text:
# Electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon

## 1 Introduction

In todays view the nucleon is composed of pointlike, almost massless current quarks and gluons as the mediators of the color forces between them. The dynamics is described by the quantum field theory of strong interaction, QCD. It is well tested at very high energies and momentum transfers, where the mutual interaction is weak enough for perturbative methods to be applicable. The nucleon appears dramatically different at low energies (where we find our surrounding matter). Here the non-linearity of QCD prohibits any exact ab initio calculation of hadron properties. This is the regime of constituent quarks as effective, multi-body degrees of freedom and the light mesons as the Goldstone bosons of chiral symmetry breaking. As for any composite, non–pointlike quantum mechanic particle  a whole excitation spectrum builds upon the nucleon ground state. Although there remain decisive problems concerning the total number and individual nature of states, the basic properties of the spectrum can be successfully reproduced by constituent quark models . However, the transition between the current and constituent quark regimes is not understood. Lattice QCD and chiral extrapolations yield hints for the masses of effective constituents , but dynamically generated constituent quarks could not yet been identified . Nevertheless, first promising results have been obtained for ground state properties like magnetic moments, polarizabilities and form factors .

The intimate connection of ground state observables to the high energy structure is made explicit by the concept of generalized parton distributions $`H,\stackrel{~}{H},E,\stackrel{~}{E}`$ in exclusive deep inelastic reactions . At vanishing (Mandelstam) $`t0`$ they fade to the usual unpolarized and polarized parton distributions for quarks and antiquarks ,

$$Hq(x)\stackrel{~}{H}\mathrm{\Delta }q(x),$$
(1)
whereas in the non–perturbative regime of small but finite $`t`$ integration over Bjørken $`x`$ yields the Dirac, Pauli and axial form factors ,

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xH`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(t){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑xE=F_2(t)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x\stackrel{~}{H}`$ $`=`$ $`g_A(t){\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑x\stackrel{~}{E}=h_A(t).`$ (3)
The elastic form factors parameterize the ability of the composite nucleon to incorporate a momentum transfer, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, coherently, i.e. without excitation and particle emission. They are related to the distribution of charge and currents and therefore of fundamental importance for the understanding of nucleon structure.

Lepton scattering is a unique tool for the investigation of the electromagnetic structure of the nucleon. In the simplest approximation, it is characterized by the exchange of one virtual photon, which transfers the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and the energy $`\omega `$. Electron scattering covers the spacelike region, because the squared four-momentum transfer, $`q^2=\omega ^2\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, is always negative. It is therefore usually expressed by the positive quantity $`Q^2=q^2>0`$. The timelike region, where $`Q^2<0`$, can be accessed through electron-positron annihilation into a pair of proton and anti-proton  or neutron and anti-neutron .

In elastic electron-nucleon scattering the charge-current density of the nucleon can be written in the form :

$$\overline{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu N=\overline{N}\left[\gamma _\mu F_1(Q^2)+\frac{i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu }{2m_N}\kappa F_2(Q^2)\right]N.$$
(4)
The Dirac form factor, $`F_1(Q^2)`$, modifies the vector current of charge and normal magnetic moment, whereas the Pauli form factor, $`F_2(Q^2)`$, parameterizes the effect of the anomalous magnetic moment, $`\kappa `$, as motivated by the Gordon decomposition of the electromagnetic current. Linear combinations of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ constitute the electric and magnetic Sachs form factors

$`G_E^{n,p}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{n,p}(Q^2)\tau \kappa _{n,p}F_2^{n,p}(Q^2)`$ (5)
$`G_M^{n,p}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F_1^{n,p}(Q^2)+\kappa _{n,p}F_2^{n,p}(Q^2),`$ (6)
where $`\tau =Q^2/4m_N^2`$ is a dimensionless measure of the squared four-momentum transfer in units of the nucleon rest mass, $`m_N`$. At $`Q^20`$ these form factors correspond to the total charge and magnetic moment of protons and neutrons:

$`G_E^{n,p}(Q^20)`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ (7)
$`G_M^{n,p}(Q^20)`$ $`=`$ $`1.91,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.79}.`$ (8)
In the particular reference frame with vanishing energy transfer, the Breit frame, $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ have been interpreted as the Fourier transforms of the corresponding distributions of charge and magnetism . Recently, the possibility of interpretation of $`G_E`$ in terms of the intrinsic charge distribution was controversially discussed again .

With the Sachs form factors the cross section for elastic electron-nucleon scattering can be written in the famous Rosenbluth form,

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_{\text{Mott}}\left(\frac{G_E^2+\tau G_M^2}{1+\tau }+2\tau G_M^2\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\vartheta _e}{2}\right),$$
(9)
where $`\left(d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_{\text{Mott}}`$ is the Mott cross section for electron scattering off a pointlike spin–$`\frac{1}{2}`$ object and $`\vartheta _e`$ denotes the electron scattering angle. Due to their different angular weights in Eq.9, $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ can be experimentally separated at constant $`Q^2`$.

The measurement of all Sachs form factors of proton and neutron enables the decomposition into isoscalar and isovector parts, important for the comparison to model calculations. Furthermore, using isospin invariance it is possible to extract $`u`$/$`d`$ flavour specific form factors from $`G_{E,M}^p`$ and $`G_{E,M}^n`$. The extension to the electric and magnetic strange quark contributions requires additional observables. From parity violating elastic electron scattering the cross section asymmetry with regard to the helicity $`+/`$ flip of the electron beam

$$A_{PV}=\frac{\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}}{\sigma ^++\sigma ^{}}$$
(10)
is extracted, which is due to the interference of $`\gamma `$ and $`Z^0`$ exchange. It determines the $`Z`$ form factors

$$G_{E,M}^Z=G_{E,M}^pG_{E,M}^n4\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_WG_{E,M}^pG_{E,M}^s,$$
(11)
from which the strange form factors $`G_{E,M}^s`$ can be extracted, provided the Weinberg mixing angle, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_W`$, and the nucleon form factors $`G_{E,M}^p`$ and $`G_{E,M}^n`$ are sufficiently well known.

This talk reviews the current experimental status of the electromagnetic elastic nucleon form factors. Recent results concerning the proton electric form factor at high $`Q^2`$ are summarized in the next section. The neutron form factors are discussed in section 3. Meaurements of $`G_M^n`$ are addressed in subsection 3.1. Special emphasis is given to recent measurements of the neutron electric form factor using double polarization techniques in section 3.2. The paper concludes with a summary and outlook.

## 2 Proton form factors

The method of Rosenbluth-separation has been used in elastic electron-proton scattering  to determine $`G_E^p`$ and $`G_M^p`$ up to $`Q^29`$ (GeV/c)2. At higher $`Q^2`$ up to 30 (GeV/c)2, $`G_M^p`$ dominates the cross section and has thus been determined directly . The result was that both $`G_M^p`$ and $`G_E^p`$ approximately follow the so-called dipole form and scale with the magnetic moment, $`\mu _p`$:

$`G_E^p`$ $``$ $`G_D=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{0.71(\text{GeV/c})^2}}\right)^2,`$ (12)
$`G_M^p`$ $``$ $`\mu _pG_D.`$ (13)
However, due to the insensitivity of the cross section to $`G_E`$ at higher $`Q^2`$, the Rosenbluth separation yields large uncertainties for this quantity. Much improved sensitivity is obtained using double polarization observables in electron-nucleon scattering . The components of the recoil polarization in the $`N(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{N})`$ reaction read

$`P_x`$ $`=`$ $`P_e{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\tau ϵ(1ϵ)}G_E^NG_M^N}{ϵ(G_E^N)^2+\tau (G_M^N)^2}}`$ (14)
$`P_y`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
$`P_z`$ $`=`$ $`P_e{\displaystyle \frac{\tau \sqrt{1ϵ^2}(G_M^N)^2}{ϵ(G_E^N)^2+\tau (G_M^N)^2}},`$ (16)
where $`\widehat{x}`$ is in the electron scattering plane perpendicular to the direction of the momentum transfer, $`\widehat{y}`$ is normal to the scattering plane, and $`\widehat{z}`$ points into the direction of the momentum transfer, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$; $`ϵ=(1+\frac{2|\stackrel{}{q}|^2}{Q^2}\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\vartheta _e}{2})^1`$ is the photon polarization parameter and $`P_e`$ denotes the longitudinal polarization of the electron beam.

In particular, $`P_x`$ is linear in $`G_E`$ and the polarization ratio $`P_x/P_z`$ is directly related to $`G_E/G_M`$.

The measurements of the Hall A collaboration at Jefferson Laboratory using a recoil polarimeter in one of the high resolution spectrometers  show with high statistical precision a linear decrease of $`G_E^p/G_M^p`$ up to $`Q^2=5.6`$ (GeV/c)2  (c.f. Fig. 1). The results have been included in new empirical form factor fits . At low $`Q^2`$ recoil polarization measurements  are in agreement with form factor scaling, i.e. $`\mu _pG_E^p/G_M^p=1`$.

## 3 Neutron form factors

Generally, the measurement of the neutron form factors raises more difficulties, because there is no free neutron target available which is suited for electron scattering experiments. The best possible approximation of free electron-neutron scattering is quasi–free scattering off the lightest nuclei. In $`D(e,e^{})`$ single arm experiments the dominating proton contribution has to be subtracted, with corresponding large uncertainties . A Rosenbluth-separation has nevertheless been achieved  up to $`Q^2=4`$ (GeV/c)2. At low $`Q^2`$ nuclear effects and final state interaction are well enough under control  to permit an extraction of $`G_M^n`$ from inclusive quasi–elastic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\text{H}e}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ scattering with polarized beam and polarized target . $`D(e,e^{}n)`$ coincidence experiments allow the explicit tagging of electron-neutron scattering . The influence of binding effects can be minimized through the simultaneous measurement of the $`D(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction. Similar to $`G_M^p`$, the neutron magnetic form factor also roughly exhibits the dipole behaviour,

$$G_M^n\mu _nG_D.$$
(17)
The situation concerning the neutron electric form factor, $`G_E^n`$, is most unfavourable. It must vanish in the static limit, $`G_E^n(Q^20)=0`$, due to the zero charge of the neutron. The smallness of $`(G_E^n)^2`$ compared to $`\tau (G_M^n)^2`$ makes a Rosenbluth decomposition according to Eq.9 very difficult. Due to the corresponding large errors in the small quantity the extracted values for $`G_E^n`$ are compatible with zero . Therefore, in the momentum transfer range $`Q^2<1`$ (GeV/c)2 the most precise data came from elastic electron-deuteron scattering , where the structure function $`A(Q^2)`$ depends on the isoscalar form factor $`(G_E^p+G_E^n)^2`$ and thus provides a higher sensitivity to $`G_E^n`$ through its interference with the large $`G_E^p`$. However, the necessary unfolding of the deuteron wavefunction introduces a substantial model dependence in the extracted neutron electric form factor. Reduced model dependence has been obtained analyzing the $`ed`$ elastic quadrupole form factor . The model dependence can be overcome by exclusive $`(e,e^{}n)`$ double polarization experiments with polarized beam and either polarized target or recoil polarimetry.

### 3.1 Recent $`G_M^n`$ experiments

Precise determinations of $`G_M^n`$ come from unpolarized coincidence experiments at Bates , NIKHEF , ELSA , and MAMI . Except the Bates experiment, which measured the absolute $`D(e,e^{}n)`$ cross section, these experiments determined $`G_M^n`$ from the ratio $`R=\frac{\sigma (e,e^{}n)}{\sigma (e,e^{}p)}`$ of quasi–free neutron over proton cross sections off the deuteron with simultaneous neutron/proton detection in one single hadron detector. In this ratio nuclear binding effects cancel to a large extent. Moreover, this method is also experimentally insensitive to luminosity fluctuations and detector acceptancies.

Nevertheless, detailed control of the hadron detectors absolute detection efficiency for protons and, particularly, neutrons is essential. The setups of the various experiments have been very similar, with the electrons detected in a magnetic spectrometer and coincident n/p-detection in a well shielded plastic or mineral oil scintillator telescope. However, different approaches have been used to determine the absolute neutron detection efficiency. For the Bates and ELSA measurements ”in situ” methods were chosen with a bremsstrahlung radiator postioned in front of the experimental target in order to exploit the $`D(\gamma ,p)n`$ or $`p(\gamma ,\pi ^+)n`$ reactions, respectively, to tag neutrons in the telescope. In contrast, the hadron detectors which were used at MAMI and NIKHEF were calibrated at the PSI neutron beam in a kinematically complete $`p(n,p)n`$ experiment. This method relies on the good control and portability of the effective detector thresholds.

Figure 2 shows a comparison of the recent results from Bates , ELSA , JLab , NIKHEF , and MAMI . Despite the individual errors of down to 2 %, the MAMI data are approximatly 10 - 15 % below the ELSA ones. The probable origin of this discrepancy is the absolute neutron detection efficiency calibration. In this respect, the possible impact of un-tagged electroproduction events has been discussed for the in situ method .

The measurement of the transverse asymmetry $`A_T^{}`$ from inclusive quasi–elasic $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\text{H}e}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ scattering provides an alternative method for the extraction of $`G_M^n`$, which is completely independent of efficiency calibrations . However, full Fadeev calculations are required with inclusion of final state interaction and meson exchange currents. Those are currently available for $`Q^2=0.1`$ and $`0.2`$ (GeV/c)2 , the results of a PWIA analysis for $`Q^2`$ up to $`0.6`$ (GeV/c)2 . The extracted values of $`G_M^n`$ agree with the unpolarized measurements of Anklin et al.  and Kubon et al..

### 3.2 $`G_E^n`$ double polarization experiments

Double polarization observables in exclusive quasi–free electron-deuteron scattering with longitudinally polarized electrons offer high sensitivity to $`G_E^n`$, due to an interference with the large $`G_M^n`$, combined with negligible dependence on the deuteron wavefunction , e.g. in the recoil polarization observables of Eqs. 14 and 16. In the completely equivalent scattering $`\stackrel{}{n}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ of longitudinally polarized electrons off a polarized neutron target the cross section asymmetry with regard to reversal of the electron beam polarization is given by

$$A=P_e\frac{\sqrt{2\tau ϵ(1ϵ)}G_E^nG_M^n\stackrel{~}{P_x}+\tau \sqrt{1ϵ^2}(G_M^n)^2\stackrel{~}{P_z}}{ϵ(G_E^n)^2+\tau (G_M^n)^2},$$
(18)
where now $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{x,z}`$ are the components of the initial state neutron polarization. The polarized target neutrons can be provided by polarized $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}}`$ , where the neutron carries approximately 87 % of the polarization of the nucleus , or by vector polarized $`{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{D}`$ . The measurement of asymmetry ratios yields independence of the absolute degree of the target polarization .

#### 3.2.1 Polarized target experiments

First experiments aimed at the extraction of $`G_E^n`$ from the inclusive quasi–elastic reaction $`\stackrel{}{{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$. The feasibility of such kind of experiments was successfully demonstrated, but the statistical accuracy remained unsatisfactory.

The magnetic moment of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}`$ within 10 % agrees with the free neutron one. Therefore the proton contribution in the measured asymmetries first was expected to be small . Later calculations, however, showed that the remaining impact of the protons on the measured asymmetries is large enough to prohibit a reliable extraction of $`G_E^n`$ .

This problem can be overcome, if the occurence of e-n scattering is explicitly tagged through the detection of the outgoing neutron in coincidence with the scattered electron. Such an exclusive $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\text{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ experiment was performed for the first time by the A3-collaboration at MAMI  at a squared four-momentum transfer of $`Q^2=0.31`$ (GeV/c)2. With the detector-setup described in the following section the statistics was improved later on . The most recent experiment at $`Q^2=0.67`$ (GeV/c)2 used the 3-spectrometer setup  of the A1-collaboration at MAMI .

In this experiment the target gas was polarized by metastable optical pumping and subsequently compressed to 6 bars. The relaxation time of approximately one day required twice a day the replacement of the target cell by a freshly polarized one. Quasi–elastic measuremets were performed with target spin aligned perpendicular and parallel to the momentum transfer direction in order to access both the transverse asymmetry, $`A_x`$, and the longitudinal asymmetry, $`A_z`$. This enabled a measurement of the ratio $`A_x/A_z`$, which is directly proportional to $`G_E^n/G_M^n`$ but independent of both the absolute degrees of beam and target polarization, $`P_e`$ and $`P_T`$, respectively. Furthermore, the product $`P_eP_T`$ was monitored through the elastic measurement $`{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}(e,e^{})`$ in spectrometer B of the 3-spectrometer setup.

The quasi–elastically scattered electrons were detected in spectrometer A (c.f. Fig.3), the neutrons in coincidence in a dedicated neutron detector provided by the University of Basel. It consisted of four layers of five plastic scintillators of dimensions $`50\times 10\times 10`$ cm3, which were equipped with photomultipliers at both ends. Charged particles could be rejected by means of two layers of 1 cm thick $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E-counters. The neutron detector was shielded with 2 cm of lead against direct target sight in order to reduce the charged background.

The setup of the JLab Hall C $`\stackrel{}{D}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ experiment in principle is similar . Here the scattered electrons are detected in the HMS spectrometer in coincidence with neutrons in a segmented plastic scintillator. At the required luminosity of $`110^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 a 40% polarization of the ND3 target is achieved by the technique of dynamic nuclear polarization. The deuteron nuclei are polarized by microwave irradiation at temperatures around 1 K in a strong magnetic field of 5 T. In the measurement of $`A_x`$ this field deflects the incoming electron beam by as much as $`4^{}`$. This has to be compensated by a magnetic chicane in order to guarantee horizontal beam at the center of the target. Data have been taken in the $`Q^2`$ range between $`0.5`$ and 2 (GeV/c)2, first results are available at the lowest $`Q^2`$ .

In contrast to MAMI and JLab, the NIKHEF $`\stackrel{}{D}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ experiment was performed with a vector polarized internal gas target at the AmPS electron storage ring . The scattered electrons were detected in coincidence simultaneously with protons and neutrons. Thus the asymmetry ratio between the $`\stackrel{}{D}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{D}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)`$ reactions could be determined.

#### 3.2.2 The $`D(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n})`$ recoil polarization experiment at MAMI

As in the case of polarized targets a pioneering recoil polarization experiment was performed at MIT-Bates . Electrons and neutrons from the $`D(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n})`$ reaction were detected in coincidence and the transverse neutron polarization, $`P_x`$, was measured. However, due to the low duty cycle of the Bates linac only modest statistical accuracy could be achieved. Furthermore, the external absolute calibration of the neutron polarimeter’s effective analyzing power remained unsatisfactory.

The full potential of the recoil polarization method was exploited for the first time at MAMI. Fig.4 shows the experimental setup of this experiment. The longitudinally polarized electron beam ($`I2.5\mu `$A, $`P_e75`$ %) impinged on a 5 cm long liquid deuterium target and the scattered electrons were detected in a 256 element lead glass array, which covered a solid angle of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }100`$ msr. The energy resolution of $`\delta E/E25`$ % was sufficient to suppress pion production events. Only the electron angles, which were measured with an accuracy of approximately $`3.5`$ mrad entered the event reconstruction, which became kinematically complete through the measurement of the neutrons time-of-flight and hit position in the front plane of the neutron detector.

The neutron polarization can be analyzed in the detection process itself . This required a second neutron detection in one of the rear detector planes, which yielded the polar and azimuthal angles, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}`$, of the analyzing scattering in the front wall. With the number of events $`N^\pm (\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})`$ for $`\pm `$ helicity states of the electron beam the azimuthal asymmetry, $`A(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})`$, was determined through the ratio

$$\frac{1A(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})}{1+A(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})}=\sqrt{\frac{N^+(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})N^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}+\pi )}{N^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})N^+(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}+\pi )}},$$
(19)
which is insensitive to variations of detector efficiency and luminosity. The extraction of $`P_x`$ from $`A(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{})=ϵ_{\text{eff}}P_x\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}`$ requires the calibration of the effective analyzing power, $`ϵ_{\text{eff}}`$, of the polarimeter. This, however, varies strongly with the event composition as determined by hardware conditions during data taking and software cuts applied in the offline analysis.

The problem of calibration of the effective analyzing power has been avoided by controlled precession of the neutron spins in the field of a dipole magnet in front of the polarimeter . This is schematically depicted in Fig. 5. After precession by the angle $`\chi `$ the transverse neutron polarization behind the magnet, $`P_{}`$, is a superposition of $`x`$ and $`z`$ components, and likewise is the measured asymmetry:

$$A_{}=A_x\mathrm{cos}\chi A_z\mathrm{sin}\chi .$$
(20)
In the particular case of the zero crossing, $`A_{}(\chi _0)=0`$, one immediately gets the relation

$$\mathrm{tan}\chi _0=\frac{A_x}{A_z}=\frac{ϵ_{\text{eff}}P_e\sqrt{2\tau ϵ(1ϵ)}G_E^nG_M^n}{ϵ_{\text{eff}}P_e\tau \sqrt{1ϵ^2}(G_M^n)^2}.$$
(21)
Obviously, this ratio is independent of both the degree of electron beam polarization, $`P_e`$, and the polarimeter’s effective analyzing power. It therefore directly yields $`G_E^n/G_M^n`$. Different effective analyzing powers do change the magnitude of the transverse asymmetry, $`A_{}`$, but not the zero crossing angle, $`\chi _0`$ . This is demonstrated in Fig. 6, where $`A_{}`$ is plotted for two different cut conditions in the offline analysis (full and open points) as a function of the spin precession angle, $`\chi `$. The magnitude of the asymmetry is affected but the zero crossing remains unchanged.

Using the established method of neutron spin precession a very similar experiment of the A1 collaboration at MAMI covers the extended $`Q^2`$ range up to $`0.8`$ (GeV/c)2 . Given the maximum beam energy of 880 MeV this requires neutron detection at forward angles of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n^{\text{lab}}27^{}`$ in a highly segmented neutron polarimeter.

### 3.3 Results

Even for quasi–free $`D(e,e^{}n)`$ scattering FSI effects are substantial below $`Q^20.3`$ (GeV)2 and have been taken into account in the recent analyses using the calculations of Arenhövel . They drop rapidly with increasing $`Q^2`$, increasing $`G_E^n`$ for the MAMI/A3 data sample by almost a factor of two at $`Q^2=0.12`$ (GeV)2 but only $`10\%`$ at $`0.32`$ (GeV)2 . Despite its size, the required correction of the $`G_E^n/G_M^n`$ ratio has only small uncertainties, because it is insensitive to the choice of N-N potential and $`G_E^n`$ parameterization . Therefore, even at $`Q^2=0.12`$ (GeV/c)2 a reliable extraction of $`G_E^n/G_M^n`$ is possible. This has been done relying on the dipole values for $`G_M^n`$ (Eq.17).

Fig. 7 gives a summary of the recent double polarization measurements with statistical (inner) and systematical (outer) errors. The recoil polarization experiments are depicted by circles, full for the MAMI results  and open for the Bates one . The triangles indicate the NIKHEF  and JLab  measurements with polarized deuteron target. The squares represent the MAMI results for 3$`\stackrel{}{\text{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ . For the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\text{H}e}`$ experiments FSI is expected to be small at $`Q^2=0.67`$ (GeV/c)2 , due to the large kinetic energy of the ejected neutron. Contrary, at $`Q^2=0.36`$ (GeV/c)2 (open squares)  first, still incomplete, Faddeev calculations indicate a substantial correction of the 3$`\stackrel{}{\text{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ data point towards larger $`G_E^n`$. At the present status of calculation where no meson exchange currents are yet included the central value of the extracted $`G_E^n`$ is shifted by approximately 50 % . Due to the kinematical reconstruction the average $`Q^2`$ is also affected. Despite the small statistical error, this data point is subject to the largest systematical and theoretical (model) uncertainty, which is not included in the depicted error.

All polarization data lie above the so far favoured result from elastic $`D(e,e^{})`$ scattering, where the Paris potential has been used for the unfolding of the wave function contribution . They are compatible with the older Galster parameterization

$$G_E^n=\frac{\mu _n\tau }{1+\eta \tau }G_D$$
(22)
with $`\eta =5.6`$, which is indicated by the line in Fig. 7.

## 4 Summary and Outlook

Elastic form factors are related to the distribution of charge and current and thus fundamental quantities characterizing the nucleon ground state. In the context of this conference they are a prerequisite for the extraction of strangeness–specific information from parity violating elastic electron scattering.

From single arm $`ep`$ scattering precise proton magnetic form factor data are available up to $`Q^2=30`$ (GeV/c)2, roughly exhibiting dipole behaviour. Electric and magnetic contributions have been separated using the Rosenbluth technique; the results are in agreement with with $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})`$ measurements at low $`Q^2`$. Above $`Q^21.5`$ (GeV/c)2 the double polarization experiments have shown the ratio $`\mu _pG_E^p/G_M^p`$ to linearly fall below unity, $`G_E^p`$ remaining only about 30 % of the dipole value at $`Q^2=5.6`$ (GeV/c)2.

The neutron magnetic form factor, $`G_M^n`$, could be extracted up to $`Q^2=4`$ (GeV/c)2 from single arm $`D(e,e^{})`$ quasi–elastic scattering. Below $`Q^2=1`$ (GeV/c)2, recent coincidence experiments allowed a precise determination of $`G_M^n`$ from the ratio $`R=\frac{\sigma (e,e^{}n)}{\sigma (e,e^{}p)}`$ of quasi–free electron scattering cross sections off the deuteron. Despite their individual statistical errors of only 2 %, two datasets from ELSA and MAMI/NIKHEF differ by as much as 10 - 15 %. This discrepancy contributed a substantial error to the extraction of strange form factors from parity violation. Recent independent results from $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\text{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ measurements at $`Q^20.6`$ (GeV/c)2 agree with the MAMI/NIKHEF dataset, however partially still relying on a simplified PWIA analysis. The full solution of this problem is also important with regard to the normalization of the recent double polarization experiments 3$`\stackrel{}{\text{He}}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ , $`\stackrel{}{D}(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}n)`$ and $`D(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n})`$ at various laboratories, where the neutron electric form factor is extracted from the ratio $`G_E^n/G_M^n`$ of electric to magnetic neutron form factors.

In the $`D(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n})`$ experiment at MAMI the neutron polarimeter was supplemented by a spin precessing dipole magnet. This technique, which is also adopted for the corresponding JLab experiment, avoids the polarimeters analyzing power calibration. The influence of final state interaction has been quantitatively evaluated for the $`D(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n})`$ reaction. All recent double polarization experiments are compatible with the old Galster paramerization.

It will be important to continue these $`G_E^n`$ experiments at larger $`Q^2`$. At JLab and MAMI there are further measurements underway, both with polarized target  and recoil polarimetry . These experiments will further exploit the potential of double polarized quasi–elastic electron scattering.

## 5 Acknowledgements

The MAMI experiments have been performed within the framework of the collaborations A1 and A3 with contributions of institutes of the Universities of Basel, Bonn, Glasgow, Mainz, and Tübingen. H. Arenhövel supplied all the necessary calculations for the FSI correction of the deuteron measurements. The spin precession magnet for the $`D(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{n})`$ experiment was provided by the Physikalisches Institut of the University of Bonn. The MAMI experiments are financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443).


format: text

text:
# The Chemical Composition of Carbon C(N) stars

## 1. Introduction

It is commonly accepted that the spectral sequence along the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase (M$``$MS$``$S$``$SC$``$C) is, in fact, a chemical sequence in which the carbon content in the stellar envelope continuously increases due to the operation of the so-called 3th dredge-up (TDU) mechanism. The TDU transports to the envelope fresh carbon immediately after each thermal pulse (TP) of the He-shell. In such a way, an AGB star of M-type with a ratio in the envelope C/O$`0.5`$ becomes a carbon C(N) star when this ratio exceeds unity, C/O$`>1`$. Another important consequence of TDU is the enrichment of the envelope in s-elements. The necessary neutrons for the $`s`$-process are released by two reactions: 13C$`(\alpha ,n)^{16}`$O, which provides the bulk of the neutron flux at low neutron densities ($`N_n<10^7`$ cm-3), and 22Ne$`(\alpha ,n)^{25}`$Mg, which is activated at temperatures $`T>3.0\times 10^8`$ K, providing a high peak neutron density ($`N_n10^{10}`$ cm-3) and is responsible of the production of $`s`$-nuclei controlled by reaction branchings (see e.g. Busso, Gallino, & Wasserburg 1999). The abundances of $`s`$-nuclei are known to increase along the above mentioned spectral sequence, as the star gradually ascends the AGB. Evidence of this was provided during the last few decades by several studies on AGB stars of different spectral types (see Busso et al. 2001 and references therein).

The importance of the study of AGB stars is obvious: i) they are excellent laboratories to test the theory of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis (note, in addition, that they are progenitors of planetary nebulae and white dwarfs) ii) in particular C(N) stars are the main producers of the heavy s-elemnts (A$`90`$) in the Galaxy as well as of a substantial fraction of 12C, 14N, 7Li and 13C. However, an evaluation of such chemical yields firstly needs accurate abundance determinations. Second, in order to understand the role played by these stars in the chemical evolution of the Galaxy it is mandatory to know their typical masses and the frequency of binarity among them. In this work, we will address these questions.

## 2. Observations and Analysis

So far the only available abundances were still those by Utsumi (1985) based on photographic plates and/or low resolution spectra. C(N) stars are very difficult to analyse spectroscopically because of their very crowded spectra. The spectrum of these stars is dominated by molecular absorptions (CN, C2, CH…), which require the knowledge of accurate spectroscopic information of these molecules for the chemical analysis. The use of high resolution and high signal to noise ratio spectra is also mandatory and even in that case, only a few spectral windows are available for abundance analysis: $`\lambda 47504950`$ Å, for $`s`$-elementsand metals, $`\lambda 7800`$ Å for the Rb analysis, $`\lambda 80008050`$ Å for the 12C/13C ratios and several Li I lines. In our analysis of a sample of $`40`$ galactic C(N), we used high resolution ($`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =4\times 10^42\times 10^5`$) spectra obtained with the 4.2 m WHT at El Roque de los Muchahos and with the 2.2 m telescope at Calar Alto. We use the spectrum synthesis technique to derive all the abundance figures. The determination of the stellar parameters was made as in Abia et al. (2001) (see this paper for details).

## 3. Results

### 3.1. S-elements

C(N) stars show overabundances in s-process elements. For the low atomic mass number (Sr,Y,Zr) $`s`$-elements(ls) we found a mean enhancement with respect to the metallicity \[$`<`$ls$`>`$/M\]=$`+0.70\pm 0.20`$, while for the high atomic mass number (Ba,La,Nd,Ce,Sm) $`s`$-elements(hs) the mean overabundance is \[$`<`$hs$`>`$/M\]=$`+0.52\pm 0.29`$. These enhancements are significantly lower than the previous estimations by Utsumi (1985)111For an explanation of the differences with respect to Utsumi’s data see Abia et al. (2001). and set the s-element overabundances in C(N) stars at the same level or slightly higher than those found in S stars. From the theoretical point of view, this result can be easily understood considering that the overwhelming majority of the C(N) stars analysed here have a C/O ratio very close to the unity ($`<`$C/O$`>=1.05\pm 0.02`$): in a single episode of TP and TDU, a S-star (C/O$`0.9`$) can become a C(N) star without increasing significantly the s-element enhancement in the envelope. C(N) stars with larger C/O ratios and s-element overabundances must lokely exist, however they escape optical detection because of the formation of a thick circumstellar envelope due to high mass-loss rates. Our C(N) star sample is probably observationally biased in this sense. In Figure 1 we compare the \[hs/ls\] vs. \[M/H\] ratios obtained with theoretical s-process nucleosynthesis models in a representative case of a 1.5 M AGB star (see Gallino et al. 1988; Busso et al. 2001 for details). Solid line shows the prediction corresponding to a standard (ST) case which assumes the radiative burning of $`4\times 10^6`$ M of 13C in a tiny pocket in the intershell region. The upper and lower curves (dashed lines) limit the region allowed by the models according to the different 13C-pocket choices scaled to the ST case. Model predictions and observations are in nice agreement. Note that the Utsumi’s data are marginally in agreement with theoretical models.

### 3.2. The mass

Theoretical predictions for s-process as those showed in Figure 1 do not significantly differ for a 3 $`M_{}`$. Remarkable differences exist for more massive stars, but they are not sufficient to allow a clear discrimination of the stellar mass. To infer the mass of C(N) stars we can make use of a neutron density sensitive element: Rb. Depending of the neutron density in the s-process (i.e. depending on whether the 13C (M$`3`$ $`M_{}`$) or 22Ne (M$`4`$ $`M_{}`$) neutron sources provides the bulk of neutrons), a very different abundance pattern between Rb and its neighbours (Sr,Y and Zr) is expected. Figure 2 shows the result of such a comparison. It is evident that the predictions for a 1.5 $`M_{}`$ model fit much better the observed \[Rb/X\] ratios and we can conclude that the majority of C(N) stars studied here are low-mass stars (M$`3`$ $`M_{}`$). This figure concerning the most probable mass for C(N) stars is reinforced from the 12C/13C ratios derived. A large number of the carbon stars studied here have 12C/13C$`<40`$. These ratios cannot be explained by the standard evolutionary models on the AGB. Such low ratios might be explained if an extra-mixing process is operating during the AGB phase preferably in low mass stars. This non-standard mixing process, perhaps induced by rotation, has been named cool bottom processing (Wasserburg, Boothroyd & Sackmann 1995; Nollet, Busso & Wasserburg 2003) and might explain the low 12C/13C ratios found in many low mass RGB stars.

### 3.3. Lithium

Abia et al. (1993) derived Li abundances in a sample of 230 galactic carbon stars. The most important result of this work was the confirmation that a small fraction (2-3$`\%`$) are super Li-rich carbon stars, showing Li abundances as high as log $`ϵ`$(Li)$`5`$. In addition, a significant number ($`10\%`$) can be considered as Li-rich C-stars, with Li abundances in the range 1-2. When interpreting these observations on the basis of theoretical models some problems appear. First, how reliable are the Li abundances derived? Yakovina, Pavlenko & Abia (2002) have recently derived Li abundances in super Li-rich C-stars using four different Li lines. They show that even considering corrections by N-LTE effects the Li abundances derived from different lines show a high dispersion. They interpreted this as an evidence of the difficulty and uncertainties still present in the modelling of the atmospheres of AGB stars and put a note of caution when estimating the Li yield from AGB stars. Other figures are also difficult to understand: i) At solar metallicity, the super Li-rich phenomenon is expected for O-rich AGB stars, not for C-rich objects. ii) Some super Li-rich stars are fainter (M$`{}_{bol}{}^{}>6`$) than theoretically predicted. iii) Theoretical models predict maximum Li abundances $`4`$, however a few stars show peak Li abundances close to 5 (even considering the large error bars). iv) How can we explain the large fraction of Li-rich C-stars? Some of these stars are classified as J-type carbon stars which might not be AGB stars, but a significant number of them are indeed normal (N) carbon stars. v) Why many galactic O-rich and Li-rich AGB stars do not show s-process element enhancements (García-Lario et al. 1999)? Considering that most of Galactic C-stars are of low mass, for which no Li production is predicted (see Sackmann & Boothroyd 1992), it seems evident that also an additional non-standard mixing process affecting Li might play a role in low mass AGB stars. Theoretical modelling is therefore required, but models like those discussed by Nollet, Busso & Wasserburg (2003) can explain in a unique scenario high Li abundances and low 12C/13C ratios, also predicting anomalies in the oxygen isotopic ratios and consistent production of 26Al.

### 3.4. Intrinsic or Extrinsic C-stars

Let us finally address the question whether the stars studied here are intrinsic or extrinsic AGB stars, ie: their abundances are locally produced by the occurrence of TP during the AGB phase, or generated by mass transfer in binary systems. As far as we know no significant radial velocity variations have been detected in any of them. Furthermore, $`60\%`$ of the sample stars show 99Tc, an incontestable signature of the TP and TDU operation, thus, of their intrinsic nature. A further test can be done looking for infrared excess as has been done by Jorissen et al. (1993) in S-stars. If the stars are TP-AGB stars they should be high mass-losing stars; the formation of dust and, in consequence, infrared excess are expected. This excess can be measured with the flux ratio R$`=`$F(12 $`\mu `$m)/F(2.2 $`\mu `$m). High mass-losing stars (ie. TP-AGB-stars) typically show R$`>0.1`$. The large majority of our sample stars have R$`>0.1`$, Tc-yes and Tc-no stars being indistinguishable in the R parameter. We might conclude that probably all carbon stars in our sample are in fact of intrinsic nature and when they are classified as no-Tc stars, this is just a consequence of the difficult and uncertain analysis of the Tc I $`5924`$ Å blend on which this study is based.

## References

Abia C., Boffin, H.M.J., Rebolo, R., & Isern, J. 1993, A&A, 272, 455

Abia, C., Busso, M., Gallino, R., Domínguez, I., Straniero, O., & Isern, J. 2001, ApJ, 559, 1117

Abia, C., Domínguez, I., Gallino, R., Busso, M., Masera, S., Straniero, O., de Laverny, P., Plez, B., & Isern, J. 2002, ApJ, (in press)

Busso, M., Gallino, R., & Wasserburg, G.J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 239

Busso, M., Lambert, D.L., Gallino, R., Travaglio, C., & Smith, V.V. 2001, ApJ, 557, 802

Gallino, R., Arlandini, C., Busso, M., Lugaro, M., Travaglio, C., Straniero, O., Chieffi, A., & Limongi, M. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388

García-Lario, P., D’Antona, F., Lub, J., Plez, B., & Habing, H.J. 1999, in AGB stars, IAU Symposium N. 191, T. Le Bertre, A. Lebre, C. Waelkens eds., p. 91

Jorissen, A., Frayer, D.T., Johnson, H.R., Mayor, M., & Smith, V.V. 1993, A&A, 271, 463

Nollett, K. M., Busso, M., & Wasserburg, G. 2003, ApJ, (in press)

Sackmann, I.J., & Bootroyd, A. 1992, ApJ, 392, L71

Utsumi, K. 1985, in Cool Stars with Excesses of Heavy Elements, eds. M. Jascheck & P.C.Keenan (Dordrecht: Reidel), 243

Yakovina, L.A., Pavlenko, Y.V., & Abia, C. 2002, Ap&SS, (in press)

Wasserburg, G.J., Boothroyd, A.I., & Sackmann, I.J. 1995, ApJ, 440, L101


text:
# Condensate Heating by Atomic Losses

( February 15, 2003 )

## Abstract

Atomic Bose-Einstein condensate is heated by atomic losses. Predicted depletion ranges from $`1\%`$ for a uniform 3D condensate to around $`10\%`$ for a quasi-1D condensate in a harmonic trap.

PACS 03.75-b, 03.75.Gg, 03.75.Hh

Heating by atomic losses.— An ideal Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state where all bosons occupy the same single particle state $`\varphi _0`$. So far the atomic BEC is the closest to this ideal Nobel . However, even the atomic BEC is not perfect because atoms are depleted from $`\varphi _0`$ by atom-atom interactions (quantum depletion) and thermal fluctuations (thermal depletion). Moreover, atomic condensates last only for tens of seconds before atomic losses empty the trap. This process is dominated by 3-body losses, where 3 atoms collide to form a bi-atomic molecule and an atom with large kinetic energy, and then both of them escape from the trap. There are also 1-body losses, where individual atoms are kicked out from the trap by external heating agents, see e.g. Ref.losses . While the 1-body losses can, at least in principle, be minimized, so far the more intrinsic 3-body losses have not been eliminated.

Atomic losses from a trap can be modeled by repeated action of an annihilation operator $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$. An ideal condensate $`|N:\varphi _0`$ is a “fixed point” of the annihilation operator: action of $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ neither depletes an ideal condensate nor changes its wave function $`\varphi _0`$, $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})|N:\varphi _0=\sqrt{N}\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})|N1:\varphi _0`$. A destructive measurement of atomic positions in a trap can also be described by repeated application of $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$. In Refs.JY  it was shown on a few examples that such a repeated annihilation can gradually increase a condensed fraction of atoms remaining in a trap. Annihilation is driving the remaining atoms toward an ideal condensate. This phenomenon is a foundation for a quite popular believe that “atomic losses improve a condensate”. This is not a sound foundation.

In the destructive measurement all annihilations happen at the same time, or in a very short measurement time. Hamiltonian of atoms has no time to do anything before all atoms are annihilated. In contrast, in a typical experiment it is the Hamiltonian that is much faster than atomic losses. An ideal condensate $`|N:\varphi _0`$ is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian: atom-atom interactions are depleting atoms from the condensate wave function $`\varphi _0`$. On the other hand, eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ are not “fixed points” of the annihilation operator: $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ applied to an eigenstate of $`\widehat{H}`$ gives a non-stationary state because $`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ does not commute with $`\widehat{H}`$, $`[\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x}),\widehat{H}]0`$. A competition between the Hamiltonian depleting a condensate and the atomic losses increasing the condensed fraction leads to a state that is neither an ideal condensate nor the $`N`$-body ground state. A condensate is heated by atomic losses — this phenomenon will be more quantified in the following.

In Ref.Timmermans  Timmermans demonstrated that heating of fermionic atoms by atomic losses is a serious obstacle on the way to atomic superconductors. In the case of fermions the mechanism is simple: atomic losses create holes in the Fermi sea. In the case of bosons the heating is a conceptually more subtle effect. One has to realize the interplay between the losses and the Hamiltonian to see that losses are in fact heating a condensate. However, as we will see below, a conceptually subtle effect is not necessarily a quantitatively subtle effect. It is a serious and rather fundamental limitation on quantum coherence of atomic BEC.

Master equation.— The non-unitary (due to atomic losses) evolution of trapped atoms is described by a master equation master

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{H},\widehat{\rho }]+\underset{l}{}\gamma _ld^3x𝒟\left[\widehat{\psi }^l(\stackrel{}{x})\right]\rho .$$
(1)
Here $`\widehat{H}`$ is a Hamiltonian of trapped atoms

$$\widehat{H}=d^3x\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }+V(\stackrel{}{x})\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }+\frac{g}{2}\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\psi }\right],$$
(2)
with $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$, where $`a`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length. $`𝒟\left[\widehat{\psi }^l(\stackrel{}{x})\right]`$ is a Lindblad superoperator Lindblad ,

$$𝒟[\widehat{a}]\rho \widehat{a}\rho \widehat{a}^{}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\rho \frac{1}{2}\rho \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a},$$
(3)
describing $`l`$-body losses.

Bogoliubov theory.— We assume that almost all $`N`$ atoms occupy a common condensate wave function $`\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})`$, which solves a stationary Gross-Pitaievskii equation GPE

$$\mu \varphi _0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\varphi _0+V(\stackrel{}{x})\varphi _0+Ng|\varphi _0|^2\varphi _0.$$
(4)
The annihilation operator can be split into a condensed part and a non-condensed part which is then approximated by an expansion in Bogoliubov modes BT ,

$`\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $``$ $`N^{1/2}\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})+\delta \widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ (5)
$`N^{1/2}\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\widehat{b}_mu_m(\stackrel{}{x})+\widehat{b}_m^{}v_m^{}(\stackrel{}{x})\right].`$
Here $`\widehat{b}`$’s are bosonic quasiparticle annihilation operators, and the wave functions $`u_m`$ and $`v_m`$ satisfy Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations BT .

The operator of a number of atoms depleted from $`\varphi _0`$ is $`d\widehat{N}=d^3x\delta \widehat{\psi }^{}\delta \widehat{\psi }`$. In the Bogoliubov vacuum state $`|0_b`$ without any quasiparticles, $`\widehat{b}_m|0_b=0`$, the number of depleted atoms is

$$dN^{(0)}=\underset{m}{}d^3x|v_m|^2\underset{m}{}dN_m^{(0)}.$$
(6)
More generally, in a state with exactly $`n_m`$ quasiparticles in a mode $`m`$ the number of depleted atoms is

$$dN=\underset{m}{}\left[dN_m^{(0)}+\left(1+2dN_m^{(0)}\right)n_m\right].$$
(7)
Here we used $`d^3x(|u_m|^2|v_m|^2)=1`$.

Master equation in the quasiparticle representation.— Bogoliubov expansion (5) can be used to rewrite the master equation (1) in the quasiparticle representation. Expansion to second order in $`b`$’s in Eqs.(2,1) results in a Bogoliubov Hamiltonian BT , which is a sum of harmonic oscillators $`\widehat{H}_m\mathrm{}\omega _m\widehat{b}_m^{}\widehat{b}_m`$, and an approximate master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}i\omega _m[\widehat{b}_m^{}\widehat{b}_m,\widehat{\rho }]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ml}{}}l\gamma _l\alpha _{lm}N^{l1}\left[(1+n_{lm})𝒟[\widehat{b}_m]\rho +n_{lm}𝒟[\widehat{b}_m^{}]\rho \right].`$
The coefficients are defined by integrals

$`{\displaystyle d^3x|\varphi _0|^{2l2}|u_m|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{lm}(1+n_{lm}),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle d^3x|\varphi _0|^{2l2}|v_m|^2}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{lm}n_{lm}.`$ (10)
In addition to small depletion, derivation of the master equation (Condensate Heating by Atomic Losses) requires the rotating wave approximation (RWA). In the RWA we neglect all terms of the form $`\widehat{b}\widehat{b}`$, $`\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}^{}`$, or $`\widehat{b}_m\widehat{b}_n^{}`$ for $`mn`$, but keep all terms like $`\widehat{b}_m\widehat{b}_m^{}`$ or $`\widehat{b}_m^{}\widehat{b}_m`$. The RWA is accurate when the Hamiltonian evolution is much faster than atomic losses, or more precisely $`\omega _m_ll\gamma _l\alpha _{lm}N^{l1}n_{lm}`$. This condition is satisfied in all present day experiments.

A thermal state.— Due to atomic losses the coefficients in (Condensate Heating by Atomic Losses) are not constant. However, we fix them (for a while) and analyze a stationary state of the resulting master equation. Later on we will see that such an analysis allows us to predict a lower bound for a stationary depletion of a condensate caused by atomic losses.

A remarkable thing is that the master equation (Condensate Heating by Atomic Losses), with the coefficients fixed, can be recognized to describe a set of harmonic oscillators (numbered by $`m`$) coupled to external heat reservoirs (numbered by $`l`$). Every oscillator relaxes to a thermal state. When atomic losses are dominated by only one of the channels $`l`$, then average numbers of quasiparticles in the thermal states are

$$n_m=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{b}_m^{}\widehat{b}_m\widehat{\rho }(t\mathrm{})=n_{lm}.$$
(11)
When many channels $`l`$ are involved, then the averages $`n_m`$ can be obtained from equations

$$\frac{1+n_m}{n_m}=\frac{_ll\gamma _l\alpha _{lm}N^{l1}(1+n_{lm})}{_ll\gamma _l\alpha _{lm}N^{l1}n_{lm}}.$$
(12)
Every oscillator $`m`$ can be assigned to an inverse temperature $`\beta _m`$ which follows from a textbook formula $`n_m=(e^{\beta _m\mathrm{}\omega _m}1)^1`$. The thermal state is

$$\rho (t\mathrm{})=_me^{\beta _m\mathrm{}\omega _m\widehat{b}_m^{}\widehat{b}_m}.$$
(13)
A thermal state of a uniform BEC.— For a 3D condensate with $`\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})=\text{const}`$, the $`n_{lm}=dN_m^{(0)}`$ are independent of $`l`$, compare Eqs.(9,10,6). In a uniform condensate of density $`\rho _c`$ a phonon of momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$ has energy BT

$$\mathrm{}\omega _k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}+2g\rho _c\right)}\stackrel{k^2\frac{mg\rho _c}{\mathrm{}^2}}{}c\mathrm{}k.$$
(14)
Here $`c=\sqrt{g\rho _c/m}`$ is a velocity of sound. In the thermal state (13) there are on average BT

$$n_k=d^3x|v_k|^2=\frac{\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}+g\rho _c}{2\mathrm{}\omega _p}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{k^2\frac{mg\rho _c}{\mathrm{}^2}}{}\frac{c}{2\mathrm{}k}$$
(15)
phonons of momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$. With the general formula (7) we can calculate a fraction of depleted atoms in the thermal state $`d=dN/N=\sqrt{4\pi \rho _ca^3}`$. For a typical condensate density of $`\rho _c=10^{20}\mathrm{m}^3`$ we find depletions $`d_{{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}}=0.44\%`$ and $`d_{{}_{}{}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}=1.55\%`$ at the scattering lengths of $`a=2.5`$nm and $`a=5.8`$nm respectively.

The depletion is dominated by a contribution from small $`k`$ where the number of quasiparticles $`n_k`$ in Eq.(15) is divergent. A remarkable thing is that for small $`k`$ the equipartition of energy $`n_k\mathrm{}\omega _k=\beta ^1`$ yields the same temperature $`T`$ for all phonons. The temperature is $`T_{{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}}=76\mathrm{nK}`$ and $`T_{{}_{}{}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}}=37\mathrm{nK}`$.

These estimates are valid for a 3D uniform condensate. In less than 3D the infrared divergence $`n_kk^1`$ results in a divergent depleted fraction $`d`$. Anticipating a much larger but finite $`d`$ we now turn to effectively one-dimensional harmonic traps.

A thermal state of a BEC in a 1D harmonic trap.— In a sufficiently anisotropic trap $`V(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2[x^2+\kappa ^2(y^2+z^2)]`$ with $`\kappa 1`$ the $`yz`$ state of all atoms is frozen in the ground state. The condensate wave function $`\varphi _0(x)`$ solves a 1D Gross-Pitaievskii equation (4) with an effective $`g_{1\mathrm{D}}=g/\xi ^2`$, where $`\xi `$ is the size of the ground state in the $`yz`$ plane. We solved the 1D Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations BT  to get $`u_m`$ and $`v_m`$ for two sets of parameters relevant to the quasi-1D Hannover  and strictly 1D 1D  experiments. Relative depletions $`d=dN/N`$ corresponding to the thermal state (13) are listed in Table 1.

These values give lower bounds for the stationary depletions in these experiments. The 10% depletion in the 3-body losses for the quasi-1D condensate is actually close to the thermal cloud fraction estimated in the Hannover experiment Hannover . In other words, this experiment is close to the minimal stationary depletion set by atomic losses.

Relaxation time.— It takes time to reach the thermal state (13). To simplify notation we assume here that losses are dominated by only one of the channels $`l`$. Time evolution of the average number of quasiparticles $`n_m(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }(t)\widehat{b}_m^{}\widehat{b}_m`$ directly follows from the master equation (Condensate Heating by Atomic Losses) and satisfies a differential equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}n_m(t)=l\gamma _l\alpha _{lm}N^{l1}(t)[n_m(t)n_{lm}].$$
(16)
$`n_m(t)`$ is relaxing toward its equilibrium value $`n_{lm}`$. Eq.(16) has to be compared with the decay law for the total number of atoms $`N(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\rho (t)d^3x\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}N(t)=l\gamma _l\alpha _lN^l(t).$$
(17)
Here $`\alpha _l=d^3x|\varphi _0|^{2l}`$. This equation is valid for small depletion, when almost all atoms occupy $`\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})`$.

As dominant Bogoliubov modes are localized on the condensate, we can approximate $`\alpha _{lm}\alpha _l`$. Consequently the relaxation and decay rates in Eqs.(16) and (17) are comparable, $`dn_m/n_mdN/N`$. As the equilibrium value $`n_{lm}`$ in Eq.(16) depends on the time-dependent $`N(t)`$ and the rates are comparable, $`n_m(t)`$ will never quite reach the instantaneous equilibrium value $`n_{lm}(t)`$. In the following we will consider 1- and 3-body losses in the two mode (double well) toy model to see that the estimated equilibrium depletion, we have considered so far, is a lower bound for a stationary depletion.

Double well model.— The model is described by Hubbard Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_2=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1)+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2\widehat{a}_2).$$
(18)
Here we use rescaled dimensionless units such that $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The master equation (1) becomes

$$\frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}=\frac{1}{i}[\widehat{H}_2,\widehat{\rho }]+\gamma _l\underset{j=1,2}{}𝒟[\widehat{a}_j^l]\rho .$$
(19)
We assume that $`l`$-body losses dominate.

The condensate wavefunction $`\varphi _0=(1,1)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\varphi _1=(1,1)/\sqrt{2}`$ span the single particle Hilbert space. There is only one Bogoliubov mode with $`u_1=X\varphi _1/\sqrt{X^21}`$ and $`v_1=\varphi _1/\sqrt{X^21}`$, where $`X=\left(1+\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }}{N}\right)+\sqrt{\left(1+\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }}{N}\right)^21}`$. As $`\varphi _0`$ is “uniform”, the equilibrium number of quasiparticles is independent of $`l`$,

$$n_{l1}=dN_1^{(0)}=v_1^{}v_1=\sqrt{\frac{N}{32\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{1}{2}+𝒪(N^{1/2}),$$
(20)
Depletion in the equilibrium thermal state (13) is

$$d=\frac{dN_1^{(0)}+\left(1+2dN_1^{(0)}\right)n_{l1}}{N}=\frac{1}{16\mathrm{\Omega }}+𝒪(N^1).$$
(21)
1-body losses.— We begin with $`l=1`$ and a condensate initially in the Bogoliubov vacuum state, i.e. the number of quasiparticles $`n_1(0)=0`$. A formal solution of Eq.(16), where $`\alpha _{l1}=1`$, is $`n_1(t)=\gamma _1_0^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma _1(tt^{})]n_{11}(t^{})`$. $`N(t)=N_0e^{\gamma _1t}`$, which solves Eq.(17), and Eqs.(20,7) give (time-dependent) depletion

$$d^{l=1}(t)=\frac{1\sqrt{f}}{8\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{f}{\sqrt{32\mathrm{\Omega }N}}+𝒪(N^1).$$
(22)
Here $`f=N(t)/N_0`$ is a fraction of atoms remaining in the trap. When $`f0`$ (the system is forgetting about the initial conditions) the depletion (22) becomes roughly twice the equilibrium value (21). At small $`f`$ the system is reaching a stationary state with twice the equilibrium depletion.

When we initially prepare the system with $`n_1(0)=2\sqrt{\frac{N_0}{32\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{1}{2}`$, instead of the rather arbitrary $`n_1(0)=0`$, then the depletion is stationary — it does not depend on $`f`$ (and through $`f`$ on the initial $`N_0`$),

$$d_{\mathrm{stat}.}^{l=1}=\frac{1}{8\mathrm{\Omega }}+𝒪(N^1).$$
(23)
This stationary depletion (23) is roughly twice the equilibrium value (21).

3-body losses.— When 3-body losses dominate, the system gets much closer to the equilibrium than in the case of 1-body losses. For a condensate initially in the Bogoliubov vacuum state, $`n_1(0)=0`$, a similar procedure as for $`l=1`$ leads to a depletion

$$d^{l=3}(t)=\frac{3(1f^{5/2})}{40\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{f^3}{\sqrt{32\mathrm{\Omega }N}}+𝒪(N^1).$$
(24)
When $`f0`$ $`d^{l=3}(t)`$ is approaching a stationary value

$$d_{\mathrm{stat}.}^{l=3}=\frac{3}{40\mathrm{\Omega }}+𝒪(N^1),$$
(25)
that is only $`1.2`$ higher than the equilibrium value (21). Starting with the initial $`n_1(0)=\frac{6}{5}\sqrt{\frac{N_0}{32\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{1}{2}`$ results in a depletion independent of $`f`$ (and thus also on $`N_0`$) and equal to the stationary value (25).

We conclude that our estimates of depletion based on the equilibrium values are lower bounds for stationary depletions.

Numerical experiment.— We verified the predictions (22,23,24,25) of the Bogoliubov theory in numerical simulations. For a large $`N_0`$ a direct solution of the master equation (19) is not the most efficient. It is better to replace the deterministic $`\rho (t)`$ by an ensemble of stochastic pure states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, such that $`\rho (t)`$ is reproduced as an average over many stochastic realizations, $`\overline{|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|}=\rho (t)`$. A stochastic “unraveling” of the master equation (19) is given by Ito stochastic nonlinear Schrödinger equation Carmichael

$`d|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`idt\widehat{H}_2|\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{dt\gamma _l}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}\left[(\widehat{a}_j^{})^l\widehat{a}_j^l(\widehat{a}_j^{})^l\widehat{a}_j^l\right]|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}d𝒩_j(t)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_j^l|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\sqrt{(\widehat{a}_j^{})^l\widehat{a}_j^l}}}|\mathrm{\Psi }\right],`$
where $`\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{A}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. $`d𝒩_j(t)\{0,1\}`$ is a stochastic process \[$`d𝒩_j(t)=1`$ when $`l`$ atoms escape from a well $`j`$ between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$, and $`0`$ otherwise\]. A probability that $`l`$ atoms will escape between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$ is $`dt(\widehat{a}_j^{})^l\widehat{a}_j^l`$. In Fig.1 we compare the predictions (22,23,24,25) with corresponding averages over many stochastic realizations. As they compare quite well, the Bogoliubov theory (Condensate Heating by Atomic Losses) passes the test on the double-well model.

Conclusion.— A condensate is heated by atomic losses. The depletion of the system approaches a stationary value that ranges from around $`1\%`$ for a uniform 3D condensate to around $`10\%`$ for a quasi-1D harmonic trap. As atomic losses cannot be easily eliminated, this depletion is a serious limitation on quantum coherence of atomic BEC. We only note here that outcoupling in the atom laser is a non-markovian process of atomic losses. Its influence on laser coherence will be addressed elsewhere.

Acknowledgements.— We are grateful to Zbyszek Karkuszewski for discussions. This research was supported in part by KBN grants 2 P03B 092 23 (JD) and 5 P03B 088 21 (KS).