text:
# Maximally-Disordered Distillable Quantum States

## Abstract

We explore classical to quantum transition of correlations by studying the quantum states located just outside of the classically-correlated-states-only neighborhood of the maximally mixed state (the largest separable ball (LSB)). We show that a natural candidate for such states raises the possibility of a layered transition, i.e., an annular region comprising only classical and the classical-like bound entangled states, followed by free or distillable entanglement. Surprisingly, we find the transition to be abrupt for bipartite systems: distillable states emerge arbitrarily close to the LSB. For multipartite systems, while the radius of the LSB remains unknown, we determine the radius of the largest undistillable ball. Our results also provide an upper bound on how noisy shared entangled states can be for executing quantum information processing protocols.

PACS numbers: 03.67.Hk, 03.65.Bz, 89.70.+c

Introduction: The states of a bipartite quantum system can either be separable or inseparable: In the former, the correlations between the subsystems are entirely classical (i.e., the correlations can be mimicked by a local description of the individual subsystems), and the states can be written as a convex combination of product states:

$$\rho ^{AB}=p_i\rho _i^A\rho _i^B,$$
(1)
where $`A,B`$ denote the subsystems and the positive probabilities $`p_{i\text{ }}`$ add up to one. The density matrices $`\rho _i`$ act on the individual Hilbert spaces corresponding to the subsystems $`A`$ and $`B.`$ If a state cannot be written in the form (1) it is said to be inseparable or entangled and can exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by any classical theory . Recent advances have led to discoveries of two qualitatively different forms of entanglement, namely, bound entanglement  and distillable entanglement

It is of fundamental importance how the different classes of quantum states are distributed in the Hilbert space. In particular, an understanding of the distribution of different states along the boundaries in the Hilbert space, where transitions from classically correlated states to quantum correlated states occur, has the potential to provide new insights into the very nature of quantum non-locality. A legitimate starting point would be to obtain a picture of such a distribution relative to the maximally mixed state: the state which is completely disordered (both locally and globally) and does not have any correlation between the subsystems. It is natural to expect that as one starts to move away from the maximally mixed state one would encounter more ordered states, as well as emergence of correlations between the subsystems. It has been shown that the neighbourhood of a maximally mixed state consists entirely of separable states , and recently the exact size of this separable neighbourhood for bipartite systems has been obtained . Thus, transitions from classical correlations to quantum can be observed just beyond the boundary of the LSB.

While determining the exact size of the separable neighbourhood constitutes a major progress, answers to several questions related to the characterization and distribution of the inseparable states beyond the LSB remain unknown, primarily because of the existence of two very different types of entanglement, viz., bound entanglement (BE) and distillable entanglement. The former class, though quantum correlated, is qualitatively very similar to classically correlated states because of their positivity under partial transposition (PPT)  and usefulness that is no better than classically correlated states for reliable quantum information processing. The latter class, however, is negative under partial transposition (NPT) and shows distinct and demonstrable non-local features in quantum communication protocols  111We also note that the existence of BE state that are NPT has been conjectured by several groups, but a rigorous proof is still pending..

We first ask how one may construct entangled states that are closest to the LSB. It was often thought that the entangled states closest to the maximally mixed state can be reached via mixing of an entangled state with the maximally mixed state, e.g., the pseudo-pure states used in room temperature NMR quantum computing. We will refer to this class of states as the Werner-type states . We show that while this is true for the simplest case of $`22`$, for all other bipartite systems, *there is a finite gap between the boundary of the LSB and the nearest inseparable state (which turns out to be distillable as well)* that can be reached via such mixing.

Such a finite gap between the most-disordered distillable Werner-type states and the LSB opens up several interesting possibilities. For instance, we can think of a PPT neighbourhood of the maximally mixed state distinct from the LSB within which there is no NPT state. Moreover, there can as well be a largest undistillable neighbourhood distinct from both the largest separable and the largest PPT ones, with bound entangled states as the only inseparable states in the intermediate regime. We therefore ask *at what distances and in what order, if any, relative to the boundary of the LSB can distillable and bound entangled states be found*?

For bipartite quantum systems, we show, using explicit constructions, that instead of the different types of inseparable states appearing in a layered fashion, both distillable and NPT $`n`$-copy undistillable states (conjectured to be NPT bound entangled)  can be found arbitrarily close to the boundary of the LSB. *The class of distillable states that lie arbitrarily close to the boundary of the LSB* are therefore, *the maximally-disordered distillable states*. Such states are constructed via perturbations of the separable states on the surface of the LSB. A subset of such separable states on the surface are the maximally mixed states of $`(D1)`$ dimensional subspaces where $`D`$ is the dimension of the full Hilbert space..

We also provide constructions for maximally disordered distillable states in multipartite quantum systems, where the exact size of the LSB is still unknown. However, using a result obtained in Ref.  we are able to show that all quantum states that are on or inside the ball of radius $`R_{LSB}`$ ($`D`$ is now the *total dimension* of the multipartite system) are PPT and therefore represents the largest undistillable ball in the multipartite case. Proceeding in a similar way as in the bipartite case we construct multipartite distillable states that are arbitrarily close to this PPT ball. Interestingly this shows that given a composite quantum system, the radius of the largest undistillable neighbourhood is independent of all possible partitions and depends only on the total dimension. Remarkably, the preceding result coupled with the conjecture that the the LSB for multipartite systems is smaller than that for bipartite systems, lead to a *new conjecture that the transition for general multipartite systems is indeed layered.*
Minimum distance of the Werner-type entangled states from the maximally mixed state: In this paper, the distance between any two density matrices, $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma ,`$ will be given by the Hilbert-Schmidt distance defined as: $`\delta =\rho \sigma \sqrt{tr\left(\left(\rho \sigma \right)^2\right)}.`$ We begin by considering the class of bipartite mixed states , $`\rho _x=x\rho +\frac{(1x)}{D}𝐈`$, where $`x>0`$ and $`\rho `$ is any density matrix in $`dd`$ . The total dimension of the composite Hilbert space is denoted by $`D=d^2.`$ Obviously if $`\rho _x`$ is entangled for some values of $`x,`$ then $`\rho `$ must be an entangled state. Entanglement properties of such states are of considerable importance because the generic quantum states used in NMR quantum computing, the so called pseudo-pure states , and the famous Werner states  are of similar form. In what follows we answer the question, are the states $`\rho _x,`$ when inseparable, the closest inseparable states to the maximally mixed state? In Ref  it was shown that the states $`\rho _x`$ are always separable when $`x\frac{1}{D1}`$. Moreover, $`\rho _x`$ becomes inseparable when $`\rho `$ is taken to be a maximally entangled state of Schmidt rank two and $`x>\frac{2}{D+2}`$. The proof of inseparability follows from the fact that when $`\rho `$ is chosen to be a maximally entangled state of Schmidt rank 2, then $`\rho _x`$ becomes an NPT state for $`x>\frac{2}{D+2}`$ .

We first show that *$`\rho _x`$ indeed becomes distillable* when $`x>\frac{2}{D+2}`$, and $`\rho `$ is one of the four Bell states, $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ defined in the standard basis as $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00\pm |11\right)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|01\pm |10\right)`$. Let $`\rho =|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left|(x\rho ^{PT}+\frac{(1x)}{D}𝐈)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}<0`$ when $`x>\frac{2}{D+2}.`$ Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is a Schmidt rank two state, the state $`\rho _x`$ is therefore distillable222A bipartite quantum state $`\rho `$ is said to be distillable iff there exists an integer $`n`$ and a Schmidt rank two state $`|\psi `$ such that $`\psi \left|\left(\rho ^{PT}\right)^n\right|\psi <0`$ ..

Let us now note that when $`x\frac{1}{D1},`$ the distance of the state $`\rho _x`$ from the maximally mixed state is always less than or equal to $`R_{LSB}`$ and the equality is achieved when $`\rho `$ is any pure state and $`x=\frac{1}{D1}.`$ The intermediate regime $`\frac{1}{D1}<x\frac{2}{D+2},`$ therefore corresponds to the states that are outside the LSB and the inseparability/separability property of these states remains to be determined.

We now show that *if $`x\frac{2}{D+2}`$, then states of the form $`\rho _x=x\rho +\frac{(1x)}{D}𝐈`$ are always separable for all $`\rho `$.*  It was proved in Ref  that a full rank mixed state is separable if the minimum eigenvalue is greater or equal to $`\frac{1}{D+2}.`$ We show that if $`x\frac{2}{D+2}`$ then for any $`\rho `$ the minimum eigenvalue of $`\rho _x`$ is always greater or equal to $`\frac{1}{D+2}`$ from which our conclusion immediately follows. Let us first suppose that $`\rho `$ is not a full rank state. Then the minimum eigenvalue of $`\rho _x`$ is $`\frac{(1x)}{D}\frac{1}{D+2}`$ if $`x\frac{2}{D+2}`$. Now assume that $`\rho `$ is a full rank state and the minimum eigenvalue of $`\rho `$ is $`\lambda .`$ Then the minimum eigenvalue of $`\rho _x`$ is $`\lambda x+\frac{(1x)}{D}`$. Then $`\lambda x+\frac{(1x)}{D}\frac{1}{D+2}`$, which implies that $`x\frac{2}{(D+2)(1D\lambda )}`$. Since $`D\lambda 1,`$ we have $`\frac{2}{(D+2)(1D\lambda )}>\frac{2}{D+2}.`$

Now note that the distance of the state $`\rho _x`$ from the maximally mixed state is given by $`x\sqrt{Tr\left(\rho ^2\right)\frac{1}{D}}.`$ Thus, the inseparable states (as shown earlier, such states are also distillable) nearest to the maximally mixed state that can be reached via perturbation can be expressed as a mixture of a pure entangled state and the maximally mixed state and therefore at a distance $`R=\frac{2}{D+2}\sqrt{\frac{(D1)}{D}}`$. We note that $`RR_{LSB}`$ and the equality is achieved only when $`D=4,`$ corresponding to the systems in $`22.`$ From the ratio $`\frac{R}{R_{LSB}}=2\left(\frac{D1}{D+2}\right)`$ implies that as the dimension of the Hilbert space increases, the entangled states that can be reached via perturbation start to move away farther from the boundary of the LSB, and the ratio becomes as large as $`2`$.
Constructions of distillable states arbitrarily close to the boundary of the LSB: We first note that the radius of the largest separable ball is, in fact, the distance between the maximally mixed state and the maximally mixed state in any $`(D1)`$ dimensional subspace, i.e., $`R_{LSB}=\frac{1}{D}𝐈\frac{1}{D1}𝐈_{D1}`$, where $`𝐈_{D1}=\frac{1}{D1}\left(𝐈|\phi \phi |\right)`$, for some pure state $`|\phi `$. This turns out to be a useful observation. We now focus our attention on a class of operators that are the partial transposition of $`\frac{1}{D1}𝐈_{D1}`$:

$$\sigma _\phi (k)=\frac{1}{D1}\left(𝐈|\phi \phi |\right)^{PT},$$
(2)
where $`|\phi `$ is a pure state of Schmidt rank $`k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$, and is of the form $`_{i=0}^{i=k1}\eta _i|ii`$ where $`\eta _i^{}s`$ are real and positive and $`_{i=0}^{k1}\left|\eta _i\right|^2=1`$. The superscript $`PT`$ denotes partial transposition. One can now check that the operator $`\sigma _\phi (k)`$ is indeed a density matrix. Firstly, it has trace one, since the trace of it’s partial transpose is one and trace is invariant under partial transposition. Now note that the eigendecomposition of the operator $`|\phi ^{PT}\phi |`$ is given by

$`\left(|\phi \phi |\right)^{PT}`$ $`=\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left|\eta _i\right|^2|iiii\left|+\underset{i,j=0,i<j}{\overset{k1}{}}\eta _i\eta _j\right|\psi _{ij}^+\psi _{ij}^+|`$
$`\text{ }\underset{i,j=0,i<j}{\overset{k1}{}}\eta _i\eta _j|\psi _{ij}^{}\psi _{ij}^{}|,`$ (3)
where $`|\psi _{ij}^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|ij\pm |ji\right).`$Note that the eigenvectors of $`\left(|\phi \phi |\right)^{PT}`$ span $`k^2`$ dimensional subspace. Now substituting (3) in (2) one can see that the operator is Hermitian and positive semidefinite. Therefore it is a density matrix.

When $`k=1`$, $`|\phi `$ is a product state. Hence, $`\sigma _\phi (1)`$ is the maximally mixed state of a $`(D1)`$ dimensional subspace and is on the surface of the LSB. The same cannot be said when $`k2`$ because $`|\phi `$ is now a pure entangled state. In fact we next show that the states, $`\sigma _\phi (k)`$ are of full rank and also lie on the surface of the LSB for all $`k2`$. They are therefore separable.

Substituting (3) in (2) one can obtain the spectral decomposition of $`\sigma _\phi (k)`$,

$`\sigma _\phi (k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{D1}}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}(1|\eta _i|^2)\right|iiii|`$
$`+\underset{i,j=0,i<j}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(1\eta _i\eta _j\right)|\psi _{ij}^+\psi _{ij}^+|`$
$`+\underset{i,j=0,i<j}{\overset{k1}{}}(1+\eta _i\eta _j)|\psi _{ij}^{}\psi _{ij}^{}|+𝐈_{Dk^2}),`$ (4)
where $`𝐈_{Dk^2}`$ is the projector on the $`(Dk^2)`$ dimensional subspace. One can now see that $`\sigma _\phi (k)`$ is of full rank, because none of the eigenvalues is zero. A calculation of the distance from the maximally mixed state leads to the result that the distance $`\frac{1}{D}𝐈\sigma _\phi (k)=R_{LSB}`$ for all $`k=2,\mathrm{},d`$. Note that *the distance is independent of $`k`$*, and the states are separable because they lie on the surface of the LSB.

We now consider the class of states obtained via perturbation of the states $`\sigma _\phi (k)`$,

$$\rho _{\psi ,\phi }(ϵ,k)=ϵ|\psi \psi |+\left(1ϵ\right)\sigma _\phi \left(k\right),$$
(5)
where $`|\psi `$ is a pure entangled state to be fixed later and $`0<ϵ<1`$. We next prove that *for the cases, k=1,2* *there exist states, $`|\psi `$, such that $`\rho _{\psi ,\phi }(ϵ,k)`$ are distillable* for some finite range of $`ϵ.`$In the rest of this discussion, we will ignore the subscript $`\phi `$ in the cases when it is apparent from the context.

k=1: Without loss of generality, we can write $`\rho _\psi (ϵ,1)=ϵ|\psi \psi |+\frac{1ϵ}{D1}𝐈_{D1}`$, where $`\frac{1ϵ}{D1}𝐈_{D1}=\frac{1ϵ}{D1}(𝐈|0000|)`$. Let $`|\psi `$ be a pure entangled state of Schmidt rank two: $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(|10|112|01\right).`$To prove that $`\rho _\psi (ϵ,1)`$ is distillable, we need to show that there exists a Schmidt rank two state $`|\chi `$ such that $`\chi \left|\rho ^{PT}\right|\chi <0`$. Construct the following state

$$|\chi =\alpha |00+\frac{\beta }{2}\left(|10|11|00+|01\right),$$
(6)
where $`\alpha =\left|\alpha \right|e^{i\vartheta _1}`$ and $`\beta =\left|\beta \right|e^{i\vartheta _2}`$ are complex quantities. By showing that the reduced density matrices are of rank 2, one can easily verify that the state $`|\chi `$ is indeed of Schmidt rank two. We choose $`\vartheta _1,\vartheta _2`$ such that $`\vartheta _1\vartheta _2=\pi `$. With this constraint, the normalization condition for $`|\chi `$ reads as $`\left|\alpha \right|^2+\left|\beta \right|^2+\left|\alpha \right|\left|\beta \right|=1.`$ One can now easily check that: $`\chi \left|\rho _\psi ^{PT}(ϵ,1)\right|\chi =\frac{ϵ}{3}\left|\alpha \right|\left|\beta \right|+\frac{3(1ϵ)}{4(D1)}\left|\beta \right|^2,`$where we have used $`\vartheta _1\vartheta _2=\pi `$. Let $`\frac{\left|\alpha \right|}{\left|\beta \right|}=y.`$ Requiring $`\chi \left|\rho _\psi ^{PT}(ϵ,1)\right|\chi <0`$ for distillability, one obtains

$$ϵ>\frac{1}{1+yA},$$
(7)
where $`A=\frac{4(D1)}{9}`$ is a constant. The above condition can be always satisfied for every $`ϵ>0`$ as we can appropriately choose the ratio, $`y`$, and then solve for $`\left|\alpha \right|`$ and $`\left|\beta \right|`$ by solving: $`\left|\alpha \right|^2+\left|\beta \right|^2+\left|\alpha \right|\left|\beta \right|=1`$. Hence, *$`\rho _{\psi ,\phi }`$ is distillable*.

k=2: Let $`\rho _\psi (ϵ,2)=ϵ|\psi \psi |+\left(1ϵ\right)\sigma _\phi (2)`$ where $`\sigma _\phi \left(2\right)=\frac{1}{D1}\left(𝐈|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|\right)^{PT}`$. That is, we have chosen $`|\phi `$ to be the the Bell state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. We now choose $`|\psi `$ as the singlet state. Therefore, the state under consideration is: $`ϵ|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|+\frac{1ϵ}{D1}\left(𝐈|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+|\right)^{PT}`$. By noting that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ is the eigenvector corresponding to the negative eigenvalue of $`\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\right)^{PT}`$ it follows, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+\left|\rho ^{PT}(ϵ,2)\right|\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\frac{ϵ}{2}`$. Hence, the state $`\rho _{\psi ,\phi }(ϵ,2)`$ is distillable when $`ϵ>0`$.

The preceding results show that one can have distillable states arbitrarily close to the surface of the LSB as the states $`\sigma _\phi (k)`$ are on the surface of the LSB. Recently, new classes of NPT states that are  $`n`$-copy undistillable for any $`n1`$ have been obtained in Ref. One such class corresponds to the states that are of the form (5), where $`k3.`$ Hence, we also have $`n`$-copy undistillable states *on the immediate boundary* of the LSB since $`\sigma _\phi \left(k\right)`$ lies on the LSB for all $`k1`$.
Constructions for multipartite systems: Some of our results and also that of Ref  can be directly applied to multiparty systems but with some caution. A multipartite state can be separable in all bipartite cuts, but can still be inseparable. Such true bound entangled states do exist . However, positivity/negativity of a multipartite state under partial transposition under all possible bipartite partitions do indeed provide useful information regarding distillability. For instance, a multipartite state cannot be distillable, and at the same time, PPT/separable across *all* bipartite cuts. Moreover, if we can show that a multipartite state has distillable entanglement across at least one bipartite cut, then the state is distillable. We now show that *the boundary of the ball of radius $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(D1}}`$* around the maximally mixed state *contains distillable multipartite states*, where $`D`$ is now the total dimension of the multipartite system. The construction is very similar to that in the case of bipartite systems. We provide it for the $`222`$ case, but it can be trivially generalized for higher dimensions. Consider the following class of states

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(ϵ,k)_{123}=ϵ|\psi _{123}\psi |+\left(1ϵ\right)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{123},$$
(8)
where

$$|\psi _{123}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left(|100|1112|011\right)_{123}$$
(9)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\frac{1}{7}\left(𝐈|000000|\right)_{123}`$. To show that the state (8) is inseparable/distillable, it is sufficient to show that the state is inseparable across at least one bipartite cut. Let us consider the $`1:(2,3)`$ cut, and denote the states of the qubits 2 and 3 as follows: $`|00_{23}=|\overline{0}_{23},|11_{23}=|\overline{1}_{23},|01_{23}=|\overline{2}_{23},|10_{23}=|\overline{3}_{23}`$. Substituting these in the above two equations, we get exactly the same distillable states that we have used in the bipartite case.

We close our discussion of the multipartite case with the following claim: *For a multipartite quantum system of total dimension $`D,`$ the exact radius of the largest PPT ball around the maximally mixed state is given by $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(D1}}.`$ It is also the largest undistillable ball.* First, using the result of Ref , we observe that for all possible bipartite cuts, the largest separable ball has the radius $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(D1}}.`$ Next, if a state is NPT, then it has to be NPT in one of the bipartite cuts and therefore, it lies outside the ball of radius $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(D1}}.`$ Hence, the radius of the largest PPT ball is at least $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(D1}}`$. However, we have just shown that on the boundary of such a ball there exists distillable states. Hence, the largest PPT ball and the largest undistillable ball are the same for the multipartite case, with a radius of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(D1}}`$.
Discussions: We have shown that the inseparable states nearest to the maximally mixed state can never be reached via mixing of an entangled state with the maximally mixed state other than in $`22`$. We have also addressed the issue of distribution of different types of inseparable states on the boundary of the LSB for the bipartite case and have shown via explicit constructions that distillable states exist arbitrarily close to the surface of the LSB. Hence, these states are the *maximally-disordered* distillable states. Thus, for the bipartite case, our results show that the LSB, the largest PPT ball, and the largest undistillable balls all have the same radius. In the case of multipartite systems, immediate extensions of the results for the bipartite case imply that the radius of the largest PPT ball and the largest undistillable ball are the same. This shows that for any composite quantum system, the radius of the largest undistillable ball around the maximally mixed state is independent of all possible partitions and depends only on the total dimension. However, it is likely that there is a gap between the LSB and the largest undistillable/PPT ball for the multipartite case . Whether such a layering exists in the multipartite case, as opposed to the bipartite case, remains an open problem.
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank Tal Mor for useful comments. This work was sponsored in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project MDA972-99-1-0017, and in part by the U. S. Army Research Office/DARPA under contract/grant number DAAD 19-00-1-0172.


format: text

text:
# Equivalence between the real time Feynman histories and the quantum shutter approaches for the “passage time” in tunneling

## I INTRODUCTION

The tunneling time problem has remained a controversial issue after the question of how long it takes a particle to traverse a classically forbidden region, was raised 70 years ago maccoll . There are a number of approaches to this problem review . In this paper, an unexpected close relationship is found between a real time Feynman path integral approach yamadapra ; yamada ; yamadaun  and the quantum shutter approach gcr97 ; gcv01 , which are, at first sight, unlikely to be related.

If we use the real time Feynman path integrals feynman , we can define the “amplitude distribution” of tunneling time as the sum of $`e^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$ ($`S`$ being the action) over the paths that take a specified amount of time to traverse the barrier region. With the amplitude distribution, we can deal with the interesting question whether or not a probability distribution is definable for tunneling time intrinsic . The definability of the probability distribution depends on whether or not the amplitude distribution has the property of orthogonality, i.e., whether or not the classes of Feynman paths taking time $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ ($`\tau _1\tau _2`$) to traverse the region interfere. For rectangular barriers, one of the authors studied the interference quantitatively to conclude that (i) a probability distribution is not definable yamadapra ; yamada  but (ii) the range of the values of tunneling time is definable yamada . In Ref. yamada , a function $`G(\tau )`$ is introduced to analyze how different classes of Feynman paths (each class being characterized by the value of $`\tau `$) contribute to the tunneling process. The function $`G(\tau )`$ was used to prove the undefinability of the probability distribution and also to estimate the range of the tunneling times. For typical opaque barriers, the graph of $`G(\tau )`$ showed a peaked structure near the Büttiker-Landauer time bltime . It is thus clear that $`G(\tau )`$ is an important quantity for the study of the tunneling time problem. It is however important to understand how $`G(\tau )`$ is related to the dynamics of tunneling, which is not evident at all from the Feynman paths construction of $`G(\tau )`$. In the present paper, we will relate $`G(\tau )`$ (to be precise, $`G_\mathrm{p}(\tau )`$ as discussed below) to a time-dependent wave function. Now, we have to quickly add the following: In general, a Feynman path crosses the barrier region many times, so that we can define “the amount of time taken by a Feynman path to traverse the barrier region” in several ways. We can define it as the sum of the times during which the Feynman path is within the barrier region soko , which may be called the resident time of the Feynman path. Or, we can define it as the last time the path leaves the barrier region minus the first time it enters the region sch , which may be called the passage time of the Feynman path. These two different definitions at the level of Feynman paths would lead to physically different tunneling times, which we shall call the tunneling time of resident time type (resident time for short) and the tunneling time of passage time type (passage time for short). Reference yamada  concerns the resident time, while Refs. yamadapra ; yamadaun  and this paper concern the passage time. We shall attach, if necessary, subscript $`\mathrm{r}`$ to the quantities for the resident time (e.g., $`G_\mathrm{r}(\tau )`$) and subscript $`\mathrm{p}`$ for the passage time (e.g., $`G_\mathrm{p}(\tau )`$).

Another novel approach, relevant to the tunneling time problemgcr97 , is to consider an analytic time-dependent solution to Schrödinger’s equation with the initial condition at $`t=0`$ of an incident cutoff wave, to investigate the time evolution of the probability density through an arbitrary potential barrier. This problem may be visualized as a gedanken experiment consisting of a shutter, situated at $`x=0`$, that separates a beam of particles from a potential barrier located in the region $`0xd`$. At $`t=0`$ the shutter is opened, and the probability density rises initially from a vanishing value and evolves with time through $`x>0`$. At the barrier edge $`x=d`$, the probability density at time $`t`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)|^2`$, yields the probability of finding the particle after a time $`t`$ has elapsed. Since initially there is no particle along the tunneling region, detecting the particle at the barrier edge at time $`t`$ should provide a relevant time scale of the tunneling process. In recent work, two of the authors gcv01 ; gcvarxiv  analyzed the time evolution of the probability density $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)|^2`$ for a rectangular potential barrier using the above formalism. There, it was found that the probability density at the right barrier edge $`x=d`$, exhibits at short times a transient structure that they named time-domain resonance. The maximum of the time-domain resonance, occurring at a time $`t=t_p`$, represents the largest probability of finding the particle at $`x=d`$. In Ref. gcvarxiv  the above authors called the attention of the readers to the fact that the shape of the graph of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)|^2`$ depicted in Fig. 1 of that paper resembles the average shape of the graph in Fig. 2 of Ref. yamada , which is the graph of $`G_\mathrm{r}(\tau )`$. Then they guessed that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)|^2`$ would be more related to the passage time rather than the resident time. In fact, in Ref. yamadaun , Yamada has studied $`G_\mathrm{p}(\tau )`$ to find that, if $`\tau `$ is simply replaced by $`t`$, the graph of $`G_\mathrm{p}(\tau )`$ for a monochromatic case is actually indistinguishable from the graph of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)/T|^2`$, where $`T`$ is the transmission amplitude. However, there has been no explicit proof that these two functions are really equivalent.

The aim of this paper is to prove that the function $`G_\mathrm{p}(\tau )`$ and the probability density $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)|^2`$ under the initial condition stated above are actually related by

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)}{T}\right|^2=G_\mathrm{p}(t),$$
(1)
thereby establishing a surprising relationship between the two approaches. As a by-product of our proof to Eq. (1), we present an alternative derivation, along the transmitted region, of the expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ without using the Laplace transform method. This derivation is the second purpose of the present paper.

Section II presents a brief account of the main features of both approaches. Section III deals with the proof to Eq. (1) and also with a new derivation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$. In Sec. IV, a numerical example is presented for a rectangular potential barrier in order to exhibit the equivalence of both approaches. Concluding remarks are given in Sec. V.

## II THE FORMALISMS

### II.1 Real Time Feynman path integral approach

In Ref. yamada , Yamada introduced $`G(\tau )`$ by

$$G(\tau )\frac{1}{P}_0^\tau 𝑑\tau _1_0^\tau 𝑑\tau _2D[\tau _1;\tau _2].$$
(2)
In the above expression, $`D[\tau _1;\tau _2]`$ is the decoherence functional for the case of tunneling time for transmission and $`P`$ is the tunneling probability defined by

$$P\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_d^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)|^2,$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the position of the right edge of the barrier. The decoherence functionals were formulated in general terms by Gell-Mann and Hartle gh2  in their version of the consistent history approach to quantum mechanics gh2 ; gh1 ; gh3 . The real part of $`D[\tau _1;\tau _2]`$ is a measure of the interference between the classes of Feynman paths that take different amounts of time ($`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$) to traverse the barrier region. Roughly speaking, $`G(\tau )`$ is the square modulus of the sum of $`e^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$ over those paths that take less than time $`\tau `$ to traverse the barrier region (to be precise, the result of the sum over paths is multiplied by the initial wave function, followed by the integrations over the initial and the final positions before and after taking the square, respectively). It is easier to deal with $`G(\tau )`$ than $`D[\tau _1,\tau _2]`$ since $`G(\tau )`$ is a real function of one variable, while $`D[\tau _1;\tau _2]`$ is a complex function of two variables. $`G(\tau )`$ has the following properties: (i) $`G(0)=0`$ and (ii) $`G(\mathrm{})=1`$. Yamada yamada  claimed that (a) if $`G(\tau )`$ is not an increasing function of $`\tau `$, a probability distribution of tunneling time is not definable, and (b) the range $`(\tau _<,\tau _>)`$ of times is an estimation of the range of values of tunneling time, where $`\tau _<`$ and $`\tau _>`$ are such that $`G(\tau )<ϵ`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{}\tau <\tau _<`$ and $`|1G(\tau )|<ϵ`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{}\tau >\tau _>`$, where $`0<ϵ1`$. The first claim (a) is based on the weak decoherence condition gh1 ; gh3  in the consistent history approach.

For a particle with wave number $`k_0(>0)`$ impinging on the square barrier of height $`V_0`$ that extends from $`x=0`$ to $`x=d`$, $`G_\mathrm{p}`$ was found to be yamadaun

$$G_\mathrm{p}(\tau )=\frac{k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\pi ^2|T|^2}\left|_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kT(k)e^{ikd}\frac{e^{i\mathrm{}(k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k^2)\tau /2m}1}{k^2k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right|^2,$$
(4)
where $`T(k)T(k,V_0,d)`$ is the transmission amplitude for the square barrier when the wave number is $`k`$, and $`T=T(k_0)`$.

### II.2 Quantum shutter approach

A direct access to tunneling phenomena in time domain is to follow the time evolution of the Schrödinger’s wave function. In Refs. gcvarxiv ; gcv01 , two of the authors studied the time-dependence of the probability density by using an explicit solution gcr97  to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, with a cutoff plane wave initial condition,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ik_0x}e^{ik_0x}\hfill & \text{for }x<0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }x0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
impinging on a shutter placed at $`x=0`$, just at the left edge of the structure that extends over the interval $`0xd`$. The tunneling process begins with the instantaneous opening of the shutter at $`t=0`$, enabling the incoming wave to interact with the potential at $`t>0`$. The exact solution along the transmitted region ($`x>d`$) reads gcv01 ,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=T(k_0)M(x,k_0;t)T(k_0)M(x,k_0;t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}T_nM(x,k_n;t).`$ (6)
In the above expression, the quantities $`T(\pm k_0)`$ refer to the transmission amplitudes, the index $`n`$ runs over the complex poles $`k_n`$ of $`T(k)`$, which are distributed in the third and fourth quadrants in the complex $`k`$ plane, and the factor $`T_n`$ is defined as

$$T_n=2ik_0\frac{u_n(0)u_n(d)}{k_0^2k_n^2}\mathrm{e}^{ik_nd},$$
(7)
where $`\{u_n(x)\}`$ are the resonant eigenfunctions gcr97 , which are the solutions to

$$\frac{d^2u_n(x)}{dx^2}+\left[k_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}V(x)\right]u_n(x)=0$$
(8)
with outgoing boundary conditions,

$$\left[\frac{d}{dx}u_n(x)\right]_{x=0}=ik_nu_n(0),$$
(9)
and

$$\left[\frac{d}{dx}u_n(x)\right]_{x=d}=ik_nu_n(d).$$
(10)
Both the complex poles $`\{k_n\}`$ and the corresponding resonant eigenfunctions $`\{u_n(x)\}`$ can be calculated using a well established method, as discussed elsewhere gcr97 ; gcv01 . Note that from time-reversal considerations rosenfeld , the poles $`k_n`$, seated on the third quadrant of the complex $`k`$-plane, satisfy $`k_n=k_n^{}`$ and correspondingly $`u_n(x)=u_n^{}(x)`$. In Eq. (6), the $`M`$ functions are defined by

$`M(x,q;t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikxi\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}}{kq}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{(imx^2/2\mathrm{}t)}w(iy_q),`$ (12)
where $`q=k_n,\pm k_0`$, and $`w(iy_q)`$ is the complex error function wiz  with the argument $`y_q`$ given by

$$y_q=e^{i\pi /4}\sqrt{\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}t}}\left[x\frac{\mathrm{}q}{m}t\right].$$
(13)
## III EQUIVALENCE OF BOTH APPROACHES

### III.1 Proof of Eq. (1)

We will start from the general relationship between an initial wave function and the time evolved wave functions:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yK(x,t;y,0)\mathrm{\Psi }(y,0),$$
(14)
where $`K(x,t;y,0)`$ is the propagator from $`(y,0)`$ to $`(x,t)`$. Since our initial wave function is vanishing for $`x>0`$ and since we are interested only in the transmitted region, we need to know $`K(x,t;y,0)`$ only for $`y0`$ and $`xd`$, for which it is well-known that

$$K(x,t;y,0)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }T(k)e^{ik(xy)i\mathrm{}k^2t/2m},$$
(15)
which follows from the eigenfunction expansion of the propagator. The initial wave function can be expanded as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y,0)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\varphi (k)e^{iky},$$
(16)
where $`\varphi (k)`$ is the $`k`$-space wave function. Substituting Eqs. (15) and (16) into Eq. (14), we can carry out the integration over $`y`$ to have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\varphi (k)T(k)e^{ikxi\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}.$$
(17)
For our initial wave function \[Eq. (5)\],

$`\varphi (k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}e^{iky}\mathrm{\Psi }(y,0)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_0+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+k_0+iϵ}}\right),`$
where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal positive number. Thus,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dk\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_0+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+k_0+iϵ}})`$ (19)
$`\times T(k)e^{ikxi\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}\}`$
for $`xd`$.

Let us note that, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,0)=0`$ for $`x0`$,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\left(\frac{1}{kk_0+iϵ}\frac{1}{k+k_0+iϵ}\right)T(k)e^{ikx}=0$$
(20)
for $`x0`$, which is also apparent from the fact that the transmission amplitude on the complex $`k`$-plane has simple poles only in the lower half-plane. Owing to Eq. (20), we can rewrite Eq. (19) as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dk\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_0+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+k_0+iϵ}})`$
$`\times T(k)e^{ikx}(e^{i\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}e^{i\mathrm{}k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t/2m})\}.`$
Apply the following equation in Eq. (LABEL:eq:14).

$$\frac{1}{k\pm k_0+iϵ}=𝒫\frac{1}{k\pm k_0}\pi i\delta (k\pm k_0).$$
(22)
We then notice that (i) since $`e^{i\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}e^{i\mathrm{}k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t/2m}=0`$ at $`k=k_0`$, the contributions from the delta functions vanish and (ii) since $`(e^{i\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}e^{i\mathrm{}k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t/2m})/(k\pm k_0)`$ is regular in the limit $`kk_0`$, the Cauchy principal value integrals can be replaced by the ordinary integrals (i.e., the symbol $`𝒫`$ can be removed). Consequently, we have for $`xd`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dk\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+k_0}})T(k)e^{ikx}`$ (23)
$`\times (e^{i\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}e^{i\mathrm{}k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t/2m})\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik_0}{\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t/2m}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dkT(k)e^{ikx}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\mathrm{}(k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k^2)t/2m}1}{k^2k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}.`$
With this expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it is easy to see that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)/T|^2`$ agrees with the right-hand side of Eq. (4) if $`\tau `$ is replaced by $`t`$. This completes the proof of Eq. (1).

### III.2 New derivation of the quantum shutter solution

As mentioned earlier, the transmission amplitude has in general an infinite number of simple poles distributed on the lower-half of the complex $`k`$-plane. The transmission amplitude may be expanded in terms of its complex poles and corresponding residues by using a special form of the Mittag-Leffler theorem due to Cauchy cauchy . It may be written as yamadaun ,

$$T(k)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{r_n}{kk_n}+\frac{r_n}{k_n}\right),$$
(24)
where $`r_n`$ is the residue of $`T(k)`$ at $`k=k_n`$. Using Eq. (24) in Eq. (19), we have, for $`xd`$,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}`$ (25)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dk\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_0+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+k_0+iϵ}})`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{kk_n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_n}})\mathrm{e}^{ikxi\mathrm{}k^2t/2m}\}.`$
If we expand

$$\left(\frac{1}{kk_0+iϵ}\frac{1}{k+k_0+iϵ}\right)\left(\frac{1}{kk_n}+\frac{1}{k_n}\right)$$

and use the partial fraction decompositions, we see that the right-hand side of Eq. (25) can be expressed as a sum of the integrals of the form of Eq. (11). The expansion gives four terms, which are $`k_n^1(k\pm k_0+iϵ)^1`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\pm k_0+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_n}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pm k_0+k_n+iϵ}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kk_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\pm k_0+iϵ}}\right),`$ (26)
so that Eq. (25) becomes, after some algebra,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_0k_niϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_n}}\right)M(x,k_0;t)`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_0k_niϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_n}}\right)M(x,k_0;t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_0+k_n+iϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_0k_niϵ}}\right)`$
$`\times M(x,k_n;t).`$
In the limit $`ϵ0`$, the sums over $`n`$ in the first and the second lines on the right-hand side of Eq. (27) give $`T(k_0)`$ and $`T(k_0)`$, respectively \[see Eq. (24)\]. We thus obtain

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=T(k_0)M(x,k_0;t)T(k_0)M(x,k_0;t)`$
$`2k_0{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_n}{k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}M(x,k_n;t).`$ (28)
Our goal here is to derive Eq. (6). In fact, Eqs. (28) and (6) are the same because of the relationship

$$r_n=iu_n(0)u_n(d)e^{ik_nd}.$$
(29)
We shall prove Eq. (29) to conclude this section. It is helpful to consider the outgoing Green’s function $`G^+(x,x^{};k)`$, which is the solution to

$$\frac{^2G^+(x,x^{};k)}{x^2}+\left[k_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}V(x)\right]G^+(x,x^{};k)=\delta (xx^{})$$
(30)
with the outgoing boundary conditions. We first use the fact that $`G^+(x,x^{};k)`$ can be written in terms of the resonant states as expansion ,

$$G^+(x,x^{};k)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{u_n(x)u_n(x^{})}{2k_n(kk_n)}(0x,x^{}d).$$
(31)
The above expansion holds provided that the resonant eigenfunctions $`u_n(x)`$ are normalized according to the condition gcr97

$$_0^du_n^2(x)𝑑x+i\frac{u_n^2(0)+u_n^2(d)}{2k_n}=1.$$
(32)
Next we use the fact that the transmission amplitude and $`G^+(0,d;k)`$ are related by gc87

$$T(k)=2ikG^+(0,d;k)e^{ikd}.$$
(33)
From Eq. (31), we have

$$\underset{kk_n}{lim}(kk_n)G^+(0,d;k)=u_n(0)u_n(d)/2k_n,$$
(34)
while from Eq. (33) together with Eq. (24), we have

$$\underset{kk_n}{lim}(kk_n)G^+(0,d;k)=r_ne^{ik_nd}/2ik_n.$$
(35)
Equating the two results, we obtain Eq. (29).

## IV Example

To exemplify the time evolution of the probability density we consider the set of parameters: $`V_0=0.70`$ eV, $`d=10.083`$ nm, $`E=0.140`$ eV, $`m=0.067m_e`$ ($`m_e`$ being the bare electron mass), inspired in semiconductor quantum structures qs . In this particular example, the potential barrier parameters are chosen in such a way that $`k_0d=V_0/E=5`$, where $`k_0=[2mE]^{1/2}/\mathrm{}`$. The opacity $`\alpha `$ of the barrier is defined as $`\alpha =k^{}d`$, where $`k^{}=[2mV_0]^{1/2}/\mathrm{}`$. In our case $`\alpha =11.18`$, corresponding to an opaque barrier ($`\alpha 1`$). The solid line in Fig. 1 shows $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(d,t)|^2`$ calculated with Eq. (6) at the barrier edge $`x=d`$ as a function of time in units of the free passage time $`\tau _f=md/\mathrm{}k_0=11.753`$ fs.

At early times one sees a time-domain resonance structure gcv01 . The maximum of this transient structure represents the largest probability to find the tunneling particle at the barrier edge $`x=d`$. In our example, as shown in Fig. 1, the maximum of the time-domain resonance occurs at $`t_p=5.347`$ fs, faster than the free passage time across the same distance of $`10.083`$ nm, that is, $`t_p/t_f=0.455`$. From $`t/t_f=2.0`$ onward the probability density approaches essentially to its asymptotic value. We have also included in Fig. 1 the plot of $`G_\mathrm{p}(t)`$ (dotted line) calculated from Eq. (4) for the same set of parameters; it is indistinguishable from the previous calculation, i.e., both curves coincide exactly.

## V Concluding remarks

We have found a surprising relationship between the real time Feynman histories approach and an analytical expression for the probability density for cutoff initial waves involving the quantum shutter setup for the “passage time” in tunneling. This may prove to be of interest in the pursue of elucidating the notion of tunneling time through a classically forbidden region.

###### Acknowledgements.

G. G-C. and J.V. acknowledge partial financial support of DGAPA-UNAM under grant No. IN101301. N. Y. is grateful to the Instituto de Física, UNAM for their hospitality and for financial support from the Tomás Brody Spitz Chair. Also, N. Y. acknowledges partial financial support of Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan and thanks Professor H. Yamamoto and Professor S. Takagi for valuable discussions and to the Information Synergy Center at Tohoku University for CPU time.


text:
# An analysis of the reaction 𝑝𝑝→𝑝𝑝𝜂 near threshold

FZJ-IKP-TH-2003-4

## Abstract

It is shown that most of the available data on the $`pppp\eta `$ reaction, including the invariant mass distributions in the $`pppp\eta `$ reaction recently measured at COSY, can be understood in terms of the partial-wave amplitudes involving final $`pp`$ $`S`$ and $`P`$ states and the $`\eta `$ meson $`s`$-wave. This finding, together with the fact that results within a meson–exchange model are especially sensitive to the details of the excitation mechanism of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance, demonstrates the possibility of investigating the properties of this resonance in $`NN`$ collisions. The spin correlation function $`C_{xx}`$ is shown to disentangle the $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave contributions. It is also argued that spin correlations may be used to help constrain the contributions of the amplitudes corresponding to the final $`pp`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ states.

The primary motivations for studying the production of mesons off nucleons and nuclei are to investigate the structure and properties of the nucleon resonances and to learn about hadron dynamics at short range. As far as hadron-induced reactions are concerned, and specifically nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) collisions, there is already a wealth of information on the production of the lightest meson, the pion. In particular, there now exists a fairly accurate and complete set of data, especially for $`\pi ^o`$ production in the near-threshold energy region Meyer , which should allow for a partial wave analysis. The $`\eta `$ meson, which is the next lightest non-strange meson in the meson mass spectrum, has also been the subject of considerable interest. A peculiar feature of this meson is that it couples strongly to the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ nucleon resonance, which offers a unique opportunity for investigating the properties of this resonance. Unfortunately, the experimental information on $`\eta `$ production in $`NN`$ collisions EXP ; Calena ; Calend ; Winter ; Roderburg ; Moskal  is much less complete than for pion production and is not yet sufficient for a model-independent partial-wave analysis. However, the available data base has greatly expanded recently thanks to measurements by the TOF and COSY-11 collaborations at COSY Roderburg ; Moskal  that provided, not only $`\eta `$ and proton angular distributions, but also $`pp`$ and $`p\eta `$ invariant mass distributions for the reaction $`pppp\eta `$. These new data, together with the earlier measurements EXP ; Calena ; Calend , open the possibility for investigating this reaction in much more detail than could be done previously.

A general feature of meson production in $`NN`$ collisions is that the energy dependence of the total cross section in the near-threshold region is basically dictated by the available phase space plus the $`NN`$ final state interaction (FSI) in $`S`$ states. The effect of the strong $`NN`$ FSI also shows up in the corresponding $`NN`$ invariant mass spectrum as a peak close to the threshold value of the invariant mass, $`m_{NN}=2m_N`$, where $`m_N`$ denotes the nucleon mass. Surprisingly, the recently measured $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution in the reaction $`pppp\eta `$ Roderburg ; Moskal  at excess energies of $`Q=15`$ and $`41`$ MeV shows, in addition to a peak very close to the threshold, a broad bump at higher values of $`m_{pp}`$ (see Fig. 1). While the peak can easily be understood as arising from the strong $`pp`$ FSI in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state as mentioned above, it is not trivial to explain the origin of the bump at higher $`m_{pp}`$.

The purpose of the present work is to analyze this seemingly peculiar feature exhibited by the $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution. Thereby we will show that the available data on $`pppp\eta `$, including the invariant mass distribution, can essentially be understood in terms of $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave amplitudes. This result suggests that the properties of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ nucleon resonance can be studied here in terms of only a few partial-wave amplitudes. We start by considering the possible partial-wave states in $`pppp\eta `$ near the threshold notation . First, in this reaction, the $`\eta `$ meson is dominantly produced through the excitation and de-excitation of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance. Therefore we expect that the $`\eta `$ meson should be produced mainly in the $`s`$-wave. Of course, this is strictly true only in the rest frame of the resonance and not necessarily in the overall c.m. frame of the system. However, near threshold, this should not make a significant difference. In fact, the observed $`\eta `$ angular distribution in the overall c.m. frame Roderburg  is practically isotropic. In addition, the very first analyzing power measurement in $`pppp\eta `$ by the COSY-11 group Winter  yielded rather small values. Indeed this observable is basically consistent with zero, given the relatively large uncertainties involved, and therefore consistent with pure $`s`$-wave contributions. As long as we restrict ourselves to an $`\eta `$ meson in the $`s`$-wave and final $`NN`$ state to the $`S`$ and $`P`$ waves, we have only three partial-wave amplitudes that can contribute to this reaction notation : $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}^3P_2s`$. Among these, we would naively expect that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$ is the only relevant contribution near threshold. However, as mentioned above, the contribution of the $`S`$–wave alone is unable to explain the observed bump in the $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution.

One plausible explanation may be attributed to effects from the $`\eta N`$ FSI. Indeed there are already strong indications from the total production cross sections that the $`\eta N`$ FSI may play an important role in the reaction $`NNNN\eta `$ near threshold. For both $`pp`$ and $`pn`$ induced $`\eta `$ productions one has observed that there is an enhancement of the production cross sections for very small excess energies that cannot be explained by the $`NN`$ FSI effects alone Calend ; Moskal0 . However, those effects seem to be confined to an excess energy range of up to at most 20 MeV from the threshold. Thus, one would expect that the $`\eta N`$ FSI effects should have an influence on the invariant mass spectrum measured at the lower energy of $`Q`$ = 15 MeV. It is, however, unlikely that such effects should still be so important at $`Q`$ = 41 MeV. A proper inclusion of the $`\eta N`$ FSI calls for solving the Faddeev equation in the three-particle continuum which is technically very involved. A rough estimate suggests that a rather strong $`\eta N`$ interaction would be needed to reproduce the data at the higher energy Baru\_pc , which is difficult to be reconciled with other information about the $`\eta N`$ interaction. Therefore, we seek an alternative explanation based largely on the observation that the shape of the bump can be reproduced by folding $`p^2`$ with the available phase space. Here, $`p^{}`$ denotes the relative momentum in the final $`pp`$ system. This suggests to us, that the bump seen in the experiment could be simply caused by the $`pp`$ $`P`$-wave in the final state. Admittedly, the measured final proton angular distribution in the overall c.m. frame is nearly isotropic Roderburg , which could be seen as an evidence against large $`P`$-wave and higher partial wave contributions. However, as we shall show below, there is no principal contradiction between a nearly isotropic proton distribution and a significant $`P`$-wave fraction in the invariant mass spectrum.

Let us now make some general remarks about the structure of the reaction amplitude for $`pppp\eta `$. In what follows, we shall assume that the $`\eta `$ is in an $`s`$ wave relative to the (final) $`pp`$ system and that the final protons are in a relative $`S`$ and/or $`P`$ state. Since the $`\eta `$ meson is an isoscalar pseudoscalar particle, it follows immediately that the orbital angular momentum of the $`pp`$ system has to change in the transition from the initial to the final state and consequently, due to the Pauli principle, the total spin also has to change. Thus, the most general form of the reaction matrix (involving even angular momenta of $`\eta `$) can be written as

$$=\left(\stackrel{}{A}P_{S^{}=0}\stackrel{}{B}P_{S^{}=1}\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2\right),$$
(1)
where $`P_{S^{}=0,1}`$ stands for the total spin singlet and triplet projection operator as the total spin of the two protons in the final state, $`S^{}`$, takes the value $`S^{}=0`$ and $`S^{}=1`$, respectively. $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ denotes the Pauli spin matrix acting on each of the two interacting protons, $`i=1`$ and $`2`$. In terms of the Pauli spin matrices, we have $`P_{S^{}=0}=(1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)/4`$ and $`P_{S^{}=1}=(3+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)/4`$. We, then, may write, $`P_S^{}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)/2=\left[(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)()^S^{}i(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\right]/4`$, which, up to an irrelevant phase, is identical to the structure given in Ref. Bernard . The vectors $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ in Eq. (1) may be constructed from the momentum vectors available in the system, e.g., the relative momenta of the two protons in the initial state $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and in the final state $`\stackrel{}{p}^{}`$. Since we restrict ourselves to $`S`$ and $`P`$ waves for the outgoing $`pp`$ system we may write

$`\stackrel{}{A}=\alpha \widehat{p},\stackrel{}{B}=\beta \stackrel{}{p}^{}+\gamma (\stackrel{}{p}^{}3\widehat{p}(\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})).`$ (2)
Here the amplitudes $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ correspond to the transitions $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}^3P_2s`$, respectively. Note that we pulled out the linear momentum dependence, characteristic of $`P`$–waves, from the corresponding partial-wave amplitudes. The amplitude $`\alpha `$ has a strong dependence on the relative energy of the $`pp`$ system in the final state reflecting the strong $`pp`$ FSI in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state. The amplitudes $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ also depend on the relative energy of the $`pp`$ system in the final state; however, their energy dependence is much weaker than that of $`\alpha `$ due to the much weaker $`pp`$ FSI in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ states as compared to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state.

From Eq. (1) explicit expressions for any observable follow directly. E.g., we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\stackrel{}{A}|^2+|\stackrel{}{B}|^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}A_j`$ $`=`$ $`i(\stackrel{}{A}^{}\times \stackrel{}{A})_j,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}C_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\left(|\stackrel{}{A}|^2|\stackrel{}{B}|^2\right)2\text{Re}\left(A_i^{}A_j\right),`$ (3)
where $`A_j`$ denotes the analyzing power and $`C_{ij}`$ the spin correlation function. Inserting the expressions of Eq. (2) into Eq. (3) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha |^2+p^{}{}_{}{}^{2}[|\beta +\gamma |^2+3x^2(|\gamma |^22\text{Re}(\beta \gamma ^{}))],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}A_j`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}C_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha |^2p^{}{}_{}{}^{2}[|\beta +\gamma |^2+3x^2(|\gamma |^22\text{Re}(\beta \gamma ^{}))],`$ (4)
where we introduced $`p^{}x=\stackrel{}{p}^{}\widehat{p}`$. We note that partial-wave amplitudes with even and odd final $`pp`$ relative orbital angular momenta cannot interfere with each other due to the Pauli principle.

Let us recall at this stage that the proton angular distribution seen in the experiment is isotropic Roderburg . From the above equations we can see immediately that there are two possible scenarios for achieving such an isotropic distribution in the presence of significant $`pp`$ $`P`$–wave contributions, namely

* Dominant contributions from the transitions $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$, but negligible contributions from $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}^3P_2s`$ ($`\gamma 0`$).
* Contributions from all three transitions, $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}^3P_2s`$, where the latter two interfere destructively ($`|\gamma |^22\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\beta \gamma ^{})`$).

Obviously, the observables given in Eq. (4) do not allow one to distinguish between the two scenarios and, consequently, there is no model independent way to extract the two $`pp`$ $`P`$-wave amplitude contributions ($`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$) from these observables. To do that, one would need observables depending also on the spin of the final $`pp`$ state, such as spin transfer coefficients. Note, however, that the combination $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }(C_{xx}+1)`$ depends only on the amplitude $`\alpha `$. Hence, a measurement of this observable would determine, in a model independent way, the $`pp`$ $`S`$–wave contribution ($`\alpha `$) in the final state. Similarly, a measurement of $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }(C_{xx}1)`$ would confirm the presence of $`pp`$ $`P`$–waves in the final state. It should also be stressed that $`C_{xx}`$ by itself is already very interesting. Here the two angular independent terms (first two terms in the last equation of (4)) have opposite signs and thus tend to cancel each other. Consequently, this observable should be rather sensitive to the angular dependent term.

We now turn our attention to the results of a model for $`pppp\eta `$. In Ref. Nak1  we have presented a relativistic meson-exchange model for $`\eta `$ production in $`NN`$ collisions. It treats $`\eta `$ production in the Distorted Wave Born Approximation and includes both the $`NN`$ FSI and initial state interaction (ISI), the latter through the approximate procedure proposed in Ref. ours . While this model yields a satisfactory description of the near-threshold cross section data (for $`pppp\eta `$ and for $`pnpn\eta `$) it fails to reproduce the recently measured invariant mass distributions. It should be stressed that the main objective of the present model calculation is not to achieve an accurate description of the existing data but rather to verify whether the model of Ref. Nak1  can be modified so as to comply with the major features exhibited by the new data Roderburg ; Moskal  as discussed above.

In the development of a variant of the model Nak1  we have restricted ourselves to modifications of the $`vNN^{}`$ vertex and the mixing parameter $`\lambda `$ in the $`\pi NN^{}`$ and $`\eta NN^{}`$ vertices. Here, $`v`$ stands for either the $`\rho `$\- or $`\omega `$-meson and $`N^{}`$ is the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance. We also use the Paris $`NN`$ T-matrix Lacomb  as the $`pp`$ FSI; the Coulomb interaction is fully accounted for as described in Ref. Nak2 . Everything else was kept unchanged. In contrast to Ref. Nak1 , in the present work we have chosen a more general gauge invariant Lagrangian Riska  for the $`vNN^{}`$ coupling

$`_{\omega NN^{}}^{(\pm )}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{\omega NN^{}}}{m_N^{}+m_N}}\right)\overline{\psi }_N^{}(x)\gamma _5\left\{\left[\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{m_N^{}+m_N}}i_\mu +\kappa _\omega \sigma _{\mu \nu }^\nu \right]\omega ^\mu (x)\right\}\psi _N(x)`$ (5a)
$`+`$ $`h.c.,`$
$`_{\rho NN^{}}^{(\pm )}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho NN^{}}}{m_N^{}+m_N}}\right)\overline{\psi }_N^{}(x)\gamma _5\left\{\left[\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{m_N^{}+m_N}}i_\mu +\kappa _\rho \sigma _{\mu \nu }^\nu \right]\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu (x)\right\}\psi _N(x)`$ (5b)
$`+`$ $`h.c.,`$
where $`\omega ^\mu (x)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu (x)`$, $`\psi _N(x)`$ and $`\psi _N^{}(x)`$ denote the $`\omega `$, $`\rho `$, nucleon and spin-1/2 $`N^{}`$ (=$`S_{11}(1535)`$) resonance fields, respectively. $`m_N^{}`$ denotes the mass of the nucleon resonance. The coupling constants $`g_{vNN^{}}`$ and $`\kappa _v`$ were considered to be free parameters in the calculation and have been adjusted to reproduce (globally) the available data, including the $`pp\eta `$ and $`pn\eta `$ total cross sections. The $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu `$ coupling at the $`vNN^{}`$ vertex was necessary to achieve a reasonable fit to the data. The values obtained are: $`g_{\rho NN^{}}/(m_N^{}+m_N)`$ = 9.5 \[$`fm`$\], $`\kappa _\rho `$ = -5.3 and $`g_{\omega NN^{}}/(m_N^{}+m_N)`$ = 6.0 \[$`fm`$\], $`\kappa _\omega `$ = 3.8. In addition to the $`vNN^{}`$ vertex given above, we have also chosen the pseudoscalar-pseudovector mixing parameter to be $`\lambda =0.7`$ at the $`\pi NN^{}`$ and $`\eta NN^{}`$ vertices Nak1 . All other parameter values are the same as given in Ref. Nak1  corresponding to the case of pseudoscalar meson dominance. We refer to Ref. Nak1  for further details of the model.

Results for the $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution based on different partial wave contributions are shown in Fig. 1 together with the recent data at the excess energies of $`Q=15`$ Roderburg ; Moskal  and $`41`$ MeV Roderburg . The full results are denoted by solid curves. Hereafter, these correspond to the calculations performed using the plane-wave basis without a partial wave decomposition and, as such, they include all partial waves. As is evident from the dashed curves, the observed peak in the region $`m_{pp}^2(2m_N)^2`$ is due to the strong $`pp`$ FSI in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state. The observed bump in the higher $`m_{pp}`$ region is largely due to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ final state (dash-dotted curves). The contribution from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}s`$ state (dotted curves) is very small. Contributions from other partial-wave states (mainly $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{},^3F_2^1S_0d`$) are relatively small at $`Q=41`$ MeV and practically negligible at $`Q=15`$ MeV. Thus, the present model is in line with the scenario (1) discussed above. Overall, the shape of the $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution exhibited by the data is nicely reproduced. However, the model tends to overestimate the data close to the maximum value of $`m_{pp}^2`$ at $`Q=41`$ MeV. In principle, this discrepancy might be due to the $`p\eta `$ FSI which is not explicitly accounted for in our model Nak1 . However, in order to reduce the predicted value, one needs a repulsive $`p\eta `$ FSI which seems to be in contradiction with all other evidence of $`p\eta `$ FSI effects in meson production Moskal0 ; xxx . Moreover, no such discrepancy is seen at $`Q=15`$ MeV where the effect of the $`p\eta `$ FSI should be even larger. Further investigation is required to resolve this issue.

It is important to note that the relative strength of the different partial-wave states depends crucially on the details of the model, and that means, specifically, on the excitation mechanism of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance in the present case. In fact, the measured $`pp`$ invariant mass distributions can be described with the same quality as shown in Fig. 1 with the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}s`$ state contribution dominating over the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ state contribution. Such a scenario can easily be achieved in our model by a proper adjustment of the coupling constants at the $`vNN^{}`$ vertex appearing in the underlying Lagrangians (Eq. (5)). However, the resulting proton angular distributions are then much more pronounced and, consequently, in disagreement with the experimental evidence Roderburg .

Although significant $`pp`$ $`P`$-waves in the final state seem to be necessary for reproducing the $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution, it is important to note that the energy dependence of the total cross section near the threshold energy region is basically reproduced by the $`pp`$ FSI in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state folded with the phase space. E.g., the model developed by V. Baru et al. Baru  reproduces nicely the energy dependence of the total cross section from threshold up to $`Q50`$ MeV with $`S`$–wave contributions alone. Results of the present model for the total cross section are shown in Fig. 2. Comparing the curves for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}s`$ (long-dashed) and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}s+^3P_0s`$ (dash-dotted) partial waves, one realizes that the onset of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ final state occurs at a fairly low excess energy and that its contribution becomes increasingly important with increasing energy. This feature is a direct consequence of the requirement of reproducing the $`pp`$ invariant mass distribution. However, as a result, the model now underpredicts significantly the data for energies close to threshold. The thin dashed curve corresponds to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}s`$ contribution multiplied by an arbitrary factor of 3. This clearly shows that the total cross section data in the low energy region favor a larger contribution of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}s`$ final state than is predicted by our model. Whether one is able to reconcile these seemingly contradictory properties within a consistent theoretical model remains to be seen. In any case, one should keep in mind that the $`\eta N`$ FSI, which is not included in the present model calculation, should enhance the $`\eta `$ $`s`$-wave contribution near threshold to some degree gar .

Fig. 3 shows the differential cross sections as a function of the $`\eta `$ emission angle in the overall c.m. frame for two excess energies. The data from Ref. Roderburg  are basically isotropic, indicating a dominant $`\eta `$ $`s`$-wave contribution. The theoretical results are normalized to the total cross section (obtained by integrating the differential cross section data) in order to facilitate a proper comparison of their angular dependence with the experiment. At $`Q=15`$ MeV the normalization factor is about 2.7, while at $`Q=41`$ MeV, it is about 0.9. The dashed curves correspond to the $`s`$-wave contribution, the dash-dotted curves to the $`s+p`$ waves, and the dotted curves to the $`s+p+d`$ waves. The last are practically indistinguishable from the corresponding full results which are denoted by the solid lines. As expected after the discussion above, the angular distribution is given primarily by the $`s`$-wave contribution, with a small contribution from higher partial waves provided mainly by the $`d`$-wave.

In Fig. 4, the proton angular distributions in the overall c.m. frame are shown together with the data from Ref. Roderburg . Here again the model predictions are normalized to the data using the same factor mentioned above. Evidently, at $`Q=15`$ MeV the result is isotropic; it is dominated by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}s`$ (dashed curve) state followed by the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ (dash-dotted curve) state. Contributions from other partial waves are practically negligible. At $`Q=41`$ MeV there is a small contribution from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}s`$ (dotted curve). Obviously, the destructive interference with the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ state canceling the angular dependence (see Eqs.(4)) is incomplete resulting in a noticeable angular dependence which, however, is still compatible with the experiment. The difference between the dotted and solid curves is due to a small contribution from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}^1D_2s`$ plus $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{},^3F_2^1S_0d`$ amplitudes.

Fig. 5 shows the prediction for the analyzing power as a function of the $`\eta `$ emission angle in the overall c.m. frame. The data are from Ref. Winter . The dashed curves correspond to the $`\eta `$ $`s+p`$ wave contributions while the dash-dotted curves to the $`s+p+d`$ waves. The solid lines are the full results. We note that the $`s`$-wave contribution alone yields $`A_y0`$ (see Eqs.(4)), so that any non-vanishing result must necessarily involve higher partial waves. Furthermore, judging from the shape exhibited by the analyzing power, the present model yields a vector meson dominance over the pseudoscalar meson in the excitation mechanism of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance as discussed in Ref. Nak1 . Although the data indicate some contribution from partial waves higher than the $`s`$-wave, they are not sufficiently accurate to make a definitive statement as to the size of their contribution.

In Fig. 6 we present predictions for the spin correlation function $`C_{xx}`$ at $`Q=41`$ MeV as a function of the proton angle in the overall c.m. frame. As can be seen from Eq. (4), the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$ partial wave alone leads to a constant value of $`C_{xx}=1`$. Adding the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$ contribution (dashed curve) yields a small value of $`C_{xx}0.3`$. Including also the $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}^3P_2s`$ contribution one obtains the result represented by the dotted line. (In this context note that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$ as well as the $`{}_{}{}^{1}D_{2}^{}^3P_2s`$ contributions alone would give rise to $`C_{xx}=1`$, cf. Eq. (4)). Other partial-wave contributions do not change $`C_{xx}`$ qualitatively as is evident from the full result (solid curve). Thus, in our model, the cancellation of the $`|\alpha |^2`$ term and the $`|\beta +\gamma |^2`$ in Eqs. (4) is almost complete! This strongly enhances the relative importance of the angular dependent term in $`C_{xx}`$. Note that $`C_{xx}=C_{yy}`$ for all of the three partial-wave contributions discussed explicitly above (c.f. Eqs. (3)).

In Fig. 7 predictions for the $`p\eta `$ invariant mass distribution are shown together with the data Roderburg . Again, the dominant contributions are from the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}s`$ (dashed curves) and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ (dot-dashed curves) final states; the contribution from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}s`$ state (dotted curves) is negligible. At $`Q=41`$ MeV one sees also some effects from other partial-wave states arising mainly from the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{},^3F_2^1S_0d`$ amplitude. The overall shape of the measured invariant mass distribution is reproduced. The observed discrepancies in the details, especially at $`Q=41`$ MeV, are not easy to understand in view of the nice agreement between calculated and measured $`pp`$ invariant mass distributions.

Summarizing our results, we have shown that the currently available data on $`\eta `$ production in $`pp`$ collisions near the threshold energy can be largely understood in terms of a few $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave amplitudes. For a completely model-independent extraction of the relevant amplitudes, however, observables independent of those presently available are required. In this connection, the spin correlation function, either $`C_{yy}`$ or $`C_{xx}`$, is suited to further constrain the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}s`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}s`$ final state contributions. In any case, the final $`pp`$ $`P`$-wave contribution is crucial for explaining the measured invariant $`pp`$ mass distribution, especially, at $`Q=41MeV`$. Our model calculations show that, the dominant amplitudes are $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}^1S_0s`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}^3P_0s`$. It should be stressed that in order to quantify the role of the $`\eta N`$ interaction in $`pppp\eta `$ it is important to first understand the role of higher $`NN`$ partial waves.

Finally, we note that the present work illustrates the possibility of using meson production processes in $`NN`$ collisions to study the properties of nucleon resonances in terms of a few partial-wave amplitudes. In particular, the present model prediction for the relevant partial-wave amplitudes depends very sensitively on the details of the model and especially to the excitation mechanism of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance. This offers an excellent opportunity to study some of the properties of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance using the $`\eta `$ meson production reaction in $`NN`$ collisions which would not be possible to investigate in more basic reactions such as $`\gamma +N\eta +N`$ and $`M+N\eta +N`$.

Acknowledgement: The authors would like to acknowledge many fruitful discussions with V. Baru, and W. G. Love. The authors also thank W. G. Love for a careful reading of this manuscript. This work is supported by COSY grant No 41445282(COSY-58).


text:
# Breathers in a model of a polymer with secondary structure

## 1 Introduction

The search for discrete breather solutions in simple models of polymers with a secondary structure might be regarded as a step towards an understanding of the role that local excitations might play for the functionality of proteins. A minimal model should include the following two features:

1. a one-dimensional system (chain) is embedded in $`d`$-dimensional space ($`d>1`$),
2. inter-particle interactions involve at least $`d`$ neighbours in order to obtain a secondary structure.

## 2 The model

We use a slightly modified version of a model proposed by Zolotaryuk et al.: a chain of $`N`$ classical particles (point masses) $`m_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, which interact by means of linear forces between nearest and next-nearest neighbours. The Hamiltonian function of the system is

$``$ $`:`$ $`^{4N}`$
$`(𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},𝐪_𝐍,𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{},𝐩_𝐍){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_{𝐢}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m_i}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}U(|𝐪_𝐢𝐪_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}|)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N2}{}}}V(|𝐪_𝐢𝐪_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟐}}|).`$
The particles are allowed to move in the Euklidian plane, i.e., $`𝐪_𝐢,𝐩_𝐢^2`$. For closest similarity to real polymers, free boundary conditions are employed. In contrast to the original model of Zolotaryuk et al., we allow different values for the masses $`m_i`$. This facilitates the construction of an ’anticontinuous limit’ as explained (and required) in Sec. 3.1.

For simplicity, harmonic interaction potentials $`U(x)=V(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^2`$ are chosen between nearest as well as next-nearest neighbouring particles. Despite the linearity (in the inter-particle distance) of the forces, the geometry of the chain gives rise to effective nonlinearities in the equations of motion, and therefore existence of breather solutions is not ruled out from the outset.

The system displays a secondary structure, for example a zig-zag chain (or 2-helix) as illustrated below. (Note, however, that the ’equilibrium configuration’ of the system is not unique!)

## 3 Existence of breathers and stability conditions

We are interested in the following question: In which way do the parameters of the system (like oscillation frequencies or particle masses) have to be tuned in order to find breather solutions?

### 3.1 Numerical calculation from the anticontinuous limit

A numerical method due to Marín and Aubry is used in order to determine the existence region of breather solutions: A (known) breather solution of the system for certain parameter values is continued to other (not too different) parameter values by means of Newton’s method. Such a continuation is possible, in principle also analytically, for breather oscillation frequencies which are non-resonant with the spectrum of the linearized equations of motion of the system. This allows us to obtain breather solutions for, e.g., arbitrary mass ratios and frequencies, provided that

1. such solutions exist, and
2. a breather solution is known from which continuation up to the desired parameter values is feasible.

As a starting point for such a continuation, a certain limiting value (the so-called anticontinuous limit) of a parameter is taken, for which existence of breather solutions is known. Here, a diatomic chain is considered, where two particles of mass $`M1`$ are followed by one particle of mass $`m=1`$:

$$MMmMMmMMmMMm\mathrm{}$$

Existence of localized oscillations (breathers) is obvious in the limit of zero mass ratio, $`\frac{m}{M}0`$, for example: all particles are at rest but a single one of mass $`m`$, which is coupled only to particles of mass $`M\mathrm{}`$. This solution can be used as a starting point for continuation.

### 3.2 An “existence and stability diagram”

The number of parameters present in the system is still quite large. As an example, existence and stability regions of discrete breathers are investigated for a particular choice of parameters:

* A chain of 23 particles.
* The set of initial conditions in the anticontinuous limit is restricted: all but the centre particle are at rest. The centre particle moves on the reflection symmetry line of the zig-zag chain. (Consider a vertical oscillation of particle 6 in Figure 1, while all the other particles are at rest.)
* For an oscillating particle in the anticontinuous limit, the frequency is a non-monotonic function of the energy (see Fig. 2). We restrict the initial conditions to energies corresponding to the decreasing (left hand) part of $`f(energy)`$.

In order to visualize such a breather solution, the orbits of the particles of a breather solution are plotted in Fig. 3 for mass ratio $`\frac{m}{M}=\frac{2}{7}`$ and frequency $`f=0.212`$.

Exemplarily for the above choices of particle number and initial conditions, Figure 4 shows the regions in the parameter space of frequencies and mass ratios, for which symmetric breather solutions can be found.

### 3.3 Stability of breathers

In the anticontinuous limit, all breather solutions are stable. For non-zero mass ratios $`\frac{m}{M}`$, there are regions of stable and unstable breathers. Note that both, stable and unstable breathers, are obtained by continuation from the same solution in the anticontinuous limit, and continuation across the stability boundary does not cause any numerical difficulties. The regions of (linearly) stable and unstable breathers are indicated in Figure 4.

In contrast to the original work , the numerical continuation was performed with respect to two parameters, namely the mass ratio and the frequency. From Figure 4 it becomes clear, why this process is essential: for masses $`M10`$, stable breather solutions cannot be found by continuing a solution from the anticontinuous limit while keeping the frequency fixed.

### 3.4 Other parameter values

Varying some parameters of the model under investigation, quantitative changes occur, while no qualitative modifications of the phase diagram have been observed:

* Due to the localized character of the oscillation, increasing the number of particles does not lead to significant changes (maybe apart from the case of mass ratio $`\frac{m}{M}`$ close to unity, where localization is less distinct).
* Enlarging the coupling constant of the nearest neighbour interaction (while keeping the next-nearest neighbour coupling constant to unity), the lower bound on the accessible frequencies can be shifted towards zero.
* Breather existence and stability can be strongly influenced by the shape of the interaction potentials $`U`$ and $`V`$ in the Hamiltonian. In particular the softening (as in our case) or hardening property of the potentials often gives rise to entirely different behaviour of the respective systems.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Roberto Livi for arousing our interest in the topic of discrete breathers and for stimulating discussions. The work was supported by EU contract HPRN-CT-1999-00163 (LOCNET network).


text:
# The Characteristics of Magnetic CVs in the Period Gap

## 1. Introduction

Cataclysmic Variables (CVs) are close interactive binaries with the absolute majority of their orbital periods distributed between 80 minutes and 10 hours. The bulk of CVs (Dwarf Novae and some non-magnetic Novalikes) show a bimodal distribution of orbital periods with a well pronounced deficiency of systems between 2 and 3 hours, known as the Period Gap. For a long time it’s been argued and now commonly accepted that the magnetic systems does not follow that pattern and the distribution of magnetic CVs does not show such bi-modality (Webbink & Wickramasinghe 2002). The explanation that they suggest is based on magnetic breaking models that allow narrowing of the period gap for sufficiently high magnetic moment of the primary star immediately after which the mass transfer is driven by gravitational waves. The model does a good job of describing the orbital period distribution of magnetic CVs, but it envisages much higher rates of mass transfer than were observed in a few magnetic CVs in the period gap and around it. We were able to conduct spectrophotometry of a sample of mCVs in the period gap to compare their characteristics with others. We also observed one object that lies above the period gap but also shows an extremely low mass transfer rate.

The question is whether the mass transfer decrease is directly associated with the period gap, and, thus detection of magnetic CVs there is a matter of selection effect (primarily X-ray emission), or if it is an intrinsic characteristic of particular systems.

## 2. Observations and basic characteristics of the selected objects

There are 51 systems in between 2 & 3 hours in the living edition of the Downes (1997/2002) catalog of Cataclysmic Variables. 25 of them are proven to be magnetic systems. We collected low resolution spectrophotometric data on 3 of them. Although they constitute only a small fraction of the systems inside the period gap, they exhibit wide range of features characteristic of Polars. We also observed HS0922+1333 which is remarkable for its low mass accretion rate, its pure cyclotron spectrum and being located above the Gap.

Observations were conducted mainly at the 2.1m telescope of OAN in Mexico. One object (V381Vel) was observed from La Silla with 3.5m NTT (for details of observations see Tovmassian et al. (2003a, 2003b).

### 2.1. V381 Vel = RX J1016.9-4103

Optical counterpart of this Polar was identified by Greiner & Schwarz (1998). They estimated Porb=134 min. The system has one pole of B=52 MG or 41 MG. Vennes et al. (1999) later cited a shorter Porb=122 min, without elaborating much on the other properties. We observed one full period in April 1999 without being aware of the controversy. Complete orbital coverage allowed us to conclude that the system actually has two poles. At phases 0.20-0.25 we can see mix of both poles, as Greiner & Schwarz (1998) did. At phase 0.5 no cyclotron humps are apparent. Later at $`\varphi =0.7`$ the 2nd harmonic of 41 MG pole dominates. Finally at phase 0.95 through 0.1 the stronger 52 MG pole is seen (see Fig 1). The emission lines were successfully separated into two components. None of these components arises from the irradiated secondary star. Rather they are emitted from different parts of the accretion stream. Folding the data with both announced periods and fitting a $`sin`$ curve strongly favors 134 min as an orbital period of the system (Fig 2, lower panels).

Next, we integrated the flux in three different bands. They were selected to reflect the flux variation in the continuum relatively free of emission lines (including cyclotron lines), and two other narrow bands centered on the cyclotron features. The folding of the continuum fluxes, presumably from the self-eclipsing WD, with the orbital (134 min) period is poor (Fig 2, upper left panel). The same data folded with 122 min period greatly improves the light curve, but distorts the radial velocity curve (right panel, note the overlapping of data points at $`\varphi `$ 0.8-0.9). We believe that this Polar is not synchronized and that P$`{}_{\mathrm{orb}}{}^{}=134`$ min, while 122 min is the spin period of the WD. The difference is about 10%, which in unprecedent for Polars. The orbital phasing can be independently confirmed by the Doppler tomograms. The very characteristic pattern of the mass transfer flow is oriented precisely, as one would expect with the right parameters and phasing (Fig 3). Once again the absence of an irradiated secondary in the V381 Vel should be stressed.

### 2.2. RX J1554.2+2721

This object was recently identified as a Polar (Tovmassian et al. 2001). We estimated P$`{}_{\mathrm{orb}}{}^{}=2.753`$ hours. Shortly after, Thorstensen & Fenton (2002) refined it to 2.53 hours, placing it exactly in the center of the period gap. Its main features include frequent switches from the high to the low luminosity states, extremely low mass transfer rate in the low state and a striking similarity to a pair of LARPs (HS09, HS10 and RBS 206). Actually, the latter conclusion was based upon a single spectrum obtained in the low luminosity state. We re-observed RXJ1554 until we caught it in the low state again. New observations confirmed that the object goes from the high state to the low within months. We got a full orbital coverage of the system in the high in the low state. We confirmed the estimate of the magnetic field strength of order of $`B=30`$ MG. The object probably has a weaker second pole. In the Fig 4 we present samples of spectra of RX J1554 at different phases in the low and high states.

Here again we separated the emission lines into two components. In this case however, the dominant component arises from the irradiated secondary star, an M4 red dwarf. This component is basically the only line emission observed in the low state. The stream is not detected or is extremely faint. Doppler maps in Tovmassian et al. (2001) and Thorstensen & Fenton (2002) testify to the presence of a strongly irradiated secondary and a weak stream contribution unlike the V381 Vel. The system seems to be synchronized. At least no deviations are detected at our precision level. These are preliminary results and we expect to obtain more useful information from wealth of data that was acquired.

### 2.3. HS1023+3900

We observed HS10 along with RXJ 1554 in January & April 2002 primarily to check if it undergoes states of higher luminosity. In both occasions the object looked exactly as described in Reimers, Hagen & Hopp (1999). There is a continuing evidence of an irradiated secondary (H$`\alpha `$ in emission), as was reported earlier by Schwope (2001).

### 2.4. HS0922+1333

In our small survey we also included HS09 (Reimers & Hagen 2000), because, it is so far the only system with similar cyclotron spectra and extremely low mass transfer rate, which is firmly located outside the 2-3 hour period range, above it. Our main goal as in the case of HS10 was to check if it shows high luminosity state episodes. Results so far are negative. However, an analysis of its orbital parameters yielded a nice surprise. We were able to measure the orbital period directly from the H$`\alpha `$ emission line and the Na sc i absorption doublet.

The radial velocity measurements of H$`\alpha `$ in emission as well as of Nai absorption doublet folded with period reported by Reimers & Hagen (2000) showed obvious discontinuity. Although our coverage was barely enough to overlap periods and it was not possible to estimate the period precisely, the quality of data was good enough to unambiguously establish that the orbital period exceeds the spin period by at least 30 minutes and is of order of 4.6 hours. The narrow band flux measurements centered on the cyclotron emission lines and folded with both, the newly determined orbital, and the previously reported 4.07 hour periods confirm that the latter is a better fit and most probably represents the spin period of the primary. In the Fig 5 similar to Fig 2 the radial velocity and flux measurements are folded with the proposed orbital and spin periods. The overlapping of phases occurs around $`\varphi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}0.2`$. The lack of synchronization was suspected by the discoverers of the object.

Doppler tomograms of H$`\alpha `$ (left) and Nai (right) lines demonstrate the presence of an irradiated secondary star in the system and also some evidence of a mass transfer stream immediately near the L1 point. This is an interesting observation taking into account the meager mass transfer rate of $`3\times 10^{13}`$M/year.

## 3. Conclusions

We were able to demonstrate that Polars located in the period gap show all range of spectrophotometric features proper to mCVs:

RXJ1016 was observed only in the high state. It shows a significant contribution from the accreting matter flow in emission lines and no secondary irradiation. There is no evidence of significantly low mass transfer rate in this case. It is probably an asynchronous rotator.

RXJ1554 was frequently observed switching from high to low states. In the high state it shows bluer continuum, strong emission lines both from the irradiated secondary and the stream. In the low state it becomes similar to the LARPs. Probably synchronous. It bridges the seemingly large differences between LARPS (Schwope 2001) and ordinary Polars.

HS10 has never been observed in high state. The secondary is irradiated. Probably synchronous.

In the low states the last two objects show extremely low accretion rates ( $`10^{13}`$ M/year), but so does HS09 with a period of 4.6 hours and RBS 206, that may be below the period gap at 90 min. Thus, we may speak about existence of a distinct class of Polars with a sufficiently lower mass transfer rates than originally known. However there is no strong evidence, linking low mass transfer rate with the “classical” period gap.

The considered objects have magnetic field strengths and secondaries whose spectral classes are within the usual range of values.

Redrawing the orbital distribution graph with the new assignments (HS09 & RXJ1016 as asynchronous polars) creates an impression that the 2-3 hour range is a “melting point” where magnetic systems reach synchronization. This conclusion is in a good agreement with the prediction drawn by Webbink & Wickramasinghe (2002) from their models (although they expect at least $`10^{10}`$ M/year). LARPs are still understudied objects and they can provide important insights to the nature of mCVs.

Discovery of a couple of highly asynchronous polars arises the question of the definition of Intermediate Polars. Are they simply magnetic CVs with a spin period of the primary sufficiently different from the orbital period or is the strength of magnetic field the most important defining parameter?

## References

Downes, R., Webbink, R.F. and Shara, M. 1997, PASP, 109, 345

Greiner, J., and Schwarz, R. 1998, A&A, 340,129

Reimers, D., Hagen, H.-J., & Hopp, U. 1997, A&A, 343,157

Reimers, D., & Hagen, H.-J. 2000, A&A, 358, L45

Schwope, A.D., Brunner, H., Hambaryan, V., Schwarz, R. 2002, The Physics of CVs and Related Objects, ASP Conf. Proc., Vol. 261., 102.

Thorstensen, J.R., & Fenton, W.H. 2002, PASP, 114, 74

Tovmassian, G.H., Greiner, J., Zharikov, S.V., Echevarria, J., & Kniazev, A. 2001, A&A, 380, 504

Tovmassian G.H., Mennickent, R., Greiner, J., Zarikov, S.V. 2003a, in prep.

Tovmassian, G.H., Zarikov, S.V., Mercado, A. 2003b, in prep.

Vennes, S., Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D. 1999, Annapolis Workshop on Magnetic CVs, ASP Conf. Ser., V. 157, 143

Webbink, R.F. & Wickramasinghe, D.T. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 1