text:
# Coherent States of Non-Linear Algebras: Applications to Quantum Optics.

## 1 Introduction

Till recently, in quantum optics, only linear Lie algebras have been used to give mutiphoton coherent (including squeezed) states . It is well-known that if we have bilinear Hamiltonians for two mode radiation fields characterized by operators $`a`$, $`b`$, $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$, then the simplest types of coherent states that can be constructed are the product states $`|\alpha >|\beta >`$ where $`|\alpha >`$ and $`|\beta >`$ are the eigenstates corresponding to $`a`$ and $`b`$ respectively. However, if the system has an added symmetry or conservation law, then, a set of coherent states restricted by the extra symmetry can be constructed, by a suitable projection from the ordinary product states. Examples of such coherent states include the coherent states of a radiation field with arbitrary polarization such that $`a^{}a+b^{}b`$ is conserved. Here, the symmetry algebra is $`SU\left(2\right)`$, and the corresponding states are the $`SU\left(2\right)`$ coherent states . In the frequency conversion of photons of a given frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into two photons of frequencies $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$, when the two photons are created or destroyed together such that the operator $`Q=a^{}ab^{}b`$ is conserved, the relevant states are the ‘pair coherent states’ or the SU(1,1) ‘Barut-Girardello (BG)’ states. . The symmetry algebra in this case is $`SU(1,1)`$, defined by $`K_+=a^{}b^{},K_{}=ab,K_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{}a+b^{}b+1\right)`$ and the Casimir operator $`C=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\left(a^{}ab^{}b\right)^2\right)=\frac{1}{4}\left(1Q^2\right)`$. The coherent states are the simultaneous eigenstates of $`K_{}`$ and $`C`$. Other coherent states are the SU(1,1) Perelomov  states, $`\lambda >=e^{\left(\lambda K_+\lambda ^{}K_{}\right)}0,0>`$ ,which are the ‘Caves-Schumaker’ states that represent two-mode squeezing . A third set of eigenstates $`A\psi >=\left(uK_0+\nu K_{}+cK_+\right)\psi >=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\psi >`$ called algebraic coherent states have also been constructed by Agarwal, Shanta et.al , Trifonov  and others . The BG states can be produced by a dissipative process governed by Hamiltonians of the form $`H=H_0+\omega _1ab+\omega _1^{}a^{}b^{}=H_0+H_{int}`$, as the steady states of the master equation $`\frac{d\rho }{dt}=[\rho ,H_{int}]`$. The $`SU(1,1)`$ Perelomov states represent the time evolution of the same Hamiltonian. Thus, the corresponding Lie algebraic structure has proved instrumental in studying the quantum optical properties of two mode radiation fields.

We show, in this paper, that when one has Hamiltonians representing interactions of multimode radiation fields, i.e., three or more modes, then the dynamical symmetry algebra of the Hamiltonian becomes a polynomially deformed algebra. The deformation is quadratic for the three mode case and cubic for the four mode case. The quadratic algebra was discovered by Sklyanin , in the context of statistical physics and field theory . It was shown to be the symmetry algebra of a two-dimensional anisotropic harmonic oscillator and the isotropic harmonic oscillator in curved space . The well-known Higgs algebra, a cubic algebra, occurs in the study of the dynamical symmetries of the Coulomb problem in a space of constant curvature. These algebras have now found a place in quantum optics with the observation that quantum optical Hamiltonians describing multiphoton processes have symmetries which can be described by polynomially deformed SU(1,1) and SU(2) algebras .

A polynomial deformation of a Lie algebra is defined in the following fashion in the Cartan-Weyl basis,

$$[H,E_\pm ]=\pm E_\pm ,[E_+,E_{}]=f\left(H\right),$$
(1)
where $`f\left(H\right)`$ is a polynomial function of $`H`$. The corresponding Casimir can be written in the form ,

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`E_{}E_++g\left(H\right),`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`E_+E_{}+g\left(H1\right),`$
where,

$$f\left(H\right)=g\left(H\right)g\left(H1\right).$$
(3)
The form of $`g\left(H\right)`$ can be determined up to the addition of a constant. The eigenstates are characterized by the values of the Casimir operator and the Cartan subalgebra $`H`$.

In particular, a polynomial deformation of $`SL(2,R)`$ is of the form $`N_0=J_0`$, $`N_+=F(J_0,J)J_+`$, $`N_{}=F(J_0,J)J_{}`$, where the $`J_i`$’s are the ordinary $`SL(2,R)`$ generators. The commutation relations are $`[N_0,N_\pm ]=\pm N_\pm `$ and $`[N_+,N_{}]=F\left(N_0\right)`$ . When $`F\left(N_0\right)`$ is quadratic in $`N_0`$ the algebra is called a quadratic algebra and if it is cubic in $`N_0`$ the ”Higgs” algebra results.

As an example of occurrence of non-linear algebras in quantum optics, consider the triboson Hamiltonian

$$H=\omega _aa^{}a+\omega _bb^{}b+\omega _cc^{}c+\kappa ab^{}c^{}+\kappa ^{}a^{}bc.$$
(4)
Physically, for this Hamlitonian, $`a`$,$`b`$ and $`c`$ represent the pump, signal and idler modes for parametric amplification and the idler, pump and signal modes in frequency conversion. Raman and Brillouin scattering can be described by $`H`$, if $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ represent input, vibrational and Stokes modes for a Stokes process and anti-Stokes, input and vibrational modes for an anti-Stokes process. It also represents the interaction of N identical two-level atoms with a single mode radiation field. This has been considered by many authors  by ordinary linear Lie algebraic methods leading to approximate results for specific cases. Infinite dimensional Lie algebraic techinques have also been attempted and the physics has been extracted by a truncation of these algebras, hence the results obtained have again been approximate, with a number of assumptions .

In this paper, we show that this Hamiltonian and its generalizations have a non-linear algebra as its dynamical symmetry algebra and the construction of the coherent states is straightforward using the representation theory of these algebras. Furthermore, all three types of coherent states can be constructed on the basis of our method. We shall show that this Hamiltonian is formed by operators which obey a finite quadratic polynomial deformation of $`SL(2,R)`$ and the construction of CS for this Hamiltonian is a fairly straightforward process based on the undeformed algebra.

For the Hamiltonian given in equation (4), let $`a`$ represent a pump system and $`b`$ and $`c`$ represent the signal and idler variables. The interaction Hamiltonian between the pump and signal-idler subsystem is given by

$$H_{int}=\kappa ab^{}c^{}+\kappa ^{}a^{}bc.$$
(5)
Energy conservation requires that $`\omega _a=\omega _b+\omega _c`$. If the signal and idler frequencies are equal then $`\omega _b=\frac{\omega _a}{2}`$ and $`\omega _c=\frac{\omega _b}{2}`$ with, $`H_0^{free}=\omega _a\left(a^{}a+\frac{b^{}b+c^{}c}{2}\right)`$.

The generators of the polynomial quadratic algebra are defined by the operators

$$J_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{}aK_0\right)$$
(6)
$$J_{}=ab^{}c^{}=aK_+$$
(7)
$$J_+=a^{}bc=a^{}K_{}$$
(8)
where $`K_0`$, $`K_{}`$ and $`K_+`$ form SU(1,1) generators. The algebra closes only if we define an additional conserved quantity $`H_0`$ given by :

$$H_0=\frac{a^{}a+K_0}{2}.$$
(9)
Since $`H_0`$ is related to $`H_0^{free}`$ through $`H_0^{free}=2H_0\frac{1}{2}`$, we see that physically this condition is satisfied. In fact, $`H_0`$ can also be related to the Manley-Rowe invariants of the system. The algebra is given by:

$$[J_+,J_{}]=3J_0^2+\left(2H_01\right)J_0C_{bc}\left(K_0\right)+H_0\left(H_0+1\right)$$
(10)
Where $`C_{bc}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\left(b^{}bc^{}c\right)^2}{4}=\frac{1Q^2}{4}`$ is the Casimir operator for the idler-signal system , for which Q is a conserved quantity. For the case special $`b^{}bc^{}c=0`$ , $`C_{bc}=\frac{1}{4}.`$

The two commuting generators are then $`H_0`$ and $`J_0`$ and a general eigenstate of the system is labelled by the quantum numbers corresponding to their eigenvalues and is given by $`|h_0,j_0>`$. Similarly, the symmetry algebra for four photon processes is a Higgs algebra.

For general multiphoton Hamiltonians:

$$H=H_0+\kappa \left(a_0\right)^m\left(a_1^{}\right)^n+c.c$$
(11)
we can define $`N_0,N_{},N_+`$ in an analogous way

$`N_+`$ $`=`$ $`a_0^m\left(a_1^{}\right)^n`$
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1^n\left(a_0^{}\right)^m`$
$`N_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m+n}}\left(a_1^{}a_1a_0^{}a_0\right)`$ (12)
and show that we get n-dimensional polynomial algebras as the symmetry algebra if $`H_0=\frac{1}{m+n}\left(a_0^{}a_0+a_1^{}a_1\right)`$ is conserved.

Similarly n-photon Dicke Models with Hamiltonians of the form:

$$H=H_0+\kappa \underset{i}{}\sigma _{}\left(i\right)\left(a_1^{}\right)^n+\kappa ^{}\underset{i}{}\sigma _+\left(i\right)\left(a_1\right)^n$$
(13)
with

$`N_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma _0\left(i\right)a_1^{}a_1`$
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma _{}\left(i\right)\left(a_1^{}\right)^n`$
$`N_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _+\left(i\right)\left(a_1\right)^n`$ (14)
satisfying a polynomial Lie Algebra of order n if $`H_0=ϵ_i^n\sigma _0\left(i\right)+w_1a_1^{}a_1`$ is conserved.

We present a unified approach for finding the coherent states (CS) of these algebras . Apart from its application to quantum optics, the method of construction presented here is quite general and will greatly facilitate the physical applications of these algebras to many quantum mechanical problems. This method is a generalisation to non-linear algebras of the procedure for constructing multiphoton states outlined in reference . For ordinary Lie algebras, the construction of the CS for the non-compact cases, was shown to be a two step procedure . First, the canonical conjugate of the lowering operator were found and the CS of these algebras were obtained by the action of the exponential of the respective conjugate operators on the vacuum . This method was in complete parallel to the one used for constructing the coherent states for harmonic oscillator algebras. Another CS, dual to the first one, naturally follows from the above construction. Here, we generalise the above construction to non-linear algebras and provide a mapping between the deformed algebras and their undeformed counterparts. This mapping is utilized to find the CS in the Perelomov sense. Apart from obtaining the known CS of the $`SU(1,1)`$ algebra, we construct the CS for the quadratic and cubic polynomial algebras. Other coherent states in the literature which are essentially special cases of this construction are the ‘f-oscillator states’  and the non-linear states $`f\left(N_0\right)a|\lambda >=\lambda |\lambda >`$, which have been shown to be useful for the trapped ion problem. While these are non-linear harmonic oscillator coherent states, the CS that we construct may be called non linear SU(1,1) (or SU(2)) coherent states. These states would give a multi-mode generalization of the type $`f(n_a,n_b)a^nb^m|\lambda >=\lambda |\lambda >`$, as one of the possible coherent states. Thus our construction encompasses existing non-linear states and allows for the construction of new physical states. One such state, for example, is the case n=1 and m=1, which is a two-mode realization of the non-linear coherent states. Our method is quite general and encompasses q-deformations  of linear Lie algebras. In this work, we concentrate on finite, polynomial SU(2) and SU(1,1) algebras, in view of their importance in quantum optics.

## 2 Construction of Coherent States of Non-Linear Algebras:Formalism.

Having seen that polynomially deformed algebras occur in a large class of systems, we now give the formalism for the construction of coherent states of these algebras. For the purpose of clarity, we start with Lie Algebras and then extend the method to the deformed algebras in a straightforward way. In the next section, we shall show how this formalism can be used to explicitly construct the coherent states for application to mutiphoton processes.

We introduce our method by first considering SU(1,1) for which the generators satisfy the commutation relations

$$[K_+,K_{}]=2K_0,[K_0,K_\pm ]=\pm K_\pm .$$
(15)
Thus for this case one finds, $`f\left(K_0\right)=2K_0`$ and $`g\left(K_0\right)=K_0\left(K_0+1\right)`$. The quadratic Casimir operator is given by $`C=K_{}K_++g\left(K_0\right)=K_{}K_+K_0\left(K_0+1\right)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{K_+}`$, the canonical conjugate of $`K_{}`$, satisfying

$$[K_{},\stackrel{~}{K_+}]=1,$$
(16)
can be written in the form,

$$\stackrel{~}{K_+}=K_+F(C,K_0).$$
(17)
Eq.(17) then yields,

$$F(C,K_0)K_{}K_+F(C,K_01)K_+K_{}=1;$$
(18)
making use of the Casimir operator relation given earlier, one can solve for $`F(C,K_0)`$ in the form,

$$F(C,K_0)=\frac{K_0+\alpha }{C+K_0\left(K_0+1\right)}.$$
(19)
The constant, arbitrary, parameter $`\alpha `$ in F can be determined by demanding that Eq.$`\left(17\right)`$ be valid in the entire Hilbert space.

For the purpose of illustration, we demonstrate our method, by using the one oscillator realization of the $`SU(1,1)`$ generators $`K_{}=a^2`$,$`K_+=a^^2`$, $`K_0=\frac{1}{4}\left(aa^{}+a^{}a\right)`$. Since the coherent states of this realization have been studied extensively in the literature , this provides a good testing ground for our method. The ground states defined by $`K_{}0>=\frac{1}{2}a^20>=0`$, are, $`0>`$ and $`1>=a^{}0>`$, in terms of the oscillator Fock space.

$$K_00>=\frac{1}{4}\left(2a^{}a+1\right)0>=\frac{1}{4}0>,$$
(20)
and

$$C0>=\frac{3}{16}0>.$$
(21)
Thus $`[K_{},\stackrel{~}{K_+}]0>=K_{}\stackrel{~}{K_+}0>`$ yields $`\alpha =\frac{3}{4}`$.

Similarly, for the other ground state $`|1>`$,

$$[K_{},\stackrel{~}{K_+}]1>=1>,$$
(22)
leads to $`\alpha =\frac{1}{4}`$.
Hence, there are two disjoint sectors characterized by the $`\alpha `$ values $`\frac{3}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}`$, respectively. These results match identically with the earlier known ones , once we rewrite $`F`$ as,

$$F(C,K_0)=\frac{K_0+\alpha }{C+K_0\left(K_0+1\right)},$$
(23)
$$=\frac{K_0+\alpha }{K_{}K_+}.$$
(24)
The unnormalized coherent state $`\beta >`$, which is the annihilation operator eigenstate, i.e, $`K_{}\beta >=\beta \beta >`$, is given in the vacuum sector $`|0>`$ by

$$\beta >=e^{\beta \stackrel{~}{K^+}}0>.$$
(25)
For the vacuum sector $`|1>`$, where $`\alpha =\frac{1}{4}`$, a similar construction holds. These states, which provide a realization of the Cat states, play a prominent role in quantum measurement theory. The canonical conjugate $`\stackrel{~}{K_+}`$ such that:

$$[\stackrel{~}{K_+^{}},K_+]=1.$$
(26)
can be constructed, as in ref.  from this, one can find the eigenstate of $`\stackrel{~}{K_+^{}}`$ operator, in the form,

$$\gamma >=e^{\gamma K_+}0>.$$
(27)
This CS, after proper normalization, is the well-known Yuen (squeezed) state: $`e^{\mu a^^2\mu ^{}a^2}`$, with $`\gamma =\frac{\mu }{\left|\mu \right|}tanh\left(\left|\mu \right|\right)`$ . Our construction can be easily generalized to various other realizations of the $`SU(1,1)`$ algebra, such as the two mode realization, where the corresponding states are the Pair coherent and Perelomov(Cave-Schumaker) states.

We now extend the above procedure to the quadratic algebra, which is the relevant algebra in considering the coherent states of trilinear boson Hamiltonians . The algebra is given by:

$$[J_0,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm ,[J_+,J_{}]=+\left(2H_01\right)J_03J_0^2\frac{1q^2}{4}+H_0\left(H_0+1\right).$$
(28)
where the positive or negative sign of ($`2H_01`$) determines whether the algebra is a quadratic deformation of $`SU\left(2\right)`$ or $`SU(1,1)`$ respectively.

In this case,

$`f_1\left(J_0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2H_01\right)J_03J_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1Q^2}{4}}+H_0\left(H_0+1\right)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`g_1\left(J_0\right)g_1\left(J_01\right),`$
where

$$g_1\left(J_0\right)=J_0\left[H_0\left(H_0+1\right)\frac{1Q^2}{4}+\left(H_0\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(J_0+1\right)\right]J_0\left(J_0+1\right)\left(J_0+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(30)
In this case we have three different vacua, $`h_0,h_0+\frac{q}{2}>`$, $`h_0,h_0\frac{q}{2}>`$ and $`h_0,h_0>`$ where $`h_0`$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $`H_0`$ and q is the eigenvalue of $`Q=b^{}bc^{}c`$.

This is a special case of the general quadratic algebra:

$$[N_0,N_\pm ]=\pm N_\pm ,[N_+,N_{}]=\pm 2bN_0+aN_0^2+c.$$
(31)
In this case, $`f_1\left(N_0\right)=\pm 2bN_0+aN_0^2+c=g_1\left(N_0\right)g_1\left(N_01\right)`$. with $`g_1\left(N_0\right)=\frac{a}{3}N_0\left(N_0+1\right)\left(N_0+\frac{1}{2}\right)+N_0\left(c\pm b\left(N_0+1\right)\right)`$.

The representation theory of the quadratic algebra has been studied in the literature,. It shows a rich structure depending on the values of ‘a’. In the non-compact case, i.e, for polynomial deformations of $`SU(1,1)`$, the unitary irreducible representations (UIREP) are either bounded below or above, we can construct the canonical conjugate $`\stackrel{~}{N_+}`$ of $`N_{}`$ such that $`[N_{},\stackrel{~}{N_+}]=1`$. It is given by $`\stackrel{~}{N_+}=N_+F_1(C,N_0)`$, with

$$F_1(C,N_0)=\frac{N_0+\delta }{C\left(N_0\right)\frac{a}{3}N_0\left(N_01\right)\left(N_0+\frac{1}{2}\right)N_0\left(c\pm b\left(N_0+1\right)\right)}.$$
(32)
As can be seen easily, in the case of the finite dimensional UIREP, $`\stackrel{~}{N_+}`$ is not well defined since $`F_1(C,N_0)`$ diverges on the highest state. The values of $`\delta `$ can be fixed by demanding that the relation, $`[N_{},\stackrel{~}{N_+}]=1`$, holds in the vacuum sector $`v_i>`$, where , $`v_i>`$’s are annihilated by $`N_{}`$. This gives $`N_{}\stackrel{~}{N_+}v_i>=v_i>`$, which leads to $`\left(N_0+\delta \right)v_i>=v_i>`$. The value of the Casimir operator, $`C=N_{}N_++g_1\left(N_0\right)`$, can then be calculated. Hence, the unnormalized coherent state $`\alpha >`$, such that $`N_{}\alpha >=\alpha \alpha >`$ is given by $`e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{N_+}}v_i>`$. We can define the canonical conjugate of $`N_+`$ by $`[\stackrel{~}{N_+^{}},N_+]=1`$. The other coherent state is $`\gamma >=e^{\gamma N_+}\stackrel{~}{v}_i>`$ , where $`\stackrel{~}{N_+^{}}|\stackrel{~}{v}_i>=0`$. Depending on whether the UIREP is infinite or finite dimensional, this quadratic algebra can also be mapped onto the $`SU(1,1)`$ and $`SU\left(2\right)`$ algebras, respectively. Leaving aside the commutators not affected by this mapping, one gets,

$$[N_+,\overline{N_{}}]=2bN_0;$$
(33)
where $`b=1`$ corresponds to the $`SU(1,1)`$ and $`b=1`$ gives the $`SU\left(2\right)`$ algebra. Explicitly,

$$\overline{N_{}}=N_{}G_1(C,N_0),$$
(34)
and

$$G_1(C,N_0)=\frac{\left(N_0^2N_0\right)b+ϵ}{Cg_1\left(N_01\right)},$$
(35)
$`ϵ`$ being an arbitrary constant. One can immediately construct CS in the Perelomov sense (see page 73-74 in ref) as $`|\xi >=Uv_i>`$, where $`U=e^{\eta N_+\eta ^{}\overline{N_{}}}`$, with $`\xi =\frac{\eta }{\left|\eta \right|}tanh\left(\left|\eta \right|\right)`$. For the compact case, the CS are analogous to the spin and atomic coherent states.

The cubic algebra, which is also popularly known as the Higgs algebra in the literature, appears in the study of the Coulomb problem in a curved space and in quantum optics for quadrilinear boson Hamiltonians. The generators satisfy,

$$[M_0,M_\pm ]=\pm M_\pm ,[M_+,M_{}]=2cM_0+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}hM_0^3,$$
(36)
where, $`f_2\left(M_0\right)=2cM_0+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}hM_0^3=g_2\left(M_0\right)g_2\left(M_01\right)`$, and

$$g_2\left(M_0\right)=cM_0\left(M_0+1\right)+hM_0^2\left(M_0+1\right)^2.$$
(37)
Analysis of its representation theory yields a variety of UIREP’s, both finite and infinite dimensional, depending on the values of the parameters $`c`$ and $`h`$ . In the non-compact case the canonical conjugate is given by,

$$\stackrel{~}{M_+}=M_+F_2(C,M_0),$$
(38)
where,

$$F_2(C,M_0)=\frac{M_0+\zeta }{CcM_0\left(M_0+1\right)hM_0^2\left(M_0+1\right)^2}.$$
(39)
As before, the annihilation operator eigenstate is given by

$$\rho >_i=e^{\rho \stackrel{~}{M_+}}p_i>,$$
(40)
where, $`p_i>`$ are the states annihilated by $`M_{}`$. Like the previous cases, the dual algebra yields another coherent state. This algebra can also be mapped in to $`SU(1,1)`$ and $`SU\left(2\right)`$ algebras, as has been done for the quadratic case:

$$[M_+,\overline{M_{}}]=2dM_0,$$
(41)
where, $`d=1`$ and $`d=1`$ correspond to the $`SU(1,1)`$ and $`SU\left(2\right)`$ algebras respectively. Here,

$$\overline{M_{}}=M_{}G_2(C,M_0),$$
(42)
where,

$$G_2(C,M_0)=\frac{\left(M_0^2M_0\right)d+\sigma }{Cg_2\left(M_01\right)},$$
(43)
$`\sigma `$ being a constant. The coherent state in the Perelomov sense is then $`\zeta >=Up_i>`$, where, $`U=e^{\zeta M_+\zeta ^{}\overline{M_{}}}`$. In earlier works on non-linear algebras, the generators of the deformed algebra have been written in terms of the undeformed ones. However, in our approach the undeformed $`SU(1,1)`$ and $`SU\left(2\right)`$ generators are constructed from the deformed generators.

## 3 Explicit Construction of the Coherent States for Physical Application.

We now give an outline of the method of explicit construction of coherent states for general multiphoton processes for which the generators satisfy the algebra : $`[N_0,N_\pm ]=\pm N_\pm `$ and $`\left[N_+N_{}\right]=g\left(N_0\right)g\left(N_01\right)`$

The action on eigenstates of $`N_0`$ is given by

$$N_0j,m>=\left(j+m\right)j,m>$$
(44)
$$N_+j,m>=\sqrt{C\left(j\right)g\left(j+m\right)}j,m+1>$$
(45)
$$N_{}j,m>=\sqrt{C\left(j\right)g\left(j+m1\right)}j,m1>$$
(46)
where $`C\left(j\right)=g\left(j1\right)`$.
Depending on the order of the polynomial algebra n, there will be n+1 degenerate states annihilated by $`N_{}`$. We denote these as $`|j,0>_i`$. For each, the vaule of $`\delta =\delta _i`$ is appropriately chosen as shown earlier.

The coherent state is given by

$`\alpha >`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{N_+}}j,0>_i`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}}\left(N_+\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{N_0+\delta _i}{g\left(j1\right)g\left(N_0\right)}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{N_0+n1+\delta _i}{g\left(j1\right)g\left(N_0+n1\right)}}j,0>`$
$`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\alpha ^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left(g\left(j1\right)g\left(j\right)\right)\mathrm{}\left(g\left(j1\right)g\left(j+n1\right)\right)}}}j,n>`$
‘A’ being the normalization constant.

A discussion of coherent states is incomplete without showing that these states do give a resolution of the identity and that they are overcomplete. From the resolution of the identity we have:

$$𝑑\sigma (\alpha ^{},\alpha )|\alpha \alpha |=\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(48)
Within the polar decomposition ansatz

$$d\sigma (\alpha ^{},\alpha )=\sigma \left(r\right)d\theta rdr$$
(49)
with $`r=\left|\alpha \right|`$ and an yet unknown positive density $`\sigma `$ which provides the measure. For the general case we have:

$$2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}dr\sigma \left(r\right)r^{2n+1}=A(g(j1)g\left(j\right))\mathrm{}..(g(j1)g(j+n1))$$
(50)
For the various cases the substitution of the explicit value of g(j) then reduces the expression on the R.H.S to a rational function of Gamma Functions and the measure $`\sigma `$ can be found by an inverse Mellin transform. For the general case the measure is a Meijer’s G-function. The fact that these states are overcomplete (i.e; $`<\beta |\alpha >0`$) can be shown for explicit examples. This we shall later show in the case of a quadratic algebra.

We now construct the state explicitly for purposes of application. First we show that, this method indeed, gives us the well known SU(1,1) Barut-Girardello (pair coherent) states for SU(1,1) in the familair form . The action on Hilbert Space of the generators is given in the original BG representation by:

$$K_0\varphi >=\left(\varphi +m\right)\varphi ,m>,$$
(51)
$$K_+\varphi ,m>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\left(m+1\right)\left(2\varphi +m\right)}\varphi ,m+1>,$$
(52)
$$K_{}\varphi ,m>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{m\left(2\varphi +m1\right)}\varphi ,m1>.$$
(53)
There are two vacuua annihilated by $`K_{}`$, they correspond to $`\varphi ,0>`$ and $`\varphi ,2\varphi +1>`$. The coherent state $`\alpha >`$ constructed on the vacuum $`\varphi ,0>`$ gives us, $`\delta =\varphi +1`$, so that $`\left(N_0+\delta \right)\varphi ,0>=\varphi ,0>`$ and the resulting coherent state is:

$$\alpha >=e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{K_+}}\varphi ,0>$$
(54)
where, $`[K_{},\stackrel{~}{K_+}]=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K_+}=K_+F(C,K_0)`$ with

$$F(C,K_0)=\frac{K_0+\delta }{Cg\left(K_0\right)}=\frac{K_0+\delta }{C+\frac{1}{2}K_0\left(K_0+1\right)}.$$
(55)
Hence

$$\alpha >=\underset{n}{}\frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}\left(K_+F(C,K_0)\right)^n\varphi ,0>=\underset{n}{}\frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}\left(K_+\right)^nF(C,K_0)\mathrm{}F(C,K_0+n1)\varphi ,0>$$
(56)
substituting the values of $`F`$ we get:

$`|\alpha >`$ $`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(K_0+\delta \right)\left(K_0+\delta +1\right)\mathrm{}.\left(K_0+\delta +n1\right)}{\left(\varphi +\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\varphi +\frac{3}{2}\right)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.\left(\varphi +\frac{n1}{2}\right)}}\left(K_+\right)^n\varphi ,0>`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(2\alpha \right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi +n\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{n!\left(2\varphi +n1\right)!}}{\left(\sqrt{2}\right)^n\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi \right)}}}\varphi ,n>`$
$`=`$ $`A\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi \right)}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(\sqrt{2}\alpha \right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi +n\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\varphi ,n>,`$
which is precisely the well-known state of Barut and Girardello upto the normalization coefficient A. For example for the SU(1,1), $`g\left(j\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(j\right)\left(j+1\right)`$ then the right hand side becomes in the BG representation

$$2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\sigma \left(r\right)r^{2n+1}=A\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi +n\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi \right)},$$
(58)
where A is a numerical constant and from the inverse Mellin transform, we get $`\sigma \left(r\right)=Ar^{2\varphi +1}K_{\frac{1}{2}+\varphi }\left(2r\right)`$

The second state annihilated by $`K_{}`$ is the state $`\varphi ,2\varphi +1>`$ and this corresponds to $`\delta =\varphi `$. The coherent state is:

$$|\alpha >=A^{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi \right)}\underset{n}{}\left(\sqrt{2}\alpha \right)^n\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi +n\right)}}\varphi ,2\varphi +1+n>$$
(59)
The third state given by Eq. (29) is :

$$|\gamma >=B\left(\gamma \right)\underset{n}{}\left(\frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{2}}\right)^n\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n2\varphi \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\varphi \right)}}\varphi ,n>.$$
(60)
This is the state constructed by Perelomov , upto a normalisation constant $`B\left(\gamma \right)`$.

For the quadratic case, we take an illustrative algebra relevant to the trilinear boson cases described in the introduction. For convenience we rewrite the three boson algebra as:
$`[N_0,N_\pm ]=N_\pm `$ and $`\left[N_+N_{}\right]=3N_0^2+4ϵN_0ϵ^2`$ with $`ϵ=2H_01`$. We define $`n=\left(h_0+j_0\right)`$, where $`h_0`$ and $`j_0`$ are the quantum numbers associated with $`H_0`$ and $`N_0`$ respectively. The state $`|n>`$ corresponds to the state $`|h_0,h_0+j_0>=|ϵ,n>`$ and the three states annihilated by $`N_{}`$ are given by $`|ϵ,0>,|ϵ,ϵ\frac{1}{2}>,|ϵ,ϵ+\frac{1}{2}>`$.

The action of the operators on eigenfunctions of $`N_0`$ is given by:

$$N_0ϵ,n>=\left(n\right)ϵ,n>,$$
(61)
$$N_+ϵ,n>=\sqrt{\left(n+\frac{3}{2}ϵ\right)\left(n+1\right)\left(n+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)}ϵ,n+1>,$$
(62)
$$N_{}ϵ,n>=\sqrt{\left(n\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)n\left(n+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)}ϵ,n1>.$$
(63)
We give the explicit construction of the coherent state for the case $`|v_i>=|ϵ,0>`$ , for which $`\delta =1`$. Suitable choices of $`\delta `$ will give the other two coherent states. Here $`g\left(N_0\right)=\left(N_0+\frac{3}{2}ϵ\right)\left(N_0\right)\left(N_0+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)`$ and $`g\left(N_0\right)g\left(N_01\right)=3N_0^24ϵN_0+ϵ^2`$.

From our construction the CS is:

$$\alpha >=e^{\alpha \stackrel{~}{N_+}}ϵ,0>=\underset{n}{}\frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}\left(\stackrel{~}{N_+}\right)^nϵ,0>$$
(64)
Thus:

$$|\alpha >=A\underset{n}{}\frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}\left(N_+F(N_0,C)\right)^n0>$$
(65)
Constructing the $`F^{}s`$ from $`g\left(N_0\right)`$ we get:

$`|\alpha >`$ $`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}}\left(N_+\right)^nF\left(N_0\right)F\left(N_0+1\right)\mathrm{}F\left(N_0+n1\right)0>`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}}\left(N_+\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{N_0+\delta }{\left(N_0ϵ\right)\left(N_0\right)\left(N_0+1ϵ\right)}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{N_0+n1+\delta }{\left(N_0+n1ϵ\right)\left(N_0+n\right)\left(N_0+nϵ\right)}}ϵ,0>`$
$`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\alpha ^n{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)!\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)!}{\left(n\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)!n!\left(n+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)!}}\left(N_+\right)^nϵ,0>`$
$`=`$ $`A\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}ϵ\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{3}{2}ϵ\right)}}}ϵ,n>,`$
$`A`$ is the normalization coefficient, which can be easily determined to be $`\frac{1}{(^0F_2(\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{3}{2}ϵ,|\alpha |^2))^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$. These set of states can be shown to be overcomplete:

$$\left|<\beta |\alpha >\right|^2=\frac{{}_{}{}^{0}F_{2}^{}(\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{3}{2}ϵ,\alpha \beta ^{})}{(^0F_2(\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{3}{2}ϵ,|\alpha |^2))^{\frac{1}{2}}\left)(^0F_2(\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{3}{2}ϵ,|\beta |^2)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(67)
The completeness relation is given by

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\sigma \left(r\right)r^{2n+1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ+n\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}ϵ+n\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}ϵ\right)}$$
(68)
and $`\sigma \left(r\right)`$ can be determined to be a confluent hypergeometric function from the inverse Mellin transformation formula. The resolution of the identity can thus be obtained.

$$\sigma \left(r\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}ϵ)(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}ϵ)}G_{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3}}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}0}}\left(r_{0,\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\frac{1}{2}ϵ}^0\right),$$
(69)
Where $`G_{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3}}^{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}0}}\left(x\right)`$ is a Meijer’s G-function.

The other two coherent states based on the two vacuua, $`|ϵ,ϵ+\frac{1}{2}>`$ and $`|ϵ,ϵ\frac{1}{2}>`$ can similarly be constructed by chosing $`\delta =\frac{3}{2}ϵ`$ and $`\delta =\frac{1}{2}ϵ`$.

The state corresponding to the Perelomov state is :

$$|\gamma >=B^{}\left(\gamma \right)\underset{n}{}\left(\gamma \right)^n\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{3}{2}ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}ϵ\right)}}\varphi ,n>.$$
(70)
The normalisation constant can be calculated easily and using a method similar to the one used for Eq.(68), the overcompleteness of these states and the resolution of the identity can also be easily obtained.

## 4 Conclusion

To conclude, we have found a general method for constructing the coherent states for various polynomially deformed algebras for quantum optical systems, whose dynamics are governed by multilinear boson Hamiltonians. Since our method is algebraic and relies on the group structure of well-known algebras, the precise nature of the non-classical behaviour of these CS can be easily inferred from our construction. It will be of particular interest to see the time development of the system and the role of the deformation parameters in the physical system described in the text. For a system initially in a coherent state, it is fairly straightforward to calculate the time evolution of the system exactly using the methods of reference . Since many of these algebras are related to quantum mechanical problems with non-quadratic, non-linear Hamiltonians, a detailed study of the properties of the CS associated with non-linear and deformed algebras is of physical relevance . This is the subject of our current and future work .

The authors take the pleasure to thank Prof. S. Chaturvedi and Prof. C. Mukku for stimulating conversations. VSK acknowledges useful discussions with Mr. N. Gurappa.


format: text

text:
# Northwestern University: N.U.H.E.P. Report No. 708 March, 2000 Breaking the Barriers—Uniting Accelerator and Cosmic Ray p-p Cross Sections

## 1 Introduction

This communication is divided into three sections.

First, we show that the data on the total cross section, the slope parameter $`B`$ of the elastic differential cross section, and the ratio of the real to imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude $`\rho `$ for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ interactions can be nicely described by a model where high energy cross sections grow with energy as a consequence of the increasing number of soft partons populating the colliding particles ,. The differential cross sections for the Tevatron and LHC are predicted.

Next, we verify the model by showing that the known experimental data on $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions can be derived from our $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ forward scattering amplitudes using vector meson dominance (VMD) and the additive quark model.

Finally, we use the high energy predictions of our QCD-inspired parameterization of accelerator data on forward proton-proton and antiproton-proton scattering amplitudes, along with Glauber theory, to predict proton–air cross sections at energies near $`\sqrt{s}`$ 30 TeV.

All cross sections will be computed in an eikonal formalism guaranteeing unitarity throughout:

$`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \left\{1e^{\chi __I(b,s)}\mathrm{cos}[\chi __R(b,s)]\right\}d^2\stackrel{}{b}}.`$ (1)
Here, $`\chi `$ is the complex eikonal ($`\chi =\chi __R+i\chi __I`$), and $`b`$ is the impact parameter. The even eikonal profile function $`\chi ^{even}`$ receives contributions from quark-quark, quark-gluon and gluon-gluon interactions, and therefore

$`\chi ^{even}(s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{qq}(s,b)+\chi _{qg}(s,b)+\chi _{gg}(s,b)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`i\left[\sigma _{qq}(s)W(b;\mu _{qq})+\sigma _{qg}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\mu _{qq}\mu _{gg}})+\sigma _{gg}(s)W(b;\mu _{gg})\right],`$
where $`\sigma _{ij}`$ are the cross sections of the colliding partons, and $`W(b;\mu )`$ their overlap function in impact parameter space, parameterized as the Fourier transform of a dipole form factor. The impact parameter space distribution function

$$W(b;\mu )=\frac{\mu ^2}{96\pi }(\mu b)^3K_3(\mu b)$$
(3)
is normalized so that $`W(b;\mu )d^2\stackrel{}{b}=1`$. As a consequence of both factorization and the normalization chosen for the $`W(b;\mu )`$, it should be noted that

$$\chi ^{even}(s,b)d^2\stackrel{}{b}=i\left[\sigma _{gg}(s)+\sigma _{qg}(s)+\sigma _{qq}(s)\right],$$
(4)
so that $`\sigma _{tot}^{even}(s)=2\mathrm{Im}\left\{i\left[\sigma _{gg}(s)+\sigma _{qg}(s)+\sigma _{qq}(s)\right]\right\}`$, for small $`\chi `$. This formalism is identical to the one used in “mini-jet” models , as well as in simulation programs for minimum-bias hadronic interactions such as PYTHIA and SIBYLL.

In this model hadrons asymptotically evolve into black disks of partons. The rising cross section, asymptotically associated with gluon-gluon interactions, is simply parameterized by a normalization, an energy scale, and two parameters: $`\mu _{gg}`$ which describes the “area” occupied by gluons in the colliding hadrons, and $`J(=1+ϵ)`$. Here, $`J`$ is defined via the gluonic structure function of the proton, which is assumed to behave as $`1/x^J`$ for small x. It therefore controls the soft gluon content of the proton. The introduction of the quark-quark and quark-gluon terms allows us to adequately parameterize the data at all energies, since the “size” of quarks and gluons in the proton can be different. In the present context, this model represents a convenient parameterization of the $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ forward scattering amplitude.

The photoproduction cross sections are calculated from this parameterization assuming vector meson dominance and the additive quark model. For the probability that the photon interacts as a hadron ($`P_{had}`$), we use the value $`P_{had}=1/240`$ which can be derived from vector meson dominance. Our results show that its value is indeed independent of energy. It is, however, uncertain by 20% because it depends on whether we relate photoproduction to $`\pi `$-nucleon or nucleon-nucleon data (In other words, $`\pi N`$ and $`NN`$ total cross sections only satisfy the additive quark model to this accuracy). Subsequently, following reference , we obtain $`\gamma p`$ cross sections from the assumption that, in the spirit of VMD, the photon is a 2 quark state in contrast with the proton which is a 3 quark state. The $`\gamma p`$ total cross section is obtained from the even eikonal for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ by the substitutions $`\sigma _{ij}\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{ij}`$ and $`\mu _i\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _i`$.

We will thus produce a parameter-free description of the total photoproduction cross section, the phase of the forward scattering amplitude and the forward slope for $`\gamma pVp`$, where $`V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi `$. Interestingly, our results on the phase of $`VpVp`$ are in complete agreement with the values derived from Compton scattering results ($`\gamma +p\gamma +p`$) using dispersion relations. We also calculate the total elastic and differential cross sections for $`\gamma pVp`$. This wealth of data is accommodated without discrepancy.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross sections are derived following the same procedure. We now substitute $`\sigma _{ij}\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{ij}`$ and $`\mu _i\frac{3}{2}\mu _i`$ into the nucleon-nucleon even eikonal, and predict the total cross section and the differential cross sections for all reactions $`\gamma \gamma V_iV_j`$ at a variety of energies, where $`V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi `$.

The high energy $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross section  have been measured by two experiments at LEP. While these measurements yield new information on its high energy behavior at center-of-mass energies in excess of $`\sqrt{s}=15`$ GeV, they may represent the last opportunity to measure the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross section, and the two data sets appear to disagree. However, it has been argued that the original data are consistent within the errors  and that the observed disagreements are due to two different Monte Carlo’s used to extract the quoted values. We here point out that our analysis nicely accommodates the L3 result . Our model approximately satisfies the factorization theorem, $`\sigma _{pp}/\sigma _{\gamma p}=\sigma _{\gamma p}/\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, because of its small eikonal. The OPAL data do not satisfy it. In fact, no model incorporating the additive quark model and factorization can accommodate the OPAL data. VMD and factorization are sufficient to prevent one from adjusting $`P_{had}`$, or any other parameters, to change this conclusion.

## 2 High energy proton-proton and proton-antiproton scattering

In this section we discuss our QCD-inspired parameterization of the forward amplitudes. To determine its parameters, we fit all high energy forward $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ scattering data above 15 GeV, for the total cross section ($`\sigma _{tot}`$), the ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude ($`\rho `$), and the logarithmic slope of the differential elastic scattering cross section in the forward direction ($`B`$). Then, we compare the experimental data for the elastic scattering cross section and for the differential elastic scattering with our results. Finally, a prediction is made for the differential elastic scattering at the LHC.

Our QCD-inspired parameterization satisfies crossing symmetry, i.e., it is either even or odd under the transformation $`EE`$, where $`E`$ is the laboratory energy. This allows us to simultaneously describe $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ scattering. It also satisfies analyticity, and unitarity because of the eikonal formalism. Since the total cross section asymptotically rises as $`\mathrm{log}^2s`$, our QCD-inspired parameterization complies with the Froissart bound. The eikonal formalism for calculating $`\sigma _{tot}`$, $`\rho `$ and $`B`$, along with details on the analyticity, the Froissart bound, and the QCD-inspired eikonal are given in ref. . In all 11 parameters are used. The low energy region, where the differences between $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ scattering are substantial, largely determines the 7 parameters necessary to fit the odd eikonal and the quark-quark and quark-gluon contribution to the even eikonal. Thus, they largely decouple from the high energy behavior. Hence, for $`\sqrt{s}25`$ GeV, where the difference between $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ scattering becomes small, only 4 parameters describe all data.

We fit all the highest energy cross section data (E710 , CDF  and the unpublished Tevatron value ), which anchor the upper end of our cross section curves. The results of the fit are shown in Fig. 1. Data for $`\rho `$ values and $`B`$ are confronted with our model in Figs. 2 and 3.

It can be seen from those figures that we obtain a satisfactory description of all 3 quantities, for both $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ scattering. The $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit is reasonably good (considering the large spread in some of the experimental data, as well as the discrepancies in the highest energy cross sections), giving a $`\chi ^2/d.f.=1.66`$, for 75 degrees of freedom. The model splits the difference between the measurements of the total cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=1800`$ GeV (see Fig. 1). From Fig. 2, we note that the fit to $`\rho `$ is anchored at $`\sqrt{s}=550`$ GeV by the very accurate measurement  of UA4/2 and passes through the E710 point . The statistical uncertainty of the fitted parameters is such that at 25 GeV the cross section predictions are statistically uncertain to $`1.3`$%, at 500 GeV are uncertain to $`1.6`$%, and at 2000 GeV are uncertain to $`2.5`$%.

In Fig. 4 we show the prediction for the elastic cross

section along with the data for both $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$. The agreement is excellent. We note that $`\sigma _{elastic}`$ is rising more sharply with energy than the total cross section $`\sigma _{tot}`$. Comparing Fig. 1 with Fig. 4, we see that the ratio of the elastic to total cross section is rising with energy. The ratio is, of course, bounded by the value for the black disk , i.e., 0.5, as the energy goes to infinity.

Having fixed all parameters specifying our eikonal, we calculate $`d\sigma /dt`$, for various values of $`\sqrt{s}`$. The differential cross section at the Tevatron ($`\sqrt{s}=1800`$ GeV) is shown in Fig. 5

along with E710  data. The agreement over 4 decades is striking.

Our prediction for the differential cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV, the energy of the LHC, is plotted in Fig. 6.

In particular, at small $`|t|`$, we predict that the curvature parameter $`C`$ ($`d\sigma /dte^{Bt+Ct^2}`$ for small $`t`$; see ref.  for details) is negative. For energies much lower than 1800 GeV, the observed curvature has been measured as positive. For 1800 GeV, we see from Fig. 5 that the curvature parameter $`C`$ is compatible with being zero. Block and Cahn  have pointed out that the curvature is predicted to go through zero near the Tevatron energy and that it should become negative thereafter. Asymptotically the proton approaches a black disk. Its curvature is always negative , $`C=R^4/192`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the disk. Thus, the curvature has to pass through zero as the energy increases. ‘Asymptopia’ is the energy region (energies much larger than the Tevatron) where the scattering approaches that of a sharp disk.

With the parameters we obtained from our fit, the total cross section at the LHC (14 TeV) is predicted to be $`\sigma _{tot}=108.0\pm 3.4`$ mb, where the error is due to the statistical errors of the fitting parameters.

## 3 Photon-proton reactions

We assume that the photon behaves like a two quark system when it interacts strongly. We therefore obtain $`\gamma p`$ scattering amplitudes by performing the substitutions $`\sigma _{ij}\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{ij}`$ and $`\mu _i\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _i`$ in the even eikonal for nucleon–nucleon scattering, so that

$$\chi ^{\gamma p}(s,b)=i\left[\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{qq}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _{qq})+\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{qg}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\mu _{qq}\mu _{gg}})+\frac{2}{3}\sigma _{gg}(s)W(b;\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mu _{gg})\right].$$
(5)
Using vector dominance, the photon-proton total cross section is then written as

$$\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma p}(s)=2P_{had}\left\{1e^{\chi _I^{\gamma p}(b,s)}\mathrm{cos}[\chi _R^{\gamma p}(b,s)]\right\}d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(6)
where $`P_{had}`$ is the probability that a photon interacts as a hadron. We use the value $`P_{had}=1/240`$. This value is found by normalizing the total $`\gamma p`$ cross section to the low energy data, and is very close to that derived from vector dominance, 1/249. Using $`f_\rho ^2/4\pi =2.2`$, $`f_\omega ^2/4\pi =23.6`$ and $`f_\varphi ^2/4\pi =18.4`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_V(4\pi \alpha /f_V^2)=1/249`$, where $`V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi `$ (see Table XXXV, pag. 393 of Ref. ).

With all eikonal parameters fixed by the nucleon-nucleon data, we can now calculate $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma p}(s)`$. The result is shown in Fig. 7.

It reproduces the rising cross section for $`\gamma p`$, using the parameters fixed by nucleon-nucleon scattering. This prediction only uses the 9 parameters of the even eikonal, of which but 4 are important in the upper energy region. The accuracy of our predictions are $`1.5\%`$, from the statistical uncertainty in our eikonal parameters.

We next consider the ‘elastic’ scatterings

$`\gamma +p`$ $``$ $`\rho _{virtual}+p\rho +p,`$
$`\gamma +p`$ $``$ $`\omega _{virtual}+p\omega +p,`$
$`\gamma +p`$ $``$ $`\varphi _{virtual}+p\varphi +p.`$ (7)
Here the photon virtually transforms into a vector meson which elastically scatters off of the proton. The strengths of these reactions is $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ times a strong interaction cross section. The true elastic cross section is given by Compton scattering on the proton, $`\gamma +p\gamma +p`$, which we can visualize as

$`\gamma +p`$ $``$ $`\rho _{virtual}+p\rho +p\gamma +p,`$
$`\gamma +p`$ $``$ $`\omega _{virtual}+p\omega +p\gamma +p,`$
$`\gamma +p`$ $``$ $`\varphi _{virtual}+p\varphi +p\gamma +p.`$ (8)
It is clearly $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ times a strong interaction cross section, and hence is much smaller than ‘elastic’ scattering of Eq. (7). Thus, we justify the use of Eq. (6) to calculate the total cross section, since only reactions with a photon in the final state are neglected.

We evaluate $`\rho `$ and the slope $`B`$ for the ‘elastic’ scattering expressed in Eq. (7), with $`\rho `$ and $`B`$ being the same for all 3 reactions.

The dependence of $`\rho `$ with the energy is shown in Fig. 8. Damashek and Gilman  have calculated the $`\rho `$ value for Compton scattering on the proton using dispersion relations, i.e., the true elastic scattering reaction for photon-proton scattering. We compare this calculation, the dotted line in Fig. 8,

with our prediction of $`\rho `$ (the solid line). The agreement is so close that we had to move the two curves apart so that they may be viewed more clearly.

In Fig. 9

we show our results for the slope $`B`$ as a function of the energy. The available experimental data for ‘elastic’ $`\rho p`$ and $`\omega p`$ final states are also plotted. Again, the agreement of theory and experiment is very good.

To calculate the elastic cross sections $`\sigma _{elastic}^{Vp}`$ and differential cross sections $`d\sigma ^{Vp}/dt`$ as a function of energy, we use

$$\sigma _{elastic}^{Vp}(s)=P_{had}^{Vp}\left|1e^{i\chi ^{\gamma p}(b,s)}\right|^2d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(9)
where $`P_{had}^{Vp}`$ is the appropriate probability for a photon to turn into $`V`$, with $`V=\rho ,\omega `$ or $`\varphi `$. The differential scattering cross section is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{Vp}}{dt}(s,t)=\frac{P_{had}^{Vp}}{4\pi }\left|J_0(qb)(1e^{i\chi ^{\gamma p}(b,s)})d^2\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2,$$
(10)
where $`t=q^2`$.

Since we normalize our data to the cross section found with $`\chi ^{\gamma p}`$, and not to $`(\sigma _{tot}^{\pi ^+}+\sigma _{tot}^\pi ^{})/2`$, we must multiply all $`f_V^2/4\pi `$ by 1.65. Hence, our effective couplings are $`f_{\rho \mathrm{eff}}^2/4\pi =3.6`$, $`f_{\omega \mathrm{eff}}^2/4\pi =38.9`$, and $`f_{\varphi \mathrm{eff}}^2/4\pi =30.4`$.

Our evaluation of the ‘elastic’ cross section for the reactions $`\gamma +p\rho ^0+p`$ and $`\gamma +p\omega ^0+p`$ are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.

The differential cross section, $`d\sigma /dt`$, for the ‘elastic’ reactions $`\gamma +p\rho ^0+p`$, $`\gamma +p\omega ^0+p`$ and $`\gamma +p\varphi ^0+p`$ are plotted in Figs. 12, 13, and 14, respectively.

The agreement, in absolute normalization and shape, of our results for all three light vector mesons with the experimental data for all available energies reinforces our confidence in the model.

## 4 Photon-Photon Interactions

In this section, we consider $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions. As it was done for $`\gamma p`$ interactions, we will start from the eikonal $`\chi ^{\gamma p}(s,b)`$ and multiply every cross section by 2/3 and multiply each $`\mu `$ by $`\sqrt{3/2}`$. Therefore,

$$\chi ^{\gamma \gamma }(s,b)=i\left[\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{qq}(s)W(b;\frac{3}{2}\mu _{qq})+\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{qg}(s)W(b;\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\mu _{qq}\mu _{gg}})+\frac{4}{9}\sigma _{gg}(s)W(b;\frac{3}{2}\mu _{gg})\right].$$
(11)
Using vector dominance we obtain,

$$\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma \gamma }(s)=2P_{had}^2\left\{1e^{\chi _I^{\gamma \gamma }(b,s)}\mathrm{cos}[\chi _R^{\gamma p}(b,s)]\right\}d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(12)
where $`P_{had}=1/240`$ is the probability that a photon will interact as a hadron. In Fig. 15

we plot our results for $`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$ as a function of the energy, and compare it to the various sets of experimental data. We note that our prediction fits the L3 data, but doesn’t fit the OPAL results.

## 5 Proton-air cross sections

Cosmic ray experiments measure the penetration in the atmosphere of particles with energies in excess of those accelerated by existing machines—interestingly, their energy range covers the energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and extends beyond it. However, extracting proton–proton cross sections from cosmic ray observations is far from straightforward . By a variety of experimental techniques, cosmic ray experiments map the atmospheric depth at which cosmic ray initiated showers develop. The measured shower attenuation length ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$) is not only sensitive to the interaction length of the protons in the atmosphere ($`\lambda _{p\mathrm{air}}`$), with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=k\lambda _{p\mathrm{air}}=k\frac{13.5m_p}{\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}},$$
(13)
but also depends on the rate at which the energy of the primary proton is dissipated into electromagnetic shower energy observed in the experiment. The latter effect is parameterized in Eq. (13) by the parameter $`k`$; $`m_p`$ is the proton mass and $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ the inelastic proton-air cross section. The value of $`k`$ depends on the inclusive particle production cross section in nucleon and meson interactions on the light nuclear target of the atmosphere and its energy dependence. We here ignored the fact that particles in the cosmic ray ”beam” may be nuclei, not just protons. Experiments allow for this by omitting from their analysis showers which dissipate their energy high in the atmosphere, a signature that the initial energy is distributed over the constituents of a nucleus.

The extraction of the pp cross section from the cosmic ray data is a two step process. First, one calculates the $`p`$-air total cross section from the measured inelastic cross section

$$\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}=\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{el}}\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{q\mathrm{el}}.$$
(14)
Next, the Glauber method is used to transform the measured value of $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ into a proton–proton total cross section $`\sigma _{pp}`$; all the necessary steps are calculable in the theory. In Eq. (14) the measured cross section for particle production is supplemented with the elastic and quasi-elastic cross section, as calculated by the Glauber theory, to obtain the total cross section $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}`$. The subsequent relation between $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ and $`\sigma _{pp}`$ involves the slope of the forward scattering amplitude for elastic $`pp`$ scattering,

$$B=\left[\frac{d}{dt}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{d\sigma _{pp}^{\mathrm{el}}}{dt}\right)\right]_{t=0},$$
(15)
and is shown in Fig. 16,

which plots $`B`$ against $`\sigma _{pp}`$, for 5 curves of different values of $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$. This summarizes the reduction procedure from $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ to $`\sigma _{pp}`$ . Also plotted in Fig. 16 is a curve of $`B`$ vs. $`\sigma _{pp}`$ which will be discussed later.

A significant drawback of the method is that one needs a model of proton–air interactions to complete the loop between the measured attenuation length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$ and the cross section $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$, i.e., the value of $`k`$ in Eq. (13). We minimize the impact of theory by using our QCD-inspired parameterization of the forward proton–proton and proton–antiproton scattering amplitudes which is analytic, unitary and simultaneously fits all data of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$, $`B`$ and $`\rho `$. Using vector meson dominance and the additive quark models, we have shown that it accommodates a wealth of data on photon-proton and photon-photon interactions without the introduction of new parameters. Because the model is both unitary and analytic, it has high energy predictions that are essentially theory–independent. In particular, it also simultaneously fits $`\sigma _{pp}`$ and $`B`$, forcing a relationship between the two. Specifically, the $`B`$ vs. $`\sigma _{pp}`$ prediction of the model is shown as the dashed curve in Fig. 16. The dot corresponds to our prediction of $`\sigma _{pp}`$ and $`B`$ at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 30 TeV. It is seen to be slightly below the curve for 490 mb, the lower limit of the Fly’s Eye measurement, which was made at $`\sqrt{s}`$ 30 TeV.

In Fig. 17,

we have plotted the values of $`\sigma _{pp}`$ vs. $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ that are deduced from the intersections of the $`B`$-$`\sigma _{pp}`$ curve with the $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ curves of Fig. 16. Figure 17 allows the conversion of the measured $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ to $`\sigma _{pp}`$ .

Our prediction for the total cross section $`\sigma _{pp}`$ as a function of energy is confronted with all of the accelerator and cosmic ray measurements in Fig. 18.

For inclusion in Fig. 18, we have calculated the cosmic ray values of $`\sigma _{pp}`$ from the published experimental values of $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$, using the results of Fig. 17. We note the predicted curve is systematically lower than the cosmic ray points, roughly about the level of one standard deviation.

It is at this point important to recall Eq. (13) and consider the fact that the extraction of $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ from the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$ requires a determination of the parameter $`k`$. The measured depth $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ at which a shower reaches maximum development in the atmosphere, which is the basis of the cross section measurement in Ref. , is a combined measure of the depth of the first interaction, which is determined by the inelastic cross section, and of the subsequent shower development, which has to be corrected for. The position of $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ also directly affects the rate of shower attenuation with atmospheric depth which is the alternative procedure for extracting $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$.

The model dependent rate of shower development and its fluctuations are the origin of the deviation of $`k`$ from unity in Eq. (13). Its values range from 1.5 for a model where the inclusive cross section exhibits Feynman scaling, to 1.1 for models with large scaling violations. The comparison between data and experiment in Fig. 18 is further confused by the fact that the AGASA and Fly’s Eye experiments used different values of $`k`$ in the analysis of their data, i.e., AGASA used $`k=1.5`$ and Fly’s Eye used $`k=1.6`$.

We therefore decided to match the data to our prediction and extracted a common value for $`k=1.33\pm 0.04`$. This neglects the possibility that $`k`$ may show a weak energy dependence over the range measured. In Fig. 19

we have replotted the high energy cosmic ray data for our prediction of $`\sigma _{p\mathrm{air}}^{\mathrm{inel}}`$ vs. $`\sqrt{s}`$, with the common value of $`1.33`$ obtained from a $`\chi ^2`$ fit. Clearly, we have an excellent fit, with good agreement between AGASA and Fly’s Eye. The analysis gives $`\chi ^2=1.75`$ for 6 degrees of freedom (the low $`\chi ^2`$ is probably due to overestimates of experimental errors). This result for $`k`$ is interesting—it is close to the value of $`1.2`$ obtained using the SIBYLL simulation for inclusive particle production. This represents a consistency check in the sense that our model for forward scattering amplitudes and SIBYLL share the same underlying physics. The increase of the total cross section with energy to a black disk of soft partons is the shadow of increased particle production which is modeled by the production of (mini)-jets in QCD. The difference between the $`k`$ values of 1.20 and 1.33 could be understood because the experimental measurement integrates showers in a relatively wide energy range, which tends to increase the value of $`k`$.

In the near term, we look forward to the possibility of repeating this analysis with the higher statistics of the HiRes  cosmic ray experiment that is currently in progress and the Auger  Observatory.

In conclusion, we have successfully united the high energy cross section results ($`\sqrt{s}30`$ TeV) of the cosmic ray measurements with the accelerator cross section measurements, under a common rubric, the QCD-inspired analysis.


text:
# 1 Specklegram of a binary star, HR4689 obtained at VBT, Kavalur, India.

Speckle Imaging: a boon for astronomical observations

S. K. Saha
Indian Institute of Astrophysics
Bangalore - 560 034

e-mail: sks@iiap.ernet.in

Abstract

The speckle imaging is a photographic technique that resolves objects viewed through severely distorted media. The results are insensitive to the errors caused by apparent size of the isoplanatic patch and the telescope aberrations. In this article, a short descriptions of the atmospheric turbulence and its effect on the flat wavefront from a stellar source is presented; the shortcomings of the conventional long-exposure images in the presence of Earth’s atmosphere are discussed. The advantages of the speckle interferometric technique over conventional imaging are enumerated. The technical details of the method, basic Fourier optics, data analysis procedures are also described.

1. Introduction

The atmosphere of earth restricts the resolution of conventional ground based astronomical images to about 1 arc second. This is due to the refractive index variations of the atmosphere through which the light rays reaching the telescope. When a star image is observed through a telescope with high magnification, the observed image structure is usually far from the theoretical pattern. The appearance of image depends strongly on the size of aperture of the telescope. Large telescope helps in gathering more optical energy, as well as in obtaining better angular resolution. The resolution increases with the diameter of the aperture. For example, the diffraction-limit of a 2.34 meter telescope is about 0.05 arc second. But in reality, the image is degraded by factor of 20. With small aperture a random motion of a image is often affect the main effect, whereas, with large aperture spreading and blurring of the image occur.

Owing to the diffraction phenomenon, the image of the point source (unresolved stars) cannot be smaller than a limit at the focal plane of the telescope. This phenomenon can be observed in ocean, when regular waves pass through an aperture. It is present in the sound waves, as well as in the electro-magnetic spectrum too starting from gamma rays to radio waves.

Speckle interferometric technique (Labeyrie, 1970) yields the diffraction-limited autocorrelation of the object. The diffraction-limited resolution of celestial objects viewed through the Earth’s turbulent atmosphere could be achieved with the largest optical telescope, by post detection processing of a large data set of short-exposure images using Fourier-domain methods. Certain specialized moments of the Fourier transform of a short-exposure image contain diffraction-limited information about the object of interest. In this article, I shall describe a few basic theorems of Fourier optics, which are essential to understand this technique followed by the theory of speckle interferometry. The data processing method to analyze specklegrams of close binary stars obtained with 2.34 meter Vainu Bappu telescope (VBT), Kavalur, India is also discussed.

2. Preamble

In order to obtain high angular resolution of an stellar object, Fizeau (1868) had suggested to install a screen with two holes on top of the telescope that produce Young’s fringes at its focal plane as the fringes remain visible in presence of seeing, thus allowing measurements of stellar diameters. Stefan attempted with 1 meter telescope at Observatoire de Marseille but could not notice any significant drop of fringe visibility and opined none of the observed stars approached 0.1 arc-seconds in angular size. About half a century later, Michelson could measure the diameter of the satellites of Jupiter with Fizeau interferometer on top of the Yerkes refractor. With the 100 inch telescope at Mt. Wilson (Anderson, 1920), the angular separation of spectroscopic binary star Capella was measured.

To overcome the restrictions of the baseline, Michelson (1920) constructed the stellar interferometer equipped with 4 flat mirrors to fold the beams by installing a 7 meter steel beam on top of the afore-mentioned 100 inch telescope; the supergiant star $`\alpha `$ Orionis were resolved (Michelson and Pease, 1921). Due to the various difficulties, viz., (i) effect of atmospheric turbulence, (ii) variations of refractive index above small sub-apertures of the interferometer, and (iii) mechanical instability, the project was abandoned.

The field of optical interferometry lay dormant until it was revitalized by the development of intensity interferometry (Brown and Twiss, 1958). Success in completing the intensity interferometer at radio wavelengths (Brown et al., 1952), in which the signals at the antennae are detected separately and the angular diameter of the source is obtained by measuring correlation of the intensity fluctuations of the signals as a function of antenna separation, Brown and Twiss (1958) demonstrated its potential at optical wavelengths by measuring the angular diameter of Sirius. Subsequent development of this interferometer with a pair of 6.5 meter light collector on a circular railway track spanning 188 meter (Brown et al., 1967), depicted the measurements of 32 southern binary stars with angular resolution limit of 0.5 milliarcseonds (Brown, 1974). The project was abandoned due to lack of photons beyond 2.5 magnitude stars.

Meanwhile, Labeyrie (1975) had developed a long baseline interferometer $``$ Interf$`\stackrel{`}{e}`$rom$`\overline{e}`$tre $`\stackrel{`}{a}`$ deux telescope (I2T) $``$ using a pair of 25 cm telescopes at Observatoire de Calern, France. His design combines features of the Michelson and of the radio interferometers. The use of independent telescopes increases the resolving capabilities. In this case, coude beams from both the telescopes arrive at central station and recombines them. This interferometer obtained the first measurements for a number of giant stars (Labeyrie, 1985). Following the success of its operation, he undertook a project of building large interferometer known as grand interf$`\stackrel{`}{e}`$rom$`\overline{e}`$tre $`\stackrel{`}{a}`$ deux telescope (GI2T) at the same observatory. This interferometer comprises of two 1.5 meter spherical telescopes on a North-South baseline, which are movable on a railway track (Labeyrie et al., 1986). Mourard et al. (1989) had resolved the rotating envelope of hot star $`\gamma `$ Cassiopeiae using this interferometer. The technical details of this kind of interferometers can be found in the recent article by Saha (1999a).

There are several long baseline interferometers that are in operation; some are at various stages of development (Saha, 1999a). These interferometers are based on the principle of merging speckles from both the telescopes. In other words, the fringed speckle can be visualized when a speckle from one telescope is merged with the speckle from the other telescope. Therefore, it is necessary to get acquainted with relatively new topics, speckle interferometry. In what follows, the formation of speckles and the way to decode the atmospherically degraded informations are discussed in brief.

3. Convolution and its applications

The convolution of two functions is a mathematical procedure (Goodman, 1968) which simulates phenomena such as a blurring of a photograph. That may be caused by poor focus, by the motion of a photographer during the exposure, by dirt on the lens etc. In such blurred picture each point of object is replaced by a spread function. The spread function is disk shaped in the case of poor focus, line shaped if the photograph has moved, halo shaped if there is a dust on lens. In other words, we know that delta function has value at a single point otherwise it is zero. But generally the measurement does not produce this.

Let us consider an input curve that can be represented by the curve $`f(x)`$ in terms of lot of close delta functions which are spread. Here, the shape of the response of the system including unwanted spread, is same for all values of $`x`$ (invariant for each considered delta function). Now, the value of the function $`f(x)`$ at $`x_1`$ is $`f(x^{})g(x_1x^{})`$. This is similar for each considered point on the curve. So for the whole curve, we define mathematically

$$h(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}f(x^{})g(xx^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(1)
where, $`h(x)`$ is the output value at particular point $`x`$, $``$ stands for convolution. This integral is defined as convolution of $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$.

$$h(x)=f(x)g(x),$$
(2)
where, $`g(x)`$ is referred to as a blurring function or line spread function (LSF) or in two dimensions, the point spread function (PSF).

The Fourier transform of a convolution of two functions is the product of the Fourier transform of the two functions. Therefore, in the Fourier plane the effect becomes a multiplication, point by point, of the transform of $`\widehat{F}(u)`$ with the transfer function $`\widehat{G}(u)`$.

4. Atmospheric turbulence and speckle formation

Owing to the turbulent phenomena associated with heat flow and winds in the atmosphere, the density of air fluctuates in space and time. The inhomogeneities of the refractive index of the air can have devastating effect on the resolution achieved by any large telescope. The disturbance takes the form of distortion of the shape of the wavefront and variations of the intensity across the wavefront. Due to the motion and temperature fluctuations in the air above the telescope aperture, inhomogeneities in the refractive index develop. These inhomogeneities have the effect of breaking the aperture into cells with different values of refractive index that are moved by the wind across the telescope aperture.

Kolmogrov law represents the distribution of turbule sizes, from millimeters to meters, with lifetimes varying from milliseconds to seconds. Changes in the refractive index in different portions of the aperture result to the phase changes in the value of the aperture function. The time evolution of the aperture function implies that the point spread function is time dependent. When the Reynolds number exceeds some value in a pipe (depending on the geometry of the pipe), the transition from laminar flows to turbulent flows occur. The dimensionless quantity Reynolds number is defined as $`QL/\nu `$, where $`Q`$ is the mean flow speed, $`L`$ is the transverse size of the pipe and $`\nu `$ is kinematic viscosity of the fluid. If $`L`$ is taken as some characteristic size of the flow of atmosphere the result holds good for atmospheric case.

The power spectral density of refractive index fluctuations caused by the atmospheric turbulence follows a power law with large eddies having greater power (Tatarski, 1961). A plane wave propagating through the atmosphere of earth is distorted by refractive index variation in the atmosphere (troposphere); it suffers phase fluctuations and reaches the entrance pupil of a telescope with patches of random excursions in phase (Fried, 1966). Therefore, the image of the star in the focal plane of a large telescope is larger then the Airy disk of the telescope. The size is equivalent to the atmospheric point spread function (point spread function is a modulus square of the Fourier transform of the aperture function). The resolution at the image plane of the telescope is determined by the width of the PSF which is of the order of $`(1.22\lambda /r_{})`$, where, $`\lambda `$ is a wavelength of light and $`r_{}`$ is the average size of the turbulence cell, which is of the order of 10 cm. Therefore, resolution ($``$ 1 arc second) is unfortunately much larger then the theoretical size $`1.22\lambda /D`$ of the Airy disk of a large telescope (Rayleigh limit or diffraction limit), where, $`D`$ is the diameter of the telescope.

The variance of phase difference fluctuations between any two points in the wave-front increases as the 5/3 power of their separation. When this variance exceeds $`\pi ^2`$ rad for some separation $`r_{}`$, then all details in the smaller than $`\lambda /r_{}`$ will be obliterated in the long exposure images. If the exposure time is shorter than the evolution time of the phase inhomogeneities, then each patch of the wave-front with diameter $`r_{}`$ $``$ Fried parameter $``$ would act independently of the rest of the wavefront resulting in multiple images of the source. These sub-images or ‘speckles’, as they are called and spread over the area defined by the long exposure image, can occur randomly along any direction within an angular patch of diameter $`\lambda /r_{}`$. The average size of the speckle is of the same order of magnitude as the Airy disk of the telescope in the absence of atmospheric turbulence and the lifetime of individual speckle is of the order of 0.1 to 0.01 seconds. Figure 1 depicts the speckles of the star HR4689; observations were carried out at 2.34 meter VBT, Kavalur, India with the speckle interferometer (Saha et al., 1997, 1999a).

A snap shot taken later will show a different pattern but with similar probability of the angular distribution. A sum of similar exposures is the conventional image. It is easy to visualize that the sum of several statistically uncorrelated speckle patterns from a point source can result in an uniform patch of light a few arc-seconds wide (Saha, 1999b). figure 2 shows the result of summing 128 specklegrams demonstrating the destructions of finer details of the image by the atmospheric turbulence.

Venkatakrishnan et al., (1989) had also generated the intensity distribution for $`r_{}`$ in the plane of a large telescope; the smallest contours have the size of the Airy disk of the telescope. The result of summing 100 such distributions showed similar concentric circle of equal intensity, destroying the finer details of an image. The method of such computer simulations runs as follows:

The intensity distribution in the focal point of the telescope for the atmospheric cell ($`r_{}`$) of 10cm size and $`L_{}`$ = 200 cm for an entrance pupil of 200cm diameter were taken as samples. A power spectral density of the form

$$\rho (k)\frac{L_{}^{\frac{11}{3}}}{(1+k^2L_{}^2)^{\frac{11}{6}}},$$
(3)
was multiplied with a random phase factor $`e^{i\varphi }`$, one for each value of $`(k_x,k_y)`$, with $`\varphi `$ uniformly distributed between $`\pi `$ and $`\pi `$.

The resulting 2-D pattern in $`k_x,k_y`$ space was Fourier transformed to obtain one realization of the wavefront $`W(x,y)`$. The Fraunhofer diffraction pattern of a piece of this wavefront with the diameter of the entrance pupil gives angular distribution of amplitudes, while the squared modulus of this field gives the intensity distribution in the focal plane of the telescope.

The long-exposure PSF is defined by the ensemble average, $`<S(x,y)>`$, independent of any direction. The average illumination, $`I(x,y)`$ of a resolved object, $`O(x,y)`$ obeys convolution relationship,

$$<I(x,y)>=O(x,y)<S(x,y)>,$$
(4)
where, $`(x,y)`$ is a 2-dimensional space vector. Using 2-dimensional Fourier transform, this equation can be read as,

$$<\widehat{I}(u,v)>=\widehat{O}(u,v)<\widehat{S}(u,v)>,$$
(5)
where, $`\widehat{O}(u,v)`$ is the object spectrum, $`<\widehat{S}(u,v)>`$ is the transfer function for long-exposure images and is the product of the transfer function of the atmosphere $`\widehat{B}(u,v)`$, as well as the transfer function of the telescope, $`\widehat{T}(u,v)`$. $`(u,v)`$ is the spatial frequency vector. The transfer function for long-exposure image can be expressed as,

$$<\widehat{S}(u,v)>=\widehat{B}(u,v)\widehat{T}(u,v).$$
(6)
The benefit of the short-exposure images over long-exposure can be visualized by the following explanation.

Let us consider two seeing cells separated by a vector in the telescope pupil, $`\lambda (u,v)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the mean wavelength. If a point source is imaged through the telescope by using pupil function consisting of two apertures, corresponding to the two seeing cells, then a fringe pattern is produced with narrow spatial frequency bandwidth. If the major component $`\widehat{I}(u,v)`$ at the frequency $`(u,v)`$ is produced by contributions from all pairs of points with separations $`\lambda (u,v)`$, with one point in each aperture and is averaged over many frames, then the result for frequencies greater than $`r_o/\lambda `$ tends to zero. The Fourier component performs a random walk in the complex plane and average to zero, $`<\widehat{I}(u,v)>`$ = 0, when $`u>r_o/\lambda `$.

For a large telescope, the aperture, P, can be sub-divided into a set of sub-apertures, $`p_i`$. According to the diffraction theory (Born and Wolf, 1984) the image at the focal plane of the telescope is obtained by adding all such fringe patterns produced by all possible pairs of sub-apertures. With increasing distance of the baseline between two sub-apertures, the fringes move with an increasingly larger amplitude. On a long-exposure images, no such shift is observed, which implies the loss of high frequency components of the image. While, in the short-exposure images ($`<`$20 msec), the interference fringes are preserved.

4.1 Seeing

The common query for an observer is about ‘seeing’. This important parameter changes very fast, every now and then. It is the total effect of distortion in the path of the light via different contributing layers of the atmosphere to the detector placed at the focus of the telescope (detail discussions can be found in recent article by Saha, 1999a). The major sources of image degradation predominantly comes from the surface layer, as well as from the aero-dynamical disturbances in the atmosphere surrounding the telescope and its enclosure, namely, (i) thermal distortion of primary and secondary mirrors when they get heated up, (ii) dissipation of heat by the latter mirror, (iii) rise in temperature at the primary cell, (iv) at the focal point causing temperature gradient close to the detector etc. Saha and Chinnappan (1999) have found that the seeing at VBT improved gradually in the latter part of the night.

The resolution $`\theta `$ of a large telescope, limited by the atmospheric turbulence, as defined by the Strehl criterion is

$$\theta =\frac{4}{\varphi }\frac{\lambda }{r_o},$$
(7)
Then the question arises how to measure seeing? The qualitative method is from the short exposure images using speckle interferometric technique, where, the area of the telescope aperture divided by the estimated number of speckles gives the wavefront coherence area $`\sigma `$, from which $`r_o`$ can be found by using relation,

$$\sigma =0.342\left(\frac{r_o}{\lambda }\right)^2.$$
(8)
If the autocorrelations of the short exposure images are summed, it contains autocorrelation of the seeing disk together with the autocorrelation of the mean speckle cell. It is width of the speckle component of the autocorrelation that provides information on the size of the object being observed (Saha and Chinnappan, 1999, Saha et al., 1999a).

Systematic studies of this parameter would enable to understand the various causes of the local seeing, for example, thermal inhomogeneities associated with the building, aberrations in the design, manufacture and alignment of the optical train etc.

Doom seeing plays a vital role in deteriorating image quality. It is necessary to take precautionary measure to avoid hot air entrapment. The important ones are (i) bring down the control room from the observing floor, (ii) improve the cross ventilation at each of the floors, (iii) remove unused machines or any other equipments, excess cemented portions available around the building, as well as all glass enclosures from the building.

Mirror seeing is another important source of image spread and has the longest time-constant. The spread amounts to 0.5” for a 1 different in temperature. Therefore, It is essential to make arrangement to cool the primary mirror and try to maintain uniform temperature in and around the primary mirror cell (Saha and Chinnappan, 1999).

5. Speckle

The term ’Speckle’ refers to a grainy structure observed when an uneven surface of an object is illuminated by a fairly coherent source. A good example of speckle phenomena may be observed at the river port when many boats are approaching towards the former at a particular time or in the swimming pool when many swimmers are present. Each boat or swimmer emits wave trains and interference between these random trains causes a speckled wave field on the water surface. Depending on the randomness of the source, spatial or temporal, speckles tend to appear. Spatial speckles may be observed when all parts of the source vibrate at same constant frequency but with different amplitude and phase, while temporal speckles are produced if all parts of it have uniform amplitude and phase. With a non-monochromatic vibration spectrum, in the case of random sources of light, spatio-temporal speckles are produced.

The ground illumination produced by any star has fluctuating speckles, known as star speckles. It is too fast and faint, therefore, cannot be seen directly. Atmospheric speckles can be observed easily in a star image at the focus of a large telescope using a strong eyepiece. The star image looks like a pan of boiling water. If a short exposure image is taken, speckles can be recorded. The number of correlation cells is determined by the equation $`N=D/r_o`$. As the seeing improves, the number decreases. It is clear that speckles are caused by interference effect between wave element having random phases, rather then by ray bending effect. Its structure in astronomical images is the result of constructive and destructive bi-dimensional interferences between rays coming from different zones of incident wave. The statistical properties of speckle pattern depend both on the coherence of the incident light and the properties of random medium.

Mathematically, speckles are simply the result of adding many sine functions having different, random characteristics. Since the positive and negative values cannot cancel out everywhere, adding an infinite number of such sine functions would result in a function with 100$`\%`$ constructed oscillations.

5.1 Imaging in the Presence of Atmosphere

In the ideal condition, the resolution can be achieved in an imaging experiment, is limited only on imperfections in the optical system. If a collimated beam passes through the atmosphere and is collected by a telescope, the quality of the image formed is influenced by the atmospherically produced disturbances.

Let the modulation transfer function (MTF) of an optical system be composed of the atmosphere and a telescope. The random wavefront tilt displaces the image but does not reduce its sharpness. If a short exposure is recorded, the image sharpness and MTF are insensitive to the tilt. While, in the case of long exposure ($`>`$ 20 msec) image, the image is spread during the exposure by its random variations of the tilt. Therefore, the image sharpness and the MTF are affected by wavefront tilt, as well as by the more complex shapes. In the short exposure case, a random factor associated with the tilt is extracted from the MTF before being taken the average, where in the long exposure case, no such factor is removed.

Let us consider an imaging system consists of a simple lens based telescope in which the point spread function (PSF) is invariant to spatial shifts. An object (point source) at a point $`(x^{},y^{})`$ anywhere in the field of view will, therefore, produce a pattern $`S[(x,y)(x^{},y^{})]`$ across the image. If the object can emit incoherently, the image $`I(x,y)`$ of a resolved object $`O(x,y)`$ obeys a convolution relationships. The mathematical description of the convolution of two functions is of the form:

$$I(x,y)=O(x^{},y^{})S[(x,y)(x^{},y^{})]d(x^{},y^{}),$$
(9)
5.2. Outline of the theory of speckle interferometry

By integrating autocorrelation function of the successive short-exposure records rather than adding the images themselves, the diffraction-limited information can be obtained. Indeed, autocorrelation function of a speckle images preserves some of the information in the way which is not degraded by the co-adding procedure. For each of the short-exposure instantaneous record, the quasi-monochromatic incoherent imaging equation applies,

$$I(x,y)=O(x,y)S(x,y),$$
(10)
where, $`I(x,y)`$ is the instantaneous image intensity, $`O(x,y)`$ the object intensity, $`S(x,y)`$ the instantaneous PSF.

The analysis of data may be carried out in two equivalent ways. In the spatial domain the ensemble average space autocorrelation is found giving the resultant imaging equation.

In the Fourier plane the effect becomes a multiplication, point by point, of the transform of the object $`\widehat{O}(u,v)`$ with the transfer function $`\widehat{S}(u,v)`$, and therefore, equation 10 leads to,

$$\widehat{I}(u,v)=\widehat{O}(u,v)\widehat{S}(u,v).$$
(11)
The ensemble average of the power spectrum is given by,

$$<|\widehat{I}(u,v)|^2>=|\widehat{O}(u,v)|^2<|\widehat{S}(u,v)|^2>.$$
(12)
Hence, if $`<|\widehat{S}(u,v)|^2>`$ is known, $`|\widehat{O}(u,v)|`$<sup>2</sup> can be estimated. To find this, one has to observe a point source close to the object. The Fourier transform of a point source (delta function) is a constant, $`C_n`$. Then, equation 12, for a point source is

$$<|\widehat{I}_s(u,v)|^2>=C_n^2<|\widehat{S}(u,v)|^2>.$$
(13)
To find $`C_n`$<sup>2</sup>, one has to find the boundary condition. At the origin of the Fourier plane, $`S(u=0,v=0)`$ is unity. This is true for an incoherent source. Hence, $`C_n`$<sup>2</sup> is given by,

$$C_n^2=<|\widehat{I}_s(0,0)|^2>/<|\widehat{S}(0,0)|^2>,$$
(14)
i.e.,

$$C_n^2=<|\widehat{I}_s(0,0)|^2>.$$
(15)
Using equation 15 in equation 13 gives,

$$<|\widehat{S}(u,v)|^2>=<|\widehat{I}_s(u,v)|^2>/<|\widehat{I}_s(0,0)|^2>.$$
(16)
From equations 16 and 11, the power spectrum of the object is given by

$$|\widehat{O}(u,v)|^2=<|\widehat{I}(u,v)|^2>/[<|\widehat{I}_s(u,v)|^2>/<|\widehat{I}_s(0,0)|^2],$$
(17)
i.e., the power spectrum of the object is the ratio of the average power spectrum of the image to the normalized average power spectrum of the point source. By Wiener-Kinchin theorem, the inverse Fourier transform of equation 17 gives the autocorrelation of the object.

$$A[O(x,y)]=FT^{}[|\widehat{O}(u,v)|^2],$$
(18)
where, A stands for autocorrelation.

6. Observational technique at VBT

The programme of observing close binary systems (separation $`<`$ 1$``$) has been going on since 1996 using speckle interferometer at the Cassegrain focus of the 2.34 VBT, Kavalur, India (Saha, 1999a). The details of this interferometer can be found in the articles (Saha et al., 1997, 1999a), that samples the image scale at the Cassegrain focus of the said telescope to 0.015” per pixel of the intensified CCD. The wave-front falls on the focal plane and passes on to a microscope objective through a circular aperture of $``$350 $`\mu `$m of an optical flat kept at an angle of 15. This aperture was developed on a low expansion optical glass by devising a fine grinding precision mechanism at the laboratory (A. P. Jayarajan and S. K. Saha). The aperture was ground into the glass held at the angle of 75 with respect to the grinding axis. Interested readers may try it out to repeat the same.

The enlarged beam is recorded after passing through a narrow band filter by a Peltier-cooled ICCD (386$`\times `$576) camera as detector which offers various option of exposure time, viz., 1 msecs, 5 msecs, 10 msecs, 20 msecs etc. It can operate in full frame, frame transfer and kinetic modes. Since CCD is cooled to $``$40, the dark noise is considerably low. Unlike the uncooled ICCD where data is stored in 8 bits, in this system, data is stored to 12 bits and can be archived to a Pentium PC. In full frame, as well as in frame transfer modes, the region of interests can be acquired at a faster speed. While in the kinetic mode, the image area can be kept small to satisfy requirements, therefore, the rest of the area is usable for the data storage. The surrounding star field of diameter $`\varphi `$ 10 mm gets reflected from the optical flat on to a plane mirror and is re-imaged on to an uncooled ICCD (Chinnappan et al., 1991) for guiding the object.

7. Summary

Among others the most important observations made by means of speckle interferometry is the discovery of compact cluster, R136a (HD38268), of Doradus nebula in the Large Magallanic Clouds (Weigelt and Baier, 1985). Recent observations with adaptive optics system (Brandl et al., 1996) have revealed over 500 stars within the field of view 12.8”$`\times `$12.8” covering a magnitude range 11.2. Baba et al., (1994) have observed a binary star, $`\varphi And`$ (separation 0.53”) using imaging speckle spectroscopic method and found that the primary star (Be star) has an H$`\alpha `$ emission line while the companion has an H$`\alpha `$ absorption line.

Developments of high angular resolution imaging have been going on in our Institute over a decade. Several experiments have been conducted at Vainu Bappu Observatory (Saha et al., 1987). The programme of speckle imaging at VBT has been a successful one. Now we are in a position to obtain informations of Fourier phase of the objects too (Saha et al., 1999b). Mapping of the certain interesting objects, viz., active galactic nuclei, proto-planetary nebulae will be undertaken in near future.

References

Anderson J. A., 1920, Astrophys. J., 51, 263.

Baba N., Kuwamura S., Miura N., Norimoto Y., 1994, Ap. J., 431, L111.

Born M., Wolf E., 1984, Principles of Optics, Pergamon Press.

Brandl B., Sams B. J., Bertoldi F., Eckart A., Genzel R., Drapatz S., Hofmann R., Lowe M., Quirrenbach A., 1996, Ap. J., 466, 254.

Brown R. H., 1974, ‘The Intensity Interferometry, its Applications to Astronomy’, Taylor & Francis, London.

Brown R. H. and Twiss R. Q., 1958, Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 248, 222.

Brown R. H., Davis J. and Allen L. R., 1967, MNRAS, 137, 375.

Brown R. H., Jennison R. C. and Das Gupta M. K., 1952, Nature, 170, 1061.

Chinnappan V., Saha S. K., Faseehana, 1991, Kod. Obs. Bull. 11, 87.

Fizeau H., 1868, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 66, 934.

Fried D. C., 1966, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 56, 1972.

Goodman J. W., 1968, Introduction to Fourier optics, McGraw Hill Book Co. NY.

Labeyrie A., 1970, Astron. & Astrophys., 6, 85.

Labeyrie A., 1975, Astrophys. J., 196, L71.

Labeyrie A., 1985, 15th. Advanced Course, Swiss Society of Astrophys. and Astron. ed.. A. Benz, M. Huber and M. Mayor, 170.

Labeyrie A., Schumacher G., Dugu$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ M., Thom C., Bourlon P., Foy F., Bonneau D. and Foy R., 1986, Astron. & Astrophys., 162, 359.

Michelson A. A., 1920, Astrophys. J., 51, 257.

Michelson A. A., and Pease F. G., 1921, Astrophys. J., 53, 249.

Mourard D., Bosc I., Labeyrie A., Koechlin A. and Saha S., 1989, Nature, 342, 520.

Saha S. K., 1999a, Bull. Astron. Soc. Ind., 27, 443.

Saha S. K., 1999b, Ind. J. Phys., 73b, 553.

Saha S. K., Chinnappan V., 1999, Bull. Astron. Soc. Ind., 27, 327.

Saha S. K., Jayarajan A. P., Sudheendra G., Umesh Chandra A., 1997, Bull. Astron. Soc. Ind., 25, 379.

Saha S. K., Sridharan R., Sankarasubramanian K., 1999b, submitted to Bull. Astron. Soc. Ind.

Saha S. K., Sudheendra G., Umesh Chandra A., Chinnappan V., 1999a, Exp. Astron, 9, 39.

Saha S. K., Venkatakrishnan P., Jayarajan A. P., Jayavel N., 1987, Curr. Sci., 56, 985.

Tatarski V. I., 1961, ‘Wave Propagation in a Turbulent Medium’ McGraw Hill.

Venkatakrishnan P., Saha S. K., Shevgaonkar R. K., 1989, Proc. ‘Image Processing in Astronomy’, ed., T. Velusamy, 57.

Weigelt G., Baier G., 1985, A & A., 150, L18.

Appendix I

Theorems of Fourier Transform

1. Linearity theorem

$$F(\alpha g+\beta h)=\alpha F(g)+\beta F(h)$$
(19)
i.e., the transform of sum of two functions is simply the sum of their individual transforms.

2. Similarity theorem

A stretching of the co-ordinates in the space domain $`(x,y)`$ results in the construction of the co-ordinates in the frequency domain $`(f_x,f_y)`$ plus a change in the overall amplitude of the spectrum. i.e., if

$$F(g(x,y))=G(f_x,f_y)$$
(20)
then,

$$F(g(ax+by))=G(f_x/a,f_y/b)/|ab|$$
(21)
3. Shift theorem

Translation of a function in a space domain introduces a linear phase shift in the frequency domain. i.e., if

$$F(g(x,y))=G(f_x,f_y)$$
(22)
then,

$$F(g(xa,yb))=G(f_x,f_y)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi j(f_xa+f_yb))$$
(23)
4. Perseval’s theorem

This theorem is generally interpretable as a statement of conservation of energy. It says that the total energy in the real domain is equal to the total energy in the Fourier domain. i.e.,

$$F(g(x,y))=G(f_x,f_y)$$
(24)
then

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}|g(x,y)|^2𝑑x𝑑y=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|G(f_x,f_y)|^2𝑑f_x𝑑f_y$$
(25)
5. Convolution Theorem

The convolution of two functions in the space domain (an operation that will be found to arise frequently in the theory of linear system) is entirely equivalent of the more simple operation of multiplying their individual transform. i.e.,

$$F(g(x,y))=G(f_x,f_y)$$
(26)
and

$$F(h(x,y))=H(f_x,f_y)$$
(27)
then

$$F(_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}g(\xi ,\eta )h(x\xi ,y\eta )𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta )=G(f_x,f_y)H(f_x,f_y)$$
(28)
6. Autocorrelation theorem

This theorem may be regarded as special case of convolution theorem. The Fourier transform of autocorrelation of a function is the squared modulus of the Fourier transform. i.e. if

$$F(g(x,y))=G(f_x,f_y)$$
(29)
then,

$$F(_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}g(\xi ,\eta )g^{}(\xi x,\eta y)𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta )=|G(f_x,f_y)|^2$$
(30)