text:
# Stripe glasses: self generated randomness in a uniformly frustrated system

## Abstract

We show that a system with competing interactions on different length scales, as relevant for the formation of stripes in doped Mott insulators, undergoes a self-generated glass transition which is caused by the frustrated nature of the interactions and not related to the presence of quenched disorder. An exponentially large number of metastable configurations is found, leading to a slow, landscape dominated long time relaxation and a break up of the system into a disordered inhomogeneous state.

Competing interactions on different length scales are able to stabilize mesoscale phase separations and the creation of spatial inhomogeneities in a wide variety of systems. Examples are stripe formation in doped Mott insulators, as found in transition metal oxides (TMO), domains in magnetic multilayer compounds, or mesoscopic structures formed by assembling polymers in solution and amphiphiles in water-oil mixtures . In many of these cases the tendency towards a perfectly ordered array of domains, stripes etc. is undermined by frustrating long range interactions. Very often, these assemblies exhibit a long time dynamics similar to the relaxation seen in glasses. In the context of stripes it has been argued that the presence of only very few quenched impurities might already cause a strictly disordered glassy state . Furthermore, recent molecular dynamics calculations for charge ordering in TMO found an anomalous long time relaxation with a power spectrum similar to $`1/f`$-noise. Indeed, there is experimental evidence for the formation of intrinsic inhomogeneities and even a stripe-glass in high temperature superconductors and other transition metal oxides. In particular slow, activated dynamics as observed in NMR experiments  exhibits a striking universality, rather independent of the details of added impurities etc. It is therefore tempting to speculate that glassiness in these systems is self generated and does not rely on the presence of quenched disorder, which may of course further stabilize a glassy state.

In this paper we show that the competition of interactions on different length scales in a uniformly frustrated systems exhibits a self generated glass transition due to the emergence of an exponentially large number of metastable states. This result is obtained using the replica approach of Ref.  and by solving the corresponding many body problem using the self consistent screening approximation. Since only very few examples exists for models which exhibit self generated glassiness, all these approaches are extremely important for a better understanding of glassiness in general. Even though our findings apply to broader class of problems than stripes in TMO, we will adopt a language which is specific to that problem.

A model for a uniformly frustrated system with competition on different length scales is given by the Hamiltonian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left\{r_0\phi (𝐱)^2+\left(\phi (𝐱)\right)^2+\frac{u}{2}\phi (𝐱)^4\right\}}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xd^3x^{}\frac{\phi (𝐱)\phi (𝐱^{})}{\left|𝐱𝐱^{}\right|}}.`$
Here, $`\phi (𝐱)`$ characterizes charge degrees of freedom, with $`\phi (𝐱)>0`$ in a hole-rich region, $`\phi (𝐱)<0`$ in a hole poor region, and $`\phi (𝐱)=0`$ if the local density equals the averaged one. If $`r_0<0`$ the system tends to phase separate since we have to guarantee charge neutrality, $`\phi =0`$. The coupling constant, $`Q`$, is a measure for the strength of the Coulomb interaction and characterizes the competition between short and long range interactions. In case of strongly anisotropic, quasi two-dimensional cuprate superconductors one expects an anisotropy of the gradient term in Eq.2, which we neglect for simplicity. Despite the absence of a clean derivation of Eq.2 from the many electron Schrödinger equation, we note that it describes, on a phenomenological level, many of the major competing effects which yield in microscopic theories a rich phase diagram of inhomogeneous spin and charge structures. For $`Q=0`$ and $`r_0<0`$ we expect at low temperatures long range ordered charge modulations. As shown in Ref. , the Coulomb interaction suppresses this ordered state for all $`Q>0`$ and finite $`T`$. Instead, the system undergoes several crossovers. Most interestingly, at low temperatures, where $`\left|r(T)\right|<2\sqrt{Q}`$, a mean field analysis of Eq.2 shows that besides a correlation length, $`\xi =2\left(r+2\sqrt{Q}\right)^{1/2}`$, an additional length scale, $`l_m=4\pi \left(2\sqrt{Q}r\right)^{1/2}`$ emerges, which characterizes the spatial modulation of the field correlations, where $`r=r_0+uT\phi ^2`$. These modulations are particularly relevant for low enough $`T`$ where $`r(T)0`$, where mean field theory gives locally ordered regions with characteristic size $`l_m\xi `$.We will show that a stripe glass  emerges in this temperature regime.

An essential prerequisite for the anomalous dynamical features of glassiness, like aging, memory effects and ergodicity breaking, is most certainly the occurrence of a large number of metastable states, $`𝒩_{ms}`$, separated by energy barriers which are large compared to the temperature. In viscous liquids undergoing vitrification calorimetry suggests $`𝒩_{ms}\mathrm{exp}(const.V)`$, were, $`V`$ is the system size. This observation is the heart of an ideal glass transition scenario based on random first order transitions which was originally motivated by microscopic stability analyses of structural glasses and mean field theories for random Potts-glasses. Below a cross-over temperature, $`T_A`$, a ’viscous’, energy-landscape dominated long time relaxation sets in due to the occurrence of exponentially many metastable states, i.e. the configurational entropy, $`S_c=k_B\mathrm{log}𝒩_{ms}`$, becomes extensive. Because of the large barriers between these states, the system will get stuck for extremely long times in one of the metastable states, i.e. it will freeze into a glass, at some temperature $`T_G<T_A`$ which depends for example on the cooling rate. Even though this laboratory glass transition is purely dynamical, a key ingredient of the ideal glass transition scenario is that the dynamical slowing arises from proximity to an underlying phase transition at $`T_K<T_G`$, where the configurational entropy would vanish like $`S_c(T)TT_K`$. If such an ideal transition exists, even for an infinitely slow cooling rate freezing will occur at $`T_K`$ since all the liquid degrees of freedom die out due to this ’entropy crisis’.

Detailed theoretical investigation of this scenario have concentrated on systems with quenched randomness. A major step forward for studying nonrandom systems was made in Ref. , where a new replica approach was developed. Within this approach, the configurational entropy for a model of a structural glass without quenched disorder was calculated and found to be in good agreement with computer simulations.

We will use this approach to determine $`S_c`$ for a system governed by Eq.2. The key idea is to introduce, in analogy to the theory of conventional phase transitions, an appropriate symmetry breaking field, $`\psi \left(𝐫\right)`$, and to compute the partition sum

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}\left[\psi \right]=D\phi e^{[\phi ]/T\frac{g}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^3x\left[\psi \left(𝐱\right)\phi \left(𝐱\right)\right]^2}},$$
(3)
where $`g0^+`$. The energy $`\stackrel{~}{f}\left[\psi \right]=T\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{Z}\left[\psi \right]`$ will be low if $`\psi (𝐫)`$ equals to configurations which locally minimize $``$. Sampling all configurations of the $`\psi `$-field, weighted with $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\left[\psi \right]/T\right)`$, is therefore equivalent to scanning all metastable states such that

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\underset{g0}{lim}\frac{1}{W}D\psi \text{ }\stackrel{~}{f}\left[\psi \right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\left[\psi \right]/T\right)$$
(4)
is a weighted average of the free energy in the various metastable configurations, where $`W=`$ $`D\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(g/2d^3x\psi ^2\left(𝐱\right)\right)`$ is introduced for proper normalization. If there are only few local minima, the limit $`g0^+`$ behaves perturbatively and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ equals to the free energy, $`F`$, of the system. However, in case exponentially many local minima with large barriers between them exist, a nontrivial contributions arises from the $`\psi `$-integral even for $`g0^+`$ and the averaged free energy, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$, differs from $`F`$. This enables us to identify the configurational entropy, $`S_c`$, via $`F=\stackrel{~}{F}TS_c`$. For an illustration of the corresponding free energy landscape, see inset of Fig.1.

An explicit expression for $`S_c`$ can be obtained within a replicated theory  with

$$F\left(m\right)=\underset{g0}{lim}\frac{T}{m}\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{W}D\psi \stackrel{~}{Z}^m\left[\psi \right].$$
(5)
It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{mF(m)}{m}|_{m=1}`$, which gives:

$$S_c=\frac{1}{T}\frac{F(m)}{m}|_{m=1}.$$
(6)
Inserting $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\left[\psi \right]`$ of Eq. 3 into Eq. 5 finally leads to:

$`Z(m)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{g0}{lim}{\displaystyle }D^m\phi \mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\left[\phi ^a\right]/T`$ (8)
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle }d^3x\phi ^a(𝐱)\phi ^b(𝐱)),`$
with $`F\left(m\right)=\frac{T}{m}\mathrm{log}Z(m)`$. Eq.8 has a formal similarity to the action of the random field Ising model, obtained within the conventional replica approach, which allows us to use techniques, developed for this model. In the following we use the self consistent screening approximation (SCSA) of Eq.8  and determine the Green’s function, $`𝒢_{ab}\left(𝐪\right)=\phi ^a(𝐪)\phi ^b(𝐪)`$, in replica space. $`𝒢_{ab}\left(𝐪\right)`$ then determines the partition function, $`Z(m)`$, and correspondingly $`S_c`$.

The interaction between different replicas is symmetric with respect to the replica index suggesting the mean field ansatz

$$𝒢_{ab}\left(𝐪\right)=\left(𝒢\left(𝐪\right)\left(𝐪\right)\right)\delta _{ab}+\left(𝐪\right),$$
(9)
with equal diagonal elements, $`𝒢\left(𝐪\right)`$, and equal off-diagonal elements, $`\left(𝐪\right)`$.The physical interpretation of $`𝒢\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)=\phi (𝐫)\phi (𝐫^{})`$ as thermodynamic (instantaneous) correlation function is straightforward. On the other hand, $`\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)=lim_t\mathrm{}\phi (𝐫,t)\phi (𝐫^{},0)`$ can be interpreted as measuring long time correlations, arising from trapping in metastable minima which, in mean field theory, have infinite barriers between them. An analogous structure in replica space follows for the diagonal elements, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝒢\left(𝐪\right)`$, and off-diagonal elements, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\left(𝐪\right)`$, of the self energy, which are given in the SCSA as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝒜\left(𝐪\right)=2\frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}𝒟_𝒜\left(𝐩\right)𝒜\left(𝐩+𝐪\right)$$
(10)
with $`𝒜\{𝒢,\}`$. The screening of the interaction is characterized by the collective propagators $`𝒟_𝒢^1\left(𝐩\right)=(uT)^1+\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒢\left(𝐩\right)`$ and $`𝒟_{}\left(𝐩\right)=\frac{uT\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\left(𝐩\right)𝒟_𝒢^2\left(𝐩\right)}{1uT𝒟_𝒢\left(𝐩\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\left(𝐩\right)}`$ with polarization functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝒜\left(𝐩\right)=\frac{d^3q}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}𝒜\left(𝐪+𝐩\right)𝒜\left(𝐪\right)`$. The set of equations is closed by the Dyson equation: $`𝒢^1\left(𝐤\right)=𝒢_0^1\left(𝐤\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝒢\left(𝐤\right)`$ for the diagonal elements, and $`\left(𝐤\right)=\frac{𝒢^2\left(𝐤\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_F\left(𝐤\right)}{1𝒢\left(𝐤\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_F\left(𝐤\right)}`$ for the off diagonal elements, respectively. $`𝒢_0^1\left(𝐪\right)=r+q^2+Qq^2`$ is the inverse Hartree propagator. Note, all momentum integrations have to be cut-off at $`\left|𝐩\right|=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is of the order of an inverse lattice constant. Once the $`𝒢_{ab}`$ and $`𝒟_{ab}`$ are determined the free energy becomes

$$F(m)/(2mT)=\text{tr}\mathrm{log}𝒢^1+\text{tr}\mathrm{log}𝒟^1\text{tr}\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒢.$$
(11)
After performing the trace in replica space for arbitrary integer $`m`$ and analytical continuation to $`m1`$, $`S_c`$ follows from Eq.6. One finds immeadiately $`S_c=0`$ if $`(𝐤)`$ vanishes. In the following we discuss the numerical solution of this set of coupled integral equations.

In Fig. 1, $`S_c/V`$ is shown for two different $`Q`$-values as function of $`T`$. At $`T_A`$ the long time correlation function $`\left(k\right)`$ emerges leading to $`S_c>0`$ and a glassy dynamics sets in. The corresponding free energy landscape is schematically illustrated in the inset. Just as in mean field Potts glasses with quenched randomness, $`S_c`$ vanishes at a lower temperature, $`T_K`$. At $`T_K`$ the entropy of the amorphous stripe solid equals that of the stripe liquid. There is no entropic advantage anymore to be in a liquid state, leading to an obligatory glass transition no matter how slow the cooling rate. The laboratory glass temperature, $`T_G`$, will lie somewhere between $`T_K`$ and $`T_A`$ and cannot be determined within our theory. We also find that $`T_K`$ and $`T_A`$ are only weakly decreasing for increasing $`Q`$, see inset of Fig.2. Both temperatures remain finite for $`Q0`$. However, $`S_c\left(Q0\right)0`$, i.e. the fragility $`\frac{dS_c}{dT}`$ of the glass vanishes. In other words, the larger the modulation length, the smaller is the number of metastable states. Due to the $`1/r`$ interaction, the limit $`Q0`$ does not smoothly connect to the behavior at $`Q=0`$. If one includes a finite screening length $`l_s`$ in Eq.2, we expect that the glassy state disappears for $`Ql_s^4`$.

In Fig. 2, the instantaneous ($`𝒢\left(k\right)`$) and long-time ($`\left(k\right)`$) charge correlation functions, are shown at $`T=T_A`$. Even though no charge ordering occurs, the pronounced peaks at finite $`k`$ demonstrate that there is a modulated state with strong short range correlations, $`l_m<\xi `$. Also, since $`\left(k\right)𝒢\left(k\right)`$, the modulated state exhibits an anomalous dynamics, where long time correlations are only slightly reduced compared to instantaneous correlations. Introducing a Debye-Waller factor, $`W=\mathrm{log}\left(/𝒢\right)`$ for $`k`$ close to the peak maximum, gives $`W=0.12`$ $`(0.13)`$ for $`Q=0.01`$ $`(0.001)`$. The modulation length (inverse peak positions) is $`3.5\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ ($`6\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$) and the correlation length is $`45\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ ($`80\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$) for $`Q=0.01`$ $`(0.001)`$.

Due to the competing interactions in Eq.2, an entropy crisis occurs, causing a transition into a glass. This purely thermodynamic characterization of the spectrum of metastable states, is only the first important step for understanding glassiness, and the investigation of dynamical features is an even bigger challenge, because it requires going beyond mean field theory. An argument based on ”entropic droplets” explains quite well the phenomenology of viscous liquid dynamics and can even be made semi-quantitative. Here we apply these arguments to the present stripe model. The entropic droplet argument recognizes an intrinsic instability of the homogeneous metastable solutions, as characterized by Eq. 9: namely, creating a droplet of one metastable solution within another costs free energy that can at most scale as a surface energy but the exponential number of configurations gives an entropic driving force for such a droplet that scales with V. A mosaic structure hence will form. The activation free energy of turning over a single region can be computed where the entropic gain is given by $`TS_c`$. A renormalization group calculation, based on Ref., leads to a size dependent surface tension $`\sigma (R)=\sigma _0\left(R\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^\theta `$ with $`\theta =\frac{d2}{2}`$ reflecting the fact that the interface between two states is wetted by intermediate states. This analysis leads to an characteristic energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\left(TS_c(T)\right)^1`$ which implies a relaxation time obeying a Vogel-Fulcher law

$$\tau \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{DT_K}{TT_K}\right).$$
(12)
An estimate for the surface tension $`\sigma _0|r_0|/(u\xi )`$ for the stripe model yields $`R_0^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(V\sigma _0/TS_c)^2`$ for the droplet volume and $`D=3V\sigma _0^2/(\mathrm{\Lambda }T^2T_KS_c/T|_{T_K})`$. Using our numerical results for $`S_c`$, this leads to $`D60200`$, typical for moderately fragile and strong glasses, and droplet sizes $`R_0(2550)\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(510)l_m`$. Note that this estimate is only qualitative since $`R_0\xi `$ and a real separation of scales never occurs. The droplet picture implies that the glass state breaks up into domains of different metastable states, separated by wetted surfaces, build by intermediate states. This physical picture is very similar to the conclusions made in Ref. based on NMR experiments.

In summary, we have shown that an exponentially large number of metastable configurations emerges in a system with competing interactions on different length scales, leading to a glass transition and anomalous long time dynamics. This glass state is self generated, implying that the barriers characterizing the activated dynamics are rather universal and should not depend on details like added impurities but only on the generic interactions on short and long scales, i.e. the magnetic exchange interactions and the Coulomb interaction. Furthermore, we showed that the magnitude of the frustration controls the fragility of the glass transition. Finally, following Ref., we argued that the configurational entropy causes a break up of the stripe glass into a mosaic of domains or droplets, build up by the various metastable states, allowing us to estimate time scales of motions. This causes an intrinsic inhomogeneity of all relevant correlation functions, modulation and correlation lengths etc. in the amorphous glassy state.

We gratefully acknowledge stimulating discussions at the workshop on Mesoscopic organization in soft hard and biological matter hosted by the Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter and with A. V. Chubukov, P. C. Hammel, J. Haase, D. C. Johnston, D. K. Morr, D. Pines, C. P. Slichter, R. Stern and B. P. Stojkovic. The work was supported by NSF (PGW), grant No.ChE-9530680. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-82.


format: text

text:
# VLA Polarimetry of Two Extended Radio Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

As part of our investigation of steep-spectrum ($`\alpha >0.5`$, S$`\nu ^\alpha `$), low-frequency-variable (LFV; $`\nu <`$ 1 GHz) sources, we have made a series of images with sub-arcsecond resolutions (Mantovani et al. 1992) of a sample of sources. These sources were selected from the papers of Cotton (1976), McAdam (1980), Spangler & Cotton (1981), Fanti et al. (1983) and Altschuler et al. (1984). The aim was to detect the high-brightness components required by the refractive scintillation model for low-frequency variability (Rickett 1986). Most of the sources in the sample showed compact features (deconvolved sizes $`<`$ 0.15 – 0.3 arcsec) both in MERLIN, 408 MHz and VLA, A-array, 5 GHz images (Mantovani et al. 1992). Further observations with VLBI show these features to contain components which are bright and compact enough to explain the variability at low frequency by propagation effects in the interstellar medium; see, for example, 3C99, Mantovani et al. (1990a). Sources such as these do not generally show any variability at high frequency (Padrielli et al. 1987).

However, there are sources like 0621+400 (3C159), which are variable at low frequencies and not at frequencies $`>2`$ GHz, where the compact components are too weak to account for the observed variability. In these cases, it is possible that the variability is caused by instrumental effects. The source 3C159 has been monitored for about 10 years at 408 MHz. This source has a steep radio spectrum and an extended double radio structure — a combination which is very unusual for a variable radio source. Browne et al. (1985) have suggested that the variations, which seem to show an annual cycle, may not be intrinsic but could arise from the combined effects of strong source linear polarization and ionospheric Faraday rotation.

Ionospheric Faraday rotation can easily reach 7–8 rad m-2 (Sakurai & Spangler 1994). With the plausible estimate of 5 rad m-2 as an expectable difference in the ionospheric RM, one finds that the position angle difference at 408 MHz is 2.7 radians; enough to produce the effect being discussed.

MERLIN observations at 408 MHz (Cerchiara et al. 1994) show that 3C159 is highly polarized ($``$10$`\%`$). The plane of polarization of the source emission could be rotated by changes in ionospheric Faraday rotation relative to the linearly polarized E-W arm of the Northern Cross Bologna telescope used for the monitoring program. A source with a linear polarization $`>`$6$`\%`$ could exhibit apparent variations of roughly the observed size if the ionospheric Faraday rotation changed by $``$90o between observations. The 3C159 observations were made at transit during the day in summer and the night in winter and so they were accompanied by annual changes in the ionospheric electron content.

The purported variability measured in the two extended radio sources 0235$``$197 and 1203$`+`$043 may have originated in a similar manner to that in 3C159. They were monitored at 408 MHz with a similar instrument, the Molonglo Cross. With a peak-to-peak fractional variability of $``$10%, they were classified as ‘probably variable’ by McAdam (1980).

Consequently, although it was expected that most of the sources belonging to our sample of steep-spectrum, low-frequency-variable sources would be core-dominated sources, it is likely that the sample has been contaminated by lobe-dominated, strongly-linearly-polarized, extended sources.

In order to test if ionospheric Faraday rotation is the cause of the apparent variability of 0235$``$197 and 1203$`+`$043 we have investigated the linear polarizations of these sources at 320 MHz with the VLA in the ‘A’ configuration and with the already available 5 GHz VLA C-array data. Both sources were also observed in the X (8.4 GHz) and U (15 GHz) bands. These observations allowed high resolution images of the ’hot spot’ regions to be made. The images were combined with available, high-resolution, C band observations to produce rotation measures (RMs) for the outer parts of the sources.

## 2 VLA Observations

VLA (Thompson et al. 1980) observing dates and observational parameters are summarized in Table 1. The high resolution (A-array) Total Intensity images at 5 GHz for 0235$``$197 and 1203$`+`$043 were presented in Mantovani et al. (1992) while the lower resolution C-array, total intensity map for 0235$``$197 has been published in Morganti, Killeen & Tadhunter (1993). However, because the polarization information was never presented in the earlier papers, we have summarized in the tables all the observational details and the derived parameters from those observations.

Because of narrowband interference, the P (320 MHz) band data were taken in spectral line mode. The data were edited to remove channels with interference. Bandpass corrections were determined from the calibrator source 3C286 (1331+305) and applied to the spectral line database. A new “Channel 0” database was then constructed and the data were calibrated for total intensity and polarization in the standard fashion (see, for example, Perley, Schwab & Bridle 1989). Instrumental polarization calibration was done using the calibration sources 3C48 (0134$`+`$329), 3C138 (0521$`+`$166) and 3C286 (1331+305) to get sufficient parallactic coverage across both days during which the target sources were observed. We assume that the instrument is stable between observing epochs.

The parallel hand (RR, LL) data were self-calibrated and imaged in the normal iterative manner. The complex gain corrections derived from self-calibration were also applied to the cross-hand (RL or LR) fringes. In turn, images in Stokes parameters I, Q, U and V were produced. Maps of the polarized flux density $`P=(Q^2+U^2)^{1/2}`$ and position angle $`\chi =0.5\times \mathrm{tan}^1(U/Q)`$, were then generated from the Q and U images. The Stokes V images were used to test the integrity of the calibration and self-calibration procedures and to diagnose problems due to interference.

At low frequencies, the primary beam of the antennas contains many background sources. In order to image the target sources of interest, it was necessary to image some of these background sources. The brightest ($`>20`$ mJy at L band) background sources were identified from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) (Condon et al. 1998). This threshold is somewhat arbitrary but gives a reasonable number of secondary fields to image at 320 MHz. We imaged a total of 26 fields for 0235–197 and 23 fields for 1203$`+`$043 in the AIPS mapping program, IMAGR — one field containing the program source and the others on the brightest background sources. We were able to account for substantially all of the flux density seen on the shortest baselines in both cases and to obtain satisfactory convergence in the iterative self-calibration and imaging loop. The final images in all Stokes parameters (I, Q, U & V) of the target sources contained no obvious artefacts due to sidelobes from nearby confusing sources. The linear polarizations of the background sources have been checked in order to test for beam squint between R and L beams. The r.m.s. noises in the final images are within a factor of 3 of the expected thermal noises; this is entirely consistent with other observing programs at 320 MHz. Together, these suggest that the images of the target sources are not greatly affected by confusion.

The low declination source 0235–197 was observed for only $`2`$ hours at transit; consequently, some of the data were corrupted by cross-talk between antennas. These data, mostly on baselines with immediately adjacent antennas, were excised from the database during the iterative self-calibartion and imaging process.

The C (5 GHz), X (8.4 GHz) and U (15 GHz) band data were calibrated in the standard way using VLA calibrators and AIPS procedures. Polarimetric images were generated in a manner similar to that for the P band data.

## 3 Sources structure and Polarimetry

### 3.1 Observational Parameters

The derived parameters for the low resolution observations at 320 MHz and at 5 GHz (VLA C-array) are listed in Table 2. Maps at higher resolution have been obtained at 8.4 and 15 GHz with the VLA in the A configuration. Values derived from the maps are listed in Table 3. Comments on the sources structure will be given in Section 4.

The contents of Tables 2 and 3 are: column 1 $``$ source name; column 2 $``$ the observing frequency in MHz; columns 3 to 5 $``$ major axis, minor axis (both in arcsec) and the PA in degrees of the restoring beam major axis; column 6 $``$ the rms noise in the total intensity map far from the source of emission; column 7 $``$ the rms noise $`\sqrt{\sigma _Q^2+\sigma _U^2}`$, where $`\sigma _Q`$ and $`\sigma _U`$ are the rms noises on the blank sky in the distributions of the Stokes parameters Q and U; column 8 $``$ component label; columns 9 and 10$``$ RA and Dec. of the component peak; column 11 $``$ peak flux density (mJy) of the component; column 12 $``$ total flux density (mJy) of the component.

In Tables 4 & 5, we give the measured position angle (PA) in degrees of the electric field vector at the peak of polarized emission ($`\pm `$1 rms error calculated from the distribution of PAs found in a small box around the peak of polarized emission); the Rotation Measure (RM$`=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\lambda )\pm n\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ^2)`$ in $`radm^2`$ where $`\varphi `$($`\lambda `$) is the PA at wavelength $`\lambda `$ and $`n`$ an integer; when three frequencies are available, as for some of the components in Tab. 4, the ambiguity inplied by the integer $`n`$ can be resolved); the RM, corrected for the redshift; the percentage polarization; the depolarization index, defined as the ratio of the fractional polarization at longer wavelength to the fractional polarization at shorter wavelength; from the high and low resolution observations.

In order to compare the 5 GHz (C-Array) and 320 MHz images of 0235$``$197, we have produced 5 GHz maps (I,Q,U) at the resolution of the 320 MHz maps. This was done by restoring the 5 GHz images with the appropriate Gaussian beam during imaging. The polarization parameters derived from those images are reported in Table 5.

## 4 Notes on individual sources

### 4.1 0235$``$197

The 5 GHz images presented by Mantovani et al. (1992) and Morganti, Killeen & Tadhunter (1993), show the classical, double structure typical of powerful radio galaxies. The source is associated with a galaxy at $`z=0.620`$ (Tadhunter et al. 1993). There are no radio components above the detection limits ($``$0.2 mJy at 5 and 8.5 GHz; $``$0.5 mJy at 15 GHz) inside the error box of the optical position. Adopting the optical position as a reference, 0235$``$197 looks rather symmetric with a ratio of $``$0.8 between the full length of the two lobes, with the western being the longer.

0235$``$197 appears to be dominated by the outer lobes at frequencies $`>5`$ GHz. The most interesting feature is the bright hot spot at the far end of the Eastern lobe. At both 5 and 8.4 GHz (Figs. 1 to 3), the hot spot has a double structure with individual components labelled $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$. Component $`E_1`$ also appears double when observed with higher resolution at 15 GHz (Fig. 4). The images have been convolved to 0.4 arcsecond resolution in order to calculate the hot spot spectral indices. Both components $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ show a large steepening in spectral index, $`\alpha `$ (S$`\nu ^\alpha `$), between 5–8.4 GHz and 8.4–15 GHz. We find values of $`\alpha =0.5`$ and $`\alpha =1.4`$ respectively for $`E_1`$ and $`\alpha =0.68`$ and $`\alpha =2.5`$ respectively for $`E_2`$. The front shock of the lobe $`W_1`$ at the opposite side is resolved in all of the images and can hardly be defined as a ‘hot spot’. The spectral index of the bright part at the far end is also steep ($`\alpha =1.2`$) in the range 5–8.4 GHz and it steepens to $`\alpha 2`$ in the range 8.4-15 GHz (since the 15 GHz flux density estimate is an upper limit). Note that the observations at 15 GHz have lower sensitivity to diffuse, extended emission.

All of the hot spots are highly polarized, with little depolarization and Faraday rotation. The magnetic field is parallel to the front shock and rather ordered in the lobe regions with weak diffuse emission. (The electric vector is shown in all of the images shown in the paper). At 320 MHz (Fig. 5), the polarized emission, if any, is below the detection limit of our observations. Polarized emission is detected over all of the source in the low resolution observations at 5 GHz (Fig. 6). The magnetic field is again ordered and, generally speaking, parallel to the source major axis, apart from the hot spot area, where the magnetic field is parallel to the front shock. There are two main regions of polarized emission in the $`E`$ lobe. The mean PA given in Table 5 should be treated with care because the position angles of the polarization vectors in the lobe actually vary greatly. The depolarization between 5 GHz and 320 MHz is very high (DP$`>`$0.02). Statistically, in these classical sources, the lobe nearest to the nucleus usually shows a steeper spectral index. Here we find similar values ($`\alpha =`$0.84) for the two lobes of 0235$``$197. There are indications of Faraday rotation in the hot spots from the high resolution maps.

### 4.2 1203$`+`$043

The images at 8.4 and 15 GHz (Figs. 7 to 8 & 9 respectively) do not add much new information about the overall source structure as derived from the 5 GHz image of Mantovani et al. (1992). This earlier image showed a long bent jet. The components found along the jet, labelled $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$, are rather polarized. The emission from $`J_1`$ has a small Faraday rotation and depolarization between 6 cm and 4 cm of 17 $`radm^2`$ and 0.74 respectively.

However, the new observations have allowed us to identify component C with the core of the radio source. This component has an inverted spectrum which peaks at frequencies $``$ 15 GHz. 1203$`+`$043 therefore has an asymmetric structure, with a long bent jet pointing South which fades slowly and with a weak lobe of emission to the north where there is marginal evidence of an hot spot. The radio position of the core of 1203$`+`$043 does not coincide within the errors to any optical counterpart on the Palomar Sky Survey prints.

Much more interesting is the structure found at 320 MHz (Fig. 10). Together with the North-South structure which dominates at higher frequencies and which appears here as a ridge of emission, there is a region of diffuse emission with its major axis perpendicular to the main ridge. This new feature is about 50 arcseconds in extent and is comparable in width with the main North-South ridge.

## 5 Discussion

Due to the non-detection of polarized emission at 320 MHz in both 0235$``$197 and 1203$`+`$043, we cannot explain the low frequency variability observed with the Molonglo Cross (McAdam 1980) in terms of ionospheric Faraday rotation as in the case of 3C159.

Can refractive scintillation (Rickett, 1986) explain the variability of 0235$``$197? The refractive scintillation models assume a supposedly-variable radio source to have most of its flux density in a single compact component. The degree of variability is a function of the characterization of the interstellar medium (itself a function of galactic coordinates) and source size. 0235$``$197 is at galactic latitude $`|b|=65^{}`$ and was reported to vary (rms variability $`0.2`$ Jy) on a time scale of the order of 1 year (McAdam, 1980).

In the usual refractive model of interstellar turbulence (Mantovani et al. 1990b, Spangler et al. 1993, Spangler et al. 1994, Bondi et al. 1994), the relevant parameter for the observed scintillation index is $`\theta _{eff}^{7/6}\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}b/I}`$, where $`\theta _{eff}=\theta _{\mathrm{FWHM}}/2.35`$ and $`I`$ is the parameter indicator of the source structure ($`=1`$ for a gaussian structure). In such a model a source of ($`3`$ Jy) with a rms variability of 0.2 Jy and corresponding scintillation index of $`0.06`$ should have an angular diameter in the range 10–20 mas (see Spangler et al. 1993 for details).

The $`E_{1a}`$ hot spot has a spectrum which, extrapolated towards lower frequencies, gives a mean flux density of $``$3 Jy at 408 MHz. This is comparable to the peak flux density found at 320 MHz. The crucial parameter is, however, the angular size of the hot spot. The deconvolved size found for the $`E_{1a}`$ hot spot at 15 GHz is $`<`$0.2 arcsec. Even if in principle there is not contradiction, the scintillation theory requires an angular size for the hot spot in 0235$``$197 that is a factor 7–10 smaller than the size measured at 15 GHz, which is close to the sizes usually measured for the hot spots. Low frequency VLBI observations are needed to confirm the existence of such a compact component in the hot spot.

The lack of polarized emission at 320 MHz for 1203$`+`$043 and a radio structure which lacks a bright compact component rules out both of the mechanisms for low frequency variability in this source. Consequently, we conclude that this source might be a spurious case of variability. However, 1203$`+`$043 has an interesting structure at 320 MHz. It shows a pair of secondary lobes in a direction perpendicular to the main source axis, making the object one of a few known ‘X’-shaped sources. At present, only about ten sources are known to show such morphology. They are believed to have both young and old lobes. These lobes may be supplied by jets whose direction has changed with time. A change in the orientation of the central engine due to precession has been suggested by Ekers et al. (1978) for NGC326 to account for its ‘X’ shaped morphology. Such a model has been applied successfully to 0828$`+`$32 by Klein et al. (1995) but with the extra assumption that the length of the precessing beam changes with time. A merger between galaxies is thought to be the cause of the precession. However, Ulrich-Demoulin & Rönnback (1996) have reported that optical images of 0828$`+`$32 do not show the signature of a recent major merger event.

However, the structure of 1203$`+`$043 looks peculiar when compared with other ’X’ shaped sources. For example, it has an asymmetric structure with respect to the component C which is believed to be the core (Fig. 7 and Fig. 6 in Mantovani et al. 1992). The long, bent jet is clearly ’one-sided’ while, generally speaking, the members of the class show two-sided jets (at the available resolution). Moreover, the young lobes of the ’X’ shaped sources are dominated by hot spots while here the jet emission fades away from the core and the northern lobe contains only diffuse emission without any bright component. This asymmetry is reflected in the 320 MHz map where the region to the North-West is more extended and brighter than the opposite side.

## 6 Conclusions

We have conducted a program of multi-wavelength VLA observations of the suspected low frequency variable sources 0235$``$197 and 1203+043. Since 0235$``$197 is not polarized at 320 MHz, its variability cannot be accounted for by instrumental polarization effects as in the case of 3C159. 0235$``$197 may contain a low frequency component sufficiently compact and bright as required by the refractive scintillation model for low frequency variability. Our observations have insufficient resolution to test this suggestion; low frequency VLBI observations are required for this purpose. However, this component would have to have extremely unusual properties among hot spots in radio sources.

In our high frequency images of 1203+043 we have identified the core of the radio source; its location indicates that the source has a large apparent asymmetry. At 320 MHz, this source shows no polarization. However, it does have an additional, steep-spectrum component at this frequency; this previously-undetected component lies perpendicular to the main axis and predominantly to one side. However, the overall morphology of 1203+043 at low frequencies seems similar to that of the ‘X’-shaped sources like NGC326. From its morphology and component sizes, we conclude that 1203+043 is likely not variable at low frequencies and that its inclusion in such catalogs is spurious.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors like to thank the referee, Dr. Steve Spangler for his comments to the paper and Dr. Ian Browne for a critical reading of the manuscript. FM thanks Miller Goss, Assistant Director, NRAO, Socorro, for his hospitality during period when part of the work was done. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation; AIPS is NRAO’s Astronomical Image Processing System.


text:
# REFERENCES

Perturbative expansion for master equation and its applications

X. X. Yia,b,C. Lia J. C. Suc

aInstitute of Theoretical Physics, Northeast Normal University,
Changchun 130024, China
bInstitute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Peking 100080, China***Corresponding address
c Department of Physics, Jilin University, Changchun 130023, China

We construct generally applicable small-loss rate expansions for the density operator of an open system. Successive terms of those expansions yield characteristic loss rates for dissipation processes. Three applications are presented in order to give further insight into the context of those expansions. The first application, of a two-level atom coupling to a bosonic environment, shows the procedure and the advantage of the expansion, whereas the second application that consists of a single mode field in a cavity with linewidth $`\kappa `$ due to partial transmission through one mirror illustrates a practical use of those expansions in quantum measurements, and the third one, for an atom coupled to modes of a lossy cavity shows the another use of the perturbative expansion.
PACS numbers:03.65.-w,05.30.Fk,42.50.Dv

The study of open quantum systems has recently attracted the attention of physicists from various fields: cosmology, condensed matter, quantum optics\[3-7\], particle physics, quantum measurement, and quantum computation. The problem can be described generally as interest in the effective dynamics of one subsystem of several interacting subsystems. A formal framework to describe the effective dynamics of such a subsystem is set up in ref., and a short-time perturbative expansion for coherence loss has also been constructed. To some extent(for example, if we are interested in a behavior for finite time), however, time is not as good as the loss rate as a perturbative parameter. Motivated by this and recent experimental developments\[15-20\] as well as the analysis of models related to them\[21-24\], we construct generally small-loss rate expansions for dissipation. The results suggest that these are useful in many areas such as high-Q Cavity QED\[15-20\], quantum computation\[11,12,21-26\], quantum measurement, quantum optics\[3-7\] etc.

We consider an open quantum system, the total Hamiltonian describing such a system is expressed as

$$H=H_0+H_{env}+H_I,$$
(1)
where $`H_0`$ and $`H_{env}`$ indicate the free Hamiltonian of the system and of the environment, respectively. $`H_I`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian between the system and the environment. It is well known that the form of the master equation depends on the precise kind of the system-environment interaction. In order to derive a master equation for a quite general $`H_I`$, let us suppose that, in the Schrödinger picture, $`H_I`$ can be written as

$$H_I=\mathrm{}\underset{m}{}(X_m^+A_m+X_m^{}A_m^{})$$
(2)
where the $`X_m^\pm `$are eigenoperators of the system satisfying

$$[H_0,X_m^\pm ]=\pm \mathrm{}\omega _mX_m^\pm .$$
(3)
This form is quite general, since any system operator can be decomposed into eigenoperators of $`H_0`$. As shown in ref., we can write the master equation in the following form (in the Schrödinger picture)

$`\dot{\rho }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,\rho ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}K_m(2X_m^{}\rho X_m^+X_m^+X_m^{}\rho \rho X_m^+X_m^{})`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}G_m(2X_m^+\rho X_m^{}X_m^{}X_m^+\rho \rho X_m^{}X_m^+),`$ (5)
where

$$K_m=2Re[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _m\tau }\mathrm{Tr}_{env}\{A_m(\tau )A_m^{}(0)\rho _{env}\}],$$

$$G_m=2Re[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _m\tau }\mathrm{Tr}_{env}\{A_m^{}(\tau )A_m(0)\rho _{env}\}],$$

$`\rho (t)=\rho (t,K_m,G_m)`$ stands for the density operator of the system and $`\rho _{env}`$ denotes the density operator of the environment. Notice from eq.(4) that $`G_m`$ should vanish at zero temperature $`T=0`$, while $`K_m`$ should not if $`A_m`$ are indeed destruction operators of some kind. In case the constant $`G_m`$ and $`K_m`$ are smaller than any one of the internal coupling parameters of the system, the density operator may be expanded in powers of $`K_m`$ and $`G_m`$,

$`\rho (t,K_m,G_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (t,0,0)+{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}K_m+{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_m}}G_m`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{K_mK_n}}K_mK_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{G_mG_n}}G_mG_n`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho }{G_mK_n}}G_mK_n+\mathrm{}.`$ (8)
Substituting this expression into the master equation, we find the following set of equations

$`\dot{\rho }(t,0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,\rho (t,0,0)]`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }}{G_m}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_m}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_m^+\rho (t,0,0)X_m^{}X_m^{}X_m^+\rho (t,0,0)\rho (t,0,0)X_m^{}X_m^+)`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }}{K_m}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_m^{}\rho (t,0,0)X_m^+X_m^+X_m^{}\rho (t,0,0)\rho (t,0,0)X_m^+X_m^{})`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\dot{\rho }}{K_mK_n}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_mK_n}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_n}}X_m^+X_m^+X_m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_n}}X_m^+X_m^{})`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}X_n^+X_n^+X_n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}X_n^+X_n^{})`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\dot{\rho }}{G_mG_n}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_mG_n}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_m^+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_n}}X_m^{}X_m^{}X_m^+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_n}}X_m^{}X_m^+)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_n^+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_m}}X_n^{}X_n^{}X_n^+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_m}}X_n^{}X_n^+)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\dot{\rho }}{K_mG_n}}`$ $`=`$ $`i[H_0,{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_mG_n}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_n}}X_m^+X_m^+X_m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{G_n}}X_m^+X_m^{})`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2X_n^+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}X_n^{}X_n^{}X_n^+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{K_m}}X_n^{}X_n^+)`$ (17)
Generally speaking, given an initial condition, $`\rho (0,0,0)`$, we can solve eq.(6) exactly, which gives the zeroth order solution for the density operator $`\rho (t,0,0)`$. Substituting the zeroth order solution into eq.(7), $`\rho /K_m`$ or $`\rho /G_m`$ can be calculated. Following this procedure, successive terms of the expansion (5) could be worked out, though the calculation is complicated. Some words of caution are now in order. From the mathematical point of view, the expansion (5) holds if and only if the series converges. This may be satisfied easily in physics for a large number of open systems. For example in a high-Q cavity, the loss rate of the atom-cavity system is small enough to permit us to expand the density operator in powers of the loss rate. At the end of this section, we will present some discussion about this point in detail.

To illustrate the advantage of the expansion (5), we present here a simplest model, which describes a two-level atom coupling to a bose-mode environment. The master equation of such a system is given by

$$\dot{\rho }=\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Omega }[\sigma _z,\rho ]+\frac{1}{2}\gamma \{2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \}$$
(18)
with

$$\gamma =2\pi Re[_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega _m\tau }\mathrm{Tr}_{env}\{b_m(\tau )b_m^{}(0)\rho _{env}\}],$$

where $`b_m^{}(b_m)`$ stands for the creation(annihilation) operator of the m-th mode of the environment, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency , and $`\sigma _z(\sigma ^+,\sigma ^{})`$ denote the Pauli matrices. To obtain the form of the master equation given in eq.(9), the environment was assumed to be in its vacuum state. According to eq.(5), $`\sigma _z(t)`$ reads:

$$\sigma _z(t)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (t,0,0)\sigma _z)+\gamma \mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _z)+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^2\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{^2\rho }{\gamma ^2}\sigma _z)+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
The first term in eq.(10) is $`\sigma _z(0)`$. In order to calculate $`\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _z)`$, we first evaluate $`\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\gamma }\sigma _z)`$, it is given that

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\gamma }\sigma _z)=\sigma _z(0).$$
(20)
Using the same procedure as mentioned, we arrive at

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{^2\dot{\rho }}{\gamma ^2}\sigma _z)=2\sigma _z(0)t.$$
(21)
The eqs.(11,12) together give

$$\sigma _z(t)=\sigma _z(0)\gamma t\sigma _z(0)+\frac{\gamma ^2}{2!}t^2\sigma _z(0)+\mathrm{}$$
(22)
Using the algebra of Pauli matrices, we obtain straightforwardly from the master equation that

$$\sigma _z(t)=\sigma _z(0)e^{\gamma t}.$$
(23)
A comparison between eq.(14) and (13) shows that for small $`\gamma `$, the expansions are a quite good approach for the two level dissipative system, and this result is quite general.

Noticing the eq.(13) is expanded in the product of loss rate and time, we present here the other example to show that these expansions are generally in powers of the loss rate, but not in the product of time and the loss rate. Consider the master equation given in eq.(9) As mentioned above, we calculate $`\sigma _z(t)`$ in order to illustrate the advantage of the expansions. The results of $`\sigma _z(t)`$ show no difference between the short-time expansions and the small loss-rate expansions. To show the difference between the two expansions, we calculate $`\sigma _x(t)`$. For simplicity, we only present the results up to first order of $`\gamma `$. It follows from eq.(5) that

$$\sigma _x(t)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (t,0,0)\sigma _x)+\gamma \mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _x)+\mathrm{}$$
(24)
It is easy to show that (setting $`\mathrm{}=1,\sigma _x(0)=1`$)

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (t,0,0)\sigma _x)=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t).$$

In order to compute $`\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _x)`$, we have to calculate $`\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\gamma }\sigma _x)`$. Based on the expansions, we arrive at

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\gamma }\sigma _x)=\mathrm{Tr}(i[H_0,\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _x])+\frac{1}{2}(2\sigma ^{}\rho (t,0,0)\sigma ^+\sigma _x\rho (t,0,0)\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma _x\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho (t,0,0)\sigma _x)a+b.$$

Simple calculation gives

$$a=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _y).$$

As state above, in order to compute $`a`$, we have to calculate $`\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\gamma }\sigma _y).`$ Using the same procedure as above, we show that

$$a=\mathrm{\Omega }^2_0^t𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _x)(\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)1),$$

and

$$b=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t).$$

The results for $`a`$ and $`b`$ together give

$$\frac{^2y(t)}{t^2}+\mathrm{\Omega }^2y(t)=2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t),$$

with $`y(t)\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{\rho }{\gamma }\sigma _x)`$ and initial conditions $`y(t=0)=0,\dot{y}(t)|_{t=0}=1`$. This is a two order differential equation and can be solved easily, once $`y(t)`$ is known, $`\sigma _x(t)`$ up to first order of $`\gamma `$ is given. It is obvious that results given above are indeed different from the short time expansions, since the results given by short time expansions are in powers of time $`t`$.

The results up to first order of $`\gamma `$(15) and an exact numerical results are illustrated in Fig.1. The parameters chosen are $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$, and time is in units of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In Fig.1 the scattering line represents the exact numerical results, whereas the dot line and the solid line show the results from the expansion. The dot line and the solid line are for different $`\gamma `$, and $`\gamma `$ for dot line is smaller than one in solid line, those curves show that the expansions (15) are indeed a good approximation to the exact solution.

We need to point out that for most open systems, average values of meaningful quantities can’t be obtained exactly in any way. Therefore the expansions of the density operator provide a practical approach to the exact solution. For example, consider a single-mode field in a lossy cavity. The density operator for that mode obeys the following master equation in the Schrödinger picture,

$$\dot{\rho }=i[\omega _fa^{}a,\rho ]+\frac{\kappa }{2}(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a),$$
(25)
where $`\kappa `$ is the linewidth of the cavity mode with frequency $`\omega _f`$. In most textbooks, the solution of the master equation is given in terms of diagonal matrix elements $`n|\rho |n`$ in a stationary state. Given an initial condition for the density operator, the evolution of $`\rho `$, however, is more useful than the stationary solution. In what follows, we present a solution of the master equation in a number state (Fock state) basis.

For a high-Q cavity, the linewidth $`\kappa `$ due to partial transmission through one mirror is so small that we can expand $`\rho `$ in powers of $`\kappa `$:

$$\rho (t)=\rho ^0(t)+\frac{\rho }{\kappa }\kappa +\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2\rho }{\kappa ^2}\kappa ^2+\mathrm{},$$
(26)
In a number state basis $`\{|n,n=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}\}`$, the expansion can be written as

$$\rho (t)=\underset{m,n}{}\rho _{mn}^0(t)|mn|+\underset{m,n}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{^k\rho _{mn}}{\kappa ^k}|mn|\kappa ^k.$$
(27)
Here the subscripts on the density operator $`\rho _{mn}`$ indicate matrix elements of $`\rho `$ in the number basis and $`\rho _0`$ is the solution of eq.(16) with $`\kappa =0`$. With this notation, it follows from eqs.(6),(7) and (8) that

$`\rho _{mn}^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{mn}^0(0)e^{i(mn)\omega _ft},`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^k\rho _{mn}}{\kappa ^k}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_k(t)e^{i\omega _f(nm)t}.`$ (29)
This iterative equation gives the density operator expansions of the system under consideration. Here, $`\rho _{mn}(0)`$ stands for the initial condition of $`\rho `$, and

$`c_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}F_k(t^{^{}})e^{i\omega _f(nm)t^{^{}}}𝑑t^{^{}},`$ (30)
$`F_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(n+1)(m+1)}\rho _{m+1,n+1}^0(t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\rho _{mn}^0(t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n\rho _{mn}^0(t),`$ (31)
$`F_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(n+1)(m+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{^{k1}\rho _{m+1,n+1}}{\kappa ^{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m+n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^{k1}\rho _{m,n}}{\kappa ^{k1}}},k=2,3,4\mathrm{}`$ (32)
The master equation in the form (16) is widely used in field-quadrature measurement. As shown in Ref., different approximations to eq.(16) correspond to different measurement schemes, therefore the expansions(6-8) for the density operator provide a new method to develop quantum measurement theory. In contrast to the short time perturbative expansions, the expansions (6-8) hold for finite time as long as the linewidth $`\kappa `$ is small. In other words, whether the expansions hold does not depend on time $`t`$.

In addition to quantum measurement, these expansions have use in high-Q cavity QED. There are many interesting features in cavity QED. One of them is spontaneous emission. Spontaneous emission is so fundamental that it is usually regarded as an inherent property of matter. The master equation for a single atom coupling to a mode of a lossy cavity is given in the interaction picture under rotating-wave and dipole approximations by

$$\dot{\rho _I}=\frac{\gamma }{2}(2\sigma ^{}\rho _I\sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho _I\rho _I\sigma ^+\sigma ^{})+\frac{\kappa }{2}(2a\rho _Ia^{}a^{}a\rho _I\rho _Ia^{}a),$$
(33)
where $`\rho _I`$ stands for the reduced density operator of the system that consists of an atom and a cavity mode, $`\gamma `$ denotes the linewidth of the atom, and $`\kappa `$ describes the loss rate of the cavity.This is different from eq.(9) in which the loss of the single-mode field is neglected. It is well known that the emission spectrum may be expressed in terms of average values of the atom operator $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$. In this sense, we may calculate the average value of the atom operator to replace computing the emission spectrum without any loss of generality. Moreover, the study of many other effects in cavity QED such as atomic dipole squeezing, population trapping, and atomic collapse-and-revival phenomenon may be reduced to calculate and analyse the average value of the atom operator. In the remainder of this paper, based on the expansion scheme, we compute the average value of an atom operator given by $`A=\lambda ^{(+)}\sigma ^++\lambda ^{()}\sigma ^{}+\lambda ^{(z)}\sigma _z`$. For this end, we first of all list the expansions of the density operator $`\rho _I(t)`$ in the interaction picture

$`\rho _I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _I^0(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _I(t)}{\kappa }}\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _I(t)}{\gamma }}\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho _I(t)}{\kappa ^2}}\kappa ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho _I(t)}{\gamma ^2}}\gamma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\rho _I(t)}{\gamma \kappa }}\gamma \kappa +\mathrm{}`$ (34)
Here,

$$\dot{\rho }_I^0(t)=0,$$

$$\frac{\dot{\rho _I}(t)}{\gamma }=\frac{1}{2}(2\sigma ^{}\rho _I^0(t)\sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho _I^0(t)\rho _I^0(t)\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}),$$

$$\frac{\dot{\rho _I}(t)}{\kappa }=\frac{1}{2}(2a\rho _I^0(t)a^{}a^{}a\rho _I^0(t)\rho _I^0(t)a^{}a),$$

$$\frac{^2\dot{\rho _I}(t)}{\gamma ^2}=\frac{1}{2}(2\sigma ^{}\frac{\rho _I}{\gamma }\sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\frac{\rho _I}{\gamma }\frac{\rho _I}{\gamma }\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}),$$

$$\frac{^2\dot{\rho _I}(t)}{\kappa ^2}=\frac{1}{2}(2a\frac{\rho _I}{\kappa }a^{}a^{}a\frac{\rho _I}{\kappa }\frac{\rho _I}{\kappa }a^{}a),$$

$$\frac{^2\dot{\rho _I}(t)}{\gamma \kappa }=\frac{1}{2}(2\sigma ^{}\frac{\rho _I}{\kappa }\sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\frac{\rho _I}{\kappa }\frac{\rho _I}{\kappa }\sigma ^+\sigma ^{})+\frac{1}{2}(2a\frac{\rho _I}{\gamma }a^{}a^{}a\frac{\rho _I}{\gamma }\frac{\rho _I}{\gamma }a^{}a).$$

It is easy to show that for any atom operator $`A`$,

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{^n\dot{\rho }_I(t)}{\kappa ^n}A)=\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{^n\dot{\rho }_I(t)}{\kappa ^m\gamma ^{nm}}A)=0$$
(35)
for $`nm0`$, while

$`\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\rho }_I}{\gamma }}A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^0(t)B)`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{^n\dot{\rho }_I}{\gamma ^n}}A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{^{n1}\rho _I}{\gamma ^{n1}}}B),`$ (37)
where $`B=4\lambda ^{(+)}\sigma ^+4\lambda ^{()}\sigma ^{}.`$ Eqs.(23) and (24) suggest that the average value for any atom operator can be calculated analytically as an expansion in powers of $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma `$, provided $`\rho ^0(t)`$ (the zeroth order density operator in the Schrödinger picture) is known. Generally speaking, given a initial condition for $`\rho `$, the $`\rho ^0(t)`$ that obeys the von Neumann equation can be given readily. In the model presented above, the von Neumann equation is given by

$$\dot{\rho }^0=i[H_0,\rho ^0],$$
(38)
Where $`H_0`$ denotes the free Hamiltonian for the cavity-atom system (Jaynes-Cummings model)

$$H_0=\omega _fa^{}a+\frac{1}{2}\omega _a\sigma _z+g(a^{}\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^+a).$$
(39)
If the cavity-atom system is initially in a state $`|e,n=|e|n`$, i.e. the atom is in its excited state, while the single-mode cavity is in the number state $`|n`$, then $`\rho ^0(t)`$ reads

$$\rho ^0(t)=|\psi ^0(t)\psi ^0(t)|,$$
(40)
where

$`|\psi ^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{n+1}(e^{iE_+(n+1)t}e^{iE_{}(n+1)t})|g,n+1`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_+(n+1)t}+\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_{}(n+1)t})|e,n.`$ (42)
$$E_\pm (n+1)=\frac{\omega _f}{2}(2n+1)\pm \sqrt{\delta ^2+g^2(n+1)},\theta _{n+1}=arctg\frac{2g\sqrt{n+1}}{\delta },\delta =\omega _f\omega _a.$$
(43)
It follows from eq.(6,7,8) that

$`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^0(t)A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _0(t)B)+\lambda ^{(z)}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{|\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_+(n+1)t}+\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_{}(n+1)t}|^2`$ (44)
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{n+1}\mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{\delta ^2+g^2(n+1)}t)\}`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{Tr}(B\rho ^0(t))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{2\lambda ^{(+)}\mathrm{sin}\theta _n(e^{iE_+(n)t}e^{iE_{}(n)t})`$ (46)
$`(\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_+(n+1)t}+\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_{}(n+1)t})`$ (47)
$`2\lambda ^{()}(\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_+(n+1)t}+\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{n+1}}{2}}e^{iE_{}(n+1)t})`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _n(e^{iE_+(n)t}e^{iE_{}(n)t})\}.`$ (49)
Then successive perturbative terms of average value up to second order of $`\gamma `$ for an atom operator are given by

$$A(t)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _0(t)A)+\frac{\gamma }{2}_0^t\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^0(t^{^{}})B)𝑑t^{^{}}\frac{\gamma ^2}{2}_0^t𝑑t^{^{}}_0^t^{^{}}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^0(t^{^{\prime \prime }})B)𝑑t^{^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{}.$$
(50)
Based on the short-time expansion, $`A(t)=\mathrm{Tr}(A\rho (t))A_0+A_1t+A_2t^2+\mathrm{}`$, in powers of $`t`$, where $`A_0=\mathrm{Tr}(A\rho (0))`$, $`A_1=\mathrm{Tr}(A\frac{\rho }{t}(0))`$ and $`A_2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(A\frac{^2\rho }{t^2}(0)).`$ This is quite different from the results given by eq.(31).

Although we are currently investigating the perturbative expansion for an open system, we opt here for a few qualitative comments. Mathematically, the perturbative expansion is a good approach to the exact solution of the master equation so long as loss rates $`\gamma `$ and $`\kappa `$ are smaller than all other internal coupling constants of the system. This condition holds for high-Q cavities from the physical point of view. In fact, an optical cavity of $``$ 20$`\mu m`$ diameter has $`g/2\pi 125MHz`$ and $`\kappa /2\pi 100KHz`$ for reasonable $`Q10^9`$. Thus the ratio $`g/\kappa 10^3`$. Even $`g/\kappa 10^4`$ seems feasible for microspheres. Generally, in the optical domain $`g/\gamma 10^2`$, great enough for the perturbative expansion in powers of $`\gamma `$ to hold.

In the end of this paper, we turn our attention to study the decoherence in $`N`$ two-level atoms. This problem is usually related to the register in quantum computer. A few papers have been published on this subject , but a key additional feature of the present paper is to study the decoherence from a new aspect. If the system consists of $`N`$ two-level atoms, the decoherence is due to the inevitable coupling of the $`N`$ atoms to the external environment. Generally, the environment may be treated as that consists of an infinite number of oscillators. The Hamiltonian describing such decoherence process takes the form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_s+H_{env}+H_I,`$ (51)
$`H_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\sigma _i^z,`$ (52)
$`H_{env}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _kb_k^{}b_k,`$ (53)
$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(g_{ki}b_k^{}\sigma _i^{}+h.c.),`$ (54)
where $`\sigma _i^\alpha `$ are the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Pauli operators ($`i`$ denotes the qubit index) and $`b_k,b_k^{}`$ are the bosonic operators, $`H_s`$, $`H_{env}`$ are the free Hamiltonian of the system and the environment, respectively. And $`H_I`$ stands for the $`N`$ qubits-environment interaction. This model is closely related to the Dicke maser model. The Hamiltonian (32) is complicated so it is hard to find its exact solution though the Hilbert space associated with this model can split into invariant eigenspaces. Fortunately, with the perturbative approach created in the previous section, the complex system can be easily treated. To start with, we give the master equation of the system

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`i[H,\rho ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}K_i(2\sigma _i^{}\rho \sigma _i^+\rho \sigma _i^+\sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^+\sigma _i^{}\rho )\}`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}G_i(2\sigma _i^+\rho \sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^+\rho \rho \sigma _i^{}\sigma _i^+)\}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`i[H,\rho ]+\rho .`$ (57)
Here

$$K_m=2Re𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\tau }\mathrm{Tr}_{env}\{A_m(\tau )A_m^{}(0)\rho _{env}\},$$

$$G_m=2Re𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }_m\tau }\mathrm{Tr}_{env}\{A_m^{}(\tau )A_m(0)\rho _{env}\},$$

$$A_m(\tau )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}g_{mj}b_je^{i\omega _j\tau }.$$

In the case of so-called Dicke limit, $`A_m`$ does not depend on the atom index $`m`$. This holds, for example, when the typical environment wavelengths are much greater than the distances between the atoms.

In order to study the decoherence of the atoms, we assume that the initial state of the system is

$$|\psi _m=S_m^+|0+\underset{j=m+1}{\overset{N}{}}|0),$$
(58)
where $`S_m^+=_{j=1}^{mN}\sigma _j^+|0`$, and $`|0=|0_1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N`$ stands for the lower state of the atoms. Eq.(34) indicates that there are $`m`$ atoms in the upper state $`|1`$, and the rest of the $`N`$ atoms are in their lower state. With those initial conditions, the probability of the atoms remaining in the initial state is given by $`F_m(t)`$

$$F_m(t)=1\frac{K}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K1}}\frac{K^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K2}}\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G1}}\frac{G^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G2}}\frac{GK}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GK}}+O(G^3)+O(K^3),$$
(59)
with

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K1}}=t[2+2(2mN)],$$

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K2}}=t^2[2+2(2mN)],$$

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G1}}=t[22(2mN)],$$

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G2}}=t^2[22(2mN)],$$

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{GK}}=\frac{1}{2}GKt^2[4(2mN)4].$$

Here, we suppose that all qubits are alike, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`K_m=K`$ and $`G_m=G`$. $`G`$ and $`K=G+1`$ depend on environment temperature $`T`$ through $`G=1/[exp(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }/kT)1]`$, which indicate that the probability decrease with the temperature increasing. In fact, the fidelity in the field of quantum information is nothing but an overlap between the initial and final state of the qubits(two-level system). Eq. (35) suggests that the fidelity depends on $`m`$ i.e. the number of the atoms in upper state initially. And to get the maximum of the fidelity, the variable $`m`$ should be taken as small as possible.

To sum up, in this paper, we construct the small-loss rate perturbative expansion for the density operator of an open system. The expansions provide a quite good approach to the exact solution in case the master equation of the system can not be solved exactly. As an interesting application of this expansions, we used it to calculate some average values such as $`\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _x`$ in dissipative two-level system, the expansions of the density operator for a single-mode field in a lossy cavity are also presented, and the dynamical property in $`N`$ two-level atom system.

In addition, the other meaningful quantities of the open system such as energy, occupation probability etc. can be expanded in the same spirit of the density operator, so long as the master equation of the system is known.

Figure captions
Fig.1: $`\sigma _x(t)`$ vs time $`t`$, the parameter chosen is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$. The scattering line represent the exact numerical results, whereas the solid line and the dot line show the results from the expansion, $`\gamma `$ in the solid line and the dot line is different, dot line:$`\gamma =0.01`$,solid line:$`\gamma =0.05`$.