large denominator is used to cancel away $`|k|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`(1+|k_2|)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and we need to control

$$_{}\frac{d(k,\lambda )}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\frac{c_1(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b}\frac{c_2(k_2,\lambda _2)}{(1+|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2|)^{b\frac{1}{2}}}.$$

Since $`b>\frac{1}{2}`$, so that $`b\frac{1}{2}>2\delta >0`$, and $`|\lambda _2\pm |k_2|^2||\lambda \pm |k||`$, we can write

(3.10)
$$_{}\frac{(1+|k|)^\delta d(k,\lambda )}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)^{\frac{1}{2}+}}\frac{(1+|k_1|)^\delta c(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b}c_2(k_2,\lambda _2).$$

Let $`𝒟(k,\lambda )=\frac{(1+|k|)^\delta d(k,\lambda )}{(1+|\lambda \pm |k||)^{\frac{1}{2}+}}`$ and $`𝒞=\frac{(1+|k_1|)^\delta c(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b}`$. Then (3.10) may be expressed as $`𝒟𝒞,c_2`$ and Cauchy-Schwarz reduces matters to controlling $`𝒟𝒞_{L_{xT}^2}`$. This is accomplished in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1.

For $`b=\frac{1}{2}+`$ and a fixed small $`\delta >0`$

(3.11)
$$_{,|k_2|,|k_1|10}f(k,\lambda )\frac{(1+|k_2|)^\delta d(k_2,\lambda _2)}{(1+|\lambda _2\pm |k_2||)^{\frac{1}{2}+}}\frac{(1+|k_1|)^\delta c(k_1,\lambda _1)}{(1+|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|)^b}f_{L^2}d_{L^2}c_1_{L^2}.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\frac{1}{2}+`$ and $`b`$ exceed $`\frac{1}{2}`$, the estimate (3.11) may be reduced to the “on-curve” setting using parabolic (for $`c_1`$) and light-cone (for $`d`$) level set decompositions (see, for example, .) This reduces considerations to showing that

(3.12)
$$_{|k_2||k_1|1}f(x_1+k_2,\pm |k_1|^2\pm |k_2|)|k_2|^\delta \psi (k_2)|k_1|^\delta \varphi (k_1)𝑑k_1𝑑k_2f_{L_{k\lambda }^2}\psi _{L_k^2}\varphi _{L_k^2}.$$

Consider the piece of the integration on the left-side of (3.12) arising from $`\{k_2:|k_2|K_2(dyadic)\}\times \{k_1:|k_1|K_1(dyadic)\}`$. We make a change of variables222Superscripts refer to vector components. $`u^1=k_1^1+k_2^1,u^2=k_1^2+k_2^2,v=\pm |k_1|^2\pm |k_2|`$ and we assume that the component $`k_1^2`$ of $`k_1`$ satisfies $`k_1^2|k_1|K_1.`$ (This may be accomplished by cutting in pie slices and making a rotation of coordinates if necessary.) This change of variables followed by Cauchy-Schwarz shows (3.12) is bounded by

(3.13)
$$f_{L_{k\lambda }^2}K_1^\delta K_2^\delta _{|k_1^1|K_1}\left(_{|k_i|K_i}|\psi (k_2)|^2|\varphi (k_1)|^2\frac{1}{|J|}𝑑k_1^2𝑑k_2^1𝑑k_2^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑k_1^1$$

where the Jacobian is

(3.14)
$$|J|=|2k_1^2\pm 1|K_1.$$

We apply Cauchy-Schwarz in $`k_1^1`$ and pick up an extra factor of $`K_1^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ which is cancelled away by the Jacobian factor. The small prefactors $`K_i^\delta `$ allow us to sum over large dyadic scales thereby proving (3.12) and the lemma. ∎

The lemma shows that (3.10) is bounded as claimed in (3.6) which completes the proof of Proposition 2.1. ∎

Case 3.C. $`|\lambda _1\pm |k_1|^2|`$ is the max in (3.9).
This case follows with a modification of the argument for Case 3.B.

The proof of Proposition 2.2 follows the same case structure as the proof of Proposition 2.1. The only difference is in the accounting of the extra $`\frac{1}{2}`$ derivative in both sides of (2.19) in comparison with (2.14).


text:
# Electron teleportation with quantum dot arrays

## Abstract

An electron teleportation protocol, inspired by the scenario by Bennett et al., is proposed in a mesoscopic set-up. A superconducting circuit allows to both inject and measure entangled singlet electron pairs in an array of three normal quantum dots. The selection of the teleportation process is achieved in the steady state with the help of two superconducting dots and appropriate gating. Teleportation of the electron spin is detected by measuring the spin-polarized current through the normal dot array. This current is perfectly correlated to the pair current flowing inside the superconducting circuit. The classical channel required by Bennett’s protocol, which signals the completion of a teleportation cycle, is identified with the detection of an electron charge in the superconducting circuit.

Teleportation (TP) recently entered the realm of quantum physics when Bennett et al.  proposed a protocol to reconstruct the unknown state of a given particle at a different location. The sender, Alice, and the receiver, Bob, share an entangled pair  – , and Alice performs a joint measurement on the “source” particle and her part of the pair. The result of the measurement is communicated through a classical channel to Bob, allowing him to reconstruct the initial state on his part of the pair. This protocol has since been experimentally demonstrated with polarized photons , as well as proposed in atomic physics  and solid state optics . Besides its fundamental character, TP is likely to become an essential element of future information processing schemes . It is certainly relevant to test these manifestations of non-locality  with massive particles in nanostructured devices, with the advantage that these can be integrated in (quantum) electronic circuitry. Similar analogies between photon propagation and phase-coherent electron transport in nanostructures were illustrated by the fermion version of the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss experiment .

The general principle of the present mesoscopic scheme for TP – an array of quantum dots with superconductors – is inspired of Ref , but follows more closely its optical implementation . Alice’s measuring device for entangled (singlet) electron pairs is an s–wave superconductor, as is the generator of the entangled electron pairs . Similarly to the the optics experiment only one of the four Bell states is measured.

However photons interact weakly (except during their generation and detection process). On the contrary, electrons in nanostructures experience strong Coulomb interactions, which can be used to ensure that electrons be injected one by one from/to a quantum dot through tunnel barriers . Indeed, further control can be obtained in a multidot array, by means of intradot and interdot Coulomb correlations: here, the “correct” TP sequence (injection, pair creation, measurement, classical channel and detection) can be precisely selected, while operating in the steady state, by an appropriate initial choice of gate voltages.

The “device” is depicted in Fig. 1a: three normal (N) dots, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, and two superconducting (S) dots $`𝐚`$, $`𝐛`$, are placed in alternation: N-dots can only communicate via the S-dots. Dots $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are coupled to dot $`𝐚`$ – Alice’s measuring device – by tunnel junctions, while $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ are coupled to $`𝐛`$ – the source of entangled pairs. Furthermore, dots $`𝐚,𝐛`$ are connected by tunnel junctions to a superconducting ($`𝒮`$) circuit where Cooper pairs only are transferred. Reservoir $`𝐋`$ emits in dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ the electron to be teleported, and reservoir $`𝐑`$ (“Bob”) collects the teleported state from dot $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$.

First, focus on the isolated system of $`5`$ dots. Following , an entangled singlet pair of particles $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^S_{23}=2^{1/2}(|_{23}|_{23})`$ is produced by $`𝐛`$. Coulomb blockade  prohibits double occupancy in each dot  (the same is true for Cooper pair occupancy in the superconducting dots). Bringing together the singlet $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^S_{23}`$ with the state $`|\sigma _1`$ to be teleported, the resulting state with dots $`\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑}`$ occupied leaves the spin in $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ unspecified. This three-particle wave function is now decomposed among the $`4`$ Bell states for electron spins in dots ($`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$) : $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}=(1/2)[|\mathrm{\Psi }^S_{12}|\sigma _3+_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }^{T_\nu }_{12}|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\nu _3]`$ where $`|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\nu `$ are unitary transforms of $`|\sigma `$ ($`\nu =0,\pm `$) and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{T_{0+}}_{12}`$ the three triplet states. $`𝐚`$ acts as a detector for the singlet state of electrons in $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$: absorption of a Cooper pair only occurs if $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ contain a singlet. The remaining spin in dot $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ necessarily acquires the same state $`|\sigma `$ as the initial spin in dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, as required by TP. The absorption of the singlet electron pair from ($`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$) also destroys the initial spin state in dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, therefore satisfying the “non-cloning theorem” , and this transition is made irreversible because it is followed by the (irreversible) injection of a “new” electron from reservoir $`L`$.

A microscopic model supports this TP protocol. N-dots are assumed to have a discrete spectrum, with level spacing comparable to the gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{a,b,𝒮}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the S-dots and S-circuit. The S-dots have a continuous quasiparticle spectrum, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{a,b}>E_{C_\mu }e^2/C_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu }`$. Only two occupation numbers are kept for each dot. N-dots (S-dots) have “empty” states with an even number $`N_\mu ^0`$ of electrons, and have “filled” states with $`N_\mu ^0+1`$ ($`N_\mu ^0+2`$) electrons. The Hamiltonian which describes the TP cell reads $`H=H_0+H_t+H_C`$ where $`H_0`$ describes the isolated elements (dots and reservoirs). The single electron hopping term $`H_t`$ has amplitudes $`t_{\alpha \beta }`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta =\{𝐋,𝐑,𝐒,\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑},𝐚,𝐛\}`$). Only one level is relevant in each N-dot, and next nearest neighbor hoppings are neglected. The Coulomb contribution has the standard form: $`H_C=(1/2)_{\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,a,b}U_{\mu \nu }\delta N_\mu \delta N_\nu `$, where $`\delta N_\mu =N_\mu \overline{N}_\mu `$ is the deviation from the effective number of electrons imposed by the gates (voltage $`V_{G\mu }`$). The coefficients $`U_{\mu \nu }`$ form the inverse capacitance matrix of this five dot system, and are computed  from the individual capacitances $`C`$,$`C^{}`$, $`C_s`$ and $`C_g`$ of the NN, NS, SS and gate junctions respectively (see Fig. 1a). The dots are coupled to the N/S reservoirs with energy line widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}=2\pi t_{L1(R2)}^2N_{L(R)}(0)<<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with density of states $`N_{L,R}(0)`$ (and similarly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Sa}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Sb}`$). The chemical potential $`\mu _S`$ of the superconductor is located in the middle of the left/right reservoir potentials $`\mu _S\pm eV/2`$. Dot configurations are identified by the occupation numbers of dots $`\mathrm{𝟏},𝐚,\mathrm{𝟐},𝐛,\mathrm{𝟑}`$: $`0`$ or $`1`$ ($`0`$, $`1`$ or $`2`$) for the N-dots (S-dots). Charging energy differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_i^f`$ between the initial and final configurations of the five dot system enter the $`O(H_t)^2`$ calculation of the pair tunneling amplitude from $`b`$ to $`2,3`$ (and similarly from $`𝐚`$ to($`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$)): $`A_P^b2_{k,x}u_k^bv_k^bt_{2b}t_{3b}/(i\eta E_k^b\mathrm{\Delta }E_{00020}^{00x0\overline{x}})`$, with $`\eta `$ an infinitesimal, $`u_k,v_k`$ the usual BCS parameters, $`x=0,1(\overline{x}=1,0)`$. $`E_k`$ is the quasiparticle energy involved in the creation of a quasiparticle. The amplitude $`A_P^{a(b)}`$ is at most comparable to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Sa,b}`$, and decreases with the distance between the two junctions involved in cross Andreev reflection . The transition amplitude $`A_S`$ between $`𝐚`$($`𝐛`$) and the $`𝒮`$-circuit is in general larger . Consider the system in the absence of connections with the N,S leads. Dot gate voltages are adjusted so that the pair transitions $`A_P^{a,b},A_S^{a,b}`$ are resonant. Discarding virtual processes with more than one quasiparticle in $`𝐚`$ or $`𝐛`$, one obtains the effective pair Hamiltonian

$$H_{eff}=A_P^a\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_a+A_P^b\mathrm{\Psi }_{23}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_b+A_S(\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒮+H.c.$$
(1)
where the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta }`$ destroys a singlet pair in $`2`$ N-dots and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{a,b,𝒮}`$ destroys a Cooper pair in the superconducting elements.

The TP sequence is now illustrated (Fig. 2) in a steady state operation of the whole circuit (“TP cell”), by applying a constant bias between reservoirs $`𝐋`$ and $`𝐑`$. Circuit parameters and gate voltages are chosen such that the TP cell is symmetric in changing $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ($`𝐚`$) into $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ ($`𝐛`$), thus $`A_P^a=A_P^b`$ (no phase difference exists in the S part of the cell). The TP sequence repeats itself cycle after cycle, each one achieving teleportation of an electron injected in $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ from $`𝐋`$, and detection in $`𝐑`$ of the teleported electron in $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Start with dots $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐛`$ occupied (upper right in Fig. 2). The teleportation process is triggered by the escape of the electron in $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ in reservoir $`𝐑`$. Doing so, the energy level in $`𝐛`$ is lowered, thus interrupting the previously resonant Cooper pair transfer. Now (lower right) the pair in $`𝐛`$ resonates with ($`\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑}`$), building with $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ the aforementioned state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}`$. Measurement of the singlet state in ($`\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐}`$) by $`𝐚`$ (Alice) is achieved when a new electron is injected into $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, yet also raising the energy level in $`𝐚`$ in the process. The remaining electron in $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ thus irreversibly acquires the state of the previous one in $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, while the new electron waits in $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to be teleported in the next sequence.

Note that : i) Incoherent processes are brought by the reservoirs and the applied bias. The latter bias also determines the direction of TP (right or left) in an otherwise symmetric TP cell. This allows pair production from $`𝐛`$ and pair measurement in $`𝐚`$ to be both irreversible. ii) Successive TP cycles are linked together in such a way that a detection event triggers pair production for the next cycle, and an injection event triggers pair measurement for the previous cycle. iii) The classical channel corresponds to the detection of an extra Cooper pair in the superconducting circuit ($`𝐚+𝒮+𝐛`$). In Fig. 1, this detection is schematized by the presence of a detector $`D`$, positioned between $`𝐚`$ and $`𝒮`$. It conveys the information about the (classical) charge in dot $`𝐚`$, this signals the completion of the pair transition $`1,2a`$, the destruction of the original (quantum) spin state in dot $`1`$ and the instantaneous reconstruction of this state in dot $`3`$. This is enabled by the entangled pair, in full agreement with the TP principle . iv) This classical information should in principle be transmitted to Bob, in order to distinguish whether the electron he receives from $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is the result of a TP or any other transport process. Here, this would require a time resolved correlation measurement between the current in the S-circuit and that injected in $`𝐑`$, i.e. the analog of coincidence measurements performed in the optical implementation . Yet, the present mechanism has the merit of automatically implementing TP in the five-dot cell; v) As in optics , measurement of the sole singlet state reduces to $`1/4`$ the efficiency of TP, but not the fidelity, equal to $`1`$ in the ideal sequence depicted above.

The sequence reads: $`\mathrm{}10021][100201010102001][120011000110021]\mathrm{}`$ Close inspection of the energy balance $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_i^f`$ of all the electronic transitions in the TP cell reveals that it is indeed possible to force this sequence with the help of constant gate voltages only . As an example, let us assume that $`C=C^{}=C_s=100C_g`$. First, the resonance condition for pair transitions implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10020}^{10101}=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10101}^{02001}=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{12001}^{10001}=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10001}^{10021}=0`$. One finds that it fixes $`\overline{N}_{a,b}=0.97`$, and $`\overline{N}_1+\overline{N}_2=0.67`$. Second, injection and detection are ensured (with $`\mu _{L,R}=\pm eV/2`$) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{02001}^{12001}<eV/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10021}^{10020}<eV/2`$, therefore $`V>(\overline{N}_10.9)e/C`$. Third, the transfer of an electron from $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ to $`𝐑`$ is allowed from state $`10021`$ but, among other unwanted transitions, not from $`10101`$ or $`02001`$: this can be achieved in a certain range of $`V`$ because $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10101}^{10100}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10021}^{10020}=2U_{b3}U_{23}=11e^2/30C>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{02001}^{02000}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10021}^{10020}=U_{13}+2U_{b3}2U_{a3}=13e^2/30C>0`$.

TP fidelity is reduced by other transport processes, yet which are suppressed by our choice of resonant Cooper pair transfers. First, a direct electron transfer can result from two consecutive cotunneling transitions from dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to dot $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and from dot $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, while generating virtual quasiparticles . Cotunneling can be avoided by maximizing the energy differences for transitions from dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to dot $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, by tuning the parameter $`\overline{N}_1\overline{N}_2`$. Positive (negative) gate voltages applied to dots $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (dot$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$) guarantee that cotunneling involves a positive energy $`2\epsilon `$ (Fig.1), with $`A_P\epsilon <\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The amplitude for cotunneling from dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is reduced as it scales like $`A_P^2/\epsilon A_P`$. Cotunneling is quenched by maximizing $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{12001}^{02101}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10021}^{00121}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{10001}^{00101}=(\overline{N}_18/15)e^2/C2\epsilon `$. At $`T=0`$, optimal operation is obtained with $`\overline{N}_1=\overline{N}_a1`$, $`\overline{N}_21/3`$ and finite bias $`0<V<e/3C`$. A second process is Josephson tunneling between $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$, independently of the pair current involved in the TP sequence: Cooper pairs can be transmitted by cotunneling through dot $`2`$ only. However, this process  involves quasiparticle excitations in $`𝐚`$ or/and $`𝐛`$, contrary to the TP process. Note that TP involves a (normal) spin-conserving current between $`𝐋`$ and $`𝐑`$, perfectly correlated to a pair current in the $`𝒮`$ circuit. This signature of the coupled quantum and classical channels allows to distinguish TP from the other two processes : the pair current is missing in cotunneling, while the normal current is missing in the Josephson process.

Each TP cycle may involve a new spin state, independent of the previous one. Yet it is convenient, to test TP, to fully spin polarize both $`𝐋`$ and $`𝐑`$, in order to measure the spin correlation between the incoming and outgoing electrons (similarly to the optics experiment ). Assuming the TP cell to be weakly coupled to the reservoirs, transport across the dot array can be described by a master equation. Defining states $`|,2,0,0,=|a`$, $`|,0,0,0,=|c`$, $`|,0,0,2,=|b`$, $`|,0,0,2,0=|1`$, $`|0,2,0,0,=|3`$, and $`|S`$, $`|T`$ the states $`|10101`$ with wave functions $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^S_{12}|\sigma _3`$ and $`(1/\sqrt{3})_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }^{T_\nu }_{12}|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\nu _3`$, the Bloch equations for the reduced density matrix, describing both the populations and the coherences $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ ($`\mu ,\nu =a,b,c,1,2,3`$) can be written in the general form  at zero temperature:

$`\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }(\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\nu \mu }){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }\sigma _{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \mu }\sigma _{\lambda \lambda })`$ (2)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}(\sigma _{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu \lambda }\sigma _{\lambda \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda })`$ (3)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ac}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ca}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{bc}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{cb}=A_S`$, the tunneling rate for Cooper pairs from $`𝐚`$ to $`S`$ ($`S`$ to $`𝐛`$). $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{1S}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{S1}=A_P/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{1T}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{T1}=\sqrt{3}A_P/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3S}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{S3}=A_P`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{3a}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$, all the other $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$’s are zero. The steady state TP current $`I_{tel}=e\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\sigma _{bb}`$ (from $`L`$ to $`R`$) then reads:

$$I_{tel}=e\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{}+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)}\frac{A_P^2}{[A_P^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{}+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)]}$$
(4)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(3+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2/2A_S^2)`$. Note that the above analysis does not depend on the incident polarization as depicted in Fig. 2, as the two spin channels are totally decoupled. Aside from corrections due to cotunneling, the only transport channel through the dot array is the TP process. Unless direct evidence comes from individual electron coincidence counting (as for photons), a signature of TP is already provided by the equality of the TP current and the pair current $`I_P=2I_{tel}`$.

As in quantum optics, a proof for nonclassical spin correlations requires to check the above equality for parallel spin polarizations of reservoirs $`𝐋`$ and $`𝐑`$, taking successively two values corresponding to non-orthogonal quantum states . Refined diagnosis for TP can be searched in noise correlations measurements or with future time-resolved measurements.

Limiting factors are now considered. First, it is crucial to maintain spin coherence during the TP sequence (on a time scale $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R,L}`$, which turns out to be “short” in practice). This coherence can be destroyed by spin-orbit coupling, or by collisions with the other electrons within the dot. Such spin-flip processes can be minimized provided that the level spacing in the dots is larger than the temperature and the resonance width of the dots: “empty” dot states of $`\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟑}`$ should preferably have even filling $`N_\mu `$. Second, the present scheme is clearly optimized if Cooper pair transfer from the N-dots pairs to each S-dots has an maximal amplitude $`A_P`$. This amplitude is strongly reduced by a geometrical factor in two and three dimensions when the two N-S tunnel barriers as spaced farther than a few nanometers . On the other hand, the size of the S-dots is large enough so that $`E_{C_{a(b)}}<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, thus precise lithography bringing N-dot pairs close together (however avoiding direct tunneling between N-dots) is required. An alternative would be to define the dots with quasi one–dimensional conductors (nanotubes) placed in contact with the superconductor, as the geometrical constraint is relaxed .

To sum up, an electron spin teleportation scheme which employs N-S hybrid nanodevices for electrons is proposed. It relies on current nanofabrication techniques and operates in the steady state, using Coulomb correlations in the dot array. The TP current which flows between the N-reservoirs is locked with the pair current in the S-circuit. The device could be implemented using bent, gated, contacted carbon nanotubes next to superconductors . The feasibility of this proposal relies on efficient spin filters $`L`$, $`R`$, already available at low temperatures . Finally, the proposed setup is generalizable to $`2𝒩+1`$ normal dots, together with $`𝒩`$ superconducting circuits ($`2𝒩`$ S-dots): TP of a spin state in dot $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ onto dot $`2𝒩+1`$ can be achieved by a swapping process , thus extending the range of TP.

Stimulating discussions with V. Bouchiat are gratefully acknowledged. LEPES is under contract with Grenoble universities, UJF and INPG.


text:
# Perturbative Approach to the Astrometric Microlensing due to an Extrasolar Planet

## 1 Introduction

Extrasolar planets searches are successfully going on (Marcy & Butler 1998). The number of candidates for the planets has reached about 70 thanks to the Doppler method. In spite of the success, this technique has some limitations: The inferred mass is the lower bound, since the inclination angle of the orbital plane is not determined except for the eclipse case. In addition, the radial velocity of a star becomes too small to detect its Doppler effect when separation between the star and the planet is of the order of an AU. Hence, it seems quite difficult to discover earth-type planets by this method. Astrometry is considered as a supplementary method to find out planets by measuring the transverse motion of a star. Indeed, we can expect significant improvements in the precision of the future astrometric measurements by DIVA, FAME, GAIA and SIM. Their precision will achieve a few micro arcseconds.

These future astrometry missions make the astrometric microlensing the third method for searching extrasolar planets: The typical scale in the gravitational lensing is the Einstein ring radius, which is of the order of an AU for a lensing star within our galaxy. Hence, the microlensing is quite effective even for earth-type planets (Mao & Paczynski 1991, Gould & Loeb 1992). In the planetary lens case, we can determine its true mass through observation of spikes in the light curve, which are produced by the magnification effect of the gravitational lensing. On the other hand, the astrometric microlensing is a consequence of a combination of the magnification and the position shift of the image (Miyamoto and Yoshii 1995). The numerical results (Safizadeh et al. 1999, Han and Lee 2002) have shown that the photo centroid shifts provide us a clue for extrasolar planets. However, the parameter dependence is not clear in the numerical approach. The purpose of this paper is to derive the analytic formulae and clarify the parameter dependence. Analytic approaches to a binary lens have not been developed until now. After presenting a brief summary of the astrometric microlensing due to a single lens, we treat a planetary lensing case as a perturbation around the stellar lens.

## 2 Microlensing due to a planetary system

### 2.1 A single lens

A single lens is located at the distance $`D_L`$ from the observer, and a source at $`D_S`$. The distance between the lens and the source is denoted by $`D_{LS}`$. Under the thin lens approximation, the lens equation for the single lens is written as

$$𝜷=𝜽\frac{D_{LS}}{D_S}𝜶,$$
(1)
where $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜽`$ are the angular positions of the source and the image, respectively, and $`𝜶`$ is the deflection angle. For a spherical lens with mass $`M`$, or at least axisymmetric along the line of sight, the deflection angle is

$$|𝜶|=\frac{4GM}{c^2b},$$
(2)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`b`$ is the impact parameter of the light ray. It is convenient to normalize our equations by the angular radius of the Einstein ring

$$\theta _E=\sqrt{\frac{4GMD_{LS}}{c^2D_LD_S}},$$
(3)
which is of the order of a milli arcsecond (mas) for a solar mass lens within our galaxy. In units of the Einstein ring radius, the lens equation is rewritten as

$$𝜷=𝜽\frac{𝜽}{\theta ^2},$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ denotes $`|𝜽|`$ and similar notations are used below. We find out the two solutions

$$𝜽^{(\pm )}=k^{(\pm )}𝜷,$$
(5)
where we defined

$$k^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{4}{\beta ^2}}\right).$$
(6)
The amplification for each image is respectively

$$A^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\beta ^2+2}{\beta \sqrt{\beta ^2+4}}\pm 1\right).$$
(7)
Following the definition of the center of mass, we define the photo center as (Walker 1995)

$$𝜽_C=\frac{A^{(+)}𝜽^{(+)}+A^{()}𝜽^{()}}{A^{(+)}+A^{()}}.$$
(8)
With respect to the unlensed position, the location of the photo center is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝜽_C=𝜽_C𝜷,$$
(9)
which expresses the deviation due to the lensing. For the single lens, it becomes simply

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝜽_C=\frac{𝜷}{\beta ^2+2},$$
(10)
where we used Eq. (7). We can assume that the stellar motion in our galaxy is approximated over several decades by a straight line, since the curvature of the orbit in our galaxy is negligible. For the later convenience, we decompose $`𝜷`$ into the orthogonal vectors as

$$𝜷=𝒃+𝑽,$$
(11)
where $`𝒃`$ is the vector for the impact parameter from the lens to the stellar orbit, and

$$𝑽=t𝒗_{},$$
(12)
for $`𝒗_{}`$, the transverse angular velocity of the source to the lens. Here, we have chosen $`t=0`$ as the time when the star is closest to the lens. We introduce $`\xi `$ as

$$V=\sqrt{\beta ^2+2}\mathrm{tan}\xi ,$$
(13)
so that the photo center can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝜽_C\frac{𝒃}{2(b^2+2)}=\frac{𝒃\mathrm{cos}2\xi }{2(b^2+2)}+\frac{𝑽\mathrm{sin}2\xi }{2V\sqrt{b^2+2}},$$
(14)
which is an ellipse (Walker 1995, Jeong et al. 1999). Its size is of the order of a mas for stellar cases in our galaxy. The center of the ellipse is at $`\frac{𝒃}{2(b^2+2)}`$, and the length of the semimajor and semiminor axes are $`\frac{1}{2\sqrt{b^2+2}}`$ and $`\frac{b}{2(b^2+2)}`$, respectively. The photo center passes the two points on the semiminor axes at $`t=0(\xi =0)`$ and $`t=\pm \mathrm{}(\xi =\pm \frac{\pi }{2})`$.

### 2.2 A planetary lens

Now, we are in the position to consider the astrometric microlensing due to the planetary system, where the mass of the star and the planet are $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ respectively. Let us consider the separation vector from the star to the planet. Its projection onto the lens plane is denoted by $`𝒔`$. We adopt the frame of center of mass. Then, in the unit of the Einstein ring radius angle due to the total mass $`M_1+M_2`$, the lens equation is written as

$$𝜷=𝜽\left(\nu _1\frac{𝜽+\nu _2\mathit{ϵ}}{|𝜽+\nu _2\mathit{ϵ}|^2}+\nu _2\frac{𝜽\nu _1\mathit{ϵ}}{|𝜽\nu _1\mathit{ϵ}|^2}\right),$$
(15)
where we defined

$`\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_1+M_2}},`$ (16)
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_1+M_2}},`$ (17)
$`\mathit{ϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒔}{D_L}}.`$ (18)
In the planetary case, $`M_2`$ is much smaller than $`M_1`$. For instance, the Jupiter mass is about $`10^3`$ of the solar mass. Hence, we introduce an expansion parameter as $`\nu =\nu _2`$ in our perturbation approach. Since we wish to consider the microlensing as a method supplementary to the Doppler technique, we concentrate on a large separation case $`ϵ>1`$, which is beyond the reach of the Doppler method. It is straightforward to extend our investigation to the case of $`ϵ<1`$. In addition, we consider a case of a large impact parameter $`\beta 1`$, which is most probable because of the large cross section. In total, we consider the case of $`\beta ϵ>1`$. Let us look for the solutions of the lens equation by taking a form of

$$𝜽=𝜽_0+\delta 𝜽,$$
(19)
where $`𝜽_0`$ and $`\delta 𝜽`$ are the solutions at the zeroth and first order, respectively.

We know the zeroth-order solution

$$𝜽_0^{(\pm )}=k^{(\pm )}𝜷,$$
(20)
which is expanded as

$`\theta _0^{(+)}\beta ϵ,`$ (21)
$`\theta _0^{()}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}ϵ.`$ (22)
That is, the “$`+`$” image appears outside the planetary system, while the “$``$” image inside it. Throughout our calculations, we should keep in mind that the large impact parameter does not mean $`\theta ϵ`$.

Next, we find the solutions at the first order as

$`\delta 𝜽^{(+)}={\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\beta ^6}}\left(2\mathit{ϵ}(𝜷\mathit{ϵ})\beta ^2𝜷ϵ^2\beta ^2+4𝜷(𝜷\mathit{ϵ})^2+O(ϵ^3\beta ^2)\right),`$ (23)
$`\delta 𝜽^{()}=\nu \left(\mathit{ϵ}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝜷}{\beta ^2}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\beta ^2}})\right),`$ (24)
$`𝜽^{(3)}=\mathit{ϵ}\nu \left(\mathit{ϵ}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝜷+(\frac{1}{ϵ^2}1)\mathit{ϵ}}{|𝜷+(\frac{1}{ϵ^2}1)\mathit{ϵ}|^2}}\right),`$ (25)
where the first and second solutions are perturbations around the zeroth-order solutions, and the third solution does not appear until at the linear order of $`\nu `$. Actually, for $`\nu =0`$, the third image is located at the direction to the planet. As for the number of the images, see also Witt (1993).

Hence, we obtain the Jacobian of the mapping between the source and the lens planes,

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{𝜽^{(+)}}{𝜷}}|=1+O({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ϵ^4}{\beta ^6}},\nu ^2),`$ (26)
$`|{\displaystyle \frac{𝜽^{()}}{𝜷}}|={\displaystyle \frac{12\nu }{\beta ^4}}+O(\nu ^2),`$ (27)
$`|{\displaystyle \frac{𝜽^{(3)}}{𝜷}}|=O(\nu ^2).`$ (28)
The contribution of the third solution to the photo center is negligible for the large impact parameter.

### 2.3 Distortion of an ellipse for light centroid shifts

By the use of the preceding subsection, we find a correction to the photo centroid as

$$\delta 𝜽_C=\frac{\nu }{\beta ^6}\left(2\mathit{ϵ}(𝜷\mathit{ϵ})\beta ^2𝜷ϵ^2\beta ^2+4𝜷(𝜷\mathit{ϵ})^2+O(\beta ^3)\right)+O(\nu ^2).$$
(29)
This is due to a primary effect caused by a position shift given by Eq. (23), since Eq. (26) shows that the correction to amplification appears only at higher orders.

Let us investigate in detail the photo center shift. We consider the expansion of the following superposition of two ellipses

$`(1\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{𝜷+\nu \mathit{ϵ}}{|𝜷+\nu \mathit{ϵ}|^2+2}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{𝜷\mathit{ϵ}}{|𝜷\mathit{ϵ}|^2+2}}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜷}{\beta ^2+2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\beta ^6}}\left(2\mathit{ϵ}(𝜷\mathit{ϵ})\beta ^2𝜷ϵ^2\beta ^2+4𝜷(𝜷\mathit{ϵ})^2+O(ϵ^3\beta ^2)\right)+O(\nu ^2),`$
where the first term of the left hand side is considered as the primary ellipse and the second as the perturbation around the primary. The position of the first ellipse is shifted by $`\nu \mathit{ϵ}`$ in comparison with Eq. $`(\text{10})`$, and its size changes by factor $`1\nu `$. Next, let us take a closer look at the secondary ellipse. The orthogonal decomposition by Eq. (11) is modified as

$$𝜷\mathit{ϵ}=(𝒃\mathit{ϵ}_{})+(tt_C)𝒗_{},$$
(31)
where we defined

$`\mathit{ϵ}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathit{ϵ}𝒗_{})𝒗_{}}{v_{}^2}},`$ (32)
$`\mathit{ϵ}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathit{ϵ}_{},`$ (33)
$`t_C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{}}{v_{}}}.`$ (34)
For stellar cases in our galaxy, the maximum angular size of the distortion is estimated as

$$\frac{\nu \theta _E}{\beta }\left(\frac{ϵ}{\beta }\right)^2\text{micro arcsec.}\left(\frac{\nu }{10^3}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\right)\left(\frac{\theta _E}{\text{mas}}\right)\left(\frac{ϵ}{\beta }\right)^2,$$
(35)
where we assumed that $`\beta `$ is comparable to $`ϵ`$. The maximal distortion occurs at

$$t_C10^6\text{s}\left(\frac{ϵ_{}}{\text{AU}}\right)\left(\frac{100\text{km/s}}{v_{}}\right),$$
(36)
about a few months before/after, depending on a location of the planet, the source passes the point closest to the lensing star. A planet whose orbital separation is between 0.1 AU and a dozen of AU will be detectable by future missions which observe at intervals from a few days to several years.

### 2.4 Discussion

The position shift falls off as $`b^1`$, while the amplification as $`b^4`$. Hence, the cross section for the astrometric microlensing is much larger than that for the photometric microlensing, when the sufficient accuracy of astrometric measurements will be achieved. This is why, up to this point, we have concentrated ourselves within a case of a large impact parameter. In a small impact parameter case, the caustic crossing produces sufficiently large magnification of the images, so that we might be able to detect it much more easily by the astrometric microlensing as well as photometric microlensing (Safizadeh et al. 1999). Numerical implementations are needed to study such a nonlinear behavior. In order to evaluate feasibility in the future mission, we must take account of the brightness of the lensing star. It might be important to pay attention also to fluctuation of extragalactic reference frame due to gravitational lensing of black holes (Schutz 1982) and MACHOs (Hosokawa et al 1997) in our galaxy. Finally, the Keplerian motion might cause an appreciable effect on the distortion of the photo center ellipse, since the orbital period of the planet ranges from months to more than years, presumably comparable to $`t_C`$. Therefore, it would be an important subject to study these effects in detail.

## 3 Conclusion

In expectation of dramatic improvements in the precision of the future astrometric measurements, we have developed a perturbative approach to microlensing due to an extrasolar planetary lens. Formulae for triple images due to the planetary lens are given perturbatively by Eqs. $`(\text{23})(\text{25})`$. In particular, we have shown by Eqs. $`(\text{35})`$ and $`(\text{36})`$, how the light centroid shifts are dependent on the mass ratio and separation between the star and the planet. The typical time scale is of the order of months, depending strongly on $`ϵ_{}`$, a projection of the separation vector onto the source trajectory.

The author would like to thank M. Bartelmann, L. Blanchet, G. Boerner, C. Cutler, N. Gouda, M. Kasai and B. Schutz for fruitful conversation and encouragements. He would like to thank G. Boerner, B. Schutz and L. Blanchet for hospitality at the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics, the Albert Einstein Institute and the Institute for Astrophysics at Paris, respectively, where a part of this work was done. This work was supported in part by a Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, No. 13740137.