text:
# X-ray spectra of 3𝑑 metals of Heusler alloys and La1-xSmxMn2Si2 compounds

## I Introduction

Magnetic properties of localized and delocalized magnetics are usually bound with the peculiarities of their electronic structure and found to be explained within the framework of these terms. Here x-ray emission (XE) and x-ray photoemission (XP) spectroscopy is used to bring light on the differences in $`3d`$ metal spectra of close to half-metallic GrootHMFShreder7  Mn based Heusler alloys and rare-earth Mn containing compounds both within general problem of strong magnetism of the $`3d`$ metal alloys and compounds. Using the samples well studied experimentally before by different techniques we will discuss the difference at x-ray spectra of 3d metals in connection with the value of the local magnetic moment and different spin polarization of the valence electrons using the x-ray spectroscopy. The selection of the samples will be explained below. First let us pay attention to the techniques being used.

The x-ray spectroscopy is a well-known to be an element-selective probe of electronic structure. That opens the principal ability to provide information about the relation between a magnetic properties and x-ray spectra, because it deals with a short-lived states, so it is complementary with data obtained from static magnetic measurements. The emission process accrues in a first coordination sphere, therefore it is good to use that to investigate the formation of local magnetic moment of $`3d`$ metal. General techniques being used are the x-ray emission, x-ray photoemission and x-ray absorption spectroscopy using the circularly polarized energy-variable excitation source, that allows to study a fine structure of electronic states and their spin configuration. That could be combined with a tradition techniques using non-polarized excitation with a fixed excitation energy. Provided information gives a chance to distinguish localized and itinerant magnetics containing $`3d`$ transition metals by processing of x-ray spectra of $`3d`$ metals in different types of magnetic alloys and compounds. Here we considered $`3d`$ transition metal spectra of Heusler Alloys (HA) (Co2MnAl, Co2MnSb) and La1-xSmxMn2Si2 compounds (x=0, 0.8).

First attention to Heusler alloys has been paid in 1903 when Heusler Heusler1  discovered ferromagnetic behavior in compounds of nonmagnetic elements. Such ternary alloys are determined by the generic formulas X2YZ or XYZ webster1967 ; Parsons1995 ; FerromagneticBushow  For the Y-element Heusler alloys usually contain Mn, the X element, for example, can be X: Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Pd, or Rh. For the Z element it is considered Al, Ga, Si, Sn, Sb, or In. Crystallizing in the space groups $`L2_1`$, Mn-based HA s have been found at most in a ferromagnetic ground state. They offer the unique possibility to study manganese compounds where the Mn atom has only other transition X metals as nearest neighbors and non-transition Z elements of group $`IIIV`$ in the second coordination sphere. Webster et al. and later on Robinson et al. WebsterCryst ; lmmr3  have investigated the crystal structure of these alloys in detail. Furthermore, it has been shown that some disorder is often appearing in Mn-based HA s and that in total up to 10% of the Mn atoms change places with elements from a different sublattice. The neighborhood of Mn atoms is mainly built by X and Z elements. Mn-based Heusler alloys have an effective magnetic moment of about $`\mu _{Mn}=3.04.0\mu _B`$ localized at the Mn site. Traditionally they are considered as ideal systems with local magnetic moments. First principle band structure calculations Shreder6  for these alloys have shown that in the electron system with spins directed along the magnetization axis ($``$) the Mn-$`3d`$ states are occupied and hybridized with the $`3d`$ states of the X atoms. In the electron system with spins directed against the magnetization ($``$) local, not hybridized empty Mn-$`d`$ states have been observed, located at $`1.01.5`$ eV above the Fermi level Shreder6 ; Shreder5 ; IshidaBand ; Williamsband83  Z atoms supply sp electrons, which take part in an indirect Mn-Mn exchange and therefore determine the degree of occupation of hybridized $`pd`$ orbitals. Further investigations on Mn-based HA s Refs. GrootHMFShreder7 ; HMFPtMnSbEZ3 ; Shreder66  predict the existence of a half-metallic ferromagnetic (HMF) state, for example, in NiMnSb, PtMnSb, PdMnSb, and PtMnSb. This means that an energy gap at the Fermi level exists for one spin orientation and a metallic behavior has been obtained for the other spin direction. Other band structure calculations reveal that a HMF ground state may also exist for Co2MnZ alloys IshidaHFM . Both neutron scattering measurements HeuslerNeutron1 ; HeuslerNeutron2 ; HeuslerNeutron3  and theoretical predictions Moria  show well defined local moments $`\mu _{Mn}`$ (see Table.1). The local magnetic moment at Co atoms is much smaller then at Mn (less then 0.5 $`\mu _B`$, WebsterCryst ; lmmr1 . The remarkable feature of Mn $`3d`$ valence band for alloys being considered is a theoretically predicted pseudo gap for minority spin electrons, that makes alloys to be close to class of half-metallic ferromagnets.

The RMn2Si2 compounds (R is rare-earth metal) crystallize in the tetragonal ThCr2Si2 structure, where separate layers are stacking along c-axis in the $`MnXRXMn`$ sequence. The compounds are assumed to exhibit an unusual strong dependence of Mn-Mn exchange interaction from the distance between Mn atoms in a single layer CeLaMnSi ; BrabersBuschow  . The relation of such unusual Mn behaviour in RMn2X2 and peculiarities of their electronic structure is suggested to be dependent of the dMn-Mn in the neartest neighborhood. In case of dMn-Mn ¡dc where dc=2.85 - 2.87 $`\AA `$ is the critical distance for the space localization of Mn $`3d`$ electrons, magnetic moments are aligned primarily along the c-axis that leads to antiferromagnetic order. In case of d$`{}_{M}{}^{}nMn`$ ferromagnetic order is appeared. The distance between R(001) and Mn(100) planes is about $`c/2=5.2\AA `$, that exceeds the one between R atoms ($`d_{RR}=a4.2\AA `$) and Mn atoms ($`d_{MnMn}=\frac{a}{\sqrt{2}}2.8\AA `$). Last value is close to the critical $`d_c`$2.84 for space localization-delocalization of Mn $`3d`$ electrons in the crystal space according to predicted Goodenought . The doping of the second rare-earth metal in RMn2Si2 compoundes allows to gradually change Mn-Mn distance from d$`{}_{MnMn}{}^{}>d_c`$ for LaMn2Si2 to d$`{}_{MnMn}{}^{}<d_c`$ for SmMn2Si2 Evgen2002

The system has an effective magnetic moment about $`\mu _{eff}=3.53.8\mu _B`$, that is similar to Heusler alloys, although the value of $`\mu _{Mn}`$ is smaller and found to be in range $`2.32.5\mu _B`$. The value of local magnetic moment $`\mu _{Mn}`$ changes from 0 to 1.45 $`\mu _B`$ with $`x`$ changing from 1 to 0. The relation of such unusual Mn behavior in RMn2X2 and peculiarities of their electronic structure is suggested to be depended of the $`d_{MnMn}`$ in the nearest neighborhood. In case of $`d_{MnMn}d_c`$, where $`d_c=2.852.87`$ Å is the critical distance for space localization of Mn $`3d`$ electrons, magnetic moments align primarily along the $`c`$-axis that leads to antiferromagnetic order, and in case of $`d_{MnMn}>d_c`$ the ferromagnetic ordering appears. Note that in set RM2X2 doping by different $`3d`$ transition metals M=Fe,Co,Ni,Mn, only manganese contains the non-zero local magnetic moment. Calculations LaMn2Si2Calcs  show the non-strongly spin-polarized Mn DOS, unlike in Heusler alloys. It was suggested that Mn $`3d`$ states of RMn2X2 have been hybridized with X-$`p`$ states, in our case-with Si-$`p`$ states due to close positions in a single layer. The direct Mn-Mn exchange interaction prevails in a single layer of Mn atoms. The one between the nearest single layers is realized by the La-$`f`$ and Sm-$`f`$ electrons hybridized with Mn $`3d`$ and also Si-$`p`$ electrons.

Finally we concentrates on the question of the influence of localization degree of $`3d`$ electrons, the values of the local magnetic moments of 3d metals at x-ray spectra. The Mn-Mn distance in Heusler alloys exceeds the value for RMn2Si2 in factor two. In other hand, the magnetic ordering is formed by indirect intralayer exchange, that is opposite to direct exchange mechanism in RMn2Si2. Calculations also predict the localization difference in k-space LaMn2Si2Calcs . These factors defined the choice of selected materials. The principal opportunity of using the spectroscopy to detect the influence of an atom magnetic moment to X-ray spectra spectra had been shown by van Acker et al.Acker . The corresponding experimental data have been obtained for a series of alloys and compounds containing Fe. The energy splitting of the Fe-$`3s`$ band is essentially different for each material, but without strong correlation effects. From more recent experiments, in which polarized radiation has been used it is evident that the dispersion as well as the energetic position of the Fe-$`3s`$ band varies as a function of the electron spin Fe3sMCDPhotoem .

## II Experimental details

The specimens were prepared from a melt in an atmosphere of purified argon, annealed at 720 C during 24 h for Heusler alloys and at the temperature $`T=900^{}C`$ for La1-xSmxMn2Si2 in argon and quenched in water. According to X-ray diffraction patterns (Cu $`K\alpha `$) samples were in single phase.

X-ray photoelectron spectra (XPS) were measured using a PHI 5600ci spectrometer with an energy resolution of 0.35 eV with monocromatized Al $`K\alpha `$ radiation. The compounds were crushed in situ in vacuum $`110^7`$ Torr. The surface cleanlyness was tested by monitoring the C-$`1s`$ and O-$`1s`$ peaks. During the measurements in vacuum $`110^9`$ Torr no significant increase in the contamination was observed.

X-ray emission spectra were obtained using an x-ray spectrometer of the type RSM-500. The measurements have been carried out at a voltage of U=4.5 kV, an anode current of about 0.3-0.4 mA and $`110^7`$ Torr vacuum. The energy resolution in the XE spectra resulted in 0.7 eV. Last but not least the rest contamination with oxygen has been estimated during the heating procedure. This has been done by controlling the intensity ratio of the lines O $`K\alpha `$ and Mn $`L_l`$ in the corresponding XE spectra.

## III Discussion

The Mn 3s photoemission spectra of compounds and pure manganize are shown at Fig.1. The multiplet splitting is observed in form of two peaks at the binding energies $`E_B=83`$ and $`E_B=87.5`$ eV for pure Mn and RMn2Si2. No clear dependence of the spectra shape and the local magnetic moment at Mn site is observed for whole series of compounds, but roughly it is possible to distinguish only small splitting of Mn $`3s`$ core level due to interaction between $`3d`$ valence electrons and $`3s`$ core hole created and the binding energy shift of Mn $`3s`$ XPS about 0.6 eV toward high energy side.

Briefly, such effect is explained by the difference in the energy for Mn $`3s_j^1`$3d$`{}_{}{}^{5}S`$ final state, that comes to be result of the strong exchange interaction between Mn $`3s_j`$ hole and strongly spin-polarized Mn $`3d`$ electrons in case of Co2MnSb. At Fig. 2 the Mn $`2p`$ XPS have been shown.

The spin-orbit splitting at the Mn $`2p_{1/2}`$ peak with the binding energy $`E_B=649.7`$ eV and at the Mn $`2p_{3/2}`$ peak with $`E_B=638.5`$ eV are observed clearly. Opposite to Mn $`3s`$ photoemission spectrum at Fig.1, Mn $`2p`$ spectrum differs from pure Mn for both series of compounds. The Mn $`2p_{3/2}`$ peak splits at two, each position of is marked as $`A`$ and $`B`$. The energy position of peak $`A`$ is the same for all Mn 2p spectra. The energy position of the peak $`B`$ is moving toward high binding energies and the intensity is rising in line La02Sm08Mn2Si2, LaMn2Si2, Co2MnAl, Co2MnSb. For RMn2Si2 compounds the value of splitting is 0.7-0.8 eV and for Heusler alloys it is approximately 1 eV. No energy shifts of Mn $`2p`$ XPS have been observed comparing to pure metal spectrum. Peak of very weak intensity at the $`E_B=641`$ eV appears at the edge of Mn $`2p_{3/2}`$ spectra due small amount of oxygen at the surface.

The Mn $`2p_{3/2}`$ energy splitting is connected to the strong $`2p3d`$ exchange interaction Yarmoshenko1  that correlates with $`\mu _{Mn}`$. Such qualitative dependence is observed between RMn2Si2 with $`\mu _{Mn}=2.32.8`$ and Heusler alloys with $`\mu _{Mn}`$ see Table1. The absence of satellite peaks and energy shifts at whole Mn $`2p`$ XPS allows to expect that effects being observed for Mn $`3s`$ XPS are due to local magnetic moment at Mn site, like in cases Acker ; Fe3sMCDPhotoem . That also is in agreement with Co $`2p`$ and La $`3d`$ photoelectron spectra at Fig.3 and Fig.4 displaying no significant changes.

The Mn $`L_2`$,$`L_3`$ X-ray emission spectra corresponds to emission transition of Mn $`3d`$ valence electron to $`2p_{1/2}`$ and $`2p_{3/2}`$ core hole respectively. Comparing spectra between each other (Fig.5) one finds two remarkable features. The height of $`I(L_2)/I(L_3)`$ intensity ratio correlates with $`\mu _{Mn}`$. The $`L_3`$ peak consist of two peaks $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$, that is observed in case of Heusler alloys and again is due to high localization of strongly spin-polarized Mn $`3d`$ electrons OurMCDPReB .

In x-ray emission spectra of $`3d`$ metals such a peak $`B^{}`$ located toward high photon energies is explained by the influence of inner Coster-Kronig transition HagueCoster ; Duda3 ; Magnusson , but that is opposite to the high intensity ratio observed. Both the presence of the peak $`B`$’ with energy exceeding the Mn $`2p_{3/2}`$ core level binding energy and the $`I(L_2)/I(L_3)`$ high intensity ratio are indicating the existence of pseudo gap for one of Mn $`3d`$ spin-projection at valence band. That is characteristic for the case of the strong localization of $`3d`$ electrons PReB63-035106 ; PReB60-6428 ; OurMCDPReB .

The Co XPS spectra of Heusler alloys and La, Sm spectra of core levels are shown at Fig 3, Fig.4. There is no difference between the pure metal spectra and one in compounds . Co $`L_2`$,$`L_3`$ emission spectra resemble with one of pure Co, that correlates with a small value (less then 0.5 $`\mu _B`$), thought PReB60-6428 ) of atom magnetic moment in compounds. It is also confirmed by Co $`L_2`$,$`L_3`$ spectra exhibiting no changes in comparison to the pure Co $`L_2`$,$`L_3`$ spectra (see Fig.6).

## IV Conclusion

The presented analysis gives an opportunity to discuss the degree of valence electron localization for different compound with a metallic type of conductivity. For example, analyzing the same of spectra of metal oxides, x-ray spectra contains not only Coloumb exchange interaction appears in x-ray spectra, but also charge-transfer effects. Latter factor makes complicated the interpretation of x-ray spectra. Both the degree of localization of $`3d`$ valence electrons and type of chemical bonding is to be reflected in x-ray spectra, that is observed at the example of Mn spectra in compounds even using non-polarized and non-resonant energy excitation source.


format: text

text:
# Wave attenuation model for dephasing and measurement of conditional times

## I Introduction

We present a study of two different problems in mesoscopic physics which are of current interest namely, dephasing and the other conditional times. This work considers these two phenomena not from a microscopic point of view but through a phenomenological model which captures the essence of these quite well. This model is known as wave attenuation. It essentially involves damping the wave function in the region of interest, so as to derive essential physics. In the context of dephasing, we consider an Aharonov-Bohm interferometer, and show that the wave attenuation model is better than its counterpart the optical potential model used in this context. Also, in case of double heterostructures we employ this technique to clock the time a particle takes to traverse a local region of interest in the given system. Here also the wave attenuation model is more simpler to deal with than other models.

## II Dephasing

The process of dephasing or decoherence leads to the diminishing of quantum effects or loss of quantum mechanical interference effects. Dephasing occurs due to interaction of an electron (interfering entity) with it’s environmental degrees of freedom (which are not measured in the interference experiment)imry ; fluorian . The AB oscillations are one of the prime examples for analyzing how quantum interference effects are affected by dephasing. These oscillations are similar to the fringes seen in an Young’s double slit experiment apart from the presence of the magnetic flux. In the Young’s double slit interferometer the intensity is given by $`I=|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2+2\mathrm{}(\psi _1^{}\psi _2e^{i\varphi })`$, the part $`2\mathrm{}(\psi _1^{}\psi _2e^{i\varphi })`$ represents the interference term. Here $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are the complex wave amplitudes across the upper and lower arms of the interferometer and $`\varphi `$ is phase difference between these two wave amplitudes. If there would have been no phase relationship between the waves then the average intensity will be $`<I>=|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2`$. Complete dephasing is indicated by extinction of these interference terms. Thus, Dephasing can be defined as a phenomena by which quantum mechanical system behave as though they are described by classical probability theory.

### II.1  Model’s for dephasing

In absence of a complete microscopic theory as to how inelastic scattering affects dephasing, models are useful. There are different ways to model dephasing in mesoscopic systems. An interesting method is to attach a voltage probebuti  to the sample as in inset of Figure 1 (Buttiker’s model). In this model, an electron captured by a voltage probe is re-injected back with an uncorrelated phase leading to irreversible loss of phase memory. This model has built in current conservation and Onsager’s symmetry relations are obeyed but it does suffer from a major demerit in that it only describes localized dephasing.

The optical potential model provides another method of introducing dephasing in these mesoscopic samples. The optical potential was first introduced to explain the inelastic crossection in case neutron scattering. In this model a spatially uniform optical potential($`iV_i`$) is added to the Hamiltonianzohta , making it non-hermitian. This leads to removal of particles from phase coherent motion, while absorption is real in the case of photons there is no absorption for electrons. The absorption of electrons is reinterpretedyuming  as scattering into other energy levels and therefore proper re-injection is necessary. Zohta and Ezawazohta  interpreted that the total transmission is defined after re-injection as the sum of two contributions one due to the coherent part and the other due to the incoherent part, i.e., $`T_{tot}=T_{coh}+T_{incoh}`$. The incoherent part is calculated as $`T_{incoh}=\frac{T_r}{T_l+T_r}A`$, herein $`T_r`$ and $`T_l`$ are the probabilities for right and left transmission from the region of inelastic scattering and $`A`$ is the absorbed part which is given by $`A=1T_{coh}R_{coh}`$. This model unlike Buttiker’s model describes dephasing that occurs throughout the system but still it has some major drawbacks in that it violates Onsager’s two terminal symmetry relationspareek  and in the limit of strong absorption leads to perfect reflection.

Thus, there is need of a model which is free from the shortcomings of the above two models. Brouwer and Beenakkerbrouwer  have developed a simple method, by mapping the three probe Buttiker’s method into a two terminal geometry, this is done by eliminating the transmission coefficients which explicitly depend on the third probe by means of unitarity of the S-matrix. They consider a three terminal geometry in which one of the probes is used as a voltage probe in absence of magnetic flux (see inset of Figure 1). A current $`I=I_1=I_2`$ flows from source to drain. In this model, a fictitious third lead connects the ring to a reservoir at chemical potential $`\mu _3`$ in such a way that no current is drawn $`(I_3=0)`$. The $`3`$X$`3`$ S-matrix of the entire system can be written as-

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}r_{11}& t_{12}& t_{13}\\ t_{21}& r_{22}& t_{23}\\ t_{31}& t_{32}& r_{33}\end{array}\right)$$

Application of the relationsbuti ; brouwer ; datta \- $`I_p=_qG_{pq}[\mu _p\mu _q],p=1,2,3`$ and $`G_{pq}=(2e^2/h)T_{pq}`$ yields the (dimensionless) two probe conductance $`G=\frac{h}{2e^2}\frac{I}{\mu _1\mu _2}`$,

$`G=T_{21}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{23}T_{31}}{T_{31}+T_{32}}}`$ (1)
where $`T_{pq}=T_{pq}`$, is the transmission from $`q^{th}`$ to $`p^{th}`$ lead ($`|t_{pq}|^2`$), on elimination of the transmission coefficients in Eq. 1, which involve the voltage probe using the unitarity of the S - Matrix leads brouwer  to-

$`G=T_{21}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1R_{11}T_{21})(1R_{22}T_{21})}{1R_{11}T_{21}+1R_{22}T_{12}}}.`$ (2)
Now all the above coefficients are built from the 2X2 S matrix-

$$S^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_{11}& t_{12}\\ t_{21}& r_{22}\end{array}\right)$$

which represents the S Matrix of the absorbing system (non-hermitian)CB . Thus re-injection has been reformulated as in Eq. 2. The first term in Eq. 2 represents the conductance contribution from the phase coherent part. The second term accounts for electrons that are re-injected from the phase breaking reservoir, thereby ensuring particle conservation in the voltage probe model. Also, Eq. 2 restores Onsager’s two terminal symmetry relation for the optical potential model.

### II.2 Wave attenuation as a model for dephasing

In-spite of the fact that a major problem associated with the optical potential has been cured there still remains the problem that in the strong absorption limit it leads to perfect reflection and absorption without reflection(spurious scattering) is not possible joshi ; jayan ; rubio . To overcome this problem, we instead of making the Hamiltonian non-hermitian, add an exponential factor $`e^{\alpha l}`$ to the S-Matrix of the system. This is the model of wave attenuation. This describes dephasing which occurs throughout the system and removes the short comings of the optical potential model.

The wave attenuation model is not new it has earlier been dealt with in the context of 1-D localizationjoshi . In the AB ring geometry considered here, wave attenuation is inserted by the factor $`e^{\alpha l_1}`$ (or $`e^{\alpha l_2}`$) in the complex free propagator amplitudes, every time we traversedatta  the upper (or lower) arms of the ring (see Figure 1). We have calculated the relevant transmission and reflection coefficients by using the S- matrix method along with the quantum wave guide theory for a single channel case. In this model, average absorption per unit length is given by $`2\alpha `$. With this method we show that the calculated conductance $`(G)`$ in Eq. 2 is symmetric under the flux reversal as required. The visibility of the AB oscillations rapidly decay as a function of $`\alpha `$, indicating dephasing. Hence forth we refer to $`\alpha `$ as an incoherence parameter. Increasing $`\alpha `$ corresponds to increasing dephasing processes in the system or increase in temperature.

In Figure 1, the length of the upper arm is $`l_1`$ and that of lower arm is $`l_2`$. The total circumference of the loop is $`L=l_1+l_2`$. The loop is connected to two current leads. The couplers (triangles) in Figure 1 which connect the leads and the loop are described by a scattering matrix $`S`$. The S matrix for the left coupler yields the amplitudes $`O_1=(\alpha ^{},\beta _1^{},\gamma _1^{})`$ emanating from the coupler in terms of the incident waves $`I_1=(\alpha ,\beta _1,\gamma _1)`$, and for the right coupler yields the amplitudes $`O_2=(\delta ^{},\beta _2^{},\gamma _2^{})`$ emanating from the coupler in terms of the incident waves $`I_2=(\delta ,\beta _2,\gamma _2)`$. The S-matrix for either of the couplersbutipra  is given by-

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(a+b)& \sqrt{ϵ}& \sqrt{ϵ}\\ \sqrt{ϵ}& a& b\\ \sqrt{ϵ}& b& a\end{array}\right)$$

with $`a=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{(12ϵ)}1)`$ and $`b=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{(12ϵ)}+1)`$. $`ϵ`$ plays the role of a coupling parameter. The maximum coupling between reservoir and loop is $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}`$, and for $`ϵ=0`$, the coupler completely disconnects the loop from the reservoir.

The waves incident into the branches of the loop are related by the S Matrices for upper branch by-

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1\\ \beta _2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{ikl_1}e^{\alpha l_1}e^{\frac{i\theta l_1}{L}}\\ e^{ikl_1}e^{\alpha l_1}e^{\frac{i\theta l_1}{L}}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1^{}\\ \beta _2^{}\end{array}\right)$$

and for lower branch-

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _1\\ \gamma _2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{ikl_2}e^{\alpha l_2}e^{\frac{i\theta l_2}{L}}\\ e^{ikl_2}e^{\alpha l_2}e^{\frac{i\theta l_2}{L}}& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _1^{}\\ \gamma _2^{}\end{array}\right)$$

These S matrices of course are not unitary $`S(\alpha )S(\alpha )^{}1`$ but they obey the relation $`S(\alpha )S(\alpha )^{}=1`$. The same relation is also obeyed by the S Matrix of the system in presence of imaginary potential. Here $`kl_1`$ and $`kl_2`$ are the phase increments of the wave function in absence of flux. $`\frac{\theta l_1}{L}`$ and $`\frac{\theta l_2}{L}`$ are the phase shifts due to flux in the upper and lower branches. Clearly, $`\frac{\theta l_1}{L}+\frac{\theta l_2}{L}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the flux piercing the loop and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux quantum$`\frac{hc}{e}`$. The transmission and reflection coefficients in Eq. 2 are given as follows- $`T_{21}=|\frac{\delta ^{}}{\alpha }|^2`$, $`R_{11}=|\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha }|^2`$, $`R_{22}=|\frac{\delta ^{}}{\delta }|^2`$, $`T_{12}=|\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\delta }|^2`$ wherein $`\delta ^{},\delta ,\alpha ^{},\alpha `$ are as depicted in Figure 1.

After calculating the required reflection and transmission coefficients we see that the coherent transmission $`T_{21}`$ is not symmetric under the flux reversal however proper re-injection of carriers by Eq. 2 for the total conductance $`G`$ plotted shows that the Onsager’s symmetry relations are restored, i.e., $`G`$ is symmetric under flux reversal. On can notice from this figure that amplitude of AB Oscillations decrease with increase in incoherence parameter $`\alpha `$. All parameters used in the following figures are in their dimensionless form.

In Fig. 3 we plot visibility ($`V`$) as a function of incoherence parameter $`\alpha `$. Visibility is of course defined as-

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{G_{max}G_{min}}{G_{max}+G_{min}}}.`$ (3)
The plot shows that with increase in the value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ the visibility exponentially falls off, reaching a point where it becomes zero corresponding to the disappearance of quantum interference effects, i.e., total dephasing in the system. In the inset of Figure 3 we have plotted the first few Fourierxia  harmonics $`a_n`$ (wherein $`n=1`$ to $`4`$) of $`G(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$. The harmonics are calculated from the formula-$`a_n=_0^\pi Gcos(n\varphi )𝑑\varphi `$. The harmonics exponentially fall off with increasing $`\alpha `$ with exponent increasing as we go from $`1`$ to $`4`$. The $`n^{th}`$ order harmonic corresponds to the contribution from electronic paths which encircle the flux $`n`$ times. The harmonics can sometimes show non monotonic behavior depending on the physical parametersjoshids , however, the visibility is a monotonic function of the incoherence parameter $`\alpha `$.

Thus we have seen that wave attenuation can be effective in modeling absorption induced dephasing in mesoscopic systems. In the next section we will see how this method is extended to measure the time a quantum particle takes to traverse a specified region of scattering.

## III Time in quantum mechanics

One of the most important problem in quantum mechanics is to calculate the time spent by a particle in a given region of space before scattering off from that region. The problem is essentially due to the fact that there is no hermitian operator to calculate this time in quantum mechanicslandauer ; hauge ; gasparian . The prospect of nanoscale electronic devices has in recent years brought new urgency to this problem as this is directly related to the maximum attainable speed of such devices. When it comes to tunneling time or time in general there is lot of ongoing controversy. In some formulations this time leads to a real quantity and in others to a complex quantitybaskin . In certain cases tunneling time is considered to be ill-defined or quantum mechanics does not allow us to discuss this timebaskin ; yamada ; steinberg . Furthermore sometimes it is maintained that tunneling through a barrier takes zero timereflandauernature . Recently, Anantha Ramakrishna and Kumar (AK)anantha  have proposed the non unitary Optical potential as a clock to calculate the sojourn times without the clock affecting it. In this paper we examine another non-unitary clock, i.e.,wave attenuation to calculate the conditional lengths, i.e., the total effective distance traveled by a particle in the region of interest. This conditional length on appropriate division by the speed of the particle in the region of interest will give us the conditional time.

The criteria, any result for the time spent by a quantum particle in a given region of scattering should satisfy are that-(1) It should be real, (2) It should add up for non overlapping regions, (3) It should be causally related to the interval of space, and (4) tend to the correct classical limits. It is shown explicitly by AK that all clock mechanisms involve spurious scattering or very clock mechanism affects the sojourn times to be clocked finitely even as the perturbation due to clock potential is infinitesimally small. All of these clocks involve spurious scattering as the perturbation due to clock mechanism couples to the Hamiltonian. This raises the question “Can quantum mechanical sojourn time be clocked with clock affecting it?”. In this paper we introduce such a method in which perturbation is not introduced in the Hamiltonian but in the S-Matrix of the system. In this case scattering is treated analogously with the Fabry-Perot interferometer. The scheme is illustrated in Figure 4.

### III.1 Wave attenuation to measure conditional times

In the wave attenuation methoddatta ; joshi , we damp the wave function by adding an exponential factor ($`e^{\alpha l}`$) every time we traverse the length of interest, here $`2\alpha `$ represents the attenuation per unit length. This method is better than the optical potential model as it does not suffer from spurious scattering’sCB ; jayan ; rubio . The corrections introduced in case of Optical potential model to take care of spurious scattering’s will become manifestly difficult when we calculate the traversal times for a superlattice involving numerous scatterer’s. Thus our method of wave attenuation scores over the optical potential model. In the presence of wave attenuation a wave attenuates exponentially and thus the transmission (or reflection) coefficient becomes exponential with the length endured in presence of the attenuator and this acts as a natural counter for the sojourn lengths. Following the procedure of AK we calculate the traversal and reflection lengths and times in a given region of interest (in particular between two scatterer’s as in Figure 4.

The amplitude for transmission and reflection can be calculated by summingdatta  the different paths as in Figure 4. The scatterer $`S_1`$ in Figure 1 has as its elements $`r_1,r_1^{},t_1`$ and $`t_1^{}`$. $`r_1`$ is the reflection amplitude when a particle is reflected from the left side of the barrier while $`r_1^{}`$ is the reflection amplitude when a particle is reflected from the right side of the barrier. $`t_1`$ and $`t_1^{}`$ are the amplitudes for transmission when a particle is transmitted from left to right of the barrier and vice-versa. Similar assignments are done for the scatterer $`S_2`$.

Thus for the amplitude of transmission we have- $`t=t_1t_2e^{ik^{}l}e^{\alpha l}+t_1r_2r_1^{}t_2e^{3ik^{}l}e^{3\alpha l}+\mathrm{}`$ which can be summed as

$`t={\displaystyle \frac{t_1t_2e^{ik^{}l}e^{\alpha l}}{1r_2r_1^{}e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}}`$ (4)
and this is the transmission amplitude in presence of wave attenuation. Again for the case of reflection amplitude we have $`r=r_1+t_1r_2t_1^{}e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}+t_1r_2r_1^{}r_2t_1^{}e^{4ik^{}l}e^{4\alpha l}+t_1r_2r_1^{}r_2r_1^{}r_2t_1^{}e^{6ik^{}l}e^{6\alpha l}+..`$ , which leads to -

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{r_1ar_2e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}{1r_1^{}r_2e^{2ik^{}l}e^{2\alpha l}}}`$ (5)
In Eq. 5, $`a=r_1r_1^{}t_1t_1^{}`$ is the determinant of the S-Matrix of the first barrier and as we are only dealing with unitary S-Matrices therefore the determinant is of unit modulus for all barriers. In these expressions $`k^{}`$ is the wave vector in the region of interest. The transmission and reflection coefficients can be calculated by taking the square of the modulus of the expressions in Eq’s. (4) and (5).

The traversal length for transmission and reflection length in case of reflection are calculated as belowanantha -

$`l^T=\underset{2\alpha 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}|t|^2)}{(2\alpha )}}`$ (6)
and the reflection length in case of reflection is defined as-

$`l^R=\underset{2\alpha 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}|r|^2)}{(2\alpha )}}`$ (7)
The traversal times for transmission or reflection times in case of reflection can be calculated from the formula- $`\tau ^{R/T}=\frac{l^{R/T}}{\frac{\mathrm{}k^{}}{m}}`$ wherein as before $`\frac{\mathrm{}k^{}}{m}`$ is the speed of propagation in the region of interest. For the case of the potential profile sketched in Figure 5, $`k^{}=k`$. From Eq’s. (6) and (7) we can calculate the traversal length for transmission-

$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^T}{l}}={\displaystyle \frac{1|r_1^{}|^2|r_2|^2}{12\mathrm{}(r_1^{}r_2e^{2ik^{}l})+|r_1^{}|^2|r_2|^2}}`$ (8)
and for reflection-

$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^R}{l}}={\displaystyle \frac{l^T}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|r_2|^2|r_1|^2}{|r_1|^22\mathrm{}(r_1^{}r_2ae^{2ik^{}l})+|r_2|^2}}`$ (9)
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ represents real part of the quantity in brackets. In the above two equations the traversal and reflection lengths have been normalized with respect to the length $`l`$ of the locality of interest, which is the well region of the potential profile of Figure 5. Throughout the discussion the quantities are expressed in their dimensionless form.

We consider the case of two rectangular barriers as shown in Figure 5 separated by a distance $`l`$. The energies, potentials and the lengths are all in their dimensionless form.

The S-Matrices for the double heterostructure are given as-

$$S_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_j& t_j^{}\\ t_j& r_j^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{iϵ_{j+}\mathrm{sinh}K_ja_j}{2\mathrm{cosh}K_ja_jiϵ_j\mathrm{sinh}K_ja_j}& \frac{2e^{ika_j}}{2\mathrm{cosh}K_ja_jiϵ_j\mathrm{sinh}K_ja_j}\\ \frac{2e^{ika_j}}{2\mathrm{cosh}K_ja_jiϵ_j\mathrm{sinh}K_ja_j}& \frac{e^{2ika_j}iϵ_{j+}\mathrm{sinh}K_ja_j}{2\mathrm{cosh}K_ja_jiϵ_j\mathrm{sinh}K_ja_j}\end{array}\right)$$

wherein $`K_j=\sqrt{\frac{2m(V_jE)}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$, $`k=\sqrt{\frac{2mE}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$and $`ϵ_{j\pm }=\frac{k}{K_j}\pm \frac{Kj}{k}`$. Herein, $`j`$=1,2.

In Figure 6 we plot the Transmission coefficient and the normalized times $`\tau ^T`$ (=$`\tau ^R)`$ for a symmetrical double barrier $`V=V_1=V_2`$. These times are those required by a quantum particle to traverse or reflect from the well of the double heterostructure. We have normalized these times by the time taken by a particle to traverse the length $`l`$, i.e., $`\frac{ml}{\mathrm{}k^{}}`$ without the potential profile as in Figure 5. From Eq. 8, it is clear that transmission time is always positive. Moreover, we can readily show from our treatment that local times spent by the particle in non-overlapping regions are additive. As expected the traversal times are larger near the resonances. In case of non-symmetrical structures one obtains negative reflection times (which should not be surprising) in some parameter region but traversal times are positive for both symmetrical as well as non-symmetrical structures. It can be arguedanantha  that this is because in case of reflection there is a partial wave corresponding to prompt reflection $`r_1`$ that never samples the region of interest, and also this prompt part leads to self interference delays which cause the sojourn time $`\tau ^R`$ to become negative for some values of the parameters. If one removes this prompt part, i.e., $`r_{np}=rr_1`$, and we re-calculate the sojourn time $`\tau ^{R_{np}}`$ with this prompt part removed we find it to be positive and given by $`\tau ^{R_{np}}=\tau ^T+1`$, as $`\tau ^T`$ is positive. In the case of non-symmetrical structures $`\tau ^T`$ is independent of the fact that a particle is incident from the left or the right, but $`\tau ^R`$ depends on the direction of the incident particle. There is also a remarkable assertion found in the literaturehauge  concerning the measurement of the time of transmission or reflection, which is $`\tau ^D=T\tau ^T+R\tau ^R`$. Herein $`\tau ^T`$ and $`\tau ^R`$ are as given above while the dwell time $`\tau ^D=\frac{1}{v}_0^l|\psi |^2𝑑x`$. $`\psi `$ is the wavefunction in the locality of interest and $`v`$ is the speed of the particle in the region of interest. We have verified explicity after calculation that this equivalence does not hold landauer ; CBssc . Our method can also be readily extended to calculation of traversal time of tunneling (for case of a single barrier). Results are in agreement with recent calculationsanantha .

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, we have shown that wave attenuation is much better in modeling dephasing due to absorption than it’s counterpart the optical potential. Further when we extend this method to calculate the conditional sojourn times we find here also wave attenuation is easier to deal with than optical potential.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In 1948 Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Max Born in which he enunciated the Principle of Local Action111Born translated Einstein’s Nahewirkung as ‘contiguity’. I think my translation of ‘local action’ is better; the opposite of Nahewirkung is Fernwirkung, which is usually translated as ‘action at a distance’. (PLA), which states that any physical action is transmitted from one point to another by a field which propagates outwards in space and forwards in time at a speed no greater than $`c`$. The usual form of Quantum Optics is based on the notion of photons as the elementary objects of the light field, whose corpuscular nature is revealed, through the collapse mechanism, whenever a detection event occurs. The PLA is violated by Quantum Optics, because a light signal, in that description, may undergo collapse as a result of making an observation on another signal with which it is correlated. The nonlocal correlation between photons has been given the title of entanglement, in order to emphasize that, following an analysis first made by Bell, there is no way, based on normal probability theory, in which the correlation of the two photons may be explained in terms of their common origin. The latter may be in the mutual annihilation of a positron-electron pair, or in an atomic cascade or in the nonlinear optical process known as Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC). Observations of all these give correlations which confirm the entanglement phenomenon.

Does this mean that Einstein was wrong, and that the PLA has to be abandoned? Before attempting to answer that we should note that, in his letter to Born, Einstein expressed the opinion that the PLA is the basis of all experimental science. So mere corroboration of the entanglement predictions is not sufficient. If anyone seriously wishes to take on the PLA, then they must be able to point to an experimental situation where that principle is tested without reference to any other assumptions, however plausible those assumptions may appear to be.

Such a necessity was recognized by Clauser and Horne, who acknowledged that a local description of an entanglement phenomenon would not necessarily be in terms of photons. They proposed a plausible assumption which made it possible to transform the untestable Bell inequality into a testable Freedman inequality, namely the no-enhancement hypothesis that a given light signal has a certain probability of activating a detector, and that, if a polarizer is interposed between the source and the detector, that detection probability cannot increase. The experiment of Freedman and Clauser showed a violation of that inequality, and most people, including the experimenters, came to the breathtakingly naive conclusion that the PLA had been violated. The simple alternative of holding on to the PLA (that is, according to Einstein, to the standard procedure of experimental science) and concluding that a hypothesis which had seemed very plausible was nevertheless wrong, seems not to have occurred to anybody! Those few of us who did hold on were occasionally acknowledged in a footnote. According to one overworked phrase we were said to be “exploiting the detection loophole” in the proof of nonlocality.

We have shown, that entanglement in SPDC may be interpreted as a correlation between modes of the electromagnetic field, in which both the parts above and below the “vacuum”, or zeropoint field (ZPF), level participate. In this interpretation the observed enhancement phenomena are all consistently local. We have previously reviewed the earlier generation of Bell tests using atomic cascades, and shown that any theory of light detectors which recognizes that they subtract the ZPF violates the no-enhancement hypothesis. We have now developed a full theory, at least in the context of nonlinear crystals, of the production, propagation and detection of weak signals. That theory now also leads to the prediction of the new phenomenon which we call Spontaneous Parametric Up Conversion (SPUC).

So what is “exploiting the detection loophole”? It is simply following the normal method of experimental science. We use Einstein’s PLA to identify the weak point of the prevailing theory, in this case the standard quantum-optical theory of detection. That theory is based on the normal-ordering algorithm, which in turn comes from the collapse mechanism, already identified, by Einstein at the Solvay Conference of 1927, as a weak point. Following that indication we have been able to show that the normal-ordering algorithm may be shown to be the linear limit of a realist detection theory, that is one in which the activation of a detector depends only on the local values of the electric field within a certain region of space and within a certain time window. And that enables us to make further experimental predictions, in addition to that of SPUC.

## 2 Down conversion

Parametric Down Conversion (PDC) is the optical analogue for a well established classical phenomenon of wave propagation in a nonlinear dispersive medium. It was first demonstrated in the 1960s, when high-intensity coherent sources (lasers) became available. When two lasers, one ultraviolet (frequency $`\omega _1`$) and the other infrared (frequency $`\omega _2`$), are incident on one of a wide class of nonlinear crystals (NLC), then, for a certain combination of incidence angles, a signal at the difference frequency ($`\omega _3=\omega _1\omega _2`$) is emitted (see Fig.1). For example, if the ultraviolet wavelength is 351nm and the infrared wavelength is 845nm, then the signal wavelength is 600nm, which is in the visible spectrum.

The angle between the two lasers, and the exit angle of the signal, are determined through the phase matching relations between the frequencies and wave vectors $`(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3)`$ of the three modes, that is

$`\omega _3=\omega _1\omega _2,`$
$`𝐤_3=𝐤_1𝐤_2,`$ (1)
which have to be combined with the Sellmeier relations for the refractive index of the crystal, as a function of frequency and of the angle between the wave vector and the polar axis. Account also has to be taken of the polarization of the three modes; in a typical arrangement, called Type-I PDC, $`\omega _1`$ is extraordinary, and $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _3`$ are ordinary.

Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC) is the name given to the phenomenon which occurs when we remove the laser $`\omega _2`$; a weak signal, which is nevertheless visible to the unaided eye, remains in the $`\omega _3`$ channel. This is because, in the vacuum, there is a zeropoint field (ZPF) intensity in all modes, corresponding to half a “photon”. The radiation pressure of this ZPF field is what gives rise to the Casimir effect. Through its nonlinear interaction with the hydrogen atom, the ZPF also gives rise to the greater (that is nonrelativistic) part of the Lamb shift in the hydrogen spectrum. In SPDC, as opposed to PDC, the laser mode $`𝐤_2`$ is replaced by the same, but very much less intense, ZPF mode, so $`𝐤_3`$ is still emitted. The SPDC phenomenon actually manifests itself as a rainbow (see Fig.2). Since all frequencies and directions of modes are present in the ZPF, all the corresponding down converted signals also appear at those angles satisfying the phase matching relations.

The above phenomenon is nowadays often called simply PDC, because it has become popular to view the process as one in which laser photons $`\omega _1`$ down convert into $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _3`$. In this description the phase matching relations linking the wave vectors of the three coupled modes in SPDC are considered to express the conservation of four-momentum between the three participating photons, that is

$`\mathrm{}\omega _1=\mathrm{}\omega _2+\mathrm{}\omega _3,`$
$`\mathrm{}𝐤_1=\mathrm{}𝐤_2+\mathrm{}𝐤_3.`$ (2)
These equations are, of course, trivially equivalent to (1), but their theoretical underpinning is entirely different. We may write eq.(1) in the descriptive form

$`\mathrm{laser}\mathrm{ultraviolet}\mathrm{wave}+\mathrm{vacuum}\mathrm{infrared}\mathrm{wave}\mathrm{visible}\mathrm{signal},`$
whereas the corresponding description for eq.(2) is

$`\mathrm{laser}\mathrm{ultraviolet}\mathrm{photon}\mathrm{visible}\mathrm{signal}+\mathrm{infrared}\mathrm{idler}.`$
It is an unfortunate and highly misleading consequence of this latter description that certain correlations in the intensities of the outgoing SPDC signals are now widely interpreted as showing rather bizarre connections between the corresponding photons. All of these allegedly nonlocal phenomena, including those which purport to test the Bell inequalities, have the entanglement feature in common, and our analysis, based on the wave description of light, gives a consistently local description for all of them. The difference is, perhaps, emphasized by the absence of $`\mathrm{}`$ in eq.(1), as opposed to its presence in (2). The optical theory we are proposing is a semiclassical one, that is it combines a wave description of the light field with a quantum description of atoms. However, the interaction of light with a nonlinear crystal does not require any recognition of the atomic constitution of the crystal. Consequently our description of such phenomena, in contrast with our description of atomic cascades, is purely classical. Planck’s constant enters only when we want to calculate the intensity of the SPDC rainbow, which we shall do in the next section. That is because $`\mathrm{}`$ is the constant determining the intensity of the ZPF. I think Max Planck would have approved, because he originated the idea of the ZPF in 1911.

## 3 Up conversion

The SPUC phenomenon, which was mentioned in the Introduction, is a simple modification of SPDC. It has not yet been observed, but any well equipped optical laboratory with a suitably cut specimen of the nonlinear crystal beta barium borate (BBO) may see it by following the design details below. Essentially all that needs to be done is to return to Fig.1 and, instead of removing the infrared laser (that is $`\omega _2`$), we remove the ultraviolet one (that is $`\omega _1`$). Then the signal $`\omega _3`$ persists. We may describe this process as

$`\mathrm{laser}\mathrm{infrared}\mathrm{wave}+\mathrm{vacuum}\mathrm{ultraviolet}\mathrm{wave}\mathrm{visible}\mathrm{signal},`$
but, in contrast with the corresponding SPDC process, there is no photonic equivalent. However, the phase matching relations for the SPDC and SPUC processes are identical. Therefore we can be assured that, if one of them is a real process, then so is the other. It only remains to calculate the position and the intensity of the SPUC rainbow.

For definiteness we assume that the crystal is cut with its optic axis at 37 degrees to the incident face, and that the infrared laser has a wavelength of 845nm normally incident. Because the ultraviolet mode is extraordinarily polarized, its refractive index depends on its orientation, which results in the SPUC rainbow being off centred with respect to the laser beam. We depict the position of the rainbow in Fig.3.

We note that phase matching is not possible for all azimuthal angles, the polar axis having azimuth $`\varphi =0`$. The angles at which the visible SPUC modes exit from the crystal are substantially larger than those of the SPDC rainbow, depicted in Fig.2, especially since, as we shall see shortly, the most intense part of the rainbow is near $`\varphi =180`$ degrees, for which $`\theta `$ is around 50 degrees. It is therefore not surprising that the SPUC rainbow has never been accidentally observed.

The intensities of the SPDC and SPUC rainbows are calculated from the mode coupling equations. We make the linearization approximation, which consists of treating the amplitude of the laser, that is $`A_1`$ in SPDC and $`A_2`$ in SPUC, as a constant. Then, for SPUC, taking the normal to the incident face of the crystal as the $`z`$-direction, $`A_1`$ and $`A_3`$ are slowly varying functions of $`z`$ satisfying the coupling equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_1}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\beta _1A_2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }z}A_3,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA_3}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\beta _3A_2^{}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }z}A_1,`$ (3)
where our model assumes perfect phase matching in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mismatch in the $`z`$ components of $`𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3`$, that is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=k_{1z}k_{2z}k_{3z},`$ (4)
and $`\beta _1,\beta _3`$ are constants related to the Pockels coefficients of the crystal. Putting the single-mode intensities $`I_r=|A_r|^2(r=1,2,3)`$, then, for a crystal of depth $`l`$, the relation between incoming and outgoing intensities is

$`I_1(l)I_1(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _3I_2l^2[\beta _3I_1(0)\beta _1I_3(0)]\mathrm{sinc}^2(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}l),`$
$`I_3(l)I_3(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _1I_2l^2[\beta _1I_3(0)\beta _3I_1(0)]\mathrm{sinc}^2(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}l),`$ (5)
where

$`\mathrm{sinc}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}x}{x}},\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\beta _1I_2\beta _3}.`$ (6)
The total intensity in the $`\omega _3`$ channel is obtained by summing $`I_3(l)I_3(0)`$ over all the relevant pairs of modes. For details refer to Ref.. The results are depicted in Fig.4. Over a large part of the visible frequency range, the SPUC intensity is about half the SPDC intensity, based on a pumping laser for the latter at 442nm, having the same intensity as the SPUC pump at 845nm. So, with a suitable camera, the SPUC rainbow will be seen in glorious technicolor!