format: text

text:
# Vortex structure in d–density wave scenario of pseudogap

## I Introduction

Recent scanning–tunneling–microscopy (STM) experiments give a new insight into the electronic structure of the vortex cores in the high–temperature superconductors (HTSC), and, more generally, into the problem of the interplay between superconductivity and a magnetic field. In type–II superconductors, the flux penetrating the vortex suppresses the superconducting order parameter locally in the core. It was shown in 1964 by Caroli at al.caroli  that there should be bound states around the vortex core in an isotropic $`s`$–wave superconductor. Hess was the first who has experimentally confirmed the existence of core states or core excitations in $`\mathrm{NbSe}_2`$ superconductorhess . These states manifest themselves in the local density of states (LDOS) as a large peak near the Fermi surface. Similar experiments carried out for HTSC have shown a rich structure of the vortex states. Namely, Maggio–Aprile at al. have found a splitting of the central peak in $`\mathrm{YBa}_2\mathrm{Cu}_3\mathrm{O}_{7\mathrm{x}}`$MA . The resulting peaks are separated by about 11 meV. On the other hand the numerical solution of the Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) equations for $`d`$–wave superconductivity (DSC) indicates the absence of such a splitting.Wang  It was later explained by Franz and Tesanovič that there are no truly bound states in $`d`$–wave superconductors and all the states are extended with continuous energy spectrumFT . They tried to explain this discrepancy by introducing an additional $`d_{xy}`$ component of the superconducting order parameter. The resulting $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ gap is nodeless and leads to an exponential decay of the core states. Generally, the presence of the bound states is expected for any nodeless gap. Although, $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ is commonly accepted as a dominant symmetry of the order parameter an additional component, that closes the nodes in the $`x=\pm y`$ directions, can be induced by the external magnetic field krila . However, results presented in Ref. kita  suggest that qualitative agreement with the STM experiments can be obtained also for a pure $`d`$–wave superconductivity, provided that the magnetic field is strong enough. Moreover, the presence of the additional component may not lead to an essential modification of LDOS. The presence of the core states in BSCCO, unlike YBCO, is not well established. Small peaks at $`\pm 7`$ meV have been reported in Ref. pan . On the other hand, the core states have not been observed in other STM experiments renner . Instead, a gaplike structure has been found in the center of the vortex core. It has been identified as a pseudogap that evolves smoothly into the superconducting gap away from the vortex core. As the origin of the pseudogap is still under debate, investigation of the vortex structure can shed a new light on this problem.

The pseudogap has been investigated with the help of various experimental techniques like: angle–resolved photoemission arpes1 ; arpes2 ; arpes3 , intrinsic tunneling spectroscopy krasnov1 ; krasnov2 , NMR nmr1 ; nmr2 , infrared infra  and transport transport  measurements. Aside from other approaches a $`d`$–density–wave (DDW) state has recently been proposed to explain the pseudogap chak ; nayak1 ; nayak2 . The DDW scenario has been investigated to verify whether it actually applies to the pseudogap regime. For the details we refer to considerations concerning the transport properties tr1 ; tr2 , nonmagnetic imp1 ; imp2  and magnetic morr  impurities as well as the phonon self–energy ph1 ; ph2  in the DDW phase. According to this hypothesis the pseudogap opens due to condensation of electron–hole pairs with a nonzero angular momentum ($`l=2`$). As a result there are staggered fluxes originating from the orbital currents, which alter from one plaquette to the neighboring one. The DDW order breaks the time reversal, rotational and translational invariance, preserving combination of arbitrary two of them. There exists a similar approach that, however, does not break the translational symmetry varma .

As the DDW and DSC orders compete chak ; gosh , one may expect an enhancement (or appearance) of the DDW gap near the vortex core, where the superconductivity is suppressed. It is possible due to the insensitivity of the DDW order to the magnetic field chakravarty . In the present paper we investigate the vortex structure assuming the DDW scenario of the pseudogap. Our approach explains the tunneling spectra obtained in the vicinity of the vortex core in BSCCOrenner . We analyze the vortex structure in a wide range of doping level and find crucial differences between under– and overdoped regimes. It was shown in Ref. imp1  that depending on the carrier concentration one may expect pure DDW, mixed DDW+DSC, and pure DSC ordering. Our results suggest the possibility of an additional phase, where the DDW order occurs only inside the vortex cores. In the framework of the SU(2) slave–boson theory this possibility has been investigated by Kishine et al.lee . As the vortices are often pinned at impurities pan , we investigate the electronic structure also in such a case. Finally, we discuss a possible coupling between the staggered currents and the antiferromagnetic order, that has recently been observed in the vicinity of vortices.lake

## II The model

Our starting point is an effective Hamiltonian that describes a system with coexisting DDW and DSC orders imp1

$$H=H_{\mathrm{kin}}+H_{\mathrm{DSC}}+H_{\mathrm{DDW}}.$$
(1)
The kinetic part of the Hamiltonian is given by

$$H_{\mathrm{kin}}=t\underset{ij\sigma }{}\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }\mu \underset{i\sigma }{}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma },$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the nearest–neighbor hopping integral and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{i\sigma }`$) creates (annihilates) an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$. According to the Peierls substitution peierls  the magnetic field enters the kinetic part of the Hamiltonian through a phase factor $`\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)`$: in the presence of magnetic field the hopping between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ is accompanied by acquiring of an additional phase, given by

$$\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_{\text{R}_j}^{\text{R}_i}\text{A}𝑑\text{l}\right).$$
(3)
$`H_{\mathrm{DSC}}`$ is the nearest–neighbor pairing responsible for the $`d`$–wave superconductivity

$$H_{\mathrm{DSC}}=\underset{ij}{}\left(c_i^{}c_j^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}+c_ic_j\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}\right),$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{V_{\mathrm{DSC}}}{2}c_ic_jc_ic_j$$
(5)
is the superconducting order parameter. As we do not specify the mechanism responsible for pairing, $`V_{\mathrm{DSC}}`$ is assumed to be field–independent.nasz2  The DDW state occurs due to

$$H_{\mathrm{DDW}}=\underset{ij\sigma }{}(1)^iW_{ij}\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma },$$
(6)
where

$$W_{ij}=(1)^i\frac{V_{\mathrm{DDW}}}{2}\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }\eta _{ji}\left(\text{A}\right)c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }$$
(7)
is the DDW amplitude. Note, that in contradistinction to the superconducting order parameter magnetic field explicitly enters $`W_{ij}`$ chakravarty .

The mean–field Hamiltonian can be diagonalized with the help of the Bogoliubov–de Gennes (BdG) equations. Namely, we introduce a set of new fermionic operators $`\gamma _{n\sigma }^{()}`$:

$`c_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}u_{il}\gamma _lv_{il}^{}\gamma _l^{},`$
$`c_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}u_{il}\gamma _l+v_{il}^{}\gamma _l^{},`$
where

$$\underset{j}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{ij}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}& _{ij}^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{jl}\\ v_{jl}\end{array}\right)=E_l\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{il}\\ v_{il}\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Here, the single particle Hamiltonian is given by

$$_{ij}=\left[t\delta _{i+\delta ,j}+(1)^iW_{ij}\right]\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)\mu \delta _{ij},$$
(9)
and both the order parameters are determined self–consistently by:

$`W_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^i{\displaystyle \frac{iV_{\mathrm{DDW}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mathrm{Im}[u_{il}u_{jl}^{}\eta _{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)`$ (10)
$`+v_{il}v_{jl}^{}\eta _{ij}^{}\left(\text{A}\right)\left]\mathrm{tanh}\right({\displaystyle \frac{E_l}{2kT}}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{DSC}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(u_{il}v_{jl}^{}+v_{il}^{}u_{jl}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_l}{2kT}}\right).`$ (11)
In the presence of magnetic field the phase factor $`\eta `$ explicitly appears in the expression for the DDW order parameter \[Eq.(10)\]. It differs the BdG equations used in this paper from those obtained in Ref. imp1 .

In order to compare the numerical results with STM data we have calculated the local density of states (LDOS)

$$\rho _i\left(ϵ\right)=\underset{l}{}\left[|u_{il}|^2f^{}\left(E_lϵ\right)+|v_{il}|^2f^{}\left(E_l+ϵ\right)\right],$$
(12)
where $`f^{}(ϵ)`$ is the derivative of the Fermi distribution function $`f(ϵ)=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(ϵ/kT\right)+1\right]^1`$. $`\rho _i(ϵ)`$ is proportional to the local differential tunneling conductance that could be measured in STM experiments. We have also calculated the local electron concentration

$$n_i=2\underset{l}{}|u_{il}|^2f(E_l)+|v_{il}|^2f(E_l),$$
(13)
that determines, e.g., the effective charge of the vortex.

## III Results

We have carried out calculations for $`35\times 35`$ square lattice with one superconducting flux quantum piercing this area. We have taken the nearest–neighbor hopping integral as the energy unit and assumed $`V_{\mathrm{DDW}}=1.6`$, $`V_{\mathrm{DSC}}=1.4`$. In the absence of magnetic field the phase diagram of HTSC can qualitatively be reproduced for such values of the interaction strengths (we refer to Ref.imp1  for the details).

### III.1 Structure of vortex

We have analyzed the vortex structure for different values of the occupation number. For small concentration of holes, $`\delta <0.04`$ ($`\delta =1n`$), the DDW order dominates and superconductivity is completely suppressed. Therefore, there is no vortex for such an occupation number and the DDW state is homogeneous. For larger doping the DDW and DSC orders coexist. For a doping slightly higher than $`\delta =0.04`$ both the phases coexist in the whole sample, as depicted in Fig. 1. The presented magnitudes of the order parameter are defined by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{\mathrm{DSC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+\widehat{𝐱}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i\widehat{𝐱}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i+\widehat{𝐲}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,i\widehat{𝐲}}\right)`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{\mathrm{DDW}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(W_{i,i+\widehat{𝐱}}+W_{i,i\widehat{𝐱}}W_{i,i+\widehat{𝐲}}W_{i,i\widehat{𝐲}}\right)`$ (15)
DDW and DSC orderings compete with each other chak . Therefore, reduction of one of them enhances the other one. As the DDW order is hardly affected by the magnetic field it becomes strongly enhanced in the vortex core where the superconductivity is suppressed. In order to prove that this mechanism is responsible for the enhancement of the DDW order in the vortex core we have plotted $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>\sqrt{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{\mathrm{DDW}}\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{\mathrm{DSC}}\right)^2}`$ (see Fig. 2). Note, that this quantity is almost constant.

Farther increase of doping ($`\delta >0.1`$) destroys the DDW order in a homogeneous system.imp1  However, this ordering can be restored in the vortex core. Such a case is presented in Fig. 3. The local coexistence of DDW and DSC takes place for the doping up to $`\delta 0.16`$. Therefore, due to the suppression of superconductivity, magnetic field significantly enhances the doping regime where the DDW order occurs. For higher doping the DDW order is not restored in the vortex core. It originates from the fact that for sufficiently strong doping DDW does not exist even in the absence of superconductivity ($`V_{\mathrm{DSC}}=0`$).

Another interesting feature, that originates from the presence of the DDW order is related to charge of the vortex. For small doping the vortex charge is negative (i.e., the electron concentration in the vortex core is higher than outside the vortex, see Fig. 4a). As the doping increases the electron concentration in the vortex core decreases and for $`\delta >0.16`$ the vortex core becomes positively charged. The inversion of the vortex charge occurs when the DDW order disappears. It originates from the changes of LDOS: the DDW gap opens in the center of the band and enhances the density of states below the Fermi level. This inversion may also be induced by changing of temperature, provided that the DSC transition temperature is larger than those of the bare DDW state (overdoped region). Namely, at low temperature the DDW order is restored at the vortex core and, therefore, vortex is negatively charged (see Fig. 4b). At sufficiently high temperature the DDW order does not occur and the vortex is positively charged (Fig. 4c). Experimental observation of this feature would certainly support the DDW scenario of the pseudogap.

### III.2 Local density of states

The first STM measurements of the vortex core in BSCCO did reveal neither the existence of the core states nor the zero bias conductance peak (ZBCP) expected for the pure DSC state renner . The presence of the core states in BSCCO has later been reported in Ref. pan . The discrepancy between both the experiments remains, however, unexplained. In our approach the DDW and DSC order parameters have nodes in the same parts of the Fermi surface and the bound states do not occur (inclusion of components with other symmetries is needed). However, we show that the DDW scenario explains the qualitative features of LDOS reported in Ref. renner . In Fig. 5 we present the LDOS for different distances from the vortex center.

For such occupation number both the DDW and DSC gaps are present also away from the vortex. When approaching the vortex center the DSC gap, that exists at the Fermi level, vanishes and the DDW gap becomes strongly enhanced. The DDW gap opens in the center of the band and, therefore, is responsible for the asymmetry of the LDOS inside the vortex. In particular, the peak at positive bias shifts outwards when approaching the center of vortex, whereas the peak at negative bias does not move. Such an asymmetry has recently been observed in BSCCO renner . For larger doping this feature is even more pronounced since there is no DDW gap away from the vortex and the Fermi level is much below the center of the band.

The LDOS at the vortex center evolves smoothly with doping. This is depicted in Fig. 6. The lowest curve corresponds to the case when DDW and DSC orders coexist in the bulk material. The following four curves are obtained for DDW and DSC orders coexisting in the vortex, whereas the two topmost curves are obtained for a purely DSC vortex. For small doping the DDW gap does not allow for the formation of the ZBCP. The DDW gap decreases with increasing doping and the ZBCP gradually develops in the overdoped regime.

In the overdoped regime a similar evolution of LDOS, connected with the vanishing of the DDW gap, can also be caused by the increase of temperature. Fig. 7 shows such a situation for $`\delta =0.16`$.

At low temperature the DDW gap strongly suppresses the ZBCP, however a remnant of this peak is visible at the Fermi level. At temperature $`kT=0.1`$ the DDW gap closes and ZBCP becomes strongly enhanced. Farther increase of temperature destroys superconductivity, ZBCP disappears and the normal–state van Hove singularity appears in the center of the band (the uppermost curve, $`kT=0.25`$).

Decay of the DDW order, when moving away from the vortex core, is doping dependent. In the underdoped case the DDW order parameter decreases monotonically from the maximum in the vortex core to the value of the bulk DDW+DSC state. In the overdoped case the DDW order vanishes outside the vortex, however the decay in not monotonic but rather oscillating. There exist lines where the DDW order changes sign, what corresponds to reverted circulation of the staggered currents (see Fig. 8). The resulting pattern posses a fourfold symmetry and has a checkerboard–like modulation. However, the amplitude decays rapidly and disappears at the distance of several lattice constants. The size of the checkerboard squares is comparable to the coherence length (a few lattice constants) and increases with decreasing doping. Similar pattern has recently been observed in the STM imaging of slightly overdoped BSCCO hoffman . The staggered flux alone may be to weak to explain the antiferromagnetic order observed in the vicinity of the vortex core lake . However, presence of DDW order may stabilize the antiferromagnetic ordering of spins. Here, two mechanisms can be taken into account: (i) a coupling between the staggered magnetic field and spins, (ii) changing of the local electron concentration towards half–filling, where the antiferromagnetism is stable (see Fig. 4a). This tempting hypothesis should, however, be verified within a separate study (e.g., one can extend the approach presented in Ref. kolor ). This problem is currently under investigation.

### III.3 Vortex pinned at impurity

As a large number of vortices is pinned at impurities pan  we have also analyzed the vortex structure and LDOS in such a case. Investigation of the LDOS in the vicinity of a nonmagnetic impurity has recently been proposed as an experimental test of the DDW scenario imp1 ; imp2 . Since the DDW order is strongly enhanced in the vortex core one can expect a nontrivial modification of the vortex structure. In order to account for the presence of a nonmagnetic impurity we have extended the Hamiltonian \[Eq. (2)\] by

$$H_{\mathrm{imp}}=U\underset{\sigma }{}c_{0\sigma }^{}c_{0\sigma },$$
(16)
where $`U`$ is the strength of the impurity located at $`\text{R}_0`$. Due to the presence of the impurity the single particle Hamiltonian in the BdG equations acquires an additional term

$$_{ij}_{ij}+U\delta _{i0}\delta _{j0}$$
(17)
Fig. 9 shows the DDW order parameter around the vortex that is pinned at a weak impurity with $`U=2`$. The DSC order parameter is absent in the vortex core and, therefore, weakly affected by the impurity. Contrary to this, the DDW order is is completely suppressed at the impurity site, provided that $`U`$ is large enough. Then, the DDW currents are absent on the bonds, which link the impurity site with its nearest neighbors. As a result the DDW order is suppressed also at the neighboring sites and has a maximum on a ring surrounding the vortex center.

The spatial structure of the pinned vortex is reflected in the LDOS, (see Fig. 10). At the impurity site the most of the spectral weight is transfered to larger energies. At the nearest neighbor site the DDW order is still suppressed by impurity, whereas DSC gap is negligible as we are in the vortex core. This allows for the formation of the ZBCP, as can be inferred from the second curve in Fig. 10. With increasing distance from the impurity both the order parameters develop and the ZBCP disappears. Here, one can observe the asymmetric gap, as discussed before for a clean superconductor. Then, the DDW order parameter decays and the pure DSC order parameter achieves its bulk value (the uppermost curve in Fig. 10).

The above results show important qualitative differences between the structure of vortices uninfluenced and influenced by impurities. Assuming the DDW origin of the pseudogap, the ZBCP should occur only in the latter case. Therefore, experimental verification of the DDW scenario requires the ability to independently map the vortex and impurity locations. Such an experimental technique has recently been described in Ref. pan .

## IV Summary and remarks

In conclusion, we have investigated the the vortex structure in the system with coexisting DSC and DDW correlations. Changing the carrier concentration we have found four phases: (i) pure DDW phase, (ii) DDW and DSC orders coexisting in the whole system, (iii) DSC order existing in the bulk and DDW order only in the vortex core, and (iv) pure superconducting vortex. The system goes from the phase (i) to (iv) when the doping increases. The actual positions of the phase boundaries are model–dependent, and may change when the electron correlations are taken into account. In the case (ii) the DDW order parameter is strongly enhanced in the vicinity of the vortex core. It is due to the competition between DSC and DDW orderings. The presence of the DDW gap in the vortex \[phases (ii) and (iii)\] does not allow for the formation of ZBCP. In this case, the evolution of the DSC gap into DDW one, when approaching the vortex center, provides a natural explanation of the gap asymmetry reported in Ref. renner . This asymmetry originates from the fact that the DDW and DSC gaps open at different energies.

As the DDW order suppresses the ZBCP, this peak can be observed in the phase (iv), where the system is purely superconducting. However, one can expect the occurrence of the ZBCP when the vortex is pinned at impurity. This is due to the absence of the staggered currents in the close neighborhood of the impurity.

As DDW and DSC gapes have nodes in the same directions, the core bound states do not occur in our approach. However, an additional component of the order parameter, for which the gap is nodeless, may lead to the splitting of the zero–bias peak in LDOS.

The presented modification of the vortex structure originates predominantly from the competition between DSC and DDW orders. A direct coupling of the DDW order to the magnetic field is of minor importance. Therefore, one can argue that the presented results remain valid also for other non–superconducting order parameter, that competes with DSC and is weakly affected by the magnetic field.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, Grant No. 2 P03B 050 23.


text:
# Nonlocality of Two-Mode Squeezing with Internal Noise

## I Introduction

The two-mode squeezed state is the paradigm of the EPR state for light modes. In recent years such states have been experimentally realized and thus have been used in a number of applications Mandel (1995). In particular, these states can be used to demonstrate that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. Using the polarization states of the two modes, a violation of Bell’s inequality has been experimentally realized Aspect (1982). In addition, an experiment based on parity measurements to demonstrate nonlocality has been proposed Banaszek (1998). Using parity considerations, a positive everywhere Wigner function has been shown to be nonlocal.

In particular, by using a phase space representation, nonlocality for the continuous variable squeezed state can be analyzed. Because squeezed states can be experimentally demonstrated, a lot of attention has been given to studying how noise affects these states. Up to the present, nonlocality for a pure two-mode squeezed state coupled to an external reservoir has been investigated Kim (2000). This noise has been introduced into the state by coupling each mode of the squeezed state to independent external reservoirs. Alternatively, this can be interpreted as transmitting the two modes through some noisy quantum channel.

Finding an exact analytic expression for the Wigner function is often an operose task. Gaussian Wigner functions are prevalent because they are exact solutions to equations which can be easily dealt with. However, in most cases only numerical solutions exist. And in some cases analytic solutions exist, but only under certain approximations. An exact, non-Gaussian solution for the Wigner function for a nondegenerate parametric oscillator has been obtained for the steady-state Kheruntsyan (2000). Although the state is a two-mode squeezed state with internal quantum noise, the steady state solution exhibits no nonlocal features and, therefore, is not useful for tests of Bell-type inequalities.

Parametric amplification generates the two-mode squeezed state via nonlinear interactions in a crystal. A laser beam passes through a crystal for some time and the output is two modes of light which are correlated. The degree of correlation depends on the interaction time as well as the strength of the nonlinearity. Ideally, this process generates a pure quantum state which is nonseparable. We will consider the nonideal process where quantum noise is present inside the crystal.

The purpose of this paper is to study the nonlocal features of the two-mode squeezed state with internal noise. We solve the Wigner function exactly to analyze the dynamics of nonlocality and study the many features of this quantum state, such as separability and the behavior in the steady state. We begin this paper by considering two modes which are coupled via a diffusive nonlinear crystal. The Hamiltonian has an interaction term plus noise terms which couple each mode to a heat bath. A linear quantum Fokker-Planck equation is solved for the Gaussian Wigner function of the state. An analysis of the steady state conditions is given. In Section III conditions for purity and separability of the state are provided. A discussion of the class of nonseparable mixed states which exhibit quantum nonlocality follows. An application to Bell’s inequality is given in Section IV, where the effect of noise on the nonlocality of the state is discussed. With Section V we conclude by examining two types of mixed entangled states: the continuous variable Werner state and a phase-diffused state.

## II Wigner function.

The Wigner function for a two-mode squeezed state is well-known to be

$`W_{2mss}(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}\text{exp}[2\mathrm{cosh}(2r)(|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2)`$ (1)
$`+2\mathrm{sinh}(2r)(\alpha _1\alpha _2+\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})]`$
for two coherent modes of light $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$. The amount of squeezing of the state is determined by the parameter $`r`$ which depends on the nonlinearity of the crystal as well as the interaction time of the light propagating through the crystal.

In this paper, we derive the Wigner function for a two-mode squeezed state which has internal noise. In this case a pure squeezed state is not produced. Rather, there is a quantum diffusion process present during the generation of the squeezed light. This is intrinsic quantum noise which is present for the duration of the interaction time.

The Hamiltonian, in the interaction picture, describing the process of parametric amplification in the presence of noise is

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\kappa (\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\mathrm{}(\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i+\widehat{a}_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i^{})`$ (2)
where $`\kappa `$ describes the nonlinearity of the crystal. The parameter $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a reservoir operator which introduces quantum white noise into the system characterized by the mean photon number $`\overline{n}`$.

The equation of motion for the density operator which describes the quantum state of the two light modes is given by the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _i}{2}}(\overline{n}_i+1)(2\widehat{a}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _i}{2}}\overline{n}_i(2\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_i^{})`$
which is obtained by averaging over the reservoir variables. The two field modes are coupled to a bath which has a mean photon number given by $`\overline{n}`$ and we will assume that the single photon loss rate for each mode is equal so that $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2`$.

The method to convert the above operator equation into a c-number equation is straightforward with the use of the characteristic function for the Wigner representation defined as

$$\chi (𝜷)Tr(\widehat{D}\widehat{\rho })=e^{\frac{1}{2}𝜷^{}\text{V}𝜷}$$
(4)
where $`𝜷=(\beta _1,\beta _1^{},\beta _2,\beta _2^{})`$ is a four-vector and the operator $`\widehat{D}`$ is the displacement operator for the two modes

$$\widehat{D}=\widehat{D}_1\widehat{D}_2=e^{\beta _1\widehat{a}_1^{}\beta _1^{}\widehat{a}_1}e^{\beta _2\widehat{a}_2^{}\beta _2^{}\widehat{a}_2}.$$
(5)
The matrix V is a 4$`\times `$4 covariance matrix for the two modes.

A double Fourier transform of the characteristic function defines the Wigner function $`W(𝜶)`$ for the two modes. Using standard procedures the master equation (II) can be mapped into the following Fokker-Planck equation for the Wigner function

$$\frac{}{t}W(𝐱,t)=\left[A_{ij}\frac{}{x_i}x_j+\frac{1}{2}D_{ij}\frac{}{x_i}\frac{}{x_j}\right]W(𝐱,t)$$
(6)
in terms of the real position and momentum variables. The transform is given by $`\alpha _1=x_1+ix_2`$ and $`\alpha _2=x_3+ix_4`$, so that $`x_1`$ and $`x_3`$ are position variables and $`x_2`$ and $`x_4`$ are momentum variables. The drift matrix, $`A_{ij}`$, and the diffusion matrix, $`D_{ij}`$, are constant matrices, thus defining a quantum Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. The drift matrix is

$$\text{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\gamma }{2}& 0& \kappa & 0\\ 0& \frac{\gamma }{2}& 0& \kappa \\ \kappa & 0& \frac{\gamma }{2}& 0\\ 0& \kappa & 0& \frac{\gamma }{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
and the positive-definite diffusion matrix is

$$\text{D}=\frac{\gamma }{4}(2\overline{n}+1)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The general solution to a linear, multi-dimensional Fokker-Planck equation is known and can be solved exactly by the method of Fourier transform Carmichael (1999). The general Green function solution for a linear Fokker-Planck equation is a conditional distribution which is a multi-dimensional Gaussian having the form

$$W(𝐱,t|𝐱^{},0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{det}\text{Q}(t)}}\text{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(𝐱e^{\text{A}t}𝐱^{})^\text{T}\text{Q}^1(t)(𝐱e^{\text{A}t}𝐱^{})\right].$$
(9)
The matrix Q is a time-dependent matrix which depends on the elements of the diffusion matrix and the eigenvalues of the drift matrix.

From this solution the unconditional distribution is found through

$$W(𝐱,t)=W(𝐱,t|𝐱^{},0)W(𝐱^{},0)\text{d}𝐱^{}.$$
(10)
The initial condition is taken to be the two-mode vacuum state given by

$$W(𝐱,0)=\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^2e^{2(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2)}$$
(11)
in terms of the real variables. After integration over the primed variables and transforming back to the complex variables, we have the following form for the Wigner function

$$W(𝜶,t)=\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^2\frac{1}{h(t)}\text{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\text{f}(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,t)}{h(t)}\right)\right]$$
(12)
where

$`\text{f}(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(t)(\alpha _1\alpha _1^{}+\alpha _2\alpha _2^{})`$
$`+`$ $`c_2(t)(\alpha _1\alpha _2+\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{})`$
with time-dependent functions

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`2(e^{p_2}+e^{p_1})`$
$`+`$ $`(2\overline{n}+1)(p_1+p_2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p_1}}{p_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p_2}}{p_2}}\right)`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`2(e^{p_2}e^{p_1})`$
$`+`$ $`(2\overline{n}+1)(p_1+p_2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p_1}}{p_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p_2}}{p_2}}\right),`$
and

$`h=\left[e^{p_1}+(2\overline{n}+1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p_1}}{p_1}}\right)\right]`$ (15)
$`\times \left[e^{p_2}+(2\overline{n}+1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p_2}}{p_2}}\right)\right].`$
The dimensionless time parameters $`p_1=d+2r`$ and $`p_2=d2r`$ have been used. We call $`d=\gamma t`$ the diffusion parameter and $`r=\kappa t`$ the squeezing parameter. It should be emphasized that $`c_1=c_1(t),c_2=c_2(t),`$ and $`h=h(t)`$ and, throughout this paper, we occasionally omit the function’s dependent variables for simplicity.

The eigenvalues of the drift matrix are doubly degenerate and are

$$\lambda _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma +2\kappa ),\lambda _{3,4}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma 2\kappa ).$$
(16)
The condition for a steady state solution to exist is that the eigenvalues of the drift matrix all have negative real parts. Thus, the parameters $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ alone determine whether a steady state solution for the Wigner function exists. If $`\frac{\gamma }{2\kappa }>1`$ then a steady-state solution exists. The steady state Wigner function is a squeezed thermal state given by

$$W=\frac{\text{exp}\left[\frac{2}{2\overline{n}+1}\left(|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2\frac{2\kappa }{\gamma }\left(\alpha _1\alpha _2+\alpha _1^{}\alpha _2^{}\right)\right)\right]}{\left(\pi /2\right)^2(2\overline{n}+1)^2/\left(1(\frac{2\kappa }{\gamma })^2\right)}.$$
(17)
This steady state solution is undefined if $`2\kappa =\gamma `$. If $`\kappa =0`$ the steady state solution is a thermal state. For the case of a pure two-mode squeezed state, $`\gamma =0`$, there is no steady state solution because as the interaction time approaches infinity the Wigner function approaches an EPR state with perfect correlations.

## III Purity and Separability of Gaussian States

### III.1 Purity

In terms of the Wigner representation, a general two-mode Gaussian state may be written as

$$W(𝜶)=\frac{\sqrt{\text{det}\text{W}}}{\pi ^2}e^{\frac{1}{2}𝜶^{}\text{W}𝜶}.$$
(18)
For the state in Eq. (12), W takes the simple form

$$\text{W}=\frac{1}{2h}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c_1& 0& 0& c_2\\ 0& c_1& c_2& 0\\ 0& c_2& c_1& 0\\ c_2& 0& 0& c_1\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
The V matrix can be obtained from the W matrix through the relation between the Weyl-Wigner characteristic function and the Wigner function. They are related by a Fourier transform which leads to

$$\text{W}=\text{E}\text{V}^1\text{E}$$
(20)
where the matrix E=diag\[1,-1,1,-1\]. From this we have that

$$\text{V}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{det}\text{W}}}\text{W}$$
(21)
so that both matrices differ only by a factor.

The form of the covariance matrix is

$$\text{V}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}N+\frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& M\\ 0& N+\frac{1}{2}& M& 0\\ 0& M& N+\frac{1}{2}& 0\\ M& 0& 0& N+\frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
with the identification $`N+1/2=2hc_1/(c_1^2c_2^2)`$ and $`M=2hc_2/(c_1^2c_2^2)`$. $`N`$ quantifies the correlation $`\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i`$ for mode $`i`$, while $`M`$ quantitifies the correlation between modes related to squeezing $`\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2`$.

Gaussian operators which are projectors represent pure states Englert (2002). The condition for a Gaussian Wigner function to represent a pure state may be written concisely as $`\sqrt{\text{det}\text{W}}=4`$. The Gaussian operator corresponding to Eq.(12) is a projector provided

$$c_1(t)^2c_2(t)^2=16h(t)^2.$$
(23)
From this condition, it is established that only one pure state exists, namely, that for which both $`r0`$ and $`\gamma =0`$. This corresponds to a squeezed state which is generated in the absence of noise. The presence of the internal quantum noise always produces a mixed state. The resulting mixed states may be separable or nonseparable, depending on the parameters of the model.

### III.2 Separability

A separability criterion for two-mode Gaussian states has been established which relies on the partial transposition map acting on the two-party state Simon (2000). It has been shown that this criterion is equivalent to determining that the quantum state is P-representable. A two-mode Gaussian state is P-representable, and hence, separable, if and only if

$$\text{V}\frac{1}{2}\text{I}0$$
(24)
where V is the covariance matrix for the characteristic function found in Eq.(4) which takes the special form of Eq.(22). The separability condition is also equivalent to the condition that the matrix elements of (22) satisfy $`NM`$.

The state in Eq. (12) is separable if and only if the eigenvalues of Eq.(24) are nonnegative. There are four eigenvalues which are doubly degenerate. They are

$`e_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{p_2})(d\overline{n}+r)}{p_2}}`$
$`e_{3,4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{p_1})(d\overline{n}r)}{p_1}}.`$ (25)
The first eigenvalue has the property that the sign$`(e_{1,2})`$ is positive for all parameter space. It is not important for establishing the nonseparability of the state. The second eigenvalue determines the nonseparability of the state. For certain regions of the parameter space it is negative, while in other regions it is positive. The negativity of $`e_{3,4}`$ may be summarized as sign$`(e_{3,4})`$=sign$`(d\overline{n}r)`$. Hence, the state is nonseparable if and only if

$$r>d\overline{n}.$$
(26)
This is the requirement that the squeezing parameter be greater than the product of the single-photon loss rate described by the internal diffusion parameter and the mean photon number of the reservoir. Fig. 1 shows a parametric plot for varying mean photon number $`\overline{n}`$. States which lie on or above the solid line are separable states. The dots show states which have $`\overline{n}=0`$ for different values of the diffusion parameter $`d`$. We immediately see that if $`\overline{n}=0`$ then $`e_2<0`$ for all parameter space so that the system is never separable. Therefore, one may conclude that this system is entangled for all of parameter space when coupled to a zero-temperature heat bath. This is interesting because the diffusion parameter may be made as large as desired and still the state is nonseparable, even as the diffusion approaches infinity.

The nonseparable states may be further classified into two sets: those which exhibit quantum nonlocality and those which do not.

## IV Nonseparable mixed states exhibiting quantum nonlocality

If the two-mode squeezed state is generated with internal noise present then the resulting state will be a mixed state. Although all pure entangled states violate some Bell inequality, it is not clear in general which mixed entangled states will do so. If no noise is present then there always exists, for a fixed $`r`$, some range of values for $`J`$ which will correspond to a nonlocal state. The presence of the diffusion parameter will destroy the nonlocal features until some critical value for d is reached such that the state goes from nonlocal to classically correlated. Thus, in addition to the pure states ($`d=0`$) which are nonlocal, there is a set of mixed states ($`d0`$) which is also nonlocal.

To study the nonlocal properties of the state (12) we use the formalism of parity operator correlations developed in Banaszek (1998). The Wigner function is related to the expectation value of a displaced parity operator in phase space given by $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=\widehat{D}(\alpha _1)(1)^{\widehat{n}_1}\widehat{D}^{}(\alpha _1)\widehat{D}(\alpha _2)(1)^{\widehat{n}_2}\widehat{D}^{}(\alpha _2)`$. This expectation value defines a correlation function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^2W(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)$$
(27)
for parity measurements of mode 1 and mode 2, which is proportional to the two-mode Wigner function. In analogy with the case of dichotomic spin states, a Bell combination may be written, using correlations between parity measurements, as

$$\text{B}=\mathrm{\Pi }(0,0)+\mathrm{\Pi }(\sqrt{\text{J}},0)+\mathrm{\Pi }(0,\sqrt{\text{J}})\mathrm{\Pi }(\sqrt{\text{J}},\sqrt{\text{J}}).$$
(28)
For a two-mode squeezed state with internal noise the combination B will be a function of the interaction time as well as the squeezing and noise parameters. The Bell combination is

$`\text{B}(\text{J},t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{h}(t)}}[1+2\text{exp}.`$ $`\left(\text{J}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1(t)}{2h(t)}}\right)`$ (29)
$`\text{exp}`$ $`.(\text{J}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1(t)+c_2(t)}{h(t)}})]`$
where the functions $`c_1,c_2,`$ and $`h`$ are given by Eqs.(II,15) which are implicitly functions of time, and J is the square of the coherent amplitude of the light mode.

A search algorithm finds a local maximum for B and returns the values of the free parameters. The function B has a maximum of 2.19 with values $`\text{J}=.01,r=1.5,d=0`$, and $`\overline{n}=0`$. As expected, the Bell combination is most nonlocal when there is no noise present and the squeezed state is a pure two-mode squeezed state. In this case, one finds a stronger violation for large r and small intensity $`J`$. To see how the internal noise affects the nonlocality of the state we set $`r=1.5`$ and let $`J`$ and $`d`$ vary in Fig.2.

It is clear that the diffusion parameter destroys the nonlocal features of the state. Fig. 3 shows a cross-section of the three dimensional graph of Fig. 2 for $`J=.01`$. The Bell combination is greater than 2 for small values of the diffusion parameter, $`d`$. On a large scale, we find that as d increases the Bell combination decreases, reaches a minimum, and then increases to approach 2 from below.

## V Continuous Variable Werner States

Using the two-mode squeezed state of Eq.(1), a class of nonseparable, non-Gaussian, mixed states can be explored. We will consider two cases: a convex combination of a pure entangled state with an uncorrelated mixed state, and a convex combination of a pure entangled state with a classically correlated state. The first case is the analogue of the Werner state for continuous variables.

Werner Werner (1989) investigated the state

$$\widehat{\rho }=p|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|+\frac{1p}{\text{d}^2}\widehat{I}_A\widehat{I}_B$$
(30)
for $`0<p<1`$ which is a convex combination of a maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{d}}}_{i=1}^\text{d}|i_A|i_B`$ for finite dimension $`\text{d}^2`$ with a maximally mixed state obtained by a partial trace over the maximally entangled state. It was shown that such a state is nonseparable if and only if

$$p>\frac{1}{1+\text{d}}.$$
(31)
### V.1 Nonlocality of the continuous variable Werner state

A natural extension of a Werner state for infinite dimensions is a convex combination of a maximally entangled state with the maximally mixed state

$$\widehat{\rho }_W=p\widehat{\rho }_{2mss}^{AB}+(1p)\widehat{\rho }_T^A\widehat{\rho }_T^B$$
(32)
for two modes of light, A and B. This state is analogous to the Werner state when the squeezing parameter r is infinite. The continuous variable phase-space representation of this state is given by

$$W_W=pW_{2mss}(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)+(1p)W_T(\alpha _1)W_T(\alpha _2)$$
(33)
where $`W_T(\alpha )`$ is the marginal Wigner function obtained by the integration

$$W_T(\alpha )=W_{2mss}(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)d^2\alpha _2=\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{e^{\frac{2(|\alpha |^2)}{\mathrm{cosh}(2r)}}}{\mathrm{cosh}(2r)}$$
(34)
over the variables of one mode. When r is infinite, the Wigner function $`W_{2mss}`$ is the EPR state and the function $`W_T(\alpha )`$ has infinite variance representing a maximally mixed state of knowledge. Note that Eq.(33) is not a Gaussian operator, but rather, it is a linear superposition of Gaussian operators. The separability conditions for a linear superposition of two Gaussian operators have not yet been established. However, it has been shown that the state $`\widehat{\rho }_W`$ is nonseparable if $`p>0`$ Mista (2002). This is the limit of the finite dimensional case, Eq.(31), as the dimension of the Hilbert space, d, approaches infinity.

A test of nonlocality for the state $`W_W`$ in phase space can be performed using the same Bell combination given by Eq.(28). It is found that the state remains nonlocal for a region of mixtures lying between $`p=.9`$ and $`1`$. Adding a mixed state to the entangled state rapidly degrades the nonlocal features.

### V.2 Nonlocality of the phase-diffused state

In addition to the Werner state of Eq.(32) for continuous variables, a different convex combination has some interesting properties. Let us consider the state

$$W=pW_{2mss}+(1p)\overline{W}$$
(35)
which is a convex combination of a two-mode squeezed state with a phase-averaged state. Rather than integrating over one mode of light, an integration over the phases of both modes is performed. The state

$$\overline{W}=_0^{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }W_{2mss}\frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }$$
(36)
describes phase diffusion of two light modes such that each mode has a completely random phase. The integral of Eq.(36) leads to a phase-averaged Wigner function given by

$$\overline{W}=\frac{4}{\pi ^2}e^{2\mathrm{cosh}(2r)(|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2)}I_0(4|\alpha _1||\alpha _2|\mathrm{sinh}(2r))$$
(37)
where $`I_0`$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind. In contrast to the Werner state, this state does not factorize into a product of functions containing each mode. The state $`\overline{W}`$ is a classically correlated state. The state of Eq.(35) now being considered is a mixture of a state containing quantum correlations and a state containing classical correlations. The nonlocality of this state is examined by considering an expansion for small intensity, $`J`$, of the Bell combination given by Eq.(28). This expansion

$$B=2+4Jp\mathrm{sinh}(2s)+O(J^2)$$
(38)
reveals that the state (35) is nonlocal for all $`p>0`$. This is seen in Fig.(5) which shows that only the case $`p=0`$ washes out the nonlocal features completely. Thus, we have presented a classically correlated state which, when mixed with even the smallest amount of a quantum correlated state, shows nonlocal features.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we examined the two-mode squeezed state with internal quantum noise. The Fokker-Planck equation was solved to obtain an exact solution for the Wigner function. The steady-state and nonsteady-state regimes were explored. We found that nonlocal features of this state exist in the regime where no steady-state solution exists.

The parameter space contains separable and nonseparable states, both mixed and pure. Only one pure state exists which is nonseparable. Nearly all states in the parameter space are mixed states. Using the Gaussian Wigner function for the state, the separability criterion was determined to identify those mixed states which are nonseparable. There exists a set of nonseparable mixed states for which the quantum diffusion can be large $`0<d<\mathrm{}`$.

Using the Wigner function, a test of nonlocality in phase space determined the effect of internal quantum noise on Bell’s inequality. As expected, the noise parameters reduce the nonlocality of the state. But there is still a region of mixed entangled states which are nonlocal. To further study nonseparable mixed states exhibiting nonlocality, we investigated Werner-type states for continuous variables. We found that mixing the two-mode squeezed state with a product of two thermal states destroys the nonlocal features state. Additionally, we found that mixing the pure two-mode squeezed state with a phase-diffused, classically correlated state did not destroy the nonlocal features, regardless of the amount of mixing. With this, we have provided an example of a classically correlated state which, when mixed with even the smallest amount of pure entangled state, is nonlocal.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by a KBN grant No. 2PO3B 02123 and the European Commission through the Research Training Network QUEST.