text:
# Extended RPA within a solvable 3 level model

## I Introduction

The most commonly used microscopic approach for the study of collective vibrational states in many-fermion systems is the Random Phase Approximation (RPA). In this theory the lowest collective excitations result from the action of phonon operators $`Q_\nu ^{}`$ on a state $`|RPA)`$ which is defined by the condition that $`Q_\nu |RPA)=0`$. This state represents the ground state of the system. It is a distinctive feature of RPA that multiphonon states, i.e. states obtained by repeated actions of phonon operators on the ground state, are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian with energies forming a harmonic spectrum. The existence of states which can be approximately described as corresponding to the multiple excitation of low-lying and/or high-lying phonons is well established in atomic nuclei. However, deviations from the harmonic picture are also observed and their influence on several processes has been analysed.

In a standard derivation of the RPA equations, a crucial point is represented by the so-called Quasi-Boson Approximation (QBA). This is a rather crude approximation which causes the $`Q_\nu ^{}`$ operators to behave as boson operators in spite of their (composite) fermionic structure. Overcoming this approximation has represented the starting point of many attempts aiming at improving RPA. One of the line of research in such a context has been based on a reformulation of the whole theory in a boson formalism. In other words, the $`Q_\nu ^{}`$ operators have been defined from the beginning in terms of true boson operators and all the fermion operators of interest have been replaced, via a mapping procedure, by their boson images. The RPA-type equations that one constructs in this formalism depend, of course, on the degree of expansion of the boson Hamiltonian. Truncating this expansion at the lowest order, i.e. at two-boson terms only, gives the boson counterpart of RPA. Including higher-order terms in the boson image of the Hamiltonian provides a natural way to reach a higher level of approximation. Besides that, the inclusion of these terms has another important effect: it leads to a coupling among multiphonon states. States which result from a diagonalization in a m-phonon space are therefore superpositions of zero-, one-,… , m-phonon states. Such a diagonalization is expected to lead to a further improved degree of approximation as well as to cause anharmonicities in the spectrum.

Calculations in this boson formalism have been performed in the recent past for atomic nuclei considering a Hamiltonian truncated at four-boson terms and diagonalizing it in the space of one- and two-phonon states. The resulting anharmonicities have not been found large, especially in 208Pb. In particular, the anharmonicity associated with states whose main component is a Double Giant Resonance has been found of the order of a few hundred $`KeV`$. This is certainly related to the fact that RPA gives a good description of Giant Resonances, especially in heavy closed shell nuclei.

In metallic clusters, a strongly collective state is known to exist, the dipole plasmon, which corresponds to the oscillation of the delocalized electrons of the cluster against the positively charged ions. The experimental evidence for states corresponding to the double excitation of the plasmon has not been confirmed . From the theoretical point of view the situation is also quite unclear. From one hand, in  a purely harmonic spectrum for the multiple excitation of the plasmon has been predicted. On the other hand, by using the same approach as in  huge anharmonicities in the two-plasmon states have been found . An important difference with respect to the case of atomic nuclei is that in metallic clusters the two-body interaction is very long ranged. This is probably the main reason why the RPA ground state is very different from the Hartree-Fock one and the RPA backward amplitudes are quite large. Of course, this may cause that the same level of truncation in the boson expansion is not adequate both in the case of nuclei and of metal clusters.

In principle, configuration mixing calculations can give a clear, model independent, indication on the existence of such two-phonon states and on their degree of anharmonicity. Unfortunately, since the states one looks for are quite high in energy, the number of configurations required to get stable results is huge. In  such a study has been performed for a very simple case: two interacting electrons moving in a uniform positive charge distribution. This is a kind of precursor of a metal cluster in the jellium approximation and allows for a numerically exact calculation. Important deviations from the harmonic limit have been found. More specifically, in addition to an almost perfectly harmonic vibrational band based on the ground state, the other states can be classified in other bands with a much less degree of harmonicity.

Aim of this paper is to shed some light on the limits of the approach adopted in  and  by applying it to a 3-level solvable model. The analysis we are going to present is very similar to that in  where a 2-level model was considered and the parameters were adjusted in such a way to mimick the multiple excitation of a Giant Resonance. The 3-level model is, of course, richer. In particular, since there are two single particle states above the Fermi surface (particle states) and one below (hole), two different elementary p-h configurations and, correspondingly, two different phonons can be excited. Therefore, one can better simulate the situation encountered in nuclei which generally present one high-lying and one low-lying collective modes for each multipolarity. Also, matrix elements of the interaction connecting a particle-hole state with a two-particle one can be included in a natural way. These terms are present in a generic two-body interaction and are very important since they couple states having numbers of phonons differing by one.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we will describe the model and the formalism. In Sec. III, we will analyse the results. Finally, in Sec. IV, we will review the content of the paper and draw some conclusions.

## II The model and the formalism

The model consists of three $`2\mathrm{\Omega }`$-fold degenerate single-particle shells which are occupied by $`2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ particles. In the absence of interaction, then, the lowest level is completely filled while the others are empty. This state, the “Hartree-Fock” (HF) state of the system, is denoted by $`|0`$. A single-particle state is specified by a set of quantum numbers ($`j,m`$), where $`j`$ stands for the shell ($`j`$=0,1,2) and $`m`$ specifies the $`2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ substates within the shell. The creation and annihilation operators of a fermion in a state ($`j,m`$) are defined by $`a_{jm}^{}`$ and $`a_{jm}`$, respectively.

Let us consider the operators

$$K_{ij}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}a_{im}^{}a_{jm}(i,j=0,1,2).$$
(1)
These operators satisfy the Lie algebra of the group SU(3)

$$[K_{ij},K_{kl}]=\delta _{jk}K_{il}\delta _{il}K_{kj}.$$
(2)
The Hamiltonian of the model is written in terms of the generators $`K_{ij}`$ only and contains up to two-body interactions. Its form is

$`H_F=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}ϵ(i)K_{ii}+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2}{}}V_x(i,j)K_{i0}K_{0j}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1,2}{}}V_v(i,j)(K_{i0}K_{j0}+K_{0j}K_{0i})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1,2}{}}V_y(i,j,k)(K_{i0}K_{jk}+K_{kj}K_{0i}),`$
with real coefficients. The eigenstates of $`H_F`$ can be constructed either by using the properties of the SU(3) algebra or by diagonalizing it in the space

$$F=\left\{|n_1n_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩_{n_1n_2}}}(K_{10})^{n_1}(K_{20})^{n_2}|0\right\}_{0n_1+n_22\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(6)
where $`𝒩_{n_1n_2}`$ are normalization factors.

In order to introduce the boson formalism, let’s define the space

$$B=\{|n_1n_2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_1!n_2!}}(b_1^{})^{n_1}(b_2^{})^{n_2}|0)\}_{0n_1+n_22\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(7)
where the operators $`b_i^{}`$ obey the standard boson commutation relations

$$[b_i,b_j^{}]=\delta _{ij},[b_i,b_j]=0$$
(8)
and $`|0)`$ is the vacuum of the $`b_i`$’s operators. A one-to-one correspondence exists between the states of $`F`$ and $`B`$, the boson operators $`b_i^{}`$ playing the role of the excitation operators $`K_{i0}`$ and the boson vacuum $`|0)`$ replacing the HF state $`|0`$.

The mapping procedure to construct boson images of fermion operators is the same discussed in previous works (see, for instance, Ref. ) and, due to the orthonormality of both sets of states $`|n_1,n_2`$ and $`|n_1,n_2)`$, it is simply based on the requirement that corresponding matrix elements in $`F`$ and $`B`$ be equal. The procedure is, therefore, of Marumori-type. We refer to Ref.  for more details. Here, we simply say that, in correspondence with the Hamiltonian $`H_F`$ (5), we introduce a hermitian boson Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ which, in the most extended version, has the form

$`H_B=`$ $`\alpha +{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\beta _i(b_i^{}+h.c.)+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\gamma _{ij}b_i^{}b_j+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\varphi _{ij}(b_i^{}b_j^{}+h.c.)`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ_{ijk}(b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k+h.c.)+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}\delta _{ijkl}b_i^{}b_j^{}b_kb_l.`$
with the coefficients depending on the parameters $`ϵ(i),V_x,V_v,V_y`$ of Eq.(5).

Let us now introduce the operators

$$Q_\nu ^{}=\underset{i}{}X_i^{(\nu )}b_i^{}\underset{i}{}Y_i^{(\nu )}b_i.$$
(11)
and let the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0)`$ satisfy the condition

$$Q_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi }_0)=0.$$
(12)
By using the equations of motion method  one finds that the amplitudes X and Y are solutions of

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}AB\\ B^{}A^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}X^{(\nu )}\\ Y^{(\nu )}\end{array}\right)=\omega ^{(\nu )}\left(\begin{array}{c}X^{(\nu )}\\ Y^{(\nu )}\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where

$$A_{ij}=(\mathrm{\Psi }_0|[b_i,[H_B,b_j^{}]]|\mathrm{\Psi }_0),$$
(14)
$$B_{ij}=(\mathrm{\Psi }_0|[b_i,[H_B,b_j]]|\mathrm{\Psi }_0)$$
(15)
and $`\omega ^{(\nu )}`$ are the energies of the excited states

$$|\nu )=Q_\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0).$$
(16)
As anticipated in the Introduction, the form of Eqs. (13) is strictly related to the degree of truncation of the boson Hamiltonian. In the hypothesis that $`H_B`$ contains up to two-boson terms, the double commutators in Eqs. (14) and (15) are just numbers which, therefore, are also the values of the matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$. This is the simplest case which can be realized in this formalism and represents the boson counterpart of the standard RPA. This degree of approximation can be improved by introducing a Hamiltonian with higher-order terms like, for instance, (10). In this case the double commutators are operators. In order to calculate their expectation values in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0)`$ , as required in Eqs. (14) and (15), one can express the $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ operators in terms of $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ by reversing Eq. (11) (and its conjugate) and use the fact that the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0)`$ is defined as the vacuum of the Q’s. This procedure gives, however, matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ which depend on the X and Y amplitudes and, consequently, equations of motion (13) which are non linear. In what follows this non linear extension of RPA will be called ERPA.

Having determined the X and Y amplitudes within RPA or ERPA, one can express the Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ in terms of the operators Q and $`Q^{}`$. In the case of RPA, namely when the boson Hamiltonian (10) is truncated at two-boson terms only, $`H_B`$ can be rewritten simply as

$$H_B=E_0+\underset{\nu }{}\omega ^{(\nu )}Q_\nu ^{}Q_\nu ,$$
(17)
where $`\omega ^{(\nu )}`$ are the energies solutions of the RPA equations (13). This Hamiltonian obviously doesn’t mix states with different phonon numbers and so its eigenstates are pure zero-, one-, …, m-phonon states. For a higher-level truncation in the boson Hamiltonian, like for instance that of Eq. (10), $`H_B`$ acquires instead the more general form

$`H_B=`$ $`E_0+H_{10}(Q^{}+h.c.)+H_{11}Q^{}Q+H_{20}(Q^{}Q^{}+h.c.)+`$ (20)
$`H_{21}(Q^{}Q^{}Q+h.c.)+H_{30}(Q^{}Q^{}Q^{}+h.c.)+`$
$`H_{22}Q^{}Q^{}QQ+H_{31}(Q^{}Q^{}Q^{}Q+h.c.)+H_{40}(Q^{}Q^{}Q^{}Q^{}+h.c.),`$
(for simplicity, we have dropped all the indices) where the $`H_{ij}`$ coefficients are functions of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Also in this case, as in RPA, the term $`H_{20}`$ as well as the non-diagonal terms $`H_{11}`$ vanish, as can be easily shown using the fact that the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ amplitudes are solutions of the ERPA equations (13). The remaining terms of (20), however, mix states with different phonon numbers so that the eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian become combinations of these states. This fact introduces an evident difference with RPA since the energies which result from the ERPA equations are not eigenvalues of the boson Hamiltonian in the phonon space as it is in the case of RPA (where they provide the excitation energies of the one-phonon eigenstates). In the next section, we will show the results obtained by diagonalizing (20) in different bases, containing up to two-, three- and four-phonon states, and compare them with the RPA and the exact ones.

## III Results and discussion

Let us first of all fix the parameters entering in the Hamiltonian (5). The energies $`ϵ(1)`$ and $`ϵ(2)`$ have been chosen equal to $`ϵ`$ and 2.5$`ϵ`$, respectively. In order to simplify the analysis, the coefficients $`V_x(i,j)`$, $`V_v(i,j)`$, $`V_y(i,j,k)`$ have been assumed independent of the indices $`i,j,k`$ and proportional to one parameter, $`\chi `$. More precisely, we have fixed $`V_x=\chi `$, $`V_v=\frac{1}{4}\chi `$, $`V_y=\frac{3}{8}\chi `$ as in Ref. . Both $`ϵ`$ and $`\chi `$ are parameter expressed in units of energy. All calculations have been performed for a system of $`2\mathrm{\Omega }=10`$ particles.

We begin our analysis by examining the limits of validity of the truncation in the boson Hamiltonian (10). To do that we compare the exact spectrum of the fermion Hamiltonian (5) with that obtained by diagonalizing $`H_B`$ (10) in the full boson space. The results are shown in Fig. 1 where we report, as functions of the strength $`\tau =\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }\chi }{ϵ}`$, the energies of those states which, at zero strength, are pure 1p-1h or 2p-2h states. For later use we also label these states with the symbols $`|\nu )`$ and $`|\nu _1\nu _2)`$ meaning by that the states which, in the limit $`\tau 0`$, are the one-phonon $`(|\nu )Q_\nu ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0))`$ and two-phonon $`(|\nu _1\nu _2)Q_{\nu _1}^{}Q_{\nu _2}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0))`$ states of the RPA formalism. The eigenvalues of the boson hamiltonian (dashed lines) are found in good agreement with the exact ones in the whole range of variation of $`\tau `$. In the following we will take the spectrum of the truncated hamiltonian as the reference one.

In Fig. 2, we show the energies resulting from the RPA and ERPA equations together with the reference spectrum. For small values of the strength, RPA and ERPA give almost identical results, in good agreement with the reference ones. Differences become really visible around $`\tau =0.28`$, where RPA undergoes a collapse. In this region ERPA solutions remain instead stable and close to the reference ones. On the basis of the comments at the end of Sec. II, however, we notice that these ERPA energies can be considered excitation energies of one-phonon states only in the hypothesis that all the terms of (20) but $`E_0`$ and $`H_{11}`$ play a minor role.

Although not clearly visible at a first glance, the spectrum of Fig. 1 shows marked anharmonicities. In order to quantify these, in Fig. 3 we plot the ratios

$$R_{\nu _1\nu _2}=\frac{E_{\nu _1\nu _2}(E_{\nu _1}+E_{\nu _2})}{E_{\nu _1}+E_{\nu _2}},$$
(21)
where by $`E_\nu `$ and $`E_{\nu _1\nu _2}`$ we mean the exact energies of the states $`|\nu )`$ and $`|\nu _1\nu _2)`$ defined in Fig. 1. One notices a well different behaviour of the three ratios plotted. In the case of the state $`|11)`$ the ratio is seen to grow rapidly for increasing $`\tau `$. In the case of the state $`|22)`$, $`R_{\nu _1\nu _2}`$ remains instead almost exactly zero therefore showing that the corresponding exact state can be fairly well described as a pure two-phonon state. The remaining “mixed” state $`|12)`$ exhibits only a moderate anharmonicity. These results resembles that of Ref.  where a realistic two-electron system was examined. Indeed, in both cases, the spectrum is found to exhibit some levels with a clear harmonic nature mixed, however, to other levels which do not display at all this nature. This mix of states makes of course complicate to provide a clear cut answer to the question of how much harmonic is the spectrum of these many-body systems, the answer strongly depending on which levels one is looking at.

The existence of the anharmonicites evidenced in Fig. 3 represents an evident limit to the harmonic picture of RPA and points to the need of diagonalizing the full Hamiltonian (20) in a multiphonon space in order to reproduce the exact spectrum properly. We have performed three separate calculations by diagonalizing $`H_B`$ in spaces including up to two-, three- and four-phonon configurations. The results are shown in Fig. 4 together with the reference ones. The internal structure of the collective phonons entering in the basis states is the one obtained in ERPA, i.e. the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ amplitudes are solutions of Eqs. (13) where the full Hamiltonian (10) has been used. Keeping for simplicity the same labelling of states used in Fig. 1, we can say that, as expected from the previous discussion, for the states $`|1)`$, $`|2)`$ and $`|22)`$ the results are almost independent of the basis and in very good agreement with the exact ones. For the state $`|11)`$ we find instead a marked dependence on the basis, the results approaching more and more the reference ones when the space is enlarged. Going from the smaller space to that including up to three phonons the agreement is quite good for $`\tau 0.25`$. For a higher strength the space needs to be further enlarged up to four phonons. A somewhat similar behaviour, although less pronounced, is seen for the state $`|12)`$.

As a final result, in Fig. 5 we show the ground state energies calculated within RPA and as they result by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (20) in multiphonon spaces. All these results are compared with the exact ones and with those obtained by diagonalizing the boson Hamiltonian (10). It is interesting to see that the good agreement between fermion and boson results already found in Fig. 1 for the excitation energies is confirmed also in this case. As expected, RPA overestimates the exact values. All the diagonalizations in multiphonon spaces lead instead to an underestimation of these values showing, however, a rapid convergence to the exact values with increasing the size of the spaces.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have analysed some of the lowest excited states of the spectrum of a solvable 3-level model, namely those that in RPA would be described as one and two-phonon states. We have worked in a boson formalism. As a preliminary step, then, we have constructed a boson image of the fermion Hamiltonian whose expansion has been truncated at four-boson terms. The procedure followed in such a derivation has been of Marumori-type. The quality of the boson Hamiltonian has been tested by comparing its eigenvalues with the exact ones. Within the considered range of variation of the interaction strength the agreement between fermion and boson energies has always been found quite good.

By making use of this boson Hamiltonian we have constructed RPA-type equations and solved them iteratively. The new solutions have gained in stability with respect to the RPA ones and, in particular, around the RPA collapse point the new energies have exhibited a good agreement with the exact ones. This extension of RPA, while introducing corrections to the Pauli Principle violations present in RPA, naturally leads to a Hamiltonian which mixes states with a different number of phonons. We have performed diagonalizations in spaces containing up to two-, three- and four-phonon states and observed an improved quality of the approximate spectra with increasing the size of the spaces.

Special attention has also been addressed to the problem of the anharmonicity of the spectrum. This has been found relevant for the state which, in RPA, is described as the double excitation of the lowest one-phonon state. On the contrary, for the other states, a less pronounced anharmonicity has been found. These findings agree with those of Ref.  and point to the necessity of considering together all the possible elementary excitations of a many-body system when discussing the anharmonicity of its spectrum.


format: text

text:
# Theorem 1

Biliaison classes of curves in $`𝐏^3`$

Rosario Strano (\*)(\*)1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: primary 14H50, secondary 14H45. Work done with the financial support of the Ministry of Scientific Research.

Abstract. We characterize the curves in $`𝐏^3`$ which are minimal in their biliaison class. Such curves are exactly the curves which do no admit an elementary descending biliaison. As a consequence we have that every curve in $`𝐏^3`$ can be obtained from a minimal one by means of a finite sequence of ascending elementary biliaisons.

0. Introduction. Let $`C`$ be a curve ( i.e. a locally C.M. subscheme equidimensional of dimension 1) in $`𝐏=𝐏_𝐤^3`$ over an algebraically closed field $`𝐤`$ . Let $`𝒥_C`$ be its ideal sheaf in $`𝒪_𝐏`$ and $`I_C=H_{}^0(𝒥_C)`$ be the homogeneous ideal of $`C`$ in the polynomial ring $`R=𝐤[x_0,\mathrm{},x_3]=H_{}^0(𝒪_𝐏)`$. Denote by

$$s(C)=\mathrm{inf}\{n𝐙|h^0(𝒥_C(n))0\};$$

$$e(C)=\mathrm{sup}\{n𝐙|h^1(𝒪_C(n))0\}.$$

In \[R\] P. Rao introduced the notion of biliaison (double linkage) class of curves and proved that two curves $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are in the same classe if and only if $`H_{}^1(𝒥_C)H_{}^1(𝒥_C^{})(h)`$ for some $`h𝐙`$. In \[LR\] R. Lazarsfeld and P. Rao proved that curves with $`s(C)e(C)+4`$ are minimal in their biliaison class. In \[MDP\] M. Martin-Deschamps and D. Perrin gave a costruction of the minimal curve in each biliaison class starting from the minimal free graded resolution of the Rao module $`M(C)=H_{}^1(𝒥_C)`$.

In this paper, by completing the result of Lazarsfeld and Rao, we give a characterization of minimal non ACM curves in the case $`s(C)e(C)+3`$; these curves are those satisfying the following condition: (\*) for every $`s(C)se(C)+3`$ there is a form $`H_s`$ of degree $`<s`$ dividing every element in $`H^0(𝒥_C(s))`$ and such that $`H_sH^0(\omega _C(3s))=0`$.

We see also that these curves are exactly the curves that do not admit any elementary descending biliaison; from this one can deduce the following theorem that improves a result obtained by M. Martin-Deschamps and Perrin \[ MDP\] and by E. Ballico, G. Bolondi and J. Migliore \[BBM\]:

Every curve in $`𝐏^3`$ can be obtained from a minimal one by means of a finite number of ascending elementary biliaisons.

The paper is organized as follows: in Sections 1 and 2 we prove the main result (Theorem 1) and precisely in Section 1 we prove that a non ACM curve with $`s(C)e(C)+3`$ that do not admit any elementary descending biliaison satisfy condition (\*), while in Section 2 we prove that such curve is minimal.

In Section 3 we deduce the above result regarding the structure of a given biliaison class together with some other interesting consequences.

We refer to \[MDP\] for all the notations and in particular for the basic results concerning the biliaison.

By abuse of notation we will denote with the same symbol an homogeneous polinomial in $`R`$ and the surface of $`𝐏^3`$ that it defines.

1. In this section first we state the main result of the paper. The notations are as in the introduction. In order to include all possible curves in $`𝐏^3`$ we consider a line as a minimal curve in the biliaison class of the ACM curves in $`𝐏^3`$.

###### Theorem 1

For a curve $`C𝐏^3`$ the following are equivalent:

1 ) $`C`$ is minimal in its biliaison class

2 ) $`C`$ does not admit any elementary descending biliaison

3 ) $`C`$ is of one (and only one) of the following types:

a ) a line

b ) $`s(C)e(C)+4`$

c ) $`s(C)e(C)+3`$ and

(\*) for every $`s(C)se(C)+3`$ there is a form $`H_s`$ of positive degree $`<s`$ dividing every element in $`H^0(𝒥_C(s))`$ and such that $`H_sH^0(\omega _C(3s))=0`$.

Proof. In the rest of this Section we prove that 2) implies 3). First we prove some preliminary result; recall that, for every $`QH^0(𝒥_C(s))`$ and for every $`m𝐙`$ we have an exact sequence:

$$0H^0(𝒪_Q(m))\mathrm{Hom}(𝒥_{C/Q},𝒪_Q(m))H^0(\omega _C(4s+m))0$$

in particular for $`m=1`$ we have an isomorphism : $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒥_{C/Q},𝒪_Q(1))H^0(\omega _C(3s))`$.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`s(C)se(C)+3`$ , $`QH^0(𝒥_C(s))`$, $`\xi H^0(\omega _C(3s))`$, $`\xi 0`$ and let $`\eta :𝒥_{C/Q}𝒪_Q(1)`$ the morphism of $`𝒪_Q`$-modules corresponding to $`\xi `$. Then $`\eta `$ is not injective if and only if there is a form $`H`$ of degree $`<s`$ dividing $`Q`$ and such that $`H\xi =0`$.

Proof of Proposition 1. The proof is similar to that given in \[S\] Proposition 2.2.3; see also \[MDP\] Proposition III.2.6.

Assume that $`\eta `$ is not injective; by \[S\] Proposition 2.2.3 its kernel and its image are respectively of the form $`𝒥_{D/Q}`$ and $`𝒥_{E/Q}(1)`$, where $`D`$,$`E`$ are subschemes of $`Q`$ containing respectively surfaces $`H`$ , $`K`$ of degree $`<s`$ such that $`HK=Q`$. Since $`𝒥_{E/Q}(1)𝒥_{K/Q}(1)`$ and $`H`$ kills $`𝒥_{K/Q}(1)`$ we have $`H\eta =0`$ and hence $`H\xi =0`$. Conversely assume that there is a form $`H`$ of degree $`<s`$ dividing $`Q`$ and such that $`H\xi =0`$ and let denote by $`u:I_{C/Q}R_Q(1)`$ the (degree zero) homomorphism of graded $`R`$-modules corresponding to $`\eta `$; from the exact sequence

$$0H^0(𝒪_Q(h1))\mathrm{Hom}(𝒥_{C/Q},𝒪_Q(1))(h)H^0(\omega _C(3s+h))0$$

where $`h`$ is the degree of $`H`$, we see that $`H\eta H^0(𝒪_Q(h1))`$. It follows that, if $`Q^{}I_C`$ is a surface without common components with $`Q`$, we have $`Hu(Q^{})=SQ^{}(\mathrm{mod}Q)`$, where $`S`$ is a form of degree $`h1`$; since $`H|Q`$ we have $`H|SQ^{}`$; but $`H`$ and $`Q^{}`$ do not have common components and $`\mathrm{deg}S<\mathrm{deg}H`$. It follows $`S=0`$, hence $`H\eta =0`$ and hence the image of $`\eta `$ is of the form $`𝒥_{E/Q}(1)`$, where $`EQ`$ contains the surface $`K`$ where $`HK=Q`$. By \[MDP\] Proposition III.2.6 $`\eta `$ is not injective.

Remark 1. Fix $`s`$ and $`\xi 0`$. For $`QH^0(𝒥_C(s))`$, if the corresponding morphism $`\eta :𝒥_{C/Q}𝒪_Q(1))`$ is not injective we will denote by $`H_Q`$ the surface contained in $`Q`$ defined as the 2-dimensional component of the subscheme $`DQ`$ whose ideal sheaf is $`\mathrm{ker}\eta `$; we note that $`H_Q`$ can be characterized as follows: $`H_Q|Q`$, $`H_Q\xi =0`$ and for every $`H^{}`$ s.t. $`H^{}|Q`$ and $`H^{}\xi =0`$ is $`H_Q|H^{}`$. In fact from above result we have $`H^{}\eta =0`$ and hence the image of $`\eta `$ is of the form $`𝒥_{E/Q}(1)`$, where $`EQ`$ contains the surface $`K^{}`$ whith $`H^{}K^{}=Q`$. Since $`K`$ is the 2-dimensional component of $`E`$ we have $`K^{}|K`$ and hence $`H=H_Q`$ divides $`H^{}`$.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`s(C)se(C)+3`$, $`Q,Q^{}H^0(𝒥_C(s))`$, $`\xi H^0(\omega _C(3s))`$, $`\xi 0`$ and let $`\eta :𝒥_{C/Q}𝒪_Q(1))`$ and $`\eta ^{}:𝒥_{C/Q^{}}𝒪_Q^{}(1))`$the morphisms corresponding to $`\xi `$. Assume $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are not injective and let $`H_Q`$ and $`H_Q^{}`$ the surfaces defined above. Then $`H_Q=H_Q^{}`$.

Proof of Proposition 2. Put $`H=H_Q`$ and $`H^{}=H_Q^{}`$. Assume they have degrees $`0<hh^{}<s`$ . Since $`H\xi =0`$ and $`H^{}\xi =0`$ by remark 1 it is enough to prove $`H|H^{}`$.

Since $`H^{}\xi =0`$ we have $`H^{}u(Q_i)=SQ_i(\mathrm{mod}Q)`$ for all $`Q_iI_C`$, where $`S`$ is a surface of degree $`h^{}1`$ and $`u`$ is as before; from this we get $`K|S`$ since the image $`u(I_{C/Q})`$ is contained in the ideal $`I_{E/Q}(1)`$ and hence all $`u(Q_i)`$ are multiple of $`K`$ ; in particular for $`Q_i=Q^{}`$ , putting $`u(Q)=KT`$, $`S=KV`$ we have $`H^{}T=H^{}K^{}V(\mathrm{mod}H)`$ i.e. $`H^{}T=H^{}K^{}V+ZH`$ with $`Z`$ of degree $`h^{}1`$. It follows that $`H^{}`$ divides $`ZH`$ and hence $`H^{}`$ have a common factor of positive degree with $`H`$.

Let $`F=GCM(H,H^{})`$; we will show that $`F=H`$; assume the contrary, i.e. $`\mathrm{deg}F<h`$ and put $`H=F\overline{H}`$, $`Q=F\overline{Q}=F\overline{H}K`$ and similarly $`H^{}=F\overline{H^{}}`$, $`Q^{}=F\overline{Q^{}}=F\overline{H^{}}K^{}`$.

Now let $`Y`$ the residue curve of $`C`$ with respect to $`F`$ i. e. the curve whose homogeneous ideal is $`(I_C:F)`$: it is easy to see that $`(I_C:F)`$ is a saturated ideal and that $`YC`$ is a curve i.e. does not have zero-dimensional components (isolated or embedded); moreover $`Y`$ is no empty: infact if it where $`FI_C`$ we would have $`F\xi =0`$ and this is contrary to the fact that $`H`$ is the surface of minimal degree contained in $`Q`$ such that $`H\xi =0`$

From the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_Y(f)𝒪_C𝒪_{CF}0$$

we have an exact sequence of sheaves on $`C`$

$$0\omega _{CF}\omega _C\omega _Y(f)$$

where $`f=\mathrm{deg}F`$. From the above we obtain an exact sequence:

$$0H^0(\omega _{CF}(3s))H^0(\omega _C(3s))H^0(\omega _Y(3s+f))$$

and let $`\overline{\xi }`$ be the image of $`\xi `$ in $`H^0(\omega _Y(3s+f))`$. Hence we have:

1) $`\overline{\xi }0`$: In fact if it were zero, $`\xi `$ would be in $`H^0(\omega _{CF}(3s))`$ and hence $`F\xi =0`$; it follows $`3s+fe(Y)`$

2) $`Y\overline{Q}`$ and $`Y\overline{Q^{}}`$: it follows $`s(Y)sf`$.

3) $`\overline{H}`$ divides $`\overline{Q}`$ and has degree $`0<hf<sf`$; $`\overline{H^{}}`$ divides $`\overline{Q^{}}`$ and has degree $`0<h^{}f<sf`$

4) $`\overline{H}\overline{\xi }=0`$ and $`\overline{H^{}}\overline{\xi }=0`$: In fact $`H^0(\omega _Y(3s+f))`$ embeds in $`H^0(\omega _C(3s+f))`$ and the composition $`H^0(\omega _C(3s))H^0(\omega _Y(3s+f))H^0(\omega _C(3s+f))`$ is the moltiplication by $`F`$. Hence $`H\xi =\overline{H}F\xi =0`$ implies that $`\overline{H}\overline{\xi }=0`$ and similarly for $`H^{}`$.

We have hence reproduced for $`Y`$ the hypotheses of Proposition 2 and by the first part of proof $`\overline{H}`$ and $`\overline{H^{}}`$ have a common factor of positive degree and this is absurd since they were coprime.

Now we conclude the proof that 2) implies 3) in Theorem 1. Assume that $`C`$ does not admit any elementary descending biliaison of height -1 and $`s(C)e(C)+3`$. Using \[MDP\] Proposition III.2.6 three cases are possible.

i) There is an $`s`$, $`s(C)se(C)+3`$, a surface $`Q`$ of degree $`s`$ containing $`C`$ and a surjective homomorphism $`𝒥_{C/Q}𝒪_Q(1)`$; in this case $`C`$ is the section of $`Q`$ with a plane $`S`$ and hence we can make a descending elementary biliaison of $`C`$ on $`S`$ with a line.

ii) There is an $`s`$, $`s(C)se(C)+3`$, a surface $`Q`$ of degree $`s`$ containing $`C`$ and an injective non surjective homomorphism $`𝒥_{C/Q}𝒪_Q(1)`$; in this case $`C`$ admit an elementary descendiong biliaison on $`Q`$.

iii) for all $`s`$, $`s(C)se(C)+3`$ and all $`Q`$ of degree $`s`$, every non zero homomorphism $`𝒥_{C/Q}𝒪_Q(1)`$ is not injective. In this case, by Proposition 2, for every $`s`$ and every non zero $`\xi H^0(\omega _C(3s))`$ there is a form of degree $`<s`$ which divides every element in $`H^0(𝒥_C(s))`$ and such that $`H\xi =0`$.

The last step is to make $`H`$ independent of $`\xi `$. Since for fixed $`H`$ the set of $`\xi H^0(\omega _C(3s))`$ s. t. $`H\xi =0`$ is a $`𝐤`$-subspace of $`H^0(\omega _C(3s))`$ and since the set of forms of degree $`<s`$ dividing the GCD of $`H^0(𝒥_C(s))`$ is finite, we have the result. This will finish our proof.

Remark 2. We note that $`H`$ divides all $`H^0(𝒥_C(i))`$ for all $`i=s(C),\mathrm{},s`$ and kills all $`H^0(\omega _C(j))`$ for $`j=e(C),\mathrm{},3s`$. This last statement follows from the fact that there is a linear form in $`R`$ which is not a zero divisor for $`H_{}(\omega _C)`$.

Remark 3. If $`C`$ is a curve satisfying condition 3) c) of Theorem 1, then $`C`$ is not ACM. In fact an ACM curve has all its minimal generators in degree $`e(C)+3`$ but for the condition 3) c) all these generators have a common factor of positive degree. As a consequence we have that an ACM curve of degree $`>1`$ always admits a descending elementary biliaison.

2. In this Section we prove the implication $`3)1)`$ of Theorem 1. Let $`C`$ be a curve satisfying condition 3) c); we want to prove that it is minimal in its biliaison class.

Let

$$0PN_1I_C0$$

be a minimal $`N`$-resolution of $`I_C`$ (see \[LR\] or \[MDP\]); we know that $`P`$ is free graded $`R`$-module. Now let $`C^{}`$ another curve in the same biliason class of $`C`$; by adding a free graded $`R`$-module $`L`$ we can assume that $`C,C^{}`$ have $`N`$-resolutions, (not necessarily minimal) of the form:

$$0A\stackrel{\alpha }{}N\stackrel{\tau }{}I_C0$$

$$0B\stackrel{\beta }{}N\stackrel{\sigma }{}I_C^{}(d)0$$

where

$$A=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R(a_i)=PL,a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_n$$

$$B=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R(b_i),b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_n$$

as in \[LR\] it is enough to prove that for all $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$ is $`a_ib_i`$; as in \[LR\] it is enough to prove that, for all $`t𝐙`$ is $`\mathrm{rank}A_t\mathrm{rank}B_t`$; we consider three cases:

1 ) $`t(e(C)+4)`$ in this case we use the same proof as in \[LR\];

2 ) $`t>s(C)`$ in this case we use the same proof as in \[LR\];

3 ) let $`s(C)t>(e(C)+4)`$ and assume that there exists $`t`$ such that $`\mathrm{rank}A_t<\mathrm{rank}B_t`$. We put $`s=t`$ and we have $`s(C)se(C)+3`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}A_s<\mathrm{rank}B_s`$. We assume also that $`s`$ is minimal with this property.

Put $`B=B_1B_2`$ where $`B_1=_{b_is}B(b_i)`$,$`B_2=_{b_i>s}B(b_i)`$ with ranks $`r,nr`$ and similarly $`A=A_1A_2`$ where $`A_1=_{a_is}A(a_i)`$,$`A_2=_{a_i>s}A(a_i)`$ with ranks $`r^{},nr^{}`$ and $`r>r^{}`$.

Let $`H=H_s`$ the form of degree $`h<s`$ given in 3)c) of Theorem 1; put $`A_2^{}=A_2(h)`$, $`A^{}=A_1A_2^{}=A_1A_2(h)`$, and define $`\varphi :AA^{}`$ by $`\varphi :A_1A_2A_1A_2(h)`$, $`\varphi =1H`$.

Having fixed notations we prove some Propositions.

###### Proposition 3

Under the above hypotheses and notations there is an exact sequence $`0A_1A_2^{}\stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}A_2^{}M\stackrel{\tau ^{}}{}I_C0`$ and a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0& A& \stackrel{\alpha }{}N& \stackrel{\tau }{}I_C& 0\\ & \varphi & \psi & & \\ 0& A_1A_2^{}& \stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}A_2^{}M& \stackrel{\tau ^{}}{}I_C& 0\end{array}$$

with $`M`$ torsion free graded $`R`$-module of rank $`r^{}+1`$ and where the map $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the direct sum of the identity on $`A_2^{}`$ and an inclusion $`\theta :A_1M`$.

Proof of Proposition 3. The Proposition follows from the fact that, if $`s<p`$, then $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(I_C,R(p))^0H^0(\omega _C(4p))`$ with $`3s4p`$ is killed by $`H`$. More in detail let $`E\mathrm{Ext}^1(I_C,A)^0`$ be the extension $`0ANI_C0`$ and let $`\varphi E\mathrm{Ext}^1(I_C,A^{})^0`$ the composite extension (see \[McL\], Ch.III, Lemma 1.4); $`\varphi E`$ has the form

$$0A_1A_2(h)N^{}I_C0.$$

In order to prove our Proposition we prove that there is a map $`N^{}A_2(h)`$ such that the composition $`A_2(h)N^{}A_2(h)`$ is the identity. In fact let $`\overline{E}\mathrm{Ext}^1(I_C,A_2)^0`$ the extension $`0A_2\overline{N}I_C0`$ induced by $`E`$ , where $`\overline{N}`$ is the quotient of $`N`$ by $`A_1`$; we see easily that the extension $`H\overline{E}`$ has the form:

$$0A_2(h)N^{}/A_1I_C0$$

and by the above observation it splits; hence there is a map $`N^{}/A_1A_2(h)`$ and the composition $`A_2(h)N^{}N^{}/A_1A_2(h)`$ is the identity. Moreover $`A_1`$ is contained in the kernel $`M`$ of the map $`N^{}A_2(h)`$.

By Proposition 3 we have hence the following exact sequences and commutative diagrams:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0& A& \stackrel{\alpha }{}N& \stackrel{\tau }{}I_C& 0\\ & \varphi & \psi & & \\ 0& A^{}& \stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}N^{}& \stackrel{\tau ^{}}{}I_C& 0\end{array}$$

where $`N^{}=A_2^{}M`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0& A_2& \stackrel{\alpha _2}{}N& \stackrel{\rho }{}M& 0\\ & H& \psi & & \\ 0& A_2^{}& \stackrel{\alpha _2^{}}{}N^{}& \stackrel{\rho ^{}}{}M& 0\end{array}$$

where $`\rho ^{}`$ is the projection, $`\rho =\rho ^{}\psi `$, $`\alpha _2,\alpha _2^{}`$ the restrictions of $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}`$ respectively.

Moreover we have an exact sequence

$$0A_1\stackrel{\theta }{}M\stackrel{\lambda }{}I_C0$$

where $`\lambda =\tau _{|M}^{}`$.

###### Proposition 4

Under the above hypotheses and notations the composition

$$B_1\stackrel{\beta _1}{}N\stackrel{\psi }{}N^{}\stackrel{\pi }{}A_2(h)$$

is zero, where $`\beta _1=\beta _{|B_1}`$ and $`\pi `$ is the projection.

Proof of Proposition 4. A summand of $`B_1`$ is of the form $`R(b)`$ with $`bs`$; since the terms in $`A_2(h)`$ have the form $`R(p+h)`$, $`sh<ph`$, hence $`p+h+b<h`$, the map $`R(b)R(p+h)`$ will be zero if we will prove that it factors through the moltiplication by $`H`$ or equivalently that restricted to the surface $`H`$ it is zero. To this end we first restrict to the affine open set $`U=𝐏^3\backslash S`$ where $`S`$ is a surface containing $`C`$ and without common components with $`H`$. Since $`𝒥_{C,U}𝒪_U`$ the induced sequences

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 𝒜_U& 𝒩_U& 𝒥_{C,U}& 0\\ & \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_U& \stackrel{~}{\psi }_U& & \\ 0& 𝒜_{1,U}𝒜_2(h)_U& 𝒜_2(h)_U_U& 𝒥_{C,U}& 0\end{array}$$

split, hence they remain exact when restricted to $`HU`$. Now the map $`𝒪(b)_U𝒥_{C,U}`$ induced by $`R(b)I_C`$ is zero when restricted to $`HU`$, since $`bs`$ and $`H`$ divides all $`H^0(𝒥_C(b))`$ for $`bs`$; so the map $`𝒪(b)_U𝒪(p+h)_U`$ factors ( mod $`HU`$) through $`𝒜_U`$, but the map $`𝒜_U𝒪(p+h)_U`$ is zero ( mod $`HU`$) .

From the Proposition 4 follows that the map $`\varphi \beta _1:B_1N^{}`$ factors though the inclusion $`MN^{}`$ and since $`\mathrm{rk}B_1=r>r^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}M=r^{}+1`$ it follows that $`\mathrm{rk}B_1=\mathrm{rk}M=r=r^{}+1`$.

###### Proposition 5

Under the above hypotheses and notations the composition map

$$N\stackrel{\sigma }{}I_C^{}(d)\stackrel{H}{}I_C^{}(d+h)$$

factors through the map $`\psi :NN^{}`$.

Proof of Proposition 5. We see easily that $`\mathrm{coker}\psi `$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{coker}\varphi `$ hence it is annihilated by $`H`$. From the exact sequence

$$\mathrm{Hom}(N^{},I_C^{}(d))\mathrm{Hom}(N,I_C^{}(d))\mathrm{Ext}^1(\mathrm{coker}\psi ,I_C^{}(d))$$

we get the result since $`H`$ annihilates $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(\mathrm{coker}\psi ,I_C^{}(d))`$.

Now let $`\sigma ^{}:N^{}I_C^{}(d+h)`$ be the map given by Proposition 5.

###### Proposition 6

Under the above hypotheses and notations the restriction $`\sigma _{|M}^{}:MI_C^{}(d+h)`$ is zero.

Proof of Proposition 6. In fact the kernel contains $`B_1`$ hence has rank $`r=\mathrm{rk}M`$ and $`I_C^{}(d+h)`$ is torsion free.

###### Proposition 7

Under the above hypotheses and notations the composition map $`\gamma :A_1\stackrel{\alpha _1}{}N\stackrel{\sigma }{}I_C^{}(d)`$ is zero.

Proof of Proposition 7 . In fact the composition of $`\gamma `$ with the multiplication map $`I_C^{}(d)\stackrel{H}{}I_C^{}(d+h)`$ factors through the map $`\sigma _{|M}^{}:MI_C^{}(d+h)`$ hence it is zero and also $`\gamma `$ is zero.

As a conclusion the map $`\alpha _1:A_1N`$ factors as $`\beta _1\zeta `$ where $`\zeta :A_1B_1`$ and $`\beta _1:B_1N`$; it follows $`\mathrm{rk}A_1\mathrm{rk}B_1`$. On the other hand remember that $`s`$ was minimum such that $`\mathrm{rk}A_s<\mathrm{rk}B_s`$. Hence we have:

a) for $`t<s`$ the map $`\zeta `$ induces an isomorphism $`A_tB_t`$

b) for $`t=s`$ we can change basis in $`_{b_i=s}B(b_i)`$ such that $`_{b_i=s}B(b_i)=_{a_i=s}A(a_i)R(s)`$ and $`\zeta `$ is the identity on $`_{a_i=s}A(a_i)`$.

We can factor out $`N`$ by $`A_1`$ and we can assume in the sequel $`A_1=0`$ , $`B_1=R(s)`$ $`M=I_C`$.

Let now $`Q=HK`$ be the image of the generator of $`R(s)`$ in $`I_C`$; as in the proof of Proposition 4 we restrict to the affine open set $`U=𝐏^3\backslash S`$ where $`S`$ is a surface containing $`C`$ and without common components with $`Q`$. Moreover we still denote by $`Q,H,K`$ the local equations of the surfaces $`Q,H,K`$ on $`U`$.

Since $`𝒥_{C,U}𝒪_U`$ the induced sequences $`0𝒜_U𝒩_U𝒥_{C,U}0`$ and $`0𝒜_U^{}𝒩_U^{}𝒥_{C,U}0`$ split. Hence $`𝒩_U𝒩_U^{}𝒪_U^{n+1}`$. We write down the matrix of the map $`\psi _U:𝒪_U^{n+1}𝒪_U^{n+1}`$ induced by $`\psi `$. It has the form

$$𝐌=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \stackrel{𝐀_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \stackrel{𝐈}{\stackrel{}{}}& \\ 𝐀_\mathrm{𝟐}\left(𝐡\right)\{& (\mathrm{}& 𝐇\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{n}& \mathrm{C}_\mathrm{n}& )\mathrm{}\\ 𝐈\{& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{n}`$ is the unit matrix and $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{n}`$ is a one column matrix.

We also consider the matrix induced by the map $`\beta :BN`$; it has the form

$$𝐏=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \stackrel{𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \stackrel{𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \\ 𝐀_\mathrm{𝟐}\{& (\mathrm{}& \mathrm{D}_\mathrm{n}& & )\mathrm{}\\ 𝐈\{& 𝐐& \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{n}`$ is a one column matrix.

The product $`𝐌𝐏`$ is associated to the map $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_U\stackrel{~}{\beta }_U:_U𝒩_U^{}𝒜_2(h)_U𝒥_U`$ and has the form

$$𝐌𝐏=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \stackrel{𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \stackrel{𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \\ 𝐀_\mathrm{𝟐}\left(𝐡\right)\{& (\mathrm{}& 𝐇\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{n}+𝐐\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{n}& & )\mathrm{}\\ 𝐈\{& 𝐐& \end{array}$$

By Proposition 4 we have $`H\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{n}+Q\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{n}=0`$, hence $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{n}=K\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{n}`$ and the matrix $`𝐏`$ has the form

$$𝐏=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & \stackrel{𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \stackrel{𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\stackrel{}{}}& \\ 𝐀_\mathrm{𝟐}\{& (\mathrm{}& 𝐊\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{n}& & )\mathrm{}\\ 𝐈\{& 𝐐& \end{array}$$

We finish by observing that all $`n\times n`$ minors of $`𝐏`$ are multiple of $`K`$ and this is contrary to Hilbert-Burch Theorem.

3. In this section we deduce some consequences from Theorem 1. The first consequence, whose proof is trivial, is an improvement of the Lazarsfeld-Rao property.

###### Theorem 2

Every curve in $`𝐏^3`$ can be obtained from a minimal one by means of a finite number of ascending elementary biliaisons.

Next we recall that in \[MR\] Maggioni and Ragusa determined bounds for the Betti numbers of a curve $`C𝐏^3`$ that can be obtained as in Theorem 2, so the results of \[MR\] apply to every curve in $`𝐏^3`$. In particular we have the following.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`C`$ any curve in $`𝐏^3`$ and let $`C_0`$ be a minimal curve in the biliaison class of $`C`$. Let us denote by $`\nu (C),\nu (C_0)`$ the minimal number of generators of $`I_C,I_{C_0}`$ respectively. Then we have

$$\nu (C)\nu (C_0)+s(C)s(C_0).$$

Proof. The proof is very easy; if $`C`$ is obtained from $`C^{}`$ by means of an elementary biliaison of type $`(1,s)`$ on a surface $`Q`$ of degree $`s`$, two cases are possible:

a) $`s=s(C^{})`$; in this case $`s(C)=s(C^{})`$ and $`C,C^{}`$ have the same number of minimal generators;

b) $`s>s(C^{})`$; in this case $`s(C)=s(C^{})+1`$ and $`C`$ has at most one more minimal generator than $`C^{}`$, i.e. the surface $`Q`$.

We apply Theorem 3 to the following cases:

1) $`C`$ is a ACM curve. In this case $`C_0`$ is a line and we get the well known bound $`\nu (C)s(C)+1`$.

2) $`C`$ is an Arithmetically Buchsbaum curve of diameter $`\mu `$. In this case it is $`s(C_0)=2\mu `$ and $`\nu (C_0)=3\mu +1`$ (see e.g. \[MDP\] ) and we find the Amasaki bound $`\nu (C)s(C)+\mu +1`$.

REFERENCES

\[BBM\] E.Ballico, G.Bolondi, J.C.Migliore. The Lazarsfeld-Rao problem for liaison classes of two-codimensional subschemes of $`𝐏^n`$. Amer. J. Math. 113 (1991), 117-128.

\[LR\] R.Lazarsfeld, A.P.Rao. Linkage of general curves of large degree. Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 156, Springer, 1970.

\[McL\] S. Mac Lane. Homology, Springer, 1967.

\[MDP\] M.Martin-Deschamps, D.Perrin. Sur la classification des courbes gauches. Astérisque 184-185, 1990.

\[MR\] R.Maggioni, A.Ragusa. Betti numbers of space curves bounded by Hilbert functions. Le Matematiche 52 (1997), 217-232 .

\[R\] A.P.Rao. Liaison among curves in $`𝐏^3`$. Inventiones Math. 50 (1979), 205-217.

\[S\] E. Schlesinger. The spectrum of projective curves. Ph.D. Thesis, U.C.Berkeley, 1996.

Author address:

Dipartimento di Matematica

Università di Catania

Viale A.Doria, 6 95125 Catania (Italy)

E-mail:

sstrano @ dmi.unict.it


text:
# A single atom-based generation of Bell states of two cavities

## Abstract

A new conditional scheme for generating Bell states of two spatially separated high-Q cavities is reported. Our method is based on the passage of one atom only through the two cavities. A distinctive feature of our treatment is that it incorporates from the very beginning the unavoidable presence of fluctuations in the atom-cavity interaction times. The possibility of successfully implementing our proposal against cavity losses and atomic spontaneous decay is carefully discussed.

The concept of entanglement is probably the most striking feature of quantum mechanics. By definition a pure quantum state of two or more subsystems is said to be entangled if it is not a product of states of each component. It is worthnoting that while entanglement may be created only if there exists a direct or indirect interaction mechanism between the parts into play, generally speaking, an entangled state may describe a physical situation wherein the two or more entangled single subsystems are decoupled. The behaviour of the system in such a condition is dominated by the appearence of quantum correlations which become rather puzzling and counterintuitive when referred to well separated parts of the system. Entanglement is the underlying mechanism for the measurement of quantum observables  and is responsible for the occurrence of decoherence effects in the dynamics of quantum systems .

In view of these considerations it is easy to convince oneself that it plays a central role in shading light on the problem of interface between the classical world and the quantistic one and, more in general, on the foundations of quantum mechanics itself . If, for example, the degree of correlation between two separate subsystems is large enough, Bell’s inequalities can be violated . From an applicative point of view, quantum entanglement is the fundamental concept of the new field of quantum information providing a powerful physical source for a new kind of communication protocols . Such protocols are, for example, essential in the quantum teleportation procedure which, on the other hand, is an extremely useful tool for understanding many properties of quantum entanglement itself.

The puzzling implications of entanglement as well as its applicability, have spurred an intense theoretical and experimental research work .

The recent developments in cavity quantum electrodynamics techniques as well as the possibility of exciting and manipulating single Rydberg atoms, have provided favourable conditions for checking some puzzling quantum predictions related to the presence of entanglement. To this end, in particular, a great deal of attention has been devoted to the possibility of generating entangled states of spatially separated subsystems. For example, many proposals for the generation of atomic entangled states have been presented .

As far as the radiation field state, a method for generating a Bell state of two cavities has been reported, for example, as an intermediate step in the teleportation procedure proposed by Davidovich et al . More recently, Zubairy et al  have shown the possibility of teleporting a radiation field state from a cavity to another one, provided that the generation of a two-resonator entangled state for fixed number of photons inside the two cavities, is feasible. Under the stimulus of these requirements in the context of teleportation procedures, theoretical schemes aimed at generating entangled states of photons in many high-$`Q`$ resonators, have been very recently presented .

In this paper we propose a simple and novel conditional method for the generation of Bell states of two spatially separated single-mode cavities. The scheme we are going to discuss exploits the passage of a single atom only through the two cavities and the successive measurement of its internal state. We wish to underline from the beginning the relevance of this aspect from an experimental point of view. Preparing and controlling a single atom is certainly much easier to achieve with respect to the case when the manipulation of many atoms is required. In addition, taking into consideration the low efficiency $`(50\%)`$  of the atomic state detectors today used in laboratory, conditional measurement procedures involving one atom only instead of many ones, have to be preferred. It is in fact easy to understand that the nonideal performance of these detectors drastically reduces the probability of success of multiatom conditional measurement schemes, eventually spoiling them of experimental interest.

In the context of CQED a common aspect of the proposals aimed at generating entangled states of two or more resonators is the requirement of ideal devices by which the interaction time between each crossing atom and the field may be sharply selected. On the other hand, the presence of unavoidable fluctuations in such interaction times might invalidate the schemes themself, significantly reducing their practical interest. Bearing in mind this specific limitation of the experimental apparatus currently used in laboratory, we develop our theory incorporating in it, from the very beginning, the presence of fluctuations in the atom-cavity interaction times.

Another key condition for the effective generation of the Bell state of two spatially separated single-mode cavities, is the compatibility between the duration of the experiment and our ability to protect these states well enough against relaxation. Concerning this delicate point, we check a posteriori the possibility of successfully performing our experiment comparing, on the basis of published orders of magnitude for experimental parameters of interest, the time required for our preparation of Bell state with the cavity damping time.

Let’s start indicating by $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ $`(\omega _1\omega _210^{10}Hz)`$ the fundamental frequencies of the two cavities we wish to entangle. We shall demonstrate that, exploiting the passage of one atom only through the two resonators, it is possible to generate a Bell state of the two cavities. To reach this goal, we use an effective three-level Rydberg atom whose three relevant states, and their relative energy levels, are respectively denoted by $`|0`$ $`(E_0^A)`$, $`|1`$ $`(E_1^A)`$ and $`|2`$ $`(E_2^A)`$ with $`E_0^A<E_1^A<E_2^A`$. We impose the two resonance conditions $`E_1^AE_0^A\omega _2`$ and $`E_2^AE_1^A\omega _1`$ $`(\mathrm{}=1)`$ and suppose that all the conditions under which the interaction between the atom and each cavity field can be cast in the form of the Jaynes-Cummings coupling, are satisfied. The effective Hamiltonian describing the system under scrutiny, in the rotating wave approximation (RWA), can thus be written down as

$$H=H_0+H_1+H_2$$
(1)
where

$$H_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\omega _ia_i^{}a_i+\underset{j=0}{\overset{2}{}}E_j^A|jj|$$
(2)
$$H_1=g_1a_1|21|+h.c.;H_2=g_2a_2|10|+h.c.$$
(3)
In eqs. (2) and (3) $`a_i(a_i^{})`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ is the annihilation (creation) operator relative to the $`i`$th cavity whereas $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ measure the strenghts of the energy exchanges between the Rydberg atom and the cavity 1 and 2 respectively. We point out that $`g_i0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ only when the atom is inside the $`i`$th cavity.

Suppose now that the atom prepared in the upper state $`|2`$ is injected into the cavity 1 previously excited in its $`p`$photon state $`|p_1`$. After the interaction with the cavity 1 the atom enters the second cavity also prepared in the state $`|p_2`$. In order to include in our proposal the impossibility of sharply fixing the interaction times between the atom and the cavity 1 and 2 respectively, let’s introduce the probability density $`g_j(t,\stackrel{~}{t}_j)`$ that $`t`$ is the true duration of the interaction between the atom and the cavity $`j(j=1,2)`$. We assume that $`g_j(t,\stackrel{~}{t}_j)`$ is a Gaussian distribution centered around $`\stackrel{~}{t}_j`$, hereafter referred to as the average interaction time between the atom and the $`j`$-th cavity, and having a spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{t}_j`$. In other words we set

$$g_j(t,\stackrel{~}{t}_j)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_j\sqrt{2\pi }}exp\{\frac{(t\stackrel{~}{t}_j)^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_j^2}\}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j=\gamma \stackrel{~}{t}_j`$. The spread parameter $`\gamma `$ is related to the precision characterizing the method adopted for controlling the atom-field interaction time and its numerical value shall be specified later. Let’s observe that letting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ tends to zero, the probability density function $`g_j(t,\stackrel{~}{t}_j)`$ reduces to $`\delta (t\stackrel{~}{t}_j)`$ thus describing the ideal control of the atom-field interaction time.

The occurrence of fluctuations in the duration of the atom-cavities coupling implies that, when the atom leaves the second resonator, the state of the coupled system (atom - cavity 1 - cavity 2) can be only described in terms of an appropriate density operator $`\rho `$. Let’s denote by $`|\psi (t_1,t_2)`$ the state of the atom-cavities system when the interaction times between the atom and the resonators 1 and 2 exactly coincides with $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ respectively. Observing that in a real experiment only the probability $`(g_1(t_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_1)dt_1)(g_2(t_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)dt_2)`$ of such an occurrence is indeed controllable, when the atom leaves the second cavity, the density operator $`\rho `$ describing the state of the combined atom-cavity fields may be represented as

$$\rho =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_2g_2(t_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_1g_1(t_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_1)|\psi (t_1,t_2)\psi (t_1,t_2)|$$
(5)
where $`|\psi (t_1,t_2)`$ describes the state of the atom-cavities system when the interaction times between the atom and the resonators 1 and 2 exactly coincides with $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ respectively.

Starting from the initial condition

$$|\psi (0)=|2|p_1|p_2$$
(6)
and taking into account eqs. (2) and (3), it is not difficult to prove that

$`|\psi (t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\eta }\{cos(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})|2|p_1|p_2`$ (7)
$``$ $`icos(g_2t_2\sqrt{p+1})sin(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})|1|p+1_1|p_2`$ (8)
$``$ $`sin(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})sin(g_2t_2\sqrt{p+1})|0|p+1_1|p+1_2\}`$ (9)
where $`\eta \eta (p,t_1,t_2)=[E_2^A+(\omega _1+\omega _2)p](t_1+t_2)`$.

Suppose now that after the interaction with both resonators the atom enters an appropriate Ramsey zone where the atomic ground and excited state, $`|0`$ and $`|2`$ respectively, are mixed. We wish to underline that, since the states $`|0`$ and $`|2`$ have the same parity, dipole transitions between them are forbidden. Thus, in order to produce a mixing between such two states either the selection rule of the levels parity is relaxed by a dc field or a multiphoton transition should be used

Suppose that the interaction between the atom and the classical microwave field in the Ramsey zone is such that

$$|0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|0+e^{i\chi }|2];|2\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|2e^{i\chi }|0]$$
(10)
where $`\chi `$ depends on the details of the atom-Ramsey zone field coupling.

When the atom leaves the Ramsey zone the density operator describing the state of the coupled system becomes

$$\rho _R=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_2g_2(t_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_1g_1(t_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_1)|\psi _R(t_1,t_2)\psi _R(t_1,t_2)|$$
(11)
where

$`|\psi _R(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\eta }\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}cos(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})(|2e^{i\chi }|0)|p_1|p_2+`$ (12)
$``$ $`icos(g_2t_2\sqrt{p+1})sin(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})|1|p+1_1|p_2`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}sin(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})sin(g_2t_2\sqrt{p+1})(|0+e^{i\chi }|2)|p+1_1|p+1_2\}`$ (14)
Inserting eq. (10) into eq. (9), we can conveniently rewrite the density operator $`\rho _R`$ in the form:

$`\rho _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2g_2(t_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_2){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1g_1(t_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_1)|\phi _{field}^{(2)}\phi _{field}^{(2)}||22|`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2g_2(t_2,\stackrel{~}{t}_2){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1g_1(t_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_1)|\phi _{field}^{(0)}\phi _{field}^{(0)}||00|`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\rho _{residual}`$ (17)
where

$$|\phi _{field}^{(2)}=cos(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})|p_1|p_2e^{i\chi }\underset{i=1,2}{}sin(g_it_i\sqrt{p+1})|p+1_1|p+1_2$$
(18)
and

$$|\phi _{field}^{(0)}=e^{i\chi }cos(g_1t_1\sqrt{p+1})|p_1|p_2+\underset{i=1,2}{}sin(g_it_i\sqrt{p+1})|p+1_1|p+1_2$$
(19)
In eq. (11) the term $`\rho _{residual}`$ is characterized by the following properties:

$$0|\rho _{residual}|0=2|\rho _{residual}|2=0$$
(20)
We shall not give its explicit form because, as we shall demonstrate later, in view of eq. (14), the terms contained in $`\rho _{residual}`$ are not involved in the generation procedure under scrutiny. The last step of our scheme consists in measuring the atomic internal state by means an appropriate detector. As a result of this measurement the two cavities are projected onto an entangled state described by the following reduced density operator:

$$\rho _{field}=N_kk|\rho _R|k$$
(21)
provided that the atom is found in the state $`|k`$ $`(k=0,2)`$. In eq. (15) the constant $`N_k`$ is evaluated imposing $`Tr\{\rho _{field}\}=1`$.

Our scheme is a conditional one in the sense that, fixing the Bell target state to be produced, the experiment is considered realized with success if, and only if, the atom is measured in an appropriately prefixed internal state. Let us observe that under ideal conditions, that is putting $`\gamma =0`$ in eq. (4), eq. (11) becomes

$`\rho _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\phi _{field}^{(2)}\phi _{field}^{(2)}||22|`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\phi _{field}^{(0)}\phi _{field}^{(0)}||00|`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{residual}`$ (24)
Looking at eqs.(16), (12) and (13) it is easy to convince oneself that in the ideal case, assuming that the atomic velocity can be manipulated in such a way that the conditions

$$g_1t_1=\frac{\pi }{4\sqrt{p+1}};g_2t_2=\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{p+1}}2g_1t_1$$
(25)
are exactly satified, a measurement of the atomic internal state produces the Bell state

$$|\phi _{field}^{(2)}_{id}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|p_1|p_2e^{i\chi }|p+1_1|p+1_2)$$
(26)
if the atom is found in its upper state $`|2`$. On the other hand, the two cavities subsystem is projected onto its Bell state

$$|\phi _{field}^{(0)}_{id}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|p_1|p_2+e^{i\chi }|p+1_1|p+1_2)$$
(27)
if the atom is measured in its ground state $`|0`$. When, on the contrary, $`\gamma 0`$, as we have said before, the state onto which the two cavities are projected as a result of the atomic internal state measurement, is given by

$$\rho _{field}^k=N_k_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_2g_2(t,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_1g_1(t,\stackrel{~}{t}_1)|\phi _{field}^k\phi _{field}^k|$$
(28)
provided that the atom is found in the state $`|k`$ $`(k=0,2)`$. Taking into account the results obtained under the hypothesis of ideal performance of the atomic velocity selector, we impose that the average interaction times between the atom and the cavities 1 and 2 , $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$ respectively, satisfy the conditions (17).

In order to appreciate at what extent, with these choices for $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$, eq. (20) describes a physical condition close to the ideal target states given by eqs. (18) and (19), we check the fidelity of our procedure evaluating the quantity

$$F(\gamma )=_{id}\phi _{field}^{(k)}|\rho _{field}^{(k)}|\phi _{field}^{(k)}_{id}$$
(29)
$`F(\gamma )`$ measures the realibility of our method of generating the Bell states $`|\phi _{field}^{(k)}_{id}`$ given by eqs. (18) $`(k=2)`$ and (19) $`(k=0)`$ against the presence of unavoidable fluctuations in the atom-cavity interaction times. After lenghty calculations it is possible to demonstrate that

$$F(\gamma )=\frac{2}{3+e^{\frac{\gamma ^2\pi ^2}{2}}}\{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}(1+e^{\frac{\gamma ^2\pi ^2}{2}})+e^{\frac{\gamma ^2\pi ^2}{4}}\}$$
(30)
The function $`F(\gamma )`$ is plotted in figure (1) in the range of interest $`0÷0.1`$. Its behaviour satisfactorily evidences that our procedure reaches its goal even in the impossibility of sharply fixing the interaction time between the atom and each cavity.

The efficiency of the scheme we have presented is quantitatively expressed in terms of the probability $`P_{(2)}(\gamma )`$ or $`P_{(0)}(\gamma )`$ of finding the atom in its prefixed state $`|2`$ or $`|0`$ respectively after leaving the second cavity. It is easy to convince oneself that

$$P_{(k)}(\gamma )=k|Tr_f(\rho )|kk=0,2$$
(31)
where $`Tr_f`$ means tracing over the field states. Taking into consideration eq. (11), it is possible to prove that such a probability is independent from the result of the conditional measurement and can be written as:

$$P(\gamma )P_{(k)}(\gamma )=\frac{1}{4}(1+\frac{1}{2}(1+e^{\frac{\gamma ^2\pi ^2}{2}}))P(0)=\frac{1}{2}(k=0,2)$$
(32)
Let’s observe that $`P(\gamma )`$ is a decreasing function of $`\gamma `$ assuming its maximum value $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in correspondence to $`\gamma =0`$. The presence of interaction time fluctuations thus reduces the values of $`P(\gamma )`$ which, however, remains of experimental interest.

The fact that in our case the probability of success satisfies the condition $`P(\gamma )\frac{1}{2}`$, makes our single-atom scheme practically immune from the unavoidable negative consequences stemming from the low efficiency ($`50\%`$)  of the atomic state measurement apparatus.

In our proposal the two interaction times between the atom and the two cavities are defined by eq. (17) so that, in general, they are different. In order to practically realize this time sequence in laboratory, assume realistically $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ of the same order of magnitude and suppose to act upon the atomic velocity selector in such a way that the average time spent by the atom inside each cavity is just $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\frac{\pi }{2g\sqrt{p+1}}t_2`$, that is exactly coincident with the prefixed interaction time of the atom with the second cavity. Then the interaction time $`t_1\frac{1}{2}\frac{g_2}{g_1}\stackrel{~}{t}`$ between the atom and the first cavity, can be properly set tuning the atom in and out of resonance through Stark field adjustment as described, for example, in ref. .

We wish now to discuss the experimental feasibility of our proposal taking into account other different possible important sources of nonideality. To this end, it is of interest to note that, in the context of our proposal, it has been tacitly assumed that both the cavity losses and the spontaneous atomic decay can be neglected. In order to verify the extent of compatibility of these assumptions with the practical feasibility of our experimental scheme, we compare the lifetime of the Rydberg atom, $`\tau _A`$, and the damping time $`\tau \frac{Q}{p\omega }`$ $`(p>1)`$ of each cavity with the total duration $`T`$ of the experiment.

To this end let’s firstly note that in a typical experimental setup, the atom-field coupling constant $`g`$ ($`g_1`$ or $`g_2`$) can be chosen in such a way that $`g(10^5÷10^4)sec^1`$ . Moreover the lifetime of a Rydberg atom is $`\tau _A10^2sec`$ . As for the quality factor of the cavities currently used in laboratory, we note that the $`Q`$ value typical of the closed cavities used in the Munich experiments is $`3\times 10^{10}`$ . On the other hand, experiments performed by the Paris group are based on open Fabry-Perot resonators characterized by quality factors which are about one order of magnitude smaller . Since our proposal requires the coherent mixing of two atomic states realized in an appropriate Ramsey zone just before the detection of the atomic internal state, open cavities have to be preferred with respect to the closed ones. The reason is that, due to the small exit holes ($`3mm`$ diameter ) typical of the closed cavities, atomic coherences are spoiled by the presence of inhomogeneous stray of electric fields in these holes .

The best cavities used in Paris experiments have a photon storage time $`\tau 1ms`$ corresponding to $`Q3\times 10^8`$ . The total duration $`T`$ of the experiment based on our proposal may be extimated as $`T=\frac{l_{apparatus}}{v_A}`$ where $`l_{apparatus}`$ is the linear size of the experimental set up and $`v_A`$ the atomic velocity. Considering that the lenght of each cavity is of the order of $`1cm`$ , it is reasonable to assume $`l_{apparatus}<10cm`$. Moreover, we take $`v_A=500\frac{m}{s}`$ . Taking into account these realistic experimental values, we immediately get $`T2\times 10^4sec`$ which turns out to be satisfactorily larger than $`\tau _A`$. Requiring $`T<\tau `$ yields

$$T2\times 10^4sec<\tau \frac{Q}{p\omega }\frac{3\times 10^8}{p10^{10}}sec=\frac{1}{p}10^2sec$$
(33)
which shows that we may be confident with the fact that the effects due to cavity losses may be neglected, provided that the number of photons initially stored in each cavity is small. With reference to this last point, it is worth noting that our theory might be tested in laboratory considering that Fock states with one or two photons have been realized .

We however emphasize that in simulations of the maser operation, Fock states up to $`p=5`$ can be readily generated for achievable experimental condition .

We wish to conclude this paper pointing out that, in principle, it is possible to address the characterization of the produced entanglement between the two spatially separated cavities. To this end, we simply follow an idea suggested by Meystre . Suppose that a two-level probe atom interacting with the first cavity only, is prepared in its ground state and sent through the two resonators at the end of our experiment. It is not difficult to persuade oneself that the probability of detecting the atom in its initial state at the exit from the second cavity, is an oscillating time function depending on $`p`$ and on the quantum coherence $`\chi `$. This circumstance gives, in principle, the possibility to distinguish our Bell superpositions from the correspondent mixture and/or to experimentally prove the existence of the desired two-cavity entangled state.

Acknowledgments

The author expresses his gratitude to Dr. A. Napoli for reading the manuscript and for stimulating conversations on the subject of this paper.

Figure Caption

FIGURE 1: Fidelity of the scheme $`F(\gamma )`$ in the range of interest $`0÷0.1`$.