text:
# DSF-45/2001 math-ph/0204040 Majorana transformation for differential equations

## I Introduction

In a recent paper  we have described a method, originally due to Majorana , able to give the series solution of the Thomas-Fermi equation (with appropriate boundary conditions) through only one quadrature. Such a method, giving a (semi-analytic) parametric solution of the considered equation, is based on a particular double change of variables which transforms the second order Thomas-Fermi equation into a first order equation, whose solution is then obtained by series expansion.
Here we show that the transformation method, used by Majorana in that particular case, applies to a large class of ordinary differential equations as well, and prove a simple but general theorem for reducing the order of these equations.
The Majorana idea is a straigthforward generalization of known concepts and to show this we briefly recall, in the following section, some definitions and peculiarities of particular differential equations. In section III we then introduce a new class of differential equations and give the method for reducing the order of such equations. In section IV a variant of this method is presented and in section V some applications are reported which are particularly relevant in mathematical physics.

## II Preliminaries

Let us consider a general differential equation of order $`n`$ in the independent variable $`x`$ and dependent one $`y`$:

$$F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(1)
where a prime  denotes differentiation with respect to $`x`$.
Eq. (1) is said to be an autonomous equation if the variable $`x`$ does not appear explicitly:

$$F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)})=F(y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)}).$$
(2)
In such a case, by changing the set of variables from $`(x,y(x))`$ to a novel one $`(y,u(y))`$ through:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill y^{}& =& u(y)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y^{\prime \prime }& =& u(y)\frac{du(y)}{dy}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`u(y)`$ is a given function of $`y`$, the considered differential equation can always be reduced to an equation of order $`n1`$ in the independent variable $`y`$ and dependent one $`u`$ :

$$G(y,u,\frac{du}{dy},\frac{d^2u}{dy^2},\mathrm{},\frac{d^{n1}u}{dy^{n1}})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(4)
A differential equation (1) is, instead, equidimensional-in-$`x`$ if it is invariant under the transformation $`x\alpha x`$ for any $`\alpha 0`$:

$$F(\alpha x,y,\alpha ^1y^{},\alpha ^2y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},\alpha ^ny^{(n)})=F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)}).$$
(5)
This equation can be transformed  into an autonomous equation in the variables $`(z,y(z))`$:

$$G(y,\frac{dy}{dz},\frac{d^2y}{dz^2},\mathrm{},\frac{d^ny}{dz^n})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(6)
by changing the independent variable:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x& =& e^z\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill x\frac{d}{dx}& =& \frac{d}{dz}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \end{array}$$
(7)
Thus, equidimensional-in-$`x`$ equations of order $`n`$ can always be reduced to differential equations of order $`n1`$.
Scale-invariant equations satisfy the property:

$$F(\alpha x,\alpha ^cy,\alpha ^{c1}y^{},\alpha ^{c2}y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},\alpha ^{cn}y^{(n)})=F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)}).$$
(8)
(i.e. they are invariant for $`x\alpha x`$, $`y\alpha ^cy`$) for any value of $`\alpha 0`$ and some value $`c`$, and they can be transformed into equidimensional-in-$`x`$ equations :

$$G(x,u(x),\frac{du}{dx},\frac{d^2u}{dx^2},\mathrm{},\frac{d^nu}{dx^n})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(9)
with $`G`$ obeying Eq. (5), by performing the following change of the dependent variable:

$$y(x)=x^cu(x).$$
(10)
Even in this case, scale-invariant equations of order $`n`$can be thus reduced to equations of order $`n1`$.
Finally, differential equations which are invariant under the transformation $`y\alpha y`$ for any $`\alpha 0`$ are said to be equidimensional-in-$`y`$ or homogeneous equations:

$$F(x,\alpha y,\alpha y^{},\alpha y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},\alpha y^{(n)})=F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)}).$$
(11)
By changing the dependent variable through:

$$y(x)=e^{u(x)},$$
(12)
it can be transformed into an equation of order $`n1`$ in the variables $`(x,u(x))`$ :

$$G(x,u(x),\frac{du}{dx},\frac{d^2u}{dx^2},\mathrm{},\frac{d^{n1}u}{dx^{n1}})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(13)
Thus, we know that the order of a given differential equation can always be reduced of one unit if this belongs to one of the four different classes mentioned above.

## III Majorana transformation

For future convenience we now consider scale-invariant equations from a different point of view and introduce another class of differential equations. Equation (1) is said to be Majorana scale-invariant if it is invariant for $`x\alpha ^cx`$, $`y\alpha y`$ for any $`\alpha 0`$ and some value $`c`$:

$$F(\alpha ^cx,\alpha y,\alpha ^{1c}y^{},\alpha ^{12c}y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},\alpha ^{1nc}y^{(n)})=F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},y^{(n)}).$$
(14)
It is easy to prove the following proposition: a Majorana scale-invariant equation of order $`n`$ can always be reduced to a differential equation of order $`n1`$. In fact, by changing the role of the dependent and the independent variable $`xy`$, $`yx`$ Eq. (1) can be transformed into:

$$G(y,x(y),\frac{dx}{dy},\frac{d^2x}{dy^2},\mathrm{},\frac{d^nx}{dy^n})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(15)
where now $`G`$ satisfies the condition (8):

$$G(\alpha y,\alpha ^cx,\alpha ^{c1}\frac{dx}{dy},\alpha ^{c2}\frac{d^2x}{dy^2},\mathrm{},\alpha ^{cn}\frac{d^nx}{dy^n})=G(y,x(y),\frac{dx}{dy},\frac{d^2x}{dy^2},\mathrm{},\frac{d^nx}{dy^n}),$$
(16)
that is Eq. (15) is scale-invariant and the order can be reduced of one unit.
The concept introduced above is not a really new one, since it is related to that of scale-invariant equations. However, the reformulation of the problem in these terms is useful for developing the method for the implementation of order reduction, which is a generalization of that used by Majorana in the framework of the Thomas-Fermi equation .
We now describe in detail such a method, which carries out the solution of Eq. (1), with $`F`$ satisfying Eq. (14), as given in parametric form:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x& =& x(t)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y& =& y(t)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(17)
Let us assume that $`x`$ in Eq. (17) depends on the parameter $`t`$ through the function $`y(t)`$ and, eventually, on $`t`$ itself:

$$x=x(t,y)=x(t,y(t))=x(t).$$
(18)
Since $`(x(t),y(t))`$ in Eq. (17) is a solution of the considered differential equation (1), supposed to be Majorana scale-invariant, Eqs. (17) and (18) must satisfy the relation (14), meaning that for any $`\alpha 0`$ and a given value $`c`$ we have:

$$x(t,\alpha y)=\alpha ^cx(t,y).$$
(19)
This implies that $`x(t,y)`$ should be an homogeneous function of $`y`$:

$$x(t,y)=x(t,1)y^czy^c,$$
(20)
where $`z=z(t)`$ can be considered as an arbitrary but given function of the parameter $`t`$. Note that, in such a way, the only unknown function to be determined in order to satisfy Eq. (1) is $`y(t)`$, and the parametric solution (17) can be rewritten, after Eq. (20), as:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x& =& z(t)y^c(t)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y& =& y(t)\hfill \end{array},$$
(21)
with $`z(t)`$ an arbitrary but given function of $`t`$ and $`c`$ is determined by Eq. (14).
We have now to translate the differential equation (1) for $`y(x)`$ into an equation for $`y(t)`$ in (21). In the following, differentiation with respect to $`t`$ will be denoted with a dot $`\dot{}`$, while a prime  refers to differentiation with respect to $`x`$ as above. The $`t`$-derivatives of $`x`$ are, from Eq. (21), as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{x}& =& \left(\dot{z}+cz\frac{\dot{y}}{y}\right)y^cx_1(t,y,\dot{y})\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \ddot{x}& =& \left\{\ddot{z}+2c\dot{z}\frac{\dot{y}}{y}+cz\left[(c1)\left(\frac{\dot{y}}{y}\right)^2+\frac{\ddot{y}}{y}\right]\right\}x_2(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y})\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \stackrel{n}{x}& =& \mathrm{}=x_n(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Using these expressions we can obtain the $`x`$-derivatives of $`y`$, which are present in Eq. (1), in terms of $`t`$, $`y`$ and its $`t`$-derivatives:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill y^{}& =& \frac{\dot{y}}{\dot{x}}y_1(t,y,\dot{y})\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y^{\prime \prime }& =& \frac{\dot{x}\ddot{y}\ddot{x}\dot{y}}{\dot{x}^3}y_2(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y})\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y^{(n)}& =& \mathrm{}=y_n(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
The differential equation for $`y(t)`$ is then obtained by substituting Eqs. (21), (22) and (23) into Eq. (1):

$$\widehat{F}(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(24)
where:

$$\widehat{F}(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y})F(x(t,y),y,y_1(t,y,\dot{y}),\mathrm{},y_n(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y})).$$
(25)
Note that, from Eq. (21), the function $`x(t,y)`$ is homogeneous (with respect to $`y`$) of degree $`c`$, while the functions $`y_k(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{k}{y})`$ are homogeneous of degree $`1kc`$:

$$y_k(t,\alpha y,\alpha \dot{y},\alpha \ddot{y},\mathrm{},\alpha \stackrel{k}{y})=\alpha ^{1kc}y_k(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{k}{y}),$$
(26)
as required for the Majorana property (14) to be satisfied. In particular from this we also deduce that the differential equation in (24) is equidimensional-in-$`y`$, since:

$`\widehat{F}(t,\alpha y,\alpha \dot{y},\alpha \ddot{y},\mathrm{},\alpha \stackrel{n}{y})=`$ (27)
$`F(x(t,\alpha y),\alpha y,y_1(t,\alpha y,\alpha \dot{y}),\mathrm{},y_n(t,\alpha y,\alpha \dot{y},\alpha \ddot{y},\mathrm{},\alpha \stackrel{n}{y}))=`$ (28)
$`F(\alpha ^cx(t,y),\alpha y,\alpha ^{1c}y_1(t,y,\dot{y}),\mathrm{},\alpha ^{1nc}y_n(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y}))=`$ (29)
$`F(x(t,y),y,y_1(t,y,\dot{y}),\mathrm{},y_n(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y}))=`$ (30)
$`\widehat{F}(t,y,\dot{y},\ddot{y},\mathrm{},\stackrel{n}{y}),`$ (31)
that is the function $`\widehat{F}`$ satisfies the relation (11). We can then use the transformation in (12) to reduce the order of the equation. More precisely we set:

$$y(t)=e^{{\displaystyle u\left(t\right)𝑑t}},$$
(32)
so that the $`t`$-derivatives of $`y(t)`$ are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{y}& =& uyu_1(u)y\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \ddot{y}& =& \left(\dot{u}+u^2\right)yu_2(u,\dot{u})y\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \stackrel{n}{y}& =& \mathrm{}u_n(u,\dot{u},\ddot{u},\mathrm{},\stackrel{(n1)}{u})y.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
The unknown function is now $`u(t)`$ and the differential equation of order $`n1`$, obeyed by this quantity, is obtained by substituting Eqs. (33) into Eq. (24):

$$\widehat{F}(t,y,u_1y,u_2y,\mathrm{},u_ny)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(34)
or, by using the homogeneity of the function $`\widehat{F}`$ ($`\widehat{F}(t,y,u_1y,u_2y,\mathrm{},u_ny)=\widehat{F}(t,1,u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)`$), in all points where $`y(t)`$ is different from zero we have:

$$\widehat{F}(t,1,u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(35)
In terms of the initial function $`F`$ in Eq. (1), by noting that:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x(t,1)& =& z(t)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y_1(t,1,u_1)& =& \frac{u_1}{x_1(t,1,u_1)}=\frac{u}{\dot{z}+cuz}v_1(t,u)\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill y_2(t,1,u_1,u_2)& =& \frac{x_1(t,1,u_1)u_2x_2(t,1,u_1,u_2)u_1}{x_1^3(t,1,u_1)}=\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \frac{\dot{z}\dot{u}\ddot{z}u+(12c)\dot{z}u^2+c(1c)zu^3}{(\dot{z}+cuz)^3}v_2(t,u,\dot{u})\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill y_n(t,1,u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)& =& \mathrm{}v_n(t,u,\dot{u},\ddot{u},\mathrm{},\stackrel{(n1)}{u})\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
and using Eq. (25), we have the final equation for $`u(t)`$:

$$F(z(t),1,v_1(t,u),v_2(t,u,\dot{u}),\mathrm{},v_n(t,u,\dot{u},\ddot{u},\mathrm{},\stackrel{(n1)}{u}))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(37)
Summarizing, the parametric solution of a Majorana scale-invariant differential equation of order $`n`$ has the form as in Eq. (21) with $`z(t)`$ an arbitrary but given function of the parameter $`t`$ and $`y(t)`$ is written as in Eq. (32), where $`u(t)`$ satisfies the differential equation (37) of order $`n1`$ and the functions $`v_k(t,u,\dot{u},\ddot{u},\mathrm{},\stackrel{(k1)}{u})`$ are evaluated as in Eqs. (36).

## IV The method of the auxiliary function

Depending also on the choice for the function $`z(t)`$, it could happen that Eq. (37), although is of order $`n1`$, is too much hard to be solved. In some cases the following procedure can be used to reduce the degree of non-linearity of Eq. (37).
Let us perform a change of the dependent variable:

$$uv=\frac{u}{\dot{z}+cuz}.$$
(38)
In this case we have:

$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`v`$ (39)
$`v_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1cvz\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{v}}{\dot{z}}}+\left(1c\right)v^2,`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{}`$
and the function $`y(t)`$ in Eq. (21) is given now by:

$$y(t)=e^{{\displaystyle \frac{v\dot{z}}{1cvz}𝑑t}},$$
(42)
where $`v(t)`$ satisfies the differential equation of order $`n1`$:

$$F(z,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},v,(1cvz)\frac{\dot{v}}{\dot{z}}+(1c)v^2,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(43)
## V Applications

As an application of the Majorana method described above, let us consider the Emden-Fowler equation:

$$y^{\prime \prime }=x^ay^b$$
(44)
(with $`a,b`$ two real numbers), which is of particular interest in mathematical physics . It satisfies the relation (14) with:

$$c=\frac{1b}{a+2},$$
(45)
so that the method may apply only for $`a2`$. In this case, Eq. (37) for the Emden-Fowler equation (44) is:

$$\frac{\dot{z}\dot{u}\ddot{z}u+(12c)\dot{z}u^2+c(1c)zu^3}{(\dot{z}+cuz)^3}=z^a$$
(46)
with $`c`$ given in Eq. (45). After some algebra we arrive at the following first-order equation for $`u(t)`$:

$$\frac{du}{dt}=\alpha (t)+\beta (t)u+\gamma (t)u^2+\delta (t)u^3$$
(47)
where:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \alpha (t)& =& z^a\dot{z}^2\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \beta (t)& =& 3cz^{a+1}\dot{z}+\frac{\ddot{z}}{z}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \gamma (t)& =& 3c^2z^{a+2}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \delta (t)& =& c^3\frac{z^{a+3}}{\dot{z}}+c(c1)\frac{z}{\dot{z}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
With the Majorana method we have thus transformed the Emden-Fowler equation (44) into an Abel equation (47) of the first kind. Depending on the particular problem to be solved, the final equation can be further simplified with an appropriate choice for $`z(t)`$ which, however, cannot be chosen equal to a constant (in this case $`\dot{z}0`$ and Eq. (45) would not be a differential equation for $`u`$).
A relevant case is that of Emden-Fowler equation with $`b=1`$ for which, from Eq. (45), we have $`c=0`$ and Eq. (47) reduces to a simpler Riccati equation:

$$\frac{du}{dt}=z^a\dot{z}^2+\frac{\ddot{z}}{z}uu^2,$$
(49)
which for $`z(t)=t`$ becomes:

$$\frac{du}{dt}=t^au^2.$$
(50)
Another interesting particular case is that of Thomas-Fermi equation, which is an Emden-Fowler equation with $`a=1/2`$, $`b=3/2`$:

$$y^{\prime \prime }=\frac{y^{3/2}}{\sqrt{x}}.$$
(51)
The corresponding first-order equation (47) for $`u(t)`$, choosing:

$$z(t)=\left[12(1t)\right]^{2/3},$$
(52)
is:

$$\frac{du}{dt}=\frac{16}{3(1t)}+\left(8+\frac{1}{3(1t)}\right)u+\left(\frac{7}{3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}t\right)u^2\frac{2}{3}t(1t)u^3.$$
(53)
This equation was obtained by Majorana  in studying the Thomas-Fermi equation.
Emden-Fowler equations can also be analyzed by using the method of the auxiliary function outlined in the previous section. In this case, Eq. (43) for $`v(t)`$ becomes:

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{\dot{z}\left[z^a(1c)v^2\right]}{1cvz},$$
(54)
where $`c`$ is given in Eq. (45). Note that also in this case we cannot choose $`z(t)=`$ constant ($`\dot{z}0`$) from Eq. (42).
Although Eqs. (54) and (47) are different, in the particular case with $`b=1`$, and thus $`c=0`$, we again obtain a Riccati equation:

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=\dot{z}\left(z^av^2\right).$$
(55)
Instead, following the method of the auxiliary function with :

$$z(t)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}12}^{2/3}t^2,$$
(56)
the Thomas-Fermi equation can be transformed into the first-order equation:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{v}}{dt}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}\frac{t\stackrel{~}{v}^21}{1t^2\stackrel{~}{v}}$$
(57)
where, for simplicity, we have set $`\stackrel{~}{v}=412^{1/3}v`$. Equation (57) has been solved using series expansion by Majorana , and this leads to a semi-analytic general solution for the Thomas-Fermi equation (for details see ).

## VI Conclusions and outlook

In this paper we have generalized a result, derived by Majorana ,  for solving the Thomas-Fermi equation, to a wide class of (ordinary) differential equations, that of Majorana scale-invariant equations, as defined in Sect. III. We have shown that the search for the parametric solution of such equations of order $`n`$ can be restricted to that for the solution of a differential equation of order $`n1`$ (and to the computation of one integral involving this solution). However, the main result of this paper is not this proposition, which is a direct consequence of known results, but, rather, the method and the transformations used to obtain the lower order equation. This has been outlined in Sect. III and the equation considered has been formally written in Eq. (37). In some case this differential equation could be highly non-linear, so that in Sect. IV we have developed a variant of the method mentioned above, employing a further transformation for the dependent variable involved. Some other simplifications, depending on the particular problem considered, can be achieved with a suitable choice for the arbitrary function $`z(t)`$ present in the parametric solution for the differential equation.
As an illustration, both methods have been applied to reduce the order of Emden-Fowler equations in Sect. V and, as a particular case, Thomas-Fermi equation has been considered as well. Remarkably, by using the method of Sect. III, we have shown that all second-order Emden-Fowler equations can be transformed into first-order Abel equations of the first kind. Instead, by using the method of the auxiliary function reported in Sect. IV, the Thomas-Fermi equation can be transformed into a suitable first-order equation which can be solved by series expansion.
We believe that the transformation methods presented here deserve further attention in view of their potential applications to scale-invariant differential equations which are of interest for mathematical physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

This paper takes its origin from the study of some handwritten notes by E. Majorana, deposited at Domus Galileana in Pisa, and from enlightening discussions with Prof. E. Recami and Dr. E. Majorana jr. My deep gratitude to them as well as special thanks to Dr. C. Segnini of the Domus Galileana are here expressed.


format: text

text:
# Quantum magnetization plateaux of an anisotropic ferrimagnetic spin chain

## I Introduction

The quantization of the magnetization is one of interesting phenomena in low-dimensional magnets. It is detected as a plateau in the magnetization curve. Such plateaux were actually observed in high-field measurements of several materials: the $`S=1`$ bond-alternating chain \[Ni2(Medpt)2($`\mu `$-ox)($`\mu `$-N3)\]ClO$`{}_{4}{}^{}`$0.5H2O (Medpt=methyl-bis(3-aminopropyl)amine), the organic $`S=1`$ ladder 3,3’,5,5’-tetrakis($`N`$-$`tert`$-butylaminoxyl)biphenyl, abbreviated BIP-TENO, the Shastry-Sutherland system SrCu2(BO3)2  and the zigzag double chain NH4CuCl3 etc. In addition some theoretical and/or numerical analyses predicted that a magnetization plateau appears in various other systems; the polymerized chains , the $`S=3/2`$ chain, the frustrated spin ladder, several generalized spin ladders , distorted diamond type spin chain and some layered sytems. Using the Lieb-Schultz-Mattis theorem, a general necessary condition for the presence of the plateau was derived as

$$\stackrel{~}{S}m=\text{integer},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`m`$ are the sum of spins over all sites and the magnetization in the unit period, respectively.

The ferrimagnetic mixed spin chains have lately attracted a lot of interest among quantum spin systems. Recent synthesizing techniques have produced a lot of such materials, for example, the bimetallic chain MM(pbaOH)(H2O)$`{}_{3}{}^{}`$nH2O  and the organic one {Mn(hfac)2}3(3R)2 etc. Thus many experimental investigations have been done on such ferrimagnets, as well as theoretical ones.  In the systems two different spins $`S`$ and $`s`$ $`(S>s)`$ are arranged alternately in a line and coupled by the nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic exchange interaction. They has the spontaneous magnetization $`m=Ss`$ in the ground state. Since the lowest excitation increasing $`m`$ has an energy gap, the magnetization curve has a plateau at $`m=Ss`$. Indeed the plateau satisfies the condition of the quantization of the magnetization (1). The plateau, however, is also realized in the classical limit where $`S`$ and $`s`$ are infinite with the ratio $`S/s`$ fixed. Thus it is difficult to identify the plateau at $`m=Ss`$ as a result from the quantization of the magnetization, unlike any higher plateaux at $`m=Ss+1,Ss+2,\mathrm{},S+s1`$ which should not appear in the classical Heisenberg spin systems . The previous works to investigate the anisotropy in the exchange interaction revealed that the quantum effect stabilizes the plateau at $`m=Ss`$ against the $`XY`$-like anisotropy. However, it is no more than a quantitative difference between the quantum and classical systems. In this paper, to show a more definite evidence to clarify that the plateau is a result from the quantization, we investigate the single-ion anisotropy $`D`$ effect. It is more realistic than the interaction anisotropy even from an experimental viewpoint. For example, the recently synthesized $`(S,s)=(1,1/2)`$ chain NiCu(pba)(D2O)3$``$2D2O would possibly have the anisotropy $`D`$ on the Ni ion ($`S=1`$). Thus we study on the (1,1/2) system with $`D`$ for $`S=1`$, using the numerical diagonalization and the level spectroscopy method  under the twisted boundary condition. It will reveal that the system has a quantum phase transition with respect to $`D`$ at $`m=1/2`$ due to the change of plateau formation mechanisms, which clarifies a full quantum nature of the plateau.

## II Classical System

The ferrimagnetic $`(S,s)=(1,1/2)`$ mixed spin chain with the single-ion anisotropy under an external magnetic field $`H`$ is described by the Hamiltonian

$``$ $`=`$ $`_0+_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ (2)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left\{𝑺_j𝒔_j+𝒔_j𝑺_{j+1}+D\left(S_j^z\right)^2\right\}`$ (3)
$`_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ $`=`$ $`H{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(S_j^z+s_j^z)`$ (4)
Throughout this paper, we consider only the case when the external field is along the symmetry axis of $`D`$. We note that $`D(s_j^z)^2`$ gives a constant $`D/4`$. In order to clarify the quantum nature of the plateau later, we show the properties of the classical spin system with the same Hamiltonian where $`S`$ and $`s`$ are the classical vectors with the amplitudes 1 and 1/2, respectively. The magnetization process at $`T=0`$ can be solved with the standard variation of the Hamiltonian with respect to the two vectors $`S`$ and $`s`$. In the isotropic case of the classical system the ground state magnetization curve begins at the spontaneous magnetization $`m=Ss=1/2`$ and has a plateau there, shown as a dot-dashed line in Fig. 1. The complete Néel order along $`H`$ ($`S_j^z=1,s_j^z=1/2`$) is realized in the plateau state, while the canted Néel order (in the $`xy`$ plane) occurs for $`1/2<m<3/2`$. Thus the plateau should originate from the classical Néel order. Since the Néel order is oriented in the $`xy`$ plane for $`D>0`$, the magnetization curve starts from $`m=0`$. The plateau at $`m=1/2`$ still appears for small positive $`D`$, as a long dashed line ($`D=0.05`$) in Fig. 1, because the Néel order along $`H`$ can be realized there. With increasing $`D`$, however, the plateau disappears at the critical value $`D_c=0.0572`$ and it does not appear any more for $`D>D_c`$, shown in Fig. 1. The breakdown of the plateau due to the easy plane anisotropy $`D>0`$ is qualitatively the same as the case of the $`XY`$-like coupling anisotropy. In the quantum system discussed in the following sections, however, the plateau will be revealed to appear again for larger $`D`$ due to the quantum effect, in contrast to the coupling anisotropy.

## III Quantum Mechanisms of Plateau

In the quantum spin system described by the Hamiltonian (2) it would be efficient to introduce the composite spin picture, where $`S=1`$ is considered as the triplet state of two 1/2 spins . Using this picture we clarify the two different mechanisms of the plateau at $`m=1/2`$; the Haldane and large-$`D`$ mechanisms for small and large $`D`$, respectively. The names of these two mechanisms originate from the Haldane and large-$`D`$ phases of the $`S=1`$ antiferromagnetic chain where the critical point was revealed to be $`D1`$ . Similar mechanisms were also proposed for the 1/3 plateau of the $`S=3/2`$ chain.

### A Haldane Plateau

For smaller $`D`$ each $`S=1`$ site can be in any state of $`S^z=`$-1, 0 and +1. Thus the two 1/2 spins representing $`S=1`$ have only to be symmetrized. In the plateau state at $`m=1/2`$ (1/3 of the saturation magnetization), the antiferromagnetic trimer state, which is schematically shown in Fig. 2, is expected to be realized. In Fig. 2 a solid ellipse represents the trimer

$`|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(|2|+|),`$ (5)
and a dotted one corresponds to an $`S=1`$ site where the two 1/2 spins should be symmetrized. When the plateau is based on the effective mechanism in Fig. 2, we call it the Haldane plateau. In the ideal state where this picture is exactly realized, the expectation values of the $`z`$-component are $`\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$ for the three spins in each trimer, respectively. Thus the original system is expected to have $`S^z=\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`s^z=\frac{1}{6}`$ in the ideal Haldane state. It suggests that the Haldane state has the Néel order along $`H`$, but the amplitude is smaller than the classical system ($`S^z=1`$ and $`s^z=\frac{1}{2}`$) because of the quantum spin reduction. We note that the $`D=\mathrm{}`$ case is not the ideal Haldane case. In this case, classical values $`S^z=1`$ and $`s^z=1/2`$ will be realized.

### B Large-$`D`$ Plateau

Each $`S=1`$ site tends to have $`S^z=0`$ for larger positive $`D`$. In the composite spin picture $`S^z=0`$ corresponds to one of the triplet states

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|)`$ (6)
Thus the large-$`D`$ mechanism of the 1/3 plateau ($`m=1/2`$) is presented schematically in Fig. 3, where a rectangle represents the triplet state (6) at $`S=1`$ site and each $`s=1/2`$ site has $`s^z=1/2`$. In the ideal large-$`D`$ state the expectation values should be $`S^z=0`$ and $`s^z=+1/2`$. Obviously no Néel order is realized along $`z`$-axis in the large-$`D`$ phase. The large-$`D`$ plateau results from the quantization of $`S=1`$. Thus it is never realized in the classical spin system.

## IV Quantum Critical Point

The existence of the two different mechanisms of the 1/3 plateau suggests that there is a quantum phase transition between them with respect to the parameter $`D`$ in the ground state at $`m=1/2`$. A useful order parameter to investigate the phase transition is the spin excitation gap at $`m=1/2`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E(M+1)+E(M1)2E(M).`$ (7)
E(M) is the lowest energy level in the subspace where the eigenvalue of $`_j(S_j^z+s_j^z)`$ is $`M`$ and $`m=1/2`$ corresponds to $`M=N/2`$ for the $`N`$-unit system. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is also the length of the plateau. Based on the analogy with the $`S=1`$ chain, it is expected that the critical point $`D_c`$ between the Haldane and large-$`D`$ phases is a Gaussian fixed point. Thus the gap would vanish just at $`D_c`$ and open in both phases. The scaled gap $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ calculated for several finite systems under the periodic boundary condition using the numerical diagonalization is plotted versus $`D`$ in Fig. 4 It indicates that there exists a critical point at $`D1.1`$ where the scaled gap $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is independent of $`N`$, namely the system is gapless ($`\mathrm{\Delta }1/N`$). It also suggests that the gap is opening for both sides of $`D_c`$, as expected. In general, the fixed point of the phenomenological renormalization equation

$`N\mathrm{\Delta }_N(D)=(N+2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{N+2}(D^{})`$ (8)
depends on the system size $`N`$ for small clusters. However, the behavior of the scaled gap in Fig. 4 suggests that the fixed point is almost independent of $`N`$, that is $`D_{c,4,6}D_{c,6,8}`$. It implies that the higher-order size correction ($`o(1/N)`$) of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is negligible even for $`N=`$4, 6, and 8 in the present system. Thus some systematic size-scaling analyses would lead to a precise estimation of the critical point in the thermodynamic limit, even based only on such small cluster calculations.

One of the most precise methods to determine the Gaussian fixed point of the one-dimensional quantum systems is the level spectroscopy  under the twisted boundary condition. The twisted boundary condition means that the sign of the coupling constant for the $`XY`$ component is switched in the exchange interaction at the boundary. According to the method, the critical point is determined as a crossing point of the lowest two energy levels under twisted boundary conditions. The two levels $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are plotted versus $`D`$ for the finite system with $`N=`$4, 6 and 8 in Fig. 5. The size dependence of the crossing point is so small that a precise $`D_c`$ is expected to be obtained. Since the effect of some irrelevant fields should yield the size correction proportional to $`1/N^2`$, we extrapolate the size-dependent $`D_c`$ to the thermodynamic limit using the plot versus $`1/N^2`$ in Fig. 6. The result is $`D_c=1.114\pm 0.001`$. The good agreement of the size correction with $`1/N^2`$ in Fig. 6 justifies the accuracy of the present estimation. In fact, the plateau-nonplateau phase boundary of some spin ladder systems determined by the level spectroscopy even with small cluster calculations well agreed with the exact result in some ideal limits.  The above scaled gap analysis also supports the existence of the quantum critical point in the present system.

In order to confirm the realization of the two mechanisms of the plateau discussed in the previous section, the expectation values of the $`z`$ component $`S^z`$ and $`s^z`$ for finite systems are plotted versus $`D`$ in Fig. 7. It indicates that the sign of $`s^z`$ switched around the critical point. It means that the Néel order along $`z`$-axis exists only in the Haldane phase. Thus it is also consistent with the schematic pictures of the two plateau mechanisms.

## V Magnetization Curves

Finally, we present the ground state magnetization curve of the quantum systems described by the Hamiltonian (2) for several values of $`D`$, using some size scaling techniques applied for the numerical energy levels of finite systems up to $`N=10`$. The conformal field theory in one-dimensional quantum systems  applied for the present model predicted that the in gapless phases the size dependence of the energy gap have the asymptotic forms

$`E(M+1)E(M)H(m)+\pi v_s\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}},`$ (9)
$`E(M)E(M1)H(m)\pi v_s\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}},`$ (10)
where $`N`$ and $`M`$ vary with $`m=M/N`$ fixed. Thus the forms are useful to estimate the magnetic field $`H`$ for several values of $`m`$ which can be obtained from all the combinations of $`N`$ and $`M`$ for available finite systems. The method works except for the plateau. On the other hand, at the massive point like plateaux the Shanks transformation , which is a technique to accelerate the convergence of sequences, is useful. The general form of the transformation for a sequence $`a_n`$ is

$`a_n^{}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{n1}a_{n+1}a_n^2}{a_{n1}+a_{n+1}2a_n}}.`$ (11)
We show the result of the magnetization curve for several values of $`D`$ in Fig. 8, where only the polynomial curves suitably fitted to the obtained points based on the above method. Fig. 8 shows that with increasing $`D`$ up to the critical point $`D=D_c=1.114`$ the plateau at $`m=1/2`$ is shrinking, while it is opening again for $`D>D_c`$, in contrast to the classical system. The plateau is due to the Haldane mechanism for $`D<D_c`$ while the large-D mechanism for $`D>D_c`$. This change of mechanisms should be a clear evidence of the quantum nature in the plateau formation.

## VI Summary

The magnetization process of the $`(S,s)=(1,1/2)`$ ferrimagnetic mixed spin chain with the single-ion anisotropy $`D`$ was investigated using the numerical exact diagonalization and some size-sailing analyses. It revealed that the mechanism of the plateau at $`m=1/2`$ is changes from the Haldane to large-$`D`$ ones at the Gaussian quantum critical point $`D_c=1.114\pm 0.001`$. It justifies that the plateau at $`m=1/2`$ originates from the quantization of the magnetization, although a similar plateau also appears in the classical system.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Prof. S. Yamamoto for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture through Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (B) and No. 13640371. The numerical computation was done in part using the facility of the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo.


text:
# Continuum Moment Equations on the Lattice

## Abstract

An analysis is given as to why one can not directly evaluate continuum moment equations, i.e., equations involving powers of the position variable times charge, current, or energy/momentum operators, on the lattice. I examine two cases: a three point function evaluation of the nucleon magnetic moment and a four point function (charge overlap) evaluation of the pseudoscalar charge radius.

preprint: BU-HEPP-02-01

I. INTRODUCTION

Beautiful hadronic moment equations can be derived from continuum field theory three and four point matrix elementsone . It is very tempting to try to implement these equations directly in lattice simulations. A number of papers in fact have used them, assumed them to be true, or examined their consequences in lattice calculationsonea ; six ; three ; two . Physical quantities considered have been charge radiionea ; six , magnetic momentsthree ; two  and quark total angular momentum three . However, these type of equations share one crucial feature in their derivation: a derivative with respect to momentum transfer evaluated at zero momentum. This last step can not be reproduced on the lattice because of the finite momentums available there, so the question arises as to the validity of such continuum-derived expressions evalauted on the lattice. We will examine two such expressions in this paper and will see that the continuum expectations and the lattice reality can differ markedly.

II. TWO EXAMPLES

Let us recap the situation for one such specific case, an expression for nucleon magnetic moments given in Refs.three ; two . Both two and three point functions appear in this expression. The time ordered two point function, using the proton interpolation field, $`\chi _\alpha ^p(x)`$, is (understood $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha ^{}`$ sums)

$$G_{pp}(t;\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Gamma })\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }\mathrm{vac}|T\left(\chi _\alpha ^p(x)\overline{\chi }_\alpha ^{}^p(0)\right)|\mathrm{vac},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _k& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ The long Euclidean time limit of this expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_4`$ is given by

$$G_{pp}(t;\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)\stackrel{t1}{}\frac{E_p+m_N}{2E_p}\frac{|Z|^2a^6}{(2\kappa )^3}e^{E_pt},$$
(2)
where $`m_N`$ is the (dimensionless) nucleon mass, “a” is the lattice spacing, and $`\kappa =1/(2(m+4))`$, In addition, $`Z`$ is the normalization factor, $`(\mathrm{vac}|\chi _\alpha ^{p;cont}(0)|\stackrel{}{p},s)=Zu_\alpha (\stackrel{}{p},s)`$, where $`u_\alpha (\stackrel{}{p},s)`$ is the free Dirac spinor, $`|\stackrel{}{p},s)`$ is a continuum proton state, and $`\chi _\alpha ^{p;cont}(x)`$ is the continuum interpolation field. The three point function we need, which uses the conserved vector current, $`J_\mu (x)`$, is

$$G_{pJ_\mu p}(t_2,t_1;\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{},\mathrm{\Gamma })i\underset{\stackrel{}{x}_2,\stackrel{}{x}_1}{}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}_2}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }\mathrm{vac}|T\left(\chi _\alpha ^p(x_2)J_\mu (x_1)\overline{\chi }_\alpha ^{}^p(0)\right)|\mathrm{vac},$$
(3)
which has the long Euclidean time limit,

$$G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;0,\stackrel{}{q},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)\stackrel{(t_2t_1),t_11}{}\frac{1}{2E_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{|Z|^2a^6}{(2\kappa )^3}e^{m_N(t_2t_1)}e^{E_{\mathrm{}}t_1}ϵ_{ijk}(\stackrel{}{q}_{\mathrm{}})_iG_m(Q_{\mathrm{}}^2).$$
(4)
The Minkowski four momentum transfer squared is given by $`Q_{\mathrm{}}^2=2m_N(E_{\mathrm{}}m_N)`$, we are assuming continuum dispersion, $`E_{\mathrm{}}^2=m_N^2+\stackrel{}{q}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, and $`(\stackrel{}{q}_{\mathrm{}})_i=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{N},\mathrm{}=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},N`$ in a given momentum direction for a square spatial lattice of size $`N_s=(2N)^3`$. (All these considerations can be reformulated for a lattice with an odd number of spatial sites in given directions, but no fundamentally different conclusions or observations results.) Taking a “continuum” derivative of $`G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;0,\stackrel{}{q},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$ with respect to $`(\stackrel{}{q}_{\mathrm{}})_i`$, evaluated at zero momentum, gives us another three point function, which we will define as

$$G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;(\stackrel{}{x}_1)_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)\underset{\stackrel{}{x}_2,\stackrel{}{x}_1}{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }\mathrm{vac}|\chi _\alpha ^p(x_2)(\stackrel{}{x}_1)_iJ_j(x_1)\overline{\chi }_\alpha ^{}^p(0)|\mathrm{vac}.$$
(5)
Setting this quantity equal to the continuum derivative of Eq.(4) then results in

$$\frac{G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;(\stackrel{}{x}_1)_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)}{G_{pp}(t_2;\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)}|_D\stackrel{(t_2t_1),t_11}{}ϵ_{ijk}\frac{G_m(0)}{2m_N}.$$
(6)
The “D” notation reminds us that this result follows from using a momentum derivative evaluated at zero momentum.

Ref.two  justified this procedure in the following way. One can imagine first taking the spatial momentum derivative of the continuum analog of $`G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;0,\stackrel{}{q},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$, evaluated at $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, and dividing by the continuum two point function. One then transcribes this result into lattice language by changing the continuum matrix elements into lattice ones and making the appropriate substitutions for the spatial integration and the various fields. It was found there that this procedure resulted in a lattice measurement giving unrealistically small neutron and proton magnetic moments, $`G_m(0)`$. In particular, there was a downward trend in the data for smaller quark mass. The results in three  are similar, although the values are larger.

In order to understand why this equation fails on the lattice, let us expand the position variable in terms of the momentum eigenstates of the periodic lattice. In one dimension we have the discrete completeness statement

$$\frac{1}{2N}\underset{n=N+1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{iq_{\mathrm{}}n}=\delta _{\mathrm{},0}.$$
(7)
On a periodic lattice with an even number of sites, choosing an origin forces one side or the other of the lattice to have one extra spatial site. For this purpose, one needs to define a function which represents a linear function everywhere except at the extra site, $`n=N`$, where, because it may be considered equally distant from the origin in either direction, we will take it to be zero. (This is the same function used in the numerical evaluations in three ; two .) Thus,

$$F(n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}n\hfill & \text{ },nN\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ },n=N\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
We expand this in terms of the momentum eigenfunctions, $`e^{iq_{\mathrm{}}n}`$,

$$F(n)=\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{N}{}}C_{\mathrm{}}e^{iq_{\mathrm{}}n}.$$
(9)
Using Eq.(7), this gives

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{n=N+1}{\overset{N1}{}}F(n)e^{iq_{\mathrm{}}n}.$$
(10)
Summing this finite series in the usual way by multiplying both sides by a phase factor, $`e^{iq_{\mathrm{}}}`$, and shifting the summation limits (note that $`e^{\pm iq_{\mathrm{}}N}=(1)^{\mathrm{}}`$), one finds that

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i}{2}(1)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cot}(q_{\mathrm{}}/2)\hfill & ,\mathrm{}0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ,\mathrm{}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
This leads to

$$\frac{G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;(\stackrel{}{x}_1)_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)}{G_{pp}(t_2;\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)}|_S\stackrel{(t_2t_1),t_11}{}\frac{e^{m_Nt_1}}{4m_N}ϵ_{ijk}\underset{\mathrm{}0}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cot}(q_{\mathrm{}}/2)\frac{e^{E_{\mathrm{}}t_1}}{E_{\mathrm{}}}(\stackrel{}{q}_{\mathrm{}})_iG_m(Q_{\mathrm{}}^2).$$
(12)
The “S” notation now reminds us that this result follows from explicitly performing the lattice sum. The coordinate $`(\stackrel{}{x}_1)_i`$, when inserted in Eq.(5),projects over the lattice momentums with a function given by Eq.(11).

The leading terms in Eq.(12) define what we will term the extreme Euclidean time limit (EETL) on the $`t_1`$ variable as,

$$\frac{G_{pJ_jp}(t_2,t_1;(\stackrel{}{x}_1)_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)}{G_{pp}(t_2;\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)}|_S\stackrel{EETL}{}ϵ_{ijk}\frac{e^{(m_NE_1)t_1}}{E_1}G_m(Q_1^2),$$
(13)
where we have approximated $`\mathrm{sin}((\stackrel{}{q}_1)_i/2)(\stackrel{}{q}_1)_i/2`$. Eq.(13) is not suitable to measure the magnetic moment on the lattice. At fixed finite $`(\stackrel{}{q}_1)_i`$, the signal involves only the lowest nonzero component of $`G_m(Q_1^2)`$, and is not time independent.

It is not a contradiction that Eqs.(6) and (13) disagree with one another even in the $`q_10`$ (or $`N\mathrm{}`$) limit. If one formed a discrete lattice derivative for the left side of Eq.(6), equivalent to simply evaluating Eq.(4) at the lowest spatial momentum and dividing by that momentum, one would obtain a result consistent with (6) in the $`q_10`$ limit. Of course, one may always use external field methods to consistently extract magnetic moments. Then one is effectively taking derivatives with respect to the external field rather than momentum to isolate the coupling.

Fig. 1 shows measurements of the lattice proton magnetic form factor at zero momentum transfer on a $`16^3\times 24`$ lattice. The open square symbols are extrapolated from nonzero momemtumtwo . A measurement assuming Eq.(6) yields the solid diamond symbols, which are trending downward as a function of decreasing quark mass. The results in Ref.three  are similar. Using Eq.(13) one can test the extent to which the lowest momentum is contributing to the result from (12) because one has separate data for $`G_m(Q_1^2)`$ at the lowest momentum transfer111$`G_m(Q_1^2)`$ is obtained by averaging over spatial momentums.. The solid circles show the result one would find for Eq.(6) if the lowest momentum EETL limit in Eq.(13) was dominant in the momentum sum. The trend is also downward for smaller quark mass, which is a result of the decreasing value of $`G_m(Q_1^2)`$ as well as the greater exponential suppression from the $`e^{(m_NE)t}`$ factor. ($`t=7\frac{1}{2}`$ for the data from Ref.two ). The qualitative behaviors are remarkably similar for these two Eq.(6) measurements, although significant cancellation is probably occurring for the diamond data from the $`(1)^{\mathrm{}}`$ factor in Eq.(12). It was speculated in two ; three  that the downward trend possibly reflected the fact that the nucleon was not well contained in the lattice volume. The Fig. 1 data strongly suggests that the downward trend in the diamond symbols is instead the result of two factors, decreasing $`G_m(Q_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$ and greater $`e^{(m_NE)t}`$ suppression, similar to the EETL case222That the extrapolated proton $`G_m(0)`$ value is increasing while the measured $`G_m(Q_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$ values are decreasing for smaller $`m_q`$ is not a contradiction, but perfectly consistent with the assumed dipole form of the fits in Ref.two , which has two independent parameters, $`G_m(0)`$ and the dipole mass, $`m_D`$..

As another example of a continuum moment equation on the lattice, consider the charge overlap measurement of the pion charge radius. Time separated measurements of charge overlap matrix elements were first considered in lattice calculations in Ref.four .

We will start with the results derived in Reffive . Using $`u,d`$ flavor conserved lattice charge densities, $`\rho ^{u,d}(x)`$, one has for $`t_3t_{1,2}1`$,

$$\frac{_{\stackrel{}{x}_3,\stackrel{}{z}}<0|\varphi ^{}(x_3)T\left(\rho ^u(x_2)\rho ^d(x_1)\right)\varphi (z)|0>}{_{\stackrel{}{x}_3,\stackrel{}{z}}<0|\varphi ^{}(x_3)\varphi (z)|0>}𝒫_\pi ^{ud}(\stackrel{}{r},t),$$
(14)
where $`z=(\stackrel{}{z},0)`$ and $`\varphi `$ is a charged pion interpolation field. $`𝒫_\pi ^{ud}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ can be written using space and time translational invariance between the zero momentum pion states ($`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{x}_2\stackrel{}{x}_1,tt_2t_1`$) as

$$𝒫_\pi ^{ud}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=<\pi (\stackrel{}{0})|T(\rho ^u(r)\rho ^d(0))|\pi (\stackrel{}{0})>.$$
(15)
The discrete Fourier transform is defined to be,

$`𝒬(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},t)N_s{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{r}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}𝒫_\pi ^{ud}(\stackrel{}{r},t).`$ (16)
It is important to let $`t1`$ in Euclidean space in order to damp out the contributions of higher mass intermediate states when a complete set of states is inserted between the charge densities in (15). One then has

$`𝒬(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},t)\stackrel{t1}{}{\displaystyle \frac{(E_q+m_\pi )^2}{4E_qm_\pi }}F_\pi ^2(Q^2)e^{(m_\pi E_q)t},`$ (17)
where $`Q^2=2m_\pi (E_qm_\pi )`$ and $`F_\pi (Q^2)`$ is the pion form factor.

A continuum derivative of Eq.(16) with respect to $`\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ at zero momentum forms the quantity

$$_\pi ^2(t)N_s\underset{\stackrel{}{r}}{}\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}𝒫_\pi ^{ud}(\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(18)
Using Eqs.(16),(17) and (18) and following a procedure similar to the above for the magnetic moment, we obtain the continuum derivative result,

$$_\pi ^2(t)|_D\stackrel{t1}{}2R_{u,d}^2+\frac{3t}{m_\pi },$$
(19)
where $`R_{u,d}^2`$ is the charged pion $`u,d`$ quark charge radius. This is the same result as in Ref.six  when the bag sources there are replaced with zero momentum pion sources. One could imagine evaluating this expression on the lattice to try to extract the charge radius from the time constant term, but we will see this hope is ill-founded.

In order to explain why one can not measure the charge radius from an expression like Eq.(18), let us now expand the square of the position variable, $`\stackrel{}{r}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, in terms of the momentum eigenstates. For a one dimensional lattice we will consider,

$$n^2=\underset{\mathrm{}=N+1}{\overset{N}{}}K_{\mathrm{}}e^{iq_{\mathrm{}}n}.$$
(20)
We then find that the coefficients, $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$, are given by

$$K_{\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}(1)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{csc}^2(q_{\mathrm{}}/2)\hfill & \text{ },\mathrm{}0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{3}(N^2+\frac{1}{2})\hfill & \text{ },\mathrm{}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
In a three dimensional context, the quantities on the right in (21) are multiplied by zero momentum Kronecker deltas in the transverse directions.

Using Eqs.(20) and (21) in (18) and inserting a complete set, one finds that

$$_\pi ^2(t)|_S\stackrel{t1}{}(N^2+\frac{1}{2})+\frac{3}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}0}{}(1)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{csc}^2(q_{\mathrm{}}/2)\frac{(E_{\mathrm{}}+m_\pi )^2}{4m_\pi E_{\mathrm{}}}F_\pi ^2(Q_{\mathrm{}}^2)e^{(m_\pi E_{\mathrm{}})t}.$$
(22)
We can define a discrete lattice charge radius as

$$(R_{u,d}^2)_L3\frac{(1F_\pi ^2(Q_1^2))}{q_1^2}.$$
(23)
In the EETL, we then find,

$$_\pi ^2(t)|_S\stackrel{EETL}{}(N^2+\frac{1}{2})12(\frac{N^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{3}(R_{u,d}^2)_L)e^{(m_\pi E_1)t}.$$
(24)
So we see that in contrast to Eq.(19), the first (time independent) term is essentially meaningless. It is conceivable that one could extract a measurement of $`(R_{u,d}^2)_L`$ from the second, time dependent term, but it would be much simpler to project out the form factor at the lowest lattice momentum in the usual manner and use Eq.(23). Again, the fact that (19) and (24) do not agree even for very fine lattices ($`N\mathrm{}`$) is not a contradiction because one has not taken a discrete lattice derivative, but a continuum one in producing (19).

III. SUMMARY

We have seen why it is not possible to directly evaluate continuum moment equations on a periodic lattice. Continuum moments of lattice operators in a periodic system do not project onto good momentum and so do not isolate low momentum properties. The present author pointed this fact out some years ago in the context of charged pion polarizability calculationsfive . In a more general sense, the lesson we have learned is that in order to deduce continuum properties from the lattice, it is important to treat the lattice as a self-consistent physical system. Position functions are meaningful only if expanded in terms of the available momentum eigenstates of the system. It can be very misleading in general to try to take continuum field theory equations and simply “latticize” them in deducing physical properties.

IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported in part by NSF Grant No. 0070836. The Baylor University Sabbatical Program is also gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Controlling quantum entanglement through photocounts

## I Introduction

Information processing can be largely improved when quantum properties are used for encoding both, bits and channels . While bits are encoded in mutually orthogonal states of a quantum system, quantum channels use the ability to set systems in entangled states. Entanglement of states is a characteristic quantum correlation that, in principle, can be produced in post interacting quantum systems . To use this quantum resource for information processing one has to be able first to produce and then to control the amount of entanglement of a finite number of quantum systems. A fundamental open problem in quantum information is the characterization and classification of mixed entangled states of a multipartite systems . Nowadays the most accessible and controllable source of quantum entanglement has been the electromagnetic field, through parametric down-conversion processes in non-linear crystals . Recently, internal atomic states entanglement have also been considered in distinct experiments .

We propose a consistent scheme for generating and controlling entangled states of two subsystems (that we call $`𝒮`$): (i) If the subsystems do interact, their initial states should be adequately prepared such that the interaction $`V_S`$ does not entangle their states during the time evolution. (ii) A third quantum subsystem, the monitor $``$, is coupled (through $`V_{SM}`$) to $`𝒮`$; $``$ should be the only subsystem responsible for entangling the states of $`𝒮`$, thus formally, $`[V_S,V_{SM}]=0`$ is a necessary condition. Then follows an operational procedure or protocol: (iii) First one choose an observable $`𝒦`$ of $``$ and after an elapsed time $`t`$, from the beginning of the interaction (between $`𝒮`$ and $``$), it is measured and the interaction is turned off; the eigenvalue outcome determines the entangled state in which $`𝒮`$ is left.

In an ideal projective measurement the measured eigenvalues $`k`$ occur with a certain probability, so the entangled state of $`𝒮`$ obtained through reduction, cannot, in principle, be chosen. However, if the experimentalist is able to control the outcomes of $``$ to be read, then, controlling the degree of entanglement in $`𝒮`$ becomes possible and the protocol becomes feasible. Interestingly, in a realistic measurement, when quanta are counted, it is possible to control the outcome of the monitor: One turns on the interaction between $`𝒮`$ and $``$ and when $`k`$ quanta are counted then one knows in which state the system $`𝒮`$ is left. However, the necessary interval of time for counting $`k`$ quanta is probabilistic: if the experiment is repeated, the same number of quanta may be registered within another time interval. Thus, for reproducing the same state one should repeat the experiment such that the counted photons be the same within the same time interval. The present status for generating entangled states is very different from this protocol, the experiments are based on projective measurements .

The realization of the proposed scheme and protocol are considered in the following physical system: the subsystems constituting $`𝒮`$ may consist of two interacting (but not necessarily) electromagnetic (EM) fields, modes A and B, coupled to the monitor $``$, a third EM field, the mode C. The entanglement in $`𝒮`$ is created by a continuous destructive photocount on C and the control is fulfilled by turning off the interaction when a certain predetermined number $`k`$ of photons become registered, thus the system $`𝒮`$ is left in an entangled state which is essentially characterized by $`k`$. This proposal is detailed in the following sections: In Sec. II we present our model and write the Hamiltonian for the system $`𝒮`$, the monitor $``$ and their interaction, we also give the time-dependent state vector of the whole system. In Sec. III we describe the measurement process in two different approaches for sake of comparison, the ideal and the realistic: (i) The ideal or instantaneous projective measurement on field C, assumes the statevector reduction by projection as postulated by von Neumann, leading to an entangled (regarding the fields A and B) pure states. (ii) Then, more realistically, we consider the measurement as a sequential photocount process, on field C, as proposed by Srinavas and Davies . This leads to an entangled density operator for fields A and B. We show that only the second approach allows controlling the degree of entanglement of the AB fields, depending on the detector counting rate ($`\gamma `$), the number of counted photons ($`k`$) and counting time. In Sec. IV we show that due to the nondemolishing character of the coupling between $`𝒮`$ and $``$, the total photon number $`N`$ of $`𝒮`$ can be inferred (without altering $`N`$) by averaging over counted photons of mode C. We also analyze the information one gets about the initial state of $`𝒮`$ from the counting process on $``$; examples are presented and discussed. In Sec. 5 we present a summary and conclusions.

## II Model

The problem of production and control of state entanglement between two subsystems is based on the physical paradigm of four interacting EM fields. Couplings of EM modes are made possible in nonlinear media and phenomena such as parametric down and up conversion appearing when a response of second order nonlinearity in crystal polarization is present and four-wave mixing (third order nonlinearity) occurs in a Kerr medium . Also, recently a strong field-field interaction of few photons, induced by non-resonant interactions between fields and a Cs atom, was observed experimentally . This observation led to a proposal for attaining high-nonlinearities with single atoms . The dynamics of the fields here considered consists of two processes: (i) a second order nonlinear process coupling the modes A and B ($`𝒮`$), assisted by a classical pump field  and (ii) a four-wave mixing, with modes, A, B and C (treated as quantized fields) coupled to a fourth classical intense field. The system dynamics is described by the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _aa^{}a+\mathrm{}\omega _bb^{}b+\mathrm{}\omega _cc^{}c+\mathrm{}\lambda \left(a^{}be^{i\nu t}+ab^{}e^{i\nu t}\right)`$ (2)
$`+\mathrm{}\chi (a^{}a+b^{}b)(ce^{i\nu ^{}t}+c^{}e^{i\nu ^{}t}).`$
The total number of photons of modes A and B, $`\widehat{N}\widehat{n}_a+\widehat{n}_b=a^{}a+b^{}b`$ is a quantum nondemolition (QND) variable. This is a quite important feature because while measuring (destructively) the mode C, an inference can be made on $`\widehat{N}^2`$, without loosing or altering a single quanta of modes A and B. It has been shown that the coupling between A and B as in Hamiltonian (2) displays several interesting features : (i) It leads to a complete states swapping (information exchange) even at constant mean energy. (ii) If the states are initially not entangled, the interaction will produce entanglement only if one of the modes is prepared in a nonclassical state; otherwise, if both modes are initially prepared as a direct product of coherent states the interaction will not change this character in the course of their evolution .

In the interaction picture, Hamiltonian (2) is written as

$$H_I=\mathrm{}\lambda \left(a^{}b+ab^{}\right)+\mathrm{}\chi (a^{}a+b^{}b)(c+c^{}),$$
(3)
where, resonance conditions, $`\nu =\omega _a\omega _b`$ and $`\nu ^{}=\omega _c`$, must be satisfied in order to eliminate the explicit time dependence present in (2).

Next, suppose the monitor mode C (the meter in the terminology of ) is prepared in the vacuum state, so, during its evolution it could absorb energy only from the intense classical field. The fields A and B are considered, for the moment, to be in an arbitrary state, that we write as an expansion in the number states basis $`|m_A`$ and $`|n_B`$, $`|\psi _{AB}(0)=_{m,n}C_{m,n}|m,n`$ (from here on we omit the subscript $`AB`$). At time $`t`$ the evolved state of the AB system is represented by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=e^{i\lambda t\left(a^{}b+ab^{}\right)}\underset{m,n}{}C_{m,n}|m,ne^{i\chi t(m+n)(c+c^{})}|0_C.$$
(4)
Noting that $`e^{i\chi t(m+n)(c+c^{})}|0_C=|i\chi t(m+n)_C`$ is a coherent state restricted to the imaginary axis, state (4) can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{m,n}{}C_{m,n}U_t|m,n|i\chi t(m+n),$$
(5)
(here on we omit the subscript C) where $`U_t=e^{i\lambda t\left(a^{}b+ab^{}\right)}`$. In the next section we discuss two forms of measurements on mode C.

## III Monitoring AB fields trough measurement on C

### A Instantaneous projective measurement

An ideal or instantaneous projective measurement (PM) of a system $`𝒮`$ is associated to a chosen observable $`𝒜`$ (or a set of commuting observables) of this system. If at time $`t`$ one of the eigenvalues $`A_m`$ of $`𝒜`$ is realized, then the system state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is reduced to its corresponding eigenvector $`|m`$. The probability for that realization is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|m|^2`$. This is known as a measurement of the first kind, as postulated by von Neumann. In our model, if at time $`t`$ it is found that field C contains exactly $`k`$ photons, the state is automatically projected on to the number state $`|k`$. As a consequence, the AB joint state ‘reduces’ instantaneously to the new state

$$\rho _{AB}^{(k)}(t)=\frac{k|\rho (t)|k}{\mathrm{Tr}_{AB}\left[k|\rho (t)|k\right]}$$
(6)
where $`\rho (t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}_{AB}`$ stands for the trace operation on the A and B fields operators. The probability that at time $`t`$ the field C has $`k`$ quanta is $`P(k,t)=`$ Tr$`{}_{AB}{}^{}\left[k|\rho (t)|k\right]`$. For the state given by equation (5) this probability is

$`P(k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\chi t\right]^{2k}}{k!}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)|U_t^{}\widehat{N}^{2k}e^{(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2}U_t|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\chi t\right]^{2k}}{k!}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)|\widehat{N}^{2k}e^{(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)={\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|C_{m,n}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left(\chi t(m+n)\right)^{2k}e^{[\chi t(m+n)]^2},`$ (8)
the second equality follows because $`[U_t,\widehat{N}]=0`$, so the counts are independent of the evolution of AB modes, they are not affected by the evolution of the AB system. The evolved state is reduced to

$$\rho _{AB}^{(k)}(t)=P^1(k,t)\frac{1}{k!}\left(\chi t\right)^{2k}\widehat{N}^ke^{\frac{1}{2}(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2}U_t|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)|U_t^{}e^{\frac{1}{2}(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2}\widehat{N}^k.$$
(9)
or in terms of the statevector (excepting a phase factor),

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(k)}(t)=\frac{\left(\chi t\right)^k}{\sqrt{k!P(k,t)}}\widehat{N}^ke^{\frac{1}{2}(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2}U_t|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0),$$
(10)
the purity of the state is maintained, however, entanglement is created even if initially the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)`$ is factorized.

The mean photon number of field C is closely related to the mean $`\widehat{N}^2`$ of AB fields,

$$\overline{k}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}kP(k,t)=(\chi t)^2\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|C_{m,n}|^2(m+n)^2=(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2,$$
(11)
so, a measurement on C allows to infer the mean squared QND variable with a proportionality factor that goes as $`t^2`$. The variances are related as

$$\mathrm{Var}(k)\overline{k}=(\chi t)^4\mathrm{Var}(\widehat{N}^2),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{Var}(x)=x^2x^2`$.

If fields A and B are initially prepared in number states, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)=|m,n`$, the reduced state of the AB field becomes independent of $`k`$, evolving freely as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(t)=U_t|m,n,$$
(13)
thus, not feeling at all the presence of field C; so, any entanglement will only arise from the interaction between A and B and not from a measurement on C. The probability for measuring $`k`$ photons in C at time $`t`$ will depend on $`m`$ and $`n`$ as $`(m+n)^2`$, the probability distribution being Poissonian

$$P(k,t)=\frac{1}{k!}\left[(\chi t)^2(m+n)^2\right]^ke^{\left[(\chi t)^2(m+n)^2\right]}.$$
(14)
The mean photon number of C Eq. (11) gives

$$\overline{k}=(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2=(\chi t)^2(m+n)^2,$$
(15)
whereas

$$\mathrm{Var}(k)\overline{k}=(\chi t)^4\mathrm{Var}(\widehat{N}^2)=0.$$
(16)
Inversely, if one ignores in which states the AB modes were prepared, but however verifies, through a measurement on C, that $`\mathrm{Var}(k)=\overline{k}`$, then one immediately infers that the AB system was prepared in some number state $`|m,n`$. If the modes A and B are prepared in eigenstates of the QND variable the subsystem AB evolves independently of C.

Now, if the initial states of the subsystems A and B are prepared as a direct product of coherent states, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)=|\alpha |\beta |\alpha ,\beta `$, the unitary evolution does not entangle the states of A and B, each one continues its evolution as such,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(k)}(t)=\frac{\left(\chi t\right)^k}{\sqrt{k!P(k,t)}}\widehat{N}^ke^{\frac{1}{2}(\chi t)^2\widehat{N}^2}|\alpha (t),\beta (t)$$
(17)
where $`U_t|\alpha ,\beta =|\alpha (t),\beta (t)`$, with $`\alpha (t)=\alpha \mathrm{cos}\lambda ti\beta \mathrm{sin}\lambda t`$ and $`\beta (t)=\beta \mathrm{cos}\lambda ti\alpha \mathrm{sin}\lambda t`$ (note that $`|\alpha (t)|^2+|\beta (t)|^2=|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2F`$ is a constant of the motion). Although the measurement on C affects the dynamics of the AB system by entangling the states, this very ideal measurement does not allow controlling the entanglement dynamics of the AB system, since the outcome of the eigenvalue $`k`$ is probabilistic, according to the distribution (8).

As in the previous case, the mean photon number of C will depend on time as $`t^2`$,

$$\overline{k}=(\chi t)^2F\left(F+1\right),$$
(18)
the variance is given by

$$\mathrm{Var}(k)=(\chi t)^4(4F^3+6F^2+F).$$
(19)
and $`F`$ can be obtained from the measurements on $``$,

$$F=\left[\left(\mathrm{Var}(k)/(\chi t)^42\overline{k}/(\chi t)^2\right)/\left(4\overline{k}/(\chi t)^21\right)\right].$$
(20)
where the right hand side, calculated from the experiment should be time-independent.

### B Generalized measurement by photocounting

Experiments involving counting are not instantaneous and far from the von Neumann idealization. For a realistic counting measurement, one should consider that (i) For a given time interval $`t`$ the counting of $`k`$ quanta occurs with some probability, or, it is not likely that exactly $`k`$ quanta are counted in a predefined time $`t`$, actually, there will be a distribution of time intervals. (ii) More importantly, one has to consider that when one photon is counted the EM field will have one photon less. The dynamics of this kind of process has to be treated as a dissipative continuous measurement; this subject was well addressed by Srinavas and Davies  and applied to several situations in . We follow closely these references, describing the continuous photocount measurement in the formalism of operations and effects .

The count of $`k`$ photons from the monitor mode in a time $`t`$ is characterized by the linear operation $`N_t(k)`$, acting on the state of the system,

$$\rho ^{(k)}(t)=\frac{N_t(k)\rho (0)}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[N_t(k)\rho (0)\right]}$$
(21)
where $`\rho (0)`$ is the state of the ABC system prior turning on the counting process and $`P(k,t)=\mathrm{Tr}[N_t(k)\rho ]`$ is the probability of counting $`k`$ photons in $`t`$. The linear operator $`N_t(k)`$ is written in terms of two other operators, $`S_t`$ and $`J`$,

$$N_t(k)=_0^t𝑑t_k_0^{t_k}𝑑t_{k1}\mathrm{}_0^{t_2}𝑑t_1S_{tt_k}JS_{t_kt_{k1}}\mathrm{}JS_{t_1},$$
(22)
where $`S_tN_t(0)`$ is a superoperator defined in terms of ordinary Hilbert space operators $`B_t`$ as

$$S_t\rho =B_t\rho B_t^{}.$$
(23)
$`B_t`$ is a semigroup element given in terms of the generator $`Y`$ as $`B_t=e^{Yt}`$. As defined in  the generator is

$$Y=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}HR/2,$$
(24)
where $`H`$ is the system Hamiltonian and $`R`$ is the rate operator given by

$$R=\gamma c^{}c,$$
(25)
and the parameter $`\gamma `$ stands for the detector counting rate. The theory becomes self contained by choosing $`J`$ as

$$J\rho =\gamma c\rho c^{},$$
(26)
standing for the change of the field C due to loss of one counted photon and $`S_t`$ is responsible for the state evolution between counts.

In the interaction picture $`Y`$ becomes

$$Y=i\lambda \left(a^{}b+ab^{}\right)i\chi (a^{}a+b^{}b)(c+c^{})\frac{\gamma }{2}c^{}c,$$
(27)
the first term contributes only to the free evolution of the AB fields as a unitary evolution of the initial state. The monitor field stands for the counting process, being present in the other terms, thus the linear superoperator $`N_t(k)`$, acting on the initial state $`_{m,n}C_{m,n}|m,n|0`$, can be expressed as

$$N_t(k)=𝒰_0^t𝑑t_k_0^{t_k}𝑑t_{k1}\mathrm{}_0^{t_2}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{S}_{tt_k}J\stackrel{~}{S}_{t_kt_{k1}}\mathrm{}J\stackrel{~}{S}_{t_1},$$
(28)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_t=e^{\stackrel{~}{Y}_1t}e^{\stackrel{~}{Y}_2^{}t}$$
(29)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\chi (m+n)(c+c^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}c^{}c`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\chi (m^{}+n^{})(c+c^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}c^{}c.`$ (31)
We have defined $`𝒰_t`$ as the superoperator for the coherent evolution of modes A and B

$$𝒰_t=e^{i\lambda t(a^{}b+ab^{})}e^{i\lambda t(a^{}b+ab^{})}.$$
(32)
After doing some algebraic manipulations we find that for $`k`$ counts on C the state for the ABC system becomes

$`\rho ^{(k)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(k,t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2g(t)\right]^k}{k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n,m^{},n^{}}{}}C_{m,n}C_{m^{},n^{}}^{}(m+n)^k(m^{}+n^{})^k\mathrm{exp}[A(t)+A^{}(t)`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|z(t)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|z^{}(t)|^2]𝒰_t[|m,nm^{},n^{}|\left]\right[|z(t)z^{}(t)|],`$
where $`g(t)=(2\chi ^2/\gamma ^2)\left(3+\gamma t+4e^{\gamma t/2}e^{\gamma t}\right)`$, $`z(t)=(2i\chi /\gamma )(m+n)(1e^{\gamma t/2})`$ is the label of the coherent state and $`A(t)=(2\chi ^2/\gamma ^2)(m+n)^2\left[\gamma t2(1e^{\gamma t/2})\right]`$. $`z^{}(t)`$ and $`A^{}(t)`$ stand for the same expressions but with $`m^{}+n^{}`$ instead of $`m+n`$. The normalization function $`P(k,t)`$ is the probability for $`k`$ counted photons in time $`t`$,

$$P(k,t)=\frac{\left[2g(t)\right]^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)|\widehat{N}^{2k}e^{2g(t)\widehat{N}^2}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0),$$
(35)
the same as in the ideal PM, Eq. (8), however the factor $`(\chi t)^2`$ is now replaced by $`2g(t)`$. An important difference arises here, for $`\gamma t1`$ we have $`2g(t)(2\chi /\gamma )^2\gamma t`$, the time appearing linearly while in the ideal PM it is quadratic. The expressions for the mean and variance of $`k`$ are as (18) and (19) however with $`(2\chi /\gamma )^2\gamma t`$ substituting $`(\chi t)^2`$.

The mixed state $`\rho ^{(k)}(t)`$ is a post-measurement state for counting $`k`$ photons. The pre-measurement state is obtained by summing over all the possible outcomes, $`_kN_t(k)\rho (0)`$ .

The state of the AB system is obtained by tracing over the monitor mode,

$`\rho _{AB}^{(k)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(k,t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[2g(t)\right]^k}{k!}}\widehat{N}^ke^{h(t)\widehat{N}^2}`$ (37)
$`\times \left\{e^{\frac{4\chi ^2}{\gamma ^2}(1e^{\gamma t/2})^2\widehat{N}\widehat{N}}\left[𝒰_t\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)|\right)\right]\right\}e^{h(t)\widehat{N}^2}\widehat{N}^k,`$
where $`h(t)=(2\chi ^2/\gamma ^2)[\gamma t2(1e^{\gamma t/2})]`$, and

$$e^{\frac{4\chi ^2}{\gamma ^2}(1e^{\gamma t/2})^2\widehat{N}\widehat{N}}\widehat{O}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[\frac{4\chi ^2}{\gamma ^2}(1e^{\gamma t/2})^2\right]^l}{l!}\widehat{N}^l\widehat{O}\widehat{N}^l.$$
(38)
Preparing the modes A and B in number states the mode C has its dynamical evolution decoupled from the AB system. As in the ideal PM, Eq. (13), the AB modes states evolve freely, not being affected at all by the counting process (due to the QND variable).

For the modes A and B prepared in coherent states, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)=|\alpha ,\beta `$, the unitary evolution does not change this character, each state continues to evolve as such ($`|\alpha (t),\beta (t)\alpha (t),\beta (t)|`$), however, the photocount on C affects the dynamics introducing a another effect: besides the entanglement, as in the ideal PM, the factor in brackets in (37) mixes the states. The number of counted photons in mode C determines the selection of a specific entangled state of the AB field and the degree of its entanglement. This will depend on $`\chi `$, the counting rate of the detector $`\gamma `$, the number of counts $`k`$, the time $`t`$, and there will also be a dependence on the initial state through the total number of photons operator $`\widehat{N}`$. So, controlling these quantities entails the correlated state (37). It is worth stressing that time interval for counting exactly $`k`$ photons is probabilistic and $`P(k,t)`$ is its (non-normalized) distribution function.

### C Degree of entanglement and mixing

It is well known that a precise measure of the degree of entanglement is not available for continuous variables mixed states . We saw that a straightforward application of the photocount measurement process, may be used for producing and determining the degree of a $`k`$-entangled state of AB modes. Formally, for the AB system, prepared initially in coherent states, the dissipative (nonunitary) character of the evolution is induced by the counting process, being responsible for the interplay between the entanglement, mixing and decoherence in (37).

For the lowest values of $`k`$ the probability distributions $`P(k,t)`$ are depicted in Fig. 1 for $`|\alpha |^2=|\beta |^2=5`$. One perceives that for $`k=0`$ the highest values of the probability occur for $`\gamma t1`$, however for $`k0`$ the probabilities attain maximum values at different times $`t_m`$. For $`\gamma t1`$ one has $`h(t)(\chi t)^2/2`$, $`4(\chi /\gamma )^2(1e^{\gamma t/2})^2(\chi t)^2`$ and $`2g(t)(\chi /\gamma )^2(\gamma t)^3/3`$, so state (37) does not mix substantially for small time intervals, it can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(k)}(t)P^{1/2}(k,t)\widehat{N}^k|\alpha (t),\beta (t),$$
(39)
(here, $`P(k,t)=\alpha (t),\beta (t)|\widehat{N}^{2k}|\alpha (t),\beta (t)`$) and, excepting for $`k=0`$ ($`P(k,0)=\delta _{k,0}`$), the counting process generates entanglement.

Comparing state (39) with (17) for $`(\chi /\gamma )\gamma t1`$, we see that they are very likely, thus for small times they cannot be distinguished and the entanglement will be stronger the higher the number of counted photons. We give a quantitative picture of entanglement by calculating the excess entropy , defined as

$$I=S_A+S_BS_{AB},$$
(40)
where $`S_A`$ ($`S_B`$) is the entropy of the mode A (B)(associated to $`\rho _A^k(t)=\mathrm{Tr}_B\rho _{AB}^{(k)}(t)`$) and $`S_{AB}`$ is the entropy of the AB system, where $`S1\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2`$. The excess entropy measures the information contained in the correlation between modes A and B. Its lower and upper bounds are obtained by the Araki-Lieb  inequality

$$|S_AS_B|S_{AB}S_A+S_B,$$
(41)
namely,

$$0I2\text{min}(S_A,S_B).$$
(42)
Remark that $`I`$ measures the correlation between A and B, without resolving between classical or quantum correlation (entanglement). However, when the joint system is in a pure state $`S_{AB}=0`$ and $`S_A=S_B`$, the inequality (42) reduces to

$$0I2S_A.$$
(43)
and any correlation given by $`I>0`$ will be due to entanglement. Thus, the measure of $`I`$ together with the system degree of purity allows one to distinguish between classes of entangled states, even though it does not give a precise borderline for separability of mixed entangled states.

The excess entropy for the system here considered is plotted in Fig. 2 as function of $`k`$ for most probable time of a $`k`$-event (crosses for (37)) and for initial times ($`\gamma t1`$) (filled squares for (39)). It is verified that the counts correlate the subsystems more intensely the higher is the number of counted photons. Since state (39) is pure ($`S_{AB}=0`$), this correlation characterizes a maximal entanglement. When detections occur at initial time the state of the joint system AB is left in a pure entangled state and the degree of entanglement is directly proportional to the number of counted photons. The excess entropy for state (37) is calculated at times $`t_m^{(k)}`$ (for which $`P(k,t_m^{(k)})`$ is maximum - as in Fig. 1) and one sees that the correlation is stronger than for state (39). However, as state (37) is mixed one also need to measure its purity ($`S_{AB}`$), as depicted in Fig. 3, for several values of $`k`$ and at times $`t_m^{(k)}`$. The combined results of Figs. 2 and 3 for the mixed state entanglement, show that the higher the number of counted photons, the more correlated becomes the AB state, and for $`k1`$ one has $`I1`$. However, the states more likely to occur at times $`t_m^{(k)}`$ are not pure anymore and for high $`k`$’s, characterized by $`I1`$ and $`S_{AB}1`$, the state (37) becomes classically correlated (separable), while for $`0<S_{AB}<1`$ it is non-separable, which characterizes non-maximal entanglement.

How this process happens can be represented by the following example, which exactly matches our results for both the excess entropy and purity. Considering the condition of separability,

$$\rho _{AB}=\underset{i}{}p_i\sigma _A^{(i)}\sigma _B^{(i)},\underset{i}{}p_i=1,$$
(44)
with $`\rho _{AB}`$ acting on $`_A_B`$; $`dim_A=N_A`$ and $`dim_B=N_B`$, then,

$$I=1\underset{i,j}{}p_ip_j\left[\mathrm{Tr}_A\sigma _A^{(i)}\sigma _A^{(j)}+\mathrm{Tr}_B\sigma _B^{(i)}\sigma _B^{(j)}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_A\sigma _A^{(i)}\sigma _A^{(j)}\right)\left(\mathrm{Tr}_B\sigma _B^{(i)}\sigma _B^{(j)}\right)\right].$$
(45)
When

$$\sigma _A^{(i)}=\frac{\widehat{1}_A}{N_A}\mathrm{and}\sigma _B^{(i)}=\frac{\widehat{1}_B}{N_B}$$
(46)
one obtains

$$I=1\left(N_A^1+N_B^1\left(N_AN_B\right)^1\right)\mathrm{and}S_{AB}=1\left(N_AN_B\right)^1$$
(47)
For $`N_A,N_B\mathrm{}`$ (as it is for coherent states) both quantities go to $`1`$. So, for a $`k`$ sufficiently large the state (37) becomes separable. State (44) (together with (46)) corresponds to an equiprobable ensemble of states.

In that way, we saw that a full range of states may be generated, with different degree of entanglement, from maximally entangled to separable states. So, the protocol for producing a specific state (37) consists in turning off the interaction when an a priori selected value $`k`$ is attained at a time $`\overline{t}`$.

Besides, the photocount measurement theory and the specific Hamiltonian (3) also allow to extract information about the AB system by counting the photons of C. Due to the nature of the coupling between the monitor and the AB system, the counting on C gives the maximal information about any function of $`\widehat{N}^2`$. Then it is immediate to put the question: How much information may the photocount distribution give about the initial quantum states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}(0)`$? This is discussed bellow.

## IV Probing light with light

Here we look at the counting problem as a spectroscopic measure of the state of the AB system. Light state spectroscopy, or light probing via atomic deflection was discussed by M. Freyberger and A. M. Herkommer . Probability distribution of transversal momenta of two-level atoms deflected by an EM field in a cavity allows the complete knowledge of the field quantum state. Is it possible to use a similar strategy with fields only, but now instead of the beam deflection, the photocount playing the role revealing the AB state?

To make this point clear let us consider the average counted photon number

$$\overline{k}=u(t)\widehat{N}^2=u(t)\underset{m,n}{}|C_{m,n}|^2(m+n)^2$$
(48)
where $`u(t)=\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2(e^{\gamma t}+4e^{\gamma t/2}+\gamma t3)`$. For $`\gamma t1`$, $`u(t)=\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2\gamma t`$ and we can write

$$\overline{k}=\left[\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2\gamma t\right]\underset{m,n}{}|C_{m,n}|^2(m+n)^2$$
(49)
and $`\widehat{N}^2`$ can be inferred directly by the mean counted photons, this being more precise the larger $`\gamma t`$ is because one gets a linear relation between time $`t`$ and $`\overline{k}`$. This point was actually pointed by Milburn and Walls  for a single mode coupled to C. Note that differently from the projective measurement where $`\overline{k}`$ increases with $`t^2`$, Eq. (15), in the non-ideal measurement $`\overline{k}`$ increases linearly with time. We can build up higher-order moments of $`k`$ in a similar fashion, obtaining,

$$\overline{k^r}=\underset{m,n}{}|C_{m,n}|^2e^{u(t)(m+n)^2}\left(u\frac{d}{du}\right)^re^{u(t)(m+n)^2},$$
(50)
or keeping only the higher power in $`\left[\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2\left(\gamma t\right)\right]1`$ for conveniently chosen time $`t`$, we have

$$\overline{k^r}=\left[\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2\left(\gamma t\right)\right]^r\underset{m,n}{}|C_{m,n}|^2(m+n)^{2r}.$$
(51)
Calling

$$\kappa =k/\left[\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2\left(\gamma t\right)\right],$$
(52)
multiplying both sides of the above equation by $`(1)^rx^{2r}/r!`$ ($`0x<2\pi `$) and summing over $`r`$ we get a new function, which a Fourier expansion of the squared moduli coefficients,

$$H(x)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^rx^{2r}\overline{\kappa ^r}}{r!}=\underset{m,n}{}|C_{m,n}|^2\mathrm{cos}x(m+n),$$
(53)
which is always bounded, with values in the interval $`[1,1]`$ since $`_{m,n}|C_{m,n}|^2=1`$. The left hand side is calculated from the experimental photocounts, thus a specific relation between a particular set of the $`|C_{m,n}|^2`$ may be inferred in certain cases, as to be see below. Doing an inverse Fourier transform we get

$$𝒞(j)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}jxH(x)𝑑x=\underset{m=0}{\overset{j}{}}|C_{m,jm}|^2.$$
(54)
which is the only information on the initial state of the AB system one gets by photocounting on C. If the fields A and B are initially disentangled, $`|C_{m,n}|^2=|A_m|^2|B_n|^2`$, then in order to determine the coefficients of, for instance, the initial state of mode A, $`|A_m|^2`$, one should set the initial state of B in the vacuum state (or any other number state), since $`|B_0|^2=1`$ and all other coefficient being zero, so one obtains

$$|A_m|^2=𝒞(m).$$
(55)
This strategy has its limitation since only the moduli of the coefficients can be obtained, being the maximum information about the initial state of field A that one can obtain by counting on C.

Particularly interesting states to be addressed are the initially entangled states.

(a) We first consider the case when both modes are prepared in the superposition of perfect anti-correlation

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}C_{Nn,n}|Nn,n,$$
(56)
defined as a limited sum of the photon number state, and $`_{n=0}^N|C_{Nn,n}|^2=1`$. One illustrative example of this kind of state is for entangled qubits ($`\mathrm{dim}[_𝒜_{}]=22`$), $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=C_{1,0}|1,0+C_{1,0}|0,1`$.

For state (56) the probability of counting $`k`$ photons is independent of the coefficients $`C_{Nn,n}`$,

$`P(k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^{2k}}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\chi }{\gamma }}\right)^{2k}(e^{\gamma t}+4e^{\gamma t/2}+\gamma t3)^k`$ (58)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(2\chi /\gamma \right)^2N^2(e^{\gamma t}+4e^{\gamma t/2}+\gamma t3)\right],`$
so, all higher moments are determined from the first one, the mean counted photons is a precise measurement since the variance is zero and consequently the squared coefficients $`|C_{Nn,n}|^2`$ cannot be determined. For $`\gamma t1`$ the expression for the $`r`$-moments (expressed as $`\kappa `$, see (52)) of counted photons will be

$$\overline{\kappa ^r}=N^{2r}=\left(\overline{\kappa }\right)^r.$$
(59)
(b) Now, let us consider the case when both modes are prepared in the superposition of perfect correlation

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}C_{n,n}|n,n.$$
(60)
Again, for qubits, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}=C_{0,0}|0,0+C_{1,1}|1,1`$. For the state (60) the probability of counting $`k`$ photons is

$`P(k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\chi }{\gamma }}\right)^{2k}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}}|C_{n,n}|^2(2n)^{2k}(e^{\gamma t}+4e^{\gamma t/2}+\gamma t3)^k`$ (62)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\chi }{\gamma }}\right)^2(2n)^2(e^{\gamma t}+4e^{\gamma t/2}+\gamma t3)\right]`$
and for $`\gamma t1`$ the moments of counted photons (expressed in terms of $`\kappa `$) will be

$$\overline{\kappa ^r}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}|C_{n,n}|^2(2n)^{2r}$$
(63)
and all coefficients squared moduli can be determined,

$$𝒞(2n)=|C_{n,n}|^2,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N/2.$$
(64)
When $`N\mathrm{}`$ and

$$C_{n,n}=\frac{\left(\mathrm{tanh}r\right)^n}{\mathrm{cosh}r},$$
(65)
state (60) is a two-mode squeezed state ($`r`$ is the squeezing parameter) used to establish the quantum channel for the continuous variable teleportation, as reported in . So, all terms can be precisely determined since all depend on the parameter $`r`$ that can be inferred from the relations between the coefficients.

We call attention to the fact that although this procedure permits to determine the coefficient moduli $`|C_{m,m}|`$ of state (60), it does not allow to distinguish this state from the mixed state

$$\rho _{AB}(0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N/2}{}}|C_{n,n}|^2|n,nn,n|$$
(66)
because the same outcomes are inferred, Eq. (63), for the $`r`$-moments.

## V Summary and concluding remarks

We have considered a monitor subsystem $``$ (an EM mode, C) coupled to a system of interest $`𝒮`$, (two interacting modes, A and B), where the interacting term in the hamiltonian contains a QND variable of $`𝒮`$: the total quanta of modes A and B. We proposed a nondeterministic entanglement generation protocol of the two modes, A and B, based on the continuous photodetection theory. By counting destructively $`k`$ photons of the mode C the amount of entanglement of the joint state of modes AB, prepared initially in coherent states, can be controlled. Due to the dissipative character of the non-ideal photodectection model, nonmaximally entangled states (mixtures) are generated. The distribution function for counting photons $`k`$ and time intervals $`t`$ is well defined allowing the determination of the most probable time for the occurrence for each value of $`k`$.

For the sake of comparison we also investigated the case of an ideal or projective measurement (instantaneous) as discussed by von Neumann. The projection of the $`𝒮`$ state in a photon number operator eigenstate $`|k`$ pure entangled of A and B, however no control can be done, because the realization of eigenstate cannot be fixed a priori, it occurs probabilistically.

The post-selected counting distribution function allows calculating the moments of the counted photons of C, which, for $`\gamma t1`$ are closely related to the moments of the squared number of photons of both modes, $`\widehat{N}^2`$, which is a constant of the motion. So, also higher moments of $`\widehat{N}^2`$ can be inferred in a nondemolition measurement. This has a immediate use, as probing the state of the AB system by means of the counting distribution function. Examples were given, and as expected, the extracted information showed to be useful for partial or total reconstruction of the initial state of modes A and B. Since only the squared modulus of the coefficients of the state are given, we remarked that such procedure is not able to distinguish systems between pure or mixed states prepared as maximally entangled.

Although the system here discussed is constituted of EM field modes, the couplings may possibly be realized in other systems such as vibrational degrees of freedom of trapped ions  or even Bose-Einstein condensates . In both cases the coupling of the atomic system with a light field (monitor mode) is able to entangle atomic systems. It is also possible to probe the atomic system state by photocounting on a light beam. In such cases we expect collisions to be important if not restrictive to the method. An obvious extension of the protocol here proposed is to use the classical information achieved to control the AB system state in a continuous feedback process . This allows the coherent control of state entanglement of systems, and would be, indeed, useful for quantum information processing .

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by FAPESP under contract $`\mathrm{\#}`$ 00/15084-5. MCO acknowledges FAPESP São Paulo) for total financial support; LFS acknowledges total financial support from CAPES (Brasília) and SSM acknowledges partial financial support from CNPq (Brasília).

figures