text:
# Lewenstein-Sanpera Decomposition for Iso-concurrence Decomposable States

## 1 Introduction

During the past decade an increasing study has been made on entanglement, although it was discovered many decades ago by Einstein and Schrödinger . This is because of potential resource that entanglement provides for quantum communication and information processing . Entanglement usually arises from quantum correlations between separated subsystems which can not be created by local actions on each subsystems. By definition, a bipartite mixed state $`\rho `$ is said to be separable if it can be expressed as

$$\rho =\underset{i}{}w_i\rho _i^{(1)}\rho _i^{(2)},w_i0,\underset{i}{}w_i=1,$$

where $`\rho _i^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _i^{(2)}`$ denote density matrices of subsystems 1 and 2 respectively. Otherwise the state is entangled.

The central tasks of quantum information theory is to characterize and quantify entangled states. A first attempt in characterization of entangled states has been made by Peres and Horodecki family . It was shown that a necessary condition for separability of a two partite system is that its partial transposition be positive. Horodeckis showed that this condition is sufficient for separability of composite systems only for dimensions $`22`$ and $`23`$.

There is also an increasing attention in quantifying entanglement, particularly for mixed states of a bipartite system, and a number of measures have been proposed . Among them the entanglement of formation has more importance, since it intends to quantify the resources needed to create a given entangled state.

An interesting description of entanglement is Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition . Lewenstein and Sanpera in  have shown that any two partite density matrix can be represented optimally as a sum of a separable state (called best separable approximation (BSA)) and an entangled state. They have also shown that for 2-qubit systems the decomposition reduces to a mixture of a mixed separable state and an entangled pure state, thus all non-separability content of the state is concentrated in the pure entangled state. This leads to an unambiguous measure of entanglement for any 2-qubit state as entanglement of pure state multiplied by the weight of pure part in the decomposition.

In the Ref. , the numerical method for finding the BSA has been reported. Also in $`22`$ systems some analytical results for special states were found in . An analytical expression for L-S decomposition of Bell decomposable states and a class of states obtained from them via some LQCC action is also obtained in .

In this paper we introduce iso-concurrence decomposable (ICD) states. We give an analytical expression for L-S decomposition of these states to show that the average concurrence of the decomposition is equal to their concurrence in these states. As a byproduct we also show that the concurrence of the considered states is equal to amount of violation of positive partial transpose criterion. It is also shown that the product states introduced by Wootters in  form BSA ensemble for these states.

Considering a real matrix parameterization of density matrices, Verstraete et al. in  showed that an local quantum operations and classical communications (LQCC) corresponds to left and right multiplication by a Lorentz matrix. They also have shown that the real parameterization matrices $`R_{ij}=Tr(\rho \sigma _i\sigma _j)`$ can be decomposed as $`R=L_1L_2^T`$, where $`L_1`$ and $`L_2^T`$ are proper Lorentz transformations and $``$ has either a diagonal form correspond to Bell decomposable states or it has a non-diagonal form. For the case that the matrix $``$ becomes Bell decomposable state we presented optimal decomposition for states obtained from them via some LQCC actions . In other cases that $``$ has non-diagonal form, corresponding matrix is a special cases of ICD states, where we consider it in this paper, and investigation of action of LQCC on these states will appear in another paper.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce ICD states, then we study their separability properties. The concurrence of these states is evaluated in section 3, via the method presented by Wootters in . In section 4 we obtain L-S decomposition of these states and we prove that thus obtained decomposition is optimal. The paper is ended with a brief conclusion in section 5.

## 2 Iso-concurrence decomposable states

In this section we define iso-concurrence decomposable (ICD) states, then we give their separability condition. The iso-concurrence states are defined by

$`|\psi _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta |+\mathrm{sin}\theta |),`$ (2-1)
$`|\psi _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta |\mathrm{cos}\theta |),`$ (2-2)
$`|\psi _3=\mathrm{cos}\theta |+\mathrm{sin}\theta |),`$ (2-3)
$`|\psi _4=\mathrm{sin}\theta |\mathrm{cos}\theta |).`$ (2-4)
It is quite easy to see that the above states are orthogonal and thus they span the Hilbert space of $`22`$ systems. Also by choosing $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ the above states reduce to Bell states. Now we can define ICD states as

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i|\psi _i\psi _i|,0p_i1,\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}p_i=1.$$
(2-5)
These states form a four simplex (tetrahedral) with its vertices defined by $`p_1=1`$, $`p_2=1`$, $`p_3=1`$ and $`p_4=1`$, respectively.

A necessary condition for separability of composite quantum systems is presented by Peres . He showed that if a state is separable then the matrix obtained from partial transposition must be positive. Horodecki family  have shown that Peres criterion provides sufficient condition only for separability of mixed quantum states of dimensions $`22`$ and $`23`$. This implies that the state given in Eq. (2-5) is separable if and only if the following inequalities are satisfied

$`(p_1p_2)\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta },`$ (2-6)
$`(p_2p_1)\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta },`$ (2-7)
$`(p_3p_4)\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta },`$ (2-8)
$`(p_4p_3)\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.`$ (2-9)
Inequalities (2-6) to (2-9) divide tetrahedral of density matrices to five regions. Central regions, defined by the above inequalities, form a deformed octahedral and are separable states. In four other regions one of the above inequality will not hold, therefore they represent entangled states. In the next sections we consider entangled states corresponding to violation of inequality (2-6) i.e. the states which satisfy the following inequality

$$(p_1p_2)>\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.$$
(2-10)
All other ICD states can be obtain via local unitary transformations.

## 3 Concurrence

In this section we first review concurrence of mixed states. From the various measures proposed to quantify entanglement, the entanglement of formation has a special position which in fact intends to quantify the resources needed to create a given entangled state . Wootters in  has shown that for a 2-qubit system entanglement of formation of a mixed state $`\rho `$ can be defined as

$$E(\rho )=H\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1C^2}\right),$$
(3-11)
where $`H(x)=x\mathrm{ln}x(1x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ is the binary entropy and the concurrence $`C(\rho )`$ is defined by

$$C(\rho )=\mathrm{max}\{0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4\},$$
(3-12)
where the $`\lambda _i`$ are the non-negative eigenvalues, with $`\lambda _1`$ being the largest one, of the Hermitian matrix $`R\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\rho }\sqrt{\rho }}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y),$$
(3-13)
where $`\rho ^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\rho `$ when it is expressed in a fixed basis such as $`\{|,|\},\{|,|\}`$ and $`\sigma _y`$ represent Pauli matrix in local basis $`\{|,|\}`$ .

In order to obtain the concurrence of ICD states we the follow method presented by Wootters in . Starting from spectral decomposition for ICD states given in Eq. (2-5), we define subnormalized orthogonal eigenvectors $`|v_i`$ as

$$|v_i=\sqrt{p_i}|\psi _i,v_iv_j=p_i\delta _{ij}.$$
(3-14)
Now we can define states $`|x_i`$ by

$$|x_i=\underset{j}{\overset{4}{}}U_{ij}^{}|v_i,\text{for}i=1,2,3,4,$$
(3-15)
such that

$$x_i\stackrel{~}{x}_j=(U\tau U^T)_{ij}=\lambda _i\delta _{ij},$$
(3-16)
where $`\tau _{ij}=v_iv_j`$ is a symmetric but not necessarily Hermitian matrix. To construct $`|x_i`$ we consider the fact that for any symmetric matrix $`\tau `$ one can always find a unitary matrix $`U`$ in such a way that $`\lambda _i`$ are real and non-negative, that is, they are the square roots of eigenvalues of $`\tau \tau ^{}`$ which are same as eigenvalues of $`R`$. Moreover one can always find $`U`$ such that $`\lambda _1`$ being the largest one.

By using the above protocol we get the following expression for state of $`\rho `$ given in Eq. (2-5)

$$\tau =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}p_1\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{p_1p_2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 0& 0\\ \sqrt{p_1p_2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & p_2\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& p_3\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \sqrt{p_3p_4}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \\ 0& 0& \sqrt{p_3p_4}\mathrm{cos}2\theta & p_4\mathrm{sin}2\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(3-17)
Now it is easy to evaluate $`\lambda _i`$ which yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1=\frac{1}{2}\left((p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right),\\ \lambda _2=\frac{1}{2}\left((p_2p_1)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right),\\ \lambda _3=\frac{1}{2}\left((p_3p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right),\\ \lambda _4=\frac{1}{2}\left((p_4p_3)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right).\end{array}$$
(3-18)
Thus one can evaluate the concurrence of ICD states as

$$C=(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.$$
(3-19)
It is worth to note that thus obtained concurrence is equal to the amount of violation of inequality (2-10).

Finally we introduce the unitary matrix $`U`$ which is going to be used later

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i\alpha _1& i\alpha _2& 0& 0\\ \alpha _2& \alpha _1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha _3& \alpha _4\\ 0& 0& i\alpha _4& i\alpha _3\end{array}\right),$$
(3-20)
where

$$\alpha _1=\frac{\left((p_1+p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right)}{\sqrt{2}\left(4p_1p_2\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +(p_1+p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta +(p_1+p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right)},$$

$$\alpha _2=\frac{\sqrt{2p_1p_2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{\left(4p_1p_2\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +(p_1+p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta +(p_1+p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_1p_2+(p_1p_2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right)},$$

(3-21)
$$\alpha _3=\frac{\left((p_3+p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right)}{\sqrt{2}\left(4p_3p_4\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +(p_3+p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta +(p_3+p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right)},$$

$$\alpha _4=\frac{\sqrt{2p_3p_4}\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{\left(4p_3p_4\mathrm{cos}^22\theta +(p_3+p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta +(p_3+p_4)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }\right)}.$$

## 4 Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition

According to Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition , any 2-qubit density matrix $`\rho `$ can be written as

$$\rho =\lambda \rho _{sep}+(1\lambda )|\psi \psi |,\lambda [0,1],$$
(4-22)
where $`\rho _{sep}`$ is a separable density matrix and $`|\psi `$ is a pure entangled state. The Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition of a given density matrix $`\rho `$ is not unique and, in general, there is a continuum set of L-S decomposition to choose from. The optimal decomposition is, however, unique for which $`\lambda `$ is maximal and

$$\rho =\lambda ^{(opt)}\rho _{sep}^{(opt)}+(1\lambda ^{(opt)})|\psi ^{(opt)}\psi ^{(opt)}|,\lambda ^{(opt)}[0,1].$$
(4-23)
Lewenstein and Sanpera in  have shown that any other decomposition of the form $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{sep}+(1\stackrel{~}{\lambda })|\stackrel{~}{\psi }\stackrel{~}{\psi }|`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }\rho ^{(opt)}`$ necessarily implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }<\lambda ^{(opt)}`$ . We refer to Eq. (4-23) as optimal decomposition in the sense that $`\lambda `$ is maximal and $`\rho _s`$ is the best separable approximation (BSA).

Here in this section we would like to obtain L-S decomposition for ICD states. Let us consider entangled state $`\rho `$ belonging to entangled region defined by Eq. (2-10). We start by writing density matrix $`\rho `$ as a convex sum of pure state $`|\psi _1`$ and separable state $`\rho _s`$ as

$$\rho =\lambda \rho _s+(1\lambda )|\psi _1\psi _1|.$$
(4-24)
where, $`\rho _s`$ corresponds to intersection of the line passing through the points corresponding to $`|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ and $`\rho `$ with 2-dimensional manifold defined by the equality in relation (2-6). Expanding separable state $`\rho _s`$ as $`\rho _s=_{i=1}^4p_i^{}|\psi _i\psi _i|`$ and using Eq. (2-5) for $`\rho `$ we arrive at the following results

$$p_1^{}=\frac{p_1+\lambda 1}{\lambda },p_i^{}=\frac{p_i}{\lambda }\text{for}i=2,3,4,$$
(4-25)
where

$$\lambda =1p_1+p_2+\sqrt{\frac{4p_3p_4}{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }+(p_3p_4)^2}.$$
(4-26)
Now using the fact that for pure states defined in Eqs. (2-1) to (2-4) we have $`C(|\psi _i)=\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$, one can easily evaluate average concurrence of the decomposition given in Eq. (4-24) as

$$(1\lambda )C(|\psi _1)=(p_1p_2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta \sqrt{4p_3p_4+(p_3p_4)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }.$$
(4-27)
Equation (4-27) shows that average concurrence of $`\rho `$ in the L-S decomposition given in (4-24) is equal to its concurrence. As the concurrence of a mixed state is defined as the minimum of the average concurrence over all decompositions of the state in terms of pure states , so according to Eq. (4-24) we should have $`C(\rho )(1\lambda )C(\psi )`$. But Eq. (4-27) shows that the optimal decomposition of ICD states saturate this inequality.

In the rest of this section we will prove that the decomposition (4-24) is the optimal one. To do so we have to find a decomposition for $`\rho _s`$ in terms of product states $`|e_\alpha ,f_\alpha `$, i.e.

$$\rho _s=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |e_\alpha ,f_\alpha e_\alpha ,f_\alpha |$$
(4-28)
such that the following conditions are satisfied

i) All $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ are maximal with respect to $`\rho _\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |e_\alpha ,f_\alpha e_\alpha ,f_\alpha \left|+(1\lambda )\right|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ and projector $`P_\alpha =|e_\alpha ,f_\alpha e_\alpha ,f_\alpha |`$.

ii) All pairs $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta )`$ are maximal with respect to $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |e_\alpha ,f_\alpha e_\alpha ,f_\alpha \left|+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta \right|e_\beta ,f_\beta e_\beta ,f_\beta \left|+(1\lambda )\right|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ and the pairs of projector $`(P_\alpha ,P_\beta )`$.

Then according to  $`\rho _s`$ is BSA and the decomposition given in Eq. (4-24) is optimal.

Lewenstein and Sanpera in  have shown that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is maximal with respect to $`\rho `$ and $`P=|\psi \psi |`$ iff a) if $`|\psi (\rho )`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and b) if $`|\psi (\rho )`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\psi \left|\rho ^1\right|\psi ^1>0`$. They have also shown that a pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ is maximal with respect to $`\rho `$ and a pair of projectors $`(P_1,P_2)`$ iff: a) if $`|\psi _1`$, $`|\psi _2`$ do not belong to $`(\rho )`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=0`$; b) if $`|\psi _1`$ does not belong, while $`|\psi _2(\rho )`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\psi _2\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _2^1`$; c) if $`|\psi _1`$, $`|\psi _2(\rho )`$ and $`\psi _1\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _2=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\psi _i\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _i^1`$, $`i=1,2`$; d) finally, if $`|\psi _1,|\psi _2(\rho )`$ and $`\psi _1\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _20`$ then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\hfill & \hfill (\psi _2\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _2\psi _1\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _2)/D,\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\hfill & \hfill (\psi _1\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _1\psi _1\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _2)/D,\end{array}$$
(4-29)
where $`D=\psi _1\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _1\psi _2\left|\rho ^1\right|\psi _2\psi _1\left|\rho _1\right|\psi _2^2`$.

Now we return to show that the decomposition given in (4-24) is optimal. Wootters in  has shown that any $`22`$ separable density matrix can be expanded in terms of following product states

$$|z_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i\theta _1}|x_1+e^{i\theta _2}|x_2+e^{i\theta _3}|x_3+e^{i\theta _4}|x_4\right),$$
(4-30)
$$|z_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i\theta _1}|x_1+e^{i\theta _2}|x_2e^{i\theta _3}|x_3e^{i\theta _4}|x_4\right),$$
(4-31)
$$|z_3=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i\theta _1}|x_1e^{i\theta _2}|x_2+e^{i\theta _3}|x_3e^{i\theta _4}|x_4\right),$$
(4-32)
$$|z_4=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i\theta _1}|x_1e^{i\theta _2}|x_2e^{i\theta _3}|x_3+e^{i\theta _4}|x_4\right),$$
(4-33)
provided that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _40`$. Now, the zero concurrence is guaranteed by choosing phases $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2,3,4`$ satisfying the relation $`_{j=1}e^{2i\theta _j}\lambda _j=0`$.

Now using the fact that for marginal separable states $`\rho _s`$ (located at the boundary of separable region) the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ satisfy the constraint $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4=0`$, we can choose the phase factors $`\theta _i`$ as $`\theta _2=\theta _3=\theta _4=\theta _1+\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Choosing $`\theta _1=0`$ we arrive at the following product ensemble for $`\rho _s`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |z_1=\frac{1}{2}(i(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_1^{}}|\psi _1i(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_2^{}}|\psi _2& \\ \hfill (\alpha _4^{}+i\alpha _3^{})\sqrt{p_3^{}}|\psi _3(\alpha _3^{}i\alpha _4^{})\sqrt{p_4^{}}|\psi _4),& \\ \hfill |z_2=\frac{1}{2}(i(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_1^{}}|\psi _1i(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_2^{}}|\psi _2& \\ \hfill +(\alpha _4^{}+i\alpha _3^{})\sqrt{p_3^{}}|\psi _3+(\alpha _3^{}i\alpha _4^{})\sqrt{p_4^{}}|\psi _4),& \\ \hfill |z_3=\frac{1}{2}(i(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_1^{}}|\psi _1+i(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_2^{}}|\psi _2& \\ \hfill +(\alpha _4^{}i\alpha _3^{})\sqrt{p_3^{}}|\psi _3+(\alpha _3^{}+i\alpha _4^{})\sqrt{p_4^{}}|\psi _4),& \\ \hfill |z_4=\frac{1}{2}(i(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_1^{}}|\psi _1+i(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})\sqrt{p_2^{}}|\psi _2& \\ \hfill (\alpha _4^{}i\alpha _3^{})\sqrt{p_3^{}}|\psi _3(\alpha _3^{}+i\alpha _4^{})\sqrt{p_4^{}}|\psi _4),& \end{array}$$
(4-34)
where $`\alpha _i^{}`$ are defined in the same form as given in Eq. (3-21) provided that they are expressed in terms of $`p_i^{}`$ (coordinates of $`\rho _s`$).

Now in order to prove that the decomposition given in Eq. (4-22) is optimal we first consider the cases that $`\rho `$ has full rank. Let us consider the set of four product vectors $`\{|z_i\}`$ and one entangled state $`|\psi _1`$. In Ref.  it is shown that the ensemble $`\{|z_i\}`$ are linearly independent, also it is straightforward to see that three vectors $`|z_\alpha `$ , $`|z_\beta `$ and $`|\psi _1`$ are linearly independent. Now let us consider matrices $`\rho _\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |z_\alpha z_\alpha \left|+(1\lambda )\right|\psi _1\psi _1|`$. Due to independence of $`|z_\alpha `$ and $`|\psi _1`$ we can deduce that the range of $`\rho _\alpha `$ is two dimensional, thus after restriction to its range and defining dual basis $`|\widehat{z}_\alpha `$ and $`|\widehat{\psi }_1`$ we can expand restricted inverse $`\rho _\alpha ^1`$ as $`\rho _\alpha ^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^1|\widehat{z}_\alpha \widehat{z}_\alpha |+(1\lambda )^1|\widehat{\psi }_1\widehat{\psi }_1|`$ (see appendix). Using Eq. (5-35) it is easy to see that $`z_\alpha |\rho _\alpha ^1|z_\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^1`$. This shows that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ are maximal with respect to $`\rho _\alpha `$ and the projector $`P_\alpha =|z_\alpha z_\alpha |`$.

Similarly considering matrices $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |z_\alpha z_\alpha \left|+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta \right|z_\beta z_\beta \left|+(1\lambda )\right|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ and considering the independence of vectors $`|z_\alpha `$, $`|z_\beta `$ and $`|\psi _1`$ we see that rang of $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }`$ is three dimensional where after restriction to its range and defining their dual basis $`|\widehat{z}_\alpha `$, $`|\widehat{z}_\beta `$ and $`|\widehat{\psi }_1`$ we can write restricted inverse $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }^1`$ as $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^1|\widehat{z}_\alpha \widehat{z}_\alpha |+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^1|\widehat{z}_\beta \widehat{z}_\beta |+(1\lambda )^1|\widehat{\psi }_1\widehat{\psi }_1|`$. Then it is straightforward to get $`\widehat{e}_\alpha \left|\rho _{\alpha \beta }^1\right|\widehat{z}_\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ^1`$, $`\widehat{z}_\beta \left|\rho _{\alpha \beta }^1\right|\widehat{z}_\beta =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^1`$ and $`\widehat{z}_\alpha \left|\rho _{\alpha \beta }^1\right|\widehat{z}_\beta =0`$. This implies that the pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta )`$ are maximal with respect to $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }`$ and the pair of projectors $`(P_\alpha ,P_\beta )`$, thus complete the proof that the decomposition given in Eq. (4-22) is optimal.

We now consider the cases that $`\rho `$ has not full rank. First let us consider $`p_2^{}=0`$ case. In this case the pairs $`\{|z_1,|z_2\}`$ and also $`\{|z_3,|z_4\}`$ are no longer independent with respect to $`|\psi _1`$. In this cases we can easily evaluate $`|\psi _1`$ in terms of $`|z_1`$ and $`|z_2`$ then matrix $`\rho _{12}`$ can be written in terms of two basis $`|z_1`$ and $`|z_2`$ which yields after some calculations, $`z_1|\rho _{12}^1|z_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})^2p_1^{}+(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}`$, $`z_2|\rho _{12}^1|z_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})^2p_1^{}+(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}`$ and $`z_1|\rho _{12}^1|z_2=\frac{(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2(\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2^{})^2p_1^{}+(1\lambda )(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$. Using the above results together with Eqs. (4-29) we obtain the maximality of pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ with respect to $`\rho _{12}`$ and the pair of projectors $`(P_1,P_2)`$. Similarly we can express $`|\psi _1`$ in terms of $`|z_3`$ and $`|z_4`$ and evaluate $`\rho _{34}^1`$, which get $`z_3|\rho _{34}^1|z_3=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})^2p_1^{}+(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}}`$, $`z_4|\rho _{34}^1|z_4=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})^2p_1^{}+(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}}`$ and $`z_3|\rho _{34}^1|z_4=\frac{(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})^2p_1^{}+(1\lambda )(\mathrm{\Lambda }_3+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4)`$, together with Eqs. (4-29) we obtain the maximality of pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_4)`$ with respect to $`\rho _{34}`$ and the pair of projectors $`(P_3,P_4)`$. For other choices of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ three vectors $`|z_\alpha `$ ,$`|z_\beta `$ and $`|\psi _1`$ remain linearly independent, thus with the above mentioned method we can prove the maximality of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta )`$.

Also in the cases of $`p_3^{}=0`$ or $`p_4^{}=0`$, three vectors $`|z_\alpha `$ ,$`|z_\beta `$ and $`|\psi _1`$ remain linearly independent thus maximality of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta )`$ can be proven in the same method of full rank one.

Now let us consider the cases that rank $`\rho `$ is 2. In this case we have to write the separable part in terms of rank one projection operators which are not product any more but as far as the maximality of pairs(the requirement for the maximality of separable part of density matrix in this case) are concerned the separability of the projectors does not play any role.

For $`p_2=p_3=0`$ we have $`p_1^{}=p_4^{}=\frac{1}{2}`$, therefore $`\rho _s`$ can be written as

$$\rho _s=\frac{1}{2}\left(|\psi _1\psi _1|+|\psi _4\psi _4|\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(|e_1,f_1e_1,f_1|+|e_2,f_2e_2,f_2|\right),$$

where $`|e_{1,2},f_{1,2}=\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta |i\mathrm{sin}\theta |\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\pm i|\right)`$. Now by writing $`|\psi _1`$ in terms of product states $`|e_1,f_1`$ and $`|e_2,f_2`$ the matrix $`\rho _{12}`$ can be expressed in terms of two basis $`|e_1,f_1`$, $`|e_2,f_2`$ and we get $`e_1,f_1|\rho _{12}^1|e_1,f_1=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}`$, $`e_2,f_2|\rho _{12}^1|e_2,f_2=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}`$ and $`e_1,f_1|\rho _{12}^1|e_2,f_2=\frac{(1\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+(1\lambda )(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$. Using the above results together with Eqs. (4-29) we obtain the maximality of pair $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$ with respect to $`\rho _{12}`$ and the pair of projectors $`(P_1,P_2)`$. The other rank-2 cases can be proved via similar method.

## 5 Conclusion

We have derived Lewenstein-Sanpera decomposition for iso-concurrence decomposable states. It is shown that for these states the average concurrence of L-S decomposition is equal to the concurrence of the states. It is also shown that Wootters product states defined in  form the best separable approximation ensemble for these states.

Appendix

Let us consider the set of linearly independent vectors $`\{|\varphi _i\}`$, then one can define their dual vectors $`\{|\widehat{\varphi }_i\}`$ such that the following relation

$$\widehat{\varphi }_i\varphi _j=\delta _{ij}$$
(5-35)
hold. It is straightforward to show that the $`\{|\varphi _i\}`$ and their dual $`\{|\widehat{\varphi }_i\}`$ posses the following completeness relation

$$\underset{i}{}|\widehat{\varphi }_i\varphi _i|=I,\underset{i}{}|\varphi _i\widehat{\varphi }_i|=I.$$
(5-36)
Consider an invertible operator $`M`$ which is expanded in terms of states $`|\varphi _i`$ as

$$M=\underset{i}{}a_{ij}|\varphi _i\varphi _j|$$
(5-37)
Then the inverse of $`M`$ denoted by $`M^1`$ can be expanded in terms of dual bases as

$$M^1=\underset{i}{}b_{ij}|\widehat{\varphi }_i\widehat{\varphi }_j|$$
(5-38)
where $`b_{ij}=(A^1)_{ij}`$ and $`A_{ij}=a_{ij}`$.


format: text

text:
# Fermion scattering off electroweak phase transition kink walls with hypermagnetic fields

## I Introduction

The possible existence of magnetic fields in the early universe has recently become the subject of intense research due to the many interesting cosmological implications that these entail reviews . For instance, magnetic fields can influence big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), affecting the primordial abundance of light elements and the rate of expansion of the universe. The success of the standard BBN scenario can be used to set limits on the strength of the magnetic fields at this epoch. Moreover, at decoupling, long range magnetic fields can induce anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Temperature anisotropies from COBE results place an upper bound $`B_010^9`$G for homogeneous fields ($`B_0`$ refers to the intensity that the field would have today under the assumption of adiabatic decay due to the Hubble expansion) Barrow . In the case of inhomogeneous fields their effect must be searched for in the Doppler peaks Adams  and in the polarization of the CMBR Kosov . The future CMBR satellite missions MAP and PLANCK may reach the required sensitivity for the detection of these last signals.

Another interesting cosmological consequence is the effect that primordial magnetic fields could have had on the dynamics of the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) at temperatures of the order of $`T100`$ GeV. In fact, it has been recently pointed out that, provided enough CP violation exists, large scale primordial magnetic fields can be responsible for a stronger first order EWPT Giovannini ; Elmfors ; Giovannini2  (see however Ref. Skalozub ). The situation is similar to a type I superconductor where the presence of an external magnetic field modifies the nature of the superconducting phase transition due to the Meissner effect.

Recall that for temperatures above the EWPT, the SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)Y symmetry is restored and the propagating, non-screened vector modes that represent a magnetic field correspond to the U(1)Y group instead of to the U(1)em group, and are therefore properly called hypermagnetic fields.

In a previous work Ayala2 , we have shown, by using a simplified picture of a first order EWPT, that the presence of such fields also provides a mechanism, working in the same manner as the existence of additional CP violation within the SM, to produce an axial charge segregation in the scattering of fermions off the true vacuum bubbles The asymmetry in the scattering of fermion axial modes is a consequence of the chiral nature of the fermion coupling to hypermagnetic fields in the symmetric phase. The simplification consisted in considering the limit of an infinitely thin bubble wall. This assumption allowed us to formulate the problem in terms of solving the Dirac equation with a position dependent fermion mass, proportional to a step function, this last being zero in the false phase and non-vanishing in the broken symmetry phase. This treatment rendered analytic solutions from where reflection and transmission coefficients for axial modes were straightforward computed.

In spite of the relative ease for the computation in such a scheme, there are two limitations related to the sudden change in the Higgs field profile that needed to be addressed. First, it is well known that the negative energy solutions of the Dirac equation become important in situations where the potential energy term changes over distances smaller than the particle’s Compton wave length. Second, the height and width of the wall are typically related to each other in such a way that it is not entirely realistic to vary one without affecting the other.

In this paper we overcome the above limitations by allowing a finite width of the Higgs field profile. Working in the thin wall regime, we use the kink solution of the Higgs field to formulate and solve the Dirac equation in the presence of hypermagnetic fields. We compute explicitly transmission and reflection coefficients for the axial modes incident on the wall from the symmetric phase. Since these are related to the corresponding coefficients for fermions incident from the broken symmetry phase by CPT and Unitarity, we find that the axial charge segregation still happens during fermion scattering of this wall. The existence of such asymmetric reflection for the axial modes provides a bias for baryon over antibaryon production. In the absence of hypermagnetic fields, this mechanism has been proposed and studied in Refs. Dine ; Cohen ; Nelson  in extensions of the SM.

The outline of this work is as follows: In Sect. II, we briefly review how the kink solution for the spatial profile of the Higgs field is obtained from a finite temperature effective potential. In Sect. III, we set up the Dirac equation for fermions moving in this background Higgs field in the presence of an external hypermagnetic field. Section. IV is devoted to a rather technical discussion about the solutions of this equation and their properties. In Sect. V, we use the above solutions to compute reflection and transmission coefficients for axial fermion modes moving from the symmetric phase toward the broken symmetry phase. We show that these coefficients differ for the two distinct helicity modes. Finally in Sect. VI, we conclude by looking out at the possible implications of such axially asymmetric fermion reflection and transmission.

## II Kink solution

To describe the EWPT, we start by writing the effective, finite temperature Higgs potential which, including all the one-loop effects and ring diagrams, looks like

$`V_{\text{eff}}(h,T)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(T^2T_c^2)h^2\delta Th^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}h^4,`$ (1)
where $`h=\sqrt{2}(H^{}H)^{1/2}`$ is the strength of the SU(2) Higgs doublet $`H`$ whose vacuum expectation value is given by

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (2)
The parameters $`\gamma `$, $`\delta `$ and $`\lambda `$ have been computed perturbatively to one loop and can be expressed in terms of $`v`$, the SU(2) gauge boson masses and the top mass. Their explicit expressions can be found elsewhere (see for example Ref. Elmfors ). $`\delta `$ is the parameter responsible for the first order nature of the phase transition. It is the parameter that gets enhanced in the presence of hypermagnetic fields. $`T_c`$ is the critical temperature at which spinodal decomposition proceeds.

We can write the effective potential in a more transparent form Turok  by introducing the dimensionless temperature $`\vartheta `$ and the dimensionless Higgs field strength $`\phi `$

$`\vartheta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \gamma }{\delta ^2}}\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_c}{T}}\right)^2\right]`$
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\delta T}}h,`$ (3)
in terms of which, the effective potential, Eq. (1), becomes

$`V_{\text{eff}}(\phi )=\delta T\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{\lambda }}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{2}}\phi ^2\phi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\phi ^4\right).`$ (4)
For simplicity, we work in the approximation where the energy densities of both the unbroken and broken phases are degenerate. This happens for a value of $`\vartheta =2`$. In this approximation, the phase transition is described by a one-dimensional solution for the Higgs field, called the kink, which separates the two phases. This is given by

$`\phi (x)=1+\mathrm{tanh}(x),`$ (5)
where the dimensionless position coordinate $`x`$ is

$`x={\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{\sqrt{2\lambda }}}z.`$ (6)
The parameter $`\sqrt{2\lambda }/(\delta T)`$ represents the width of the domain wall Liu . It can also be checked that this parameter becomes smaller in the presence of hypermagnetic fields.

In terms of the kink solution we can see that $`x=\mathrm{}`$ represents the region outside the bubble, that is the region in the symmetric phase. Conversely, for $`x=+\mathrm{}`$, the system is inside the bubble, that is in the broken phase. The kink wall propagates with a velocity determined by its interactions with the surrounding plasma. This velocity can be anywhere between 0.1–0.9 the speed of light Megevand .

## III Dirac equation for axial fermions in a background hypermagnetic field

In the presence of an external magnetic field, we need to consider that fermion modes couple differently to the field in the broken symmetry and the symmetry restored phases.

For $`z0`$, the coupling is chiral. Let

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\gamma _5\right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\gamma _5\right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (7)
represent, as usual, the right and left-handed chirality modes for the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, respectively. Then, the equations of motion for these modes, as derived from the electroweak interaction Lagrangian, are

$`(i\overline{)}{\displaystyle \frac{y_L}{2}}g^{}A\overline{)})\mathrm{\Psi }_Lm(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`(i\overline{)}{\displaystyle \frac{y_R}{2}}g^{}A\overline{)})\mathrm{\Psi }_Rm(z)\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
where $`y_{R,L}`$ are the right and left-handed hypercharges corresponding to the given fermion, respectively, $`g^{}`$ the $`U(1)_Y`$ coupling constant and we take $`A^\mu =(0,𝐀)`$ representing a, not as yet specified, four-vector potential having non-zero components only for its spatial part, in the rest frame of the wall.

The set of Eqs. (8) can be written as a single equation for the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ by adding up the former equations

$`\{i\overline{)}A\overline{)}[{\displaystyle \frac{y_R}{4}}g^{}\left(1+\gamma _5\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{y_L}{4}}g^{}\left(1\gamma _5\right)]m(z)\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$
(9)
where the fermion mass $`m(z)`$ is proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. Hereafter, we explicitly work in the chiral representation of the gamma matrices where

$`\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill I\\ \hfill I& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)𝜸=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 𝝈\\ \hfill \mathbf{}𝝈& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill I\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
Within this representation, we can write Eq. (9) as

$`\left\{i\overline{)}𝒢A_\mu \gamma ^\mu m(z)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (17)
where we have introduced the matrix

$`𝒢=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{y_L}{2}g^{}I& 0\\ 0& \frac{y_R}{2}g^{}I\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
We now look at the corresponding equation in the broken symmetry phase. For $`z0`$ the coupling of the fermion with the external field is through the electric charge $`e`$ and thus, the equation of motion is simply the Dirac equation describing an electrically charged fermion in a background magnetic field, namely,

$`\left\{i\overline{)}eA_\mu \gamma ^\mu m(z)\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (21)
In the following section, we explicitly construct the solutions to Eqs. (17) and (21) with a constant magnetic field, requiring that these match at the interface $`z=0`$.

## IV Solving the Dirac Equation

Let us first find the solution to Eq. (17), namely, for fermions moving in the symmetric phase, $`z0`$. For this purpose, we look for a solution of the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left\{i\overline{)}A_\mu \gamma ^\mu 𝒢+m(z)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (22)
Inserting this expression into Eq. (17), we obtain

$`\{`$ $``$ $`^2i𝒢^\mu A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }𝒢F_{\mu \nu }`$ (23)
$`2i`$ $`𝒢A_\mu ^\mu +𝒢^2A_\mu A^\mu +i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m(z)\}\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$
where, as usual,

$`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .`$ (24)
Given that the present analysis is carried out in the thin wall approximation, which in physical terms means that the spatial region over which the fermion mass changes is small compared to other relevant length scales such as the particle mean free path, our choice of external gauge fields and thus field strengths should try to capture this information, namely, that the change in the magnetic field strength occurs over a small spatial region. An exact treatment of the gauge fields should be to find the configuration that incorporates the boundary conditions imposed by the change in the Higgs profile. This treatment will render continuous gauge fields across the interface. An additional feature will be the generation of a component of the magnetic field directed along the transverse direction, since the longitudinal component of the gauge fields will vary along the longitudinal direction. This component will be localized also in the small region comprised by the phase boundary.

Notice then that when including this transverse component of the magnetic field into the Dirac equation, the separation of variables that factorizes longitudinal and transverse motion will not be possible. However, as long as this transverse field is confined to a small region and its strength is not too large to avoid capturing low energy fermions, it is a reasonable approximation to consider a constant field in the longitudinal direction since when the incident flux is not lost in modes captured on the wall, the probabilities of transmission and reflection depend on the particle currents computed in the asymptotic regions which in turn depend only on the fermion coupling to the external field, already constant in these regions.

To estimate the magnitude of such a transverse field able to capture fermions on the wall, let us consider the following classical argument. Equilibrium between the Lorentz force and the centrifugal force gives for the radius of the orbit for a particle trapped in the wall $`R=p/(eB)`$ where $`p`$ is the particle’s momentum, $`e`$ is its charge and $`B`$ the strength of the magnetic field. Taking $`R`$ as the wall width $`\lambda `$, and since \[see Eq. (43)\], $`B=b/(\lambda ^2)`$, then $`b=p\lambda /e`$. Taking $`pT`$ (the momentum of a typical particle in thermal equilibrium) and since $`\lambda T^1`$ \[see Eq. (6)\] means that $`b3`$ which is already a very high value of the magnetic field. Particles with smaller momenta could however be trapped in this transverse component of the field. For the purposes of the present work, we postpone the consequences of such external field configuration and consider a piece wise constant magnetic field.

For definiteness, let us consider the field $`𝐁=B\widehat{z}`$ pointing along the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction. In this case, the vector potential $`𝐀`$ can only have components perpendicular to $`\widehat{z}`$ and the solution to Eq. (23) factorizes as Cea ; Cea2

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,𝒙)=\tau (x,y)\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z).`$ (25)
We concentrate on the solution describing the motion of positive energy fermions perpendicular to the wall, i.e., along the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis. We thus look for stationary states, namely

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,z)=e^{iEt}\mathrm{\Phi }(z).`$ (26)
Therefore, working in the Lorentz gauge, $`^\mu A_\mu =0`$, Eq. (23) becomes

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}+i\gamma ^3{\displaystyle \frac{dm(z)}{dz}}+E^2+iB𝒢\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=0.`$ (27)
Notice that Eqs. (23) and (27) have the appropriate limit when $`y_R=y_L=e`$, corresponding to the description of fermions coupled with their electric charge to a background magnetic field Cea .

We now expand $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ in terms of the eigen-spinors $`u_\pm ^s`$ $`(s=1,2)`$ of $`\gamma ^3`$ Ayala ,

$`u_\pm ^1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 1\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill \pm i\\ \hfill 0\end{array}\right)u_\pm ^2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill i\end{array}\right).`$ (36)
These spinors have the properties

$`\gamma ^3u_\pm ^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm iu_\pm ^{1,2}`$
$`\gamma ^0u_\pm ^1`$ $`=`$ $`iu_{}^1`$
$`\gamma ^0u_\pm ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\pm iu_{}^2`$
$`\gamma ^1\gamma ^2u_\pm ^1`$ $`=`$ $`iu_\pm ^1`$
$`\gamma ^1\gamma ^2u_\pm ^2`$ $`=`$ $`+iu_\pm ^2`$
$`\gamma _5u_\pm ^{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{}^{1,2}.`$ (37)
Writing

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\varphi _+^1(z)u_+^1+\varphi _{}^1(z)u_{}^1+\varphi _+^2(z)u_+^2+\varphi _{}^2(z)u_{}^2`$
(38)
and inserting this expression into Eq. (27), we obtain

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{dz}}+(E^2m^2)+g^{}B{\displaystyle \frac{(y_L+y_R)}{4}}\right]\varphi _+^1(z)`$ $`+`$
$`g^{}B{\displaystyle \frac{(y_Ly_R)}{4}}\varphi _{}^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{dz}}+(E^2m^2)+g^{}B{\displaystyle \frac{(y_L+y_R)}{4}}\right]\varphi _{}^1(z)`$ $`+`$
$`g^{}B{\displaystyle \frac{(y_Ly_R)}{4}}\varphi _+^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
and

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{dz}}+(E^2m^2)g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_L+y_R)}{4}}B\right]\varphi _+^2(z)`$ $``$
$`g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_Ly_R)}{4}}B\varphi _{}^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{dz}}+(E^2m^2)g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_L+y_R)}{4}}B\right]\varphi _{}^2(z)`$ $``$
$`g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(y_Ly_R)}{4}}B\varphi _+^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Equations (LABEL:set1) and (LABEL:set2), represent, each, a set of two coupled second-order differential equations. The second set is obtained from the first one by changing $`B`$ to $`B`$. Consequently, Eqs. (LABEL:set1) and the corresponding functions and spinors with $`s=1`$ describe the motion of the spin components parallel to to magnetic field whereas Eqs. (LABEL:set2) and the functions and spinors with $`s=2`$, describe the motion of the spin components antiparallel to the magnetic field. Notice that in the limit when $`y_R=y_L=e`$, each set of equations decouple as is the case when describing the interaction of fermions with the magnetic field through their electric charge.

From now on, we focus on the set of Eqs. (LABEL:set1), since, as we have pointed out, the solutions to Eqs. (LABEL:set2) are obtained from those to Eqs. (LABEL:set1) by changing $`B`$ to $`B`$.

We now extract the dimensions writing the equations in terms of the dimensionless position coordinate $`x`$ given in Eq. (6) and, furthermore, writing them in terms of the new variable

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{tanh}(x)}{2}}`$ (41)
obtaining, respectively,

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12u}{u(1u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{u(1u)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{4u^2(1u)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}b(y_L+y_R)}{16u^2(1u)^2}}]\varphi _+^1(u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}b(y_Ly_R)}{16u^2(1u)^2}}\varphi _{}^1(u)=0`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12u}{u(1u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{u(1u)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{4u^2(1u)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}b(y_L+y_R)}{16u^2(1u)^2}}]\varphi _{}^1(u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}b(y_Ly_R)}{16u^2(1u)^2}}\varphi _+^1(u)=0`$ ,
where the parameters $`b`$ and $`\xi `$ are related to the magnetic field strength and the fermion mass by

$`b`$ $``$ $`B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{\sqrt{2\lambda }}}\right)^2`$
$`m(x)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{\sqrt{2\lambda }}}\right)\xi \phi (x)`$ (43)
and furthermore, $`\xi `$ represents twice the ratio of the fermion mass to the Higgs mass. $`ϵ`$ is the energy parameter given by

$`ϵ=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{\sqrt{2\lambda }}}\right)^1E.`$ (44)
To further simplify Eqs. (LABEL:sets12dimless), we try the ansatz

$`\varphi _\pm ^1(u)=u^{\alpha _1}(1u)^{\beta _1}\chi _\pm ^1`$ (45)
and examine the behavior of the resulting differential equations near the singular points $`u=0`$ and $`u=1`$. Assuming that the functions $`\chi _\pm `$ vary slowly near these singularities, we obtain the conditions

$`\alpha _1=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{ϵ^2+\frac{g^{}}{2}by_L4\xi ^2}\alpha _1^L\\ \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{ϵ^2+\frac{g^{}}{2}by_R4\xi ^2}\alpha _1^R\end{array}`$ (48)
$`\beta _1=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{ϵ^2+\frac{g^{}}{2}by_L}\beta _1^L\\ \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{ϵ^2+\frac{g^{}}{2}by_R}\beta _1^R\end{array}.`$ (51)
Thus, to each pair of parameters, namely $`(\alpha _1^L,\beta _1^L)`$ and $`(\alpha _1^R,\beta _1^R)`$, corresponds a pair of coupled differential equations which we write as

$`[u(1u){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}+[c^{1L}(1+a_{}^{1L}+b_{}^{1L})u]{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}`$
$`a_{}^{1L}b_{}^{1L}]\chi ^{1L}_\pm =\pm f^{1L}(u)`$
$`[u(1u){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}+[c^{1R}(1+a_{}^{1R}+b_{}^{1R})u]{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}`$
$`a_{}^{1R}b_{}^{1R}]\chi ^{1R}_\pm =f^{1R}(u),`$ (52)
where we have introduced the definitions for the functions $`f^{1L}`$ and $`f^{1R}`$ given by

$`f^{1L}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{u(1u)}}(\chi _+^{1L}\chi _{}^{1L})`$
$`f^{1R}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{u(1u)}}(\chi _+^{1R}+\chi _{}^{1R})`$ (53)
together with that for the parameters $`a_{}^{1L,R}`$, $`b_{}^{1L,R}`$ and $`c^{1R,L}`$ given by

$`a_{}^{1L,R}`$ $``$ $`\alpha _1^{L,R}+\beta _1^{L,R}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|`$
$`b_{}^{1L,R}`$ $``$ $`\alpha _1^{L,R}+\beta _1^{L,R}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\left|\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|`$
$`c^{1L,R}`$ $``$ $`2\alpha _1^{L,R}+1,`$ (54)
and the parameter $`\zeta `$ is given by

$`\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}}{2}}b{\displaystyle \frac{(y_Ly_R)}{8}}.`$ (55)
The consistency of both sets of Eqs. (52) requires that in the limit when $`u1`$, ($`z\mathrm{}`$),

$`\chi _+^{1L}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1^L\chi _{}^{1L}`$
$`\chi _+^{1R}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1^R\chi _{}^{1R},`$ (56)
with $`A_1^{L,R}`$ constants.

To solve Eqs. (52), we first notice that they are inhomogeneous hypergeometric differential equations. The solution appropriate to describe the motion of fermions in the symmetric phase is found by looking for the scattering states. For our purposes, these correspond to fermions incident toward and reflected from the wall. There are two types of such solutions; those coupled with $`y_L`$ and those coupled with $`y_R`$. For an incident wave coupled with $`y_L`$ ($`y_R`$), the fact that the differential equations mix up the solutions means that the reflected wave will also include a component coupled with $`y_R`$ ($`y_L`$). Let us classify the solutions according to the type of wave that is incident toward the wall. For an incident wave coupled with $`y_L`$, which we call type $`(a)`$, the most general solutions $`\varphi _\pm ^{1(a)}(u)`$ can be written as

$`\varphi _\pm ^{1(a)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L})^I+(A_1^L)(\varphi _\pm ^{1L})^{II}\pm (A_1^R)(\varphi _\pm ^{1R})^{II}`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L})^{\text{part}}+(\varphi _\pm ^{1R})^{\text{part}},`$
whereas for an incident wave coupled with $`y_R`$, which we call type $`(b)`$, the most general solutions $`\varphi _\pm ^{1(b)}(u)`$ is written as

$`\varphi _\pm ^{1(b)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm (\varphi _\pm ^{1R})^I\pm (A_1^R)(\varphi _\pm ^{1R})^{II}+(A_1^L)(\varphi _\pm ^{1L})^{II}`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L})^{\text{part}}+(\varphi _\pm ^{1R})^{\text{part}},`$
where the functions $`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L,R})^I`$ and $`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L,R})^{II}`$ are the linearly independent solutions corresponding to the solutions $`(\chi _\pm ^{1L,R})^I`$ and $`(\chi _\pm ^{1L,R})^{II}`$ of the homogeneous hipergeometric differential equation expressed as expansions around $`u=1`$, as appropriate for the symmetric phase,

$`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L,R})^I`$ $`=`$ $`u^{\alpha _1^{L,R}}(1u)^{\beta _1^{L,R}}`$
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a_{}^{1L,R},b_{}^{1L,R},`$
$`a_{}^{1L,R}+b_{}^{1L,R}+1c^{1L,R};1u)`$
$`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L,R})^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`u^{\alpha _1^{L,R}}(1u)^{\beta _1^{L,R}}`$ (59)
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(c^{1L,R}b_{}^{1L,R},c^{1L,R}a_{}^{1L,R},`$
$`c^{1L,R}a_{}^{1L,R}b_{}^{1L,R}+1;1u).`$
$`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L,R})^{\text{part}}`$ are the solutions corresponding to the particular solutions $`(\chi _\pm ^{1L,R})^{\text{part}}`$ of the inhomogeneous equations. The roman superindices $`I`$ and $`II`$ indicate the asymptotic behavior of the solution. $`I`$ corresponds to an incoming wave (traveling to the right) whereas $`II`$ correspond to a reflected wave (traveling to the left) in the symmetric phase, given the asymptotic behavior of the term $`(1u)^{\beta _1^{L,R}}`$ when $`u1`$ such that

$`(1u)^{\pm \beta _1^{L,R}}\stackrel{u1}{}e^{\pm 2\beta _1^{L,R}z}.`$ (60)
The particular solutions are expressed in terms of the functions $`f^{1L}`$ and $`f^{1R}`$ by the method of variation of parameters, and their explicit expressions are

$`(\varphi _\pm ^{1R})^{\text{part}}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1^R}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _1^u}{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi _\pm ^{1R}(s))^I(\varphi _\pm ^{1R}(u))^{II}(\varphi _\pm ^{1R}(s))^{II}(\varphi _\pm ^{1R}(u))^I}{s^{\alpha _1^R}(1s)^{\beta _1^R}}}`$
$`\times f^{1R}(s)ds`$
$`(\varphi _\pm ^{1L})^{\text{part}}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _1^L}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _1^u}{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi _\pm ^{1L}(s))^I(\varphi _\pm ^{1L}(u))^{II}(\varphi _\pm ^{1L}(s))^{II}(\varphi _\pm ^{1L}(u))^I}{s^{\alpha _1^L}(1s)^{\beta _1^L}}}`$
$`\times f^{1L}(s)ds.`$ (61)
To determine the solutions, we need knowledge of the functions $`f^{1L,R}`$, which in turn are given self-consistently by Eqs. (53). By substituting the formal solutions $`\chi _\pm ^{1(a,b)}(u)`$ into Eqs. (53), this self-consistency is expressed in terms of integral equations satisfied by $`f^{1L,R}`$, given explicitly by

$`f^{1L,R}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^{1L,R}(u)`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2\alpha _1^{R,L}}}{\displaystyle _1^u}K^{1R,L}(u,s)f^{1L,R}(s)𝑑s,`$
where we have introduced the functions $`\rho ^{1R,L}`$ given by

$`\rho ^{1R}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{u(1u)}}\left\{(\chi _+^{1R})^{II}(\chi _{}^{1R})^{II}\right\}A_1^R`$
$`\rho ^{1L}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{u(1u)}}\{[(\chi _+^{1L})^I(\chi _{}^{1L})^I]`$ (63)
$`+`$ $`[(\chi _+^{1L})^{II}(\chi _{}^{1L})^{II}]A_1^L\}`$
and $`K^{1R,L}`$ given explicitly by

$`K^{1R}(u,s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^{\alpha _1^R+1}(1u)^{\beta _1^R+1}s^{\alpha _1^R}(1s)^{\beta _1^R}}}`$
$`\times [(\varphi _+^{1R}(u))^{II}(\varphi _+^{1R}(s))^I(\varphi _+^{1R}(u))^I(\varphi _+^{1R}(s))^{II}`$
$`+(\varphi _{}^{1R}(u))^{II}(\varphi _{}^{1R}(s))^I(\varphi _{}^{1R}(u))^I(\varphi _{}^{1R}(s))^{II}]`$
$`K^{1L}(u,s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^{\alpha _1^L+1}(1u)^{\beta _1^L+1}s^{\alpha _1^L}(1s)^{\beta _1^L}}}`$
$`\times [(\varphi _+^{1L}(u))^{II}(\varphi _+^{1L}(s))^I(\varphi _+^{1L}(u))^I(\varphi _+^{1L}(s))^{II}`$
$`+(\varphi _{}^{1L}(u))^{II}(\varphi _{}^{1L}(s))^I(\varphi _{}^{1L}(u))^I(\varphi _{}^{1L}(s))^{II}].`$
(64)
The solution to Eqs. (62) is found numerically Mikhlin .

We now turn to finding the solution to Eq. (21), namely, for fermions moving in the broken symmetry phase, $`z0`$. This time, we look for a solution of the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left\{i\overline{)}eA_\mu \gamma ^\mu +m(z)\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (65)
Let us continue looking only at solutions type $`1`$. By a procedure similar to that leading to Eqs. (LABEL:sets12dimless), the corresponding expressions for the functions $`\varphi _\pm ^1(z)`$, representing a transmitted wave moving to the right in the broken symmetry phase become Cea

$`\varphi _\pm ^1(u)`$ $`=`$ $`B_{1\pm }u^{\alpha _1}(1u)^{\beta _1}`$
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a_{}^1+1c^1,b_{}^1+1c^1,2c^1;u),`$
with $`B_{1\pm }`$ constants and where the hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is expressed as an expansion around $`u=0`$, as is appropriate for this region. The parameters $`a_{}^1`$, $`b_{}^1`$ and $`c^1`$ are given by

$`a_{}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1+\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left|\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|`$
$`b_{}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1+\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\left|\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|`$
$`c^1`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _1+1`$ (67)
with

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{ϵ^2+g^{}b4\xi ^2}`$
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{ϵ^2+g^{}b}`$ (68)
Notice that since in the broken symmetry phase there should not be a propagating component corresponding to the $`Z^0`$ field Giovannini ; Elmfors , the parameter representing the magnetic field strength $`b^{}`$ is related to $`b`$ and Weinberg’s angle $`\theta _W`$ by

$`b^{}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}},`$ (69)
which in turn implies that the coupling of the fermion with the magnetic field is given by

$`eb^{}=g^{}b.`$ (70)
The complete solution to the problem is found by matching the functions $`\varphi _\pm ^{1(a),(b)}(u)`$ and $`\varphi _\pm ^1(u)`$ as well as their derivatives across the interface at $`u=1/2`$. These conditions represent four algebraic complex equations that determine the four complex constants $`A_1^{L,R}`$ and $`B_{1\pm }`$.

## V Transmission and reflection coefficients

The fact that the amplitudes for the axial modes in the symmetric phase, Eqs. (57) and (58) are not the same, means that there is the possibility of building an axial asymmetry during the scattering of fermions off the wall. To quantify the asymmetry, we need to compute the corresponding reflection and transmission coefficients. These are built from the reflected, transmitted and incident currents of each type. Recall that for a given spinor wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the current normal to the wall is given by

$`J=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\gamma ^0\gamma ^3\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (71)
The currents need be computed in the asymptotic regions far away from the wall where the amplitudes represent plane waves with well defined direction of motion.

We now prepare the incident fermion from the symmetric phase in such a way that when coupled with a given chirality (left-handed for waves type $`(a)`$, right-handed for waves type $`(b)`$), it corresponds to the same helicity. Since in the symmetric phase the fermion mass is asymptotically zero, both the chirality and helicity operators can be simultaneously defined and their eigenvalues coincide. This is no longer the case when the fermion moves in the broken symmetry phase where its mass is different from zero. Nevertheless, since scattering off the wall does not change the direction of the fermion spin (modes 1 and 2 evolve independently) the fermion helicity is preserved during transmission and reversed upon reflection.

For left-handed incoming waves, the incident current $`J_{\text{inc}}^l`$ (lower case indexes $`l`$ and $`r`$ denote helicity modes) is thus given by

$`J_{\text{inc}}^l=4\left|iϵ+2\beta _2^L\right|^2`$ (72)
whereas the reflected and transmitted currents $`J_{\text{ref}}^r`$, $`J_{\text{tra}}^l`$ are given respectively by

$`J_{\text{ref}}^r`$ $`=`$ $`4\left\{\left|A_2^L\right|^2\left|iϵ+2\beta _2^L\right|^2\left|A_2^R\right|^2\left|iϵ+2\beta _2^R\right|^2\right\}`$
$`J_{\text{tra}}^l`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\right|B_{2+}[2(\xi \alpha _2)iϵ]B_2[2(\xi +\alpha _2)+iϵ]|^2`$
$`+`$ $`|B_{2+}[2(\xi \alpha _2)+iϵ]B_2[2(\xi +\alpha _2)iϵ]|^2\}.`$
On the other hand, for right-handed incoming waves, the incident current $`J_{\text{inc}}^r`$is thus given by

$`J_{\text{inc}}^r=4\left|iϵ+2\beta _1^R\right|^2`$ (74)
and the reflected and transmitted currents $`J_{\text{ref}}^l`$, $`J_{\text{tra}}^r`$ are given respectively by

$`J_{\text{ref}}^l`$ $`=`$ $`4\left\{\left|A_1^R\right|^2\left|iϵ+2\beta _1^R\right|^2\left|A_1^L\right|^2\left|iϵ+2\beta _1^L\right|^2\right\}`$
$`J_{\text{tra}}^r`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\right|B_{1+}[2(\xi \alpha _1)iϵ]+B_1[2(\xi +\alpha _1)+iϵ]|^2`$
$``$ $`|B_{1+}[2(\xi \alpha _1)+iϵ]+B_1[2(\xi +\alpha _1)iϵ]|^2\}.`$
For a left-handed incident particle, the reflection and transmission coefficients are given as the ratios of the corresponding reflected and transmitted currents, to the incident one, respectively, projected along a unit vector normal to the wall. These are

$`R_{lr}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\text{ref}}^r/J_{\text{inc}}^l`$
$`T_{ll}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\text{tra}}^l/J_{\text{inc}}^l.`$ (76)
The corresponding coefficients for the axially conjugate process are

$`R_{rl}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\text{ref}}^l/J_{\text{inc}}^r`$
$`T_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\text{tra}}^r/J_{\text{inc}}^r.`$ (77)
Figure 1 shows the coefficients $`R_{lr}`$ and $`R_{rl}`$ as a function of the magnetic field parameter $`b`$ for a value of twice the ratio of fermion to Higgs mass $`\xi =3.5`$, an energy parameter $`ϵ=7.03`$, hypercharge values $`y_R=4/3`$, $`y_L=1/3`$ and for a value of $`g^{}=0.344`$, as appropriate for the EWPT epoch. Notice that when $`b0`$, these coefficients approach each other and that the difference grows with increasing field strength.

Figure 2 shows the reflection and transmission coefficients as a function of the energy parameter $`ϵ`$ scaled by twice the height of the barrier $`2\xi `$. Figure 2a shows the coefficients $`R_{lr}`$ and $`T_{ll}`$ and Fig. 2b the coefficients $`R_{rl}`$ and $`T_{rr}`$ for $`b=0.5`$ and $`\xi =3.5`$, $`y_R=4/3`$, $`y_L=1/3`$, $`g^{}=0.344`$. Since the solutions in Eqs. (LABEL:solbroksym) are computed assuming that the transmitted waves are not exponentially damped, their energies have to be taken such that the parameters $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ are imaginary which in turn implies that for waves type 1, $`ϵ\sqrt{4\xi ^2g^{}b}`$ whereas for waves type 2, $`ϵ\sqrt{4\xi ^2+g^{}b}`$. It can be checked that $`R_{rl}+T_{rr}=1`$ and $`R_{lr}+T_{ll}=1`$ within the numerical precision of the calculation, which means that the analysis respects unitarity.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have derived and solved the Dirac equation for fermions scattering off a first order EWPT bubble wall with a finite width in the presence of a magnetic field directed along the fermion direction of motion. In the symmetric phase, the fermions couple chirally to the magnetic field, which receives the name of hypermagnetic, given that it belongs to the $`U(1)_Y`$ group. We have shown that the chiral nature of this coupling implies that it is possible to build an axial asymmetry during the scattering of fermions off the wall. We have computed reflection and transmission coefficients showing explicitly that they differ for left and right-handed incident particles from the symmetric phase. The results of this more realistic, albeit numerical calculation where we allow for a finite wall width are in qualitative and quantitative agreement with those previously found in Ref. Ayala2 , where the wall was modeled as a step function.

It could be thought that the asymmetric reflection found in this work could be washed out when considering the averaging over the different angles of incidence of the fermion flux. This is not the case as we proceed to show. Let us first look a the situation in which the direction of the magnetic field is reversed with respect to the case studied here. This a physically relevant scenario since during the phase transition, fermions are scattered on opposite sides of the bubbles and if the sign of the asymmetry would depend on the direction of the magnetic field with respect to the direction of fermion incidence, then the building of an axial charge density in one side of the bubble would compensate the building of this charge on the other side, thereby canceling the effect. However, it is easy to convince oneself that this is not the case. By looking at Eqs. (LABEL:set1) and (LABEL:set2), we see that changing $`B`$ to $`B`$ interchanges one set of equations with the other, leaving intact the coupling. Physically this is also easy to understand since the fermion coupling with the external field is through its spin. Changing the direction of the field exchanges the role of each spin component but since each chirality mode contains both spin orientations, it does not affect the final probabilities.

Now suppose that the original direction of motion of the fermion is not parallel to the direction of the magnetic field and therefore its velocity vector contains a component perpendicular to the direction of the field. In this case, due to the Lorentz force, the particle circles around the field lines maintaining its velocity along the direction of the field. The motion of the particle is thus described as an overall displacement along the field lines superimposed to a circular motion around these lines. In the three dimensional quantum mechanical treatment of the problem, these circles correspond to the different Landau levels. We see that the originally different angles of incidence all result in the same overall direction of incidence. Nonetheless, it is certainly true that these circular trajectories could be regarded as the paths where the wave function of the particle picks up a phase in the same manner as in the Aharanov-Bohm effect. However, since there is no definite phase relation of the incident fermions, these phases have to be regarded as randomly distributed. Thus, the addition of the wave functions at the interference point (minus infinity for the reflected waves and plus infinity for the transmitted waves) has to be done incoherently which precludes any possible destructive effect of these phases on the overall particle fluxes.

We also emphasize that, under the very general assumptions of CPT invariance and unitarity, the total axial asymmetry (which includes contributions both from particles and antiparticles) is quantified in terms of the particle (axial) asymmetry. Let $`\rho _i`$ represent the number density for species $`i`$. The net densities in left-handed and right-handed axial charges are obtained by taking the differences $`\rho _L\rho _{\overline{L}}`$ and $`\rho _R\rho _{\overline{R}}`$, respectively. It is straightforward to show Nelson  that CPT invariance and unitarity imply that the above net densities are given by

$`\rho _L\rho _{\overline{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`(f^sf^b)(R_{rl}R_{lr})`$
$`\rho _R\rho _{\overline{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`(f^sf^b)(R_{lr}R_{rl}),`$ (78)
where $`f^s`$ and $`f^b`$ are the statistical distributions for particles or antiparticles (since the chemical potentials are assumed to be zero or small compared to the temperature, these distributions are the same for particles or antiparticles) in the symmetric and the broken symmetry phases, respectively. From Eq. (78), the asymmetry in the axial charge density is finally given by

$`(\rho _L\rho _{\overline{L}})(\rho _R\rho _{\overline{R}})=2(f^sf^b)(R_{rl}R_{lr}).`$ (79)
This asymmetry, built on either side of the wall, is dissociated from non-conserving baryon number processes and can subsequently be converted to baryon number in the broken symmetry phase where sphaleron induced transitions are taking place with a large rate. This mechanism receives the name of non-local baryogenesis Dine ; Nelson ; Cohen ; Joyce  and, in the absence of the external field, it can only be realized in extensions of the SM where a source of CP violation is introduced ad hoc into a complex, space-dependent phase of the Higgs field during the development of the EWPT Torrente .

Since another consequence of the existence of an external magnetic field is the lowering of the barrier between topologically inequivalent vacua Comelli , due to the sphaleron dipole moment, the use of the mechanism discussed in this work to possibly generate a baryon asymmetry is not as straightforward. Nonetheless, if such primordial fields indeed existed during the EWPT epoch and the phase transition was first order, as is the case, for instance, in minimal extensions of the SM, the mechanism advocated in this work has to be considered as acting in the same manner as a source of CP violation that can have important consequences for the generation of a baryon number. These matters will be the subject of an upcoming work Ayala3 .

## Acknowledgments

Support for this work has been received in part by DGAPA-UNAM under PAPIIT grant number IN108001 and by CONACyT-México under an ICM grant number 35792-E.


text:
# Arbitrary qubit rotation through nonadiabatic evolution

## I Introduction

The growing field of quantum computation and quantum information involves logical operations with quantum states. The single qubit operation is its inversion and rotation whereas the controlled-NOT and phase-gates require two qubits. Any specific computation consists of proper manipulation using these operations .

All these can be implemented on the basis of one’s ability to prepare the atomic system in desired states. Such a preparation has been studied using a variety of techniques using external fields. For example, by Rabi flopping  one can transfer the population completely to another orthogonal state. However this requires perfect control on pulse area. A more efficient way to transfer populations has been proposed by Oreg et al. . They have shown how to transfer the population between the dipole forbidden levels in multilevel systems using the idea of adiabatic following . They have predicted the use of two delayed pulses in a three level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system in the large detuning domain for this purpose. Their idea of counter-intuitively ordered pulses has been implemented in a technique of population transfer called Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage (STIRAP)  . Under conditions of adiabaticity, the atom follows the evolution of one of the eigenvectors of the time-dependent Hamiltonian. Grobe et al., under the same condition of adiabaticity, used the idea of delayed pulses in counterintuitive sequence in the context of formation of shape-preserving pulses (adiabatons) . Note that, in STIRAP, both the pulses can in principle be kept resonant with the corresponding atomic transitions. Vitanov and Stenholm  investigated the effect of Raman detuning on the final state population in STIRAP starting from one of the two lower states. They used two delayed Gaussian pulses for this purpose. They found that, as the detuning increases, the final state population decreases. Sola et al.   used two contemporary chirped pulses and investigated how the final state population varies with the chirp rate of the pulses. They demonstrated the role of detuning in minimizing the intermediate level population.

All the above references discuss the population transfer between the unperturbed states of the atoms. Chang et al.  found a way to produce a final state which was a superposition of the bare atomic states. They used two contemporary chirped pulses. They have shown how the selectivity of the final states depends upon the relative sign of chirping rate and detuning. Further, Unanyan et al. in the tripod-STIRAP scheme have shown how one can create an arbitrary superposition of two atomic states using a sequence of three pulses in a four level system and how the superposition can be controlled by changing the relative delay between the pulses. Marte et al.  and more recently Vitanov et al.  suggested another method, called fractional STIRAP, in which, the two counterintuitive pulses terminate at the same time to produce appropriate superposition states. In a recent development, Král and Shapiro  has found another unique way of creating a superposition of many energy-eigenstates by the method of shaped adiabatic passage (SAP).

So far we have discussed different methods of either the population transfer or the preparation of superpositions, all starting from a given unperturbed state. Now the question arises whether one can create a superposition, starting from a superposition state, i.e., produce essentially the rotation of a qubit. Renzoni and Stenholm  used four laser pulses which coupled four ground levels to a common excited level and created a superposition of two ground states, starting from a superposition of two other ground states. Most recently Kis and Renzoni  have discovered how to create the superposition in the same basis as of the initial superposition state. They have used the tripod-STIRAP scheme to show how the relative phase of the control pulse controls the superposition of the atomic states in the final superposition. This is quite relevant in the context of qubit rotation. If one thinks of the initial superposition state as one qubit state, then creating another superposition in the same basis refers to the rotation of the qubit in the Hilbert space of those two basis states.

All the above methods are based on the adiabatic evolution of atomic system. The question arises, whether one can go beyond the adiabatic limit. In the present paper, we explore this possibility in the context of a three level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system interacting with two laser pulses. In nonadiabatic evolution, transition occurs between the different adiabatic states of the system . During this rotation the state no longer remains confined in the two-dimensional Hilbert space of the basis states comprising the superposition. Thus a different superposition of the basis states is prepared in the long time limit.

We use a double-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ configuration for the demonstration of the rotation of a qubit. We note that the light propagation through an atomic medium in such a configuration has been studied .

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we describe the model configuration and relevant equations for the process of qubit rotation. In Sec. III, we present detailed numerical results on the rotation of a qubit. We discuss the role of detuning and other pulse parameters in this context. In Sec. IV, we present a comparison of our results with those obtained using two-level approximation. In Sec. V, we discuss the nonadiabaticity in the evolution. In Sec. VI, we consider the effect of chirped pulses on the rotation of a qubit. It may be noted that pulses with appropriate time-dependent phases have been used to achieve coherent control of quantum systems . In the Appendix, we show how the traditional STIRAP can be used to prepare the atomic system in a state which is orthogonal to the initial superposition.

## II Model for qubit rotation

Consider the four level configuration as shown in Fig. 1. The levels $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ are coupled to the upper excited levels $`|e`$ and $`|1`$ by input pulses. We will show how specific choices of these pulses help in preparing some initial superposition of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ and how this superposition can be rotated with the help of two delayed pulses. Note that the basis states of the qubit, under consideration, are $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. The states $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ are long-lived states and that the initial and final states should not have any population in the excited states $`|e`$ and $`|1`$.

### A Preparation of the initial superposition state

We start with the atom initially in the level $`|g`$. We apply two cw fields with constant Rabi frequencies $`2G_1`$ and $`2G_2`$ which couple the state $`|1`$ with $`|g`$ and $`|f`$, respectively. We assume these fields to be resonant with the corresponding transitions. When the cw fields are switched on, the system is prepared in the state

$$|i=\alpha |g+\beta e^{i\varphi }|f,$$
(1)
where, $`\alpha =G_1/G,\beta =G_2/G,G=\sqrt{G_1^2+G_2^2}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is the relative phase between $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. This is the desired state, which will be considered as the initial state of the qubit in the next phase of evolution.

### B Basic equations for qubit rotation

We will now discuss how one can rotate the qubit in state (1), i.e., how one can create another superposition of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. When the cw fields are switched off, we apply two chirped laser pulses with electromagnetic fields given by

$`E_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1(t)e^{i\omega _1t}e^{i\varphi _1(t)}+\text{c.c.},`$ (3)
$`E_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _2(t)e^{i\omega _2t}e^{i\varphi _2(t)}+\text{c.c.},`$ (4)
where, $`\epsilon _{1,2}(t)`$ are the envelopes of the pulses, $`\omega _{1,2}`$ are the carrier frequencies, $`\dot{\varphi }_i(t)=\chi _iF_i(t)`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ corresponds to the applied chirping with chirping parameter $`\chi _{1,2}`$ and time-dependence of $`F_i(t)`$ represents the chirping profile. These pulses couple the level $`|e`$ with $`|g`$ and $`|f`$, respectively.

The interaction Hamiltonian in the interaction picture and in the rotating wave approximation is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_1t}e^{i\varphi _1(t)}|eg|+\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_2t}e^{i\varphi _2(t)}|ef|`$ (6)
$`+\text{h.c.}],`$
where, $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)=2d_{eg}\epsilon _1(t)/\mathrm{}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)=2d_{ef}\epsilon _2(t)/\mathrm{}`$ are the time-dependent Rabi frequencies, $`d_{ej}`$ $`(j=g,f)`$ are the dipole matrix elements of transitions $`|e|j`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\omega _1\omega _{eg}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\omega _2\omega _{ef}`$ are the respective one-photon detunings of the fields, and $`\omega _{ej}`$ are the frequencies of the atomic transitions $`|e|j`$. Here we choose the envelopes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}\mathrm{exp}[(tT)^2/\tau ^2]e^{i\delta },`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}\mathrm{exp}(t^2/\tau ^2),`$ (9)
where, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0j}`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ is one-half of the peak Rabi frequency, $`\tau `$ is the half-width of both the pulses, $`T`$ is their relative time separation, and $`\delta `$ is the relative phase difference of the pulses. The wave function of the atomic system can be expanded in the basis states $`(|e,|g,|f)`$ as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=c_e(t)|e+c_g(t)|g+c_f(t)|f,$$
(10)
where, $`c_j(t)`$ $`(j=e,g,f)`$ are the probability amplitudes for the corresponding states. Using Eq. (6) and the following transformations of the amplitudes

$`d_e`$ $`=`$ $`c_ee^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_1t}e^{i\varphi _1(t)},`$ (11)
$`d_g`$ $`=`$ $`c_g,`$ (12)
$`d_f`$ $`=`$ $`c_fe^{i(\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2)t}e^{i[\varphi _1(t)\varphi _2(t)]},`$ (13)
we arrive at the following time dependent equations for the $`d_j(t)`$’s:

$`\dot{d}_e`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\dot{\varphi }_1)d_ei[\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)d_g+\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)d_f],`$ (15)
$`\dot{d}_g`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}(t)d_e,`$ (16)
$`\dot{d}_f`$ $`=`$ $`i[\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2+(\dot{\varphi }_1\dot{\varphi }_2)]d_fi\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(t)d_e.`$ (17)
These equations can be solved numerically under the initial conditions \[Eq. (1)\]

$$d_g(\mathrm{})=\alpha ,d_f(\mathrm{})=\beta e^{i\varphi }.$$
(18)
## III arbitrary qubit rotation controlled by different pulse parameters

### A Effect of one-photon detuning

We assume that the two delayed pulses (II B) are equally detuned from the corresponding transitions, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, say. This means that both the pulses are one-photon detuned, but satisfy the condition of two-photon resonance. We also assume that they are unchirped, i.e., $`\chi _1=\chi _2=0`$. We further assume that, the pulses do not have any relative phase difference, i.e., $`\delta =0`$ and have equal magnitudes, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}`$. We start with the initial atomic superposition (1) choosing $`\alpha =0.3`$ and $`\varphi =\pi /2`$. We integrate Eqs. (II B) to obtain the time-dependence of the various amplitudes.

We plot the variation of populations in the levels $`|e`$, $`|g`$, and $`|f`$ with time for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, in Fig. 2. We note that in the long time limit the population gets redistributed in the levels $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ with almost no population in $`|e`$. As the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ varies, the populations in $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ also vary. We show in the inset of Fig. 2 how the populations in $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ in the long time limit vary with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this limit, the intermediate level population becomes almost zero. This is the case even when $`\alpha =1`$, i.e., if the initial state is $`|g`$. Fig. 3 clearly shows remarkably large change in the final state population with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see also ). This, as we will see in Sec. V, has bearing on the adiabatic behavior.

The relative phase $`\varphi `$ of the levels $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)=\text{Re}[c_g^{}c_f/|c_g|.|c_f|].$$
(19)
In Fig. 4, we have shown the time-dependence of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)`$. Clearly, the phase at the long time limit becomes constant. This means, a different coherent superposition of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ has been created. This implies to a rotation of the concerned qubit, which is controlled by one-photon detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Note that for intermediate times, the level $`|e`$ gets populated. Thus the atomic system initially in the state $`|i`$ no longer remains confined in the two-dimensional Hilbert plane of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. Rather, it travels through the three-dimensional Hilbert space of the levels $`|e`$, $`|g`$, and $`|f`$ and finally comes back to the initial space of states $`|g`$ and $`|f`$, but with a different composition of them.

From the above discussions, one can infer that the amount of rotation can be suitably controlled by the one-photon detuning parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 180`$, one can prepare an equal superposition state of the levels $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ with phase $`\varphi =2\pi /3`$ (see inset, Fig. 2). We emphasize that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the level $`|e`$ remains populated at large times. So large values of the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are needed for proper qubit rotation.

It is interesting to note that the time separation $`T`$ between the pulses affects the qubit rotation as shown in Fig. 5 which depicts the variation of populations in $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ with $`T`$. It should be noted that at long time, the level $`|e`$ does not get populated.

It should be mentioned here that one can get approximated analytical solutions of Eqs. (II B), putting $`\chi _i=0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ . However, all these solutions are for $`\alpha =1`$. For $`\alpha 1`$, as discussed in the present section, it is very difficult to obtain the solution analytically.

### B Effect of relative amplitudes of the pulses

The relative amplitude of the two pulses is expected to determine the final state of the atom. We continue to keep both the pulses equally detuned by an amount of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In Fig. 6, we show the long time behavior of populations in the levels $`|e`$, $`|g`$, and $`|f`$ as functions of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}`$. We present results for both the cases when the atom starts in the state $`|g`$ and the state $`|i`$ with $`\alpha =0.3`$ and $`\varphi =\pi /2`$. Note that the population in the level $`|e`$ is negligible for large times. The population is redistributed in the levels $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. Thus, a different superposition is created at the end of evolution. The composition varies if one changes the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}`$. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}=1`$, one gets an equal superposition of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$, for $`\alpha =0.3`$. It is thus clear that the ratio of the amplitudes of the two pulses can serve as a control parameter for producing rotation of a qubit. Note that for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ only orthogonal rotation of the qubit is possible for all values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0i}`$ \[see Fig. 7\].

### C Effect of relative phase of the two pulses

We will now discuss how the amount of qubit rotation can be controlled by the relative phase $`\delta `$ between the two pulses. We work under the two-photon resonance condition and take the pulses to have equal amplitudes. The periodic dependence of the populations of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ on $`\delta `$ in the long time limit for the initial condition (18) is shown in Fig. 8. Thus the relative phase of the input pulses can be used as an useful control parameter for the qubit rotation.

It should be mentioned here that, if $`\alpha =1`$, i.e., if the atom is initially prepared in the state $`|g`$, then there is no $`\delta `$-dependence of the populations in the states $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. This is because the Eqs. (II B) can be redefined with an extra complex phase term in the probability amplitudes. For example, the replacements $`\stackrel{~}{d}_e=d_ee^{i\delta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_f=d_fe^{i\delta }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_g=d_g`$ keep the form of the equations unchanged. Thus $`\delta `$ does not show up in the square moduli of these amplitudes. However, the wave functions would be different for different values of $`\delta `$ and the probability amplitudes become different. Thus, if the atom is initially in the state $`|g`$, then a change in $`\delta `$ cannot produce arbitrary rotation of $`|g`$.

## IV Comparison with the results in two-level approximation

We write the state orthogonal to $`|i`$ \[Eq. (1)\] as

$$|k=\beta e^{i\varphi }|g\alpha |f.$$
(20)
When the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the pulses becomes much larger than the pulse amplitudes, then one can ignore the time variation of $`d_e`$ . The Eqs. (II B) in the ($`|i,|k`$) basis can be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{d}_i\\ \dot{d}_k\end{array}\right)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_e& \mathrm{\Omega }_e\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_e^{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_e\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d_i\\ d_k\end{array}\right),$$
(21)
where,

$`f_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}(t)+\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(t),`$ (22)
$`f_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}(t)\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(t),`$ (23)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e=f_1f_2^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e=(|f_1|^2|f_2|^2)/2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus the three-level atomic system can be approximated as a two-level system with effective Rabi-frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ and effective detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e`$ \[Eq. (21)\]. It is well-known that in a two-level atomic system, if detuning of the pulse is much larger than the pulse amplitude, then the induced polarization of the atom follows the time-evolution of the population term . This is referred to as adiabatic following. Similarly, if $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_e||\mathrm{\Omega }_e|`$, then, adiabatic following occurs in a three-level system also.

We present the exact and two-level approximated results for the variation of the populations in $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ in Figs. 9 and 10 for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Clearly, for smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the two-level approximation is not valid. But still rotation of the qubit occurs. Only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{0i}`$, exact numerical result and two-level approximated result match, as we stated earlier. This is because, in this case, the level $`|e`$ is hardly populated during the evolution and the system thereby keeps itself confined in the Hilbert plane of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$. Thus the rotation of a qubit can be obtained even for values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which two-level approximation is not valid.

## V Transitions among adiabatic states - Nonadiabaticity

We further address the question of nonadiabaticity. The evolution of a quantum system is called adiabatic, if the populations of the adiabatic states (which are the eigenstates of the time-dependent Hamiltonian) remain constant during the evolution. This condition requires that the nonadiabatic coupling between the adiabatic states is much smaller than their energy difference . To attain this, the Hamiltonian should be smoothly varying with time. In a three level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system, if one uses two smoothly varying pulses with large amplitudes in counterintuitive sequence, then the complete transfer of population occurs between the two lower lying levels of the system and also the evolution of the system becomes adiabatic . One has to use the pulses in Raman resonance. Even when the pulses are one-photon resonant, then for large enough values of the pulse amplitudes the evolution becomes adiabatic. In this light we examine the nonadiabaticity of the process of rotation described here. The Hamiltonian (under the conditions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\chi _1=\chi _2=0`$) can be written in the ($`|e`$, $`|g`$, $`|f`$) basis as

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }& \mathrm{\Omega }_1& \mathrm{\Omega }_2\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(24)
The eigenstates (or the adiabatic states) of $`H`$ are given by,

$`|a_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }|g\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }|f,`$ (26)
$`|a_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }|g\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }|e+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }|f,`$ (27)
$`|a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }|g+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }|e+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }|f,`$ (28)
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)/\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t),$$
(29)
and

$$\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2+|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4(|\mathrm{\Omega }_1|^2+|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^2)}}.$$
(30)
The state (26) is the well-known coherent population trapping state. It is independent of the two-photon detuning.

We have shown the temporal variation of the populations in these adiabatic states in Fig. 11. It is clear that during the course of evolution, transfer of population occurs between the states, namely $`|a_0`$ and $`|a_+`$. Thus the nonadiabatic coupling is no more small enough to keep the process adiabatic. Clearly the system evolves nonadiabatically in the chosen parameter domain.

Note that even when $`\alpha =1`$, for larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the evolution becomes nonadiabatic \[Fig. 3\] for a constant value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0i}`$. If the system were to stay in the adiabatic state defined by $`H(t)|a_0=0`$, then the final state population would be independent of the detuning. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-dependence of the population in Fig. 3 implies that the dynamics of the system does not remain confined to the adiabatic state $`|a_0`$ only. Further note that for a given value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, large values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0i}`$ are required to make the evolution adiabatic. Fig. 7 supports the adiabatic result at large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0i}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}0.3`$) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, i.e., the system remains essentially in the state (26).

## VI qubit rotation controlled by chirping

So far we have discussed how the one-photon detuning of the pulses can be used to produce rotation of the qubit. We now consider use of the chirped pulses for obtaining arbitrary qubit rotation. We also examine the simultaneous effects of chirping and one-photon detuning.

### A Effect of linear chirping

We assume that the pulses are linearly chirped, i.e.,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right)}}\right]\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\tau }}\right),`$ (31)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right)}}\right]\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau }}\right).`$ (32)
We further assume that $`\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi `$. We put $`\delta =0`$, $`\alpha =0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}=1`$. We have seen from the temporal variation of populations in the levels $`|e`$, $`|g`$, and $`|f`$ (results not shown) that populations in $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ in the long time limit becomes constant at a value depending on $`\chi `$ whereas the level $`|e`$ remains unpopulated. Therefore by changing the chirping rate $`\chi `$, we produce arbitrary rotation to the state $`|i`$. In Fig. 12 we show the variations of populations of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ in the long time limit with the chirping parameter $`\chi `$ for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Clearly, we can have a rotation irrespective of the relative sign of $`\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but the amount of rotation is quite dependent on it. From Fig. 12, it is also clear that for a constant value of $`\chi `$, one can have different rotation for different values of detuning parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus by varying either $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ \[or $`\chi `$\] while keeping $`\chi `$ \[or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\] constant, one has a way to achieve arbitrary rotation to the qubit state $`|i`$.

We have further found that making $`\chi _1\chi _2`$ can also control the rotation. In Fig. 13, we have shown the variation of populations in the levels $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ at long time limit with the ratio $`\chi _2/\chi _1`$ for two different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Note that the level $`|e`$ remains unpopulated. Thus either by varying the chirping parameter $`\chi `$ $`(\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi )`$ or by changing the ratio $`\chi _2/\chi _1`$ one can achieve arbitrary rotation of a qubit.

We have checked that the populations in the adiabatic states does not remain constant during the evolution and hence the process becomes nonadiabatic in this case also.

### B Effect of hyperbolic tangent chirping

We now assume that the chirping profile of the pulses are given by

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right)}}\right]\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tT}{\tau }}\right),`$ (33)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\left(\frac{t}{\tau }\right)}}\right]\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _2\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau }}\right).`$ (34)
In Figs. 14 and 15 we show how populations in $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ in the long time limit vary with the chirping parameters. We show the results for equal ($`\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi `$) as well as for unequal ($`\chi _1\chi _2`$) chirping. Clearly, in this case also, rotation occurs irrespective of relative sign of $`\chi _i`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. However, if relative sign changes, amount of rotation also changes.

We note that, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, both kinds of chirping do not provide any rotation to a general superposition state of the qubit $`(\alpha 1)`$. However, if the qubit is initially in state $`|g`$ $`(\alpha =1)`$, then both profiles provide orthogonal rotation to the state $`|g`$ irrespective of relative values of $`\chi _i`$’s. This is because the population in the excited state in the long time limit deceases as $`\alpha `$ increases to unity.

## VII conclusions

In conclusion, we have examined how one can produce a general rotation of the qubit in a superposition of the states $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ by using the nonadiabatic evolution. Two delayed pulses in two-photon resonance have been employed for this purpose. We have found that each of the parameters - one-photon detuning, amplitudes, phases, and chirpings of the two pulses can provide proper control of the qubit rotation. The effect of time separation of the pulses has also been investigated. We discussed the relevance of two-level approximation in the present context. It is clear that logic gate operations can be implemented as well by using nonadiabatic evolution. Finally note that one could preselect a definite time-dependent phase of the pulse to attain a desired final state.

G.S.A. thanks National Science Foundation (grant number INT9605072) for a visit to the University of Rochester. He also thanks J. H. Eberly for discussions on the interaction of multilevel systems with pulsed fields.

##

We present here an alternative method of orthogonal rotation of a qubit initially in the superposition state $`|i`$ \[Eq. (1)\]. The state orthogonal to $`|i`$ is $`|k`$ which is given by Eq. (20). The method described here for rotation of the qubit from the state $`|i`$ to $`|k`$ is a generalization of the STIRAP process. This is implemented through adiabatic evolution. The Hamiltonian of the system is the same as in (6), but with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=0`$ and $`\chi _i=0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. We rewrite this in terms of the basis states ($`|i,|k,|e`$) in the following way :

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}[(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\alpha +\mathrm{\Omega }_2\beta e^{i\varphi })|ei|+(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_2\alpha )|ek|`$ (36)
$`+\text{h.c.}].`$
The relevant time-dependent equations for probability amplitudes in the basis ($`|i`$, $`|k`$, $`|e`$) will be

$`\dot{c}_i`$ $`=`$ $`if_1(t)c_e,`$ (37)
$`\dot{c}_k`$ $`=`$ $`if_2(t)c_e,`$ (38)
$`\dot{c}_e`$ $`=`$ $`i[f_1^{}(t)c_i+f_2^{}(t)c_k],`$ (39)
where

$`f_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}(t)+\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(t),`$ (40)
$`f_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}(t)\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}(t).`$ (41)
We solve these equations under the initial conditions

$$c_i(\mathrm{})=1,c_k(\mathrm{})=c_e(\mathrm{})=0.$$
(42)
If one chooses the time-dependences of $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ in the following way

$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[(tT)^2/\tau ^2],`$ (43)
$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(t^2/\tau ^2),`$ (44)
then, one can transfer the population from $`|i`$ to $`|k`$ adiabatically. This is analogous to the well known STIRAP process in which population is transferred from the state $`|g`$ to $`|f`$. Using Eqs. (Arbitrary qubit rotation through nonadiabatic evolution) and (Arbitrary qubit rotation through nonadiabatic evolution) we obtain the form of the required pulses $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{exp}[(tT)^2/\tau ^2]+\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{exp}(t^2/\tau ^2),`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{exp}[(tT)^2/\tau ^2]\alpha \mathrm{exp}(t^2/\tau ^2)`$ (46)
to transfer the population from the state $`|i`$ to its orthogonal state $`|k`$.

We thus find that, in the long time limit the population is transferred to the state $`|k`$ through adiabatic process while the level $`|e`$ remains almost unpopulated for all times. Thus the qubit is rotated from $`|i`$ to its orthogonal state $`|k`$. One may note that as the evolution described here is analogous to STIRAP, so the robustness of the process is similar to that of STIRAP. It is also worth mentioning that one could rotate $`|i`$ to any other arbitrary superposition of $`|g`$ and $`|f`$ by just chopping the pulses $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(t)`$ at the desired moment. But this requires complete control on the pulse area.