text:
# Experimental demonstration of an interferometric complementarity of one- and two-particle interference in a bulk nuclear magnetic resonance ensemble

## I Introduction

Quantum superposition and its resulting interference are arguably the most fundamental effects in quantum mechanics, which leads to the concept of complementarity. In 1927, Bohr first reviewed this subject, claimed that the wave- and particle-like behaviors of a quantum mechanical object are mutually exclusive in a single experiment and expressed it as complementarity. So Bohr complementarity is often superficially identified with the ‘wave-particle duality’ which emphasizes two extreme cases that each experiment must be described in terms of either waves or particles, as explained in the textbook. Theoretical investigations about the intermediate situations in which particle and wave aspects coexist have led to some quantitative statements about wave-particle duality, some of which are expressed as inequalities $`V^2+P^21`$ or $`V^2+D^21`$ about the complementarity between ‘which-way’ (WW) information of a particle: the predictability $`P`$ and the distinguishability $`D`$ of the path, and the visibility $`V`$ of interference fringes. Bohr complementarity is often illustrated by means of interferometers and has been experimentally investigated in one-particle interferometer with individual particles, including photons, electrons, neutrons, atoms and nuclear spins in a bulk ensemble with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques.

Complementarity, however, is a more general concept which states that quantum systems possess properties that are equally real but mutually exclusive. Naturally, the techniques of standard one-particle interferometry have been extended to two-particle interferometry by employing correlated two-particle systems. The two-particle interference phenomenon was first observed by Ghosh and Mandel using photon pair produced by parametric down-conversion, where the nonclassical effects associated with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) states were exhibited. Since that, two-particle interferometry has been intensively studied theoretically and experimentally. Whereafter, a fact between one- and two-particle interference was noticed by Horne and Zeilinger, i.e., when the two-particle visibility is unity, the one-particle visibility is zero, and vice versa. The visibilities of the one- and two-particle interference are described as a pair of complementary quantities. A systematic investigation of intermediate cases was carried out by Jaeger et al., who showed that in a large family of states $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ an interferometric complementarity holds between one-particle visibility $`V__i`$ and two-particle visibility $`V_{_{12}}`$:

$$V__i^2+V_{_{12}}^21,(i=1,2)$$
(1)
where the upper bound is saturated for a special family of states while most of the cases are limited in the inequality (1). However, the condition of achieving the upper bound has not yet been pointed out. The complementarity relation of one- and two-photon interference has been experimentally demonstrated in a Young’s double-slit experiment by Abouraddy et al.. Except this experiment, we have not still found other experimental versions in the intermediate regime. Moreover, inequality (1) can be strengthened to an equality with a suitable extension of operations on the pair of particles, but this conclusion is based on the different parameters of experimental configuration, that is, one can not observe such interference fringes to obtain $`V__i`$ and $`V_{_{12}}`$ that satisfy the equality in practice.

Then, what is the condition of this complementarity being of the form of an equality $`V__i^2+V_{_{12}}^2=1`$? And what is the reason why the complementarity relation is restricted in the inequality (1)? In this paper, we analyze the one- and two-particle interference complementarity in the general case and examine the relation among $`V_i`$, $`V_{12}`$ and the predication of the path $`P_i`$ to obtain an equality: $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2+P_i^2=1,(i=1,2)`$ for any pure two-particle source, which gives the answers of the two questions above, and, in fact, embodies two interferometric complementarity relations whose relations are discussed. Furthermore, we also clarify the relationships of $`V_{12},`$ the distinguishability of the path $`D_i`$ and the entanglement $`E`$ of the composite system which show an important view that this complementarity can arise due to the correlations. Using NMR techniques detailed in our works, the one- and two-particle complementarity relation of $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2=1`$ with $`P_i=0`$ has been experimentally tested with the ensemble-averaged spin states of 13C and 1H nuclei in 13C-labelled chloroform 13CHCl3, including two extreme cases: perfect two-particle interference fringe and no one-particle interference fringe for an entangled state and the opposite for a product state, and an intermediate case of a special family of states, by measuring both single and joint probability densities of spin states.

## II Complementarity in two extreme cases

We briefly review some dinfinitions and two-particle interferometric complementarity in two extreme cases. A schematic arrangement for a two-particle interferometer with variable phase shifters is given in Fig. 1. The source S emits a pair of particles 1+2, one of which propagates along the path A and/or A, through a variable phase shifter $`\varphi _1`$ impinging on an ideal symmetric beam splitter BS1, and is then registered in either beam $`K_1`$ or $`L_1`$, while on the other side there is the analogous process on the other (see Fig. 1). The locution “and/or” refers in a brief way to a quantum-mechanic superposition, the details of which are specified by the state of particles 1+2. Assuming that the pair of particles 1+2 are ideally two-level or spin-1/2 quantum entities, the Hilbert space H1 associated with particle 1 is spanned by vectors $`|A`$ and $`|A^{}`$ representing states of propagation in the paths A and A, and the Hilbert space H2 associated with particle 2 by analogous vectors $`|B`$ and $`|B^{}`$. In the same way, the space of the output states is the subspaces spanned by the vectors $`|K_1`$ and $`|L_1`$ for particle 1 and by $`|K_2`$ and $`|L_2`$ for particle 2.

According to the standard definition of visibility $`V=(I_{max}I_{min})/\left(I_{max}+I_{min}\right)`$, the usual definition for single-particle fringe visibility is

$$V_i=\frac{\left[p\left(K_i\right)\right]_{\mathrm{max}}\left[p\left(K_i\right)\right]_{\mathrm{min}}}{\left[p\left(K_i\right)\right]_{\mathrm{max}}+\left[p\left(K_i\right)\right]_{\mathrm{min}}},(i=1,2),$$
(2)
whereas for two-particle fringe visibility the ”corrected” definition is used:

$$V_{12}=\frac{\left[\overline{p}\left(K_1K_2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{max}}\left[\overline{p}\left(K_1K_2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{min}}}{\left[\overline{p}\left(K_1K_2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{max}}+\left[\overline{p}\left(K_1K_2\right)\right]_{\mathrm{min}}},$$
(3)
where the “corrected” joint probability $`\overline{p}\left(K_1K_2\right)=p\left(K_1K_2\right)p\left(K_1\right)p\left(K_2\right)+\frac{1}{4}`$ to assure the reasonableness of the visibility $`V_{12}`$, and $`p\left(K_i\right)`$ and $`p\left(K_1K_2\right)`$ denote the probabilities of single and joint detections, respectively. These visibilities can be obtained by observing the variations of both single and joint probabilities as functions of the phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. For simplicity, our experiments take the case of $`|A=|B=|K_1=|K_2=|=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\hfill \\ 0\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ and $`|A^{}=|B^{}=|L_1=|L_2=|=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\hfill \\ 1\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ representing the single-particle states with spin-up and spin-down, respectively.

Consider two extreme cases: when particles 1+2 is prepared in an entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|_1|_2+|_1|_2\right),$$
(4)
or in a product state

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }=\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|_1+|_1\right)\right]\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|_2+|_2\right)\right].$$
(5)
The joint action of variable phase shifters and symmetric beam splitters can be described by a unitary operation

$$U(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=U_1\left(\varphi _1\right)U_2\left(\varphi _2\right)$$
(6)
where

$$U_i\left(\varphi _i\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{i\varphi _i}\\ e^{i\varphi _i}& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
and subscript $`i`$ represents particle $`i`$. $`U(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ is the unitary mapping from the space of input states of the pair of particles 1+2 into the space of output states. It is easy to show that the joint and single measurement probabilities in the space of output states are: for the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ state of Eq.(4),

$$\begin{array}{c}p\left(|_1|_2\right)=p\left(|_1|_2\right)=\frac{1}{4}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _2\right)\right]\hfill \\ p\left(|_1|_2\right)=p\left(|_1|_2\right)=\frac{1}{4}\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _2\right)\right]\hfill \\ p\left(|_1\right)=p\left(|_1\right)=p\left(|_2\right)=p\left(|_2\right)=\frac{1}{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
and for the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ state of Eq.(5),

$$\begin{array}{c}p\left(|x_1|y_2\right)=p\left(|x_1\right)p\left(|y_2\right)\hfill \\ p\left(|_i\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i\right)\hfill \\ p\left(|_i\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`x,y=`$or$``$. Obviously, the probabilities of joint measurements in Eqs.(8) exhibit cosinusoidal modulations via the variable phase $`\varphi _i`$ which yields two-particle interference fringes for the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, whereas there is no one-particle interference fringes. Conversely, a cosinusoidal dependence of the single probabilities on the variable phase $`\varphi _i`$ in Eqs.(9) yields one-particle interference fringes for the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, but no genuine two-particle fringes, in that the variation of the joint probability $`p\left(|x_1|y_2\right)`$ results only from the variations of the single probabilities $`p\left(|x_1\right)`$ and $`p\left(|y_2\right)`$. This is the reason for using the “corrected” definition for two-particle fringe visibility. Further, Eqs.(8) shows $`p\left(|x_1|y_2\right)p\left(|x_1\right)p\left(|y_2\right)`$, a manifestation of quantum nonlocality associated with the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. From the definitions of Eqs.(2) and (3), the theoretical outcomes of the visibilities are found to be $`V_1=V_2=0,V_{12}=1`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`V_1=V_2=1,V_{12}=0`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The phenomenon can also be partially explained via the spirit of the ‘which-way’ (WW) interferometry experiment to test Bohr complementarity: any attempt to gain WW information unavoidably destroys the interference pattern. For example, when the composite system of particles 1+2 is prepared in the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, WW information of one particle is stored in the states of the other through their correlation. Consequently, as far as a single particle (1 or 2) is concerned, there are full WW information and no one-particle fringes. However, for the pair of particles 1+2, there is no way to determine whether 1+2 takes the composite path $`|_1|_2`$ or the composite path $`|_1|_2`$, and hence perfect two-particle interference pattern displays. In contrast, if the system is in the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi },`$ it is impossible to determine the path of one particle through the other, and thus there is one-particle interference.

## III Complementarity in the general case

Now, we turn to the general case from two extreme $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The most general state of pure two-particle source 1+2 that can be formed from the basis of $`\{|_i,|_i\}`$ is

$$|\mathrm{\Theta }=\gamma _1|_1|_2+\gamma _2|_1|_2+\gamma _3|_1|_2+\gamma _4|_1|_2,$$
(10)
where

$$\left|\gamma _1\right|^2+\left|\gamma _2\right|^2+\left|\gamma _3\right|^2+\left|\gamma _4\right|^2=1,$$
(11)
where $`\gamma _i=\left|\gamma _i\right|e^{i\delta _i}`$ are complex numbers. As the visibilities are independent of the phases $`\delta _i`$, in our analysis, all of $`\gamma _i`$ are taken to be real numbers.

Likewise, the unitary operation $`U`$ in Eq.(7) is applied to $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and straightforward calculations yield

$$\begin{array}{c}p\left(|_1\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _3+\gamma _2\gamma _4\right)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\right],\hfill \\ p\left(|_1\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[12\left(\gamma _1\gamma _3+\gamma _2\gamma _4\right)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\right],\hfill \\ p\left(|_2\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2+\gamma _3\gamma _4\right)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2\right],\hfill \\ p\left(|_2\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[12\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2+\gamma _3\gamma _4\right)\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
and

$$\overline{p}\left(|_1|_2\right)=\frac{1}{4}\left[1+M\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2N\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\right]$$
(13)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}N=2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _4\gamma _2\gamma _3\right)\hfill \\ M=2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _4+\gamma _2\gamma _3\right)4\left(\gamma _1\gamma _3+\gamma _2\gamma _4\right)\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2+\gamma _3\gamma _4\right)\hfill \end{array},$$
(14)
and the similar expressions for other $`\overline{p}\left(|x_1|y_2\right)`$. It is readily verified that $`\left|N\right|\left|M\right|`$ by using the normalization condition of Eq.(11). With the derivative method, the maximal and minimal values of $`\overline{p}\left(|_1|_2\right)`$ are deduced as: $`\overline{p}_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{min}}\left(|_1|_2\right)=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\pm \left|N\right|\right)`$, which can be achieved only when $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2)=(0,\pm 1)`$, i.e., $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(n\pi +\pi /2,m\pi +\pi /2),(n,m=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{})`$. Hence, on substituting for the maximal and minimal values of these probabilities in Eqs.(2) and (3), one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}V_1=\left|2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _3+\gamma _2\gamma _4\right)\right|,\hfill \\ V_2=\left|2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _2+\gamma _3\gamma _4\right)\right|,\hfill \\ V_{12}=\left|2\left(\gamma _1\gamma _4\gamma _2\gamma _3\right)\right|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
and

$$V_i^2+V_{12}^2=1\left[\left(\gamma _2^2\gamma _3^2\right)\left(1\right)^i\left(\gamma _1^2\gamma _4^2\right)\right]^21,\left(i=1,2\right).$$
(16)
The complementarity relation is achieved for any pure state of a composite two-particle system. In this type of interference experiments, another interesting physical quantity is the WW information of one particle when the other serves as the WW maker. Because the two complementarities — between path distinguishability and single-particle visibility and between one- and two-particle visibilities — are intimately connected, the one-particle visibility $`V_i`$ enters in the same way in both of them. Without any measurement, the available a priori WW knowledge of one particle is described by the predictability $`P_i`$ of the alternatives, which represents Man’s knowledge before measure; while the distinguishability $`D_i`$ denotes the maximal information about the “path” that can be extracted from an appropriate measure, which is Nature’s information about the actual alternative; usually $`P_iD_i`$. For all pure states $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the complementarity of single particle

$$V_i^2+D_i^2=1$$
(17)
holds, while

$$V_i^2+P_i^21,$$
(18)
where, by definition, the predictability $`P_i`$ of the path for particle i reads

$$P_i=\left|w_iw_i\right|=\left|\left(\gamma _2^2\gamma _3^2\right)\left(1\right)^i\left(\gamma _1^2\gamma _4^2\right)\right|$$
(19)
where $`w_{ix}`$ are the probabilities that particle $`i`$ takes one way $`|`$ or the other $`|`$. Comparing inequality (16) with Eq.(19), an equality

$$V_i^2+V_{12}^2+P_i^2=1$$
(20)
is achieved, which gives the relation among three physical quantities: $`V_i`$, $`V_{12}`$ and $`P_i`$. In fact, Eq.(20) covers both of two complementarity relations of inequalities (16) and (18) and implies the condition of saturating the upper bound of the two inequalities. For example, if the state of particle i is prepared symmetrically ($`w_i=w_i=\frac{1}{2}`$) so that $`P_i=0`$, i.e., there is nothing predictable about the paths in a symmetric one-particle counterpart, the one- and two-particle complementarity will be of the form of an equality. Or otherwise, if particle i is an asymmetric state ($`w_iw_i`$), that is, one path is more likely than the other to begin with $`P_i>0`$, the complementarity is strictly limited in the inequality (16), because partial WW information $`P_i`$ restrains full one-particle interference visibility $`V_i`$.

As the complementarity is tightly associated with the property of the composite system, it would be natural to examine the relationships between these physical quantities and the entanglement $`E`$ of the system. By calculating the von Neumann entropy, the entanglement $`E`$ for the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in Eq.(10) goes as

$$E=\frac{1\sqrt{1V_{12}^2}}{2}\mathrm{log}_2\left(\frac{1\sqrt{1V_{12}^2}}{2}\right)\frac{1+\sqrt{1V_{12}^2}}{2}\mathrm{log}_2\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1V_{12}^2}}{2}\right).$$
(21)
As illustrated in Fig. 2, this monotonically increasing relation between the two-particle visibility $`V_{12}`$ and the entanglement $`E`$ indicates the visibility of two-particle interference fringes $`V_{12}`$ is entirely governed by the entanglement $`E`$ of pure two-particle source: the absence of entanglement will results in zero-visibility two-particle interference fringes (e.g., the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ state in Eq.(5), $`E=0`$, $`V_{12}=0`$), and the prefect entanglement, the full two-particle interference fringes (e.g., the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ state in Eq.(4), $`E=1`$, $`V_{12}=1`$). From Eq.(21) one cannot directly make out clear relations between $`V_i`$ or $`D_i`$ and $`E`$. However, from Eq.(20) and Eq.(17), $`D_i^2=P_i^2+V_{12}^2`$ is gained, which means that $`D_i`$ contains both of the a priori WW information $`P_i`$ and the additional information $`V_{12}`$ encoded in the entanglement between the object and the WW maker due to the entire determination of $`V_{12}`$ by $`E`$. Since a priori knowledge $`P_i`$ only lies on the feature of initial single subsystem rather than that of the composite system, these quantities can be studied with a given a priori WW knowledge $`P_i`$. For instance, in a relevant symmetric one-particle interferometer $`\left(P_i=0\right)`$, then $`V_i=\sqrt{1V_{12}^2}`$ and $`D_i=V_{12}`$, which tie up with the entanglement $`E`$ (see Fig.2): the entanglement $`E`$ is enhanced, more and more Nature’s WW information is stored in the states of the marker particle through their correlation so that $`D_i`$ rises whereas the one-particle visibility decreases, as discussed and experimentally testified in Ref. . Most of one-particle interference experiments are discussed in this kind of symmetric interferometer. If the interferometer begins with $`P_i>0`$, $`V_i`$ and $`D_i`$ still bear the similar dependence on the entanglement $`E`$, this monotonically decreasing relation for $`V_i`$ and this monotonically increasing relation for $`D_i`$ except for the wholly alterative amplitudes based on a priori knowledge $`P_i`$, while $`V_{12}`$ does not alter the relation on $`E`$ at all. Consequently, this figure also illuminates an important view that quantum correlation is completely responsible for complementarity.

In order to discuss these relations in greater detail, we study some special families of states. When $`\left|N\right|=\left|M\right|`$, the following two situations can be distinguished:

1) $`\gamma _1\gamma _4=\gamma _2\gamma _3`$: $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ corresponds to any product state ($`E=0`$), then $`V_{12}=0`$. When $`P_i=0`$ (i.e., $`\gamma _1=\gamma _4=\gamma _2=\gamma _3=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$), we recover the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ state of Eq.(5) (the sign makes no difference on these physical quantities), $`V_i=1`$. When $`P_i>0`$, the one-particle interference visibility is limited by $`V_i^2+P_i^2=1`$.

2) $`\gamma _2=\gamma _3=0`$ or $`\gamma _1=\gamma _4=0`$: $`|\mathrm{\Theta }=\gamma _1|_1|_2+\gamma _4|_1|_2`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Theta }=\gamma _2|_1|_2+\gamma _3|_1|_2`$, which are entangled. When $`P_i=0`$, (i.e., $`\gamma _1=\gamma _4=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ or $`\gamma _2=\gamma _3=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$), we retrieve the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ state of Eq.(4) or the similar state with $`|_2`$ and $`|_2`$ interchanged which are the maximal entangled states ($`E=1`$); in either case $`V_i=0`$ and $`V_{12}=1`$. When $`0<P_i<1`$, ($`\gamma _1\gamma _4`$ or $`\gamma _2\gamma _3`$), the $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ state is partially entangled ($`0<E<1`$), it then follows $`0<V_{12}<1`$ which is limited by $`V_{12}^2+P_i^2=1`$ in the intermediate regime, but $`V_i=0`$ and $`D_i=1`$, the ”path” can still be completely determined by a suitable measurement. When $`P_i=1`$ (one of two $`\gamma _i`$ in $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to be zero), the $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ state again recovers a product state ($`E=0`$), $`V_{12}=0`$ and $`V_i=0`$.

The cases discussed above are symmetric for particle 1 and particle 2 ($`P_1=P_2`$). We continue on investigating a special asymmetric case ($`P_1P_2`$):

3) When $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is of this form

$$|\psi (\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|_1\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha |_2+\mathrm{sin}\alpha |_2\right)+|_1\left(\mathrm{cos}\beta |_2+\mathrm{sin}\beta |_2\right)\right],$$
(22)
In this case, $`P_1=0`$, $`P_2=\left|\mathrm{cos}\left(\alpha +\beta \right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\alpha \beta \right)\right|`$. Simple substitutions produce $`V_1=\left|\mathrm{cos}\left(\alpha \beta \right)\right|`$, $`V_2=\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha +\beta \right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\alpha \beta \right)\right|`$ and $`V_{12}=\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\alpha \beta \right)\right|`$, which result in $`V_1^2+V_{12}^2=1`$ whereas $`V_2^2+V_{12}^21`$. However, whether for particle 1 or for particle 2, $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2+P_i^2=1`$ is satisfied. If $`\alpha \beta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$, we again turn to the state with $`P_1=P_2=0`$:

$$|\psi \left(\alpha \right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \left[|_1|_2+|_1|_2\right]+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \left[|_1|_2+|_1|_2\right].$$
(23)
which was discussed in Ref.: $`V_i=\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(2\alpha \right)\right|`$ and $`V_{12}=\left|\mathrm{cos}\left(2\alpha \right)\right|`$ which make $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2=1`$.

## IV Experimental investigations

In our experiments, the chosen quantum system is 13C-labeled chloroform 13CHCl3 (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc.) molecules with the hydrogen nuclei (1H) for particle 1 and the carbon nuclei (13C) for particle 2. The spin-spin coupling constant $`J`$ between 13C and 1H is 214.95 Hz. The relaxation times were measured to be $`T_1=4.8`$ $`sec`$ and $`T_2=3.3`$ $`sec`$ for the proton, and $`T_1=17.2`$ $`sec`$ and $`T_2=0.35`$ $`sec`$ for carbon nuclei. Experiments were performed on a BrukerARX500 spectrometer with a probe tuned at 125.77MHz for 13C and at 500.13MHz for 1H by using a conventional liquid-state NMR techniques.

The quantum ensemble is firstly prepared in a pseudo-pure state $`|\psi _0=|_1|_2`$ from thermal equilibrium by applying line-selective pulses with appropriate frequencies and rotation angles as well as a consequent magnetic gradient pulse. Different two-particle source which corresponds to any $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$ state in Eq.(10) can be prepared from the $`|\psi _0`$ state by appropriate operatations, e.g., the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of Eq.(4), the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of Eq (5) and the special family of states $`|\psi \left(\alpha \right)`$ of Eq.(23) by applying, respectively, the following NMR pulse sequences: $`Y_1(\frac{\pi }{2})X_1(\frac{\pi }{2})Y_1(\frac{\pi }{2})X_2(\frac{\pi }{2})Y_2\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)J_{12}(\frac{\pi }{2})Y_2(\frac{\pi }{2}),`$ $`Y_1(\frac{\pi }{2})Y_2(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`Y_2\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)X_2(\frac{\pi }{2})J_{12}(\frac{\pi }{2}2\alpha )X_2\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)Y_1(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ to be read from left to right. Here $`Y_i(\theta )`$ denotes an $`\theta `$ rotation about $`\widehat{y}`$ axis on particle $`i`$ and so forth, and $`J_{12}(\phi )`$ represents a time evolution of $`\phi /\pi J_{12}`$ under the scalar coupling between spins 1 and 2. Then the transformation $`U_i\left(\varphi _i\right)`$ to achieve the operations of phase shifters and beam splitters was realized by the NMR pulse sequence $`X_i\left(\theta _1\right)Y_i\left(\theta _2\right)X_i\left(\theta _1\right)`$ with $`\theta _1=\mathrm{tan}^1(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _i)`$ and $`\theta _2=2sin^1(cos\varphi _i/\sqrt{2})`$. $`U_i\left(\varphi _i\right)`$ with a set of appropriate values $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ was repeatedly applied in experiments to vary the value of $`\varphi _i`$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. Finally, the probabilities of single and joint measurements were obtained by quantum state tomography to reconstruct the diagonal elements of the output density matrices, which can be completed by employing reading-out pulses $`Y_1(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`Y_2(\frac{\pi }{2})`$ after a gradient pulse field to record 1H and 13C spectra, respectively. The quantitative measurements of the one- and two-particle interference visibilities were gained by monitoring the variations of these probabilities versus $`\varphi _i`$. In our experiments, the complementarity test is restricted in the cases of $`P_i=0`$, that is, to verify $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2=1`$.

For two extreme cases, we simultaneously varied the values of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ with the respective increment of $`\pi /16`$. Applying the procedure stated above, the experimental results are shown in Fig. 3. As expected, for the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, two-particle interference fringes are displayed (Fig. 3(b)) but almost no one-particle interference fringes (Fig. 3(a)). and the opposite situation for the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (Fig. 3(c) and (d)). From these experimental data points in Fig. 3, the measured values of the visibilities were extracted: $`V_1=0.12,`$ $`V_2=0.14`$, $`V_{12}=0.87`$ for the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`V_1=0.93,`$ $`V_2=0.99`$, $`V_{12}=0.10`$ for the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. By contrast with the theoretical expectations (see Sec II), more experimental errors were introduced in the case of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ inasmuch as the preparation of the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ was more complicated than that of the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The interferometric complementarity of the special family of states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\alpha \right)`$ in the intermediate regime was testified with a similar procedure. As $`\overline{p}\left(K_1K_2\right)`$ is a function of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ whose extrema $`\overline{p}_{\mathrm{max},\mathrm{min}}\left(K_1K_2\right)`$ were found at $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=(n\pi +\frac{\pi }{2},m\pi +\frac{\pi }{2})`$ in the theoretical calculations, we scanned one of $`\varphi _i`$ while fixing the other into $`\pi /2`$ for a given state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\alpha \right)`$, then repeated experiment with interchanging them, instead of simultaneously scanning $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. The procedure was repeated for different $`\alpha `$. For the convenience of experiments, we changed the values of $`\alpha `$ from $`\pi /4`$ to $`21\pi /16`$ with the increment of $`\pi /16`$. From the desirable interference fringes shown from variations of the normalized populations versus $`\varphi _i`$, the visibilities were obtained. The measured and theoretical visibilities of one- and two-particle interference $`V_1\left(\alpha \right),`$ $`V_2\left(\alpha \right)`$ and $`V_{12}\left(\alpha \right)`$ are plotted in Fig. 4(a), together with entanglement $`E\left(\alpha \right)`$ of the two-particle system. These experimental results are in good agreement with the theoretical expectations. This figure also shows the relationship between the visibilities and entanglement, i.e., $`E\left(\alpha \right)`$ varies synchronously with $`V_{12}\left(\alpha \right)`$ and has the opposite variation trend with $`V_i\left(\alpha \right)`$, consistent with the theoretical analyses in Sec.III. The experimental data of the complementarity relations for $`V_i^2\left(\alpha \right)+V_{12}^2\left(\alpha \right)`$ are also depicted in Fig. 4(b). The initial state of two-particle source is a symmetric state with no a priori WW knowledge of particle 1 and 2 ($`P_1=P_2=0`$), so that all data in Fig. 4(b) should be unity.

In these experiments, the estimated errors are less than $`\pm 10\%`$ due to the inhomogeneity of the RF field and static magnetic field, imperfect calibration of RF pulses and signal decay during the experiments. If we take into account the imperfections of the experiments, the measured data in our NMR experiments agree well with theory.

## V Conclusion

For a general pure two-particle source, we derive the interferometric complementarity between one- and two-particle interference visibilities and obtain an equality among the one-particle interference visibility $`V_i`$, two-particle interference visibility $`V_{12}`$ and the predication $`P_i`$ of the path of single particle: $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2+P_i^2=1`$. The equality not only embodies two complementarity relations of $`V_i^2+V_{12}^21`$ and $`V_i^2+P_i^21`$, but also implies the conditions of their saturating the upper bound of them, e.g., for the one- and two-particle interference, the duality of $`V_i^2+V_{12}^2=1`$ holds only when the interferometer involves a symmetric single-particle counterpart (i.e., $`P_i=0`$). In fact, the equality is also a demenstration of the relationships among one-paritcle wave-like ($`V_i`$), particle-like ($`P_i`$) and two-particle wave-like ($`V_{12}`$) attributes. In addition, we also manifest the role of entanglement in this type of interference experiments, which reveals whether in a symmetric way or in an asymmetric one, the greater entanglement is the quantum composite system, the lower the visibility of two-particle interference fringes whereas the higher the visibility of two-particle interference fringes. Meanwhile, we also consider the relation between two interferometric complementarities. The one- and two-particle interference complementarity has been testified for a kind of special symmetric interferometer ($`P_1=P_2=0`$) in a spin NMR ensemble, including two extreme cases and a special family of states. The experimental results showed the theoretical predictions of quantum mechanics within the experimental errors. Though the test was performed over interatomic distances, the experimental scheme originates from quantum version and their dynamical evolution is quantum mechanical. Therefore, these experiments also indicate that non-classical properties associated with entanglement can be displayed in NMR ensemble as long as the initial state is well prepared.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant NO. 10274093) and the National Fundamental Research Program (2001CB309300). We also thank Hanzheng Yuan, Zhi Ren, and Xu Zhang for help in the course of experiments.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1 Schematic two-particle interferometer using beam splitters BS1, BS2 and phase shifters $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$.

Fig. 2 The entanglement $`E`$ versus visibility $`V_{12}`$ for pure two-particle source (denoted by the solid line), visibility $`V_i`$ and distinguishability $`D_i`$ of a single particle in different a priori WW knowledge $`P_i`$: the dotted line of $`V_i`$ and the solid line of $`D_i=V_{12}`$ for $`P_i=0`$; the dashed line of $`V_i`$ and the dashdotted line of $`D_i=V_{12}`$ for $`P_i=0.4`$.

Fig. 3 The single and “corrected” joint probabilities detected in the one- and two-particle interference, (a) and (b) for the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, (c) and (d) for the product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In (a) and (c), data points $`\mathrm{},`$ $`+,`$ $``$ and $`\times `$ denote the single probabilities $`p\left(|_1\right),p\left(|_1\right),p\left(|_2\right)`$ and $`p\left(|_2\right)`$, respectively; in (b) and (d), $`,`$ $`\times ,`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`+`$ denote the “corrected” joint probabilities $`\overline{p}\left(|_1|_2\right),`$ $`\overline{p}\left(|_1|_2\right),`$ $`\overline{p}\left(|_1|_2\right)`$ and $`\overline{p}\left(|_1|_2\right)`$, respectively. Theoretical curves are depicted with the solid lines.

Fig. 4 The visibilities and the complementarity relation of a special family of states $`|\psi \left(\alpha \right)`$ as a function of the angle $`\alpha .`$ (a) Data points $`,`$ $`+`$ and $``$ denote, respectively, the visibilities of one-particle interference $`V_1,`$ $`V_2`$ and two-particle interference $`V_{12}`$. The solid lines are the theoretical expectations and the dotted line denotes the theoretical curve of entanglement $`E`$. (b) Experimental test of the complementarity relation $`V_1^2+V_{12}^2`$ (denoted by data ponits $`\mathrm{}`$) and $`V_2^2+V_{12}^2`$ (denoted by data ponits $`\mathrm{}`$) are plotted as a function of $`\alpha `$. The solid line represents the theoretical expectations.


format: text

text:
# Magnetic Pinching of Hyperbolic Flux Tubes: I. Basic Estimations

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades it has become clear from both observational and theoretical points of view that current sheet formation in the corona is one of the key processes for solar physics (Parker, 1994; Priest & Forbes, 2000). In particular, it provides a temporary deposit around the current sheets of free magnetic energy for solar flares and creates favorable conditions for subsequent rapid conversion of this energy into other forms. The corresponding local growth of current density in the current sheet formation process may stimulate the onset of plasma instabilities and the development of anomalous resistivity. Turbulent dissipation of the current layer due to such instabilities is thought to be a reason of thermal and supra-thermal processes in solar flares (Somov, 1992).

Typically, the coronal magnetic field is frozen into plasma and its Maxwellian stresses are large enough to dominate over other forces in active regions. This means that in such plasmo-magnetic configurations the magnetic pressure and tension approximately balance each other. Also the transit time of perturbations through the corona is much less than the characteristic time of photospheric motions. Therefore, the configurations have to evolve through a sequence of nearly force-free equilibria in response to the time variation of the photospheric boundary conditions. Due to the frozen-in condition the topological structure of the magnetic field in the corona is not changed by horizontal photospheric motions. However, it may be changed by a vertical injection of a new magnetic flux through the photosphere. In the generic case this may lead to the appearance of magnetic null points in the corona. The magnetic forces in the vicinity of the nulls are too weak to withstand to large variations of the ambient magnetic stress. Therefore, the corresponding neighborhoods of the nulls generally collapse in evolving fields, producing topologically accessible current singularities (Priest & Titov, 1996).

Similar processes have to occur in the vicinity of the so-called bald patches (Titov et al., 1993), which are those segments of photospheric polarity inversion lines (IL), where the field lines touch the photosphere (Seehafer, 1986). In comparison with the case of the nulls the physics of the formation of the current singularities is a bit different here: the current sheets are formed due to an “attachment” of the touching field lines to the very heavy photospheric material (Low, 1987; Aly & Amari, 1989; Vekstein et al., 1991).

Thus, the presence of the topological features such as null points and bald patches is a condition for the formation of current singularities in coronal configurations. An analysis of magnetic field structures in solar flares shows, however, that not all the observed event can be explained by the presence of such topological features and that therefore this class of features has to be extended (Démoulin et al., 1997). A possible extension can be found by using the concept of field line connectivity. Indeed, in the framework of this approach the nulls and bald patches, as well as the separatrix field lines emanating from them, can be detected by discontinuous jumps of the field line connectivity. The desired extension then can be found by weakening the condition that the jump in connectivity is discontinuous to requiring only that the field line connectivity exhibits a “large” spatial variation (Seehafer, 1986; Longcope & Strauss, 1994). The flux tubes which exhibit such a behavior are called quasi-separatrix layers (QSLs) (Priest & Démoulin, 1995). It should be emphasized that QSLs are geometrical objects rather than topological ones, since they can be removed by suitable continuous deformations of the magnetic field (Titov & Hornig, 2002). The genuine separatrix lines and surfaces are degenerate or limiting cases of QSLs (Titov et al., 2002).

For determining QSLs in a given magnetic field a measure of magnetic connectivity is required. The proper measure is the degree of squashing of elemental flux tubes, which connect opposite photospheric polarities and have infinitesimal cross-sections (Titov et al., 1999). A QSL is then defined as a flux tube with abnormally large values of the squashing degree. In application to quadrupole magnetic configurations formed by two bipolar groups of sunspots this criterion reveals a special geometrical feature called hyperbolic flux tube (HFT) (Titov et al., 2002). HFTs can be understood as a combination of two intersecting QSLs. In the limiting case, where the sunspot flux is concentrated in point-like sources, the HFT collapses into two separatrix surfaces intersecting along a separator field line. The separator is a field line connecting two null points which appear in this limiting case and it is a favorable site for current sheet formation caused by displacements of the sunspot positions (Sweet, 1969; Gorbachev & Somov, 1988; Lau & Finn, 1990; Longcope, 2002). Therefore it is natural to expect that HFTs are also preferred sites for current sheet formation. Here we will call such a process of current sheet formation in an HFT magnetic pinching, by analogy with a similar process studied in axisymmetric laboratory plasmas (the corresponding similarity will be further clarified below).

It is the purpose of this series of papers to understand and quantify the basic properties of the process of current sheet formation in HFTs. In the present paper we present basic theoretical calculations and estimates relevant to this problem in the following way. In § 2 the problem and an idea for its solution are formulated. In § 3 a simplified quadrupole configuration used to model an HFT is described. In § 4 a kinematic model of the HFT pinching process is developed. In § 5 this model is improved by incorporating an approximate form of magnetic force balance. In § 6 the implications of the obtained results for solar flares are discussed. Section 7 presents the conclusions of this work. The results of dynamic and quasi-static simulations of the HFT pinching process will be described in forthcoming papers of this series.

## 2 FORMATION OF A CURRENT LAYER IN A QUADRUPOLE CONFIGURATION

It is clear that the pinching of an HFT has to be due to some photospheric boundary conditions, which in the simplest form imply certain footpoint displacements of the field lines on the photosphere. Priest & Démoulin (1995) proposed that all types of displacements across QSLs must lead to the formation of a current layer. However, there are both theoretical arguments (Inverarity & Titov, 1997) and numerical simulations (Galsgaard, 2000) which indicate that this is not the case – the footpoint displacements must be of a special type to cause the formation of current layers. As HFTs consist of intersecting QSLs it is to be expected that this result also has some importance for the pinching of HFTs.

To gain a better understanding of the problem of finding those footpoint displacements which give rise to the pinching of HFTs, we first briefly discuss a particular aspect of the phenomenology of large flares. It was discovered a long time ago (Martres et al., 1966; Moreton & Severny, 1968) that such flares often occur in the vicinity of S-shaped ILs. On the basis of a potential field model using point sources Gorbachev & Somov (1988) proposed that this fact actually implies the appearance of a current sheet forming along a separator field line. The subsequent instability of this current sheet results in a large flare. In a quadrupole configuration this process is driven by suitable vortex motions near the IL. As we will show below this idea also works, under suitable modifications, if one replaces the separator field line by an HFT.

It is important to notice that in a realistic configuration with distributed photospheric flux the appearance of a separator in the corona is quite problematic, because it requires the simultaneous appearance of two magnetic nulls in the corona. For the presence of an HFT, however, much less restrictive conditions apply, so that it is a generic geometrical feature for quadrupole configurations (Titov et al., 2002).

The structure of a typical HFT is shown in Figure 1a. Along an HFT its cross-section typically changes as shown in the following schematic sketch

$$\text{}.$$

The intersections of the HFT with the photosphere have a crescent-like shape with the tips of the crescents located inside the neighbouring sunspots of the same polarity. Thus, the photospheric field strength has minima in the middle of the crescents and increases significantly towards its tips. One footpoint of any field line inside the HFT is always close to one of the tips, while the other footpoint is in the middle of the opposite polarity crescent. In other words, each field line inside the HFT connects regions of strong and weak photospheric field of opposite polarity. Along each field line the field strength and the Maxwellian stresses increase or decrease monotonically, depending on the direction of the field line from weak to strong field or vice versa. Towards the strong field region field lines will be relatively rigid becoming more flexible towards the weaker field region. In Figure 1a this property is depicted by the corresponding variation of the field line thickness.

Such a variation of field line rigidity within the HFT predetermines the structure of the three-dimensional deformation caused by displacements of the foot points. One can expect that the farther the field line remains inflexible from its rigid end, the farther the photospheric displacement from this end propagates into the corona. This implies, in particular, that a shearing motion across the crescent-like foot of the HFT easily propagates to its middle part in the corona. The same is true, of course, for the second foot. Since the cross-section of the HFT in its middle has an X-like shape, the shears propagating from the feet to the middle will superpose there perpendicular to each other. If the foot point motions at the feet are applying twist to the HFT, then their superposition will cause a hyperbolic flow pattern in the centre of the HFT (Figure 1b). Photospheric shearing motions are caused quite naturally by sunspot displacements perpendicular to the HFT feet and the twisting type of shearing motion corresponds exactly to the above mentioned S-like deformation of the IL by photospheric flows. Thus, the hyperbolic flow pattern in the middle of the HFT will persist as long as such sunspot displacements continue. As we will show this hyperbolic flow pattern causes an exponentially fast deformation of the HFT into a sheet-like structure (see below). Therefore, if the total length of the foot point displacements is comparable with the size of the active region one can expect a very large pinching of the middle part of the HFT due to the hyperbolic flow pattern.

We conclude that a combination of twisting foot point displacements perpendicular to the foot points of the HFT is sufficient for the formation of a strong current layer in the HFT. In this case the velocity field and transverse magnetic field component inside the HFT will have a similar hyperbolic structure but are inclined by 45 with respect to each other. In the theory of two-dimensional (2D) reconnection these hyperbolic structures of the velocity and magnetic field are the main prerequisites for the so-called magnetic collapse (Priest & Forbes, 2000) or the dynamic formation of a current sheet (Syrovatskii, 1981). The idea that current layers can form in three-dimensional (3D) magnetic configurations under the action of hyperbolic flows was also considered earlier. Galsgaard & Nordlund (1996) imposed two shearing motions of a fixed duration, one after another in mutually perpendicular directions, onto an initially uniform magnetic field. This forced the magnetic field lines to twist around each other, so that the magnetic tension stress appearing in this process sets up a stagnation flow halfway between the driving boundaries. The action of this flow during the corresponding time interval led to the formation of a strong current layer. To form such current layers Cowley et al. (1997) assumed the presence of stagnation flows on the photosphere driving the system. However, sustaining these flows for sufficiently long time seems to be rather problematic. On the contrary, the twisting shears discussed above appear as a result of the appropriate displacements of the sunspots perpendicular to the HFT feet and can be part of the natural photospheric motions having a relatively long lifetime. Due to these arguments the hyperbolic flows generated inside an HFT are generic features of HFTs just as HFTs themselves are for quadrupolar magnetic field configurations.

## 3 AN HFT IN A SIMPLIFIED QUADRUPOLE CONFIGURATION

To facilitate the quantitative investigation of the problem, we simplify the quadrupole configuration discussed above in the same way as it is usually done to model magnetic flux braiding (Parker, 1972). We assume that the coronal plasma and field are contained between two planes, $`z=L`$ and $`z=L`$, representing positive and negative photospheric polarities, respectively. Let the initial magnetic field be current-free and produced by four fictive magnetic charges placed outside of the model volume. The sources are all equal in strength but the four sources fall in two pairs which differ in polarity. The negative and positive pairs are located at the points $`𝐫_{1,3}=(\pm l,0,L+d)`$ and $`𝐫_{2,4}=(0,\pm l,Ld)`$, respectively. Their strength is chosen to be $`B_\mathrm{s}d^2`$, so that the normal component of the field at the photosphere would have extrema $`\pm B_\mathrm{s}`$ when their depths are small ($`dl,L`$). Then the resulting initial magnetic field is given by

$`𝐁_0(𝐫)=B_\mathrm{s}d^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐫𝐫_n)}{|𝐫𝐫_n|^3}}.`$ (1)
This field has a trivial topological structure in the corona, since there are no nulls in the coronal volume $`|z|<L`$. However, owing to the presence of two flux concentrations in each photospheric plane (cf. Figure 2a and 2c) the geometry of the field is not simple in general. Such concentrations are smoothed out by a large expansion of the flux tubes between the planes to yield a rather homogeneous $`B_{0z}`$-distribution in the midplane $`z=0`$ (Figure 2b). The pairs of concentrations have an orientation which is perpendicular to each other and therefore the transverse field $`(B_{0x},B_{0y})`$ remains inhomogeneous in the plane $`z=0`$ and has the typical structure of a hyperbolic magnetic X-point (Figure 2b).

This allows us to approximate the magnetic field near this plane by

$`𝐁_0(hx,hy,B_{}),`$ (2)
where the gradient of the transverse field, $`h`$, and the longitudinal field, $`B_{}`$, are easily derived from (1) to yield

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6(B_\mathrm{s}/L)\overline{d}^2\overline{l}^2}{\left[\overline{l}^2+(1+\overline{d})^2\right]^{5/2}}},`$ (3)
$`B_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4B_\mathrm{s}\overline{d}^2(1+\overline{d})}{\left[\overline{l}^2+(1+\overline{d})^2\right]^{3/2}}}.`$ (4)
The bar over the length scales denotes their normalization to $`L`$. This approximation is fairly accurate for $`r,|z|l`$ and will be useful for our further analysis of the problem.

This configuration is constructed in such a way that it represents a simplified or “straightened” version of the HFT considered in the previous section. If we use the squashing degree of elemental flux tubes in QSLs as proposed by Titov et al. (1999),

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{X_{}}{x_+}\right)^2+\left(\frac{X_{}}{y_+}\right)^2+\left(\frac{Y_{}}{x_+}\right)^2+\left(\frac{Y_{}}{y_+}\right)^2}{\left|\frac{X_{}}{x_+}\frac{Y_{}}{y_+}\frac{X_{}}{y_+}\frac{Y_{}}{x_+}\right|}},`$ (5)
where the functions $`X_{}(x_+,y_+)`$ and $`Y_{}(x_+,y_+)`$ represent the connection between the field line footpoints ($`(x_+,y_+)`$ and $`(x_{},y_{})`$), the surface of the HFT is defined by the condition $`Q=\text{const}`$ with the constant $`2`$.

The value $`Q`$ is invariant to interchanging the $`+`$ and $``$ signs in (5). A general way to compute $`Q`$ numerically is to calculate field lines starting at neighboring footpoints and follow them to their other footpoints. Then the respective derivatives in (5) can be calculated. A sketch of the typical shape of the surface enclosing the HFT is presented in Figure 3a, which shows that the intersection of the HFT with the photospheric planes is very narrow in one direction and elongated in the other, connecting the two flux concentrations. The surfaces calculated using other values of $`Q`$ have similar shapes and are nested inside each other with the corresponding value of $`Q`$ growing as the surfaces approach the $`z`$-axis. The magnitudes of the magnetic field and the Maxwellian stresses in this “straightened” HFT are distributed in a similar way as in the more realistic curved HFT version described above.

To estimate the range of parameters for which the HFT is present, we calculate the maximum of $`Q`$ within the configuration. To do this we start by noticing that if we extend our model magnetic field (1) to the region outside the model volume, then the $`z`$-axis coincides with a separator field line for this extended field because it has two null points on the $`z`$-axis outside the model volume (Figure 3b). Therefore, by construction, the maximum of $`Q`$ inside the model volume is attained on the field line coinciding with the $`z`$-axis. In the following, we call this field line the quasi-separator and denote the corresponding squashing degree by $`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}`$. Details of the derivation of $`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ are given in Appendix A, with the result being

$`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}=2\mathrm{cosh}2\lambda ,`$ (6)
where

$`\lambda ={\displaystyle _L^{+L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_{0x}}{x}}/B_{0z}\right)|_{𝐫=(0,0,z)}\mathrm{d}z.`$ (7)
Thus, $`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ grows exponentially with $`\lambda `$, which in turn grows if the gradient of the transverse field component increases and/or the longitudinal component decreases on average along the quasi-separator. The explicit form of the integrand in (7) is cumbersome but easily derivable from (1). Since the integral itself is not expressible in terms of elementary or special functions, we do not give further details of the integrand and simply present the corresponding numerical results of the integration in Figure 4. It can be seen that $`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ strongly grows with a growing concentration of flux in the sunspots (i.e. decreasing $`d/L`$) and if the distance of the sunspots of the same polarity decreases (i.e. decreasing $`l/L`$). In other words, the stronger and the closer the sunspots in our configuration are, the larger will be the squashing degree $`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ at the quasi-separator. Figure 4 of $`Q_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ indicates that the HFT should exist in this configuration for a relatively large range of parameters of the model.

## 4 KINEMATICS OF HFT PINCHING

For the time scale during which the sunspots are passing each other, the flow velocity can be assumed to be constant and uniform in their vicinity. Between two spots moving in opposite directions a region of shearing flow must exist to provide a continuous velocity field. We restrict ourselves to the cases, where the spots of the same polarity move perpendicularly to the HFT feet. Taking for simplicity the characteristic velocity $`V_\mathrm{s}`$ to be the same for all spots, we define the photospheric velocity field by

$`𝐯_+=V_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{tanh}(y/l_{\mathrm{sh}})\widehat{𝐱}\text{at }z=L`$ (8)
and

$`𝐯_{}=V_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{tanh}(x/l_{\mathrm{sh}})\widehat{𝐲}\text{at }z=L,`$ (9)
where $`l_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is a characteristic length scale of the shear, and we have kept the possibility to change the sign of the second velocity field to demonstrate the effects of favorable and unfavorable foot point motions (see below). Assuming that the shearing motions approximately match the corresponding motions of the spots at the locations where $`B_z^2B_\mathrm{s}^2/2`$, we can estimate $`l_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ at $`d<l`$ as

$`l_{\mathrm{sh}}l0.6d.`$ (10)
Depending on the sign ($``$ or $`+`$) in (9), we either have a “turning” or a “twisting” pair of shearing motions, respectively, which are applied to the feet of the HFT. It is crucial for our understanding of the pinching process of the HFT to consider these two fundamental cases. More general motions of the spots can be obtained as linear combinations of these two.

As discussed above, inside the photospheric boundaries the magnetic field strength grows from the middle of the HFT feet towards their ends which are located at the magnetic flux concentrations. Also field lines belonging to the HFT always connect regions of strong and weak magnetic field. Since the rigidity of the field lines is proportional to the local field strength, the HFT field lines are rigid at one footpoint and flexible at the other. These elastic properties of the HFT magnetic field strongly suggest that the effect of the photospheric shearing motion must propagate along the field lines from one boundary to the other but with gradually vanishing amplitude. We approximately model the resulting three-dimensional velocity field by extrapolating both (8) and (9) linearly into the volume and then superposing them with the result

$`𝐯={\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{s}}{2}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z}{L}}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right)\widehat{𝐱}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{L}}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}}\right)\widehat{𝐲}\right].`$ (11)
This velocity field yields the simplest model for infinitesimal deformations ($`𝐯\mathrm{d}t`$) of the HFT over an infinitesimal time interval $`\mathrm{d}t`$ in response to the “turning” or “twisting” pair of photospheric shearing motions $`𝐯_+\mathrm{d}t`$ and $`𝐯_{}\mathrm{d}t`$. The sign ($``$ or $`+`$) of the second term of (11) corresponds to “turning” or “twisting” motion, respectively. The velocity fields (11) are not exact solutions of the MHD equations, of course. Nevertheless, they are qualitatively consistent with the elastic properties of the HFT and hence studying the effect of these velocity fields provides useful insights into the physical mechanism of the HFT pinching process.

With this purpose we now investigate the effect of finite deformations of the HFT by the velocity fields (11). Finite deformations are described by the vector function $`𝐫(t,𝐫_0)`$ in which $`𝐫_0(x_0,y_0,z_0)`$ represents the Lagrangian coordinates of plasma elements. This function $`𝐫(t,𝐫_0)`$ is obtained from (11) by integrating the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}𝐫}{\mathrm{d}t}}=𝐯`$ (12)
with the initial condition $`𝐫(0,𝐫_0)=𝐫_0`$. Since the velocity fields (11) have a vanishing $`z`$-component, the corresponding deformations have only $`x`$\- and $`y`$-components and the plasma elements remain in the same plane $`z=\text{const}`$ in which they were initially. It is of particular interest to study these deformations in the midplane $`z=0`$, where the transverse magnetic field has a structure typical for the neighborhood of an X-point.

We have done this by computing the corresponding distortion of an initially uniform grid of plasma elements for two subsequent moments. The results are represented in Figure 5, which shows that “turning” shearing motions cause only a relatively slight distortion of the grid even if the sunspots move over distances of the order of $`L`$. The middle part of the HFT in this case just turns as a whole by an angle of $`t`$ with only modest changes in the sizes of the grid cells. By contrast, the “twisting” shearing motions produce a much stronger effect in the central parts of the grid causing an extreme squashing of the grid cells in one direction. The reason for this difference becomes clear if one compares the corresponding velocity fields in the plane $`z=0`$. In the first case the velocity field has the typical structure of rotational flows (see Figure 6a), while in the second case it shows the velocity field of a stagnation point (Figure 6b). Especially the hyperbolic structure of the stagnation type velocity field causes an exponentially fast pinching of the HFT into a thin layer.

To show this behavior more explicitly, we have solved Eq. (12) at $`z=0`$ analytically with the result

$`\overline{x}=\mathrm{arcsinh}[\mathrm{cosh}\overline{x}_0(\mathrm{cosh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{x}_0+`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{y}_0)],`$ (13)
$`\overline{y}=\mathrm{arcsinh}[\mathrm{cosh}\overline{y}_0(\mathrm{cosh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{y}_0+`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{x}_0)].`$ (14)
Here we have used

$`\overline{t}={\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{s}t}{2l_{\mathrm{sh}}}},`$ (15)
while $`\overline{x}=x/l_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, $`\overline{x}_0=x_0/l_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and similarly for the other spatial variables. The lengthy derivation of this solution is omitted here, but it can be verified in a straightforward manner by direct substitution into (12).

Mathematically the obtained deformations (13) and (14) form a one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms, with the parameter $`t`$. So if $`_{t_1}`$ and $`_{t_2}`$ are elements of this group corresponding to times $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, respectively, their composition is $`_{t_2}_{t_1}=_{t_1+t_2}`$. In particular, $`_t_t=_0d`$, which means that one can reverse the deformations by changing the variables in (13)–(14) as $`\overline{t}\overline{t}`$, $`\overline{x}\overline{x}_0`$ and $`\overline{y}\overline{y}_0`$ to get

$`\overline{x}_0=\mathrm{arcsinh}[\mathrm{cosh}\overline{x}(\mathrm{cosh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{x}`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{y})],`$ (16)
$`\overline{y}_0=\mathrm{arcsinh}[\mathrm{cosh}\overline{y}(\mathrm{cosh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{y}`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}\overline{t}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{x})].`$ (17)
By construction, the velocity field (11) and the corresponding finite deformations (13)–(17) are incompressible. So the plasma elements are distorted by these deformations mainly due to compression in one direction and stretching in the other. We can measure such a distortion by again using the degree of squashing (5) defined earlier, but using Lagrangian mappings (13)–(14) or (16)–(17) instead of the field line mapping. Due to the incompressibility of the Lagrangian deformations, the corresponding degree of squashing $`Q_\mathrm{L}`$ has simpler form than $`Q`$, given by

$`Q_\mathrm{L}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{x}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{y}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_0}{x}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_0}{y}}\right)^2.`$ (18)
A plot of the distribution of $`Q_\mathrm{L}`$ in the $`(x,y)`$-plane at $`z=0`$ clearly demonstrates that the squashing of plasma elements is concentrated in a layer-like region inclined to the $`x`$-axis by $`45^{}`$ (Figure 7). We define the thickness $`\delta `$ and the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of this layer as the minimum and maximum extension of the contour $`Q_\mathrm{L}(x,y)=Q_{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{max}}/2`$ in the $`(x,y)`$-plane, respectively. Here

$`Q_{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{max}}=2+4\mathrm{sinh}^2\overline{t}`$ (19)
is the maximum of $`Q_\mathrm{L}`$ which is located at $`𝐫=0`$. For sufficiently large times $`\overline{t}1`$ we obtain

$`\delta `$ $``$ $`2\sqrt{2}e^{\overline{t}}l_{\mathrm{sh}},`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`2.5l_{\mathrm{sh}}.`$ (21)
Thus, under a “twisting” shearing motion applied to the HFT feet a layer-like structure forms in the middle of the HFT. The thickness of this layer decreases exponentially fast in time, while its width remains approximately constant.

As we will show in § 5 this effect is actually enhanced if magnetic forces are taken into account. In many respects this process resembles the pinching of a magnetic rope in laboratory plasmas, which has been realized in 2D theory of current sheets long time ago (Syrovatskii, 1981). Our model generalizes this process to 3D and for this reason we gave it the name magnetic pinching.

An important question we have not addressed yet is what impact the pinching has on the current density within the HFT. We start by computing the $`z`$-component of the current density $`𝐣`$ in the midplane $`z=0`$ and the photospheric planes $`z=\pm L`$ in our so far the purely kinematic model of the pinching process. As the velocity field is known the calculation can be carried out using the induction equation and Ampére’s law. The results are shown in Figure 8 for the time $`\overline{t}=2.5`$. A comparison of Figures 7 and 8b shows that the distributions of $`j_z`$ and $`Q_\mathrm{L}`$ in the plane $`z=0`$ have nearly the same shapes. The $`j_z`$ distribution becomes noticeably different from the $`Q_\mathrm{L}`$ distribution only in the inflow region near the current layer, where spikes of reverse current appear. Such a similarity between the two distributions indicates that in this kinematic picture the current layer forms as a direct consequence of the strong squashing of Lagrangian elements. The presence of the reverse currents in the inflow regions is very interesting as similar features are also found in exact (Sonnerup & Priest, 1975; Craig & Henton, 1995; Priest et al., 2000) and in numerical (Biskamp, 1986) investigations of 2D reconnection. It is a nice surprise to see that these features are reproduced in our 3D kinematic model. The reverse currents do not only exist in the midplane ($`z=0`$), but also in the planes $`z=\pm L`$ where they have a slightly asymmetric form (Figure 8a, c). The current layer in these planes is mainly produced by the shearing flows along the $`y`$-axis ($`z=L`$) or the $`x`$-axis ($`z=L`$), which are induced by given velocity field. In consequence, the current layer is wider, and longer than in the midplane, and nearly parallel to one of the coordinate axes. Owing to symmetry of the initial configuration and of the applied boundary motions (see Figures 2, 3 and 5) the spatial distribution of $`j_z`$ in the planes $`z=L`$ and $`z=L`$ is very similar except that for $`z=L`$ the layer is aligned with the $`x`$-axis whereas for $`z=L`$ it is aligned with the $`y`$-axis. Thus the orientation of the current layer is twisted by approximately $`90^{}`$ when moving from the lower to the upper boundary plane.

Further interesting properties of the pinching process can be learned from studying the time evolution of the magnetic field and the current density distribution in the plane $`z=0`$ along the line $`y=x`$. This is most conveniently carried out in a new ($`(x^{},y^{})`$) coordinate system in which one of the axis ($`x^{}`$) is aligned with the current layer. This coordinate system is rotated by $`45^{}`$ with respect to the original one. The detailed derivation of the magnetic field component $`B_x^{}`$ is described in Appendix B, while here we only present the resulting expression:

$`B_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{x^{}1}+B_{x^{}2},`$ (22)
$`B_{x^{}1}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}hl_{\mathrm{sh}}e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]}{\left[1+\left(e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}},`$ (23)
$`B_{x^{}2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_{}}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}{L}}\mathrm{cotanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\left(e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right)^2}{1+\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)}}\right].`$ (24)
The $`B_{x^{}1}`$ contribution is caused by the stretching of the transverse magnetic field along the $`x^{}`$-axis due to the hyperbolic structure of the flow in the middle of the HFT. The $`B_{x^{}2}`$ contribution appears because of the $`B_z`$-component is sheared by a non-vanishing gradient of the flow in the $`z`$-direction. Notice that this second effect, contrary to the first one, is purely three-dimensional.

Despite this difference the spatial and time variation of $`B_{x^{}1}`$ and $`B_{x^{}2}`$ are quite similar. In both cases a steepening of the profiles occurs at $`\overline{y}^{}=0`$ and the field is piled up at $`\overline{t}1.5`$ close to the steepening fronts (cf. Figures 9a, b). This means that the corresponding profiles of the current densities $`j_{z1}\frac{B_{x^{}1}}{y^{}}`$ and $`j_{z2}\frac{B_{x^{}2}}{y^{}}`$ have growing and narrowing positive peaks at $`\overline{y}^{}=0`$ which for $`\overline{t}1.5`$ are enclosed by extended regions of reverse current (Figures 9c, d). With the help of (22)–(24) one can find the maximum current density $`j_z^{}`$ at $`\overline{t}1`$ given by

$`j_z^{}j_z|_{𝐫=0}e^{2\overline{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\mu _0}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{B_{}}{2hL}}\right),`$ (25)
which shows that for sufficiently large displacements of the spots the kinematic HFT pinching causes an exponential growth of the current density in the middle of the HFT. An exact form of $`j_z^{}`$ (see below) contains the factor $`2\mathrm{sinh}(2\overline{t})`$ instead of $`e^{2\overline{t}}`$, which gives the correct linear growth of $`j_z^{}`$ at $`2\overline{t}1`$ as expected.

Appendix B presents the technique which allows the derivation of the $`j_z`$-distribution along the complete quasi-separator. Using this technique we obtain

$`j_{z\mathrm{qs}}`$ $`=`$ $`j_{z\mathrm{qs1}}+j_{z\mathrm{qs2}},`$ (26)
$`j_{z\mathrm{qs1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\overline{t}\sqrt{1\overline{z}^2})}{\sqrt{1\overline{z}^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_{0x}}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{0y}}{y}}\right)|_{\mathrm{qs}},`$ (27)
$`j_{z\mathrm{qs2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{sinh}(2\overline{t}\sqrt{1\overline{z}^2})2\overline{z}^2\overline{t}\sqrt{1\overline{z}^2}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{B_{0z}|_{\mathrm{qs}}/(\mu _0L)}{(1\overline{z}^2)^{3/2}}}.`$ (28)
Here the index $`\mathrm{qs}`$ means that the corresponding magnitudes are evaluated at $`𝐫=(0,0,z)`$ resulting in

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_{0x}}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{0y}}{y}}\right)|_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ $`=`$ $`6\overline{d}^2\overline{l}^2{\displaystyle \frac{B_\mathrm{s}}{L}}\{[\overline{l}^2+(1+\overline{d}+\overline{z})^2]^{5/2}+`$ (29)
$`[\overline{l}^2+(1+\overline{d}\overline{z})^2]^{5/2}\},`$
$`B_{0z}|_{\mathrm{qs}}`$ $`=`$ $`2B_\mathrm{s}\overline{d}^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{d}+\overline{z}}{\left[\overline{l}^2+(1+\overline{d}+\overline{z})^2\right]^{3/2}}}+`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\overline{d}\overline{z}}{\left[\overline{l}^2+(1+\overline{d}\overline{z})^2\right]^{3/2}}}\}.`$
In the derivation of (26)–(28) we also used that $`\frac{B_{0y}}{x}|_{\mathrm{qs}}=\frac{B_{0x}}{y}|_{\mathrm{qs}}0`$ for our configuration (1).

Putting $`\overline{z}1`$ in (26)–(28), one obtains $`j_z`$ at the footpoints of the quasi-separator

$`j_{z\mathrm{qsf}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{t}}{\mu _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_{0x}}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{0y}}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_{0z}}{L}}\right)|_{\mathrm{qsf}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{t}^3}{3\mu _0L}}B_{0z}|_{\mathrm{qsf}},`$ (31)
where the index $`\mathrm{qsf}`$ denotes the evaluation of the corresponding magnitudes at $`𝐫=(0,0,L)`$. Thus, the current density at the feet of the HFT grows only with the third power of time, which is much slower than the exponential growth in the middle of the HFT. This difference is due to the fact that motions at the HFT feet (8)–(9) just shear the magnetic field. Such a pure shearing motion is less effective in generating current than the “hyperbolic superposition” in the middle of the HFT.

However, the local gradients of magnetic field are much larger at the feet than in the middle, therefore the maxima of $`j_{z\mathrm{qs1}}`$ remain located at the feet even for the times during which the sunspots have moved over distances comparable with $`L`$ (Figure 10a). By contrast, the second contribution to the current density ($`j_{z\mathrm{qs2}}`$) has a maximum in the middle of the HFT at comparable times (Figure 10b) because of the above mentioned exponential growth and a relatively small gradient of $`B_{0z}`$ along the quasi-separator.

## 5 FORCE-FREE PINCHING OF THE HFT

In the kinematic model of the HFT pinching process we considered so far, the force balance is taken into account only qualitatively by constructing deformations of the HFT which are in agreement with its elastic properties. However, the layer-like structure obtained in the kinematic model for the middle part of the HFT enables us to improve the model by determining the distributions of the field and current density across such a layer for a force-free evolution of the configuration.

Indeed, at each time such a force-free evolution can be represented as a deformation of the initial potential field obeying the frozen-in condition. One can always decompose such a deformation into the kinematic “pinching” deformation considered so far and an additional “relaxing” deformation in which the configuration settles into a force-free state. As shown above, after the pinching deformation unbalanced magnetic stresses accumulate in the middle of the HFT, mainly in a thin layer parallel to the plane $`y^{}=0`$. This is due to an increase of the $`B_x^{}`$-component and the magnetic pressure it causes near this plane, so that the corresponding unbalanced force is directed towards the plane acting as if to compress the layer. We conclude that the relaxing deformation will compress the middle part of the HFT. The layer-like distribution of the unbalanced stresses implies that this compression will be essentially one-dimensional. Since $`B_z`$, unlike $`B_x^{}`$, does not vanish inside the layer, the corresponding compression is indeed able to provide the required balance of magnetic forces inside the layer. With the expressions (22)–(24) for $`B_x^{}`$ and taking $`B_{}`$ for $`B_z`$ as initial values, one can use the frozen-in condition (see (B2)) to obtain the components of the equilibrium field as

$`B_{x^{}\mathrm{eq}}`$ $``$ $`B_x^{}|_{\overline{y}^{}=\overline{y}_0^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\overline{y}_0^{}}}\right)^1,`$ (32)
$`B_{z\mathrm{eq}}`$ $``$ $`B_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\overline{y}_0^{}}}\right)^1.`$ (33)
These magnetic field components have to satisfy the force-free condition

$`B_{x^{}\mathrm{eq}}^2+B_{z\mathrm{eq}}^2\text{const},`$ (34)
which together with (32) and (33) yields the equation for determining the relaxing deformation $`\overline{y}^{}(\overline{y}_0^{})`$ or, in other words, the relationship between Eulerian ($`\overline{y}^{}`$) and Lagrangian coordinates ($`\overline{y}_0^{}`$). The constant in (34) is naturally fixed by the condition that $`\overline{y}^{}/\overline{y}_0^{}=1`$ at the point $`\overline{y}_0^{}=\overline{y}_{0\mathrm{m}}^{}`$, where the initial current density and the unbalanced Lorentz force vanish and so the relaxing deformation should have no effect on the neighborhood of this location. Therefore, at this point $`B_x^{}/\overline{y}_0^{}0`$ and $`B_x^{}^2`$ reaches a local maximum $`B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2`$. This makes it possible to derive from (32)–(34) the required equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}^{}}{\overline{y}_0^{}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+B_x^{}^2|_{\overline{y}^{}=\overline{y}_0^{}}/B_{}^2}{1+B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2/B_{}^2}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (35)
where $`B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2`$ depends on time and the parameters of the model as shown below. At a fixed time this is an ordinary differential equation for $`\overline{y}^{}(\overline{y}_0^{})`$, which can be immediately integrated to give

$`\overline{y}^{}={\displaystyle _0^{\overline{y}_0^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+B_x^{}^2|_{\overline{y}^{}=s}/B_{}^2}{1+B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2/B_{}^2}}\right)^{1/2}ds.`$ (36)
By differentiating (32) and (35) (to obtain an expression for $`^2\overline{y}^{}/\overline{y}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$) one can also derive the equilibrium current density,

$`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _0l_{\mathrm{sh}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_x^{}}{\overline{y}^{}}}|_{\overline{y}^{}=\overline{y}_0^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2/B_{}^2}{\left(1+B_x^{}^2|_{y^{}=\overline{y}_0^{}}/B_{}^2\right)^2}}.`$ (37)
Thus, Eqs. (32), (33) and (35)–(37) determine the distributions of the equilibrium magnetic field and current density across the current layer in the middle of the HFT in parametric form with $`\overline{y}_0^{}`$ as a parameter. Examples of the $`B_{x^{}\mathrm{eq}}`$\- and $`B_{z\mathrm{eq}}`$-profiles at different times are shown in Figure 11. The plots show that the steepening of $`B_{x^{}\mathrm{eq}}`$ in time is accompanied by a corresponding compression of $`B_{z\mathrm{eq}}`$ inside the current layer.

For the especially interesting large time regime ($`\overline{t}1`$) one can show that two extrema of $`B_x^{}`$ are located at

$`\overline{y}_{0\mathrm{m}}^{}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2l_{\mathrm{sh}}}}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_{}}{hL}}\right).`$ (38)
In this expression $`F`$ is a relatively complicated function of its argument which we do not write down explicitly here, but it turns out that $`F`$ only increases from $`1.51`$ to $`1.98`$ when its argument $`B_{}/hL`$ varies from 0 to infinity, so that to a good approximation (38) is given by

$`\overline{y}_{0\mathrm{m}}^{}\delta /l_{\mathrm{sh}}.`$ (39)
So an estimate of $`B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}`$ can be obtained by evaluating (22) at $`\overline{y}^{}=\overline{y}_{0\mathrm{m}}^{}`$ under the assumption $`\overline{t}1`$ with the result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2}{B_{}^2}}e^{2\overline{t}}\left(0.91{\displaystyle \frac{hl_{\mathrm{sh}}}{B_{}}}+0.57{\displaystyle \frac{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}{L}}\right)^2.`$ (40)
Substitution of this value and $`B_x^{}|_{\overline{y}^{}=0}=0`$ into (37) enables us to express the equilibrium current density at $`𝐫=0`$ in terms of the corresponding parameters of the initial configuration,

$`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}e^{2\overline{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\mu _0}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{B_{}}{2hL}}\right)\left[1+e^{2\overline{t}}\left(0.91{\displaystyle \frac{hl_{\mathrm{sh}}}{B_{}}}+0.57{\displaystyle \frac{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}{L}}\right)^2\right].`$ (41)
It follows that the “relaxing” compression gives rise to an additional term in the force-free current density in comparison with its kinematic analogue (25). This term grows exponentially in time and increases with decreasing $`B_{}`$. In particular, in the limit $`B_{}0`$ we would formally obtain that $`|j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}|\mathrm{}`$, which is in good agreement with the results for current accumulation at a null point (Bulanov & Olshanetsky, 1984; Priest & Titov, 1996; Rickard & Titov, 1996).

## 6 IMPLICATIONS FOR SOLAR FLARES

Figure 12 shows the dependence of the current density (41) on the geometrical parameters $`l/L`$ and $`d/L`$ of our “straightened” HFT for the time $`\overline{t}=2.5`$, where $`h`$, $`B_{}`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ are given by (3), (4) and (10), respectively. The largest values of $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$ at this time are reached if $`l/L1`$ and $`d/L0.5`$ and they can exceed the characteristic current density $`B_\mathrm{s}/(\mu _0L)`$ in the configuration by more than a factor $`10^3`$. Higher values of $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$ can formally be reached at larger $`\overline{t}`$ but they do not seem to be realistic, because it is more likely that the current layer will be disrupted by the onset of the tearing instability before that.

We evaluate the characteristics of the pinched HFT at the time $`\overline{t}=2.5`$ for the same parameters ($`l/L=0.5`$ and $`d/L=0.4`$) as used in Figure 2. Assume that $`L=50\mathrm{Mm}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{s}=800\mathrm{G}`$, then for our “straightened” model HFT we obtain that the transverse and longitudinal fields near the current layer are $`B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}470\mathrm{G}`$ and $`B_{}218\mathrm{G}`$, respectively. Inside the layer $`B_z|_{𝐫=0}518\mathrm{G}`$ due to the compression of the longitudinal field by relaxation, so that the corresponding compression factor is about 2.8.

To get a rough estimate of the free magnetic energy associated with the current layer, one can use the 2D solution found by Syrovatskii (1981) as an approximation, because the current density in our model is mainly concentrated in a thin layer of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and length $`2L`$. Then in our notation the total current in the layer is

$`I{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\mu _0}}B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (42)
while the magnetic flux associated with the current is given by

$`I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{8L}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (43)
where $``$ is the inductance of the current sheet per unit length. The corresponding magnetic energy is

$`WI^2L{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8\mu _0}}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{8L}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)B_{x^{}\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2L,`$ (44)
which for the parameter values given above yields $`W1.3\times 10^{26}\mathrm{J}`$. This amount of energy is even more than needed to produce a large flare and it is build up in our model over a reasonable time period of $`t=2.5\times 2l_{\mathrm{sh}}/V_\mathrm{s}3.6\mathrm{h}`$, if a sunspot velocity $`V_\mathrm{s}=5\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is assumed.

For the same parameter values the maximum current density is given by $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}0.33\mathrm{Am}^2`$, which is not large enough for the Spitzer resistivity to be important. Indeed, the local magnetic Reynolds number for our current layer is

$`Re_m={\displaystyle \frac{V_\mathrm{s}B_\mathrm{s}}{\eta j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}}}441,`$ (45)
where the same sunspot velocity as above has been assumed and the Spitzer resistivity $`\eta `$ is evaluated at the coronal temperature $`T=2\times 10^6\mathrm{K}`$.

The current density in such a layer is also not large enough for the onset of the ion-acoustic instability, since the corresponding critical current density $`j_{\mathrm{is}}=enc_{\mathrm{is}}49\mathrm{A}\mathrm{m}^2`$ is much larger than $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$. In this estimate of $`j_{\mathrm{is}}`$ the evaluated compression factor is taken into account, so that the plasma density inside the sheet is taken to be $`n=2.8\times 10^{15}\mathrm{m}^3`$. The sound speed $`c_{\mathrm{is}}=\left(k_\mathrm{B}T/m_\mathrm{p}\right)^{1/2}`$ is estimated for the coronal temperature given above. Other micro-instabilities are characterized by similar or even larger critical values of the current density (Somov, 1992; Priest & Forbes, 2000) so that their development in our current layer is also hardly possible.

For the tearing instability the present state of the theory, based on rather idealized models, does not allow us to draw any reliable conclusions about its possible onset in the layer. Intuitively, however, this seems to be quite a plausible possibility and has some support from 2.5D numerical simulations of current layer formation in quadrupole configurations (Hirose et al., 2001). We believe that our 3D configuration therefore deserves careful studies regarding this aspect in the future. We will here assume that the current layer generated by the HFT pinching process is unstable to the tearing mode as a working hypothesis to see how this assumption fits in with other known facts about flares.

In this sense we can say that the current layer in a pinched HFT will be more unstable the larger the value of the current density $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$ is for given sunspot displacements. As mentioned above, $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$ grows very fast with decreasing $`B_{}`$, which means that HFTs with smaller initial values of $`B_{}`$ will be more unstable. This fits in very well with the existence of two observationally different classes of flares, the so-called less-impulsive and more-impulsive flares (Sakao et al., 1998). Such a distinct difference between the flares could be due to the strong dependence of $`j_{z\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$ on $`B_{}`$ found above. A similar explanation has previously been proposed qualitatively by Somov & Kosugi (1997).

We have demonstrated above that a “twisting” shearing motion at the HFT feet leads to the pinching of its middle parts into a thin current layer with a free magnetic energy sufficient for a large solar flare. This kind of photospheric motion is in a good agreement with the observational fact that large flares occur frequently in the configurations with an S-shaped photospheric polarity inversion line (Martres et al., 1966; Moreton & Severny, 1968). Such a relationship has been demonstrated first by Gorbachev & Somov (1988) in a potential field model of a quadrupole configuration using monopole sources. These results have been confirmed and quantified generalizing the separator field line, on which Gorbachev & Somov (1988) have based their analysis, to an HFT.

Another remarkable feature of the HFT pinching process considered in this paper is the increase of the plasma density inside the current layer due to the compression of the longitudinal field by relaxation under the frozen-in condition. As can be seen from our estimates, this relaxation leads to a compression of the coronal plasma inside the layer by up to one order of magnitude, which may be sufficient for the onset of thermal instability and, hence, for an additional condensation of plasma in the current layer. Such a side effect of the pinching process has two important implications.

First, the accumulation of plasma inside the current layer in the pre-flare state increases the number of electrons available for acceleration in the subsequent impulsive phase of the flare when the layer becomes unstable. This can help to solve the electron number problem of particle acceleration in flares (Miller et al., 1997). The observational evidence recently reported by Kliem et al. (2002) provides support for this point of view.

Secondly, the compression and condensation of plasma in the pinching HFT is a good candidate for a 3D mechanism of prominence formation in the solar corona under suitable physical conditions. At present such a mechanism has only been investigated in the framework of a 2.5D numerical model (Hirose et al., 2001). Its generalization to the 3D geometry of the HFT might help to develop a unified theory of solar flares and prominence formation, two phenomena which so far seemed to be completely unrelated.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

We have found that the fundamental condition for the formation of layers of particularly strong current density (pinching) inside hyperbolic flux tubes (HFTs) are photospheric shearing motions which twist the HFT around its axis. Photospheric motions which merely turn the HFT have a much weaker effect. We plan to study in more detail in the following papers of this series how combinations of these two extreme types of photospheric motions influence the HFT pinching. Also the obtained results must be valid for configurations with separator field lines and their associated separatrix surfaces, since such structures are a limiting case of HFTs.

Due to the special elastic properties of the HFT the photospheric shearing motions easily propagate into the corona and meet each other in the middle of the HFT. If the shearing motions are applied to the HFT feet in a way as if trying to cause a torsion of the HFT, their superposition in the middle of the HFT forms a hyperbolic flow pattern which is inclined by $`45^{}`$ with respect to the hyperbolic structure of the transverse magnetic field inside the HFT. Such an arrangement of the transverse velocity and magnetic fields provides an exponentially growing current density ordered in a layer-like structure along the HFT. The width of the current layer is of the order of the characteristic size of the shearing motions, while its thickness decreases exponentially fast in time.

There are basically two physical effects which are responsible for the process of HFT pinching. First, the hyperbolic component of the flow is incompressible and so does not change the longitudinal magnetic field in the HFT. However, it causes a large squashing of plasma elements along the forming layer and this squashing increases the transverse magnetic field near the layer enormously in comparison with the initial state. Therefore, the strength of the resulting transverse field can easily approach that of the longitudinal field and even exceed it, depending on the initial conditions and the duration of the flow. The increase of the transverse field causes a second effect – the compression of the longitudinal field and plasma across the layer, which leads to an additional increase of the current density inside the layer.

The exponential time dependence of the basic physical quantities inside the current layer can also be translated into a similar dependence on sunspot displacements. For a quadrupole configuration with an HFT we can estimate that the displacements of the spots over distances comparable with the distances between them are sufficient to build up magnetic energy inside the pinched HFT as is required for a large solar flare. The large current density and gradient of magnetic shear inside the layer provide favorable conditions for the onset of the tearing instability in the layer and its transition to a turbulent state with a large rate of reconnection and magnetic energy release.

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for a number of useful comments. VT thankfully acknowledges financial support from the Volkswagen-Foundation. KG and TN thank the UK’s Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council for support through Advanced Fellowships. This work has been supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00153, PLATON.

## Appendix A JACOBIAN MATRIX OF THE FIELD LINE MAPPING

For an analytical investigation of the field line mapping in a given magnetic configuration it is useful to have a method for calculating the Jacobian matrix of this mapping. Below such a method is developed and applied to calculate the squashing degree at the quasi-separator of the “straightened” HFT (see § 3).

Let B(r) define a magnetic field and

$`𝐑(\tau ,𝐫_+)(X(\tau ,𝐫_+),Y(\tau ,𝐫_+),Z(\tau ,𝐫_+))`$
represent its field lines starting at points $`𝐫_+=(x_+,y_+)`$ of the positive photospheric polarity located in the plane $`z=z_+`$. The field lines are parameterized by a parameter $`\tau `$ such that the corresponding field line equation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}𝐑}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}=𝐁(𝐑).`$ (A1)
The differentiation of (A1) with respect to $`𝐫_+`$ yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}𝒟}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}=𝒢𝒟,`$ (A2)
where $`𝒢_𝐑𝐁`$ is the matrix of derivatives of the magnetic field with respect to $`𝐑=𝐑(\tau ,𝐫_+)`$, and

$`𝒟𝒟(\tau ,𝐫_+)=_{𝐫_+}𝐑(\tau ,𝐫_+)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{X}{x_+}& \frac{X}{y_+}\\ \frac{Y}{x_+}& \frac{Y}{y_+}\\ \frac{Z}{x_+}& \frac{Z}{y_+}\end{array}\right)`$ (A6)
is the Jacobian matrix. With its help a variation $`\delta 𝐑`$ of the field line point $`𝐑=𝐑(\tau ,𝐫_+)`$ due to an infinitesimal change $`\delta 𝐫_+=(\delta x_+,\delta y_+)`$ of the corresponding footpoint $`𝐑_+=𝐑(0,𝐫_+)(x_+,y_+,z_+)`$ is determined by

$`\delta 𝐑=𝒟\delta 𝐫_+.`$ (A7)
The system of nine ordinary differential Eqs. (A1)–(A2) together with the initial conditions

$`𝐑(0,𝐫_+)`$ $`=`$ $`(x_+,y_+,z_+),`$ (A8)
$`𝒟(0,𝐫_+)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (A12)
determines the matrix $`𝒟`$ along the field line starting at a point $`𝐫_+`$ on the photosphere. Thus the matrix $`𝒟`$ can be obtained as the result of solving the Cauchy problem defined by Eqs. (A1)–(A2) and (A8)–(A12).

It should be emphasized that the vector $`\delta 𝐫_+`$ in Eq. (A7) is two-dimensional, while the vector $`\delta 𝐑`$ is three-dimensional. Also for $`\tau =\tau _{}`$, corresponding to the footpoint of the field line on the negative polarity side, i.e. when $`Z(\tau _{},𝐫_+)=z_{}`$, the vector $`\delta 𝐑=\delta 𝐑_{}`$ is generally not tangent to the photospheric plane. Therefore, to find the photospheric displacement $`\delta 𝐫_{}`$ corresponding to the negative polarity it is necessary to project $`\delta 𝐑_{}`$ along the local direction of magnetic field $`𝐁_{}𝐁(x_{},y_{},z_{})`$ onto the photospheric plane at the footpoint $`(x_{},y_{},z_{})=𝐑(\tau _{},𝐫_+)`$. This yields $`\delta 𝐫_{}=𝒫\delta 𝐑_{}`$, where

$`𝒫=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& \frac{B_x}{B_z}\\ 0& 1& \frac{B_y}{B_z}\end{array}\right)`$ (A15)
is the projection matrix. Applying the projection matrix to Eq. (A7) and denoting $`𝒟(\tau _{},𝐫_+)`$ as $`𝒟_{}`$, we get $`\delta 𝐫_{}=𝒫𝒟_{}\delta 𝐫_+`$, which in turn implies that the required matrix is

$`{}_{_+}{}^{}𝒟_{_{}}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{X_{}}{x_+}& \frac{X_{}}{y_+}\\ \frac{Y_{}}{x_+}& \frac{Y_{}}{y_+}\end{array}\right)=𝒫𝒟_{}.`$ (A18)
Using this expression for $`{}_{_+}{}^{}𝒟_{_{}}^{}`$ one can find all the characteristics of the field line connectivity we need and, in particular, the squashing degree (5).

We now apply this theory to the calculation of the squashing degree $`Q`$ on the quasi-separator of the “straightened” HFT. As already mentioned in § 3, the quasi-separator coincides with the $`z`$-axis in this case. The matrix of magnetic field derivatives on this axis can be reduced to the form

$`𝒢(0,0,z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f(z)& 0& 0\\ 0& f(z)& 0\\ 0& 0& f(z)+f(z)\end{array}\right),`$ (A22)
due to a symmetry of the field (1). Here we have used the definition

$`f(z)={\displaystyle \frac{B_{0x}}{x}}|_{𝐫=(0,0,z)}.`$ (A23)
In our case it is more convenient to determine the matrix $`𝒟_{}`$ by using the coordinate $`z`$ rather than the parameter $`\tau `$ in (A2) . This simply means that instead of $`\mathrm{d}\tau `$ we have to use $`\mathrm{d}z/B_{0z}`$ in (A2). The diagonal form of $`𝒢`$ on the quasi-separator then enables us to find $`𝒟_{}`$ by integration of (A22) over $`z`$. This and (A15)–(A18), where $`B_xB_x(0,0,L)=0`$ and $`B_yB_y(0,0,L)=0`$ are used, after some transformations result in

$`{}_{_+}{}^{}𝒟_{_{}}^{}{}_{\mathrm{qs}}{}^{}{}_{_+}{}^{}𝒟_{_{}}^{}|_{𝐫_+=0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\lambda & 0\\ 0& e^\lambda \end{array}\right),`$ (A26)
where $`\lambda `$ is given by Eq. (7). Then by using the definitions of $`Q`$ and $`{}_{_+}{}^{}𝒟_{_{}}^{}`$ (see (5) and (A18)) we obtain the required expression (6).

## Appendix B CONVECTION OF MAGNETIC FIELD BY HYPERBOLIC FLOWS

For a given flow $`𝐫(t,𝐫_0)`$, which is related to the velocity field $`𝐯(t,𝐫)`$ by Eq. (12), the general solution of the ideal induction equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}+\times (𝐁\times 𝐯)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (B1)
can be written in the Lagrangian representation as

$`𝐁(t,𝐫_0)=𝐁_0(𝐫_0)_{𝐫_0}𝐫/det(_{𝐫_0}𝐫).`$ (B2)
For our purposes, however, the Eulerian representation is more convenient. One can switch to this representation by substituting $`𝐫_0𝐫_0(t,𝐫)`$ and $`_{𝐫_0}𝐫\left(_𝐫𝐫_0\right)^1`$ into (B2). Then after some transformations, using the incompressibility condition $`det(_{𝐫_0}𝐫)=1`$ for the flow (11), we obtain

$`B_x`$ $`=`$ $`B_{0x}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{y}}}B_{0y}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{y}}}+B_{0z}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}{L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{z}}}\right),`$ (B3)
$`B_y`$ $`=`$ $`B_{0y}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{x}}}B_{0x}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{x}}}+B_{0z}{\displaystyle \frac{l_{\mathrm{sh}}}{L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{z}}}\right),`$ (B4)
$`B_z`$ $`=`$ $`B_{0z},`$ (B5)
where $`\overline{z}=z/L`$, while the $`x,y`$-coordinates are normalized by $`l_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. Thus, the magnetic component $`B_z`$ is simply transported by the flow as $`B_z(t,𝐫)=B_{0z}(𝐫_0(t,𝐫))`$. Since the initial component $`B_{0z}(𝐫_0)`$ is almost homogeneous in the middle of the HFT, $`B_z(t,𝐫)`$ will remain nearly constant there for a sufficiently long time.

On the other hand, the components $`B_x`$ and $`B_y`$ will change significantly due to the large gradients of the Lagrangian coordinates. In the plane $`z=0`$ the corresponding derivatives with respect to $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ can be found directly from (16) and (17). The calculation of the derivatives with respect to $`z`$ is a less trivial problem and will be considered below.

From the group properties of the flow (see § 4) it follows that the mapping $`𝐫_0(t,𝐫)`$ is described by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}𝐫_0}{\mathrm{d}t}}=𝐯(𝐫_0),`$ (B6)
where the dependence on $`𝐫`$ is parametric and due to the initial condition $`𝐫_0(0,𝐫)=𝐫`$. Since $`v_z0`$ the plasma motion is planar such that $`z_0(t,𝐫)z`$. Expressions for the other Lagrangian coordinates can be derived explicitly from (B6) and (11) only in the plane $`z=0`$ and only in the case of “twisting” shearing motions, giving (16)–(17). Differentiating (B6) with respect to $`z`$ and restricting the result for this plane, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\overline{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{z}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{cosh}\overline{y}_0)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{z}}}+\mathrm{tanh}\overline{y}_0,`$ (B7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\overline{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{z}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{cosh}\overline{x}_0)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{z}}}\mathrm{tanh}\overline{x}_0,`$ (B8)
which is a system of ordinary differential equations whose unknowns must satisfy the initial conditions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{z}}}=0.`$ (B9)
In combination with (16)–(17) this system of differential equations allows us to calculate the magnetic components (B3) and (B4) in the plane $`z=0`$ at any time.

Due to a symmetry of the flow, we can make further analytical progress for the particular streamline $`\overline{y}=\overline{x}`$ in the plane $`z=0`$ . The system of differential equations can in this case be integrated explicitly to yield

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}_0}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{y}_0}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+(e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{sinh}\overline{y})^2\right]^{1/2}}{2e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{sinh}\overline{y}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+(e^{\overline{t}}\mathrm{sinh}\overline{y})^2}{1+\mathrm{sinh}^2\overline{y}}}\right),`$ (B10)
which enables us to find $`B_x`$ and $`B_y`$ according to the algorithm described above. Using the simplified form of magnetic field (2) and the system of $`(x^{},y^{})`$-coordinates rotated by $`45^{}`$ with respect to $`x`$ and $`y`$, one obtains the required field component (22). The current density along the quasi-separator (26)–(28) is found in a similar way.