text:
# Speed of ion trap quantum information processors

## I Introduction

Experimental methods which allow both coherent control, and rapid and reliable measurement of the quantum state, have been available for some time for single ions held in ion traps. In an influential paper, Cirac and Zoller  showed furthermore how laser manipulation of a string of ions in a linear ion trap can achieve general coherent evolution of the joint state of the ions, using currently available technologies, and with good scaling properties. Specifically, the coherent evolution can be driven so as to realize any unitary transformation on the joint state of the ions, including transitions from product states to entangled states. Soon after their theoretical work, the essential ingredients of the method were realized experimentally for a single trapped ion , and more recently two ions were driven from a product state to an entangled state with around 90% fidelity using closely related ideas . This is the only efficient creation of entanglement yet observed in any area of physics.

The combination of universal driven unitary evolution, an exponential scaling of the available Hilbert space with system size, and reliable measurement of the resulting state, are the essential ingredients for a future quantum computer. The scaling of system size in this argument is measured by the way the whole physical apparatus becomes larger, and operation of quantum logic gates slower, as more qubits are added to the system. In the case of the linear ion trap, the adding of further qubits (ions) into the trap is straightforward. The growth of the physical apparatus, and the slowing down of the processing, is dominated by the optical and electronic equipment needed to control the ions. This growth and slow-down is a polynomial, not exponential, function of the number of qubits, for small numbers of qubits. Technical problems will place a limit, as yet unknown, on the highest number of qubits which might be feasible, but below this limit the ion trap has the good scaling properties which allow the essential principles of quantum computing to be experimentally realised. Hence, laser-cooled ion trap experiments have a dual interest both for studying new avenues in atomic physics (e.g. interferometry with entangled particles) and for understanding quantum information processing in a specific realisable system.

In this work we examine, both theoretically and experimentally, the speed with which general processing operations can be driven in the ion trap system. We are concerned with the intrinsic limitations imposed by the physics of the system, such as the tightness of the trap and the presence of a rich energy level structure in the vibrational modes. The initial proposal of Cirac and Zoller showed how to drive quantum operations in the limit of small Rabi frequency (slow operations), and initial experiments have been in this limit. Our aim here is to clarify the trade-off between precision and speed of the quantum logic gates, and to derive the optimal way to operate the processor. This optimum is a compromise between speed-associated problems such as off-resonant excitation of unwanted transitions, and the basic decoherence rate due to environmental coupling which will limit the performance when the gates are too slow. Our main observation is to confirm the statement in , that the maximum gate rate obtained by the Cirac Zoller method scales as the geometric mean of the trap vibrational frequency and the recoil frequency associated with the multi-ion string. This is in contrast to statements made elsewhere that the maximum gate rate is roughly proportional to the vibrational frequency, though this faster rate may be available if further tricks are adopted, such as excitation in the node of a laser standing wave . We extend the discussion in  by making a quantitative statement, equation (20), of the relation between speed and precision of the gate.

We also calculate the maximum gate rate for the method proposed by Monroe et al. , where a controlled-not operation is achieved without the need for an additional transition and laser frequency, by driving multiple Rabi cycles on the carrier, for well-chosen values of the Lamb-Dicke parameter.

We experimentally study the Cirac-Zoller method, using a single trapped Calcium ion cooled to the ground state of the motion in one dimension. The experiments are akin to those in  where the methods were first demonstrated for one ion, except that we examine the regime as yet unexplored, where the gate rate is above the recoil frequency, so that the calculations carried out in the small Rabi frequency limit are no longer appropriate.

The paper is set out as follows. Section II presents the theory of the logic gates, and calculations of their fidelity as a function of the main parameters, primarily the Rabi frequency of the atom–light interaction, and the trap tightness. The calculations involve numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation for the system. We note the need to tune the laser light to the resonant frequency correctly, that is, taking into account the light shift (a.c. Stark shift) of the levels. We present results in the first instance considering only one mode of vibration of the ion string, and then in section II G we briefly discuss the influence of the other modes. Section III presents our experiments. We cool a single trapped calcium ion to the ground state of the motion in one dimension, and then observe Rabi flopping on the first blue motional sideband of the narrow 729 nm transition. By driving the sideband in the regime where the Rabi frequency is of the order of the trap vibrational frequency, we observe the expected trade-off between speed and precision of the operations, caused by off-resonant excitation of unwanted motional states.

## II Theory of switching rate

### A Preliminaries

Consider a string of two or more ions in a linear trap. The trap is strongly confining along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, and less strongly confining along the $`z`$ axis. We will assume motion in $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions is unexcited, and consider one normal mode of vibration of the ion string along $`z`$, writing its angular frequency $`\omega _z`$. The other normal modes along $`z`$ will be assumed to be unexcited throughout. (We will consider the element of approximation introduced by this assumption at the end.) For brevity, we will refer to this vibrational degree of freedom as “the normal mode” or “the vibration”. It has an evenly spaced ladder of energy levels $`E_n=(n+1/2)\mathrm{}\omega _z`$. Typically in an experiment one would choose the mode of interest to be the second or third, i.e. $`\omega _z=\sqrt{3}\omega _{z,\mathrm{cm}}`$ or $`\sqrt{29/5}\omega _{z,\mathrm{cm}}`$, where $`\omega _{z,\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the frequency of the centre of mass mode. For modes other than the centre of mass, the Lamb-Dicke parameter describing the ion–light coupling will vary from one ion to another , but this presents no problem as long as it is taken into account when choosing laser pulse intensities and/or durations. We will assume that the laser light is directed onto one ion at a time.

The Lamb-Dicke parameter is $`\eta =\eta _1/\sqrt{N}`$ where $`N`$ is the number of ions, and $`\eta _1=\sqrt{E_R/\mathrm{}\omega _z}`$. $`E_R=(r\mathrm{}k_z)^2/(2M)`$ is the recoil energy for a single ion initially at rest undergoing a $`\pi `$ pulse interaction with the laser field; $`k_z`$ is the $`z`$ component of the wavevector $`𝐤`$ of the laser field, $`M`$ is the mass of the ion, and $`r=1`$ for a single-photon transition, $`r=2`$ for a Raman transition assuming the geometry $`k_{1z}=k_{2z}`$ for the two Raman beams. Example recoil frequencies $`E_R/h`$ are given in table (I).

We will assume throughout that $`\eta <1`$. This is the regime in which the ion trap processor is used in practice, both because it facilitates the initial cooling to the ground state of motion, and because the processor then runs faster, as we will discuss.

The Cirac-Zoller method adopts the internal state of each ion as a qubit (we restrict attention to two internal states and thus one qubit per ion). Gates between qubits are obtained via excitation of the common vibrational mode, and measurement of the state of one or more qubits is by observing fluorescence. The method uses the fact that arbitrary single-qubit rotations, combined with any one 2-qubit gate such as controlled-not ($`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$) or controlled-rotation ($`{}_{}{}^{C}Z`$), between arbitrary pairs of qubits, form a universal set . That is, any unitary transformation can be decomposed into elements from the set. In the trapped ion system, a single-qubit rotation is a transition in the internal state of a single ion, driven by a laser pulse. A $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ between the internal states of any pair of ions $`A`$ and $`B`$ is achieved by a swap ($`S`$) operation between the internal state of $`A`$ and the vibration, followed by $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ between the vibration and the internal state of ion $`B`$ (with vibration as control, ion internal state as target) followed by $`S`$ again on ion $`A`$. Therefore the only operations that will concern us are single-qubit rotations, and $`S`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ between a single ion and the vibration. All of these are achieved by excitation of a chosen transition. The unwanted off-resonant excitation of other transitions are the main subject of this paper.

The strength of the ion-laser interaction is parametrized by the Rabi frequency, given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\eta (\widehat{a}^{}+\widehat{a})\right)\right|m\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{free}}`$ (1)
$``$ $`C_{nm}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is the Rabi frequency for a free ion, the states $`|n`$ are vibrational energy eigenstates, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}(\eta ^2/2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{free}}`$ and the factor $`C_{nm}`$ is given by the following equation (3). Values of $`C_{nm}`$ are listed in table (II) for the low-lying vibrational levels.

$$C_{nm}=\sqrt{m!n!}(i\eta )^{|fm|}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(m,n)}{}}\frac{(1)^j\eta ^{2j}}{j!(j+|nm|)!(\mathrm{min}(m,n)j)!}.$$
(3)
The single-qubit rotations can be much faster than the two-qubit gates, because the energy separation $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ of the internal energy levels is much larger than that of the vibrational levels, and by choosing a laser beam direction $`k_z=0`$ (single photon transition) or $`k_{1z}=k_{2z}`$ (Raman transition), the Lamb-Dicke parameter can be made to vanish during single-qubit operations, which means these operations do not couple to the vibrational state ($`C_{nm}`$ becomes $`\delta _{nm}`$). Therefore, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be large compared to $`\omega _z`$ without causing off-resonant excitation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n0`$ transitions. Therefore, the speed of the ion trap processor is limited by the $`S`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gates.

The $`S`$ gate is achieved by a $`\pi `$ pulse on either the first red vibrational sideband, that is, at frequency $`\omega _0\omega _z`$, or the first blue vibrational sideband at frequency $`\omega _0+\omega _z`$. The duration of the $`S`$ gate is therefore

$$T_S=\frac{\pi }{\eta \mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(4)
where the gate becomes exact in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. The choice of red or blue sideband can be dictated by experimental convenience. The two are equivalent in terms of their quantum computational effect, since the logical operations produced can be made identical simply by relabelling the states (i.e. changing which internal state of the ion is called 0, and which is called 1). We will treat the red sideband throughout our theoretical discussion, but the results will apply equally to blue sideband excitation. In fact, we used a blue sideband in the experiments described in section III.

We will consider two methods for the $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate. The first is that described in the original proposal of Cirac and Zoller, where $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ is obtained by single-bit rotations (Hadamard gates) combined with $`{}_{}{}^{C}Z`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{C}Z`$ is obtained from a $`2\pi `$ pulse on the first red sideband (or blue, depending on the relative positions of the levels) of an auxiliary transition in the ion, i.e. laser frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{aux}}\omega _z`$, gate duration

$$T_{C1}=\frac{2\pi }{\eta \mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(5)
The other method is that of Monroe et al. , who proposed using a $`2m\pi `$ pulse on the carrier (frequency $`\omega _0`$) where $`m`$ is an integer and $`\eta ^2=1/(2m)`$. This is especially useful if an auxiliary transition is not available. When the vibrational state is $`|n=0`$, this drives an integer number of Rabi oscillations of the internal state, while if the vibrational state is $`|n=1`$, this drives a half-integer number of Rabi oscillations, since $`C_{11}=1\eta ^2=(2m1)/(2m)`$. The method requires $`\eta `$ to be fixed in the experiment to one of the special values $`1/\sqrt{2m}`$, which is easily done in practice by adjusting the trap confinement and/or laser beam direction. The duration of a $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate by the Monroe method is

$$T_{C2}=\frac{2m\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\pi }{\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(6)
Since the ion trap is operated with $`\eta <1`$, it might be thought that $`T_{\mathrm{C2}}`$ is necessarily greater than $`T_{\mathrm{C1}}`$. In fact, this is not necessarily the case, since these gate times are limited by the maximum allowable Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and this can depend on the type of gate.

Sorensen and Molmer  have proposed a general method to implement gates such as controlled-not using bichromatic laser fields, achieving good fidelity even when the vibrational degrees of freedom are not in their ground state. The speed limitations of this method have recently been re-examined , so we will not discuss it here, other than to say the method appears to be useful.

### B Solution of time-dependent Schrödinger equation

Our aim is to find the maximum switching speed of the processor. It is seen from equations (4), (5) and (6) that this is determined by the maximum allowable Rabi frequency during the gates which operate on the vibrational state. The Rabi frequency cannot be arbitrarily large, because in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _z`$, the evolution would be independent of the vibrational state.

In order to find the maximum Rabi frequency, we need to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the system, without making the approximation of small $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We assume a two-level ion. This means we will not explicitly examine the type of $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate which uses an auxiliary level (equation (5)), but in any case this operation is closely related to the $`S`$ operation which we will examine, so results for the rate of $`S`$ will apply to this type of $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ apart from the factor 2. We will study $`S`$ and the Monroe $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate.

The Hamiltonian for the ion that is being illuminated by the laser during a given gate is

$$H=H_0+H_I$$
(7)
where $`H_0`$ is diagonal, with diagonal elements given by $`\mathrm{}(0,\omega _z,2\omega _z,\mathrm{},\omega _0,\omega _0+\omega _z,\omega _0+2\omega _z,\mathrm{})`$, and the interaction Hamiltonian

$$H_I=\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \widehat{C}e^{i\omega _Lt}\\ \widehat{C}^{}e^{i\omega _Lt}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{C}`$ is the matrix having elements $`C_{nm}`$. Note that the only approximation so far is to ignore the other vibrational modes.

We first adopt a frame rotating with the laser frequency: $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)=U|\psi (t),`$ where $`U`$ is a diagonal unitary matrix, with diagonal elements $`\mathrm{exp}(i\{1,1,1,\mathrm{},1,1,1,\mathrm{}\}\omega _Lt/2)`$. The states $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)`$ satisfy the Schrödinger equation $`i\mathrm{}(d/dt)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\stackrel{~}{H}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{H}i\mathrm{}(dU/dt)U^{}+UHU^{}`$ is now a time-independent Hamiltonian. We can therefore write the solution to the Schrödinger equation

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)=e^{i\stackrel{~}{H}t/\mathrm{}}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(0)V^{}e^{iV\stackrel{~}{H}V^{}t/\mathrm{}}V|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(0)$$
(9)
where $`V`$ is the matrix of eigenvectors of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, so that $`V\stackrel{~}{H}V^{}`$ is diagonal.

The quantity of interest, from the point of view of quantum information processing in the trap, is the final state expressed as a superposition of computational basis states. If at $`t=0`$ the computational basis states are $`|\stackrel{~}{u}(0)=|u(0)`$, then at other times they are $`\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{H}_0t/\mathrm{})|\stackrel{~}{u}(0)`$ since then the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{u}(t)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)`$ do not evolve in the absence of gate operations. Therefore we would like to calculate

$$u(0)\left|e^{i\left(\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{H}_0\right)t/\mathrm{}}\right|\psi (0).$$
(10)
Define $`P\mathrm{exp}(i(\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{H}_0)t/\mathrm{})`$, and let $`G`$ be the precise unitary operator for the intended gate. Then the degree to which the laser pulse produces the intended gate is given by the overlap between the final state and one which would be obtained from $`G`$. To indicate the degree of imperfection of the laser pulse operation, we therefore calculate

$$f_{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{\psi }{\mathrm{min}}\left|\psi \left|G^{}P\right|\psi \right|^2$$
(11)
and define the imprecision to be $`ϵ=(1f_{\mathrm{min}})^{1/2}`$.

Let us comment on whether or not $`ϵ0`$ represents imperfection in the system. We are assuming no imperfection in the sense of unknown dynamics (e.g. laser intensity and frequency noise). Therefore as long as we can calculate numerically the effect of the laser pulse operation, we have accurate knowledge of the expected state of the system: the fact that the laser pulse gate differs from any particular “ideal” gate is not a source of any imprecision at all. However, the intention is to use the ion trap as a quantum processor, to do quantum calculations which we lack the computing power to simulate classically. Putting together many laser pulses, we are therefore assuming we cannot predict the effect on the whole quantum process of having $`ϵ0`$ in all the operations. Therefore $`ϵ`$ must be regarded as imprecision in the device, which must be minimized.

The question of driving complicated evolution in a predictable manner is central to other techniques such as NMR spectroscopy, and there exist methods to combine pulses causing different types of driven rotation in order to undo the effect of certain terms in the Hamiltonian. Equivalent methods can almost certainly be found for the ion trap system, but in any case operations close to ideal ones will remain the best starting point for any such method.

### C Performance without correction for light shift

In this section, we will examine the operation of the processor in the regime $`\eta <1`$, in the case that the light shifts (a.c. Stark shifts) are not taken into account when choosing the laser pulse frequency, phase, and duration.

First consider the $`S`$ gate: a $`\pi `$ pulse on the first red sideband. We set $`\omega _L=\omega _0\omega _z`$ in (II B), and examine the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. The separations between the eigenvalues enable one to deduce the Rabi flopping frequencies and the light shifts in the system. The Rabi flopping frequency on the $`|n=0|n=1`$ transition is $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, as expected, which confirms that the gate time is $`T_S=\pi /(\eta \mathrm{\Omega })`$ as in equation (4).

The frequency of the transition is shifted by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\eta ^2}{2}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega _z}\right)^2\omega _z+\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega _z}\right)^4\omega _z+\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
This is primarily the light shift caused by the presence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$ transitions, which are off-resonant by $`\omega _z`$.

As was noted by Wineland et al. , the primary error in the gate operation is caused by the light shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, which can be significant compared to the Rabi flopping frequency $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$. To understand its effect, we now model the transition of interest, that is $`|g,n=1|e,n=0`$, as a two-level system, driven by a $`\pi `$ pulse off-resonant by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. The only term in the propagator of first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is $`i(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /\alpha )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha t/2)`$ where $`\alpha ^2=\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2`$. Putting $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }t=\pi `$, we obtain

$$ϵ\left|\frac{i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }{\alpha }\right|\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\eta \omega _z}$$
(13)
Therefore, to attain a given gate precision $`ϵ`$ the Rabi frequency must satisfy $`\mathrm{\Omega }2ϵ\eta \omega _z`$, which gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_S}}={\displaystyle \frac{\eta \mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi }}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{\pi }}\eta ^2\omega _z`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`4ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{E_R}{Nh}}.`$ (15)
The result thus has the simple form that the processor speed for swap operations is limited by the $`N`$-ion recoil frequency.

Next, consider the $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$gate using the special Lamb-Dicke parameter method of Monroe et al., that is, a $`2m\pi `$ pulse on the carrier with $`2m=1/\eta ^2`$. Substituting $`\omega _L=\omega _0`$ into (II B), and examining the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, we find the transition frequencies are shifted by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \frac{(\eta \mathrm{\Omega })^2}{\omega _z}.$$
(16)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the light shifts for this gate are much less significant. Modelling each driven transition as a two-level system, using the same method described above for the $`S`$ gate, we find that the effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is $`ϵ\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _z`$. This is small compared to the effect of off-resonant excitation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=\pm 1`$ transitions. These are driven in the regime where the detuning is large compared to their Rabi frequency, leading to a propagator with terms of order $`\sqrt{2}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _z`$, so we find

$$ϵ\frac{\sqrt{2}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega _z}.$$
(17)
Setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ\omega _z/\sqrt{2}\eta `$, we find

$$\frac{1}{T_{C2}}\sqrt{2}ϵ\sqrt{\frac{E_R}{Nh}\frac{\omega _z}{2\pi }},\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _z.$$
(18)
It might appear from this that the gate speed can increase without limit by using a tight trap, but this is a false impression because the expression is only valid in the regime $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _z`$, which means it is only valid for a gate rate small compared to $`\eta ^2\omega _z/\pi E_R/(Nh)`$.

### D Gates with correction for light shift: Red sideband

The light shift is readily corrected for by tuning the laser frequency to accurate resonance with the light-shifted transition frequency . We will now describe the correct laser pulse frequency, phase, and duration, and derive an expression for the imprecision caused by the primary remaining unwanted effect, which is off-resonant excitation. We find that the recoil frequency still strongly influences the processor speed.

We have studied this problem by numerically evaluating expressions (10) and (11). Only vibrational levels with $`n<4`$ were included, thus yielding an $`8\times 8`$ propagator matrix. When further vibrational levels were included in the calculation, the results were not significantly affected.

We find that the best implementation of a swap gate is obtained when the laser frequency is tuned to the light-shifted frequency of the first red sideband: $`\omega _L=\omega _0\omega _z+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is given by equation (12). The gate time is still as in equation (4). With no further adjustments, this produces a propagator close to $`U_\varphi S`$ where $`S`$ is a perfect swap operator, and $`U_\varphi `$ is diagonal with diagonal elements $`\mathrm{exp}(i\{1,1,1,\mathrm{},1,1,1,\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega T_S/2)`$. Therefore, to produce the intended gate, the system must be further evolved by an application of $`U_\varphi ^{}`$. This is equivalent to applying subsequent laser pulses with a correspondingly adjusted phase. Therefore the swap gate is completed by changing the phase of the oscillator used in the experimental apparatus to keep the laser in step with the atom’s internal resonance (at frequency $`\omega _0`$), by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }\omega T_S`$.

This adjustment permits the swap gate rate to exceed the recoil frequency. The term in the system propagator $`P`$ which now gives the dominant contribution to the imprecision $`ϵ`$ is off-resonant excitation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$ transitions. We expect the amplitude for this process to be of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\omega _z^2}`$. Our numerical calculations confirm this, giving

$$ϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{2(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\omega _z^2)}}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{2}\omega _z}$$
(19)
for the remaining imprecision in the adjusted swap operation. Therefore the gate rate is now limited by

$$\frac{1}{T_S}2\sqrt{2}ϵ\sqrt{\frac{E_R}{Nh}\frac{\omega _z}{2\pi }},$$
(20)
which is $`2\sqrt{2}ϵ`$ times the geometric mean of the $`N`$-ion recoil frequency and the vibrational frequency of the chosen normal mode.

If an auxilliary transition is available, the above argument will hold for the $`{}_{}{}^{C}Z`$ gate implemented by a $`2\pi `$ pulse to the first vibrational sideband of the auxilliary transition, the only difference is that the gate rate at given $`ϵ`$ is half that for the swap gate ($`T_{C1}=2T_S`$).

### E Carrier

The Monroe method $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate is executed by a laser pulse at the carrier frequency. The speed limit given by equation (18) cannot be exceeded, since it is caused by off-resonant excitation that cannot be avoided. However, we are interested in the behaviour outside the region of validity of (18), that is, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _z`$.

When $`\eta `$ is small but $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not, the precision of the operation need not be limited by off-resonant excitation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=\pm 1`$ transitions, since their rate is low. The source of imprecision instead comes from the fact that the dynamics of the system can no longer be pictured as separate Rabi flopping on the $`n=00`$ transition and the $`n=11`$ transition. Rather, the interaction Hamiltonian drives the set of vibrational levels $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _z`$ as a single entity. The result is that the evolution from an initial state $`|n=0`$ is almost the same as the evolution from an initial state $`|n=1`$. Therefore the Rabi flopping must be driven for a longer time before a $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate is obtained, and the gate speed ceases to increase with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The rate obtained at $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _z`$ was found to be the maximum. Recalling the expression (6) for $`T_{C2}`$, it is seen that this maximum is approximately the recoil frequency.

In the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _z`$, the gate can be optimized simply by adjusting the pulse duration. The correct pulse length is not precisely $`\pi /(\eta ^2\mathrm{\Omega })`$, but differs from this by an amount of order $`\pi /(\eta \mathrm{\Omega })`$. We have not found any simple expression for this adjustment, we surmise that this is because it is a complicated function of all the light shifts in the multi-level system. To run a processor in practice, the correction to the gate time can either be calculated numerically, or measured experimentally. By this adjustment, we were able to extend the region of validity of expression (18) up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.5\omega _z`$. Operating at this limit, the gate rate is always equal to the $`N`$-ion recoil frequency, independent of the trap tightness, but the gate becomes more precise as the trap gets tighter ($`ϵ\eta /\sqrt{2}`$, expression (17)).

One way to use the carrier excitation method to achieve faster $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gates, is to use higher vibrational levels such as $`|n=2`$ (in conjunction with $`|n=0`$). However, this would mean that the $`S`$ gate would have to drive the second red sideband, making it slower (the expected limitation at small $`\eta `$ being off-resonant excitation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$ transitions). Therefore only small gains, if any, are available by this route.

### F Sensitivity to laser intensity fluctuations

Although our main purpose is to study limitations imposed by the unavoidable properties of the system, we comment here on the sensitivity to one source of technical noise, namely laser intensity fluctuations, since these partially limit our experiments described in section III. The laser drives Rabi flopping at frequency $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the Cirac-Zoller swap gate, and at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the Monroe gate. If, owing to intensity fluctuations, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is imprecise by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ then the action of either gate will be imprecise by $`ϵT_S\eta \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/\pi `$ and $`ϵT_{C2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/\pi `$ respectively. We therefore find $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ`$ for the swap gate (also for the closely related $`{}_{}{}^{C}Z`$ gate), whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^2ϵ`$ for the Monroe gate.

### G Allowance for all the normal modes

The only approximation we made was to neglect all but one of the normal modes of oscillation of the ion string. When we relax this assumption, the main features of the more general problem can be understood in terms of the Rabi frequencies and the normal mode frequencies. To keep the notation clear, we will describe a case of three normal modes, which we will label $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$, but the discussion readily generalises to more normal modes. In our experiments described in section III there is a just a single ion, so the modes of interest are indeed vibration along the principle axes of the trap, but the modes here labelled $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ could equally refer to different normal modes of the $`z`$-oscillation of a three-ion string, in the case where the two other directions of oscillation are frozen out owing to the linear geometry (that is, they have much higher frequency, and are prepared in the ground state). Equation (2) is replaced by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(n_x,m_x)(n_y,m_y)(n_z,m_z)=C_{n_xm_x}(\eta _x)C_{n_ym_y}(\eta _y)C_{n_zm_z}(\eta _z)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(21)
in an obvious notation, where we now redefine $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{exp}((\eta _x^2+\eta _y^2+\eta _z^2)/2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{free}}`$. There are two regimes to consider. In the case that all the modes are prepared very close to the ground state, the main effect is that the light shift is no longer that given by equation (12), but one given by a sum of light shifts related to all the possible transitions. This is easily compensated by a suitable adjustment to the laser frequency. The limit on precision therefore remains that due to off-resonant transitions. For excitation on the red sideband ($`n_z=0,m_z=1`$), in addition to carrier transitions excited off-resonant by $`\omega _z`$ with Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there are also sideband transitions excited off-resonant by $`\omega _x\omega _z`$ and $`\omega _y\omega _z`$, with Rabi frequencies $`\eta _x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\eta _y\mathrm{\Omega }`$ respectively. Since the latter contribute at a higher order in $`\eta `$ compared to the carrier term, they are negligible unless two modes are close in frequency. For a linear ion string the separation of the lowest mode frequencies is large enough that the additional terms make little contribution. Therefore our previous discussion, including equations (19) and (20), remains valid. In the experiments described in section III, on the other hand, $`\omega _y\omega _z0.025\omega _z`$ so unwanted excitation of the $`y`$ sideband has to be taken into account.

For the carrier excitation, in addition to the $`z`$ sidebands excited off-resonant by $`\omega _z`$ with Rabi frequency $`\eta _z\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there are also sideband transitions excited off-resonant by $`\omega _x`$ and $`\omega _y`$ with Rabi frequencies $`(1\eta _z^2)\eta _x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`(1\eta _z^2)\eta _y\mathrm{\Omega }`$ respectively. These contribute at the same order in $`\eta `$ as the $`z`$ sidebands, and result in a change to equation (18) by a numerical factor of order unity.

Our experiments were carried out with only one mode cooled to the ground state. The other two modes had roughly thermal distributions with mean vibrational quantum number of order 10. The result of this is to blur all the Rabi frequencies and light shifts, since each time a given $`z`$ transition is excited, the Rabi frequency depends on the $`x`$ and $`y`$ vibrational quantum numbers:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(n_x,n_x)(n_y,n_y)(n_z,m_z)\left(1n_x\eta _x^2\right)\left(1n_y\eta _y^2\right)C_{n_zm_z}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(22)
We are able to fit our experimental results by calculating the evolution for each value of $`n_x,n_y`$, and then averaging over a thermal population of the $`x`$ and $`y`$ vibrations.

### H Summary

In conclusion, we find that the swap gate and the Cirac-Zoller type of controlled-phase gate can be made faster, at a given level of precision, by making the trap tighter, but the speed increase is only in proportion to $`\omega _z^{1/2}`$. This is in agreement with earlier work , but here we have added a precise quantitative statement of the trade-off between speed and precision. Some previous studies have adopted $`T_S\pi /\omega _z`$ for the purpose of making rough estimates, but we find the error thus introduced is significant; for example, it leads to an overestimate of the switching rate by two orders of magnitude in . By exciting the ion in the node of laser standing wave, it is possible to avoid (or greatly reduce) the off-resonant carrier excitation , therefore $`T_S\pi /\omega _z`$ may be available, but this involves a significant extra complication of the experiment which may render it unfeasible in practice .

The “magic Lamb-Dicke parameter” method of Monroe et al can not be speeded up indefinitely, it has a natural speed limit given by the recoil frequency.

There are advantages in having the ions spaced by a micron or more, in order to allow laser addressing of one ion at a time, and/or resolving the fluorescence from different ions with appropriate imaging optics . If we set a limit $`s`$ for the smallest permissible seperation of the closest ions in the string during processing, we obtain .

$$\omega _{z,\mathrm{cm}}^2<\frac{8e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0Ms^3N^{1.71}}$$
(23)
Putting this in equation (20), and adopting the breathing mode $`\omega _z=\sqrt{3}\omega _{z,\mathrm{cm}}`$, we obtain for the fastest swap gate rate, at given precision and ion spacing,

$$\frac{1}{T_S}2.5\left(\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ_0}\right)^{1/4}ϵ\left(\frac{E_R}{h}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{M^{1/4}s^{3/4}N^{0.93}}.$$
(24)
If we approximate the $`N`$ dependence as $`N^1`$, and set $`s=10\lambda `$ where $`\lambda `$ is the laser wavelength, then we arrive at a “gate time per ion” which depends only on the choice of ion and transition, at given $`ϵ`$. This quantity, $`T_S/N`$, is given in table III for some example transitions, for the case of 99% gate fidelity (i.e. $`ϵ=0.1`$).

## III Experiments

In this section, we describe our experimental investigations, carried out in conditions where the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{sideband}}\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{carrier}}`$ of the sideband excitation is significantly above the recoil frequency. We thus are able to investigate the regime where the speed of execution of the gates determines the fidelity of operation.

We use a single trapped <sup>40</sup>Ca<sup>+</sup> ion to demonstrate the principle of quantum information processing. The electronic $`|S_{1/2}`$, $`m=1/2`$ ground state and the metastable $`|D_{5/2}`$, $`m=5/2`$ state (1s lifetime) are used to implement one qubit. We apply a 4 Gauss bias magnetic field to lift the degeneracy of sublevels in the ground and excited state manifolds. The qubit can be coherently manipulated by laser light at 729 nm (see table I). Two basic operations are demonstrated. First there is the single qubit rotation which only affects the individual internal electronic state, and secondly we perform the swap operation which entangles the electronic state of the ion and its vibrational state. We did not investigate the Monroe et al. $`{}_{}{}^{C}X`$ gate because our experiments involved small Lamb Dicke parameters of order $`0.045`$. In this regime the Monroe method is $`500`$ times more sensitive than the Cirac-Zoller method to laser intensity noise and thermal populations in spectator modes, and we found it to be unworkable in these experiments.

We store the ion in a conventional spherical-quadrupole Paul trap with trap frequencies $`\omega _{x,y,z}=2\pi (4.0,1.925,1.850)`$MHz. To acquire each experimental data point, at given values of the parameters, we run a series of 100 cycles. A single experimental cycle is made up of 5 stages, which are (i) Doppler cooling, (ii) sideband cooling, (iii) coherent driven evolution, (iv) observation of fluorescence, (v) deshelving. We then record the fraction $`P_D`$ of the 100 cycles in which fluorescence was observed in the penultimate stage.

In more detail, the 5 stages of a cycle are as follows. Doppler cooling is performed on the $`|S_{1/2}`$ to $`|P_{1/2}`$ 397 nm electric dipole transition. The electronic ground state is then prepared in a pure $`|S_{1/2},m=1/2`$ state by optical pumping. The ion is cooled to the vibrational ground state of the $`\omega _z`$ mode by applying sideband cooling on the $`|S_{1/2},m=1/2|D_{5/2},m=5/2`$ electric quadrupole transition at 729 nm. A full description of the trap and the cooling procedure is given in Ref. . The wavevector $`𝐤`$ of the 729 nm radiation is nearly perpendicular to the $`y`$ direction, and has an angle of 40 and 50 to the $`z`$ and $`x`$ directions. The corresponding values of $`\eta _{x,y,z}^{729nm}`$ are (0.04, 0.01, 0.045). In the qubit operation step, the $`|S_{1/2},m=1/2|D_{5/2},m=5/2`$ transition is excited with a laser pulse of well controlled frequency, intensity, and timing. Then, by monitoring fluorescence at 397 nm under laser excitation, we detect whether a transition to the non-fluorescing state D<sub>5/2</sub> occurred. The scheme allows one to discriminate between the internal states of the ion with an efficiency close to 100% . In our experiment,the discrimination effiency is approximately 99.8$`\%`$, limited by the lifetime of the metastable state .

Finally, the ion is again repumped (deshelved) from the D<sub>5/2</sub> level to the electronic ground state via the P<sub>3/2</sub> level. The fraction $`P_D`$ of cycles in which fluorescence is observed indicates the population of the $`D_{5/2}`$ level after the coherent qubit operation step.

### A Carrier excitation

As discussed in section II A, the single qubit rotation can be driven fast and without loss in contrast, even in the range where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ exceeds the trap frequencies $`\omega _{x,y,z}`$, as long as the Lamb-Dicke parameters are sufficiently small. To reach this limit in the case of a single-photon transition under travelling wave excitation, the wavevector $`𝐤`$ of the exciting light field should be perpendicular to the chosen vibration direction, and to the direction having next smallest vibrational frequency. The remaining vibrational frequency must be large compared to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In our case the laser is nearly perpendicular to one of the weak confinement directions, but not the other, so there is some unwanted excitation of the motion. A limit to execution speed is set by the available laser power to drive the qubit transition. However, Rabi frequencies as high as a few MHz can be achieved even in the case of dipole forbidden quadrupole transitions.

Rabi oscillations on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$ carrier transition at a frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{carrier}}=2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1090}`$ kHz are shown in Fig. 1a. For this, 100mW of light are focussed into a waist of 30$`\mu `$m at the position of the ion. We observe a contrast of more than 95%, the contrast being mainly limited by the thermally distributed axial vibration mode ($`\omega _x=2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.0}`$MHz), which causes a spread in Rabi frequency owing to the $`n`$-dependence as indicated in equation (22). We find that our results are consistent with an average over a thermal phonon distribution in the x-oscillator having $`n=12(2)`$.

### B Sideband excitation

The second building block is the sideband excitation, involving a $`\mathrm{\Delta }n0`$ transition, here performed on the $`z`$ vibration. For convenience, we adopted the first blue rather than red sideband. The equivalence of blue and red sidebands for these studies was mentioned in section II A. The laser frequency was red-detuned from the blue sideband resonance (measured at low laser power) to compensate for the a.c. Stark effect. The accuracy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=+1`$ operation is therefore limited by off-resonant excitations on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$ transition, as discussed in section II D, see also Fig. 2. We indeed observe off-resonant carrier excitation, visible as fast oscillations with a frequency near $`\omega _z`$ on top of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{sideband}=2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}48}`$ kHz Rabi oscillation, see Fig. 3. Note that this frequency is far beyond the recoil frequency, and thus the contrast shrinks to 75% for a $`\pi `$ pulse.

If the blue sideband $`\omega _z`$ is excited at a Rabi frequency of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{sideband}}=2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7.4}`$kHz (Fig. 1b), the off-resonant carrier excitation is no longer detectable. A contrast of 95% for a $`\pi `$ pulse and 85% for a $`2\pi `$ pulse is measured, while equation (19) predicts $`ϵ=0.063`$ and hence a fidelity $`99.6`$% for the $`\pi `$ pulse. Under low-power excitation, we do not observe any light shift.

The experimental data can be fitted by numerically solving the Schrödinger equation in the truncated basis of the 4-level system consisting of $`|S_{1/2},n=0`$, $`|D_{5/2},n=0`$, $`|S_{1/2},n=1`$, and $`|D_{5/2},n=1`$ states (see Fig. 2), and averaging over a thermal distribution of population in the other vibrational modes. Three parameters in the calculation were independently measured: the Rabi frequency on the carrier $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi 1090`$kHz, the Lamb Dicke parameter $`\eta _z`$, and the trap frequency $`\omega _z=2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1850}`$ kHz. The detuning of the laser field $`\delta `$ is varied for optimum contrast and we find excellent agreement between the data and a numerical simulation for a value of $`\delta _{\mathrm{th}}/2\pi `$= -375 kHz (Fig. 3). The discrepancy of 125 kHz between $`\delta _{\mathrm{th}}`$ and the experimentally determined value $`\delta _{\mathrm{exp}}/2\pi =250`$ kHz is probably caused by light shifts due to the $`D_{5/2}P_{3/2},S_{1/2}P_{1/2}`$, and $`S_{1/2}P_{3/2}`$ transitions. The sum of the calculated light shifts from the dipole transitions is approximately 70 kHz.

A third contribution to the overall light shift is expected from the other radial ($`y`$) mode at 1.925 MHz ($`\delta \omega /2\pi `$=75 kHz). Each level of the y-vibrational ladder is light-shifted, resulting in a change in the $`(n_y,n_y)(1_z,0_z)`$ z-sideband resonance frequency by approximately $`(\eta _y\mathrm{\Omega }_{carrier})^2(n_y+1)/(2(\omega _y\omega _z))=(n_y+1)(2\pi )\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.8}`$ kHz. Assuming a mean vibrational quantum number of 25, a 20 kHz spread in shifts is expected. To model this situation we solved the Schrödinger equation for different $`y`$-oscillator occupations and averaged the results over a thermal distribution (see Fig. 4). The loss of contrast at $`\mathrm{\Omega }t=\pi `$ is dominated by this thermal averaging, rather than laser intensity and magnetic field fluctuations.

To compare the experimental findings with an optimum $`\pi `$ pulse, for a given pulse length, we investigated numerically the parameter space and found that an optimum $`\pi `$ pulse (92% contrast of Rabi $`|S_{1/2}|D_{5/2}`$ oscillation) could be achieved for a detuning of $`\delta _{\mathrm{th}}/2\pi =355`$ kHz. We conclude that the detuning chosen in the experiment was off by 20 kHz. Note, that the electron shelving detection method only measures the internal state occupation, not the vibrational one. Hence, the measured contrast does not directly yield the fidelity. Equation (19) predicts $`ϵ=0.41`$ for this case, and hence a fidelity of 83%. The 20 kHz deviation from the ideal detuning leads to a 5% loss in contrast and the thermally distributed $`y`$-vibration mode with $`n=25`$ further reduces the contrast to 75%. The corresponding fidelity was near 64%. For the details of the $`\pi `$ pulse dynamics, see Fig.4.

To conclude, we have presented a theoretical discussion of two types of quantum gate which couple the internal ion state with its motion, and an experimental study of one of these. Our calculations lead to quantitative statements of the precision of the operations, taking into account the complete Hamiltonian including all the vibrational states and the off-resonant coupling terms. These statements are given in equations (17), (18) for the Monroe et al “magic Lamb Dicke parameter” gate, and in equations (19), (20) for the Cirac-Zoller swap gate. If we set a limit of a fixed number of laser wavelengths for the spacing of the ions in a linear trap, then we arrive at a gate time per ion, for the swap gate, which depends only on the precision and the choice of ion and transition. This time is given in equation (24) and table III.

In our experimental studies we have demonstrated a contrast of 75% for a $`1/T_S=100`$kHz swap operation, and 95% for a $`1/T_S=14`$kHz swap operation on a single trapped ion. These gate rates are respectively 21 and 3 times the relevant recoil frequency. In both cases the contrast could be significantly improved by cooling a further vibrational mode.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Impurity Scattering in Carbon Nanotubes with Superconducting Pair Correlations

Kikuo Harigaya

Electrotechnical Laboratory, Umezono 1-1-4, Tsukuba 305-8568, Japan

Abstract. Effects of the superconducting pair potential on the impurity scattering processes in metallic carbon nanotubes are studied theoretically. The backward scattering of electrons vanishes in the normal state. In the presence of the superconducting pair correlations, the backward scatterings of electron- and hole-like quasiparticles vanish, too. The impurity gives rise to backward scatterings of holes for incident electrons, and it also induces backward scatterings of electrons for incident holes. Negative and positive currents induced by such the scatterings between electrons and holes cancel each other. Therefore, the nonmagnetic impurity does not hinder the supercurrent in the regions where the superconducting proximity effects occur, and the carbon nanotube is a good conductor for Cooper pairs. Relations with experiments are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Recent investigations (1,2) show that the superconducting proximity effect occurs when the carbon nanotubes contact with conventional superconducting metals and wires. The superconducting energy gap appears in the tunneling density of states below the critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. On the other hand, the recent theories discuss the nature of the exceptionally ballistic conduction (3) and the absence of backward scattering (4) in metallic carbon nanotubes with impurity potentials at the normal states.

In this paper, we study the effects of the superconducting pair potential on the impurity scattering processes in metallic carbon nanotubes, using the continuum $`𝒌𝒑`$ model for the electronic states. We find the absence of backward scatterings of electron- and hole-like quasiparticles in the presence of superconducting proximity effects, and the nonmagnetic impurity does not hinder the supercurrent in the regions where the superconducting proximity effects occur. Therefore, the carbon nanotube is a good conductor for Cooper pairs as well as in the normal state. This finding is interesting in view of the recent experimental progress of the superconducting proximity effects of carbon nanotubes (1,2).

IMPURITY SCATTERING
IN NORMAL NANOTUBES

We will study the metallic carbon nanotubes with the superconducting pair potential. The model is as follows:

$$H=H_{\mathrm{tube}}+H_{\mathrm{pair}},$$
(1)
$`H_{\mathrm{tube}}`$ is the electronic states of the carbon nanotubes, and the model based on the $`𝒌𝒑`$ approximation (4,5) represents electronic systems on the continuum medium. The second term $`H_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ is the pair potential term owing to the proximity effect.

The hamiltonian of a graphite plane by the $`𝒌𝒑`$ approximation (4,5) in the secondly quantized representation has the following form:

$$H_{\mathrm{tube}}=\underset{𝒌,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝒌,\sigma }^{}E_𝒌\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝒌,\sigma },$$
(2)
where $`E_𝒌`$ is an energy matrix:

$$E_𝒌=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \gamma \left(k_xik_y\right)& 0& 0\\ \gamma \left(k_x+ik_y\right)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \gamma \left(k_x+ik_y\right)\\ 0& 0& \gamma \left(k_xik_y\right)& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
$`𝒌=(k_x,k_y)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝒌,\sigma }`$ is an annihilation operator with four components: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝒌,\sigma }^{}=(\psi _{𝒌,\sigma }^{(1)},\psi _{𝒌,\sigma }^{(2)},\psi _{𝒌,\sigma }^{(3)},\psi _{𝒌,\sigma }^{(4)})`$. Here, the fist and second elements indicate an electron at the A and B sublattice points around the Fermi point $`K`$ of the graphite, respectively. The third and fourth elements are an electron at the A and B sublattices around the Fermi point $`K^{}`$. The quantity $`\gamma `$ is defined as $`\gamma (\sqrt{3}/2)a\gamma _0`$, where $`a`$ is the bond length of the graphite plane and $`\gamma _0`$ ($``$ 2.7 eV) is the resonance integral between neighboring carbon atoms. When the above matrix is diagonalized, we obtain the dispersion relation $`E_\pm =\pm \gamma \sqrt{k_x^2+\kappa _{\nu \varphi }^2(n)}`$, where $`k_x`$ is parallel with the axis of the nanotube, $`\kappa _{\nu \varphi }(n)=(2\pi /L)(n+\varphi \nu /3)`$, $`L`$ is the circumference length of the nanotube, $`n`$ ($`=0`$, $`\pm 1`$, $`\pm 2`$, …) is the index of bands, $`\varphi `$ is the magnetic flux in units of the flux quantum, and $`\nu `$ ($`=0`$, 1, or 2) specifies the boundary condition in the $`y`$-direction. The metallic and semiconducting nanotubes are characterized by $`\nu =0`$ and $`\nu =1`$ (or 2), respectively. Hereafter, we consider the case $`\varphi =0`$ and the metallic nanotubes $`\nu =0`$.

The second term in Eq. (1) is the pair potential:

$$H_{\mathrm{pair}}=\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{𝒌}{}(\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(1\right)}\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(1\right)}+\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(2\right)}\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(2\right)}+\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(3\right)}\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(3\right)}+\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(4\right)}\psi _{𝒌,}^{\left(4\right)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the strength of the superconducting pair correlation of an $`s`$-wave pairing. We assume that the spatial extent of the regions where the proximity effect occurs is as long as the superconducting coherence length.

Now, we consider the impurity scattering in the normal metallic nanotubes. We take into account of the single impurity potential located at the point $`𝒓_0`$:

$$H_{\mathrm{imp}}=I\underset{𝒌,𝒑,\sigma }{}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(𝒌𝒑\right)𝒓_0}\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝒌,\sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{𝒑,\sigma },$$
(5)
where $`I`$ is the impurity strength.

The scattering $`t`$-matrix at the $`K`$ point is

$$t_K=I\left[1I\frac{2}{N_s}\underset{𝒌}{}G_K(𝒌,\omega )\right]^1,$$
(6)
where $`G_K`$ is a propagator of a $`\pi `$-electron around the Fermi point $`K`$. The discussion about the $`t`$-matrix at the $`K^{}`$ point is qualitatively the same, so we only look at the $`t`$-matrix at the $`K`$ point. The sum for $`𝒌=(k,0)`$, which takes account of the band index $`n=0`$ only, is replaced with an integral:

$$\frac{2}{N_s}\underset{𝒌}{}G_K(𝒌,\omega )=\rho 𝑑ϵ\frac{1}{\omega ^2ϵ^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega & ϵ\\ ϵ& \omega \end{array}\right)\rho \pi i\mathrm{sgn}\omega \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\rho =a/2\pi L\gamma _0`$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy. Therefore, we obtain

$$t_K=\frac{I}{1+I\rho \pi i\mathrm{sgn}\omega }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The transformation into the energy-diagonal representation where the branches with $`E=\pm \gamma |k|`$ are diagonal has the same form of $`t_K`$.

The scattering matrix $`t_K`$ in the energy-diagonal representation is diagonal, and the off-diagonal matrix elements vanish. This means that only the scattering processes from $`k`$ to $`k`$ and from $`k`$ to $`k`$ are effective. The scatterings from $`k`$ to $`k`$ and from $`k`$ to $`k`$ are cancelled. Such the absence of the backward scattering has been discussed recently (4).

IMPURITY SCATTERING WITH SUPERCONDUCTING PAIR POTENTIAL

We consider the single impurity scattering when the superconducting pair potential is present. In the Nambu representation, the scattering $`t`$-matrix at the $`K`$ point is

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_K=\stackrel{~}{I}\left[1\frac{2}{N_s}\underset{𝒌}{}\stackrel{~}{G}_K(𝒌,\omega )\stackrel{~}{I}\right]^1,$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_K`$ is the Nambu representation of $`G_K`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=I\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
The sign of the scattering potential for holes is reversed from that for electrons, so the minus sign appears at the third and fourth diagonal matrix elements.

The sum over $`𝒌`$ is performed as in the previous section, and we obtain the scattering $`t`$-matrix (with the same form in the energy-diagonal representation):

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_K=\frac{I}{1+\left(I\rho \pi \right)^2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1+\alpha \omega & 0& \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }& 0\\ 0& 1+\alpha \omega & 0& \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }& 0& 1+\alpha \omega & 0\\ 0& \alpha \mathrm{\Delta }& 0& 1+\alpha \omega \end{array}\right)$$
(11)
where $`\alpha =I\rho \pi i/\sqrt{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$.

Hence, we find that the off-diagonal matrix elements become zero in the diagonal $`2\times 2`$ submatrix. This implies that the backward scatterings of electron-line and hole-like quasiparticles vanish in the presence of the proximity effects, too. Off-diagonal $`2\times 2`$ submatrix has the diagonal matrix elements whose magnitudes are proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The finite correlation gives rise to backward scatterings of the hole of the wavenumber $`k`$ when the electron with $`k`$ is incident. The back scatterings of the electrons with the wavenumber $`k`$ occur for the incident holes with $`k`$, too. Negative and positive currents induced by such the two scattering processes cancel each other. Therefore, the nonmagnetic impurity does not hinder the supercurrent in the regions where the superconducting proximity effects occur. This effect is interesting in view of the recent experimental progress of the superconducting proximity effects (1,2).

SUMMARY

We have investigated the effects of the superconducting pair potential on the impurity scattering processes in metallic carbon nanotubes. The backward scattering of electrons vanishes in the normal state. In the presence of the superconducting pair correlations, the backward scatterings of electron- and hole-like quasiparticles vanish, too. The impurity gives rise to backward scatterings of holes for incident electrons, and it also induces backward scatterings of electrons for incident holes. Negative and positive currents induced by such the scatterings between electrons and holes cancel each other. Therefore, the carbon nanotube is a good conductor for the Cooper pairs coming from the proximity effects.

REFERENCES

1. A. Y. Kasumov et al, Science 284, 1508 (1999).
2. A. F. Morpurgo, J. Kong, C. M. Marcus, and H. Dai, Science 286, 263 (1999).
3. C. T. White and T. N. Todorov, Nature 393, 240 (1998).
4. T. Ando and T. Nakanishi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1704 (1998).
5. H. Ajiki and T. Ando, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 1255 (1993).


text:
# A Cluster of Black Holes at the Galactic Center

## 1 Introduction

The measurement of proper motions and radial velocities of stars within the central parsec of the Galaxy has led to the conclusion that a black hole of mass $`3.0\pm 0.3\times 10^6M_{}`$ is present in the center (Eckart & Genzel 1997; Genzel et al. 2000). There is also increasing evidence that massive black holes are found in the centers of other galaxies (Richstone et al. 1998).

The central region of the Galaxy is also peculiar because the relaxation time among stars can be shorter than the age of the Galaxy, owing to the high density. The process of relaxation leads to a stellar cusp, which has a density profile $`\rho r^{7/4}`$ when all the stars have the same mass (Bahcall & Wolf 1976). Several interesting physical processes take place among the stars in this cusp: stars can come close enough to physically collide with each other, and they can also come sufficiently close to the black hole to be tidally disrupted or swallowed (e.g., Frank & Rees 1976; Lightman & Shapiro 1977; Quinlan, Hernquist, & Sigurdsson 1995; Sigurdsson & Rees 1997).

One of the consequences of the relaxation is that the most massive objects will sink to the center of the stellar cusp. Among an old stellar population, the most massive objects should be black holes formed in the final core collapse of massive stars. We assume in this paper that most massive stars with $`M30M_{}`$ produce black holes, most with a mass of $`7M_{}`$ (Bailyn et al. 1998). The high mass of these black holes implies that their dynamical friction time to move to the center of the Galaxy is shorter than a Hubble time over a much larger volume than the one where ordinary stars have a short relaxation time. We will find in §2 that this should lead to the formation of a cluster of stellar black holes around the central supermassive black hole (hereafter “Sgr A\*”), and that other stars are ejected from the region occupied by this cluster. In §3 we discuss the rate at which the black holes in this cluster are captured by Sgr A\*, and we find that most of the black holes should still be present in the cluster. Several observable consequences of the presence of this black hole cluster are discussed in §4.

## 2 Cluster Formation

The deprojected light profile in the inner kpc of the Galaxy scales as $`r^{1.8}`$, while the predicted profile around a massive black hole $`(r1\mathrm{pc})`$ scales as $`r^{7/4}`$ (Bahcall & Wolf 1976). For simplicity, we therefore adopt a density profile $`\rho (r)`$

$$\rho (r)r^{7/4}.$$
(1)
From the model fit of Genzel et al. (2000) to the velocity dispersion data, we find that the total mass within $`r_0=1.8\mathrm{pc}`$ is $`2M_{\mathrm{cbh}}`$ (see their Fig. 17), where

$$M_{\mathrm{cbh}}=3\times 10^6M_{}$$
(2)
is the mass of Sgr A\*. Hence, the total distributed mass inside 1.8 pc is $`M_{\mathrm{cbh}}`$, and the density profile is

$$\rho _{}(r)=\frac{5}{16\pi }\frac{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{r_0^3}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{7/4},r_01.8\mathrm{pc}.$$
(3)
We assume that this density profile is entirely composed of stars, brown dwarfs, and stellar remnants. To calculate the mass fraction of black holes, $`\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}`$, we use the following initial mass function. For the range $`M>1M_{}`$, we adopt a Salpeter law $`dN/dmm^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =2.35`$. For $`0.7M_{}<m<1M_{}`$, we adopt $`\alpha =2`$ from Zoccali et al. (2000). For $`0.05M_{}<m<0.7M_{}`$, we adopt $`\alpha =1.65`$ by correcting the result of Zoccali et al. (2000) for binaries according to the adjustment of Gould, Bahcall, & Flynn (1997) and by extending the power law beyond the last observed point at $`0.15M_{}`$. We cut off the mass function at $`m0.05M_{}`$ in accordance with the prelimary indications from microlensing (Han & Gould 1976). We assume that all progenitors with masses 1–8 $`M_{}`$ have become $`0.6M_{}`$ white dwarfs, those with masses 8–30 $`M_{}`$ have become $`1.4M_{}`$ neutron stars, and those with masses 30–100 $`M_{}`$ have become $`7M_{}`$ black holes. We then find

$$\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}=1.6\%,m=0.23M_{},$$
(4)
where $`m`$ is the mean mass of the population.

Once this population is formed, the black holes will sink toward the center on the dynamical friction timescale (Binney & Tremaine 1987)

$$t_{\mathrm{df}}^1=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{4\pi G\rho Gm_{\mathrm{bh}}}{v^3}_0^v𝑑u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi u^2f(u),$$
(5)
where $`m_{\mathrm{bh}}=7M_{}`$ is the mass of the black hole, $`v`$ is its velocity, $`f(u)`$ is the velocity distribution of the ambient stars, and the integral gives the fraction of ambient stars with speeds below $`v`$. For a Gaussian velocity distribution with dispersion $`\sigma `$, and a typical black hole speed $`v^2=3\sigma ^2`$, the value of the integral is $`0.54`$. For the Keplerian part of the potential ($`r<r_0`$), $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}(M_{\mathrm{cbh}}/m_{\mathrm{bh}})=13`$. For $`r>r_0`$, $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rises slightly but we ignore this in the interest of simplicity. We evaluate $`t_{\mathrm{df},0}`$, the fiducial dynamical friction time at $`r_0`$,

$$t_{\mathrm{df},0}=1.4\mathrm{Gyr}$$
(6)
and note its scaling in the two regimes

$$t_{\mathrm{df}}=t_{\mathrm{df},0}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{1/4}(r<r_0),t_{\mathrm{df}}=t_{\mathrm{df},0}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{17/8}(r>r_0).$$
(7)
Hence, after a time $`t`$, all the black holes that were originally within a radius $`r`$ will collect in a cluster near the center, where $`r`$ is given by,

$$\frac{r}{r_0}=\left(\frac{t}{4t_{\mathrm{df},0}}\right)^4(t<4t_{\mathrm{df},0}),\frac{r}{r_0}=\left[\frac{17}{7}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{df},0}}4\right)+1\right]^{8/17}(t>4t_{\mathrm{df},0}).$$
(8)
This implies an infall rate of black holes

$$\frac{dN_{\mathrm{bh}}}{dt}=\frac{5\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{4t_{\mathrm{df},0}m_{\mathrm{bh}}}\left(\frac{t}{4t_{\mathrm{df},0}}\right)^4(t<4t_{\mathrm{df},0}),$$

$$\frac{dN_{\mathrm{bh}}}{dt}=\frac{10\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{7t_{\mathrm{df},0}m_{\mathrm{bh}}}\left[\frac{17}{7}\left(\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{df},0}}4\right)+1\right]^{7/17}(t>4t_{\mathrm{df},0}).$$
(9)
If we assume that the bulge formed at a time $`t_{\mathrm{bulge}}10`$Gyr, then from equation (8), all the black holes within a radius $`r_{\mathrm{df}}=5\mathrm{pc}`$ will have migrated to the center by now. The cumulative total and current rate of precipitation are therefore

$$N_{\mathrm{bh}}2.4\times 10^4,\frac{dN_{\mathrm{bh}}}{dt}2.9\mathrm{Myr}^1.$$
(10)
In other words, provided that our assumption of the fraction of massive stars that form black holes in their final core collapse is correct, we must conclude that a large number of stellar black holes, with a total mass of $`5\%`$ of the Sgr A\* mass, have migrated to the center and, unless they have subsequently been captured by Sgr A\*, they should have formed a cluster of black holes in the center of the stellar cusp.

As the black holes precipitate, they start dominating the total density in some central region at some point, and then the low-mass stars are expelled from this region over a relaxation time. Assuming that most of the energy is lost from the cluster by direct capture of black holes near the center, the black holes should also relax to a density profile proportional to $`r^{7/4}`$, for which the outward energy flow is constant. As this energy flow is transmitted to the low-mass stars outside the black hole cluster, the cluster will need to expand and push out the low-mass stars. To derive the relative density of the black hole profile compared to the empirically normalized stellar profile, we invoke the steady state energy-flow condition between two species of stars A and B of mass $`m_A`$ and $`m_B`$, which dominate the total density $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$ at radii $`r_A`$ and $`r_B`$, respectively. The total energy at radius $`r`$ is proportional to $`\rho \sigma ^2r^3`$, and the relaxation time is proportional to $`\sigma ^3/(\rho m)`$. Therefore, the constant energy flow condition yields

$$\frac{\rho _A\sigma _A^2r_A^3}{\sigma ^3/(\rho _Am_A)}=\frac{\rho _B\sigma _B^2r_B^3}{\sigma ^3/(\rho _Bm_B)},$$
(11)
Making use of the Kepler-potential relation $`\sigma ^2r`$, this implies,

$$\frac{\rho _A}{\rho _B}=\left(\frac{r_A}{r_B}\right)^{7/4}\left(\frac{m_A}{m_B}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(12)
Thus, the mass density of black holes in the central region is below that implied by extrapolating equation (3), by a factor $`(m/m_{\mathrm{bh}})^{1/2}`$, that is, $`\rho _{\mathrm{bh}}(r)=0.18\rho _{}(r)`$. Hence, if all of the black holes precipitated over the lifetime of the galaxy from a radius of $`5\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ remain in the cluster at present, the cluster should extend over a radius $`r_{\mathrm{bh}}`$,

$$r_{\mathrm{bh}}=\left(\frac{\eta _{\mathrm{bh}}^2m_{\mathrm{bh}}}{m}\right)^{2/5}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\mathrm{pc}=0.7\mathrm{pc}.$$
(13)
The timescale to achieve this expansion is the relaxation time in the expanded (lower density) cluster, which is $`3`$ times longer than the dynamical friction timescale because of the lower density.

## 3 Rate of Capture of the Black Holes

In the previous section we found that about 24,000 stellar black holes should have migrated to the center of the stellar cusp around Sgr A\*. We now address the question of the rate at which these black holes will be removed from the cluster by coalescing with Sgr A\*. If this rate is low, most of the black holes should be in the cluster at present. If the rate is high enough, then many fewer black holes will be present, and a balance between the rate at which black holes are precipitating in the cluster by dynamical friction and the rate at which they are being captured should be established.

The dominant process by which black holes will be eliminated is by a random walk into a highly eccentric orbit as their orbits change over the relaxation timescale, from which they can be captured by Sgr A\*. This process was first studied by Frank & Rees (1976). In the case of stars, tidal disruption can eliminate them from the cluster once they come close enough to Sgr A\*; obviously, orbiting black holes will be eliminated only when they are swallowed by Sgr A\*, possibly after having lost orbital energy by emitting gravitational waves.

Before describing in more detail the mechanism by which black holes are captured, we need to discuss the process of orbital diffusion by which black holes will migrate into the eccentric orbits from which they can be captured.

### 3.1 Orbital Diffusion

A black hole can be captured by Sgr A\* from an orbit of any semimajor axis, provided that its peribothron $`q=a(1e)`$ is sufficiently small. This will lead to a distribution of black holes in phase space that is strongly depleted at eccentricities very close to unity, and diffusion of black holes will take place toward orbits of decreasing peribothron. In order to investigate quantitatively this black hole migration, we first evaluate the diffusion tensor in velocity space. We sketch the derivation here and leave the details and the justifications for the various approximations to Appendix A.

The diffusion equation is given by

$$_v𝐣+\frac{f}{t}=0,j_k\underset{l}{}\kappa _{kl}\frac{f(𝐯,𝐫,t)}{v_l}$$
(14)
where $`f`$ is the phase-space density, $`𝐣`$ is the “velocity current density”, and $`\kappa _{kl}`$ is the diffusion tensor. By symmetry, $`\kappa _{kl}=`$ diag($`\kappa _{},\kappa _{},\kappa _r`$), where $`\kappa _{}`$ and $`\kappa _r`$ are the components of $`\kappa `$ perpendicular and parallel to the radial direction. In general, the diffusion tensor depends on the spatial position and the velocity. A useful physical interpretation of the diffusion tensor components is that, over a small interval of time $`\delta t`$, the rms change in the velocity of a black hole in a direction perpendicular to its initial velocity is equal to $`(2\kappa _{}\delta t)^{1/2}`$. The total rms change in any direction is therefore $`(2tr(\kappa )\delta t)^{1/2}`$ (where tr means the trace), and the relaxation time is of order $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2/[2tr(\kappa )]`$.

We assume that the unperturbed (by black-hole capture) phase-space density, $`f_0`$, is a function only of the energy, and hence find, for a $`\rho r^\alpha `$ density profile in a Kepler potential,

$$f_0(𝐮,𝐫)=g\left(\frac{u^2}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\right)h(r),g(x)(1x)^{\alpha 3/2}\mathrm{\Theta }(1x),$$
(15)
$$h(r)\frac{(3\alpha )\alpha !}{8\pi ^2(\alpha 3/2)!(1/2)!}\frac{N_{\mathrm{bh}}}{(2GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}r_{\mathrm{bh}})^{3/2}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}\right)^{3/2\alpha },$$
(16)
where $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}(r)`$ is the local escape velocity, $`N_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ is the total number of black holes within a radius $`r_{\mathrm{bh}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{cbh}}`$ is the central mass, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a step function. Thus, for $`\alpha =7/4`$, $`f_0r^{1/4}(1v^2/v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2)^{1/4}`$. In Appendix A, we show that for $`\alpha =3/2`$, the velocity dependences of the parallel and perpendicular components of the diffusion tensor are

$$\kappa _{}(v,r)=\left(1\frac{1}{5}\frac{v^2}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\right)\kappa _0(r),\kappa _r(v,r)=\left(1\frac{3}{5}\frac{v^2}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\right)\kappa _0(r),$$
(17)
where $`\kappa _0`$ is the (isotropic) diffusion coefficient at $`v=0`$. We also justify in the Appendix using this velocity dependence as an adequate approximation for the case $`\alpha =7/4`$, for which we find,

$$\kappa _0(r)=\frac{7}{6\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{(3/4)!}{(1/4)!}\frac{N_{\mathrm{bh}}(Gm_{\mathrm{bh}})^2v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}{(2GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}r_{\mathrm{bh}})^{3/2}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,$$
(18)
The quantity $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ can be slightly smaller than $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}(M_{\mathrm{cbh}}/m_{\mathrm{bh}})`$, as discussed in Appendix A, depending on the scale over which the diffusion takes place, because scatterings with large velocity changes do not contribute to the diffusion rate over a small range of velocities.

### 3.2 Three Regimes of Capture

Before identifying the condition for capture from highly eccentric orbits, it will be useful to compute the core radius, $`r_c`$, where the energy-loss time to gravitational radiation on a circular orbit is equal to the relaxation time. We define the relaxation time for circular orbits as $`t_{r,0}=v_c^2/[2tr(\kappa )]`$, where $`v_c=(GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}/r)^{1/2}`$ is the circular velocity. The energy loss by gravitational radiation for circular orbits is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}E}{dt}=\frac{64}{5}\frac{G^3m_{\mathrm{bh}}M_{\mathrm{cbh}}^2}{c^5r_c^4}.$$
(19)
Equating this to $`t_{r,0}^1`$, we find,

$$r_c=1.57\left(\frac{GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{c^2}\right)^{2/3}r_{\mathrm{bh}}^{1/3}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{N_{\mathrm{bh}}m_{\mathrm{bh}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{4/15}$$

$$=8.6\mathrm{AU}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{3\times 10^6M_{}}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}{0.7\mathrm{pc}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{1.38N_{\mathrm{bh}}m_{\mathrm{bh}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{4/15}.$$
(20)
This radius is extremely small compared to the cluster radius $`r_{bh}`$. If black holes were captured by diffusing to orbits with $`ar_c`$, and then losing energy by gravitational waves at low eccentricity, the capture rate would therefore also be extremely small. In reality, as we shall see now, black holes will be captured from a large range of radii, mostly from highly eccentric orbits. We must therefore define a relaxation time scale for these high eccentricity orbits.

To do this, we first calculate the orbit-averaged rate of change of the peribothron $`qa(1e)`$ in a highly eccentric orbit. From angular momentum conservation, we have $`v_{}^2=(1+e)qGM_{\mathrm{bh}}/r^2qv_{\mathrm{esc}}^2/r`$. Hence,

$$P\frac{dq}{dt}=_0^P𝑑t\frac{2\kappa _{}r}{v_e^2}=2^{5/4}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\frac{53}{33}\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{bh}}}{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}\right)^2N_{\mathrm{bh}}\left(\frac{a}{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}\right)^{9/4}r_{\mathrm{bh}},$$
(21)
We then define the eccentric relaxation time $`t_{r,1}(a)=(d\mathrm{ln}q/dt)^1`$. We now use $`t_{r,1}`$ to demonstrate that there are three regimes of capture: 1) for $`a<a_{\mathrm{trans}}`$, capture is dominated by gravitational radiation, 2) for $`a_{\mathrm{trans}}<a<a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, it is dominated by direct capture, and 3) for $`a>a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, capture falls off very rapidly and can be ignored.

A particle orbiting around a Schwarzschild black hole with semi-major axis $`a`$ much greater than the Schwarzschild radius will be directly captured by the black hole if its peribothron $`q`$, computed by extrapolating the Newtonian orbit, is less than 4 Schwarzschild radii (e.g., Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973). When $`q=8GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}/c^2`$, the particle is actually brought to 2 Schwarzschild radii by relativistic effects, where the maximum of the effective radial potential is located; the particle has then overcome the angular momentum barrier and can directly fall into the black hole. Therefore, the phase space density should drop to zero below the minimum peribothron

$$q_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{8GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{c^2}0.24\mathrm{AU}.$$
(22)
The black hole can also be captured at larger peribothron if the timescale to change the eccentricity by diffusion is longer than the timescale for losing its orbital energy by gravitational waves. For $`1e1`$, the gravitational radiation decay rate is,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}E}{dt}=\frac{170}{3}(2q)^{7/2}\frac{G^3m_{\mathrm{bh}}M_{\mathrm{cbh}}^2}{c^5a^{1/2}}.$$
(23)
We determine $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the minimum peribothron that avoids capture, by setting $`d\mathrm{ln}E/dt=t_{r,1}^1`$,

$$q_{\mathrm{min}}(a)=0.35\left(\frac{8GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{c^2}\right)\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{1.73N_{\mathrm{bh}}m_{\mathrm{bh}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\right)^{2/5}\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}{a}\right)^{1/2},$$
(24)
where the factor $`1.73`$ is the ratio $`M_{\mathrm{cbh}}/(N_{\mathrm{bh}}m_{\mathrm{bh}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)`$ for the values we use in this paper, and for $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=9.7`$ (see Appendix A). Hence, the transition from capture by gravitational radiation to direct capture occurs at $`a_{\mathrm{trans}}=0.35^2r_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ = 17,000 AU.

Above some critical semimajor axis $`a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the diffusion of $`q`$ over a single period exceeds $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as given by equation (22) for direct capture. Hence, during each period, $`Pa^{3/2}`$, the black holes are captured with a probability that decreases with semimajor axis as $`(q_{\mathrm{min}}/a)a^1`$, so that the capture rate falls off $`a^{5/2}`$. Since the mass within radius $`r`$ increases as $`r^{3\alpha }`$, captures from orbits with $`aa_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ produce a negligible loss of black holes. We evaluate $`a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ by setting $`t_{r,1}=P`$, and find

$$a_{\mathrm{crit}}=0.41\mathrm{pc}\left(\frac{N_{\mathrm{bh}}}{2.4\times 10^4}\right)^{4/9}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}{3\times 10^6M_{}}\right)^{4/3}\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{bh}}}{7M_{}}\right)^{8/9}\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}{0.7\mathrm{pc}}\right)^{5/9}.$$
(25)
### 3.3 Capture Rate From The Loss Cylinder

While $`\kappa `$ is a function of both $`𝐯`$ and $`r`$, we will solve the diffusion equation at fixed $`r`$, and temporarily assume that $`\kappa `$ is independent of $`𝐯`$. We will introduce variation in $`\kappa `$ only when we evaluate the loss rate. This is a very good approximation, as we discuss in Appendix A. We focus first on the case of $`a_{\mathrm{trans}}<a<a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, for which capture is typically direct as described by equation (22). Since $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is independent of $`a`$, the captured orbits at fixed $`r`$ are characterized by a cylinder in velocity space,

$$\frac{v_{}}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}\sqrt{\frac{q_{\mathrm{min}}}{r}}=2\frac{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}{c},\frac{|v_r|}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}1,$$
(26)
where $`v_r`$ and $`𝐯_{}`$ are the radial and perpendicular components of the velocity. Note that this structure in velocity space is definitely a “loss cylinder” and not a “loss cone” as it is often described in the literature. Making use of yet another good approximation described in Appendix A, we solve the steady-state diffusion equation (14), at fixed $`v_r`$:

$$f(𝐯_{};v_r)=f_0(v_r)\left[1\frac{\mathrm{ln}(v_{}^2/(v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2v_r^2))}{\mathrm{ln}(q_{\mathrm{min}}/r)}\right].$$
(27)
Hence, the capture rate per unit volume, $`dC/dV`$, is given by

$$\frac{dC}{dV}=_{\mathrm{cyl}\mathrm{bnd}}𝐣𝑑𝐀=8\pi _0^{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}𝑑v_r\frac{\kappa _{}(v_r)f_0(v_r)}{\mathrm{ln}(r/q_{\mathrm{min}})},$$
(28)
where $`d𝐀`$ is the area element on the boundary of the capture cylinder (“cyl-bnd”). We evaluate this using equations (15) and (17),

$$\frac{dC}{dV}=\frac{35}{16\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{(3/4)!}{(1/4)!}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{\mathrm{ln}(r/q_{\mathrm{min}})}\frac{N_{\mathrm{bh}}^2(Gm_{\mathrm{bh}})^2}{(2GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}r_{\mathrm{bh}})^{3/2}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}\right)^2r_{\mathrm{bh}}^3$$

$$=\frac{6\kappa _0}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\frac{n(r)}{\mathrm{ln}(r/q_{\mathrm{min}})},$$
(29)
where $`n(r)=5N_{\mathrm{bh}}/(16\pi r_{\mathrm{bh}}^3)(r/r_{\mathrm{bh}})^{7/4}`$ is the number density of black holes at radius $`r`$, and $`6\kappa _0/v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2`$ is of order the relaxation time. Integrating over volume, the total capture rate within some maximum radius $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (determined below) is

$$C=k\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{\mathrm{ln}(r_{\mathrm{max}}/q_{\mathrm{min}})}N_{\mathrm{bh}}^2\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{bh}}}{M_{\mathrm{cbh}}}\right)^2\frac{r_{\mathrm{max}}}{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}\frac{2\pi }{P_{\mathrm{bh}}}$$
(30)
where $`k=(2\pi )^{1/2}(35/8)(3/4)!/(1/4)!1.76`$, $`P_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ is the orbital period at $`a=r_{\mathrm{bh}}`$, and where we have made the evaluation treating $`\mathrm{ln}(r/q_{\mathrm{min}})\mathrm{ln}(r_{\mathrm{max}}/q_{\mathrm{min}})`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ as constants. Notice that the capture rate increases as $`N_{\mathrm{bh}}^{4/5}`$ as black holes are added to the cluster, because $`r_{\mathrm{bh}}N_{\mathrm{bh}}^{4/5}`$, and $`P_{\mathrm{bh}}N_{\mathrm{bh}}^{6/5}`$.

As described already by Frank & Rees (1976), the result we have reached in equations (29) and (30) shows that the capture rate of the black holes is essentially proportional to the relaxation time, and the fact that $`q_{\mathrm{min}}/r1`$ increases the time required for the black hole to find a capture orbit only logarithmically. The reason is that, over a relaxation time, an orbiting black hole will totally change its eccentricity not only due to some large deflection in a close encounter, but also due to many small deflections that will change the eccentricity by very small amounts, allowing the black hole to effectively sweep over all possible eccentricities and find the very narrow range of eccentricity where it can be captured. However, this is no longer true for $`a>a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$: when $`q`$ is brought below $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$ by the random deflections, the black hole will most likely miss being captured unless it happens to be at peribothron.

The maximum radius $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of integration of the capture rate in equation (30) must therefore be of order $`a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. For a highly eccentric orbit, the time-averaged radius is $`r=(3/2)a`$. We therefore adopt $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=(3/2)a_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. Since capture is dominated by black holes near $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$, we evaluate $`\mathrm{ln}(r/q_{\mathrm{min}})`$ there and find,

$$\mathrm{ln}(r_{\mathrm{max}}/q_{\mathrm{min}})=\mathrm{ln}\frac{3c^2a_{\mathrm{crit}}}{16GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}}13.2.$$
(31)
At the same time, the term $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ can be approximated as (see Appendix A)

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{c^2r_{\mathrm{max}}}{8GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}}9.7$$
(32)
Hence, the ratio of logarithms in equation (30) is $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{ln}(r_{\mathrm{max}}/q_{\mathrm{min}})0.73`$. We are finally able to evaluate the capture rate explicitly,

$$C\frac{N_{\mathrm{bh}}}{30\mathrm{Gyr}}.$$
(33)
Since this timescale is much longer than a Hubble time, most of the 24,000 black holes that have entered the cluster are still in it and have not been captured. Hence, the actual radius of the black hole cluster is close to our initial estimate given by equation (13).

Note that we have everywhere used the direct capture formula (22) to calculate $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$ rather than the gravitational radiation formula (24), which applies at $`r<a_{\mathrm{trans}}17,000`$AU. Recall, however, that $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$ only enters into the logarithm term. The capture rate from the inner part of the cluster is therefore higher than we have assumed, but not dramatically. Notice that since $`q_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is a function of $`a`$ in equation (24), the loss structure in velocity space is not a cylinder as in the case of direct capture \[see eq. (26)\]. Rather, this structure is fatter near $`v_r0`$ and narrower near $`v_r\pm v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$.

## 4 Observable Consequences

The large number of black holes that move to the center by dynamical friction have several observable effects which we now discuss.

The most important effect is that the stars that formerly resided in the region that is now occupied by the cluster of black holes are ejected into orbits at larger radius. Therefore, the old stellar population of mass $`m`$ should have a very large core radius, given by $`r_{cs}=r_{\mathrm{bh}}(m_{\mathrm{bh}}/m)^{2/7}12\mathrm{pc}`$. This core radius ($`40^{\prime \prime }`$) is much larger than the value expected from stellar collisions alone, which would only produce a core at the radius $`0.03\mathrm{pc}`$ where the orbital velocities are comparable to the escape velocities from the stellar surfaces. The most straightforward test of our model is therefore to measure the distribution of low-mass stars and find out if this very large core indeed exists.

In fact, the bright ($`K<15`$) stars in the inner galaxy exhibit a power-law profile ($`\alpha 7/4`$) all the way to $`r0.1\mathrm{pc}`$ where a core sets in (Genzel et al. 2000; Schmitt 1995). However, this is not necessarily inconsistent with a core in the old population: most of the observed stars could well be young. Indeed, Genzel et al. (2000) have found that the stars they observed very near to the Galactic center are young supergiants, which must have formed in a recent ($`10`$Myr) burst of star formation. If such bursts of star formation have occurred repeatedly, then we would expect that the inner region $`r<r_{\mathrm{bh}}0.7\mathrm{pc}`$ should contain the remains of the bursts from the last $`t_r(r_{\mathrm{bh}})2`$Gyr, but not earlier. Blum, Sellgren, & DePoy (1996a) found that the luminosity function in the inner $`2^{}`$ (5 pc) extends to several magnitudes brighter than the one in Baade’s Window and inferred that young stars must be present in significant numbers. Blum, Sellgren, & DePoy (1996b) obtained spectra of 19 of these brighter stars. Of those they could age-date, most were younger than 200 Myr.

The intermediate-age ($`2`$Gyr) and older stars ejected from the central cluster could be expected to be found up to a few $`r_0`$ from Sgr A\* on “Oort Cloud” like orbits. That is, a star from this population would keep getting jolted by the black holes to a more and more eccentric orbit until diffusive encounters near apocenter drove it into an orbit with a pericenter just beyond $`r_{\mathrm{bh}}`$. Narayanan, Gould, & Depoy (1996) list 16 presumably intermediate-age stars $`(K_0<5)`$ at projected radii of 8 to 20 pc. If these come primarily from the central pc, they should be preferentially on radial orbits. Of course, there has been recent star formation outside the central pc as well. For example, Blum et al. (1996b) estimate the ages IRS 24 and IRS 23 at $`100`$Myr and $`200`$Myr respectively, and these both lie at a projected distance of 1.7 pc. Hence, not all the Narayanan et al. (1996) stars are necessarily ejected.

Another interesting consequence of the ejection of low-mass stars from the center is that the capture of ordinary stars by supermassive black holes could be much rarer than commonly believed. These captures should lead to bright optical flares (e.g., Rees 1988; Ulmer 1999), which could be found in supernova searches. A cluster of black holes should have formed around all the supermassive black holes in galactic centers by the dynamical friction process described here, and these clusters would reduce by a large factor the rate at which stars can come close enough to the black hole to be tidally disrupted. Of course, since there is a central density cusp containing at least young stars around Sgr A\*, there will be some tidal captures, but the absence of old stars should reduce the number of expected flares. In addition, for galaxies such as ellipticals that are poor in neutral gas, one would not expect continuous star formation near the central black holes. Consequently, after the black hole cluster had ejected all the old stars, no young stars would form to replace them. For these galaxies, flares from stellar captures could be extremely rare.

We mention also microlensing of a background bulge star as another potentially observable effect, although requiring a large improvement in sensitivity and resolution of infrared imaging over our current capabilities. If a bulge star at a distance $`2\mathrm{kpc}`$ behind the center could be observed, the angular Einstein radius of Sgr A\* would be $`b=0.^{\prime \prime }8`$, corresponding to a linear size of $`r_E=0.03\mathrm{pc}`$. The two images of the star could therefore be comfortably resolved. The star would typically take several hundred years to complete the “microlensing event” by Sgr A\*. These two images would then have a microlensing optical depth to be lensed by one of the cluster black holes, $`\tau (N_{\mathrm{bh}}m_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_{BH})(r_E/r_{bh})^{5/4}A10^3A`$, where $`A`$ is the magnification of the image. Imaging down to $`K=21`$, one should on average find about one background star at $`2\mathrm{kpc}`$ within an Einstein radius of Sgr A\*, and about 100 similar stars near the core radius of $`1\mathrm{pc}`$ (for which the Einstein radius of Sgr A\* would be only $`0.^{\prime \prime }02`$). Of course, the identification of the two images of a star lensed by Sgr A\* would be of enormous interest by itself; despite the large number of orbiting black holes in the cluster, the expected rate of the “planet-like” events is still low, and several lensed stars would need to be identified to have a good chance of detecting the short events over a period of $`10`$ years.

Work by AG was supported in part by grant AST 97-27520 from the NSF. We are happy to acknowledge discussions with Martin J. Rees.

## Appendix A Diffusion Tensor in a Kepler Potential

Here, we calculate the diffusion tensor $`\kappa `$ for the general case of a $`\rho r^\alpha `$ density profile in a Kepler potential. assuming that the velocity distribution is isotropic. Recall that the phase space distribution is given by equations (15) and (16). We begin our evaluation at $`𝐯=0`$ where the diffusion tensor, $`\kappa _0`$, is isotropic. A single encounter with another black hole at speed $`u`$ changes the velocity by $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=2Gm_{\mathrm{bh}}/(bu)`$. Hence the time averaged growth of $`v^2`$ is

$$\frac{dv^2}{dt}=2\pi b𝑑bd^3u\left(\frac{2Gm_{\mathrm{bh}}}{bu}\right)^2uf_0(u,r)$$

$$=\frac{2(3\alpha )\alpha !}{(\alpha 1/2)!(1/2)!}\frac{N_{\mathrm{bh}}(Gm_{\mathrm{bh}})^2v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}{(2GM_{\mathrm{cbh}}r_{\mathrm{bh}})^{3/2}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{bh}}}\right)^{3/2\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,$$
(A1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is the ratio of maximum to minimum impact parameters, which we evaluate below.

If the diffusion equation is written (for isotropic $`\kappa _0`$) as $`\kappa _0_v^2f=f/t`$, then

$$\kappa _0=\frac{1}{6}\frac{dv^2}{dt},$$
(A2)
which combined with equation (A1) gives $`\kappa _0`$.

Next, we evalute $`\kappa _{}(v)`$ and $`\kappa _r(v)`$ for the special case of $`\alpha =3/2`$ for which the phase-space density (eqs.  and ) is independent of both radius and velocity and consequently the problem is tractable analytically. Up to an overall normalization $`\gamma `$, the transverse velocity diffusion is given by

$$\frac{dv_{}^2}{dt}=\frac{\gamma }{2}_{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}^{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}𝑑u_r_{\theta =0}^{\theta _{\mathrm{max}}(u_r)}\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{2}\right)\frac{(u_r+v)^2d\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }{|u_r+v|\mathrm{sec}\theta },$$
(A3)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{max}}(u_r)|u_r+v|/(v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2+v^2+2u_rv)^{1/2}`$. For the total velocity diffusion $`dv_{}^2/dt`$, we find a similar expression, but with $`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )/21`$. We evaluate these expressions and find

$$\frac{dv^2}{dt}=\gamma v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2\left(1\frac{1}{3}\frac{v^2}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\right),\frac{dv_{}^2}{dt}=\frac{2}{3}\gamma v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2\left(1\frac{1}{5}\frac{v^2}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\right).$$
(A4)
We therefore conclude that $`\kappa _{}(v)/\kappa _0=10.2(v/v_{\mathrm{esc}})^2`$ and $`\kappa _r(v)/\kappa _0=10.6(v/v_{\mathrm{esc}})^2`$. These results apply to $`\alpha =3/2`$, but we adopt them for $`\alpha =7/4`$ as well. If the true coefficient for $`\alpha =7/4`$ is $`0.2(1+ϵ)`$ rather than 0.2, then this introduces an error into the capture formula (30) of only $`(1/6)ϵ`$. Since $`ϵ`$ is likely to be small, this correction is negligible.

We now justify two other approximations made in the capture calculation in § 3. First, in equation (27), we effectively considered the diffusion coefficient as fixed on slices of the velocity sphere perpendicular to the cylinder and passing through $`v_r`$. In fact, it is fixed on spherical shells of constant speed. This “plane parallel” approximation is justified by two related considerations. First, $`\kappa `$ varies very slowing, only by a factor $`1.25`$ over the entire velocity sphere. Second, most of the depleted region of velocity space is relatively near the cylinder, so that the error in $`\kappa `$ made by the plane-parallel approximation is extremely small.

Next, the boundary condition for the solution to the diffusion equation (27) sets the phase-space density $`f`$ at the edge of the velocity sphere $`(u=v_{\mathrm{esc}})`$ equal to the unperturbed density $`f_0`$ at $`u=v_r`$. Strictly speaking, if the boundary condition is set at $`(u=v_{\mathrm{esc}})`$, then one should use $`f_0(v_{\mathrm{esc}})`$. However, for the $`\alpha =7/4`$ profile, this is zero. (Our approximation would be exact for $`\alpha =3/2`$). The basis for our approximation is that the density returns essentially to $`f_0`$ long before the edge of the velocity sphere, at which point $`f_0`$ is not much different from $`f_0(v_r)`$.

Finally, we evaluate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=b_{\mathrm{max}}/b_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the ratio of the maximum to minimum impact parameters. This can also be written $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}`$, where $`(ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}v_{\mathrm{esc}},ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}v_{\mathrm{esc}})`$ is the range of impulses relevant to the problem at hand. For general relaxation $`ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}=1`$ and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{min}}2Gm_{\mathrm{bh}}/(rv_{\mathrm{esc}}^2)=m_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_{\mathrm{cbh}}`$. However, while the harder scatters all contribute to the overall relaxation, they do not contribute to diffusion into the loss cone because the black hole simply “jumps over” the capture cylinder. Unfortunately, it is not trivial to identify exactly what the largest allowed jumps should be: while jumps larger than $`(q_{\mathrm{min}}/r)^{1/2}v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ do not directly lead to capture, they do help maintain the overall velocity profile given by equation (27). Note that the profile differs significantly from the background for many $`e`$-foldings. If the jumps larger than $`(q_{\mathrm{min}}/r)^{1/2}`$ did not contribute at all, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=(q_{\mathrm{min}}/r)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In view of the distribution’s slow approach to the background level near the capture cylinder, we adopt $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }(q_{\mathrm{min}}/r)^{1/4}=9.7`$.