text:
# High-Order Variational Calculation for the Frequency of Time-Periodic Solutions

## I Introduction

Perturbative treatments of physical problems provide us with divergent power series in some coupling constant $`g`$. Typically, the perturbation coefficients grow factorially, so that they have a zero radius of convergence. If the signs of the perturbation coefficients alternate, there exist various resummation schemes which help us to obtain finite results for all values of the coupling constant $`g`$, even in the strong-coupling limit $`g\mathrm{}`$ (for an overview see Chap. 16 of Ref. Kleinert2 ). Most successful is variational perturbation theory which was recently developed Kleinert1 ; Kleinert3  as a systematic extension of the variational approach of Feynman and Kleinert Feynman . Initially, this theory was set up for calculating the effective classical potential in quantum statistics. It has been thoroughly tested for the ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator and shown to converge exponentially fast and uniformly to the correct result Janke1 ; Janke2 . This success has led to applications to divergent series in other branches of theoretical physics Kleinert1 . Most spectacular was the success in calculating the most accurate critical exponents of the $`\varphi ^4`$-theory without using re-normalization group methods Kleinert2 ; Helium .

In this paper we extend variational perturbation theory by developing an exponentially fast converging variational perturbation theory for the frequency of time-periodic solutions of nonlinear dynamical systems. As a simple but nontrivial model we consider the one-dimensional anharmonic oscillator with the equation of motion

$`\ddot{x}(t)+\omega _0^2x(t)+gx^3(t)=0,`$ (1)
which is also known as the Duffing equation Bender . Here the dot abbreviates the derivative with respect to the time $`t`$, $`\omega _0`$ denotes the harmonic frequency, and $`g>0`$ stands for the coupling constant. In the following we solve (1) for the initial values

$`x(0)=1,\dot{x}(0)=0,`$ (2)
and determine the frequency $`\omega `$ of the resulting periodic motion by using variational perturbation theory. In Section II we calculate the frequency $`\omega `$ as a power series of the coupling constant $`g`$. Section III then elaborates the variational resummation of this weak-coupling series so that the frequency $`\omega `$ can be determined for all values of the coupling constant $`g`$ including the strong-coupling limit $`g\mathrm{}`$.

## II Perturbation Theory

We start by solving the initial value problem (1) and (2) perturbatively to high orders.

### II.1 Poincaré-Lindstedt Method

We assume for a sufficiently small coupling constant $`g`$ that the solution $`x(t)`$ has the asymptotic representation

$`x(t)=x_0(t)+x_1(t)g+\mathrm{}.`$ (3)
A systematic standard procedure to obtain such an asymptotic series for a periodic solution

$`x(t)=x\left(t+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\omega }}\right)`$ (4)
is provided by the Poincaré-Lindstedt method mickens ; minorsky . There one explicitly takes into account that the unperturbed frequency $`\omega _0`$ is shifted to the frequency $`\omega `$ by a nonzero coupling constant $`g`$. One performs a rescaling of time according to

$`\xi =\omega t`$ (5)
and introduces the new variable

$`q(\xi )=x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\omega }}\right).`$ (6)
This converts the periodicity condition (4) to

$`q(\xi )=q\left(\xi +2\pi \right)`$ (7)
and transforms the original initial value problem (1) and (2) to

$`\omega ^2q^{\prime \prime }(\xi )+\omega _0^2q(\xi )+gq^3(\xi )=0,q(0)=1,q^{}(0)=0,`$ (8)
where the prime indicates the derivative with respect to the dimensionless new time variable $`\xi `$. Since the coupling constant $`g`$ is supposed to be small, we can expand the frequency $`\omega `$ and the period solution $`q(\xi )`$ in powers of $`g`$ according to

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}w_n\omega _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{\omega _0^2}}\right)^n,`$ (9)
$`q(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q_n(\xi )\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{\omega _0^2}}\right)^n.`$ (10)
Due to this ansatz the expansion coefficients $`w_n`$ and $`q_n(\xi )`$ are dimensionless. Inserting (9) and (10) in the initial value problem (8) and comparing equal powers in the coupling constant $`g`$ leads for $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ to the following recursive set of ordinary differential equations:

$`q_n^{\prime \prime }(\xi )+q_n(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`f_n(\xi ),q_n(0)=q_n^{}(0)=0,`$ (11)
where the inhomogeneity $`f_n(\xi )`$ is given by

$`f_n(\xi )=2w_nq_0^{\prime \prime }(\xi )2{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}w_lq_{nl}^{\prime \prime }(\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{nm}{}}}w_mw_lq_{nml}^{\prime \prime }(\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{nm1}{}}}q_m(\xi )q_l(\xi )q_{nml1}(\xi ).`$ (12)
This is solved starting from

$`w_0=1,q_0(\xi )=\mathrm{cos}\xi .`$ (13)
In the $`n`$th integration process we proceed in three steps. At first, we calculate the inhomogeneity $`f_n(\xi )`$ according to (12) and expand it in a Fourier series which turns out to be of the following form:

$`f_n(\xi )={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}f_{n,k}\mathrm{cos}(2k+1)\xi .`$ (14)
Second, we prevent a secular term in $`q_n(\xi )`$ from solving (11) by demanding the condition

$`f_{n,1}=0,`$ (15)
from which the expansion coefficient $`w_n`$ is uniquely determined. Third, the initial value problem (11) is solved by

$`q_n(\xi )=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{n,k}}{(2k+1)^21}}\right]\mathrm{cos}\xi +{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{n,k}}{1(2k+1)^2}}\mathrm{cos}(2k+1)\xi .`$ (16)
Using a computer algebra program we obtain in this way the perturbation expansions for both the frequency

$`\omega =\omega _0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\omega _0}}g{\displaystyle \frac{21}{256\omega _0^3}}g^2+\mathrm{}`$ (17)
and the periodic solution

$`x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\omega t+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\omega _0^3}}\mathrm{cos}\omega t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\omega _0^3}}\mathrm{cos}3\omega t\right)g`$ (18)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{23}{1024\omega _0^4}}\mathrm{cos}\omega t{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\omega _0^4}}\mathrm{cos}3\omega t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1024\omega _0^4}}\mathrm{cos}5\omega t\right)g^2+\mathrm{}.`$
Tab. 1 shows the first 20 weak-coupling coefficients $`w_n`$ of the frequency $`\omega `$.

### II.2 Analytical Expression for the Frequency

Remarkably, the frequency $`\omega `$ of the Duffing oscillator (1) can be determined exactly as a function of the coupling constant $`g`$. To this end we multiply (1) by $`\dot{x}(t)`$ and integrate once, taking into account the initial values (2):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{x}^2(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _0^2x^2(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}gx^4(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g,`$ (19)
Separating the variables in the energy conservation (19) and integrating over a quarter of the oscillator period, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\omega }}={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\sqrt{\omega _0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\omega _0^2x^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}x^4}}}.`$ (20)
The integral can be explicitly performed by using Eq. (3.152.4) in Ref. gradshteyn

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{\omega _0^2+g}}{2F({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2(\omega _0^2+g)}}})}},`$ (21)
where $`F`$ denotes the elliptic integral of the first kind which is defined in Eq. (8.111.2) of Ref. gradshteyn :

$`F(\phi ,k)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\phi }{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }}}.`$ (22)
In the weak-coupling limit $`g0`$, we recover from (21) the perturbation series (9) of the previous section by taking into account (8.113.1) of Ref. gradshteyn . However, the exact result (21) also allows to find the strong-coupling limit $`g\mathrm{}`$:

$`\omega =\sqrt{g}\left[b_0+b_1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{g}}+b_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{g}}\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right](g\mathrm{}).`$ (23)
The leading strong-coupling coefficient $`b_0`$ has the numerical value

$`b_0={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2F({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}})}}=0.8472130847939790866\mathrm{}.`$ (24)
In Figure 1 we compare the full function (21) with the successive divergent weak-coupling expansions (9) and with the convergent strong-coupling expansions (23). We observe that the full function represents the envelope to all weak- and strong-coupling expansions.

## III Variational Perturbation Theory

Let us now see how well we can reproduce the strong-coupling result by resumming the weak-coupling series (9) of the frequency $`\omega `$ with the help of variational perturbation theory Kleinert1 ; Kleinert2 . In this way we are able obtain approximations of the frequency $`\omega `$ in good agreement with the exact result for all values of the coupling constant $`g`$. In particular, we carry the strong-coupling limit $`g\mathrm{}`$ of the frequency $`\omega `$ to high orders in order to investigate in detail the convergence of the variational results.

### III.1 General Procedure

We start with the weak-coupling expansion (9) truncated at order $`N`$:

$`\omega ^{(N)}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}w_n\omega _0^{12n}g^n.`$ (25)
The we introduce the variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by Kleinert’s square root trick Kleinert1

$`\omega _0=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\omega _0^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{1+gr},`$ (26)
where the abbreviation $`r`$ is defined by

$`r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}1\right),`$ (27)
and we ignore for the moment that $`r`$ depends on $`g`$ and regard it as a constant. Substituting (26) into the truncated weak-coupling series (25), we obtain

$`\omega ^{(N)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}w_n\mathrm{\Omega }^{12n}\left(1+gr\right)^{1/2n}g^n.`$ (28)
The factor $`(1+gr)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1/2n`$ is then expanded up to the order $`Nn`$

$`(1+gr)^\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ k\end{array}\right)\left(gr\right)^k+𝒪\left(g^{Nn+1}\right),`$ (31)
where the binomial coefficient is defined by the Gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ k\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +k+1)}}.`$ (34)
Thus the sum (28) is re-expanded including all powers of $`g`$ up to the order $`g^N`$:

$`\omega ^{(N)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}w_n\mathrm{\Omega }^{12n}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1/2n\\ k\end{array}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}1\right)^k\right]g^n.`$ (37)
At the end we have inserted (27).

If we could consider the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in (37), the dependence on the artificially introduced variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ would drop out. Due to the truncation at the finite order $`N`$, however, we obtain an explicit dependence on the variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in (37). This suggests to fix the yet undetermined variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ according to the principle of minimal sensitivity stevenson . Thus we try to find at first an extremum:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{(N)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}|_{\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g)}=0.`$ (38)
If this equation has no real solution $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g)`$, then we look for a saddle point instead Kleinert1

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\omega ^{(N)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}|_{\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g)}=0,`$ (39)
or more generally, for a real zero $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g)`$ of the lowest derivative with respect to the variational parameter. This optimal value $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g)`$ then leads via

$`\omega ^{(N)}(g)=\omega ^{(N)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g))`$ (40)
to an approximation of the frequency $`\omega `$ which turns out to lead to good results for all values of the coupling constant $`g`$. To lowest order, the optimal solution is unique. If there are several optimal solutions, we always choose the one which is closest to the optimal solution of the previous order.

### III.2 Lowest Orders

Let us consider the lowest order approximations of variational perturbation theory explicitly. Truncating the weak-coupling series (17) at the order $`N=1`$ leads to

$`\omega ^{(1)}=\omega _0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\omega _0}}g.`$ (41)
Applying the general procedure as described in detail in the previous subsection, we obtain

$`\omega ^{(1)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{8}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}.`$ (42)
From the condition (38) we determine the variational parameter as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}(g)=\omega _0\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{4\omega _0^2}}},`$ (43)
whose substitution into (42) leads to the first-order approximation

$`\omega ^{(1)}(g)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}(g)=\omega _0\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{4\omega _0^2}}}.`$ (44)
In a similar way we proceed for the second order, where the truncated weak-coupling series (17) reads

$`\omega ^{(2)}=\omega _0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\omega _0}}g{\displaystyle \frac{21}{256\omega _0^3}}g^2`$ (45)
Applying the square root trick leads here to

$`\omega ^{(2)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{\Omega }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\omega _0^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9g}{16}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^4}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\omega _0^2g}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{21g^2}{256}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }^3}}.`$ (46)
It turns out that $`\omega ^{(2)}(g,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ has no real extremum with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus we have to look for a turning point instead. From condition (39) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}(g)=\omega _0\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{2\omega _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{21g^2}{32\omega _0^4}}}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{4\omega _0^2}}}}}.`$ (47)
Inserting (47) in (46) leads to the second-order approximation

$`\omega ^{(2)}(g)=\omega _0{\displaystyle \frac{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{\omega _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{153g^2}{256\omega _0^4}}}{\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{4\omega _0^2}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{2\omega _0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{21g^2}{32\omega _0^4}}\right)}}}.`$ (48)
In Fig. 2 we compare the first- and second-order variational approximation (44) and (48) for the frequency $`\omega `$ with the exact result (21). Notably, the first-order variational result is very good for all values of the coupling constant $`g`$, and the second-order leads to a substantial improvement of the accuracy.

### III.3 Strong-Coupling Limit

In order to quantify the accuracy of the variational approximations (44) and (48), we study now in particular the strong-coupling regime $`g\mathrm{}`$. In first and second order we reproduce the expansion (23) with the leading strong-coupling coefficient

$`b_0^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}0.866025,b_0^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{51\sqrt{14}}{224}}0.851895.`$ (49)
Comparing (24) with (49) we see that the first and the second order of variational perturbation theory yields the strong-coupling coefficient (24) within the accuracy of 2.2 % and 0.55 %, respectively.

In order to obtain higher-order variational results for this strong-coupling coefficient (24), we proceed as follows. From the first- and second-order approximations (43) and (47) we see that the variational parameter has a strong-coupling expansion of the form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}(g)=\sqrt{g}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{(N)}}{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{(N)}}{g^2}}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (50)
Inserting (50) in (37), we obtain the $`N`$th order approximation for (24) with

$`b_0^{(N)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{Nn}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1/2n\\ k\end{array}\right)(1)^kw_n\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)}\right)^{12n}.`$ (53)
The inner sum can be done by using Eq. (0.151.4) in Ref. gradshteyn :

$`b_0^{(N)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{Nn}\left(\begin{array}{c}1/2n\\ Nn\end{array}\right)w_n\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)}\right)^{12n}.`$ (56)
In order to optimize the variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)}`$ we look again for an extremum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^{(N)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)})}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)}}}=0`$ (57)
or for a saddle point

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2b_0^{(N)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)})}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{(N)}^2}}=0.`$ (58)
It turns out that an extremum exists for odd orders $`N`$, whereas even orders $`N`$ lead to a saddle point. Tab. 2 shows the first 20 variational results for the strong-coupling coefficient (24). Note that the approximant $`b_0^{(20)}`$ coincides already in 11 digits with (24). The points of Figure 3 show that the logarithm of the error $`|b_0^{(N)}b_0|/b_0`$ depends linearly on $`N`$ up to the order $`N=100`$ according to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|b_0^{(N)}b_0|}{b_0}}=e^{\alpha \beta N},`$ (59)
where the fit of the last 10 points leads to the quantities $`\alpha =6.7671`$ and $`\beta =1.1113`$. Thus we have demonstrated that the variational approximations for the frequency of the Duffing oscillator converge exponentially fast. Note that the speed of convergence is considerably faster than the exponential convergence of the variational results for the ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator Janke1 ; Janke2 .

## IV Conclusion

We have demonstrated by the example of the Duffing oscillator how variational perturbation theory is successively applied to determine the frequency of time-periodic solutions of nonlinear dynamical systems. It remains to proceed along similar lines to treat also nonconservative systems with limit cycles like the van der Pol equation Bender .

## Acknowledgment

One of us, A.P., is grateful for the hospitality of Günter Wunner at the I. Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Stuttgart where this article was finished.


format: text

text:
# Measurements of Diffusion Resonances for the Atom Optics Quantum Kicked Rotor

## 1 Introduction

The atom-optics realization of the kicked rotor has enabled the experimental study of the transition between quantum and classical behaviour for this fundamental non-linear system. For example, the effects of decoherence, the mechanism whereby quantum interference effects are destroyed via environmental coupling , have been studied in the quantum system. More classical-like behaviour is observed when decoherence is added, either by spontaneous emission events , amplitude noise  or timing noise . However, recent theoretical studies have concentrated on what is perhaps a more direct approach to studying the quantum-to-classical transition - varying the action of the system and thereby the effective Planck’s constant, i.e., increasing the action to investigate the limit in which ‘$`\mathrm{}`$$`0`$ . Of particular interest is the behaviour found for intermediate values of ‘$`\mathrm{}`$’, for which regions of enhanced diffusion (known as diffusion “resonances”) are predicted to exist by simulations and analytical results.

These theoretical studies have concentrated on the case where the classical stochasticity parameter of the system stays the same and only the effective Planck’s constant is varied. However, in cold atom kicked rotor experiments, the most accessible parameter regime exists for the situation where the power in the kicking laser is held constant instead, while the pulsing period (which is proportional to the effective Planck’s constant) is changed. Numerically, it is found that this gives rise to different but analagous diffusion resonances to those found in the aforementioned simulations. Here, we present observations of diffusion resonances in this experimentally accessible regime, the structure of which can be traced to a scaling formula for the initial quantum diffusion rate derived by Shepelyansky . The experimental results exhibit markedly different behaviour to that predicted by classical calculations. An increase in the complexity of the resonance structure is seen as the physical kicking strength is increased. Experimentally, the resonances are slightly diminished due to the non-uniform instensity profile of the kicking laser but the expected structure is still clearly visible.

The resonances we observe are of a different nature to the quantum resonances previously studied in the atom optics kicked rotor 111The simplest quantum resonances (which are also those that have been previously studied experimentally) occur when the scaled Planck’s constant is an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$., showing non-trivial dependence on the kicking strength as well as the scaled Planck’s constant. In particular, we note that the emphasis of our study is different from that of the related work by d’Arcy et al.  which focused on such quantum resonance behaviour and not on the diffusion resonance behaviour at intermediate values of $`\mathrm{}`$. Additionally, we note the difference between our experiments and those of Klappauf *et al.*  in which anomalous diffusion behaviour was studied as a function of kicking strength for just a few values of the pulsing period. Our investigation is essentially the converse of this experiment: Energies are measured as a function of the pulsing period for just a few values of a kicking strength parameter, and display a resonance structure which cannot be inferred from previous results.

The system and model that we study is presented in Sec. II, while the analysis of classical and quantum momentum diffusion in this system is discussed in Sec. III. Decoherence effects due to the small rates of spontaneous emission present in our experiments are also considered here. Our experimental set-up is described in Sec. IV, and the results (experimental, theoretical quantum and classical calculations) are presented in Sec. V. The conclusion is in Sec. VI.

## 2 System and Model

For our system we use a laser-cooled cloud of caesium atoms of initial temperature $`20`$ $`\mu `$K interacting with a standing wave of off-resonant laser light. The laser is pulsed with period $`T`$ and pulse profile $`f(t)`$. If the detuning of the laser from the atomic transition is large, the internal atomic dynamics can be eliminated and the motion of the caesium atoms is described by the single particle Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{8}\mathrm{cos}(2k_\mathrm{L}\widehat{x})\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}f(tnT),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are operators representing the atomic position and momentum, respectively, and $`k_\mathrm{L}`$ is the wave number of the laser light. The effective potential strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(s_{45}/\delta _{45}+s_{44}/\delta _{44}+s_{43}/\delta _{43})`$, accounts for dipole transitions between different combinations of hyperfine levels in the caesium atoms ($`6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}(F=4)6\mathrm{P}_{3/2}(F^{}=5)`$), where $`\delta _{ij}`$ are the corresponding detunings between laser and atomic transiton frequencies, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$ is the resonant single-beam Rabi frequency. If we assume equal populations of atoms in all ground state Zeeman sublevels, then $`s_{45}=\frac{11}{27}`$, $`s_{44}=\frac{7}{36}`$, and $`s_{43}=\frac{7}{108}`$. It is useful to rewrite this Hamiltonian in appropriate dimensionless units as

$$\widehat{}=\frac{\widehat{\rho }^2}{2}k\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi })\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}f(\tau n),$$
(2)
which is the usual expression for the Hamiltonian of the standard kicked rotor system. In these units - which will be referred to as “scaled units” - the position operator is defined by $`\widehat{\varphi }=2k_\mathrm{L}\widehat{x}`$, the momentum operator is $`\widehat{\rho }=2k_\mathrm{L}T\widehat{p}/m`$, time is rescaled as $`\tau =t/T`$, and our new Hamiltonian is related to Eq. (1) by $`\widehat{}=(4k_\mathrm{L}^2T^2/m)\widehat{H}`$. The classical stochasticity parameter is given by $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}\omega _\mathrm{r}T\tau _p`$, where $`\tau _\mathrm{p}`$ is the pulse length in unscaled time and $`\omega _\mathrm{r}=\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{L}^2/2m`$. In our experiments, $`f(\tau )`$ is a good approximation to a square pulse, i.e., $`f(\tau )=1`$ for $`0<\tau <\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =\tau _\mathrm{p}/T`$. Note that $`k=\kappa /\alpha `$.

In scaled units we have $`[\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{\rho }]=i\mathrm{¯}k`$, with $`\mathrm{¯}k=8\omega _\mathrm{r}T`$, so that the quantum behaviour of our system is reflected by an effective Planck’s constant, $`\mathrm{¯}k`$ , which increases as we increase the pulse period $`T`$. This reflects our ability to change the total action in the system, and hence how classically our system behaves (for larger $`\mathrm{¯}k`$ values the quantum nature of the system should be more apparent). Note that the effective Planck’s constant is proportional to the ratio of the total classical action of the system to $`\mathrm{}`$.

The natural experimental unit for momentum is that of two photon recoils, $`2\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{L}`$, and $`p/(2\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{L})`$ will henceforth be referred to as the momentum in experimental units. We note the relationship $`\rho /\mathrm{¯}k=p/(2\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{L})`$ and also define the quantity $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}=\kappa /\mathrm{¯}k=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}\tau _p/8`$ as a dimensionless measure of the physical kicking strength. Experimentally, it is easier to hold this quantity constant, rather than $`\kappa `$, as $`T`$ is varied, because a constant value of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ corresponds to constant pulse duration, standing wave detuning and power (whereas $`\kappa `$ is proportional to $`T`$).

Our system is coupled to its environment via atomic spontaneous emission events, which occur when the caesium atoms absorb photons from the standing wave  and then spontaneously re-emit the photons in random directions. We characterise the level of this decoherence by the probability of spontaneous emission per atom per kick, $`\eta `$. Given the large detuning used in our experiments, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta 1`$, this process may be modeled by the following master equation for the density operator $`\widehat{w}`$ of the system ,

$`\dot{\widehat{w}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{¯}k}}[\widehat{},\widehat{w}]{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f(\tau n)[\mathrm{cos}^2(\widehat{\varphi }/2),\widehat{w}]_+`$ (3)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}f(\tau n){\displaystyle _1^1}duN(u)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}u\widehat{\varphi }/2}`$
$`\times \mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }/2)\widehat{w}\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi }/2)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}u\widehat{\varphi }/2},`$
where $`N(u)`$ is the distribution of recoil momenta projected onto the axis of the standing wave, and $`[.,.]_+`$ denotes an anti-commutator. Simulations of Eq. (3) are used for comparisons with the experiment.

## 3 Momentum Diffusion

We measure the total kinetic energy of the cloud after $`N`$ kicks, which depends on the initial energy of the cloud plus the increase in the kinetic energy resulting from the kicks. The amount of increase for kick number $`n`$ is the momentum diffusion rate, given by $`2D(n)=\widehat{\rho }_{n+1}^2\widehat{\rho }_n^2`$, where we denote $`\widehat{\rho }_0=\widehat{\rho }(t^{}=0)`$, $`\widehat{\rho }_1=\widehat{\rho }(t^{}=1)`$, etc.. For a kicked rotor system with a sufficiently broad initial momentum distribution, we expect $`D(0)=D(1)=\kappa ^2/4`$. The system then passes through an initial quantum diffusion period lasting typically for around 5 kicks , with a diffusion rate approximated by the result of Shepelyansky (under the conditions $`\mathrm{¯}k1`$ and $`\kappa \mathrm{¯}k`$) ,

$$D_\mathrm{q}=\frac{\kappa ^2}{2}(\frac{1}{2}J_2(K_\mathrm{q})J_1^2(K_\mathrm{q})+J_2^2(K_\mathrm{q})+J_3^2(K_\mathrm{q})),$$
(4)
where $`K_\mathrm{q}=2\kappa \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{¯}k/2)/\mathrm{¯}k`$. Note that the long time classical diffusion rate is also given by Eq. (4), but with $`K_\mathrm{q}\kappa `$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{¯}k0`$).

Without decoherence, the system generally settles into a localised state , but the loss of phase coherence produced by the addition of spontaneous emission causes the system to settle instead into a final steady state diffusion regime, with a late time diffusion rate which may be approximated by the formula

$$D_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\eta (1\eta )^nD_0(n),$$
(5)
where $`D_0(n)`$ is the diffusion rate at the $`n`$th kick for a kicked rotor without decoherence. Essentially, this formula assumes that dynamical correlations over particular time intervals which give rise to the late time diffusion rates are suppressed by a factor equal to the probability that a spontaneous emission occurs within that time interval. The correlations taken over a set number of kicks give rise to the diffusion rates seen in the kicked rotor without decoherence after that number of kicks, which leads to the late time diffusion rate being an appropriate weighted average over the diffusion rates as the kicked rotor “settles down” . Thus, the diffusion rates in the first few kicks are essentially “locked in” by the spontaneous emission events, and we observe similar structure in the late time diffusion rates as we vary $`T`$ to that observed in the initial quantum diffusion rates.

The structure we observe in the initial quantum diffusion rates as we vary $`T`$ for constant $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ with diffusion rates measured in experimental units is particularly interesting. We can express Shepelyansky’s formula in this regime as

$$D_\mathrm{q}^{}=\frac{(\varphi _d)^2}{2}(\frac{1}{2}J_2(K_\mathrm{q}^{})J_1^2(K_\mathrm{q}^{})+J_2^2(K_\mathrm{q}^{})+J_3^2(K_\mathrm{q}^{})),$$
(6)
with $`K_\mathrm{q}^{}=2\varphi _\mathrm{d}\mathrm{sin}(4\omega _\mathrm{r}T)`$. We then see that any structure in the diffusion rates is periodic in $`T`$ with period $`2\pi /8\omega _\mathrm{r}`$ (In fact, from Eq. (5) this is also true for the late time diffusion rates). We also see that the form of the structure depends solely on the value of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. Fig. 1 shows the initial quantum diffusion rate as a function of pulse period for varying values of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. We see the regular feature of a peak at the quantum resonance when $`\mathrm{¯}k=2\pi `$ ($`T=60.4`$ $`\mu `$s), and we see increasing numbers of pronounced peaks or diffusion resonances as we increase the value of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$.

The classical diffusion rate can be similarly found in this regime to be

$$D_{\mathrm{cl}}^{}=\frac{(\varphi _d)^2}{2}(\frac{1}{2}J_2(\kappa )J_1^2(\kappa )+J_2^2(\kappa )+J_3^2(\kappa )),$$
(7)
with $`\kappa =8\omega _\mathrm{r}T\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. The dotted curves in Fig. 1 show the classical rates for various values of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. These rates oscillate around the quasilinear value which in these units is $`(\varphi _\mathrm{d})^2/4`$, with the oscillations increasing in frequency with increasing $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. For any given $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ however, the structure in the classical diffusion rate is markedly different to that in the initial quantum diffusion rate.

In the experiment, late-time energies were measured and not initial diffusion rates. However, the diffusion resonances discussed above are still observable. The existence of the same structures in the late time diffusion rates (in the presence of decoherence) as those in the initial quantum rates has been verified using the simulations described later in this paper. An approximate formula for the energy after $`N`$ kicks can be found by summing the diffusion rate at each kick, that is

$$E^{}(N)=\frac{\left(\frac{p(N)}{2\mathrm{}k_\mathrm{L}}\right)^2}{2}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}D^{}(n,T).$$
(8)
Therefore, with the initial and final diffusion rates both displaying these structures, it follows that the energy at the $`N`$th kick should also display them.

## 4 Experimental Setup

The experimental setup used was much the same as that used previously in our quantum chaos investigations , with a few modifications. A standard six-beam magneto-optical trap (MOT) was used to trap and cool approximately $`10^5`$ caesium atoms. The trapping laser frequency was set about $`10`$ MHz to the red of the $`6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}(F=4)6\mathrm{P}_{3/2}(F^{}=5)`$ transition. A second (repump) laser was locked to the $`6\mathrm{S}_{1/2}(F=3)6\mathrm{P}_{3/2}(F^{}=4)`$ transition to return those atoms lost to the $`F=3`$ ground state to the trapping cycle. After a $`20`$ ms cooling phase prior to kicking, the cloud had a temperature of approximately $`20`$ $`\mu `$K and a width of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cloud}}270`$ $`\mu `$m in its position distribution. Kicking of the cloud occurred for up to $`2`$ ms during the $`10`$ ms free expansion phase, at the completion of which the cloud was “frozen” in space by the molasses beams and imaged. The repumping beam was left on during the kicking to prevent loss of atoms to the $`F=3`$ ground state. The resultant heating effect was negligible for our experiments.

A third laser was used to create a pulsed optical standing wave across the cloud. A relatively high power laser diode was injection locked with a frequency stabilised external cavity laser, giving a beam of up to $`22`$ mW CW power. For fast switching the beam passed through a $`80`$ MHz Acousto-Optic Modulator (AOM) in front of a single mode polarisation preserving optical fibre. Temporal modulation was provided via the RF supply to the AOM, generating pulse shapes very close to rectangular. The linearly polarised beam was then collimated resulting in a beam radius at the cloud of $`2\sigma _{\mathrm{beam}}=1`$ mm. Finally, to create a standing wave the beam was retroreflected by a mirror outside the vacuum cell. The atoms experienced a range of optical potential depths as the cloud’s width was comparable in size to that of the laser beam. If $`\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{max}}`$ is the kicking strength along the beam axis then the mean value was found to be $`\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{mean}}0.77\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{max}}`$ with a standard deviation of $`18\%`$. This effect and additional factors leading to a slightly greater spread in $`\varphi _{rmd}`$ values is discussed below. In the following, $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ will always refer to $`\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{mean}}`$. The detuning of the kicking beam to the blue of the $`F=4F^{}=5`$ transition was monitored by overlapping the trapping and kicking beams and monitoring the resultant beat signal. Both the beam detuning and intensity were chosen to give a desired $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ while maintaining a constant spontaneous emission rate. The range of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ examined in this way was from $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}=3.3`$ to $`6.6`$. Taking reflection losses at the cell windows into account, over this $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ range the Rabi frequency varied from $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi =3476`$ MHz with corresponding detunings of $`\delta _{45}/2\pi =315740`$ MHz, thus $`\delta >>\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the linewidth of the atomic transition) was satisfied for all $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values considered.

For a chosen $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ the pulse length was held constant ($`\tau _\mathrm{p}=520`$ ns), while the pulse period was varied from $`2.5`$ $`\mu `$s to just above the quantum resonance at $`T60`$ $`\mu `$s. Thirty kicks were delivered to the cloud for each pulse period. The images of the expanded cloud were averaged over the dimension perpendicular to the kicking beam to yield momentum distributions for the kicked cloud and the mean energy $`E=p^2/2`$ was calculated for each distribution. High momenta have a large effect on these energy values and as this was where the signal dropped for the higher energy kicked clouds, much care was taken to reduce the effects of noise. For an experimental run involving a single $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ value, the subtracted background was an average from just before and just after the run. Any slight fluctuations in background level were accounted for by defining the zero level for each momentum distribution via an image taken just before commencement of the kicking sequence, omitting the small cloud. The signal-to-noise ratio was on average about 100:1 and for each value of $`T`$ the momentum distribution was measured 5 times. To minimise the effects of long term fluctuations in the kicking beam, one fibre end was angle cleaved and the beam power was checked and readjusted several times throughout a run. These measures reduced the fluctuations in $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ from this source to $`1\%`$.

We now examine the cause of the spread in kicking strengths. Firstly, the finite width of the kicking beam results in atoms at different radial positions across the beam interacting with laser fields of different intensity. The effect of the spread in kicking strengths on the initial Shepelyansky diffusion rates is easily examined and also applies to the late-time energies. If $`\rho (r)`$ is the 2-dimensional cloud density as a function of the radial coordinate $`r`$, and $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}(r)`$ the distribution of kicking strengths, then we can approximate the diffusion rate over all of the particles and for a given $`\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{max}}`$ as  $`\overline{D}(\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{max}},T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}D(\varphi _\mathrm{d}(r),T)\rho (r)2\pi rdr,`$ where $`D(\varphi _\mathrm{d}(r),T)`$ is given by Eq. (6). Calculating $`\overline{D}(\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{max}},T)`$ for a broad kicking beam with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cloud}}<<\sigma _{\mathrm{beam}}`$, corresponding to constant $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}(r)`$, reproduces the pronounced structure as seen in Fig. 1 and in the simulations. But calculating the diffusion rate with the 2:1 beam-to-cloud width ratio as used experimentally and with $`\varphi _{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{max}}=\varphi _\mathrm{d}/0.77`$, gives less accentuated diffusion resonance structure which is broader over the pulse period values. Fig. 2 displays these results for a few values of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. Thus, a spread in $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values creates an averaging effect which somewhat diminishes the height of the resonance structure and shifts the positions of the resonant peaks relative to the case for a single $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ value.

Secondly, a spread in $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values is also caused by atoms in different magnetic substates of the $`F=4`$ level coupling to the higher energy states with different transition strengths, resulting in atoms in different substates experiencing different kicking strengths.

The combination of this effect with that caused by the finite beam width can create a spread of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values with a standard deviation as large as $`20\%`$ of the mean $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ value. In order to account for this, we performed additional simulations in which the $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ value for each trajectory was chosen from a distribution based on the 2:1 beam-to-cloud width ratio for our system (assuming that each has a radial Gaussian profile). Also included were the relative coupling strengths of atoms in different magnetic substates for the experimental detunings $`\delta =315,385,485,575,740`$ MHz for $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}=3.3,4.0,5.0,5.9,6.6`$ respectively (assuming an equal population of atoms in each substate).

## 5 Experimental Results

Fig. 3 shows results from numerical simulations as well as those from experimental measurements. The first row shows simulated energies for different, well defined values of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. All simulations were performed using the Monte Carlo wavefunction method as in Ref. . The simulations are for a system with an initial Gaussian momentum distribution of width $`\sigma _\rho /\mathrm{¯}k=\sigma _p/2\mathrm{}k_l=4`$ (this corresponds to a cloud of temperature $`20\mu K`$).

To take into account the unavoidable spread of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values in our experiments, simulations were also performed in which the kicking strength for each trajectory was sampled from the theoretical distribution of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ experienced by a spherical cloud of atoms (see Section 4), and the energy for each value of $`T`$ was taken to be the incoherent average of the energies over all such realisations. The results of these simulations are seen in the second row of Fig. 3. Comparison of the first two rows shows that, while the non-uniformity of the kicking beam intensity makes the diffusion resonances somewhat less distinct, the structure of interest is still clearly visible and thus amenable to experimental investigation.

Comparison of experimental results with those from the simulations (bottom and middle rows of Fig. 3 respectively) shows very good agreement between the two. The quantum resonance at $`T60`$ $`\mu `$s is seen to be present for all $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values. Additionally, while a single broad peak similar to that seen by d’Arcy et al.  is found for $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}=3.3`$, for larger $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values more complicated structure is observed. This peak splits into two peaks which then diverge from each other, whereupon a third peak rises between them. The structure mirrors that in the initial quantum diffusion rate as given by Shepelyansky’s result in Eq. (6) and shown in Fig. 1.

There is still some discrepancy in energy values between the experimental results and the additional simulations. For $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}=5.9`$ and $`6.6`$ the measured energies are, overall, lower than expected, while for all $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ they are larger than in the simulations around the quantum resonance region of $`T=58`$-$`68`$ $`\mu `$s. The first problem is accounted for by realising that in recording the momentum distributions, at some point signals at higher momenta fall below the noise level of the CCD. Hence, the measured total energy of the cloud is systematically lower than the true energy after kicking. For larger $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$, for which energies are higher in general, this problem is particularly pronounced as more atoms lie in the wings of the distribution.

The discrepancy around the quantum resonance currently remains unexplained, but could be a systematic effect related to the larger pulse period values in this region. Continuing investigations will hopefully resolve this issue. However, we would like to emphasise that the energy structure seen at values of $`T`$ lower than that at which quantum resonance occurs is of primary interest to us (experimentally, the quantum resonance itself provides a convenient confirmation of the pulse timing calibration).

Overall, we find very good qualitative agreement between experimental results and our simulations. The expected structure is evident and its complexity increases with $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ as in simulations. In particular, the resonant peaks are seen where they are expected for each value of $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$. For comparison, the energies of the classical system after 30 kicks were also computed by assuming that the diffusion rate for the first two kicks is $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}/4`$, and for subsequent kicks is given by Eq. (7). They were averaged over the same spread in $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}`$ values that was used in the additional quantum simulations and are shown in the middle row of Fig. 3. Note that the energies are larger than the quantum simulations, as would be expected, and for $`\varphi _\mathrm{d}=5.9`$ and $`6.6`$ go off the scale, oscillating around $`E^{}=300`$ and $`560`$ respectively.

The classical energies clearly exhibit very different behaviour from those measured in the quantum system. The difference becomes more marked at higher values of $`T`$ (i.e. when the system behaves more quantum mechanically) where the oscillations in the classical energy die down, whilst pronounced diffusion resonances and quantum resonances are seen in the quantum system. This can be contrasted with the results of Klappauf *et al.* where, in both the classical and quantum systems, the energy oscillates about the quasilinear value and only a relative shift in the peak positions demarcates the two regimes. The striking difference between the quantum behaviour and the expected classical behaviour in these experiments makes them a thorough testing ground for the effects of decoherence on the quantum kicked rotor. Indeed, preliminary investigations into the effects of noise on these diffusion resonances  suggest that quantum and diffusion resonances are affected differently by noise induced decoherence for a quantum kicked rotor with environmental coupling.

## 6 Conclusion

We have presented experimental and simulation results showing non-trivial behaviour in the late-time energy (and thus diffusion rate) of the atom optics kicked rotor for values of the pulse period intermediate between those periods associated with quantum resonances. The observed resonances are distinct from the quantum resonances previously studied in the kicked rotor, being dependent on the kicking strength as well as the value of the pulse period.

The non-trivial features predicted by quantum simulations are matched very closely by our experimental measurements. The relationship between the observed structure and Shepelyansky’s scaling for the quantum correlations is evident. Furthermore, we note that the structure observable in the late time energies confirms that in a system subject to environmental coupling a dependence of the late-time diffusion rate on the initial quantum diffusion rate exists.

In addition, the observed energy measurements show a very different trend to that predicted by classical calculations. With the introduction of noise, these experiments should provide a novel testing ground for the efficacy of decoherence in regaining the classical limit, and we have begun preliminary studies in this area.

We thank Maarten Hoogerland for interesting discussions related to our experimental investigations. This work was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund, grant UOA016.

## References


text:
# Producing the event-ready two photon polarization entangled state with normal photon detectors

## Abstract

We propose a scheme to produce the maximally two photon polarization entangled state (EPR state) with single photon sources and the passive linear optics devices. In particular, our scheme only requires the normal photon detectors which distinguish the vacuum and non-vacuum Fock number states. A sophisticated photon detector distinguishing one-photon state and two-photon state is unnecessary in the scheme.

The resource of maximally entangled state (EPR state) plays a fundamentally important role in testing quantum laws related to the non-locality and in many tasks of quantum information processing such as the quantum teleportation, quantum dense coding the entanglement based quantum key distribution and quantum computation. So far, it is generally believed that the two photon polarization EPR state is particularly useful in quantum information processing.

In quantum teleportation, initially two remotely separated parties Alice and Bob share an entangled pair of particle 2 and 3. Alice is offered with particle 1 which is in an unknown state $`|u`$. Alice’s task here is to produce the unknown state $`|u`$ in Bob’s side without sending particle 1 to Bob or taking any action to observe the state information of particle 1. To do so, she takes a joint measurement on particle 1 and 2 in the Bell-state basis. By observing the measurement result she does not know any information of the original state of particle 1, however, she knows that by what unitary transformation the state of particle 3 at Bob’s side can be transformed to the unknown state $`|u`$. In such a task, the resource of pre-shared (event-ready) entanglement between Alice and Bob is crucial for a deterministic quantum teleportation . In the quantum dense coding, with the help of pre-shared event-ready entanglement, Alice may send 2 bits information to Bob by only sending him one quantum bit (a two-level-state particle).

The observation of EPR pairs has been carried out by many experiments (for example, ref). However, those entangled polarized photon pairs were only produced randomly among vacuum states since there is no way to know whether a polarization EPR pair is generated without destroying the state itself. To make sure which states are indeed EPR states normally we have to observe them and destroy them. That is to say, we are sure which ones had been in EPR states only after we have destroyed the states. We call such a case as post-selection entanglement. The post-selection property in the EPR state generation is not a serious drawback in some quantum tasks such as the testing of the violation of Bell inequality. However, in many other tasks, such as the deterministic quantum teleportation and quantum dense coding, the resource of event-ready entanglement is a must. (Event-ready EPR means that we are sure certain pair is in EPR state and the state is not destroyed.)

The study of event-ready entanglement can be dated back to 1993. Recently, some proposals are raised to make the $`eventready`$ two photon polarization EPR state or the photon number entangled state. (One may refer to Ref for a complete description on the theoretical condition to produce event-ready EPR pair through the parametric down conversion.) Among all the proposals(see, e.g., Ref.) to produce the entangled states in either polarization space or the photon number space, most of them demand both single photon sources and sophisticated photon detectors which can distinguish one-photon Fock state and two-photon Fock state. Both the single photon sources and the the sophisticated photon detectors are difficult techniques and they are thought to be the main barriers to produce the event-ready polarization EPR pairs with currently existing technology in linear optics. Although both the single photon source and the imperfect sophisticated photon detector have been demonstrated already however, it is generally believed that both of them are rather difficult technilogies. On the other hand, so far a successful $`combination`$ of these two techniques in one experiment has never been reported. Therefore it should be interesting to seek new schemes which do not depend on either of these two sophisticated techniques. Very recently, Sliwa and Banaszek proposed a scheme not demanding the single photon source but still demanding a sophisticated photon detector. So far, all proposals for event-ready polarizatin EPR pairs with passive linear optics devices depend on the sophisticated photons detectors to distinguish one-photon state and two-photon state, although normal photon detectors with very good detection efficiency are in principle enough for producing the event-ready entanglement in photon number space. Normally, a sophisticated detector cannot be replaced by a cascaded system of many normal photon detectors unless the efficiency of the normal photon detectors are impractically high. In this paper, we propose a totally new scheme. Our new scheme requires the single photon sources but only uses normal photon detectors which only distinguish the vacuum and non-vacuum Fock number states. Moreover, our result is insensitive to detection efficiency of those photon detectors.

Our scheme is schematically shown in figure 1. In this scheme, our task is to observe the following coincident event:
Coincidence: Both detectors D3 $`and`$ D2 are clicked; or both D1 and D4 are clicked.
If the above coincident event is observed, then we believe that beam 2’ and 4’ are in the singlet EPR state:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{2^{}4^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|H_2^{}|V_4^{}|V_2^{}|H_4^{})`$ (1)
The 4 input beams, beam 1,2,3 and 4 are from single photon sources. The polarization of both beam 1 and beam 3 deviate a little bit from the vertical polarization while polarization of both beam 2 and beam 4 deviate a little bit from the horizontal one. We assume that we have tuned the optical paths very carefully so that to each beam splitter (BS) or polarizing beam splitter (PBS), the two input beams reach it simultaneously. A detailed study on the time window related to the quantum coherence had been shown in the seminal work by Zukowski, Zeilinger, Horne and Ekert. A further study can be seen e.g., in .

Mathematically, the total input state is

$`|V^{}_1|H^{}_2|V^{}_3|H^{}_4,`$ (2)
where the subscripts indicate the different beams, $`|H^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|ϵ|^2}}(|H+ϵ|V)`$ and $`|V^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|ϵ|^2}}(ϵ|H|V)`$ , $`|ϵ|<<1`$ and $`|H`$ and $`|V`$ are horizontally and vertically polarized states respectively. A PBS has the property to transmit the horizontal polarization and reflect the vertical polarization as shown in figure 2. After the four input beams reached the two PBS (PBS1 and PBS2), beams 1’ and 2’ are in the following state:

$`|\chi _{1^{}2^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|ϵ|^2}}(ϵ|H_1^{}|V_2^{})(ϵ|V_1^{}+|H_2^{})`$ (3)
Similarly, beam 3’ and 4’ are in the following state

$`|\chi _{3^{}4^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+|ϵ|^2}}(ϵ|H_3^{}|V_4^{})(ϵ|V_3^{}+|H_4^{}).`$ (4)
Beam 2’ and 4’ are now the outcome beams and they are a good entangled pair if 1’ and 3’ are collapsed to the singlet state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}`$. This can be shown by mathematically recasting the product state $`|\chi _{1^{}2^{}}|\chi _{3^{}4^{}}`$ . This product state is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|ϵ|^2)^2}}\left[X_0+ϵX_1+ϵ^2(A+B+C)+O(ϵ^3)\right]`$ (5)
where $`X_0=|V_2^{}|H_2^{}|V_4^{}|H_4^{}`$;
$`X_1=(|V_1^{}|V_2^{}|H_1^{}|H_2^{})|V_4^{}|H_4^{}+(|V_3^{}|V_4^{}|H_3^{}|H_4^{})|V_2^{}|H_2^{}`$;
$`A=|H_1^{}|V_1^{}|V_4^{}|H_4^{}`$, $`B=|V_2^{}|H_2^{}|H_3^{}|V_3^{}`$ and

$`C=(|H_1^{}|H_2^{}|V_1^{}|V_2^{})(|H_3^{}|H_4^{}|V_3^{}|V_4^{}).`$ (6)
Moreover, $`C`$ is equivalent to

$`C=|\mathrm{\Phi }^+_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^+_{2^{}4^{}}+|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_{2^{}4^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{2^{}4^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{2^{}4^{}}`$ (7)
and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm _{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H_i|H_j\pm |V_i|V_j)`$; $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm _{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H_i|V_j\pm |V_i|H_j)`$. Therefore the rest of our job is to distinguish $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}`$ from all other possible states of of beam 1’,3’. Note that in our case, all other possible states of beam 1’, 3’ are orthogonal to state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. To verify the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}`$, we have to make a collective measurement which can be carried out through using a beam splitter. As it was shown in Ref, if beam 1’ and 3’ each contains one photon and 1” and 3” are proven to contain one photon in each beam, then 1’ and 3’ must be in the singlet state. However this is only true in the case that beam 1’ and 3’ each contains one photon. Before using this conclusion, we have to carefully study all possible states in beam 1’ and 3’ and the consequences of each of them. The state $`|\chi _{1^{}2^{}}|\chi _{3^{}4^{}}`$ contains a number of components (i.e., $`X_0,X_1,A,B,C`$ and higher order terms) with different probability amplitude, i.e., the total state is the linear superposed state of those components. Let’s first study what happens to each of those different components in the state $`|\chi _{1^{}2^{}}|\chi _{3^{}4^{}}`$.

The component with largest probability is

$$|V_2^{}|H_2^{}|V_4^{}|H_4^{}.$$

The prior probability( the probability before we make an observation on the photon detectors) for this component is $`P_1=\frac{1}{(1+|ϵ|^2)^4}`$. For this component, there is no photon in beam 1’ or 3’, therefore no photon detector will be clicked. Such a component will be definitely ruled out by the conditions in our coincidence.

The component with the probability amplitude order of $`ϵ`$ is

$$(|V_1^{}|V_2^{}|H_1^{}|H_2^{})|V_4^{}|H_4^{}+(|V_3^{}|V_4^{}|H_3^{}|H_4^{})|V_2^{}|H_2^{}.$$

The prior probability for this component is $`P_2=\frac{4|ϵ|^2}{(1+|ϵ|^2)^4}`$. This means that there is only one photon altogether in both of beam 1’ and beam 3’. One can easily find this fact by checking each term of the above formula. Each term only allows one photon in beams 1’ and 3’. This component will cause only one detector to be clicked and all the other three are silent. Such an event is obviously different from our required coincidence therefore the above component can be safely excluded once a coincident event is observed.

Now we consider the components with the probability amplitude order of $`ϵ^2`$. These components are $`A=|H_1^{}|V_1^{}|V_4^{}|H_4^{}`$, $`B=|V_2^{}|H_2^{}|H_3^{}|V_3^{}`$ and

$`C=(|H_1^{}|H_2^{}|V_1^{}|V_2^{})(|H_3^{}|H_4^{}|V_3^{}|V_4^{})`$ (8)
The total prior probability for these three components is $`P_3=\frac{6|ϵ|^4}{(1+|ϵ|^2)^4}`$. We now show that component $`A,B`$ will never cause the defined coincident event. Before we go into that, we first take a look at the properties of the beam splitter used in our scheme. The property of a balanced beam splitter is sketched in figure 3. A detailed study of the properties of a beam splitter can be seen e.g., in ref.. For clarity, we use the Schrodinger picture here. The different modes are simply distinguished by the propagation directions. In our case, states of beam 1’ and 1” are of the same mode (we denote it as mode $`a`$ ) at different times, and beam 3’ and 3” are in another mode, mode $`b`$. Suppose the input beams (1’ and 3’) are in the state $`|input`$, then the output state (in beam 1” and 3”) is $`|output=U_B|input`$, where $`U_B`$ is the time evolution operator for the beam splitter. The unitary operator $`U_B`$ satisfies

$`U_B(a_H^{},b_H^{},a_V^{},b_V^{})U_B^1=(a_H^{},b_H^{},a_V^{},b_V^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐇& 𝐎\\ 𝐎& 𝐇\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
where $`a^{},b^{}`$ are creation operators for mode $`a`$ and mode $`b`$ respectively, the subscripts $`H,V`$ indicate the horizontal and vertical polarizations respectively,

$`𝐇={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
and $`𝐎`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with all elements being 0. Note that the evolution operator $`U_B`$ also satisfies

$`U_B|00_{in}=|00_{out}`$ (15)
due to the fact of no input no output. Here the subscripts $`in`$ and $`out`$ indicate the input beams and output beams respectively. In our case, the input beams are 1’ and 3’ the output beams are 1” and 3”, therefore $`|00_{in}=|00_{1^{}3^{}}`$ and $`|00_{out}=|00_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}`$.

With the above two equations, in general the state in the output beams and the state in the input beams are simply related by:

$`|output_{out}=U_Bf(a_H^{},a_V^{},b_H^{},b_V^{})U_B^1U_B|00_{in}=\left(U_Bf(a_H^{},a_V^{},b_H^{},b_V^{})U_B^1\right)|00_{out}`$ (16)
provided that $`|input_{in}=f(a_H^{},a_V^{},b_H^{},b_V^{})|00_{in}`$. Note that $`U_Bf(a_H^{},a_V^{},b_H^{},b_V^{})U_B^1`$ can be easily calculated by using eq.(11). In our treatment, all the creation operators are time independent since we are using the Schrodinger picture. Now we consider the component $`A`$. Since $`A`$ is a product state of different modes, we only consider evolution to the part in beam 1’ and beam 3’. There is no nontrivial change in beam 2’ and 4’. For the input of component $`A`$, the output state of the BS here is

$`|output_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}=Ba_H^{}a_V^{}B^1|00_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}.`$ (17)
This is a direct consequence of eq.(16). Moreover, using eq.(11) one can easily obtain

$`|output_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(|HV_{3^{\prime \prime }}+|HV_{1^{\prime \prime }})+(|H_{1^{\prime \prime }}|V_{3^{\prime \prime }}+|V_{1^{\prime \prime }}|H_{3^{\prime \prime }})].`$ (18)
The exact form of the term $`|HV_{3^{\prime \prime }}`$( or $`|HV_{1^{\prime \prime }}`$) is $`|0_{1^{\prime \prime }}|HV_{3^{\prime \prime }}`$( or $`|HV_{1^{\prime \prime }}|0_{3^{\prime \prime }}`$), it means beam 3”(or 1”) contains one horizontally polarized photon and one vertically polarized photon while beam 1”(or 3”) contains nothing. The term $`|HV_{3^{\prime \prime }}`$ causes neither D1 nor D2 being clicked therefore it never causes our defined coincident event is. Similarly, the consequence of $`|HV_{1^{\prime \prime }}`$ is that neither D3 nor D4 will be clicked therefore this term is also ruled out. The term $`|H_{1^{\prime \prime }}|V_{3^{\prime \prime }}+|V_{1^{\prime \prime }}|H_{3^{\prime \prime }}`$ means that beam 1” and 3” each contain one photon. However, after the two half wave plates(HWP) the term is changed to

$`|H_\alpha |H_\beta |V_\alpha |V_\beta .`$ (19)
One may easily check this result by using the time evolution operator of the HWP defined as

$`U_H\left(\begin{array}{c}|H\\ |V\end{array}\right)=𝐇\left(\begin{array}{c}|H\\ |V\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
Note that $`H`$ is defined by eq.(14). Obviously, the two detectors clicked by the state in equation(19) will be either (D1, D3) or (D2, D4), neither of them is the our defined coincidence . The coincident event will never happen with the state of eq.(19). Therefore component $`A`$ is now totally ruled out.

Similarly, for the component $`B`$, the output state of the BS is

$`|output_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}=Bb_H^{}b_V^{}B^1|00_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(|HV_{3^{\prime \prime }}+|HV_{1^{\prime \prime }})(|H_{1^{\prime \prime }}|V_{3^{\prime \prime }}+|V_{1^{\prime \prime }}|H_{3^{\prime \prime }})].`$ (25)
It’s easy to see that component $`B`$ should be also ruled out due to the same arguments used in the case of component $`A`$.

Now the only component with the same magnitude order of probability amplitude $`ϵ^2`$ is the component $`C`$:

$`C=|H_1^{}|H_3^{}|H_2^{}|H_4^{}+|V_1^{}|V_3^{}|V_2^{}|V_4^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{2^{}4^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{2^{}4^{}})`$ (26)
As it is well known, to a beam splitter, if each of the input beam contains one photon and the total input polarization state is symmetric, one output beam must be vacant. For the component $`C`$, each of beam 1’ and 3’ always contains one photon. The first three terms are all symmetric states. Given these three terms as the input, one output beam of the BS must be vacant, i.e., either beam 1” or beam 3” must be empty. . Consequently, given any of the first three terms in component $`C`$ as the input, one will observe that either both (D1, D2) or both (D3, D4) are silent. This definitely violates the conditions of our required coincidence therefore the first three terms of the right hand side in eq.(26) are excluded for a coincident event. However, the last term in eq.(26) exactly satisfies the conditions of our required coincidence. For the input state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}`$, the output state of BS is still a singlet state, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}`$. This state is invariant under the transformation of two separate HWPs. Therefore finally, after the beams pass through the two separate HWPs, the two photons are still in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ consequently the required coincidence is observed because the polarizing beam splitters PBS3 and PBS4 evolve the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|x|w|y|z).`$ (27)
Here $`|x`$,$`|w`$, $`|y`$ and $`|z`$ represent for the state of one photon in beam $`x`$, $`w`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$, respectively. As we have shown, in all terms with the same probability amplitude order, state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{1^{}3^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{2^{}4^{}}`$ is the only term that causes our defined coincident event. Therefore once a coincident event is observed, beam 2’ and 4’ must be in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{2^{}4^{}}`$ with a probability close to 1.

In our scheme, the total probability that a coincident event takes place is around $`|ϵ|^4`$. In the above study, we have ignored the effects of those components with a probability amplitude order higher than $`|ϵ|^2`$. Whenever a coincident event is observed, although the state $`\rho _{2^{}4^{}}`$ for the outcome beams is very close to the singlet state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{2^{}4^{}}`$, it is not the perfectly pure singlet state because the outcome beams could be a single photon state or a vacuum state with a very small probability (the magnitude order of probability amplitude is $`ϵ^3`$). To calculate the fidelity between the produced state $`\rho _{2^{}4^{}}`$ and the perfect singlet state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$,we need calculate the post probability (the probability after the observation of the coincident events) of $`\rho _{2^{}4^{}}`$ being the singlet state. In the case that a coincident event takes place, the component $`A`$,$`B`$, the first 3 terms in component $`C`$ and all of the terms with the probability amplitude order lower than $`|ϵ|^2`$ are excluded. The prior probability of all those excluded states is

$`P_{im}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|ϵ|^2)^4}}(1+4|ϵ|^2+5|ϵ|^4).`$ (28)
To calculate the lower bound of the fidelity, we assume the worst situation that all omitted higher order terms will cause the coincident events. In such a situation, when a coincident event is observed, the fidelity between $`\rho _{2^{}4^{}}`$ and the singlet state is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\rho _{2^{}4^{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{|ϵ|^4/(1+|ϵ|^2)^4}{1P_{im}}}={\displaystyle \frac{|ϵ|^4}{(1+|ϵ|^2)^4(1+4|ϵ|^2+5|ϵ|^4)}}=14|ϵ|^2.`$ (29)
This is to say, if we set $`ϵ=\frac{1}{20}`$, we can make a singlet state in beam 2’ and 4’ with a purity larger than $`99\%`$, once the coincident event is observed. Note that this is the lower bound of the fidelity, since we have assumed all the terms with probability amplitude order higher than $`|ϵ|^2`$ will cause a coincident event wrongly. Actually, some of the higher order terms will not cause the required coincidence by our scheme and this will increase the actual fidelity. A detailed calculation shows that the actual fidelity is larger than $`99.7\%`$.

In general, the efficiency of a photon detector is far from perfect. In our scheme, if the efficiency is $`\eta `$, the total probability that a coincident event takes place is changed to $`\eta ^2|ϵ|^4`$. When a coincident event happens, the lower bound of the purity of the outcome beams is $`14|ϵ|^2\eta ^2`$. This is to say, e.g. given the efficiency $`\eta =0.5`$ and $`ϵ=\frac{1}{20}`$, the fidelity between $`\rho _{2^{}4^{}}`$ and the singlet state is larger than $`94\%`$. Again, this value is only the lower bound of the fidelity. A detailed calculation shows that the actual fidelity will be larger than $`99\%`$.

In conclusion, by using the scheme as shown in figure 1, we can prepare a good EPR state in beam 2’ and 4’ conditionally on the observation of the coincident event that both D1 and D4 are clicked or both D2 and D3 are clicked. As far as we have known, so far this is the $`only`$ passive linear optics scheme to produce EPR pairs with the normal photon detectors which only distinguish the vacuum and non-vacuum Fock state. It has already been shown that the single photon state can be produced successfully with nearly $`100\%`$ probability with the pump light repetition rate of $`10^8`$ per second, by using the quantum dot technique. Moreover, the single photon state can be mass produced by the robust electrically driven source. The synchronization of two beams of single photon is a challenging task in practice. But it is not an unsolvable problem in principle. Actually, the indistinguishability and the interference of two single photon beams have been indeed experimentally observed recently though the experimental efficiency there is low. As it has been calculated earlier, even imperfect normal photon detectors with an efficiency $`50\%`$ are used, the fidelity between our outcome state and the perfect EPR state is still quite high. This is a bit different from the third order SPDC scheme given by Sliwa and Banaszek where the result is seriously distorted by the low detection efficiency.

Acknowledgement: I thank Prof Imai H for support. I thank Dr Matsumoto K, Tomita A and Pan JW( U. Viena) for stimulating discussions.


text:
# APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics, Snowmass, CO (30 Jun–21 Jul 2001) Accelerating Muons to 2400 GeV/c with Dogbones Followed by Interleaved Fast Ramping Iron and Fixed Superconducting Magnets

## I INTRODUCTION

For a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider , muons must be rapidly accelerated to high energies while minimizing the kilometers of radio frequency (RF) cavities and magnet bores. Cost must be moderate. Some muons may be lost to decay but not too many. In the first stage of acceleration, consider twenty passes through a two GeV Linac and see if enough muons survive decay. A single continuos Linac with teardrop shaped arcs of fixed field magnets at each end is adopted. Muon decay losses are minimized; muons pass through shorter arcs when their gamma boost is low. The overall geometry looks like a dogbone . More time is available for the second stage of acceleration due to the gamma boost. Consider a ring of fixed superconducting magnets alternating with iron combined function magnets rapidly cycling between full negative and full positive field . This interleaved geometry increases the average bending field achievable in a fast ramping synchrotron and thus reduces muon decay losses.

## II DOGBONE LAYOUT WITH 1.8 TESLA FIXED FIELD MAGNETS

A neutrino factory as outlined in the recent Brookhaven study  provides 20 GeV muons which have enough energy to explore CP violation in the lepton sector. Further acceleration to 60 GeV may be enough to reach a low mass Higgs as suggested by theory and recent measurements at LEP.

Twenty passes through a 2 GeV Linac would accelerate muons from 20 to 60 GeV. Sets of teardrop shaped arcs as shown in Fig. 1 are used at used at both end of the 2 GeV linac. To minimize magnet cost 450 turns are used with short straight sections to line up the arcs. For each teardrop, the length added to the curved sections by the two straight sections is $`(42\sqrt{2})/2\pi =18.6\%`$. Take a muon lifetime of $`2.2\times 10^6`$ seconds, 1.8 Telsa dipoles, a 70% dipole packing fraction, and a 133 meter long 2 GeV Linac with 15 MV/meter. The total magnet bore length required is 7000 meters, 11% longer that the Fermilab Tevatron. Muon survival after twenty passes through the 2 GeV Linac is 95.5%. Squaring this percentage the luminosity is 91.8% of what it would be in a Higgs factory if there had been no decay loss in accelerating the muons from 20 to 60 GeV. The magnet cell length may have to be short to provide good acceptance for the muons in the arcs. An alternating gradient design where the magnet lamination change shape within a magnet avoids magnet ends and makes it easier to consider superconducting wire rather than copper. The magnets do have to be at full field constantly, so power consumption is an issue.

Finally note that in a dogbone geometry, muons can orbit clockwise in one end and counterclockwise in the other end, which may help to preserve polarization. If muons are 100% polarized, the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ Higgs cross section doubles (versus the case of zero polarization).

## III INTERLEAVED FAST RAMPING IRON AND FIXED SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETS: SAGITTAS, POWER CONSUMPTION, and MUON SURVIVAL

A lattice cell for a ring of interleaved fast ramping magnets and fixed field superconducting magnets is shown in Fig. 2. The gradient dipoles buck the superconducting magnets at the start of a cycle and work in unison with the superconducting magnets at the end of a cycle. The magnetic field swings from full negative to full positive in the gradient dipoles.

The sagitta of a muon in a magnet increases linearly with increasing magnetic field, $`B`$. It decreases linearly with increasing momentum, $`p`$. And it increases as the square of the length of a magnet, $`\mathrm{}`$. The size of the sagitta directly affects the size of magnet bores because the sagitta changes throughout a cycle. The sagitta is given by $`R\sqrt{R^2(\mathrm{}/2)^2}`$, where $`R=p/.3B`$. At 250 GeV, the sagitta is 5mm for a 2 meter long 8 Telta magnet and 11 mm for a 6 meter long 2 Telsa magnet. As momentum increases, the sagitta in the 8 Tesla magnets decreases towards zero and the sagitta in the 2 Tesla magnets goes somewhat past zero.

Consider the feasibility of an iron dominated magnet which cycles from -2 to +2 Tesla . First calculate the energy, $`W`$, stored in a 2 Tesla field in a volume 6 m long, .03 m high, and .08 m wide. The permeability constant, $`\mu _0`$, is $`4\pi \times 10^7`$. $`W=B^2/2\mu _0[\text{Volume}]=`$ 23 000 Joules. Next given 6 turns, an LC circuit capacitor, and a 250 Hz frequency; estimate current, voltage, inductance, and capacitance. The height, $`h`$, of the aperture is .03 m. The top and bottom coils may be connected as two separate circuits to halve the switching voltage.

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0NI}{h}}I={\displaystyle \frac{Bh}{\mu _0N}}=8000\text{Amps;}`$ $`W=.5LI^2L=2W/I^2=720\mu \text{H}`$ (1)
$`f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{LC}}}C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L(2\pi f)^2}}=560\mu \text{F;}`$ $`W=.5CV^2V=\sqrt{2W/C}=9000\text{Volts}`$ (2)
Now calculate the resistive energy loss, which over time is equal to one-half the loss at the maximum current of 8000 Amps. The one-half comes from the integral of cosine squared. Table I gives the resistivity of copper. A six-turn copper conductor 3 cm thick, 10 cm high, and 7800 cm long has a power dissipation of 15 kilowatts.

$$R=\frac{7800(1.8\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\text{-cm})}{(3)(10)}=470\mu \mathrm{\Omega };P=I^2R_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )𝑑\theta =\text{15\hspace{0.17em}000 watts/magnet}$$
(3)
Calculate the dissipation due to eddy currents in this conductor, which will consist of transposed strands to reduce this loss \[5–8\]. To get an idea, take the maximum B-field during a cycle to be that generated by a 0.05m radius conductor carrying 24000 amps. This ignores fringe fields from the gap which will make the real answer higher. The eddy current loss in a rectangular conductor made of transposed square wires 1/2 mm wide (sometimes called Litz wire) with a perpendicular magnetic field is as follows. The width of the wire is $`w`$.

$$B=\frac{\mu _0I}{2\pi r}=0.096\text{Tesla};P=\text{[Volume]}\frac{(2\pi fBw)^2}{24\rho }=[\mathrm{.03\; .10\; 78}]\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{250\; .096\; .0005})^2}{(24)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}\times 10^8}=3000\text{watts}\text{}$$
(4)
Cooling water will be needed, so calculate the eddy current losses for cooling tubes made from type 316L stainless steel. More exotic metals with higher resistivities are also available as shown in Table III. Choose 2 tubes per 3 cm $`\times `$ 10 cm stranded copper conductor for a total length of 78 $`\times `$ 2 = 156 m. Take a 12 mm OD and a 10 mm ID. Subtract the losses in the inner missing round conductor. The combined eddy current loss in the copper plus the stainless steel is 4200 watts (3000 + 2400 - 1200).

$`P(12\text{mm})=\text{[Volume]}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi fBd)^2}{32\rho }}=[\pi .006^2156]{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}250\; .096\; .012})^2}{(32)74\times 10^8}}=2400\text{watts}`$ (5)
$`P(10\text{mm})=\text{[Volume]}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi fBd)^2}{32\rho }}=[\pi .005^2156]{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}250\; .096\; .010})^2}{(32)74\times 10^8}}=1200\text{watts}`$ (6)
Eddy currents must be reduced in the iron not only to decrease power consumption and cooling, but also because they introduce multipole moments which destabilize beams. If the laminations are longitudinal, it is hard to force the magnetic field to be parallel to the laminations near the gap. This leads to additional eddy current gap losses . So consider a magnet with transverse laminations as sketched in Fig. 1 and calculate the eddy current losses. The yoke is either 0.28 mm thick 3% grain oriented silicon steel \[13–15\] or 0.025 mm thick Metglas 2605SA1 . The pole tips are 0.1 mm thick Supermendur to raise the field in the gap .

$$\text{P(3\% Si–Fe)}=\text{[Volume]}\frac{(2\pi fBt)^2}{24\rho }=[6((\mathrm{.42\; .35})(\mathrm{.20\; .23}))]\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{250\; 1.6\; .00028})^2}{(24)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}47}\times 10^8}=\mathrm{27\hspace{0.17em}000}\text{watts}$$
(7)
$$\text{P(Metglas)}=\text{[Volume]}\frac{(2\pi fBt)^2}{24\rho }=[6((\mathrm{.42\; .35})(\mathrm{.20\; .23}))]\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{250\; 1.6\; .000025})^2}{(24)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}135}\times 10^8}=75\text{watts}$$
(8)
$$\text{P(Supermendur)}=\text{[Volume]}\frac{(2\pi fBt)^2}{24\rho }=[\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}.09\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}.02}]\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{250\; 2.2\; .0001})^2}{(24)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}26}\times 10^8}=210\text{watts}$$
(9)
Eddy currents are not the only losses in the iron. Hysteresis losses, $`𝐇𝑑𝐁`$, scale with the coercive force, Hc, and increase linearly with frequency. Anomalous loss  which is difficult to calculate theoretically must be included. Thus I now use functions fitted to experimental measurements of 0.28 mm thick 3% grain oriented silicon steel , 0.025 mm thick Metglas 2605SA1 , and 0.1 mm thick Supermendur .

$$\text{P(3\% Si–Fe)}=4.38\times 10^4f^{1.67}B^{1.87}=4.38\times 10^4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}250}^{1.67}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.6}^{1.87}=10.7\text{w/kg}=\mathrm{49\hspace{0.17em}000}\text{watts/magnet}$$
(10)
$$\text{P(Metglas)}=1.9\times 10^4f^{1.51}B^{1.74}=1.9\times 10^4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}250}^{1.51}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.6}^{1.74}=1.8\text{w/kg}=7900\text{watts/magnet}$$
(11)
$$\text{P(Supermendur)}=5.64\times 10^3f^{1.27}B^{1.36}=5.64\times 10^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}250}^{1.27}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.2}^{1.36}=18\text{w/kg}=1600\text{watts/magnet}$$
(12)
In summary, a 250 Hz dipole magnet close to 2 Tesla looks possible as long as the field volume is limited and one is willing to deal with stranded copper and thin, low hysteresis laminations. Total losses can be held to twice the I2R loss in the copper alone, using Metglas.

Now with a rough design for a fast ramping magnet in hand, work out the details of ring radii, RF requirements, and the fraction of muons that survive decay. The fraction of the circumference packed with dipoles is set at $`P_F`$ = 70%. As an example, consider two rings in a 2200 m radius tunnel with an injection momentum of 250 GeV/c. The first has 25% 8T magnets and 75% $`\pm `$2T magnets and ramps from 0.5T to 3.5T. The second has 55% 8T magnets and 45% $`\pm `$2T magnets and ramps from 3.5T to 5.3T.

$$B=\frac{250\text{GeV/c}}{.3P_FR}=\frac{250}{(.3)(.7)(2200)}=0.54\text{Tesla}$$
(13)
$$p=(3.5\text{Tesla})(.3)(P_F)(R)=(3.5)(.3)(.7)(2200)=1600\text{GeV/c}$$
(14)
$$p=(5.3\text{Tesla})(.3)(P_F)(R)=(5.3)(.3)(.7)(2200)=2400\text{GeV/c}$$
(15)
Provide 25 GeV of RF. The first ring accelerates muons from 250 GeV/c to 1600 GeV/c in 54 orbits. and the second from 1600 GeV/c to 2400 GeV/c in 32 orbits. At what frequency do the two rings have to ramp?

$$\text{Time}(0.5T3.5T)=\frac{(54)(2\pi )(2.2)}{\mathrm{300\hspace{0.17em}000}}=2.5\text{ms}200\text{Hz}$$
(16)
$$\text{Time}(3.5T5.3T)=\frac{(32)(2\pi )(2.2)}{\mathrm{300\hspace{0.17em}000}}=1.5\text{ms}330\text{Hz}$$
(17)
How many muons survive during the 86 orbits from 250 GeV/c to 2400 GeV/c? $`N`$ is the orbit number, $`\tau =2.2\times 10^6`$ is the muon lifetime, and $`m=.106`$ GeV/c2 is the muon mass.

$$\text{SURVIVAL}=\underset{N=1}{\overset{86}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi Rm}{[250+(25N)]c\tau }\right]=82\%$$
(18)
Only 1/6 of the 18% loss occurs in the second ring, so it is not crucial to run it as fast as 330 Hz. The 250 $``$ 1600 GeV/c ring has 1200 6 m long dipoles ramping at 200 Hz. The 1600 $``$ 2400 GeV/c ring has 725 6 m long dipoles ramping at 330 Hz. The weighted average rate is 250 Hz. If running continuously, the 1925 magnets would consume a weighted average of 29 kilowatts each for a total of 56 megawatts. But given a 15 Hz refresh rate for the final muon storage ring , the average duty cycle for the 250 $``$ 2400 GeV/c acceleration rings is 6%. So the power falls to 4 megawatts, which is small. Finally note that one can do a bit better than 82% on the muon survival during final acceleration if the first ring is smaller, say 1000 m, rather than 2200 m.

I would like to thank S. Berg, K. Bourkland, S. Bracker, R. Fernow, J. Gallardo, C. Johnstone, H. Kirk, N. Marks, D. Neuffer, A. Otter, R. Palmer, A. Tollestrup, K. Tuohy, D. Walz, R. Weggel, E. Willen, and D. Winn for their help and suggestions.


text:
# The accelerating universe in brane-world cosmology

\[

## Abstract

The standard Friedmann universe embedded in a five dimensional and constant curvature bulk is examined without any a priori junction condition between the brane and the bulk. A geometrical explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe is derived by using a minimum set of assumptions consistent with the brane-world program. It is shown that the extrinsic curvature of the brane can be associated to the dark energy which presumably drives the universe expansion.

PACS number: 04.50+h;98.80cq

\]

Recent observations of type Ia supernovae  suggest that the observable universe is presently undergoing an accelerated expansion. Together with other data, this phenomenon indicates the existence of an energy component characterized by a negative pressure, contributing with about 70% of the total energy density of the universe (the other 30% being essentially nonrelativistic matter). In addition to the most natural candidate for such a component, the cosmological constant, many phenomenological models with a negative pressure, like scalar fields with dominant potential energy (quintessence)  or x-matter , have been proposed to explain the data.

Although interesting, in general the dynamics of dark energy candidates has no justification but phenomenological. In particular, as the energy densities of the dark energy and of the other components decrease at different rates and are usually considered as unrelated, the near coincidence in their values today can be explained only by either a fine tunning of initial conditions or a careful choice of “tracking” potentials . Alternative proposals which explain this “coincidence problem” consider a phenomenological coupling between the dark components, so that the universe present an asymptotic regime with fixed dark matter to dark energy ratio . In spite of any kinematical advantages, it is desirable that a dark energy candidate has its origin and particular dynamics motivated by an underlying theory, in addition to the agreement with the observational data.

Coincidently or not, a new higher dimensions gravitational theory aimed to solve the hierarchy problem has gained much attention recently. It emerged from the observation that the commonly accepted hypothesis that gravitation becomes strong only at around $`10^{19}`$ GeV is a conjecture devoid of any experimental support, and that there is no theoretical or experimental evidence which prevents the existence of quantum gravity effects at the TeV scale . This so called brane-world program is a blend of some features of Kaluza-Klein and string (or M) theories with additional hypotheses.

In Kaluza-Klein theory all fundamental interactions exhibit similar behavior with respect to the extra dimensions and this eventually led to inconsistencies in its low energy sector. On the other hand, M-theory based on the Nambu-Goto principle, uses a more flexible geometrical condition, specifying a classical space-time resulting from the motion of an extended object or 3-brane embedded in the bulk. In one of its formulations , the standard gauge fields do not propagate along the extra dimensions, a property which is reserved to the gravitational field.

In the brane-world program, like in Kaluza-Klein theory, the geometry of the higher dimensional bulk is a solution of the higher dimensional Einstein’s equations, but our space-time (or brane-world) is an embedded submanifold. Furthermore, only gravitons probe the extra dimensions at the TeV scale, while the standard gauge interactions remain confined to the brane .

Several brane-world cosmologies have been proposed, mostly in the context of the Randall-Sundrum (RS) formulations , defined in a five dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS5) space. The dynamics of these models features boundary terms in the action and sometimes mirror symmetry, such that bulk gravitational waves interfere with the brane-world motion. This usually comes together with junction conditions producing an algebraic relationship between the extrinsic curvature and the confined matter . The consequence is that Friedmann’s equation acquires an additional term which is proportional to the square of energy density of the confined source fields . In order to be consistent with the predictions from the big-bang nucleosynthesis such term must be non negligible only at the very early universe, thus having no effect in low energy cosmology. Some attempts to solve this difficulty have been proposed, using flat bulks and appropriate boundary conditions . With this, a late time accelerating solution and suitable observational consequences can also be obtained, but at the expense of displaying a correcting factor in the Newtonian potential, thus introducing phenomenological difficulties .

Such results may give the impression that the brane-world program necessarily depends on fine tunnings of parameters or on the inclusions of extra fields in order to fit cosmological data. The purpose of this note is to show that even under more general conditions, still compatible with the brane-world program, it is possible to find a richer set of cosmological solutions in accordance to the current observations. In particular, it is found that the accelerated expansion of the FRW universe can be explained by the dynamics of the extrinsic curvature along the radial direction of the brane, thus proposing a geometric alternative to the dark energy problem.

The emergence of the squared energy term in Friedmann’s equation is a consequence of an a priori specification of a junction condition for the discontinuity between the bulk and the brane. As we shall see later, if such a relation is relaxed, more general solutions for the integrability conditions of the embedding equations, in particular the Codazzi’s equation, can be obtained. In order to sort this out, we apply only the relevant features of a five-dimensional brane-world cosmology in a constant curvature bulk. The analysis is based only on the three basic postulates of the program, namely, a)the confinement of standard gauge interactions, b)the existence of quantum gravity in the bulk, and c)the embedding of the brane-world. All other model dependent properties such as warped metrics, mirror symmetries, radion or extra scalar fields, fine tunning parameters like the tension of the brane, and the choice of a junction condition are left out as much as possible in our calculations.

In the following we will consider the FRW line element

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2[dr^2+f(r)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]$$
(1)
where $`f(r)=\mathrm{sin}r,r,\mathrm{sinh}r`$ corresponding to $`k=1,0,1`$ respectively. It is well known that this space-time can be embedded into a five-dimensional flat space , but here we extend this embedding to any constant curvature space, including anti-de Sitter AdS5, de Sitter dS5, and the flat M5 cases, with metric signatures $`(4,1)`$ and with the bulk Riemann tensor§§§Greek indices go from 1 to 5 and refer to the bulk, small case Latin indices go from 1 to 4 and refer to the brane.

$$_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=K_{}(𝒢_{\mu \rho }𝒢_{\nu \sigma }𝒢_{\mu \sigma }𝒢_{\nu \rho })$$
(2)
where $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ is the bulk metric and $`K_{}`$ denotes the bulk constant curvature. In the flat case $`K_{}=0`$ and in the de Sitter and anti-de Sitter cases we may write $`K_{}=\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}}{6}`$ respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$ is the bulk cosmological constant.

In the normal Gaussian frame defined by the embedded space-time, the bulk metric may be decomposed as

$$𝒢_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{ij}& 0\\ 0& g_{55}\end{array}\right),g_{55}=1$$
(3)
Inserting this in (2) and using the Gauss and Codazzi equations, which are the integrability conditions for the embedding equations , we obtain

$`R_{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`(k_{ik}k_{jl}k_{il}k_{kj})+K_{}(g_{ik}g_{jl}g_{il}g_{kj})`$ (4)
$`k_{ij;k}`$ $`=`$ $`k_{ik;j}`$ (5)
where $`k_{ij}`$ denotes the extrinsic curvature.

From the contractions of (4) with $`g^{ij}`$ we obtain the Ricci scalar $`R`$ of the brane metric, in terms of the Ricci scalar of the bulk $``$. Therefore, the embedding and the supposition that the bulk is a solution of Einstein’s equations necessarily introduce an Einstein-Hilbert component in the brane-world Lagrangian. After adding a confined matter Lagrangian and a four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the effective Lagrangian compatible with the embedding reads (for details, see ):

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}=`$ $`R`$ $`\sqrt{g}+(K^2+h^2)\sqrt{g}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{g}2{\displaystyle \frac{dh}{dy}}\sqrt{g}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g}_m`$ (7)
where $`h=g^{ij}k_{ij}`$ is the mean curvature of the brane-world, $`K^2=k^{ij}k_{ij}`$, $`y`$ denotes the fifth coordinate and $`=20K_{}`$ as derived from (4). The total derivative term with respect to $`y`$ can be eliminated provided the motion of the brane-world occurs between two fixed minimal boundary hypersurfaces where $`h=0`$ . Like in the second RS model such boundaries can be moved away so that all boundary generated bulk waves are eliminated. Variation of the action with respect to $`g_{ij}`$ gives the dynamical equation compatible with the embedding and with the confined matter hypotheses. Denoting by $`T_{ij}^m`$ the confined matter energy-momentum tensor and defining $`\lambda =3K_{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the resulting Einstein’s equations are

$$R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ij}+\lambda g_{ij}=8\pi GT_{ij}^m+Q_{ij}$$
(8)
where

$$Q_{ij}=g^{mn}k_{im}k_{jn}hk_{ij}\frac{1}{2}(K^2h^2)g_{ij}$$
(9)
Notice that this quantity is identically conserved in the sense that,

$$Q^{ij}{}_{;j}{}^{}=0,$$
(10)
so that there is no exchange of energy between this geometrical correction and the confined matter. Such an aspect has one important consequence: if $`Q_{ij}`$ is to be related to the dark energy, as we do later, it does not exchange energy with the ordinary matter, like in the coupled quintessence models .

In order to specify a cosmological model, it is usual to add a condition on the extrinsic curvature, such as the Israel-Lanczos junction conditions, thus introducing a relationship between $`k_{ij}`$ and the confined energy-momentum tensor . Here we have removed or at the least postponed all motivations, such as boundary bulk waves and mirror symmetries, which justify the application of such conditions (see, for example, Refs. ). Alternatively, we solve Codazzi’s equation for any homogeneous and isotropic brane before applying further constraints on $`k_{ij}`$. Although such a solution does not provide any explicit cosmological model, it clarifies the role played by the junction condition and it has a degree of freedom which permits an adjustment with the observational results.

In order to solve Codazzi’s equation, we first notice that for the FRW metric $`k_{ij}`$ is diagonal. Denoting the spatial indices in the brane by the letters $`a,b,c,d=1\mathrm{}3`$, we find that Eq. (5) is reduced to

$`k_{aa,c}`$ $``$ $`k_{ad}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ac}^d=k_{ac,a}k_{cd}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aa}^d,`$
$`k_{aa,4}`$ $``$ $`k_{aa}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}=a\dot{a}(\delta _a^1\delta _b^1+f^2\delta _a^2\delta _b^2+f^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \delta _a^3\delta _b^3)k_{44}.`$
The first equation for $`c1`$ gives $`k_{11,c}=0`$ so that $`k_{11}`$ is a function $`b(t)`$. From the second equation we obtain $`k_{44}=\frac{1}{\dot{a}}\frac{d}{dt}(b(t)/a)`$. Repeating the same arguments for $`k_{22}`$ and $`k_{33}`$ we obtain the general solution of (5)

$$k_{ab}=\frac{b}{a^2}g_{ab},\text{and}k_{44}=\frac{1}{\dot{a}}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{b}{a}\right).$$
(11)
Denoting $`B=\dot{b}/b`$ and as usual $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ we obtain

$$Q_{ab}=\frac{b^2}{a^4}\left(2\frac{B}{H}1\right)g_{ab},Q_{44}=\frac{3b^2}{a^4}.$$
(12)
Replacing (12) in (8) we obtain Friedmann’s equation modified by the presence of the extrinsic curvature

$$\dot{a}^2+k=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho a^2+\frac{\lambda }{3}a^2+\frac{b^2}{a^2}$$
(13)
Notice that in the context of brane-worlds the geometry of the universe must show quantum fluctuations. This will provide the necessary equation to determine $`b(t)`$. While a quantum theory of brane-world fluctuations is not available, we may use classical perturbative approaches for the generation of embedded geometries to generate models based on the extrinsic curvature .

Just for the sake of comparision with existing models, consider that this classical relation is replaced by the Israel-Lanczos condition applied to our solution (11),

$$k_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _5^2(T_{ij}^m\frac{1}{3}T^mg_{ij}),$$
(14)
where $`\alpha _5`$ is proportional to the gravitational constant in the bulk. In such a case, we obtain $`b(t)=\frac{1}{6}\alpha _5^2\gamma \rho a^2`$. By replacing such an expression in (13) it follows that

$$\dot{a}^2+k=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho a^2+\frac{\alpha _5^2\gamma ^2}{36}\rho ^2a^2,$$
(15)
showing that the a $`\rho ^2`$ term emerges from the imposition of the junction condition. As already mentioned, this particular case either does not agree with the observations or require extra parameters and fine tunnings, consequently we will will not consider it in our analysis.

We see that our solution (11) depends only on the radial bending function $`b(t)`$ which remains arbitrary. To find the dynamical role of this function, we associate $`Q_{ij}`$ to a separatedly conserved energy-momentum (from (10))

$$\tau _{ij}\frac{Q_{ij}}{8\pi G}.$$
(16)
Denoting by $`p_b`$ the field pressure, the bending tension (if negative), and by $`\rho _b`$ the corresponding bending energy, we can represent $`\tau _{ij}`$ as

$$\tau _{ij}=(p_b+\rho _b)U_iU_j+p_bg_{ij},U_i=\delta _i^4$$
(17)
In addition, we can also write a state-like equation $`p_b=(\gamma _b1)\rho _b`$ where $`\gamma _b`$ is an undetermined function of time. Comparing $`\tau _{ab}`$ and $`\tau _{44}`$ with (12), we obtain

$$\rho _b=\frac{3}{8\pi G}\frac{b^2}{a^4},p_b=\frac{1}{8\pi G}\frac{b^2}{a^4}\left(2\frac{B}{H}1\right)$$
(18)
To determine the equation for $`b(t)`$, we use the trace $`Q=g^{ij}Q_{ij}=(6b^2/a^4)(B/H)`$. The spatial trace is

$$g^{ab}Q_{ab}=Q+Q_{44}=3\frac{b^2}{a^4}\left(2\frac{B}{H}1\right)$$
(19)
On the other hand, from the expression of $`\tau _{ij}`$ we find

$$g^{ab}Q_{ab}=24\pi Gp_b$$
(20)
Comparing the last two expressions we obtain the equation

$$\frac{\dot{b}}{b}=\frac{1}{2}(43\gamma _b)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}$$
(21)
Notice that this resembles one of the phenomenological candidates for dark energy, the x-matter , but in our case this field has a fundamental (geometrical) justification for the equation of state.

As a simple example consider the case where $`\gamma _b`$ is constant. In such a case the above equation yields to a very simple solution

$$b(t)=b_0a(t)^{\frac{1}{2}(43\gamma _b)}$$
(22)
where $`b_0`$ is an integration constant. With this solution, the bending energy becomes

$$\rho _b=\frac{3b_0}{8\pi G}a^{3\gamma _b}$$
(23)
For a rough estimate consider a vanishing $`\lambda `$ (as, for example, for a M5 bulk with vanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and a spatially flat ($`k=0`$) brane composed mainly by dark matter and the bending contribution as the dark energy. In such a case, the deceleration parameter reads

$$q=\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^2}=(3\gamma _b2)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2},$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i8\pi G\rho _i/3H^2`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.7`$, as suggested by recent observations, a present time universe driven by the bending occurs whenever $`\gamma _b<0.52`$ as in the x-matter case . In fact, any observational test suited to test x-matter models can be used for this ansatz with a constant $`\gamma _b`$. For the general case, reconstructing techniques  can be used in order to find the appropriate evolution law for $`b(t)`$. Alternatively, $`\gamma _b(t)`$ can be provided by fundamental physics arguments.

In addition to the dark energy problem, other important issues can be addressed in our geometrical approach. For example, primordial inflation can be more natural in this context than in the usual brane-world proposal with a squared energy density. Additionally, possible relations between metric fluctuations and the extrinsic curvature of the brane can be obtained directly from geometric constraints and the specific models found can be considered to study the evolution of cosmological perturbations by adapting existing formalisms (see for example ). Other theoretical alternatives, including different bulk signatures as well as a comprehensive discussion on the topics covered here will be presented elsewhere.

To summarize, we have shown that the extrinsic curvature may be associated to the unknown dark energy component that drives the acceleration of the universe. The solutions obtained permit a richer set of phenomenological possibilities. Once available, the newest observational data can be used to reconstruct the equation of state of the dark component, thus providing the time evolution of the brane bending. In contrast with the usual dark energy models, the decoupling between the dark components is derived, instead of assumed. The geometrical approach considered here allows the inclusion of any constant curvature bulk with the same end result except for a fine tunning between the cosmological constants of the bulk and of the brane. Our overall conclusion is that the dark energy paradigm can be improved by considering a non trivial contribution of geometrical origin, if a junction condition is not postulated a priori.