text:
# Sagnac Interferometer as a Speed-Meter-Type, Quantum-Nondemolition Gravitational-Wave Detector

## I Introduction

After decades of planning and development, an array of large-scale laser interferometric gravitational-wave detectors (interferometers for short), consisting of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), Virgo, GEO and TAMA GWarray , is gradually becoming operative, targeted at gravitational waves in the high-frequency band ($`10`$$`10^3\mathrm{Hz}`$). Michelson-type laser interferometry is used in these detectors to monitor gravitational-wave-induced changes in the separations of mirror-endowed test masses. More specifically, a laser beam is split in two by a 50/50 beamsplitter, and the two beams are sent into the two arms (which may contain Fabry-Perot cavities) and then brought back together and interfered, yielding a signal that senses the difference of the two arm lengths. Although it is plausible that gravitational waves will be detected, for the first time in history, by these initial interferometers, a significant upgrade of them must probably be made before a rich program of observational gravitational-wave astrophysics can be carried out matureLIGO . In the planned upgrade of the LIGO interferometers (*Advanced LIGO*, tentatively scheduled to begin operations in $`2008`$ whitpaper ), the Michelson topology will still be used, as also is probably the case for Advanced LIGO’s international counterparts, for example the Japanese LCGT LCGT .

An alternative to the Michelson topology, the Sagnac topology, originally invented in 1913 SagnacOrig  for rotation sensing, can also be used for gravitational-wave detection Drever ; Sagnac . In a Sagnac interferometer, as in a Michelson, a laser beam is split in two, but each of the two beams travels successively through both arms, though in the opposite order (in opposite directions). When the two beams are finally recombined, a signal sensitive to the *time-dependent part* of the arm-length difference is obtained.

Until now, there has been little motivation to switch from the more mature Michelson topology to the Sagnac topology, because: (i) the technical advantages provided by the Sagnac topology have not been able to overcome its disadvantages Sagnac ; SGM98 ; PGM98 , and (ii) the *shot-noise limited* sensitivities of ideal Sagnac interferometers have not exhibited any interesting features MRSWD97 . Nevertheless, a sustained research effort is still being made on the Sagnac topology, aimed at third generation gravitational-wave detectors (beyond Advanced LIGO). In particular, an all-reflective optical system suitable for the Sagnac is being developed AllReflective , with the promise of being able to cope with the very high laser powers that may be needed in the third generation.

In this paper, a theoretical study of the idealized noise performance of Sagnac-based interferometers at high laser powers is carried out. It is shown that, by contrast with the previously studied low-power regime, the (ideal) Sagnac interferometer might be significantly better at high powers than its ideal Michelson counterparts, and thus is an attractive candidate for third-generation interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, e.g., LIGO-III and EURO EURO .

In advanced gravitational-wave interferometers, the laser power is increased to lower the shot noise. However, at these higher light powers, the photons in the arms exert stronger random forces on the test masses, thereby inducing stronger *radiation-pressure noise*. At high enough laser powers (above about 850 kW in Advanced LIGO), the radiation-pressure noise can become larger than the shot noise and dominate a significant part of the noise spectrum (usually at all frequencies below the noise-curve minimum). As was first pointed out by Braginsky in the 1960s VB60s ; BK92 , a balance between the two noises gives rise to a Standard Quantum Limit (SQL). As was later realized, again by Braginsky VB60s ; BK92 , the SQL can be circumvented by clever designs, which he named Quantum Non-Demolition (QND) schemes.

The advanced LIGO interferometers were originally planned to operate near or at the SQL whitpaper , but it was later shown by Buonanno and Chen that they can actually beat the SQL by a moderate amount over a modest frequency band, due to a change in interferometer dynamics BC1 ; BC2 ; BC3  induced by detuned signal-recycling SR ; RSE .

Generations beyond Advanced LIGO, however, will have to beat the SQL by significant amounts over a broad frequency band; i.e., they must be strongly QND. Currently existing schemes for strongly QND interferometers with Michelson topology include: (i) The use of two additional kilometer-scale optical filters to perform frequency-dependent homodyne detection FDH  at the output of a conventional Michelson interferometer, as invented and analyzed by Kimble, Levin, Matsko, Thorne and Vyatchanin (KLMTV) KLMTV . (Reference KLMTV  can be used as a general starting point for the quantum-mechanical analysis of QND gravitational-wave interferometers.) (ii) The speed-meter interferometer, originally invented by Braginsky and Khalili SMorig , developed by Braginsky, Khalili, Gorodetsky and Thorne SMBGKT , and later incorporated into the Michelson topology by Purdue and Chen SMP ; SMPC . In its Michelson form, the speed meter uses at least one additional kilometer-scale optical cavity to measure the relative momentum of the free test masses over a broad frequency band.

The speed meter is motivated, theoretically, by the fact that the momentum of a free test mass is a QND observable QNDobs  i.e., it can be measured continuously to arbitrary accuracy without being limited by the SQL. Practically, QND schemes based on a Michelson speed meter can exhibit broadband QND performances using only one additional kilometer-scale cavity, by contrast with the two additional cavities needed for QND schemes based on a conventional Michelson interferometer (a position meter). Michelson–speed-meter-based QND schemes are also less susceptible to optical losses than those based on Michelson position meters (Sec. V of SMPC ).

Surprisingly, so far as we are aware nobody has previously noticed that, because the Sagnac interferometer is sensitive only to the *time-dependent part* of the arm-length difference, it is automatically a speed meter. Moreover, as we shall see in this paper, with the help of *signal-recycling* SR ; RSE , i.e., by putting one additional mirror at its dark output port, a Sagnac interferometer can be optimized to have a comparable performance to a Michelson speed meter, *without the need for any additional kilometer-scale cavities*. In particular, a signal-recycled Sagnac interferometer with ring cavities in its arms has exactly the same performance as the Michelson speed meters of Ref. SMPC , aside from (presumably minor) differences due to optical losses.

This paper is organized as follows: in Sec. II we derive the input-output relation of signal-recycled Sagnac interferometers, with either optical delay lines or ring-shaped Fabry-Perot cavities in the arms, showing that they are indeed measuring the relative speed of test masses. In Sec. III, we evaluate the noise spectral density of ideal Sagnac interferometers, obtaining comparable performances to the Michelson speed meters. In Sec. IV, we discuss some technical issues that deserve further investigation. Finally, Sec. V summarizes our conclusions. Appendix A contains details in the calculations of the input-output relation of a single interferometer arm, which might contain an optical delay line or a ring cavity.

## II The Sagnac as a speed meter, and its input-output relations

### II.1 The Sagnac optical configuration

Two variants of Sagnac interferometers are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, which uses optical delay lines or ring-shaped Fabry-Perot cavities in the arms. \[The idea of using optical delay lines and ring cavities are due to Drever, proposed in similar designs. See, e.g., Ref. Drever .\] In both variants, the carrier light enters the interferometer from the left port (also called the “bright port”) of the beamsplitter (BS). The light gets split in two and travels into the two arms in opposite orders; we denote by R the beam that enters the North (N) arm first and the East (E) arm second, and by L that which enters E first and N second. Suppose the mirrors are all held fixed at their equilibrium positions, so that the two arms are exactly symmetric; then the carrier R and L beams, upon arriving again at the beamsplitter, will combine in such a way that no lights exits to the port below the beamsplitter (the “dark port”). Similarly, any vacuum fluctuations that enter the interferometer at the bright port along with the carrier light will also be suppressed in the dark-port output. Only vacuum fluctuations that entered the interferometer from the dark port can leave the interferometer through the dark port. As a result, the dark port is decoupled from the bright port, as in a Michelson interferometer. This fact is crucial to the suppression of laser noise in the dark-port output.

### II.2 The Sagnac’s Speed-Meter Behavior

When the end mirrors of the two arms are allowed to move, they phase modulate the carrier light, generating sideband fields. Only antisymmetric, non-static changes in the arm lengths can contribute to the dark-port output; this is a result of the cancellation at the beamsplitter, and the fact that the two beams pass through the two arms in the opposite order. A more detailed but still rough exploration of this point reveals the Sagnac’s role as a speed-meter interferometer:

Denoting by $`\tau _{\mathrm{arm}}`$ the (average) storage time of light in the arms and by $`x_{\mathrm{N},\mathrm{E}}`$ the time-dependent displacements of the end mirrors, we have for the phase gained by the R and L beams after traveling from the bright entry port through the two arms to the dark exit port:

$`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{R}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{N}(t)+x_\mathrm{E}(t+\tau _{\mathrm{arm}}),`$
$`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{L}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{E}(t)+x_\mathrm{N}(t+\tau _{\mathrm{arm}}).`$
The amplitude of the dark-port output is proportional to the phase difference of the two beams at the beamsplitter:

$`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{R}\delta \varphi _\mathrm{L}`$ $``$ $`\left[x_\mathrm{N}(t)x_\mathrm{N}(t+\tau _{\mathrm{arm}})\right]`$ (1)
$``$ $`\left[x_\mathrm{E}(t)x_\mathrm{E}(t+\tau _{\mathrm{arm}})\right].`$
As a consequence, the Sagnac interferometer is *not* sensitive to any time-independent displacement of the test masses. By expanding Eq. (1) in powers of $`\tau _{\mathrm{arm}}`$, we see that, at frequencies much smaller than $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{arm}}`$, the *speed* of the test-mass motion is measured, and at higher frequencies, a mixture of the speed and its time derivatives is measured — as also is the case in other speed meters SMorig ; SMP ; SMPC .

### II.3 Input-output relations without a signal-recycling mirror

As a foundation for evaluating the performances of Sagnac interferometers in the high-power regime, we shall now derive their quantum mechanical input-output relations — i.e., we shall derive equations for the quantum mechanical dark-port output field $`q`$ in terms of the input (vacuum) fields $`p`$ at the dark port and $`z`$ at the bright port (which in the end does not appear in $`q`$), and the gravitational-wave field $`h`$. In Figs. 1 and 2, we have denoted by $`a^{\mathrm{RN},\mathrm{RE},\mathrm{LN},\mathrm{LE}}`$ the input sideband fields of the R and L beams at the N and E arms, and by $`b^{\mathrm{RN},\mathrm{RE},\mathrm{LN},\mathrm{LE}}`$ the output sideband fields. For the moment, we shall ignore the existence of the signal-recycling mirror (SRM); and throughout we shall ignore the power-recycling mirror (PRM) since (as for Michelson topologies) it merely serves to provide a larger input power at the beamsplitter and has no other significance for the interferometer’s quantum noise.

In this paper, we shall use the Caves-Schumaker two-photon formalism Caves\_Schumaker  (briefly introduced in Sec. IIA of KLMTV), which breaks the time-domain sideband fields, at any given spatial location, into the following form,

$$E(t)=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{𝒜c}}\left[E_1(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)+E_2(t)\mathrm{sin}(\omega _0t)\right],$$
(2)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the carrier frequency, $`𝒜`$ is the cross sectional area of the beam. Here $`E_{1,2}(t)`$ are slowly varying fields called the cosine (or amplitude) and sine (or phase) quadratures. These quadratures fields can be thought of as amplitude or phase modulations on a carrier field of the form $`D\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)`$ . The quadrature fields can be expanded as

$$E_{1,2}(t)=_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi }\left(a_{1,2}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}+a_{1,2}^{}e^{+i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\right),$$
(3)
in terms of the quadrature operators $`a_{1,2}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. A more general quadrature operator can be constructed from $`a_{1,2}`$:

$$a_\mathrm{\Phi }=a_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }+a_2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(4)
The set of propagation equations common to both of our Sagnac configurations \[with either delay lines (DL for short) or ring cavities (FP for short) inside the arms\] are: (i) at the beamsplitter,

$$a^{\mathrm{RN}}=\frac{z+p}{\sqrt{2}},a^{\mathrm{LE}}=\frac{zp}{\sqrt{2}},q=\frac{b^{\mathrm{LN}}b^{\mathrm{RE}}}{\sqrt{2}};$$
(5)
and (ii) when the beams leave one arm and enter the other,

$$a^{\mathrm{RE}}=b^{\mathrm{RN}},a^{\mathrm{LN}}=b^{\mathrm{LE}}.$$
(6)
The above equations, (5) and (6), are for both quadratures. By writing down these equations, we assume the distances between the BS and ITMs to be small, and also integer multiples of the laser wavelength.

The input-output relations for the arms, i.e., the $`b`$-$`a`$ relations, are evaluated in the Appendix (in an manner analogous to that of KLMTV for Michelson configurations), for the distinct cases of DL and FP. The results can be put into the following simple form:

$`b_1^{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{arm}}}a_1^{IJ},`$ (7)
$`b_2^{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{arm}}}\left[a_2^{IJ}𝒦_{\mathrm{arm}}(a_1^{\mathrm{L}J}+a_1^{\mathrm{R}J})\right]`$ (8)
$`+e^{i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{arm}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦_{\mathrm{arm}}}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}}\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_J^{\mathrm{GW}}/L.`$
Here $`I=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}`$ stands for either one of the two beams, and $`J=\mathrm{E},\mathrm{N}`$ stands for either one of the two arms. The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{x}_J^{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is the gravitational-wave induced displacement of the $`J`$th ETM (in frequency domain), $`L`$ is the arm length, and $`m`$ is the mass of the ITM and the ETM. The Standard Quantum Limit is given by

$$h_{\mathrm{SQL}}=\sqrt{\frac{8\mathrm{}}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2L^2}}.$$
(9)
Expressions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{arm}}`$ and $`𝒦_{\mathrm{arm}}`$, in the cases of DL and FP, are given in the Appendix \[Eqs. (41), (42), (52) and (53)\] and summarized in Table. 1. Combining Eqs. (5)–(8), we obtain $`q_{1,2}`$ in terms of the input fields and the dimensionless gravitational-wave strain (in frequency domain), $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ \[also using $`\stackrel{~}{h}=(\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{GW}}\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{GW}})/L`$\]:

$`q_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}}p_1,`$ (10)
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}}(p_2𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}}p_1)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}}}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}}\stackrel{~}{h};`$
with

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{arm}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$ (12)
$`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ $`=`$ $`4𝒦_{\mathrm{arm}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{arm}}.`$ (13)
Expressions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ and $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ in the DL and FP cases can be obtained by inserting Eqs. (41), (42), (52) and (53) into Eqs. (12) and(13), with results summarized again in Table. 1. Indeed, as mentioned at the beginning of this section, the bright-port input field $`z`$ does not appear in the dark-port output quadratures, $`q_{1,2}`$.

The input-output relations (10) and (11) have the same general form as those of a conventional Michelson interferometer, Eq. (16) of KLMTV , and those of a Michelson speed meter, Eqs. (27) of SMP  or Eqs. (12) of SMPC . In particular, as discussed in the Appendix, the output phase quadrature $`q_2`$ is a sum of three terms: the shot noise (first term), the radiation-pressure noise (second term) and the gravitational-wave signal (third term), while the output amplitude quadrature $`q_1`$ contains only shot noise.

### II.4 Influence of signal recycling on the input-output relations

Since the input-output relations of Sagnac interferometers have the same form as those of a conventional Michelson interferometer, the quantum noise of signal-recycled Sagnac interferometers can be obtained easily using the results of Refs. BC1 ; BC2 . For simplicity, we shall restrict the signal-recycling cavity to be either resonant with the carrier frequency (“tuned SR”) or anti-resonant (“tuned RSE”), leaving the detuned case for future investigations. In these cases, the dynamics of the interferometer are not modified by the signal recycling, and the input-output relation has the same form as Eqs. (10) and (11), with $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ replaced by (see Sec. IIIC of Ref. BC1 )

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}=\frac{\tau ^2}{12\rho \mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}+\rho ^2}𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}},$$
(14)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ replaced by a quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}`$ whose value is not of interest to us. Here $`\rho `$ and $`\tau `$ are the (amplitude) reflectivity and transmissivity of the signal-recycling mirror, with $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, $`\tau >0`$ and $`\rho ^2+\tau ^2=1`$. The quantity $`\varphi `$ is the detuning of the signal-recycling cavity, related to its length by $`l`$ (which is defined as the distance from the beamsplitter to the signal-recycling mirror) by $`\varphi =[\omega _0l/c]_{\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi }`$. It is also assumed that the length $`l`$ is very short, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }l/c`$ can be regarded as $`0`$. Expressions for $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}`$ can be obtained by using results in Table 1.

Using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }L/c1`$ (for earth-based interferometers in the high-frequency band), $`1`$ (for the DL case) and $`T1`$ (for the FP case), we can obtain some approximate formulas for $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}`$ (which also apply to the non-SR case, with $`\rho 0`$ and $`\tau 1`$): in the DL case

$`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}^{\mathrm{DL}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32I_\mathrm{c}\omega _0}{mLc\gamma _{\mathrm{DL}}^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{1+2\rho \mathrm{cos}(4\mathrm{\Omega }/\gamma _{\mathrm{DL}})+\rho ^2}}\right]`$ (15)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }/\gamma _{\mathrm{DL}})}{\mathrm{\Omega }/\gamma _{\mathrm{DL}}}}\right]^4,`$
with

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{DL}}=\frac{c}{L};$$
(16)
and in the FP case

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}^{\mathrm{FP}}=\frac{16I_\mathrm{c}\omega _0}{mLc}\frac{\delta }{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{s}^2)^2+\delta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2};$$
(17)
with

$$\delta =2\left(1+\frac{T}{2}\right)\frac{1\rho }{1+\rho }\gamma _{\mathrm{FP}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{s}=\left(1+\frac{T}{2}\right)\gamma _{\mathrm{FP}},$$
(18)
where

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{FP}}=\frac{Tc}{4L}.$$
(19)
Interestingly, Eq. (17) is identical to Eqs. (22) and (23) of Ref. SMPC , with substitutions (this paper $``$ Purdue and Chen) $`I_cW_{\mathrm{circ}}`$ (circulating power), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (sloshing frequency), $`\delta \delta `$ (extraction rate), $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega `$ (sideband frequency), and $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}^{\mathrm{FP}}\kappa `$. As we shall explain further in the following sections, the coupling constant $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}`$ alone (besides $`h_{\mathrm{SQL}}`$, which depends on $`m`$ and $`L`$) will determine the quantum noise of the interferometer. This means that a signal-recycled Sagnac interferometer with ring cavities in its arms is equivalent to the Michelson speed meters proposed in Refs. SMP ; SMPC  (if we ignore the influence of optical losses and other noise sources).

### II.5 Frequency dependence of coupling constants $`𝒦`$, and Sagnac interferometers as speed meters

As can be seen both analytically in Eqs. (17) and (18) and graphically in Fig. 3, the coupling constant $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}}`$ of a Sagnac interferometer without signal recycling (i.e., $`\tau =1`$, $`\rho =0`$) approaches a constant as $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, which also turns out to be its maximum. This fact, combined with the input-output relation (11), suggests that the second output quadrature $`q_2`$ is indeed sensitive to the speed of the interferometer induced by the gravitational wave, since at low frequencies

$$q_2(\mathrm{signal}\mathrm{part})\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{𝒦(\mathrm{\Omega }=0)}\stackrel{~}{x}^{\mathrm{GW}}\mathrm{momentum}.$$
(20)
(A more detailed discussion of the link between $`𝒦`$ and a speed meter’s performance is given in Sec. IIIA of Ref. SMPC ; that discussion, in the framework of a Michelson speed meter, is equally valid for a Sagnac speed meter.) When signal recycling is added, the shape of $`𝒦(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be adjusted for optimization purposes; examples are shown in Fig. 4.

## III Noise spectral density

In this section, we shall assume that homodyne detection can be carried out on any (frequency-independent) quadrature,

$$q_\mathrm{\Phi }=q_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }+q_2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(21)
Homodyne detection is essential for QND interferometers, if they are to beat the SQL by substantial amounts; the additional noise associated with heterodyne detection schemes can seriously limit an interferometer’s ability to beat the SQL rfmod .

The noise spectral density associated with the input-output relations (10) and (11) can be obtained in a manner analogous to that of Sec. IV of KLMTV or Sec. III of Ref. SMPC . The result is

$$S_h=\left[\frac{(\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Phi }𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}})^2+1}{2𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}}\right]h_{\mathrm{SQL}}^2.$$
(22)
As is also discussed in Refs. SMBGKT ; SMP ; SMPC , the optimal quadrature to observe is the one with

$$\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{max}}𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}(\mathrm{\Omega });$$
(23)
for this quadrature the noise spectral density is

$$S_h=\left[\frac{(𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}})^2+1}{2𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}}\right]h_{\mathrm{SQL}}^2.$$
(24)
In the left panel of Fig. 5, we plot the noise spectral density of a delay-line Sagnac interferometer without signal recycling, with $`m=40\mathrm{kg}`$ and $`I_\mathrm{c}=8.2\mathrm{MW}`$ (the characteristic circulating power used for the Michelson speed meter in Refs. SMP ; SMPC ), and with $`=`$40, 60, 80 \[corresponding to powers in a single beam equal to $`102.5\mathrm{kW}`$, $`68.3\mathrm{kW}`$ and $`51.3\mathrm{kW}`$, respectively; see Eq. (33); these powers can be lowered by injecting squeezed vacuum into the dark port, as we shall discuss below\]. The noise spectral density of the fiducial Michelson speed meter of Refs. SMP ; SMPC , with the same $`I_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`m`$, and (in their notation) $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi \times 173\mathrm{Hz}`$, $`\delta =2\pi \times 200\mathrm{Hz}`$, is also plotted for comparison. In the right panel, we plot the noise spectral density of a ring-cavity Sagnac interferometer without signal recycling, with the same $`m`$ and $`I_\mathrm{c}`$, and with $`\gamma _{\mathrm{FP}}=2\pi \times 200\mathrm{Hz}`$, $`2\pi \times 220\mathrm{Hz}`$ and $`2\pi \times 240\mathrm{Hz}`$. As one can see in the two panels, both configurations of non-recycled Sagnac interferometers exhibit broadband QND performance, with the beating of the SQL concentrated at low frequencies.

Signal recycling allows us to improve and optimize the Sagnac interferometers so they have similar performance to a Michelson speed meter; i.e., so they beat the SQL by a roughly constant factor over a substantially broader frequency band than without signal recycling. In particular, since the spectral density (22) only depends on $`𝒦`$, and $`𝒦_{\mathrm{sagnac}\mathrm{SR}}^{\mathrm{FP}}`$ is the same as that of a Michelson speed meter, the signal-recycled Sagnac interferometers with ring cavities will have the same performance as the Michelson speed meters. In Fig. 6, we give one example for each of the DL and FP configurations. In the left panel we plot the noise spectral density for a signal-recycled DL Sagnac with $`m=40\mathrm{kg}`$, $`I_\mathrm{c}=8.2\mathrm{MW}`$, $`=60`$ (and therefore $`I_\mathrm{b}=68\mathrm{kW}`$) and $`\rho =0.09`$ (dark solid curve), compared with that of the corresponding non-recycled ($`\rho =0`$) interferometer (dashed curve), and that of the fiducial Michelson speed meter (gray solid curve). In the right panel we plot the the noise spectral density of a signal-recycled FP Sagnac interferometer with $`T=0.0564`$, $`\rho =0.268`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{s}=2\pi \times 173\mathrm{Hz}`$, and $`\delta =2\pi \times 200\mathrm{Hz}`$ \[from Eq. (18)\]. This interferometer has the same noise spectral density as the fiducial Michelson speed meter. \[The two noise curves agree perfectly, appearing as the solid curve in the panel.\] The corresponding non-recycled noise curve (with $`\rho =0`$) is also plotted (the dashed curve) for comparison.

As conceived by Caves Caves  and discussed in Refs. KLMTV ; SMPC , injecting squeezed vacuum into the dark-port can lower the required circulating power. For example, as discussed in Sec. IVA of Ref. SMPC , for speed meters with input-output relations with the form of Eqs. (10) and (11), the circulating power can be lowered by the squeeze factor $`e^{2R}`$, while maintaining the same performance. In the LIGO-III era, it is reasonable to expect $`e^{2R}0.1`$ KLMTV , so the circulating powers cited above can be lowered by a factor $`10`$. The resulting fiducial circulating power, $`I_c=8.2\mathrm{MW}/10=820\mathrm{k}\mathrm{W}`$ is about the same as planned for the second-generation Advanced LIGO interferometers.

Finally, for signal-recycled FP Sagnac interferometers, since they are equivalent to the Michelson speed meters of Ref. SMPC , one can further improve the high-frequency performance by performing frequency-dependent homodyne detection with the aid of two kilometer-scale optical filters at the dark-port output; see Sec. IVB of SMPC .

## IV Discussion of technical issues

We shall now comment on three technical issues that might affect significantly the performances of Sagnac speed-meter interferometers:

Optical Losses. So far in this paper, we have regarded all interferometers as ideal; most importantly, we have ignored optical losses. As has been shown by several studies of the Michelson case KLMTV ; SMPC , optical losses can sometimes be the limiting factor on the sensitivity of a QND interferometer. However, as shown in Ref. SMPC , Michelson speed meters are *less susceptible to* optical losses than Michelson position meters (even though the losses may be enhanced by the larger number of optical surfaces on which to scatter or absorb, and by the fact that the coupling constant $`𝒦(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ remains finite as $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ rather than growing to infinity). It is plausible that this feature will be retained, at least for optical losses associated with the individual optical elements, and with the readout scheme, but rigorous calculations are yet to be carried out. Moreover, the losses due to the use of diffractive optics and polarization techniques in some Sagnac configurations AllReflective  deserve serious study.

High Power Through the Beam Splitter. As we saw at the end of Sec. III, for FP Sagnac interferometers, in order to optimize the shape of the noise curve, the required values of the power transmissivity of the ITM can become as large as $`0.05`$, which may require optical powers at the level of tens of kilowatts through the beamsplitter (even when squeezed vacuum is injected into the dark port); this may pose a problem for implementation. In Michelson speed meters, a resonant-side-band-extraction technique can be used to greatly reduce the power through the beamsplitter without affecting the interferometer’s performance, but it is not clear whether an analogous trick exists for Sagnac interferometers.

Susceptibility to Mirror Tilt and Imperfections. In the low-laser-power limit, the Sagnac interferometer is known to be more susceptible to mirror tilting than are Michelson interferometers, but less susceptible to geometric imperfections of mirrors PGM98 . A study of these susceptibilities needs to be carried out in the context of high laser power, in order to see whether they pose any serious difficulty in the implementation of Sagnac speed meters.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, a quantum-mechanical study of idealized Sagnac interferometers, including radiation-pressure effects, has been carried out. As was already known, Sagnac interferometers are sensitive only to the time varying part of the antisymmetric mode of mirror displacement. It was a short and trivial step, in this paper, to demonstrate that this means a Sagnac interferometer measures the test masses’ relative speed or momentum and therefore is a speed meter with QND capabilities. Detailed computations revealed that, as for other speed meters, a broad-band QND performance can be obtained, when frequency-independent homodyne detection is performed at the dark port. Signal recycling can be employed to further optimize the noise spectrum so it is comparable to that of a Michelson speed meter (or exactly the same, for Sagnac configurations with ring cavities in the arms); and, by contrast with the Michelson, this can be achieved without the need for any additional kilometer-scale FP cavity. \[In the case of frequency-dependent homodyne detection with the aid of two kilometer-scale filter cavities, the Sagnac speed meter still needs one less optical cavity than its Michelson counterpart.\] If further technical issues, including those related to optical losses (Sec. IV), can be resolved, the Sagnac optical topology will be a strong candidate for third-generation gravitational-wave interferometers, such as LIGO-III and EURO.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Kip Thorne for discussions, comments and suggestions on the manuscript, and encouragement to finish it. This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0099568, and by the Barbara and David Groce Fund of the San Diego Foundation.

## Appendix A Input-output relations for the arms

Since the north and east arms are identical, we need only analyze one of them. For concreteness, we study the East arm. In Appendix B of Ref. KLMTV , KLMTV derived the input-output relation for a simple FP cavity, using the same Caves-Schumaker quadrature formalism Caves\_Schumaker  as we use here. The input-output relations for optical delay-line arms and ring cavities can be derived analogously:

### A.1 Optical delay line

Following the procedure of KLMTV, we initially suppose that the ITM is not moving, and we denote the displacement of the ETM by $`x_\mathrm{E}(t)`$. Suppose the R beam has an electric field amplitude

$$E^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t)=[D+E_1^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t)]\mathrm{cos}\omega _0t+E_2^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t)\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t$$
(25)
at the location where it enters the E arm; here $`D`$ is the (classical) carrier amplitude and $`E_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t)`$ are the sideband quadrature fields

$$E_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t)=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{𝒜c}}_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi }[a_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}+h.c.],$$
(26)
with “h.c.” meaning “Hermitian conjugate”. The output beam after $``$ bounces is delayed by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=2L/c+2\left[x_\mathrm{E}(tL/c)+x_\mathrm{E}(t3L/c)+\mathrm{}+x_\mathrm{E}(t(21)L/c)\right],$$
(27)
so

$`E^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{out}}(t)=E^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $``$ $`[D+E_1^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t2L/c)]\mathrm{cos}\omega _0t+E_2^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t2L/c)\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _0D}{c}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{}{}}}x_\mathrm{E}\left(t(2k1)L/c\right).`$
Comparing with

$$E_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{out}}(t)=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}\omega _0}{𝒜c}}_0^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi }[b_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}+h.c.],$$
(29)
we obtain

$`b_1^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}a_1^{\mathrm{RE}},`$ (30)
$`b_2^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}a_2^{\mathrm{RE}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _0}{c}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2I_\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}}\right)e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}.`$ (31)
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`x_\mathrm{E}(t)`$. Here $`I_\mathrm{b}`$ is the power of the beam,

$$I_\mathrm{b}=\frac{D^2𝒜c}{8\pi },$$
(32)
which is related to the total circulating power by

$$I_\mathrm{b}=\frac{I_\mathrm{c}}{2}.$$
(33)
The physical meanings of Eqs. (30) and (31) can be roughly explained as follows: (i) the gravitational-wave signal embodied in $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}`$ is only present in the second (phase) quadrature, $`b_2^{\mathrm{RE}}`$, of the output sideband field, i.e., in the second term of the right-hand side of Eq. (31); (ii) the first term on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (30) and (31) represents the shot noise, which originates from the quantum fluctuations of the input field. Obviously, the relations (30) and (31) also apply to the L beam, with the change of superscript R to L.

Next we must study the motion of the end mirror, which is influenced by both the passing gravitational wave and the radiation-pressure force:

$$x_\mathrm{E}=x_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{GW}}+x_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{BA}},\ddot{x}_{\mathrm{BA}}=\frac{1}{m}F_{\mathrm{RP}}.$$
(34)
Here $`x_{\mathrm{BA}}`$ is the displacement induced by the radiation-pressure force, or the *back action* of the measurement process, which eventually gives rise to the *radiation-pressure noise.* The radiation-pressure force $`F_{\mathrm{RP}}`$ comes from both the L and R beams:

$$F_{\mathrm{RP}}(t)=\frac{𝒜}{2\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{}{}}\left\{\left[E^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t(2k1)L/c)\right]^2+\left[E^{\mathrm{LE}\mathrm{in}}(t(2k1)L/c)\right]^2\right\}.$$
(35)
However, we are only interested in the *fluctuating* and *low-frequency* part (in the gravitational-wave band) of the force, which comes from the beating of the sideband fields against the carrier:

$$F_{\mathrm{RP}}^{\mathrm{fluc}}(t)=\frac{D𝒜}{2\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[E_1^{\mathrm{RE}\mathrm{in}}(t(2k1)L/c)+E_1^{\mathrm{LE}\mathrm{in}}(t(2k1)L/c)\right].$$
(36)
Combining Eqs. (34) and (36) and transforming into the frequency domain, we obtain the Fourier transform of the mirror displacement in the GW frequency band \[note that Eq. (32) is used again\]:

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}=\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{GW}}\frac{4}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2c}\sqrt{2\mathrm{}\omega _0I_\mathrm{b}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\right)e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\left(\frac{a_1^{\mathrm{RE}}+a_1^{\mathrm{LE}}}{2}\right).$$
(37)
This, when combined with Eq. (31), yields:

$$b_2^{\mathrm{RE}}=e^{2iB\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}a_2^{\mathrm{RE}}\frac{16I_\mathrm{b}\omega _0}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2c^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\right)^2e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\left(\frac{a_1^{\mathrm{RE}}+a_1^{\mathrm{LE}}}{2}\right)+\frac{2\omega _0}{c}\sqrt{\frac{2I_\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\right)\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}^{\mathrm{GW}}.$$
(38)
The second term on the right-hand side is the radiation-pressure noise. In reality, the internal mirrors (ITM’s), the beamsplitter, and the connection mirror will also move under the radiation-pressure force (but they are *not* influenced by gravitational waves). When $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }L/c1`$, only the internal mirrors need be taken into account, and the effect is just a doubling of the radiation pressure noise in Eq. (38). Hence we arrive at the complete input-output relation for the East arm, put into a more compact form (similar to those in KLMTV KLMTV ):

$`b_1^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{DL}}}a_1^{\mathrm{RE}},`$ (39)
$`b_2^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{DL}}}\left[a_2^{\mathrm{RE}}𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}(a_1^{\mathrm{RE}}+a_1^{\mathrm{LE}})\right]+e^{i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{DL}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}}\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_E^{\mathrm{GW}}/L;`$ (40)
where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{DL}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }L/c,`$ (41)
$`𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16I_\mathrm{b}\omega _0}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{8I_\mathrm{c}\omega _0}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}}\right)^2.`$ (42)
The input-output relation for the L beam can be obtained by exchanging RE and LE in Eqs. (39) and (40).

### A.2 Ring cavity

Again, let us consider the East arm. Suppose again, for the moment, that only the ETM is allowed to move. Then the input-output relations for the fields immediately inside the ITM can be obtained easily from the results for optical delay lines \[Eqs. (39)–(42), with a factor $`1/2`$ multiplying the radiation-pressure noise term, since again as a first step we are only allowing the ETM to move\]:

$`B_1^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}A_1^{\mathrm{RE}},`$ (43)
$`B_2^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\left[A_2^{\mathrm{RE}}𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}^{=1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_1^{\mathrm{RE}}+A_1^{\mathrm{LE}}}{2}}\right)\right]+e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}^{=1}}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}}\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}/L;`$ (44)
where

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}^{B=1}=\frac{8I_\mathrm{c}\omega _0}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2c^2}.$$
(45)
As before, the input-output relation for the L beam is obtained by exchanging RE and LE. The fields outside the ITM are related to these fields by

$$b_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}}=\sqrt{R}a_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}}+\sqrt{T}B_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}},A_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}}=\sqrt{T}a_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}}+\sqrt{R}B_{1,2}^{\mathrm{RE}};$$
(46)
$$b_{1,2}^{\mathrm{LE}}=\sqrt{R}a_{1,2}^{\mathrm{LE}}+\sqrt{T}B_{1,2}^{\mathrm{LE}},A_{1,2}^{\mathrm{LE}}=\sqrt{T}a_{1,2}^{\mathrm{LE}}+\sqrt{R}B_{1,2}^{\mathrm{LE}}.$$
(47)
Combining Eqs. (43)–(47), we obtain

$`b_1^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{R}}{1e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{R}}}a_1^{\mathrm{RE}},`$ (48)
$`b_2^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{R}}{1e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{R}}}\left[a_2^{\mathrm{RE}}{\displaystyle \frac{T𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}^{=1}}{12\sqrt{R}\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Omega }L/c)+R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_1^{\mathrm{RE}}+a_1^{\mathrm{LE}}}{2}}\right)\right]`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{T}}{1e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{R}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦_{\mathrm{DL}}^{=1}}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}}\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_\mathrm{E}/L.`$
As before, the first terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (50) and (51) represent the shot noise, the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (51) represents the radiation-pressure noise, and the third term on the right-hand side of Eq. (51) is the gravitational-wave signal. Again, other optical elements besides the ETM can also be influenced by the radiation-pressure force; but when $`T1`$, we need only consider the radiation-pressure force on the ITM and the other cavity mirror near the ITM. Suppose all three sides of the ring cavity are on resonance with the carrier frequency. Then it is obvious that, at leading order in $`\mathrm{\Omega }L/c`$ and $`T`$, the fluctuating forces associated with the beams at the locations of the three mirrors are the same. However, since the in-cavity light is incident on the two near mirrors at $`45^{}`$, the motions of each of them induced by the radiation pressure is $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ that of the ITM, in the direction normal to their surfaces. Also because their motion directions are again $`45^{}`$ to the propagation direction of the beams, the resulting radiation-pressure noise is reduced by an additional $`1/\sqrt{2}`$. In the end, the net radiation-pressure noise due to the two near mirrors is equal to that due to the end mirror. Doubling the radiation-pressure noise in Eq. (51), we obtain the input-output relation of the ring cavity, which we put into a form similar to that of the optical delay line:

$`b_1^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{FP}}}a_1^{\mathrm{RE}},`$ (50)
$`b_2^{\mathrm{RE}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{FP}}}\left[a_2^{\mathrm{RE}}𝒦_{\mathrm{FP}}(a_1^{\mathrm{RE}}+a_1^{\mathrm{LE}})\right]+e^{i\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{FP}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2𝒦_{\mathrm{FP}}}}{h_{\mathrm{SQL}}}}\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{x}_E^{\mathrm{GW}}/L;`$ (51)
with

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}}{1e^{2i\mathrm{\Omega }L/c}\sqrt{R}}}=\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{R}}{1\sqrt{R}}}\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }L}{c}}\right),`$ (52)
$`𝒦_{\mathrm{FP}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{12\sqrt{R}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }L/c+R}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{8I_\mathrm{c}\omega _0}{m\mathrm{\Omega }^2c^2}}.`$ (53)


format: text

text:
# Quantum Protectorate and Microscopic Models of MagnetismInternational Journal of Modern Physics B16, N 5, (2002)pp.803-823

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that there are many branches of physics and chemistry where phenomena occur which cannot be described in the framework of interactions amongst a few particles. As a rule, these phenomena arise essentially from the cooperative behaviour of a large number of particles. Such many-body problems are of great interest not only because of the nature of phenomena themselves, but also because of the intrinsic difficulty in solving problems which involve interactions of many particles in terms of known Anderson statement that ”more is different” . It is often difficult to formulate a fully consistent and adequate microscopic theory of complex cooperative phenomena. In ref., the authors invented an idea of a quantum protectorate, ”a stable state of matter, whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher-organizing principle and nothing else”. This idea brings into physics the concept that reminds the uncertainty relations of quantum mechanics . The notion of QP was introduced to unify some generic features of complex physical systems on different energy scales, and is a certain reformulation of the conservation laws and symmetry breaking concepts. As typical examples of QP, the crystalline state, the Landau fermi liquid, the state of matter represented by conventional metals and normal $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ (cf.,) , and the quantum Hall effect were considered. The sources of quantum protection in high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity and low-dimensional systems were discussed in refs.-. According to Anderson, ”the source of quantum protection is likely to be a collective state of the quantum field, in which the individual particles are sufficiently tightly coupled that elementary excitations no longer involve just a few particles, but are collective excitations of the whole system. As a result, macroscopic behaviour is mostly determined by overall conservation laws”. In the same manner the concept of a spontaneous breakdown of symmetry enters through the observation that the symmetry of a physical system could be lower than the symmetry of the basic equations describing the system,. This situation is encountered in non-relativistic statistical mechanics. A typical example is provided by the formation of a crystal which is not invariant under all space translations, although the basic equations of equilibrium mechanics are. In this article, I will attempt to relate the term of a quantum protectorate and the foundations of quantum theory of magnetism. I will not touch the low-dimensional systems that were discussed already comprehensively in refs.-. I concentrate on the problem of choosing the most adequate microscopic model of magnetism of materials and, in particular, related to the duality of localized and itinerant behaviour of electrons where the microscopic theory meets the most serious difficulties. To justify this statement and to introduce all necessary notions that are relevant for the present discussion, we very briefly recall the basic facts of the microscopic approach to magnetism.

## 2  Magnetic Degrees of Freedom

The discussion in this paper is concentrated on the right definition of the fundamental ”magnetic” degrees of freedom and their correct model description for complex magnetic systems. We shall first describe the phenomenology of the magnetic materials to look at the physics involved. The problem of identification of the fundamental ”magnetic” degrees of freedom in complex materials is rather nontrivial. Let us discuss briefly, to give a flavor only, the very intriguing problem of the electron dual behaviour. The existence and properties of localized and itinerant magnetism in insulators, metals, oxides and alloys and their interplay in complex materials is an interesting and not yet fully understood problem of quantum theory of magnetism,. The central problem of recent efforts is to investigate the interplay and competition of the insulating, metallic, superconducting, and heavy fermion behaviour versus the magnetic behaviour, especially in the vicinity of a transition to a magnetically ordered state. The behaviour and the true nature of the electronic and spin states and their quasi-particle dynamics are of central importance to the understanding of the physics of strongly correlated systems such as magnetism and metal-insulator transition in metals and oxides, heavy fermion states , superconductivity and their competition with magnetism. The strongly correlated electron systems are systems in which electron correlations dominate. An important problem in understanding the physical behaviour of these systems was the connection between relevant underlying chemical, crystal and electronic structure, and the magnetic and transport properties which continue to be the subject of intensive debates. Strongly correlated $`d`$ and $`f`$ electron systems are of special interest . In these materials electron correlation effects are essential and, moreover, their spectra are complex, i.e., have many branches. Importance of the studies on strongly correlated electron systems are concerned with a fundamental problem of electronic solid state theory, namely, with a tendency of $`3(4)d`$ electrons in transition metals and compounds and $`4(5)f`$ electrons in rare-earth metals and compounds and alloys to exhibit both localized and delocalized behaviour ,. Many electronic and magnetic features of these substances relate intimately to this dual behaviour of the relevant electronic states. For example, there are some alloy systems in which radical changes in physical properties occur with relatively modest changes in chemical composition or structural perfection of the crystal lattice. Due to competing interactions of comparable strength, more complex ground states than usually supposed may be realized. The strong correlation effects among electrons, which lead to the formation of the heavy fermion state take part to some extent in formation of a magnetically ordered phase, and thus imply that the very delicate competition and interplay of interactions exist in these substances. For most of the heavy fermion superconductors, cooperative magnetism, usually some kind of antiferromagnetic ordering was observed in the ”vicinity” of superconductivity. In the case of U-based compounds, the two phenomena, antiferromagnetism and superconductivity coexist on a microscopic scale, while they seem to compete with each other in the Ce-based systems. For a Kondo lattice system, the formation of a Neel state via the RKKY intersite interaction compete with the formation of a local Kondo singlet . Recent data for many heavy fermion Ce- or U-based compounds and alloys display a pronounced non-Fermi-liquid behaviour. A number of theoretical scenarios have been proposed and they can be broadly classified into two categories which deal with the localized and extended states of $`f`$-electrons. Of special interest is the unsolved controversial problem of the reduced magnetic moment in Ce- and U-based alloys and the description of the heavy fermion state in the presence of the coexisting magnetic state. In other words, the main interest is in the understanding of the competition of intra-site (Kondo screening) and inter-site (RKKY exchange) interactions. Depending on the relative magnitudes of the Kondo and RKKY scales, materials with different characteristics are found which are classified as non-magnetic and magnetic concentrated Kondo systems. The latter, ”Kondo magnets”, are of main interest. Furthermore, there are effects which have a very complicated and controversial origin. There are some experimental evidences that peculiar magnetism of some quasi-ternary heavy fermion alloys is not that of localized systems, but have some features of band magnetism. Thus, in addition to the pronounced non-Fermi-liquid effects in thermodynamic and transport properties, the outstanding problems include small magnetic moments and possible transitions from a localized moment ordered phase to a kind of ”heavy fermion band magnet” \- . These features reflect the very delicate interplay and competition of interactions and changes in a chemical composition. As a rule, very little intuitive insight could be gained from this very complicated behaviour. The QP is an umbrella term for a theoretical approach which seems designed specifically to analyze such problems.

## 3  Microscopic Picture of Magnetism in Materials.

In this Section we recall the foundations of the quantum theory of magnetism in a sketchy form. Magnetism in materials such as iron and nickel results from the cooperative alignment of the microscopic magnetic moments of electrons in the material. The interactions between the microscopic magnets are described mathematically by the form of the Hamiltonian of the system. The Hamiltonian depends on some parameters, or coupling constants, which measure the strength of different kinds of interactions. The magnetization, which is measured experimentally, is related to the average or mean alignment of the microscopic magnets. It is clear that some of the parameters describing the transition to the magnetically ordered state do depend on the detailed nature of the forces between the microscopic magnetic moments. The strength of the interaction will be reflected in the critical temperature which is high if the aligning forces are strong and low if they are weak. In quantum theory of magnetism, the method of model Hamiltonians has proved to be very effective. Without exaggeration, one can say that the great advances in the physics of magnetic phenomena are to a considerable extent due to the use of very simplified and schematic model representations for the theoretical interpretation.

### 3.1  Heisenberg Model

The Heisenberg model is based on the assumption that the wave functions of magnetically active electrons in crystals differ little from the atomic orbitals. The physical picture can be represented by a model in which the localized magnetic moments originating from ions with incomplete shells interact through a short-range interaction. Individual spin moments form a regular lattice. The model of a system of spins on a lattice is termed the Heisenberg ferromagnet and establishes the origin of the coupling constant as the exchange energy. The Heisenberg ferromagnet in a magnetic field $`H`$ is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{ij}{}J(ij)\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_jg\mu _BH\underset{i}{}S_i^z$$
(1)
The coupling coefficient $`J(ij)`$ is the measure of the exchange interaction between spins at the lattice sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ and is defined usually to have the property J(i - j = 0) = 0. This constraint means that only the inter-exchange interactions are taken into account. The coupling, in principle, can be of a more general type (non-Heisenberg terms). For crystal lattices in which every ion is at the centre of symmetry, the exchange parameter has the property

$$J(ij)=J(ji)$$

We can rewrite then the Hamiltonian (1) as

$$H=\underset{ij}{}J(ij)(S_i^zS_j^z+S_i^+S_j^{})$$
(2)
Here $`S^\pm =S^x\pm iS^y`$ are the raising and lowering spin angular momentum operators. The complete set of spin commutation relations is

$`[S_i^+,S_j^{}]_{}=2S_i^z\delta _{ij};[S_i^+,S_i^{}]_+=2S(S+1)2(S_i^z)^2;`$
$`[S_i^{},S_j^z]_{}=\pm S_i^{}\delta _{ij};S_i^z=S(S+1)(S_i^z)^2S_i^{}S_i^+;`$
$`(S_i^+)^{2S+1}=0,(S_i^{})^{2S+1}=0`$
We omit the term of interaction of the spin with an external magnetic field for the brevity of notation. The statistical mechanical problem involving this Hamiltonian was not exactly solved, but many approximate solutions were obtained.
To proceed further, it is important to note that for the isotropic Heisenberg model, the total $`z`$-component of spin $`S_{tot}^z=_iS_i^z`$ is a constant of motion, i.e.

$$[H,S_{tot}^z]=0$$
(3)
There are cases when the total spin is not a constant of motion, as, for instance, for the Heisenberg model with the dipole terms added.
Let us define the eigenstate $`|\psi _0>`$ so that $`S_i^+|\psi _0>=0`$ for all lattice sites $`R_i`$. It is clear that $`|\psi _0>`$ is a state in which all the spins are fully aligned and for which $`S_i^z|\psi _0>=S|\psi _0>`$. We also have

$$J_\stackrel{}{k}=\underset{i}{}e^{(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}_i)}J(i)=J_\stackrel{}{k}$$

, where the reciprocal vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ are defined by cyclic boundary conditions. Then we obtain

$$H|\psi _0>=\underset{ij}{}J(ij)S^2=NS^2J_0$$

Here $`N`$ is the total number of ions in the crystal. So, for the isotropic Heisenberg ferromagnet, the ground state $`|\psi _0>`$ has an energy $`NS^2J_0`$.
The state $`|\psi _0>`$ corresponds to a total spin $`NS`$.
Let us consider now the first excited state. This state can be constructed by creating one unit of spin deviation in the system. As a result, the total spin is $`NS1`$. The state

$$|\psi _k>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2SN)}}\underset{j}{}e^{(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}_j)}S_j^{}|\psi _0>$$

is an eigenstate of $`H`$ which corresponds to a single magnon of the energy

$$E(q)=2S(J_0J_q)$$
(4)
Note that the role of translational symmetry, i.e. the regular lattice of spins, is essential, since the state $`|\psi _k>`$ is constructed from the fully aligned state by decreasing the spin at each site and summing over all spins with the phase factor $`e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}_j}`$ (we consider the 3-dimensional case only). It is easy to verify that

$$<\psi _k|S_{tot}^z|\psi _k>=NS1$$

The above consideration was possible because we knew the exact ground state of the Hamiltonian . There are many models where this is not the case. For example, we do not know the exact ground state of a Heisenberg ferromagnet with dipolar forces and the ground state of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet.

### 3.2  Itinerant Electron Model

E.Stoner has proposed an alternative, phenomenological band model of magnetism of the transition metals in which the bands for electrons of different spins are shifted in energy in a way that is favourable to ferromagnetism. The band shift effect is a consequence of strong intra-atomic correlations. The itinerant-electron picture is the alternative conceptual picture for magnetism,. It must be noted that the problem of antiferromagnetism is a much more complicated subject. The antiferromagnetic state is characterized by a spatially changing component of magnetization which varies in such a way that the net magnetization of the system is zero. The concept of antiferromagnetism of localized spins, which is based on the Heisenberg model and two-sublattice Neel ground state, is relatively well founded contrary to the antiferromagnetism of delocalized or itinerant electrons . In relation to the duality of localized and itinerant electronic states, G.Wannier showed the importance of the description of the electronic states which reconcile the band and local (cell) concept as a matter of principle.

### 3.3  Hubbard Model

There are big difficulties in the description of the complicated problem of magnetism in a metal with the $`d`$ band electrons which are really neither ”local” nor ”itinerant” in a full sense. The Hubbard model is in a certain sense an intermediate model (the narrow-band model) and takes into account the specific features of transition metals and their compounds by assuming that the $`d`$ electrons form a band, but are subject to a strong Coulomb repulsion at one lattice site. The Hubbard Hamiltonian is of the form,

$$H=\underset{ij\sigma }{}t_{ij}a_{i\sigma }^{}a_{j\sigma }+U/2\underset{i\sigma }{}n_{i\sigma }n_{i\sigma }$$
(5)
It includes the intra-atomic Coulomb repulsion $`U`$ and the one-electron hopping energy $`t_{ij}`$. The electron correlation forces electrons to localize in the atomic orbitals which are modelled here by a complete and orthogonal set of the Wannier wave functions $`[\varphi (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_j)]`$. On the other hand, the kinetic energy is reduced when electrons are delocalized. The band energy of Bloch electrons $`ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}`$ is defined as follows:

$$t_{ij}=N^1\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}ϵ_k^d\mathrm{exp}[i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{R}_i\stackrel{}{R}_j]$$
(6)
where $`N`$ is the number of lattice sites. This conceptually simple model is mathematically very complicated,. The Pauli exclusion principle which does not allow two electrons of common spin to be at the same site, plays a crucial role. It can be shown, that under transformation $`RHR^+`$, where $`R`$ is the spin rotation operator

$$R=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}i\varphi \stackrel{}{\sigma }_j\stackrel{}{n})$$
(7)
the Hubbard Hamiltonian is invariant under spin rotation, i.e., $`RHR^+=H`$. Here $`\varphi `$ is the angle of rotation around the unitary axis $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the Pauli spin vector; symbol $`_j`$ indicates a tensor product over all site subspaces. The summation over $`j`$ extends to all sites.
The equivalent expression for the Hubbard model that manifests the property of rotational invariance explicitly can be obtained with the aid of the transformation

$$\stackrel{}{S}_i=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}a_{i\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}a_{j\sigma ^{}}$$
(8)
Then the second term in (5) takes the following form

$$n_in_i=\frac{n_i}{2}\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{}{S}_i^2$$

As a result we get

$$H=\underset{ij\sigma }{}t_{ij}a_{i\sigma }^{}a_{j\sigma }+U\underset{i}{}(\frac{n_i^2}{4}\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{}{S}_i^2)$$
(9)
The total $`z`$-component $`S_{tot}^z`$ commutes with Hubbard Hamiltonian and the relation (3) is valid.

### 3.4 Multi-Band Models. Model with $`sd`$ Hybridization

The Hubbard model is the single-band model. It is necessary, in principle, to take into account the multi-band structure, orbital degeneracy, interatomic effects and electron-phonon interaction. The band structure calculations and the experimental studies showed that for noble, transition and rare-earth metals the multi-band effects are essential. An important generalization of the single-band Hubbard model is the so-called model with $`sd`$ hybridization,. For transition $`d`$ metals, investigation of the energy band structure reveals that $`sd`$ hybridization processes play an important part. Thus, among the other generalizations of the Hubbard model that correspond more closely to the real situation in transition metals, the model with $`sd`$ hybridization serves as an important tool for analyzing of the multi-band effects. The system is described by a narrow $`d`$-like band, a broad $`s`$-like band and a $`sd`$ mixing term coupling the two former terms. The model Hamiltonian reads

$$H=H_d+H_s+H_{sd}$$
(10)
The Hamiltonian $`H_d`$ of tight-binding electrons is the Hubbard model (5).

$$H_s=\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_k^sc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }$$
(11)
is the Hamiltonian of a broad s-like band of electrons.

$$H_{sd}=\underset{k\sigma }{}V_k(c_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+a_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma })$$
(12)
is the interaction term which represents a mixture of the $`d`$-band and $`s`$-band electrons. The model Hamiltonian (10) can be interpreted also in terms of a series of Anderson impurities placed regularly in each site (the so-called periodic Anderson model ). The model (10) is rotationally invariant also.

### 3.5  Spin-Fermion Model

Many magnetic and electronic properties of rare-earth metals and compounds (e.g., magnetic semiconductors) can be interpreted in terms of a combined spin-fermion model , that includes the interacting localized spin and itinerant charge subsystems. The concept of the $`s(d)f`$ model plays an important role in the quantum theory of magnetism, especially the generalized $`df`$ model, which describes the localized $`4f(5f)`$-spins interacting with $`d`$-like tight-binding itinerant electrons and takes into consideration the electron-electron interaction. The total Hamiltonian of the model is given by

$$H=H_d+H_{df}$$
(13)
The Hamiltonian $`H_d`$ of tight-binding electrons is the Hubbard model (5). The term $`H_{df}`$ describes the interaction of the total $`4f(5f)`$-spins with the spin density of the itinerant electrons

$$H_{df}=\underset{i}{}J\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{S}_i=JN^{1/2}\underset{kq}{}\underset{\sigma }{}[S_q^\sigma a_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k+q\sigma }+z_\sigma S_q^za_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k+q\sigma }]$$
(14)
where sign factor $`z_\sigma `$ is given by

$$z_\sigma =(+,)\sigma =(,)$$

and

$$S_q^\sigma =\{\begin{array}{cc}S_q^{}\hfill & \text{}\sigma =+\hfill \\ S_q^+\hfill & \text{}\sigma =\hfill \end{array}$$

In general the indirect exchange integral $`J`$ strongly depends on the wave vectors $`J(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})`$ having its maximum value at $`k=q=0`$. We omit this dependence for the sake of brevity of notation. To describe the magnetic semiconductors the Heisenberg interaction term (1) should be added, ( the resulting model is called the modified Zener model ).
These model Hamiltonians (and their simple modifications and combinations) are the most commonly used models in quantum theory of magnetism. In our previous paper, where the detailed analysis of the neutron scattering experiments on magnetic transition metals and their alloys and compounds was made, it was concluded that at the level of low-energy hydrodynamic excitations one cannot distinguish between the models. The reason for that is the spin-rotation symmetry. In terms of refs.,, the spin waves ( collective waves of the order parameter ) are in a quantum protectorate precisely in this sense. I will argue below the latter statement more explicitly.

## 4  Symmetry and Physics of Magnetism

In many-body interacting systems, the symmetry is important in classifying different phases and understanding the phase transitions between them, . To implement the QP idea it is necessary to establish the symmetry properties and corresponding conservation laws of the microscopic models of magnetism. The Goldstone theorem states that, in a system with broken continuous symmetry ( i.e., a system such that the ground state is not invariant under the operations of a continuous unitary group whose generators commute with the Hamiltonian ), there exists a collective mode with frequency vanishing as the momentum goes to zero. For many-particle systems on a lattice, this statement needs a proper adaptation. In the above form, the Goldstone theorem is true only if the condensed and normal phases have the same translational properties. When translational symmetry is also broken, the Goldstone mode appears at zero frequency but at nonzero momentum, e.g., a crystal and a helical spin-density-wave (SDW) ordering. As has been noted, this present paper is an attempt to explain the physical implications involved in the concept of QP for quantum theory of magnetism. All the three models considered above, the Heisenberg, the Hubbard, and the spin-fermion model, are spin rotationally invariant, $`RHR^+=H`$. The spontaneous magnetization of the spin or fermion system on a lattice that possesses the spin rotational invariance, indicate on a broken symmetry effect, i.e., that the physical ground state is not an eigenstate of the time-independent generators of symmetry transformations on the original Hamiltonian of the system. As a consequence, there must exist an excitation mode, that is an analog of the Goldstone mode for the continuous case (referred to as ”massless” particles). It was shown that both the models, the Heisenberg model and the band or itinerant electron model of a solid, are capable of describing the theory of spin waves for ferromagnetic insulators and metals. In their paper, Herring and Kittel showed that in simple approximations the spin waves can be described equally well in the framework of the model of localized spins or the model of itinerant electrons. Therefore the study of, for example, the temperature dependence of the average moment in magnetic transition metals in the framework of low-temperature spin-wave theory does not, as a rule, give any indications in favor of a particular model. Moreover, the itinerant electron model (as well as the localized spin model) is capable of accounting for the exchange stiffness determining the properties of the transition region, known as the Bloch wall, which separates adjacent ferromagnetic domains with different directions of magnetization. The spin-wave stiffness constant $`D`$ is defined so that the energy of a spin wave with a small wave vector $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is $`EDq^2`$. To characterize the dynamic behaviour of the magnetic systems in terms of the quantum many-body theory, the generalized spin susceptibility (GSS) is a very useful tool. The GSS is defined by

$$\chi (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=𝑑t<<S_q^{}(t),S_q^+>>\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)$$
(15)
For the Hubbard model $`S_i^{}=a_i^+a_i`$. This GSS satisfies the important sum rule

$$Im\chi (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )𝑑\omega =\pi (n_{}n_{})=2\pi <S^z>$$
(16)
It is possible to check that

$$\chi (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=\frac{2<S^z>}{\omega }+\frac{q^2}{\omega ^2}\{\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )\frac{1}{q}[Q_q^{},S_q^+]\}$$
(17)
Here the following notation was used for $`qQ_q^{}=[S_q^{},H]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )=<<Q_q^{}|Q_q^+>>_\omega `$. It is clear from (17) that for $`q=0`$ the GSS (15) contains only the first term corresponding to the spin-wave pole for $`q=0`$ which exhausts the sum rule (16). For small $`q`$, due to the continuation principle, the GSS $`\chi (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ must be dominated by the spin wave pole with the energy

$$\omega =Dq^2=\frac{1}{2<S^z>}\{q[Q_q^{},S_q^+]q^2\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\underset{q0}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )\}$$
(18)
This result is the direct consequence of the spin rotational invariance and is valid for all the three models considered above.

## 5 Spin Quasiparticle Dynamics

In this Section, to make the discussion more concrete and to illustrate the nature of spin excitations in the above described models, let us consider the generalized spin susceptibility (GSS), which measures the response of ”magnetic” degrees of freedom to an external perturbation. The GSS is expressed in terms of the double-time thermal GF of spin variables , that is defined as

$`\chi (q;tt^{})=<<S_q^+(t),S_q^{}(t^{})>>=i\theta (tt^{})<[S_q^+(t),S_q^{}(t^{})]_{}>=`$
$`1/2\pi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)\chi (q,\omega )`$ (19)
The poles of the GSS determine the energy spectra of the excitations in the system. The explicit expressions for the poles are strongly dependent on the model used for the system and the character of approximations,.
The next step in description of the spin quasiparticle dynamics is to write down the equation of motion for the GF. Our attention is focused on the spin dynamics of the models. To describe self-consistently the spin dynamics of the models one should take into account the full algebra of relevant operators of the suitable ”spin modes”, which are appropriate for the case.

### 5.1 Spin Dynamics of the Hubbard Model

Theoretical calculations of the GSS in transition $`3d`$ metals have been largely based on the single-band Hubbard Hamiltonian. The GSS for this case reads

$$\chi (q,\omega )=<<\sigma _q^+|\sigma _q^{}>>_\omega $$
(20)
Here

$$\sigma _k^+=\underset{p}{}a_k^{}a_{k+p};\sigma _k^{}=\underset{p}{}a_k^{}a_{k+p}$$

The result of the RPA calculation has the following form

$$\chi (q,\omega )=<<\sigma _q^+|\sigma _q^{}>>_\omega =\frac{\chi ^0(q,\omega )}{1U\chi ^0(q,\omega )}$$
(21)
where

$$\chi ^0(q,\omega )=N^1\underset{k}{}\frac{n_kn_{k+q}}{\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^dϵ_k^d\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(22)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{U}{N}\underset{k}{}(n_kn_k)$$
(23)
The excitation spectrum of the Hubbard model determined by the poles of susceptibility (22) is shown schematically in fig.1. The experimental data for three typical magnetic material are listed in Table 1. Note, that typically $`q_{max}0.75k_F`$.

### 5.2 Spin Dynamics of the Spin-Fermion Model

When the goal is to describe self-consistently the quasiparticle dynamics of two interacting subsystems the situation is more complicated. For the spin-fermion model (14) the relevant algebra of operators should be described by the ’spinor’ $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\stackrel{}{S}_i}{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i}\right)`$ (”relevant degrees of freedom”). Once this has been done, one should introduce the generalized matrix spin susceptibility of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}<<S_k^+|S_k^{}>>& <<S_k^+|\sigma _k^{}>>\\ <<\sigma _k^+|S_k^{}>>& <<\sigma _k^+|\sigma _k^{}>>\end{array}\right)=\widehat{\chi }(k,\omega )$$
(24)
The spectrum of quasiparticle excitations without damping follows from the poles of the generalized mean-field susceptibility.
Let us write down explicitly the first matrix element $`\chi _0^{11}`$

$$<<S_q^+|S_q^{}>>^0=\frac{2JN^{1/2}<S_0^z>}{\omega JN^1(n_{}n_{})+2J^2N^{1/2}<S_0^z>(1U\chi _0^{df})^1\chi _0^{df}}$$
(25)
where

$`\chi _0^{df}(k,\omega )=N^1{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n_{p+k}n_p)}{\omega _{p,k}}}`$ (26)
$`\omega _{p,k}=(\omega +ϵ_p^dϵ_{p+k}^d\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=2JN^{1/2}<S_0^z>UN^1(n_{}n_{})`$
This result can be considered as reasonable approximation for description of the dynamics of localized spins in heavy rare-earth metals like $`Gd`$. (c.f.  ).
The magnetic excitation spectrum that follows from the GF (24) consists of three branches - the acoustic spin wave, the optic spin wave and the Stoner continuum . In the hydrodynamic limit, $`q0`$, $`\omega 0`$ the GF (24) can be written as

$$<<S_q^+|S_q^{}>>^0=\frac{2N^{1/2}<\stackrel{~}{S}_0^z>}{\omega E(q)}$$
(28)
where the acoustic spin wave energies are given by

$$E(q)=Dq^2=\frac{1/2_k(n_k+n_k)(\stackrel{}{q}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{k}})^2ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}^d+(2\mathrm{\Delta })^1_k(n_kn_k)(\stackrel{}{q}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{k}}ϵ_\stackrel{}{k}^d)^2}{2N^{1/2}<S_0^z>+(n_{}n_{})}$$
(29)
and

$$<\stackrel{~}{S}_0^z>=<S_0^z>[1+\frac{(n_{}n_{})}{2N^{3/2}<S_0^z>}]^1$$
(30)
In GMF approximation the density of itinerant electrons ( and the band splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) can be evaluated by solving the equation

$$n_\sigma =\underset{k}{}<a_{k\sigma }^+a_{k\sigma }>=\underset{k}{}[\mathrm{exp}(\beta (ϵ_k^d+UN^1n_\sigma JN^{1/2}<S_0^z>ϵ_F))+1]^1$$
(31)
Hence, the stiffness constant $`D`$ can be expressed by the parameters of the Hamiltonian (13).
The spectrum of the Stoner excitations is given by

$$E^{St}(q)=ϵ_{k+q}^dϵ_k^d+\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(32)
If we consider the optical spin wave branch then by direct calculation one can easily show that

$`E_{opt}(q)=E_{opt}^0+D(UE_{opt}/J\mathrm{\Delta }1)q^2`$
$`E_{opt}^0=J(n_{}n_{})+2J<S_0^z>`$ (33)
From the equation (33) one also finds the GF of itinerant spin density in the generalized mean field approximation

$$<<\sigma _k^+|\sigma _k^{}>>_\omega ^0=\frac{\chi _0^{df}(k,\omega )}{1[U\frac{2J^2<S_0^z>}{\omega J(n_{}n_{})}]\chi _0^{df}(k,\omega )}$$
(34)
### 5.3 Spin Dynamics of the Multi-Band Model

Now let us calculate the GSS for the Hamiltonian (10). In general, one should introduce the generalized matrix spin susceptibility of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}<<\sigma _q^{}|\sigma _q^+>>& <<\sigma _q^{}|s_q^{}>>\\ <<s_q^+|\sigma _q^{}>>& <<s_q^{}|s_q^+>>\end{array}\right)=\widehat{\chi }(q,\omega )$$
(35)
Here

$$s_k^+=\underset{q}{}c_k^{}c_{k+q};s_k^{}=\underset{q}{}c_k^{}c_{k+q}$$

Let us consider for brevity the calculation of the Green function $`<<\sigma _q^{}|\sigma _q^+>>`$. According to ref., the object now is to calculate the Green function $`<<\theta _k(q)=a_{k+q}^{}a_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega `$. In the random phase approximation (RPA), the equations of motion for the relevant Green functions are reduced to the closed form

$`(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_{}^d(k))<<\theta _k(q)|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega =(n_{k+q}n_k)A(q,\omega )`$ (36)
$`V_{k+q}<<c_{k+q}^{}a_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega +V_k<<a_{k+q}^{}a_k|\sigma _q^{}>>_\omega `$
$`(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_{k+q}^s)<<c_{k+q}^{}a_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega =<c_{k+q}^{}a_{k+q}>A(q,\omega )`$ (37)
$`+V_k<<c_{k+q}^{}c_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega V_{k+q}<<\theta _k(q)|\sigma _q^{}>>_\omega `$
$`(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s)<<a_{k+q}^{}c_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega =<a_k^{}c_k>A(q,\omega )`$ (38)
$`+V_k<<a_{k+q}^{}a_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega V_{k+q}<<c_{k+q}^{}c_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega `$
$`(\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^sϵ_k^s)<<c_{k+q}^{}c_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega =`$ (39)
$`+V_k<<c_{k+q}^{}a_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega V_{k+q}<<a_{k+q}^{}c_k|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega `$
Here the following definitions were introduced

$`ϵ_\sigma ^d(k)=ϵ_k^d+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}<a_{p\sigma }^{}a_{p\sigma }>`$ (40)
$`A(q,\omega )=1{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N}}<<\sigma _q^{}|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega `$
To truncate the hierarchy of Green functions equations (36) - (39) the RPA linearization was used

$`[\theta _k(q),H_d]_{}(ϵ_k^dϵ_{k+q}^d)\theta _k(q)+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _k(q)`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}(<a_{k+q}^{}a_{k+q}><a_k^{}a_k>)\theta _p(q)`$
$`[a_{k+q}^{}c_k,H_d]_{}ϵ_{k+q}^da_{k+q}^{}c_k`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}n_p<a_{k+q}^{}c_k>+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{N}}<a_k^{}c_k>{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}a_{p+q}^{}a_p`$
Now, we will use these equations to determine the spin susceptibility of $`d`$-electron subsystem in the random phase approximation. It can be shown that

$$\chi (q,\omega )=<<\sigma _q^{}|\sigma _q^+>>_\omega =\frac{\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )}{1U\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )}$$
(42)
We introduced here the notation $`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ for the mean field susceptibility to distinguish it from the $`\chi ^0(q,\omega )`$ (22).
The expression for the $`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ is of the form

$`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\{(n_{k+q}n_k)[|V_k|^2((\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_{k+q}^s)`$ (43)
$`+(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s))`$
$`+(\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^sϵ_k^s)(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s)(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_{k+q}^s)]`$
$`(\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^sϵ_k^s)[V_k<a_k^{}c_k>(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)ϵ_{k+q}^s)+`$
$`V_k<c_{k+q}^{}a_{k+q}>(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s)]\}R^1`$
where

$`R=\{|V_k|^2((\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_{}^d(k))(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s)`$ (44)
$`+(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_{k+q}^s)(\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^sϵ_k^s)+(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_{}^d(k))(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_{k+q}^s)`$
$`+(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s)(\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^sϵ_k^s))`$
$`+(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_{}^d(k))(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_{k+q}^s)(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k+q)ϵ_k^s)(\omega +ϵ_{k+q}^sϵ_k^s)\}`$
Note, that if $`V_k=0`$ then, $`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ is reduced precisely to $`\chi ^0(q,\omega )`$ (22).
The spectrum of quasiparticle excitations corresponds to the poles of the spin susceptibility (22); it corresponds to the spin-wave modes and to the Stoner-like spin-flip modes. Let us discuss first the question about the existence of a spin-wave pole among the set of poles of the susceptibility (42). If we set $`q=0`$ in (43) the secular equation for poles becomes

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{U}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\{(n_kn_k)[|V_k|^2(2\omega \mathrm{\Delta })`$ (45)
$`+\omega (\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k)ϵ_k^s)(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_k^s)]`$
$`\omega [V_k<a_k^{}c_k>(\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_k^s)+V_k<c_k^{}a_k>(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k)ϵ_k^s)]\}`$
$`(|V_k|^2(2\omega +\mathrm{\Delta })^2+`$
$`\omega (\omega ϵ_{}^d(k)+ϵ_k^s)(\omega +ϵ_{}^d(k)ϵ_k^s)(\omega +ϵ_k^sϵ_k^s))^1`$
which is satisfied if $`\omega =0`$. It follows from general considerations of Section 4 that when the wave length of a spin wave is very long (hydrodynamic limit ), its energy $`E(q)`$ must be related to the wave number $`q`$ by $`E(q)=Dq^2`$. Thus the solution for the equation

$$1=U\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )$$
(46)
exists which has the property $`lim_{q0}E(q)=0`$ and this solution corresponds to a spin-wave excitation in the multiband model with $`sd`$ hybridization (42). Thus we derived a formula (42) for the dynamic spin susceptibility $`\chi (q,\omega )`$ in RPA and shown, that it can be calculated in terms of the mean field spin susceptibility $`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ by analogy with the single-band Hubbard model.
Let us consider the poles of the $`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$. It is instructive to remark that the Hamiltonian (10) can be rewritten in the mean field approximation as

$$H^{MF}=\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_\sigma ^d(k)a_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_k^sc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+\underset{k\sigma }{}V_k(c_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+a_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma })$$
(47)
The Hamiltonian (46) can be diagonalized by the Bogoliubov $`(u,v)`$-transformation

$$a_{k\sigma }=u_{k\sigma }\alpha _{k\sigma }+v_{k\sigma }\beta _{k\sigma };c_{k\sigma }=u_{k\sigma }\beta _{k\sigma }v_{k\sigma }\alpha _{k\sigma }$$
(48)
The result of diagonalization is

$$H^{MF}=\underset{k\sigma }{}(\omega _{1k\sigma }\alpha _{k\sigma }^{}\alpha _{k\sigma }+\omega _{2k\sigma }\beta _{k\sigma }^{}\beta _{k\sigma })$$
(49)
where

$`\omega {\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2k\sigma }}=`$ (50)
$`1/2[(ϵ_\sigma ^d(k)+ϵ_k^s)\pm \sqrt{(ϵ_\sigma ^d(k)ϵ_k^s)^2+4|V_k|^2}]`$
$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u_{k\sigma }^2}{v_{k\sigma }^2}=\left[1+\frac{(\omega \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2k\sigma }ϵ_\sigma ^d(k))^2}{V_k^2}\right]^1$$
(51)
Then we find

$`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\{u_{k+q}^2u_k^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n_k^\alpha n_{k+q}^\alpha )}{(\omega +\omega _{1k+q}\omega _{1k})}}`$ (52)
$`+v_{k+q}^2v_k^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n_k^\beta n_{k+q}^\beta )}{(\omega +\omega _{2k+q}\omega _{2k})}}+u_{k+q}^2v_k^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n_k^\beta n_{k+q}^\alpha )}{(\omega +\omega _{1k+q}\omega _{2k})}}+`$
$`v_{k+q}^2u_k^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n_k^\alpha n_{k+q}^\beta )}{(\omega +\omega _{2k+q}\omega _{1k})}}\}`$
The present consideration shows that for the correlated model with $`sd`$ hybridization the spectrum of spin quasiparticle excitations is modified in comparison with the single-band Hubbard model.

## 6  Quasiparticle Excitation Spectra and Neutron Scattering

The investigation of the spectrum of magnetic excitations of transition and rare-earth metals and their compounds is of great interest for refining our theoretical model representations about the nature of magnetism. Experiments that probe the quasi-particle states could shed new light on the fundamental aspects of the physics of magnetism. The most direct and convenient method of experimental study of the spectrum of magnetic excitations is the method of inelastic scattering of thermal neutrons . It is known experimentally that the spin wave scattering of slow neutrons in transition metals and compounds can be described on the basis of the Heisenberg model. On the other hand, the mean magnetic moments of the ions in solids differ appreciably from the atomic values and are often fractional. The main statement of the present consideration is that the excitation spectrum of the Hubbard model and some of its modifications is of considerable interest from the point of view of the choice of the relevant microscopic model. Let us consider the neutron scattering cross section which is proportional to the imaginary part of the GSS

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega }}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma e^2}{m_ec^2}}\right)^2|F(q)|^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{k}}(1+\stackrel{~}{q}_z^2)`$ (53)
$`[(N(\omega )+1)Im\chi (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )+N(\omega )Im\chi (\stackrel{}{q},\omega )]`$
Here $`N(E(k))`$ is the Bose distribution function $`N(E(k))=[\mathrm{exp}(E(k)\beta )1]^1`$. To calculate the cross section (53), we obtain from (42) the imaginary part of the susceptibility, namely

$$Im\chi (q,\omega )=\frac{Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )}{[1URe\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )]^2+[UIm\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )]^2}$$
(54)
The spin wave pole occurs where $`Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ tends to zero. In this case, we can in (54) take the limit $`Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )0`$ so that

$$UIm\chi (q,\omega )\pi \delta [1URe\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )]$$
(55)
but

$$1URe\chi ^{MF}(q0,\omega 0)b^1(\omega E(q))$$
(56)
and thus

$$Im\chi (q0,\omega 0)\pi \frac{b}{U}\delta (\omega E(q))$$
(57)
Here $`b`$ is a certain constant, which can be numerically calculated and $`E(q)`$ is the acoustic spin wave pole $`E(q0)=0`$.
Turning now to the calculation of the cross section (53), we obtain the following result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma e^2}{m_ec^2}}\right)^2|F(q)|^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{k}}(1+\stackrel{~}{q}_z^2)N{\displaystyle \frac{b}{U}}`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}[N(E(p))\delta (\omega +E(p))+(N(E(p))+1)\delta (\omega E(p))]`$
According to formula (58), the cross section for the acoustic spin wave scattering will be identical for the Heisenberg and Hubbard (single-band and multiband) model. So, at the level of low-energy, hydrodynamic excitations one cannot distinguish between the models. However, for the Hubbard model, the poles of the GSS will contain, in addition to acoustic spin-wave pole, the continuum of the Stoner excitations $`E^{St}(q)=ϵ_{k+q}ϵ_q+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as is shown on fig. 1.

The spectra of the spin-fermion model and multiorbital (multi-band) Hubbard model are shown for comparison.
The cross section (58) does not include the contribution arising from the scattering by Stoner excitations, i.e. that determined by $`\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$. It was shown in paper that in a single-band Hubbard model of transition metal in the limit when the wave vector of the elementary excitations goes to zero, the acoustic spin-wave mode dominates the inelastic neutron scattering, and the contribution to the cross section due to Stoner-mode scattering goes to zero. It was shown that the Stoner-mode scattering intensity does not become comparable to the spin-wave scattering intensity until $`q=0.9q_{max}`$ (see fig.1). Here $`q_{max}`$ is the value of $`q`$ when the spin wave enters the continuum. For large values of $`q`$ and $`\omega `$ the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for spin flipping Stoner excitations may be overcome. In this case

$$Im\chi (q,\omega )Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )$$
(59)
From (52) we obtain for $`Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ the result

$`Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\{u_{k+q}^2u_k^2(n_k^\alpha n_{k+q}^\alpha )\delta (\omega +\omega _{1k+q}\omega _{1k})`$ (60)
$`+v_{k+q}^2v_k^2(n_k^\beta n_{k+q}^\beta )\delta (\omega +\omega _{2k+q}\omega _{2k})`$
$`+u_{k+q}^2v_k^2(n_k^\beta n_{k+q}^\alpha )\delta (\omega +\omega _{1k+q}\omega _{2k})+`$
$`v_{k+q}^2u_k^2(n_k^\alpha n_{k+q}^\beta )\delta (\omega +\omega _{2k+q}\omega _{1k})\}`$
Now it follows from (60) that $`Im\chi ^{MF}(q,\omega )`$ is non-zero only for values of the energies equal to the energies of the Stoner-type excitations

$`E_1^{St}(q)=\omega _{1k}\omega _{1k+q}`$ (61)
$`E_2^{St}(q)=\omega _{2k}\omega _{2k+q}`$
$`E_3^{St}(q)=\omega _{2k}\omega _{1k+q}`$
$`E_4^{St}(q)=\omega _{1k}\omega _{2k+q}`$
With (60) and (61) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma e^2}{m_ec^2}}\right)^2|F(q)|^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{k}}(1+\stackrel{~}{q}_z^2){\displaystyle \frac{N}{\pi }}`$ (62)
$`[(N(\omega )+1)Im\chi ^{MF}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )+N(\omega )Im\chi ^{MF}(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )]`$
Although for the single-band model the Stoner-mode scattering cross section remains relatively small until $`q`$ is fairly close to $`q_{max}`$, it can be shown ( see) that in the multiband models the Stoner-mode cross section may become reasonably large for much smaller scattering vector.
The essential result of the present consideration is the calculation of the GSS for the model with $`sd`$ hybridization which is more realistic for transition metals than the single-band Hubbard model. The present qualitative treatment shows that a two-band picture of inelastic neutron scattering is modified in comparison with the single-band Hubbard model. We have found that the long-wave-length acoustic spin-wave excitations should exist in this model and that in the limit $`(lim_{\omega 0}lim_{q0})`$, the acoustic spin-wave mode dominates the inelastic neutron scattering. The spin-wave part of the cross section is renormalized only quantitatively. The cross section due to Stoner-mode scattering is qualitatively modified because of occuring of the four intersecting Stoner-type sub-bands which may lead to the modification of the spin wave intensity fall off with increasing energy transfer. The intersection point $`q_{max}`$ can be essentially renormalized.

## 7  Conclusions

In summary, in this article, the logic of an approach to the quantum theory of magnetism based on the idea of the QP was described. There is an important aspect of this consideration, which is seen to be the key principle for the interpretation of the spin quasiparticle dynamics of the microscopic models of magnetism.
To summarize, the usefulness of the QP concept for physics of magnetism derives from the following features. From our point of view , the clearest difference between the models is manifested in the spectrum of magnetic excitations. The model of correlated itinerant electrons and the spin-fermion model have more complicated spectra than the model of localized spins (see fig. 1) . Since the structure of the GSS and the form of its poles are determined by the choice of the model Hamiltonian of the system and the approximations made in its calculation, the results of neutron scattering experiments can be used to judge the adequacy of the microscopic models. However, it should be emphasized that to judge reliably the applicability of a particular model, it is necessary to measure the susceptibility (the cross section) at all points of the reciprocal space and for a wide interval of temperatures, which is not always permitted by the existing experimental techniques. Thus, further development of experimental facilities will provide a base for further refining of the theoretical models and conceptions about the nature of magnetism. In terms of ref., to judge which of the models is more suitable, it is necessary to escape the QP. This can be done by measurements in the high $`(\stackrel{}{q},\omega )`$ region, where $`(\stackrel{}{q}q_{max},E\mathrm{\Delta })`$ .

The following statements can now be made as to our analysis and its results. In this paper, we shown that quasiparticle dynamics of magnetic materials can be reasonably understood by using the simplified, but workable models of interacting spins and electrons on a lattice in the light of the QP concept. The spectrum of magnetic excitations of the Hubbard model reflects the dual behaviour of the magnetically active electrons in transition metals and their compounds. The general properties of rotational invariance of the model Hamiltonians show that the presence of a spin-wave acoustic pole in the generalized magnetic susceptibility is a direct consequence of the rotational symmetry of the system. Thus, the acoustic spin-wave branch reflects a certain degree of localization of the relevant electrons; the characteristic quantity $`D`$, which determines the spin wave stiffness, can be measured directly in neutron experiments. In contrast, in the simplified Stoner model of band ferromagnetism the acoustic spin-waves do not exist. There is a continuum of single-particle Stoner excitations only. The presence of the Stoner continuum for the spectrum of excitations of the Hubbard model is a manifestation of the delocalization of the magnetic electrons. Since the Stoner excitations do not arise in the Heisenberg model, their direct detection and detailed investigation by means of neutron scattering is one of the most intriguing problems of the fundamental physics of magnetic state. Concerning the QP notion studied in the present paper, an important conclusion is that the inelastic neutron scattering experiments on metallic magnets permit one to make the process of escaping the QP very descriptive. In this consideration, our main emphasis was put on the aspects important from the point of view of quantum theory of magnetism, namely, on the dual character of fundamental ”magnetic degrees of freedom”. Generally speaking, the fortunate circumstance in this discussion is the fact that besides the very general idea of QP also concrete practical tools are available in the physics of magnetism, and the combination of these two approaches is possible in the neutron scattering experiments ( for details see ref.). The approach is very versatile since it uses the symmetry properties in the most ingenious fashion. By this consideration an attempt is made to link phenomenological and quantum theory of magnetism together more firmly, thus giving a better understanding of the latter. Finally, to clarify the concept of QP, we comment on somewhat resembling mathematical structures which are encountered when one tries to implement classical dynamic symmetries in quantum field theory; within these schemes one is trying to fit a classical description of particles endowed with internal structures, like spin. However, these analogies, as well as the elaboration of an adequate mathematical formalism for expression of the concept of QP need further studies. Further work is also necessary for the development of compact criteria appropriate for the QP occurrence in all applications.