text:
# References

String theory in the presence of pp-wave backgrounds  has generated lots of excitement among physicists searching for a deep connection between quatum gravity and gauge theory dynamics. Such string backgrounds are technically tractable, and have direct applications to the four dimensional conformal theories from the point of view of a duality between string and gauge theories. The fact that pp-waves provide exact solutions of string theory, including in the presence of $`RR`$ fields, is now known for long time. It has now been realized that in some special cases, they give rise to exactly solvable string theory with a quadratic action. As a result the spectrum of the theory can be explicitly obtained. Moreover, an interesting connection of pp-wave background with gauge field theories emerges by realizing that they can be obtained in Penrose scaling limit from a geometry of $`AdS_p\times S^q`$ type. This finally leads to a duality between string theories in pp-wave geometries and gauge theories, originally living on the boundary of the $`AdS`$ spaces.

In view of the importance of BPS branes (preserving certain amount of supersymmetries) in understanding the non-perturbative dynamics of string theories, in this paper, we first present classical solutions of a $`D5`$ and an $`NS5`$-brane in the background of a pp-wave. These are obtained from known classical solutions for such branes in $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ background. By setting the brane charges to zero, in our case, we obtain a ten dimensional solution with a six dimensional pp-wave background, giving rise to a massive Green-Schwarz string theory. Four spatial dimensions transverse to the branes, for these solutions, are flat.

To obtain our solution, we now begin by writing the $`1_{NS}`$ \+ $`5_{NS}`$ \+ $`5_{NS}^{}`$ solution given in :

$$ds^2=g_1^1(x,y)(dt^2+dz^2)+H_5(x)dx^ndx^n+H_5^{}(y)dy^mdy^m,$$
(1)
$$dB=dg_1^1dtdz+dH_5+dH_5^{},$$
(2)
$$e^{2\varphi }=\frac{H_5(x)H_5^{}(y)}{g_1(x,y)},$$
(3)
where

$$[H_5^{}(y)_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+H_5(x)_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]g_1(x,y)=0.$$
(4)
A paticular solution for $`g_1`$ is given as:

$$g_1(x,y)=H_1(x)H_1^{}(y),$$
(5)
with

$$H_1=1+\frac{R_1^2}{x^2},H_5=1+\frac{R_5^2}{x^2},H_1^{}=1+\frac{R_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}}{y^2},H_5^{}=1+\frac{R_{}^{}{}_{5}{}^{2}}{y^2}.$$
(6)
By setting $`H_1^{}=1`$, the above solution becomes a direct product of NS1 + NS5 configuration, together with an NS5-brane. Then, in a decoupling limit $`x0`$, one obtains from the metric given in (1) :

$$ds^2=\frac{x^2}{R_1^2}(dt^2+dz^2)+R_1^2\frac{dx^2}{x^2}+R_1^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+H_5^{}(y)(dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(7)
where one has also used $`H_1=H_5`$ to simplify the expression. Finally, by using an S-duality transformation on the background mentioned above, one obtains a metric:

$$ds^2=H_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}\left[\frac{x^2}{R_1^2}(dt^2+dz^2)+R_1^2\frac{dx^2}{x^2}+R_1^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right]+H_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(y)(dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(8)
We now obtain the $`D5`$ brane solution in the pp-wave background, by interpreting the metric in eqn.(8) as that of a $`D5`$-brane in $`AdS_3\times S_3\times R^4`$. The coordinates $`t,x`$ and $`z`$ in the above solution represent the $`AdS_3`$ space, whereas $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is the metric of an $`S^3`$. It is also evident that the worldvolume of the above $`D5`$-brane solution coincides with this $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ space and transverse directions to the branes are represented by the coordinates $`y^m`$. We now apply the Penrose limit on $`t,x,z`$, as well as on the coordinates of $`S^3`$ parametrized as:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=d\psi ^2+sin^2\psi d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(9)
on the $`D5`$-brane metric in (8). Then, by following the procedure in , one obtains from the metric in (8):

$$dS^2=H_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}[dudv\mu ^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}z_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}du^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}dz^idz^i]+H_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(10)
As is noticed, the $`y`$ dependence in the limiting procedure described above remains unchanged due to a simultaneous scaling of $`y`$ together with $`R_5^{}`$.

The expression for the dilaton field in the Penrose limit above can be found rather easily and is given by

$$e^{2\varphi }=H_5^{}(y)^1.$$
(11)
The expression for the ($`RR`$) (3rd rank antisymmetric) field strength ($`H^R`$) in the pp-wave limit is obtained from the NS-NS field strength given in expression (2) by applying S-duality transformation on these fields. As is noticed, in this case there are several nonzero components. In the pp-wave limit, the constant field strengths: $`H_{+12}^R`$ and $`H_{+34}^R`$ emerge from the first two terms in the RHS of eqn. (2), in two steps. First one obtains, in $`x0`$ decoupling limit, expression for the field strength that is given by the appropriate levi-civita tensors on $`AdS_3`$ and $`S^3`$ respectively. In the second step, one applies the Penrose limit following the procedure mentioned above to get constant field strengths:

$$H_{+12}^R=H_{+34}^R=2\mu .$$
(12)
We however notice that the last term in the RHS of eqn. (2) also survives the above limiting processes and its functional form remains unchanged. As a result we have additional nonzero components of the $`RR`$ 3-form field strength:

$$H_{mnp}^R=ϵ_{mnpl}_lH_5^{}(y).$$
(13)
Here we once again like to emphasize that all the three terms: representing the field strengths on $`AdS_3`$, $`S^3`$ and $`R^4`$, of a $`D5`$ brane solution, have identical scaling properties, when standard Penrose scalings of  are applied in the $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ part and transverse coordinates are scaled appropriately. We have therefore presented a classical solution corresponding to a $`D5`$-brane in an exactly solvable pp-wave background.

We can also write down the NS5 brane solution in a pp-wave background using the metric in equation (7). One now obtains the metric:

$$dS^2=[dudv\mu ^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}z_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}du^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}dz^idz^i]+H_5^{}(dy^2+y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(14)
The dilaton now has a form:

$$e^{2\varphi }=H_5^{}(y).$$
(15)
The antisymmetric tensors are exactly of the form in eqns. (12) and (13), with ‘R’ replaced by ‘NS’ in these equations.

Now we generate $`Dp`$-branes ($`p>5`$), starting with our solution as given in eqns.(10)- (13) by applying T-duality along the transverse directions of the $`D5`$-brane. Applying this procedure to a tranverse coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ one obtains a $`D6`$ brane in type IIA theory. The explicit solution for the non-zero components of the metric, field strengths and dilaton are then given as follows:

$`e^{2\varphi _a}`$ $`=`$ $`H_6^{3/2},`$ (16)
$`A_m^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{\stackrel{~}{x}m}^{(R)}:F_{mn}^{(1)}=ϵ_{mnp}_pH_6,`$ (18)
$`A_{\stackrel{~}{x}\mu \nu }^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{\mu \nu }^{(R)},\stackrel{~}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{x}\alpha \beta \gamma }=_\gamma A_{\stackrel{~}{x}\alpha \beta }+cycl.=H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{(R)}:\stackrel{~}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{x}u12}=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{x}u34}=2\mu ,`$ (20)
$$dS^2=H_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}[dudv\mu ^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}z_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}du^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}dz^idz^i+d\stackrel{~}{x}^2]+H_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(21)
with $`H_6=(1+R_6/r)`$, $`r`$ being the radial coordinate in transverse direction and $`H^{(R)}`$ denotes the field strength that we found earlier for the $`D5`$ brane solution in the IIB theory. Integer subscripts in field strenghts above denote coordinates $`z^i`$’s and indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ run over the longitudinal directions. For $`\mu =0`$ this solution reduces to the standard $`D6`$ brane in type IIA theories. One can continue this exercise further to the higher branes as well. Then, for example, a logarithimic Green function appears for a $`D7`$ brane and a linear function appears in the solution for a $`D8`$ brane. The explicit solution for the $`D7`$ brane ($`H_7=1\mu \mathrm{ln}(r/l))`$ is given as:

$`e^{2\varphi _b}`$ $`=`$ $`H_7^2,`$ (22)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`A_{\stackrel{~}{y}}^{(1)}:_m\chi =ϵ_{mn}_nH_7,`$ (24)
$`F_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}u12}^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}u34}^{(5)}=2\mu ,`$ (26)
$$dS^2=H_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}[dudv\mu ^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}z_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}du^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}dz^idz^i+d\stackrel{~}{x}^2+d\stackrel{~}{y}^2]+H_{7}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2).$$
(27)
Solutions corresponding to the bound states of $`Dp`$ branes can also be constructed using the procedure given in . For example, a $`D5D7`$ bound state solution can be obtained from the $`D6`$ brane solution in eqns.(20) and (21) by applying a rotation between the longitudinal coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and one of the transverse coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ for this solution, and then applying T-duality along (rotated) coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{y^{}}`$. We skip the details of this solution and now briefly discuss the construction of $`Dp`$ branes in other pp-wave backgrounds. These backgrounds can be obtained from string theory on $`AdS_m\times S^m`$ for some other values of $`m`$. In $`m=2`$ case, for example, relevant field strength living on $`AdS_2`$ and $`S^2`$ now correspond to a $`1`$-form field. It should therefore be possible to constuct $`D4`$ branes in a pp-wave background, now originating from $`AdS_2\times S^2\times R`$. One now has $`R^5`$ as a five dimensional transverse space on which a $`4`$-form field strength of the type: $`F_{mnpq}=ϵ_{mnpqr}_rH_4`$ lives. One in addition will have constant field strengths of the type: $`F_{+1}^{(1)}=F_{+2}^{(1)}=\mu `$. Once again, by applying $`T`$-dualities, all the higher branes can be obtained. This process can also be repeated for $`D8`$ branes in a pp-wave bakground obtained from $`AdS_4\times S^4\times R`$. We hope to come back with explicit solutions of these types in near future.

We now proceed to construct the $`D5`$-brane, obtained earlier as a classical solution in supergravity, from the point of view of a first quantized string theory in Green-Schwarz formalism in light-cone gauge. The relevant classical action to study in our case, obtained from $`AdS_3\times S^3\times R^4`$ by applying the Penrose limit, has a form:

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`L_B+L_F,`$ (28)
$`L_B`$ $`=`$ $`_+u_{}vm^2x_i^2+_+x_i_{}x_i+_+x_\alpha _{}x_\alpha .`$ (30)
$$L_F=i\theta _R\gamma ^v_+\theta _R+i\theta _L\gamma ^v_{}\theta _L2im\theta _L\gamma ^vM\theta _R,$$
(31)
$$m\alpha ^{}p^u\mu =2\alpha ^{}p_v\mu ,$$
(32)
$$M=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{12}+\gamma ^{34}),$$
(33)
where $`(\theta _R,\theta _L)`$ are 16-component Majorana-Weyl spinors in the right and left moving sectors. $`x_i`$ and $`x_\alpha `$ in eqn.(30) refer to the longitudinal $`D5`$ brane coordinates $`z^i`$ and transverse ones $`y^m`$ in the metric given in eqn.(1). The form of the matrix $`M`$ in the present case leads to only half of the fermions picking up masses. This is different from the case of pp-wave background that is obtained from $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ , and leads to some differences in our case compared to the one in .

The equations of motion following from (28) has a form:

$$_+_{}x_i+m^2x_i=0,_+_{}x_\alpha =0,$$
(34)
$$_+\theta _RmM\theta _L=0,_{}\theta _LmM\theta _R=0.$$
(35)
After solving the light-cone gauge condition one rewrites the above action, as well as equations of motion using 8-component spinors $`S_L`$ and $`S_R`$. The equations of motion have an identical form as in (34), (35) by replacing $`\theta _{L,R}`$ by $`S_{L,R}`$. The matrix $`M`$ now is an $`8\times 8`$ one of the same structure as in (33). Keeping in mind the explicit form of the matrix $`M`$, which evidently breaks the $`SO(8)`$ further, one splits the fermions in the $`84+4`$ way: $`S_L(\stackrel{~}{S}_L,\widehat{S}_L)`$, $`S_R(\stackrel{~}{S}_R,\widehat{S}_R)`$:

$`\gamma ^{1234}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}\\ \widehat{S}_{L,R}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}\\ \widehat{S}_{L,R}\end{array}\right).`$ (36)
Finally one introduces $`4\times 4`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$`\gamma ^{12}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}\\ \widehat{S}_{L,R}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{S}_{L,R}\end{array}\right),`$ (37)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=1`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the above equation are $`4\times 4`$ antisymmetric matrices with eigenvalue $`\pm i`$. Using these notations one has:

$`M\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}\\ \widehat{S}_{L,R}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$ (38)
The equations of motion written in terms of $`(\stackrel{~}{S}_L,\widehat{S}_L)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{S}_R,\widehat{S}_R)`$ are then of the form:

$$_+\stackrel{~}{S}_Rm\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{S}_L=0,_{}\stackrel{~}{S}_Lm\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{S}_R=0,$$
(39)
$$_+\widehat{S}_R=0,_{}\widehat{S}_L=0.$$
(40)
We now write down the open string boundary condition corresponding to the above $`D5`$-brane configuration. These are given on the longitudinal bosonic coordinates $`x^i`$, ($`i=1,..,4`$) and transverse ones $`x^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =5,..,8`$) by standard Neumann and Dirichlet conditions. For spinors we have:

$$S_L|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=\mathrm{\Omega }S_R|_{\sigma =0,\pi },$$
(41)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the product of $`\gamma `$ matrices along the Dirichlet directions. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has to satisfy the following consistency conditions in the present case:

$$[\mathrm{\Omega },\gamma ]=0,$$
(42)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }M\mathrm{\Omega }=M.$$
(43)
The first of these equations follows from the requirement that $`S_L`$ and $`S_R`$ have the same $`SO(8)`$ chirality. The second condition is a consequece of a consistency condition on the above equations of motion in the zero mode sector, leading to one half supersymmetry. The explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in our case is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\gamma ^{5678}`$ and leads to the following boundary conditions on $`(\stackrel{~}{S}_L,\widehat{S}_L)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{S}_R,\widehat{S}_R)`$ using eqn.(36):

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_L|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=\stackrel{~}{S}_R|_{\sigma =0,\pi },$$
(44)
$$\widehat{S}_L|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=\widehat{S}_R|_{\sigma =0,\pi }.$$
(45)
Now, as the equations of motion as well as the boundary condition for the components $`\widehat{S}_{L,R}`$ are identical to the ones in flat space, we only concentrate on finding explicit solution for $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}`$ below.

Explicit solution for $`x^i`$ and $`x^\alpha `$ are given as:

$$x^i(\sigma ,\tau )=[x_0^icosm\tau +\frac{1}{m}p_0^isinm\tau ]+i\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{\omega _n}\alpha _n^ie^{i\omega _n\tau }cosn\sigma ,$$
(46)
$$x^\alpha (\sigma ,\tau )=\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}\alpha _n^\alpha e^{in\tau }sinn\sigma ,$$
(47)
where $`\omega _n=sgn(n)\sqrt{n^2+m^2}`$ and oscillators satisfy the following commutation relations:

$$[a_n^I,a_l^J]=\delta _{n+l}\delta ^{IJ},[\overline{a}_0^i,a_0^j]=\delta ^{ij},$$
(48)
with indices $`I,J`$ running over all the eight coordinates. We have also used the definitions:

$$a_0^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}(p_0^i+imx_0^i),\overline{a}_0^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}(p_0^iimx_0^i),a_n^I=\sqrt{\frac{1}{|\omega _n|}}\alpha _n^I.$$
(49)
For $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{L,R}`$ we have the solution of the equations of motion :

$$\stackrel{~}{S^a}_L=[\stackrel{~}{S^a}_0cos\omega _0\tau \overline{\stackrel{~}{S^a}_0}sin\omega _0\tau ]+\underset{n0}{}\frac{c_n}{\sqrt{2}}[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{}_{n}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{S^a}{}_{n}{}^{}+\frac{i}{m}(\omega _nn)\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^aS_{}^{b}{}_{n}{}^{}\varphi _n],$$
(50)
$$\stackrel{~}{S^a}_R=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a[\overline{\stackrel{~}{S}}_0^bcos\omega _0\tau +\stackrel{~}{S^b}_0sin\omega _0\tau ]+\underset{n0}{}\frac{c_n}{\sqrt{2}}[\varphi {}_{n}{}^{}S_{}^{a}{}_{n}{}^{}+\frac{i}{m}(\omega _nn)\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^a\stackrel{~}{S^b}_n\stackrel{~}{\varphi _n}],$$
(51)
where $`c_n=m/\sqrt{m^2+(\omega _nn)^2)}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n=\mathrm{exp}i(\omega _n\tau +n\sigma ),\varphi _n=\mathrm{exp}i(\omega _n\tau n\sigma ),(S_n=S_n^{}etc.)$$
(52)
Moreover, the boundary condition eqn. (41) implies:

$$\stackrel{~}{S_0^a}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\stackrel{~}{S}_0})^a,\stackrel{~}{S_n^a}=S_n^a.$$
(53)
One can now put the conditions (53) back into the solutions in eqns. (50) and (51) to find out that indeed the boundary conditions in eqns. (44) and (45) are being satisfied. The commutation relations for the above spinor components turn out to be of the form:

$$\{\stackrel{~}{S}_0^a,\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b\}=\delta ^{ab},\{S_n^a,S_n^b\}=\delta ^{ab}.$$
(54)
The total Hamitlonian can be written as:

$$H=H_0+\stackrel{~}{H}+\widehat{H},$$
(55)
where

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{p^u}}(\overline{a}_0^ia_0^ii\stackrel{~}{S_0^a}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{S_0^a})+e_0,`$ (56)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^u}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _n(a_{n}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}a_n^i+S_{n}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}S_n^a),`$ (58)
$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^u}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n(a_{n}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{}a_n^\alpha +\widehat{S_n^A}^{}\widehat{S_n^A}).`$ (60)
with $`e_0`$ being the zero point energy. The form of the zero mode part of the hamiltonian implies that the ground state degeneracy of a $`D5`$-brane spectrum is broken. To analyze the spectrum of the states, we use the fermionic creation and annihilation operators constructed out of spinors: $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`\widehat{S}`$. Since both of these are 4 component objects, each of them give rise to two such creation operators and two annihilation opertaors. Then sixteen states (at a level defined by the vacuum energy $`e_0=2\mu `$), in this representation, are obtained using these operators on appropriate Fock vacuum for $`\mu =0`$. On the other hand for $`\mu 0`$, there is a splitting in this spectrum which can now be analyzed by simply taking into account the $`H_0`$ part in eqns.(55) and (60) .

We have therefore obtained explicit construction of the open string describing the $`D5`$-branes in the pp-wave background presented earlier in this paper. It will be interesting to generalize these results to other D-branes and their bound states, discussed in the paper, as well. We however leave this as a future exercise.


format: text

text:
# Spin Dephasing in the Extended Strong Collision Approximation

## I Introduction

The understanding of spin dephasing is of paramount interest in all fields of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) sciences. In NMR spectroscopy it determines the line shape, in NMR imaging it is – besides longitudinal relaxation – the major mechanism determining the contrast and contains morphological as well as functional information.

The processes contributing to spin dephasing are related to the spin environment. In biological tissues, for example, spin dephasing may result from dipole-dipole interaction of water proton spins with paramagnetic ions like Fe2+. Another cause is diffusion within inhomogeneous magnetic fields generated by native or contrast agent induced susceptibility differences that are related to tissue composition and/or cellular and sub cellular compartments. In magnetic resonance imaging spin dephasing in external gradient fields is exploited to get information about diffusion within biological systems. These diffusion sensitive imaging techniques are applied to study tissue anisotropy and restrictions of diffusion that are given by membranes of cells and sub cellular structures.

Essential for dephasing of spins are the field fluctuations that induce the phase modulations. It is important to note that in biological tissues the relevant processes cover almost the whole range of time scales. For example, the dynamics of interactions of water proton spins with paramagnetic macromolecules as ferritin is so fast that it can be considered to be within the motional narrowing regime. On the other hand, dephasing of spins in magnetic field gradients around larger vessels is almost coherent. i.e. it is in the static dephasing regime . Hence, for biological applications it is important to obtain results from theory that are valid over the whole motion regime. However, in most cases this is not possible analytically.

Therefore, most efforts have focused on limiting cases. The motional narrowing limit is well investigated and a number of analytical results were obtained for it. The characteristic of this limit is that the mean phase shift induced by a field realization is much smaller than one, i.e. $`|\delta \phi |=\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2^{1/2}1`$, where the correlation time $`\tau `$ gives the mean duration of some field realization, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2`$ is the variance of the inhomogeneous field. The relaxation time is then obtained as $`1/T_2=\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2`$. In the other limiting case, i.e. the static dephasing regime ($`\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2^{1/2}1`$), Yablonski derived analytical expressions for coherent dephasing of spins in inhomogeneous fields around magnetic centers like cylinders or spheres. Kiselev  extended Yablonski’s static dephasing approach by considering diffusion of spins within local linear gradients. However, this approach requires that the diffusion length $`l`$ during dephasing is within the linear approximation of the inhomogeneous fields $`\omega (x_0+l)\omega (x_0)+_x\omega (x_0)l`$. Note that expansion around the limiting cases by perturbation approaches leads to divergences in the respective other limits. Therefore, the intermediate motion regime, i.e. almost everything between the static dephasing and motional narrowing limit, was in most situations accessible by simulations only .

Recently, we used a strong collision (SC) approach to characterize spin dephasing in a particular situation: An inhomogeneous field around regularly arranged parallel cylinders filled with a paramagnetic substance , a model reflecting the capillary network of the cardiac muscle. The results agreed well with simulations  over the whole dynamic range, and with experimental data .

The basic idea behind the SC approach is to replace the original generator of the Markov process by a simpler one, the SC generator, that conserves particular features of the original process. In particular, by an appropriate choice of its parameter the SC process reproduces the correlation time of the field fluctuations induced by the original Markov process. There are several advantages of the SC approximation. First, it is is correct both in the motional narrowing and the static dephasing limits; thereby also the error in the intermediate regime is reduced considerably, when compared to perturbation approaches. And second, it provides a simple expression for the magnetization decay which may be solved analytically or at least numerically.

However, the drawback of the SC approach was – up to now – that is not part of a systematic approximation to or an expansion of the original generator. Therefore, it was unclear how results could be improved beyond the SC approximation. The aim of this paper is to extend the SC approach and provide a framework for a systematic approximation.

In the next section we will present a formal description of spin dephasing that will be the basis for our analytical analysis. In Sect. III we will introduce the extended strong collision (ESC) approximation proper and show how it is used to describe free induction and spin echo decay. In Sect. IV we will apply it to two generic cases: spin dephasing induced by an Anderson-Weiss process  and by restricted diffusion in a linear field gradient. We will close the paper with a summary and a discussion of our results.

## II Formal Description of Spin-Dephasing

We assume that dephasing of transversely polarized nuclear spins exposed to an external field is induced by randomly fluctuating magnetic perturbation fields with frequency $`\omega _i`$, where $`i`$ is a discrete or continuous variable. The transition dynamics between two distinct states $`i`$ and $`j`$ is that of a stationary continuous time Markov process described by rates $`r_{ji}`$ for the transition $`ij`$. The matrix $`𝐑=(r_{ji})`$ as the generator of the Markov process conserves the probability to find a spin within one state, i.e. $`r_{ii}=_{ji}r_{ji}`$. The eigenvalues $`l`$ of $`𝐑`$ fulfill the condition $`l0`$ where $`l=0`$ corresponds to the equilibrium probability distribution. To simplify the notation we denote the normalized left and right eigenvectors of $`𝐑`$ as $`l|`$ and $`|l`$, respectively, with $`l^{}|l=\delta _{l^{}l}`$.

The time evolution between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$ of the transverse magnetization of spins in the state $`j`$ (in polar notation $`m_j=m_{jx}\mathrm{i}m_{jy}`$) results from the linear superposition of the transition and the precession dynamics, i.e. $`_tm_j(t)=_jr_{ji}m_i(t)+\mathrm{i}\omega _jm_j(t)`$. The precession within the external field was omitted since it only induces a constant offset of the frequency which may be gauged to zero. With the diagonal frequency matrix $`𝛀=(\delta _{ji}\omega _i)`$ one obtains for the magnetization $`|m=(m_j)`$

$$_t|m(t)=(𝐑+\mathrm{i}𝛀)|m(t),$$
(1)
which is a generalization of the Bloch Torrey equation  originally formulated for diffusing spins, i.e. $`𝐑^2`$. In most cases it is reasonable to assume that the initial magnetization $`|m(0)`$ is proportional to the equilibrium probability distribution $`|0`$, e.g. when free diffusion is considered this would imply a homogeneous transverse magnetization. Equation (1) then provides the time evolution of the transverse magnetization (free induction decay) as

$$|m(t)=\mathrm{exp}[(𝐑+\mathrm{i}𝛀)t]|0,$$
(2)
where the initial magnetization was normalized to one. The overall magnetization is then determined as

$`M(t)`$ $`=`$ $`0|m(t)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`0|\mathrm{exp}\left[(𝐑+\mathrm{i}𝛀)t\right]|0.`$ (5)
The free induction decay as determined by Eqs. (2) and (5) results from coherent and incoherent spin dephasing. The incoherent contribution is determined from spin echo experiments. In-plane polarized spins are rotated by a $`180^0`$ ($`\pi `$-pulse) after a time $`t/2`$. This pulse transforms the original magnetization $`|m(t/2)`$ to its complex adjoint $`|m^{}(t/2)=\mathrm{exp}[(𝐑\mathrm{i}𝛀)t/2]|0`$. This procedure cancels the coherent spin dephasing after the time $`t`$ (echo time), i.e. the decay of magnetization at $`t`$ is solely due to incoherent spin dephasing. The time course of the magnetization after the pulse, i.e. for times $`t^{}>t/2`$, is determined by

$$|m(t^{})=\mathrm{exp}[(𝐑+\mathrm{i}𝛀)(t^{}t/2)]\mathrm{exp}[(𝐑\mathrm{i}𝛀)t/2]|0,$$
(6)
i.e. the overall spin echo magnetization at the echo time $`t`$ is

$`M_{SE}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`0|\mathrm{exp}[(𝐑+\mathrm{i}𝛀)t/2]\mathrm{exp}[(𝐑\mathrm{i}𝛀)t/2]|0`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`m(t/2)|m^{}(t/2).`$ (8)
Equation (8) relates the overall spin echo magnetization to the magnetization of the free induction decay.

## III The Strong Collision Approximation and its Extension

The analytical determination of the free induction decay according to Eqs. (5) is restricted to very few cases, e.g. free diffusion in a linear gradient or stochastic fluctuations between two precession frequencies. The idea of the strong collision approach and its extension is to replace the generator of the Markov process $`𝐑`$ by a more simple generator $`𝐃`$ that conserves specific features of the original dynamics.

### A Strong Collision Approximation

In many cases the stochastic fluctuations of the perturbation fields occur on a much shorter time scale than spin-dephasing, i.e. the correlation time $`\tau `$ of field fluctuations is much shorter than the relaxation time of the magnetization. For ergodic Markov processes one can estimate that after a few $`\tau `$ a spin has visited almost all relevant states with the equilibrium probability. On the other hand, there is only little change of the magnetization during this time interval. Therefore, spin dephasing in this situation can be described equivalently by a process in which the transition rate between two states $`ij`$ is independent of the initial state. Consequently, the transition rate for $`ij`$ is proportional to the equilibrium probability of the final state, $`p_{0,j}`$. Such a dynamics is referred to as strong collision dynamics.

The generator $`𝐃`$ of this process has the form

$$𝐃=\lambda (\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷_0)$$
(9)
where $`𝚷_0=|00|`$ is the projection operator onto the eigenspace generated by the the equilibrium eigenvector of $`𝐑`$, and $`\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}`$ is the identity operator. The factor $`\lambda `$ has to be determined self consistently.

Since the starting point of the strong collision approximation is the observation that — in many cases of interest — the correlation of the stochastic field fluctuations appear on a shorter time scale than that of changes of the magnetization, only the long time behavior of the field fluctuations is of importance. This long time behavior is characterized by the correlation time of the two-point autocorrelation function of the field fluctuations (see also the appendix),

$`C_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (t)\omega (0)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`0|𝛀\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)𝛀|0,`$ (11)
which is defined as

$`\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{C_2(t)C_2(\mathrm{})}{C_2(0)C_2(\mathrm{})}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0|𝛀\left[\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)𝚷_0\right]𝛀|0}{0|𝛀^2|00|𝛀|0^2}}`$ (15)
Stochastic field fluctuations determined by the strong collision (SC) process should have the same correlation time as the original process, leading to the self-consistency condition

$$\tau _2^{(SC)}(\lambda )=\tau _2.$$
(16)
It is easy to determine that the correlation time for the strong collision approximation is $`\tau _2^{(SC)}(\lambda )=\lambda ^1`$, see the appendix Eq. (C2), leading to

$$\lambda =\tau _2^1.$$
(17)
### B Extended Strong Collision Approximation

The extension of the strong collision approximation is based on a comparison with the spectral expansion of the original operator,

$$𝐑=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}l_j𝚷_j,$$
(18)
where $`l_0=0>l_1>\mathrm{}`$ are the ordered eigenvalues of $`𝐑`$ and $`𝚷_j=|jj|`$ is the projection operator onto the eigenspace corresponding to $`l_j`$. Since the time evolution operator is $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}e^{l_jt}𝚷_j`$, it is clear that the low order eigenvalues determine the long-time behavior, while higher orders dominate shorter and shorter time scales. A comparison with a rewriting of Eq. (9),

$$𝐃=l_0𝚷_0\lambda (\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷_0)$$
(19)
(note that $`l_0=0`$), shows that in the strong collision approximation just the lowest order term of (18) is taken into account explicitly, while the contribution of the higher eigenvalues is approximated by the self-consistently determined parameter $`\lambda `$.

A natural extension, therefore, would be to take into account more low order eigenvalues explicitly, thereby increasing the accuracy of the description of the long-time behavior:

$$𝐃_{}^{}{}_{n}{}^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}l_j𝚷_j\lambda (\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷).$$
(20)
with $`𝚷=_{j=0}^n𝚷_j`$. A stochastic process generated by an operator $`𝐃_{}^{}{}_{n}{}^{}`$ in Eq. (20) will be referred to as simplified extended strong collision (ESC’n) approximation of order $`n`$. As before, the contribution of the higher eigenvalues is approximated by the parameter $`\lambda `$, which is determined again self-consistently from condition (16). Here it leads to

$$\lambda =\frac{c_2(0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|\omega _{0i}\right|^2}{c_2(0)\tau _2+_{j=1}^nl_j^1\left|\omega _{0i}\right|^2},$$
(21)
with $`\omega _{0i}=0|𝛀|i`$ and $`c_2(0)=0|𝛀^2|0\omega _{00}^2`$. Note that for $`n0`$ this equation becomes (17) again.

However, there are several problems involved with an approximation based on (20) and (21). Practically, an exact determination of the low order eigenvalues and eigenvectors is possible only in special cases. Therefore, one has to deal with the problem that the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are known either only approximately or not at all. Furthermore, even with eigenvalues and eigenfunctions known, it turns out that the ESC’ approximation may be not applicable at all in certain situations: If the autocorrelation function of the field fluctuations is determined fully by the eigenfunctions included in $`𝐃^{}`$, Eq. (21) is undetermined. In that case additional self-consistency requirements would be necessary for a better description of the intermediate time regime.

Nevertheless, the above approach can be readily adapted to these situations. Equation (20) can be viewed as an optimized reduced description of the relaxation in various subspaces of the original operator $`𝐑`$. Such a optimized description should also be possible for subspaces that are not eigenvectors of $`𝐑`$. We can, therefore, set

$$𝐃_n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j𝚷_j\lambda (\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷).$$
(22)
However, now the rates $`\lambda _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are not eigenvalues anymore, but have to be determined by additional self-consistency requirements, see below. Moreover, the $`𝚷_j`$ are not projectors onto the eigenspace of a particular eigenvalue, but onto the spaces defined by arbitrarily chosen mutually orthogonal functions $`|f_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, with $`f_i|f_j=\delta _{ij}`$ and $`f_j|0=0`$; i.e. the projectors have the form $`𝚷_j=|f_jf_j|`$ and $`𝚷=𝚷_0+_{j=1}^n𝚷_j`$. Naturally, one would try to choose the functions $`|f_j`$ close to the eigenfunctions $`|j`$, although it is not required for the extension to work. Another natural function space for example is based on polynomials in the frequency operator $`𝛀`$, i.e.

$$|f_i=p_i(𝛀)|0,$$
(23)
where $`p_i`$ is some polynomial of degree $`i`$, the coefficients of which are chosen in such a way that the orthonormal relations are fulfilled. In the following we will refer to this base of functions as the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base.

In analogy to Eq. (20) a stochastic process generated by an operator $`𝐃_n`$ in Eq. (22) will be referred to as extended strong collision (ESCn) approximation of order $`n`$. It is evident that the ESC0 approximation refers to the strong collision approximation.

We mentioned already that the rates $`\lambda _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, in Eq. (22) have to be determined now by additional self-consistency requirements. As it was with the SC approximation, the aim of the ESCn approximation is to approximate more closely the correlation of field fluctuations. This is achieved by considering also higher order correlation functions

$`C_m(t_{m1},\mathrm{},t_1)=`$ (25)
$`\omega \left(_{j=1}^{m1}t_j\right)\mathrm{}\omega (t_2+t_1)\omega (t_1)\omega (0)`$
$`=`$ $`0|𝛀\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_{m1})𝛀\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_1)𝛀|0.`$ (26)
Following the same arguments as for the strong collision approximation, the long time behavior of the $`C_m`$ is of interest. In the same way as for the strong collision approximation this should be characterized by some first order statistical moment which is obtained by integration of the correlation function over $`t_{m1},\mathrm{},t_1`$. However, direct usage of $`C_m`$ is hampered by its non-vanishing asymptotic behavior: It is easily seen that from the relation $`lim_{t_\nu \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_\nu )=𝚷_0`$ follows

$`\underset{t_\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}C_m(t_{m1},..,t_1)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{m\nu }(t_{m1},..,t_{\nu +1})\times `$ (28)
$`C_\nu (t_{\nu 1},..,t_1),`$
which does not necessarily vanish. In the strong collision approximation we avoided this problem by considering the operator $`[\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)𝚷_0]`$ instead of $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)`$ in Eq. (15), i.e. we considered only the relaxational part of the stochastic process. When we perform the same replacement in Eq. (26) we obtain modified correlation functions $`c_m(t_{m1},\mathrm{},t_1)`$ that we will call quasi cumulants (s. appendix). They vanish asymptotically for all $`t_\nu `$. We now require that the generalized correlation times derived from these quasi cumulants,

$$\tau _m^{m1}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^{m1}𝑑t_i\frac{c_m(t_{m1},\mathrm{},t_1)}{c_m(0,\mathrm{},0)},$$
(29)
are equal for the exact process and for the extended strong collision description. The relaxation rates are, therefore, determined by

$`\tau _m^{(ESC_n)}(\lambda ,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _m,`$ (31)
$`m=2,4\mathrm{},2n+2,`$
which replace the single self-consistency condition (16). Note that in many systems the correlation functions $`c_m(t_{m1},\mathrm{},t_1)`$ vanish for odd values of $`m`$ due to symmetry. Therefore, we require the equivalence of relaxation times in Eq. (31) for even values of $`m`$ only. Otherwise one has to determine the correlation times of the first $`n+1`$ non-vanishing correlation functions.

It is important to emphasize some properties of the ESC approximation. First of all, it usually does not reduce to the ESC’ approximation when eigenfunctions are used for the projection operator; i.e. the $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ do not take on the numerical values of the corresponding eigenvalues, although they usually do approximate them. In the light of the problems with the ESC’ approximations mentioned above, it will turn out that this is an advantage: the self-consistent determination of the relaxation parameters $`\lambda `$, and $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ according to Eq. (31) is more balanced than when only Eq. (16) is used, and gives rise to an improved approximation. Moreover, the self-consistency conditions (31) imply that both processes, the ESC process and the original Markov process have the same motional narrowing expansion of the transverse relaxation, as it is shown in the appendix, Eq. (B22).

### C Transverse Spin Relaxation in the Extended Strong Collision Approximation

In this section we will exploit the simple structure of the generator $`𝐃_n`$ to determine the time course of magnetization. We will consider both: the free induction decay, i.e. the superposition of coherent and incoherent spin dephasing, and the spin echo decay, i.e. pure incoherent spin dephasing.

#### 1 Free Induction Decay

In the extended strong collision approximation the generator $`𝐑`$ of the free induction decay in the generalized Bloch Torrey Equation (1) is replaced by the generator $`𝐃_n`$ of Eq. (22). Instead of solving the propagator $`𝐔(t)=\mathrm{exp}((𝐃_n+\mathrm{i}𝛀)t)`$ it is more convenient to solve its Laplace transform $`\widehat{𝐔}(s)=(s𝐃_n\mathrm{i}𝛀)^1`$ which may be expanded as

$$\widehat{𝐔}(s)=\widehat{𝐔}_0(s+\lambda )+\widehat{𝐔}_0(s+\lambda )𝚲\widehat{𝐔}(s)$$
(32)
where $`\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)=(s\mathrm{i}𝛀)^1`$ is the Laplace transform in the static dephasing limit ($`𝐃_n=0`$), and the operator $`𝚲`$ is defined as

$$𝚲=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(\lambda \lambda _j)𝚷_j,$$
(33)
where we set $`\lambda _0=0`$. We will now confine the operators in Eq. (32) onto the subspace defined by the projection operator $`𝚷=_{j=0}^n𝚷_j`$. Using the abbreviation $`𝐎^\mathrm{\Pi }:=𝚷𝐎𝚷`$ for denoting any operator $`𝐎`$ confined to that subspace, we obtain

$$\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)=\widehat{𝐔}_0^\mathrm{\Pi }(s+\lambda )+\widehat{𝐔}_0^\mathrm{\Pi }(s+\lambda )𝚲^\mathrm{\Pi }\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s),$$
(34)
where we exploited the fact that $`𝚲=𝚷𝚲𝚷`$ and the idempotency of projection operators, i.e. $`𝚷=𝚷^2`$. Equation (34) is of fundamental importance. It demonstrates that the relation (32) between the ESC-approximation and the static dephasing is also valid in the subspace $`[|0,|f_1,..,|f_n]`$. This simplifies determination of spin relaxation considerably since one only has to determine the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ matrices ***in case of degeneracy of the eigenvalues the matrix dimension is the sum of the dimensions of the eigenspaces plus one of the static dephasing limit $`\widehat{𝐔}_0^\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`𝚲`$, i.e.

$$\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)=\left(𝚷\widehat{𝐔}_0^\mathrm{\Pi }(s+\lambda )𝚲^\mathrm{\Pi }\right)^1\widehat{𝐔}_0^\mathrm{\Pi }(s+\lambda ).$$
(35)
The Laplace transform of the overall magnetization decay $`\widehat{M}_{[n]}(s)`$ in the extended strong collision approximation has the form

$$\widehat{M}_{[n]}(s)=0|\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)|0$$
(36)
For the special case of the strong collision approximation, ESC0, Eqs. (35) and (36) result in

$$\widehat{M}_{[0]}(s)=\frac{\widehat{M}_{sd}(s+\lambda )}{1\widehat{M}_{sd}(s+\lambda )\lambda }.$$
(37)
with $`\widehat{M}_{sd}(s)=0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s+\lambda )|0`$ as the Laplace transform of the overall magnetization in the static dephasing regime. The time evolution $`M(t)`$ can be obtained from Eqs (35) and (36) either by numerical inverse Laplace transform or using the generalized moment approach  which allows a multi-exponential approximation.

#### 2 Spin-Echo Decay

The spin-echo decay is obtained by inserting of the generator $`𝐃_n`$ into Eq. (8), i.e.

$`_tM_{SE,[n]}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda M_{SE,[n]}(t)+m(t/2)|𝚲|m^{}(t/2)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`\lambda M_{SE,[n]}(t)+0|𝐔(t/2)𝚲𝐔^{}(t/2)|0`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`\lambda M_{SE,[n]}(t)+0|𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t/2)𝚲𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t/2)|0`$ (40)
i.e. the spin-echo decay is expressed as a function of the spin-echo amplitude $`M_{SE}`$, and the projection of the free induction decay onto the subspace $`[|0,|f_1,\mathrm{},|f_n]`$, i.e. $`𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|0`$. This projection of the free induction decay is obtained from Eq. (35)by inverse Laplace transform, i.e. $`𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|0=^1(\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)|0)`$. The solution of Eq. (LABEL:ESC4) is

$$M_{SE,[n]}(t)=e^{\lambda t}\left[1+2_0^{t/2}𝑑\xi e^{2\lambda \xi }0|𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi )𝚲𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi )|0\right]$$
(42)
#### 3 Time Constants of Transverse Relaxation

The free induction and the spin echo decay are usually described by the time constants $`T_2^{}`$ and $`T_2`$. However, there is no unique definition of these parameters. One definition of the relaxation times is

$`1/T_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(M(t))/t`$ (43)
$`1/T_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(M_{SE})/t.`$ (44)
For the ESC decay one has to replace $`M`$ by $`M_{[n]}`$ and $`M_{SE}`$ by $`M_{SE,[n]}`$. This definition implies a dependence of relaxation times on $`t`$, except for single exponential decay.

Another definition of relaxation times is based on the assumption that these constants provide the best single exponential approximation of magnetization decays, i.e. $`M(t)e^{t/T_2^{}},M_{SE}e^{t/T_2}`$. According to the mean relaxation time approximation the relaxation times are then the first long time moments of the decays , i.e.

$`T_2^{}:=\mu _1(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tM(t)`$ (45)
$`T_2:=\mu _1(M_{SE})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tM_{SE}(t)`$ (46)
For a single exponential the mean relaxation time definition and the definitions (44) give the same results. According to definition (46) the relaxation times of the ESC decays can be related to their Laplace transforms as

$`T_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{M}_{[n]}(0)`$ (47)
$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{M}_{SE,[n]}(0),`$ (48)
The term $`\widehat{M}_{[n]}(0)`$, which provides $`T_2^{}`$, is obtained from Eq. (36). Applying some rules of Laplace transforms the term $`\widehat{M}_{SE,[n]}(0)`$ giving $`T_2`$ is obtained from Eq. (LABEL:ESC4) as

$$T_2=\lambda ^1+2\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1\lambda _i/\lambda )\mathrm{\Theta }_i,$$
(49)
where

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t|0|𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|0|^2`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}𝑑z0|\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(z)|00|\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(z)|0`$ (52)
is the mean relaxation time of the absolute squared overall free induction magnetization $`|M_{[n]}(t)|^2=|0|𝐔(t)^\mathrm{\Pi }|0|^2`$, and for $`i1`$

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt0|𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t)|f_if_i|𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }|0(t)`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}𝑑z0|\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(z)|f_if_i|\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(z)|0`$ (55)
are transit times describing the transient occurrence of the non-equilibrium components of the free induction decay $`𝐔(t)|f_i`$. Equation (49) relates $`T_2`$ which describes the incoherent, i.e. irreversible, component of spin dephasing to the stochastic field dynamics ($`\lambda ,\lambda _i`$) and time constants of the free induction decay ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$), i.e. Eq. (49) is a dissipation-fluctuation-coherence relation. Note that the Eqs. (50) to (53) directly relate the time constants $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ to the Laplace transform of the free induction decay $`\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ given by the fundamental Equation (34).

¿From Eq. (49) one can derive asymptotic relations for very fast and slow stochastic field fluctuations. Let $`ϵ`$ be some scaling parameter of $`𝐃_n`$, i.e. $`\lambda ,\lambda _iϵ`$, then Eq. (49) reads in the static dephasing limit ($`ϵ0`$)

$$T_2\lambda ^1$$
(56)
where we exploited that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i(ϵ)`$ approaches its finite static dephasing limit. For very fast fluctuations i.e. in the motional narrowing limit ($`ϵ\mathrm{}`$) one exploits that $`f_i|\widehat{𝐔}(s)|0/0|\widehat{𝐔}(s)|0ϵ^1`$, as a power expansion demonstrates, i.e. one obtains

$$T_22\mathrm{\Theta }_0.$$
(57)
This implies that the spin echo relaxation time is almost identical with the relaxation time of the absolute squared magnetization of the free induction decay, or vice versa that the free induction decay is almost irreversible.

The dissipation-fluctuation-coherence relation (49) takes a very simple form in the strong collision approximation, when we assume that the overall magnetization decay is well approximated by a single exponential, i.e. $`M_{[0]}(t)e^{t/T2^{}}`$. Since $`\lambda =\tau _2^1`$, see Eq. (17), Eq. (49) reads

$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _2+2\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ (58)
$``$ $`\tau _2+T_2^{}.`$ (59)
¿From Eqs. (59) follows that in the motional narrowing limit $`T_2T_2^{}`$ holds whereas in the static dephasing limit of the strong collision approximation the relation $`T_2\tau _2`$ holds.

## IV Applications

### A Anderson-Weiss Model

The Anderson-Weiss model  is one of the rare approaches – besides the ESC approximation – which describes spin dephasing over the whole dynamic range of stochastic field fluctuations. The approach is suitable, for example, when dephasing is induced by spin interaction with a great number of independently fluctuating perturbation fields in the spin environment. Then analytical results are obtained for the free induction and the spin echo magnetization decay as

$`M(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\xi )c_2(\xi )𝑑\xi \right]`$ (60)
$`M_{SE}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[4{\displaystyle _0^{t/2}}(t/2\xi )c_2(\xi )d\xi `$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t}(t\xi )c_2(\xi )d\xi ],`$
where $`c_2`$ is the modified two point correlation function (s. appendix). In this section we will first characterize the class of Markovian processes which fulfills the conditions of the Anderson-Weiss model. This leads to a generalized Bloch-Torrey equation according to Eq. (1) which is solved. Finally we compare the Anderson-Weiss model with its ESC0 and ESC1 approximation.

#### 1 Markovian and Anderson-Weiss Dynamics

The Anderson-Weiss approach is based on a Gaussian distribution of perturbation field frequencies $`\omega `$. Even more important is the additional assumption that the stochastic phase accumulation of a spin $`\varphi =_0^t𝑑\xi \omega (\xi )`$ also exhibits a Gaussian distribution. This latter condition implies that the Greens function $`G(\omega _j,\omega _i,t)`$, i.e. the probability that a spin initially precessing with frequency $`\omega _i`$ precesses at $`t`$ with $`\omega _j`$, is also a Gaussian function in $`\omega _j,\omega _i`$ with the condition $`G(\omega _j,\omega _i,0)=\delta (\omega _j\omega _i)`$. This implies that only nearest neighbor transitions rates are non-vanishing. Markovian processes in a continuous variable $`\omega `$ with this property are described equivalently by a Fokker Planck Equation , i.e. the probability density $`p(\omega )`$ satisfies

$`_tp(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐑p(\omega ,t)`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`_\omega D(\omega )(_\omega F(\omega ))p(\omega ,t),`$ (64)
where $`D(\omega )`$ is a – possibly $`\omega `$-dependent – diffusion coefficient and $`F(\omega )`$ is some driving force. Since the equilibrium probability density is a Gaussian function one obtains $`F(\omega )=c\omega `$ with $`c>0`$. The generalized Bloch-Torrey equation (1) which determines the dynamics of magnetization as a superposition of precession and stochastic transitions then reads

$$_tm(\omega ,t)=[_\omega D(\omega )(_\omega +c\omega )+\mathrm{i}\omega ]m(\omega ,t).$$
(65)
The derivation of the Eqs. (64), (65) is of fundamental importance since it states that a Markovian dynamics of a variable $`\omega `$ which satisfies the Anderson-Weiss conditions is equivalent to a diffusion process in this variable within a harmonic potential $`c\omega ^2/2`$ and vice versa. Transformation of variables $`\omega c^{1/2}\omega `$ and $`tc^{1/2}t`$ simplifies Eq. (65) to

$$_tm(\omega ,t)=[_\omega \beta (\omega )(_\omega +\omega )+\mathrm{i}\omega ]m(\omega ,t)$$
(66)
where we continue to denote also the transformed variables as $`\omega `$ and $`t`$ and $`\beta =c^{3/2}D`$ is the transformed diffusion coefficient. In the following we will restrict consideration to the case of a constant diffusion coefficient $`\beta `$. The left and right sided eigenfunctions of the transition operator $`𝐑=\beta _\omega (_\omega +\omega )`$ are the Hermite functions, i.e.

$`|n`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\omega ^2/2)H_n(\omega )`$ (67)
$`n|`$ $``$ $`H_n(\omega )`$ (68)
with eigenvalues

$$l_n=n\beta .$$
(69)
¿From the definition of the Hermite functions and the operator intertwining relation $`[_\omega ,(_\omega +\omega )]=1`$ follow the recursive Equations

$`|n+1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}_\omega |n,`$ $`|n1=(_\omega +\omega )|n`$ (70)
$`n+1|=n|(_\omega +\omega ),`$ $`n1|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}n|_\omega `$ (72)
which also provide the normalization of eigenfunctions. The advantage of the Markovian formulation of the Anderson-Weiss model is that it does not only provide global parameters but also local ones, e.g. the time course of the magnetization with frequency $`\omega `$. Straightforward application of the Eqs. (72) and some operator algebra provides the solution of Eq. (66) as

$`m(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta _\omega (_\omega +\omega )+\mathrm{i}\omega ]|0`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta ^1t+\beta ^2(1e^{\beta t})]`$ (76)
$`(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[1/2(\omega \mathrm{i}\beta ^1(e^{\beta t}1))]`$
Integration over $`\omega `$ just gives the free induction decay of the overall magnetization

$$M(t)=\mathrm{exp}[\beta ^1t+\beta ^2(1e^{\beta t})]$$
(77)
which is just equivalent to the result of Eq. (60), since the 2-point correlation function of Eq. (66) is $`c_2(t)=e^{\beta t}`$ (s. appendix Eq. (E3)). Insertion of this 2-point correlation function into Eq. (62) provides the spin echo decay as

$$M_{SE}(t)=M(t/2)^2\mathrm{exp}[\beta ^2(e^{\beta t/2}1)^2].$$
(78)
Relaxation times of the free induction and spin echo decay were determined according to Eqs. (46).

#### 2 ESC approximation

The ESC propagator is determined from the propagator in the static dephasing limit $`𝐔_0=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝛀t)=[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega t)]`$, and the $`𝚲`$-matrix of Eq. (33) both restricted either to the function space $`[|0]`$ for the ESC0 or $`[|0,|f_1]`$ for the ESC1 approximation Eq. (35). The special structure of the transition rate operator of the Anderson Weiss model implies that the base of eigenfunctions, Eqs. (68), is identical with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base, Eq. (23), i.e. $`p_n(𝛀)|0=|n`$. Hence, we will set in the following $`|f_1=p_1(𝛀)=|1`$

##### ESC0 approximation

The matrix element of the Laplace transformed propagator in the static dephasing limit required for the ESC0 approximation is

$$0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|0=\sqrt{\pi /2}e^{s^2/2}\mathrm{cerf}(s/\sqrt{2}),$$
(79)
where $`\mathrm{cerf}(z)=1\mathrm{erf}(z)`$ is the complementary error function. The coefficient $`\lambda `$ which guarantees the self consistency condition Eq. (16) is determined form the Eqs. (C2,E4) (s. appendix) as

$$\lambda =\beta ,$$
(80)
##### ESC1 approximation

The matrix elements of the Laplace transformed propagator in the static dephasing limit required for the ESC1 approximation in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base are that of Eq. (79) and

$`0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|1`$ $`=`$ $`N[0|\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝛀t)𝛀|0]`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`N(\mathrm{i})[_t0|\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝛀t)|0]`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`N\mathrm{i}(1s0|\widehat{U}_0(s)|0),`$ (83)
where the factor $`N`$ generally is some normalization factor with $`N^2=0|𝛀^2|0`$, i.e. in the case of the Anderson Weiss model it is simply $`N=1`$. Consequently, using some elementary rules of Laplace transforms, one derives the other matrix elements as

$`1|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|0`$ $`=`$ $`0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|1`$ (84)
$`1|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|1`$ $`=`$ $`N^2s(1s0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|0),`$ (85)
It has to be stressed that the Equations (83) to (85) are generally valid for all ESC1 approximations in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base.

The coefficients $`\lambda ,\lambda _1`$ guaranteeing the self consistency condition Eq. (31) are obtained from Eqs. (D4,E4) and (D16,E6)

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`\beta `$ (86)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`2\beta `$ (87)
##### Relaxation in the ESC0 and ESC1 approximation

The matrix $`\widehat{𝐔}_0^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ and the coefficients $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _1`$ determine the Laplace transformed ESC propagator $`\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ in Eq. (35), which itself is the base for all other calculations. It directly provides $`T_2^{}`$ when defined as the first moment, Eq. (48), of the free induction decay Eq. (36). Insertion of $`\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ into Eqs. (50,53) provides according to Eq. (49) the relaxation time of the spin echo decay when defined as its first long time moment Eq. (48). Inverse Laplace transformation of $`\widehat{𝐔}^\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ gives the ESC propagator $`𝐔^\mathrm{\Pi }(t)`$ which itself allows determination of the spin echo decay Eq. (42).

The relaxation time $`T_2^{}:=\mu _1(M)`$ of the Anderson-Weiss process is well approximated by the ESC0 and ESC1 approximation over the whole dynamic range of stochastic field fluctuations (Fig. 1). In the static dephasing regime all curves approach $`lim_{\beta 0}\mu _1^1=\sqrt{2/\pi }`$. The successive approximation of the spin echo relaxation by the ESC approximation is seen from the magnetization decay curves (Fig. 2) and the curves showing the dependence of $`T_2`$ obtained by either definition (Eqs. (44)-(46)) on the diffusion coefficient $`\beta `$ as Figure 3 demonstrates. The latter curves all run parallel in the motional narrowing regime ($`\tau _1(0|𝛀^2|0)^{1/2}=\beta ^11`$) and exhibit a similar location of the maximum relaxation rate. Towards the static dephasing regime ($`\beta 0`$) the rate of the Anderson-Weiss process declines less than the rates of the ESC processes.

### B Spin Dephasing by Restricted Diffusion in a Linear Gradient Field

#### 1 The Exact Process

Whereas dephasing of free diffusing spins in a linear gradient field can be treated analytically, only numerical solutions exists for the restricted diffusion case . On the one hand restricted diffusion in a linear gradient field provides a simple model to study principle features of spin dephasing by diffusion. On the other hand treatment of this problem is not only of academic interest as already mentioned in the Introduction. We will approximate the free induction and spin echo decay of the global magnetization for the case of restricted diffusion by the strong collision approximation (ESC0) and its first extension (ESC1). The ESC1 approximation will be performed for both, in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial base, i.e. $`|f_1𝛀|0`$ and in the eigenfunction base, i.e. $`|f_1=|1`$.

We assume that the spins diffuse within an interval of size $`L`$ in a linear gradient field $`\omega (x)=gx`$. Reflecting boundary conditions at $`x=\pm L/2`$ imply that $`_xm(\pm L/2,t)0`$. With $`D`$ as the diffusion coefficient and $`𝐑=D[_x^2]`$ the Bloch-Torrey Eq. (1) has the form $`_tm(x,t)=(D[_x^2]+\mathrm{i}gx)m(x,t)`$, where the brackets $`[]`$ denote that application of the operator $`_x^2`$ is restricted to functions which fulfill the reflecting boundary conditions. Transformation of variables $`xx/L`$ and $`ttgL`$ results in

$$_tm(x,t)=(\beta [_x^2]+\mathrm{i}x)m(x,t),$$
(88)
and vanishing derivatives at the edges of the unit interval

$$_xm(\pm 1/2,t)0$$
(89)
with the diffusion coefficient $`\beta =D/(gL^3)`$. We continue to denote also the transformed variables as $`x`$ and $`t`$ to reduce the number of symbols. When the initial magnetization is proportional to the equilibrium probability, i.e. $`m(x,0)1`$, the Laplace transform $`\widehat{m}(x,s)`$ of the local magnetization decay satisfies

$$(\beta [_x^2]+\mathrm{i}x)\widehat{m}(x,s)=1.$$
(90)
The Equation (88) was solved numerically. Integration of the result over the unit interval provided the free induction decay of the overall magnetization, and application of Eq. (8) on the result gave the spin echo decay. When the spin echo relaxation time was defined as the first statistical moment of the magnetization decay Eq. (46) was applied. For determination of $`T_2^{}`$, defined as the first moment of the free induction decay, Eq. (90) was solved numerically, and integration $`_{1/2}^{1/2}𝑑x\widehat{m}(x,s)=\widehat{M}(s)`$ gave $`T_2^{}=\widehat{M}(0)=\mu _1(M)`$.

#### 2 ESC approximation

The determination of the ESC0 and ESC1 approximation is completely analogous to that for the Anderson Weiss model, except that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial and the eigenfunction base are not identical.

##### ESC0 approximation

The equilibrium function for the restricted diffusion within the unit interval is

$$|0=1$$
(91)
i.e. one obtains

$$0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|0=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s\mathrm{i}/2}{s+\mathrm{i}/2}\right).$$
(92)
The self consistency condition for the strong collision approximation (16) determines the parameter $`\lambda `$ as (s. appendix Eqs. (C2) (E15))

$$\lambda =10\beta $$
(93)
Insertion of the results of Eqs. (92) and (93) into Eq. (35) determines the Laplace transformed propagator in the ESC0 approximation $`0|\widehat{𝐔}(s)|0`$ from which $`T_2^{}`$, $`T_2`$ and spin-echo decay curves are obtained.

##### ESC1 approximation in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial base:

The lowest order function besides the equilibrium state in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial base has the form

$`|f_1`$ $`=`$ $`0|𝛀|0^{1/2}𝛀|0`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`2\sqrt{3}x`$ (95)
The matrix element (92) and the Equations (83) to (85) then directly provide the static dephasing operator $`\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)=(s\mathrm{i}x)^1`$ in the $`[|0,|f_1]`$ base. The parameters $`\lambda _1,\lambda `$ of the ESC1 approximation are determined from the self consistency condition (31), i.e. with Eqs. (D4), (E15)and and Eqs. (D16),(E28) one obtains

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`10\beta `$ (96)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{443520}{8900}}\beta `$ (98)
$``$ $`49.83\beta `$ (100)
##### Development in the eigenfunction space:

The normalized non equilibrium eigenfunctions of the restricted diffusion operator are

$`|\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}(\nu \pi x)\text{for}\nu =1,3,\mathrm{}`$ (101)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(\nu \pi x)\text{for}\nu =2,4,\mathrm{}.`$ (102)
Since $`[_x^2]`$ is a symmetric operator left and right sided eigenfunctions are identical. With $`|f_1=|1`$ and $`z=\pi (1/2+\mathrm{i}s)`$ one obtains

$`0|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}[\mathrm{sinh}(\pi s)\mathrm{Ci}(\xi )+`$ (104)
$`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cosh}(\pi s)\mathrm{Si}(\xi )\left]\right|_{\xi =z^{}}^{\xi =z}`$
$`1|\widehat{𝐔}_0(s)|1`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{arctan}(2s)`$ (107)
$`[\mathrm{i}\mathrm{cosh}(2\pi s)\mathrm{Ci}(\xi )+`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi s)\mathrm{Si}(\xi )\left]\right|_{\xi =2z^{}}^{\xi =2z}`$
where $`\mathrm{Ci}`$ and $`\mathrm{Si}`$ denote the integral cosine and integral sinus function respectively. The parameters $`\lambda _1\lambda `$ in the eigenfunction base are determined similarly as in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base (s. appendix) and one obtains

$`\lambda _1`$ $``$ $`9.89\beta `$ (109)
$`\lambda `$ $``$ $`41.6\beta `$ (110)
##### Relaxation in the ESC0 and ESC1 approximation

Figure 4 demonstrates the first long time moment of the free induction decay, that of the strong collision approximation, and its first extension for both bases as a function of the diffusion coefficient $`\beta `$. All curves show the same asymptotic behavior in the static dephasing ($`\beta 0`$) and in the motional narrowing limit ($`\tau _10|x^2|0=1/120\beta ^11`$). Furthermore the better approximation by the ESC1 curves compared to the ESC0 curve in the intermediate motion regime is evident. There is no significant difference between the ESC1 approximation in the eigenfunction and in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial base.

The spin echo magnetization decay is shown in Fig. 5. Especially in the long time behavior near the static dephasing regime, the ESC1 curves either in the eigenfunction space or in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-space demonstrate a better approximation than the ESC0 curve. This is also reflected by the dependence of spin echo relaxation rate $`1/T_2`$ on the diffusion coefficient (Figs. 6,7). When defined by the echo time (Eq. (44)) the ESC0 and ESC1 curves run parallel with the curve obtained for restricted the diffusion dynamics for short echo times. For longer echo times and decreasing diffusion coefficients the ESC1 curve provides a better approximation. Again as for the free induction decay there is no significant difference between ESC1 approximations in the eigenfunction and that in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base.

## V Summary and Discussion

Analytical results on transverse spin relaxation due to stochastic phase modulation exist mainly for limiting cases, like the motional narrowing and the static regime. Perturbation approaches are only valid close to their respective limits, and they diverge as one tries to extend them towards the opposite motion regime. Particularly the intermediate motion regime cannot be described reliably by such a treatment.

We choose a different approach. Our aim was to approximate the dynamics, assumed to be Markovian, by a more simple one that conserves specific features of the original. The starting point was the strong collision approximation that assumes the transition probability between two states being independent from the initial state, an approximation that holds when spin dephasing occurs on a time scale significantly longer than the stochastic phase modulations. Hence, all states perpendicular to the equilibrium state relax with the same exponential factor that is determined self-consistently by comparison with the field fluctuations.

Note that the motional narrowing limit as well as the static dephasing regime are described correctly by this approximation. Consequently, the error in the intermediate motion regime is already less than it would be by perturbation approaches of a comparable low order. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. Also, one would like to have higher order approximations that can be used to check the quality of low order descriptions.

A systematic extension of the strong collision ansatz is to include the relaxation of states of an appropriate finite function base explicitly. We require that correlation times of original and approximate dynamics are identical to a certain order. This self consistency condition assures that both dynamics have the same motional narrowing expansion of spin dephasing. As it was already in the strong collision ansatz, spin dephasing is asymptotically identical for both dynamics in the limit of the static motion regime.

The finite function base of the ESCn approximation may be given by the first $`n`$ ordered eigenfunctions of the generator of the original phase modulations. Obviously, then the ESC generator directly reflects the dynamics of original generator up to a time scale corresponding to the $`n`$-th eigenvalue. For practical applications the ESC approach within an eigenfunction space may be a safe way to approximate spin dephasing. However, when the determination of the eigenfunctions is tedious, the application of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base $`[|0,|f_1𝛀|0,|f_2𝛀^2|0,\mathrm{}]`$ may be more appropriate, at least for the ESC1 approximation. Within the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base the determination of the two- and four-point correlation times (s. appendix) and the propagator in the static motion regime, Eq. (85), is considerably simplified.

The mechanism by which the ESC1 approach in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base works becomes evident by the following consideration: terms of the motional narrowing expansion Eq. (B9) may be interpreted as repetitive interactions of the spin system with the inhomogeneous field $`𝛀`$ and intermediate evolution with the free propagator $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_i)`$. In the motional narrowing limit, one obtains from Eq. (B22)

$`1/T_2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{c}_2(0)`$ (111)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t0|𝛀\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)𝛀|0`$ (113)
$`=`$ $`0|𝛀^2|0{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tf_1|\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)|f_1,`$ (115)
where the factor $`0|𝛀^2|0`$ is due to the normalization of $`|f_1`$, $`f_1|f_1=1`$. Equation (115) implies that in the motional narrowing limit the long time behavior of spin dephasing solely depends on the free propagator related relaxation of the state $`|f_1`$, i.e. this state remains the only relevant one. Hence, it is obvious that in the intermediate motion regime an ESC1 approximation including the state $`|f_1`$ in its generator is superior to the ESC0 approximation.

Within the function base the propagator of spin dephasing is directly related to the propagator of spin dephasing in the absence of stochastic phase modulations. This specific feature of the ESC dynamics tremendously facilitates the actual determination of spin dephasing for the following reasons: ($`i`$) in many cases the propagator in the static motion regime (which is an average phase factor) may be determined analytically or at least numerically; ($`ii`$) the determination of the propagator from that in the static motion regime is self contained within the base, i.e. it is obtained from a combination of finite dimensional matrices.

The two lowest order ESC approximations were applied to two generic models: spin dephasing in the Anderson Weiss model, i.e. Gaussian frequency distribution and Gaussian transition dynamics, and dephasing by restricted diffusion in a linear frequency gradient. The reason for this choice was that – besides their generic character – these models allow either an analytical (Anderson Weiss) or, at least, a simple numerical treatment (linear gradient) of magnetization decay. These features are helpful to prove the ESC approach. For the Anderson Weiss model we determined the corresponding Markov generator of the phase modulations, which – to our knowledge – was done here for the first time.

For both generic models the subsequent improvement by ESCn approximations of dephasing parameters and magnetization decays could be demonstrated. One of our next aims will be the application of the ESC approach to more realistic scenarios.

In closing, we would like to emphasize that the ESC approach is actually not limited to spin dephasing only. It can be applied, in principle, in any situation where the time behavior of complicated observables of stochastic processes is of interest. In each case, however, an appropriate function base has to be chosen, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-base for spin dephasing.

## Acknowledgments

We thank P. Grassberger for a critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft: Sonderforschungsbereich 355 “Pathophysiologie der Herzinsuffizienz”, SFB 237 “ Unordnung und große Fluktuationen”, and Graduiertenkolleg “NMR” HA 1232/8-1.

## A Autocorrelation Functions and Quasi-Cumulants

The general $`n`$-point autocorrelation function of stochastically fluctuating fields $`\omega _j`$ is defined as

$`C_n(t_{n1},\mathrm{},t_1):=`$ (A1)
(A2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j_{n1},..,j_0}{}}p(\omega _{j_{n1}},{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}t_i;\mathrm{};\omega _{j_1},t_1;\omega _{j_0},0){\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\omega _{j_\nu },`$ (A3)
where $`p(\omega _{j_{n1}},_{i=1}^{n1}t_i;\mathrm{};\omega _{j_1},t_1;\omega _{j_0},0)`$ is the probability to find at $`t=0`$ the frequency $`\omega _{j_0}`$, at $`t=t_1`$ the value $`\omega _{j_1}`$,… and at $`t=_{i=1}^{n1}t_i`$ the frequency $`\omega _{j_{n1}}`$.When the stochastic dynamics is determined by a Markov process, this probability can be factored into transition probabilities between sequential states $`ii+1`$ after the interval $`t_{i+1}`$ and the initial ($`t=0`$) probability distribution, i.e.

$`p(\omega _{j_{n1}},{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}t_i;\mathrm{};\omega _{j_0},0)=`$ (A4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}p(\omega _{j_i}\omega _{j_{i1}},t_{j_i})p(\omega _{j_0},0).`$ (A5)
The transition probabilities after the interval $`t_i`$ are the matrix elements of evolution operator $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_i)`$. Since the dynamics is assumed to be stationary the initial probability $`p(\omega _{j_0},0)`$ is the equilibrium state probability distribution, i.e. we can rewrite Eq. (A3)

$$C_n=0|𝛀\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_{n1})𝛀\mathrm{}.\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t_1)𝛀|0,$$
(A6)
where $`𝛀=(\omega _j\delta _{j,k})`$ is the diagonal frequency matrix. A modification of the correlation functions occurs if one exchanges the evolution operator $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)`$ with the operator $`\mathrm{exp}(𝐑t)𝚷_0`$, where $`𝚷_0=|00|`$ is the projection operator onto the equilibrium state space. This modified evolution operator describes the relaxation of observables minus their equilibrium state values. The modified autocorrelation functions will be denoted as quasi cumulants and they are then defined as

$`c_n=0|𝛀[`$ $`\mathrm{exp}`$ $`(𝐑t_{n1})𝚷_0]𝛀\mathrm{}.`$ (A7)
$`\mathrm{}.[`$ $`\mathrm{exp}`$ $`(𝐑t_1)𝚷_0]𝛀|0.`$ (A8)
The Laplace transform of the correlation function in Eq. (A8) has the form

$`\widehat{c}_n(s_{n1},..s_1)=0|𝛀`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{n1}𝐑}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_{n1}}}𝚷_0\right]`$ $`𝛀\mathrm{}.`$ (A9)
$`\mathrm{}.`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1𝐑}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1}}𝚷_0\right]`$ $`𝛀|0.`$ (A11)
This Laplace transform allows the determination of temporal moments of the normalized autocorrelation function $`c_n(t_{n1},..,t_1)/c_n(0,..,0)`$ as the generalized correlation times

$$\tau _n^{n1}=\widehat{c}_n(0,..,0)/c_n(0,..,0).$$
(A12)
## B Motional Narrowing Expansion

The motional narrowing expansion is a perturbation approach to determine the overall magnetization $`M(t)`$ – or its Laplace transform $`\widehat{M}(s)`$ – in terms of powers of the fluctuating fields $`𝛀`$. It is based on the assumption, that the stochastic fluctuations are more rapid than the precession frequencies of the perturbation fields (motional narrowing limit). We will present a general relation between the relaxation of the magnetization and the correlation of the field fluctuations that contains the motional narrowing limit as a limit case. The first step is to expand the Laplace transform of the overall magnetization, Eq. (5), in $`𝛀`$, i.e.

$`\widehat{M}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`0|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s𝐑\mathrm{i}𝛀}}|0`$ (B1)
$`=`$ $`0|(s𝐑)^1+\mathrm{i}(s𝐑)^1𝛀(s𝐑)^1`$ (B4)
$`+\mathrm{i}^2(s𝐑)^1𝛀(s𝐑)^1𝛀(s𝐑)^1+..|0`$
$`=`$ $`s^1+s^2\mathrm{i}0|𝛀|0`$ (B7)
$`+s^2\mathrm{i}^20|𝛀(s𝐑)^1𝛀+\mathrm{}`$
$`=`$ $`s^1\left(1+s^1{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{i}^\nu \widehat{C}_\nu (\underset{(\nu 1)\times }{\underset{}{s,s,..,s}})\right),`$ (B9)
where $`\widehat{C}_\nu `$ are the Laplace transformed n-point correlation functions of Eq.(A6). To avoid singularities at $`s=0`$ it is better to consider $`\widehat{M}^1(s)`$. When we set $`q=s^1_{\nu =1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{i}^\nu \widehat{C}_\nu (\underset{(\nu 1)\times }{\underset{}{s,s,..,s}})`$ one obtains

$`\widehat{M}^1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`s\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^\rho q^\rho \right)`$ (B10)
$`=`$ $`s{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{i}^\nu \widehat{C}_\nu +s^1{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1,\nu _2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{i}^{\nu _1+\nu _2}\widehat{C}_{\nu _1}\widehat{C}_{\nu _2}+\mathrm{}`$ (B12)
$`\mathrm{}+`$ $`(1)^\rho s^{(\rho 1)}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1,..,\nu _\rho =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{i}^{\nu _1+..\nu _\rho }{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}}\widehat{C}_{\nu _m}+\mathrm{}`$ (B13)
Rearrangement of terms of equal order in $`𝛀`$ provides

$$\widehat{M}^1(s)=s\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{i}^jK_j,$$
(B15)
where the coefficients $`K_j`$ have the form

$`K_j`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{C}_js^1{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1+\nu _2=j}{}}\widehat{C}_{\nu _1}\widehat{C}_{\nu _2}+..`$ (B19)
$`\mathrm{}+(s)^{1\rho }{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1+..+\nu _\rho =j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}}\widehat{C}_{j_\rho }+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}+(s)^{1j}\widehat{C}_1^j`$
A comparison of this sum with the modified correlation functions $`c_j`$, Eqs. (A8) and (A11), shows that

$$K_j=\widehat{c}_j(\underset{(j1)\times }{\underset{}{s,\mathrm{},s}}),$$
(B20)
i.e. one obtains

$$\widehat{M}^1(s)=s\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{i}^j\widehat{c}_j(\underset{(j1)\times }{\underset{}{s,s..,s}}).$$
(B21)
Equation (B21) expands the relaxation of the magnetization in terms of correlation functions to an arbitrary order. The long time behavior of $`M(t)`$ is determined by the Laplace transform in the range of small $`s`$, i.e. in this range the relation

$$\widehat{M}^1(s)s\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{i}^j\underset{=\tau _j^{j1}c_j(0,0..,0)}{\underset{}{\widehat{c}(0,0..,0)}},$$
(B22)
is valid. The series in Eq. (B22) contains terms of magnitude $`0|𝛀^\nu |0/l^\nu `$, where $`l`$ denotes non vanishing eigenvalues of $`𝐑`$. The latter determine the fluctuation frequency. In the motional narrowing limit these fluctuations are much higher than the precessing frequencies $`0|𝛀^\nu |0/l^\nu 1`$, i.e. after normalization of the average perturbation field $`0|𝛀|0`$ to zero, i.e. $`c_1=0`$, $`M(t)`$ is given a single exponential decay with the well known result for the transverse relaxation rate as $`\frac{1}{T_2}=\widehat{c}_2(0)=\tau _10|𝛀^2|0.`$

## C Quasi Cumulants in the Strong Collision Approximation

In the strong collision (ESC0) approximation the quasi cumulants take a very simple form. Insertion of the generator $`𝐃=\lambda (\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷_0)`$ into Eq. (A11) results in

$$\widehat{c}_n^{(ESC_0)}(s_{n1},..s_1)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{s_i+\lambda }c_{n1}(0,..,0),$$
(C1)
i.e. the quasi cumulant is a product of single exponential functions $`e^{\lambda t_i}`$ and the generalized correlation times, Eq. (A12), are all identical namely

$$\tau _n^{(SC)}=\lambda ^1.$$
(C2)
## D Quasi Cumulants in the Extended Strong Collision Approximation

We restrict ourselves here to the $`ESC_1`$ Approximation and determine the correlation functions and generalized relaxation times for the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial base only in order to show the principle. Extensions to higher order approximations and to other function bases are straightforward, although they may be more tedious to calculate.

For $`ESC_1`$ the generator of the stochastic field fluctuations has the form $`𝐃=\lambda _1𝚷_1\lambda (\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷_0𝚷_1)`$. We will determine only the Laplace transforms of the 2- and 4-point correlation functions since the 3-point correlation functions vanishes in the models we consider. According to Eq. (A11) the determination of the correlation functions requires of the operator

$$\frac{1}{s𝐃}\frac{1}{s}𝚷_0=\frac{1}{s+\lambda _1}𝚷_1+\frac{1}{s+\lambda }(\mathrm{𝐢𝐝}𝚷_0𝚷_1)$$
(D1)
Assuming that the average frequency vanishes, i.e. $`<𝛀>=0|𝛀|0=0`$, which can always be achieved by normalization., $`|f_1𝛀|0`$. Hence, the projector $`𝚷_1=|f_1f_1|`$ takes the form

$$𝚷_1=\frac{𝛀|00|𝛀}{0|𝛀^2|0}.$$
(D2)
For the Laplace transformed two point correlation function one obtains then

$$\widehat{c}_2^{(ESC_1)}(s)=(\lambda _1+s)^10|𝛀^2|0,$$
(D3)
i.e. the two point correlation function exhibits a single exponential decay with relaxation rate

$$\tau _2^{(ESC_1)}=\lambda _1^1.$$
(D4)
The 4-point correlation function is

$`\widehat{c}_4^{(ESC_1)}(s_3,s_2,s_1)=`$ (D6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_3+\lambda _1)(s_1+\lambda _1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2+\lambda _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2+\lambda }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{0|𝛀^3|0^2}{0|𝛀^2|0}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_3+\lambda _1)(s_2+\lambda )(s_1+\lambda _1)}}\left(0|𝛀^4|00|𝛀^2|0^2\right)`$ (D8)
The four point correlation time is then determined as

$`\tau _4^{(ESC_1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{c}_4^{(ESC_1)}(0)/c_4^{(ESC_1)}(0)\right]^{1/3}`$ (D10)
$`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _1^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}){\displaystyle \frac{0|𝛀^3|0^2}{0|𝛀^2|0(0|𝛀^4|00|𝛀^2|0^2)}}`$ (D14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _1^2\lambda }}]^{1/3}`$
In the case of the Anderson Weiss model and for the restricted diffusion linear gradient one has $`0|𝛀^3|0=0`$, i.e. Eq. (LABEL:tau4ESC1) simplifies to

$$\tau _4^{(ESC_1)}=\sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{\lambda _1^2\lambda }}$$
(D16)
## E Relaxation Times of Correlation Functions in the Models

In this final appendix we will determine the generalized relaxation times of stochastic field fluctuations up to the 4-th order for the generic models we discuss in the main text.

### 1 Diffusion in a Harmonic Potential

When field fluctuations result from diffusion in a harmonic potential according to Eq. (64) and spin dephasing is described by Eq. (66), the corresponding Laplace transformed 2-point correlation function, Eq. (A11), is

$`\widehat{c}_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`0|\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\beta _\omega (_\omega +\omega )}}\omega |0`$ (E1)
$`=`$ $`1|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\beta _\omega (_\omega +\omega )}}|1`$ (E2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s+\beta }},`$ (E3)
where we applied the operator properties of $`_\omega ,(\omega +\omega )`$ according to Eqs. (72). This result shows that the two point correlation function exhibits a single exponential decay. Since $`c_2(0)=0|\omega ^2|0=1`$ one obtains

$$\tau _2=\beta ^1$$
(E4)
Since $`c_3(t)`$ vanishes, the next relevant correlation function is $`c_4(t)`$. Similarly, one obtains for its Laplace transform

$$\widehat{c}_4(s_3,s_2,s_1)=\frac{2}{(s_3+\beta )(s_2+2\beta )(s_1+\beta )}.$$
(E5)
And since $`c_4(0)=0|\omega ^4|0=2`$ the corresponding correlation time is

$$\tau _4=\sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{2}}\beta ^1$$
(E6)
### 2 Restricted Diffusion in a Linear Gradient Field

In this section we will determine the correlation times $`\tau _n`$ of Eq. (A12) for $`n=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ for 1-d restricted diffusion of spins in a unit box in which they are affected by a linear gradient field. In dimensionless parameters one obtains for the generator $`𝐑=\beta [_x^2]`$ where $`\beta `$ is the dimensionless diffusion coefficient. The brackets denote that the application of the operator $`_x^2`$ is restricted to functions with vanishing derivative at $`x=\pm 1/2`$ (reflecting boundary conditions). The frequency operator is $`𝛀=x`$ and the equilibrium state eigenfunction is $`|01`$.

The determination of correlation times $`\tau _n`$ requires the calculation of the Laplace transformed quasi cumulants $`\widehat{c}_n(0,..,0)`$, Eq. (A12). The definition of this quasi cumulants according to Eq. (A11) shows the need of recurrent determination of terms of the form

$$f=\underset{s0}{lim}[(s𝐑)^1+s^1𝚷_0]g,$$
(E7)
with some function $`g`$, i.e. $`f`$ fulfills

$$𝐑f=(1𝚷_0)g,$$
(E8)
i.e. with $`𝐑=[_x^2]`$ Eq. (E8) becomes a second order differential equation. The application of the inverse second order differential operator leaves in general 2 integration constants. One may be determined from the reflective symmetric boundary conditions; however, a further condition is needed to get the second constant. A spectral decomposition $`𝐑`$ in Eq. (E7) shows $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0f0`$, i.e. we obtain as a further condition

$$_{1/2}^{1/2}𝑑xf(x)=0.$$
(E9)
##### Two point correlation time:

We define

$`f_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{s0}{lim}((s𝐑)^1+s^1𝚷_0)x|0`$ (E10)
$`=`$ $`\beta ^1(x^3/6x/8)`$ (E11)
which obviously fulfills the reflecting boundary condition at $`x=\pm 1/2`$ and Eq. (E9). Hence, the two point Laplace transformed quasi cumulant is

$`\widehat{c}_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0|x\underset{so0}{lim}((s𝐑)^1+s^1𝚷_0)x|0`$ (E12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{1/2}^{1/2}}𝑑xxf_1(x)=\beta ^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{120}}`$ (E13)
and with

$$c_2(0)=0|x^2|0=_{1/2}^{1/2}𝑑xx^2=1/12$$
(E14)
one obtains

$$\tau _2=\frac{1}{10}\beta ^1.$$
(E15)
##### Four point correlation time:

Iterative application of Eq. (E7) defines

$$f_2(x)=\underset{s0}{lim}((s𝐑)^1+s^1𝚷_0)xf_1(x),$$
(E16)
which, according to Eq. (E8), fulfills

$`[_x^2]f_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(1𝚷_0)xf_1(x)`$ (E17)
$`=`$ $`xf_1(x){\displaystyle _{1/2}^{1/2}}𝑑xxf_1(x)`$ (E18)
$`=`$ $`xf_1(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{120}}\beta ^1`$ (E19)
Insertion of $`f_1`$, Eq. (E11), and considering the reflective boundary conditions and the condition (E9) yields

$$f_2(x)=\beta ^2\left(\frac{x^6}{180}\frac{x^4}{96}+\frac{x^2}{240}\frac{37}{161280}\right).$$
(E20)
Similarly to the procedure above we could determine a function $`f_3(x)`$ but instead we use a different approach which exploits the symmetry of eigenfunctions of the operator $`𝐑=\beta [_x^2]`$. The Laplace transformed 4-point quasi cumulant is

$`\widehat{c}_4(0,0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{=f_1(x)}{\stackrel{}{0|x\underset{s_30}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_3𝐑}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_3}}𝚷_0\right]}}x`$ (E23)
$`\underset{s_20}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2𝐑}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2}}𝚷_\mathrm{𝟎}\right]`$
$`x\underset{s_10}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1𝐑}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1}}𝚷_\mathrm{𝟎}\right]x|0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{1/2}^{1/2}}𝑑xf_1(x)xf_2(x)`$ (E25)
$`=`$ $`\beta ^3{\displaystyle \frac{89}{79833600}},`$ (E26)
and with

$$c_4(0,0,0)=0|x^4|00|x^2|0^2=\frac{1}{180},$$
(E27)
we finally have

$$\tau _4=\sqrt[3]{\frac{89}{443520}}\beta ^1$$
(E28)