text:
# Delta Baryon Magnetic Moments From Lattice QCD

## I Introduction

The magnetic moments of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryons have already caught the attention of the experimental community and hold the promise of being accurately measured in the foreseeable future. Experimental estimates exist for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$, based on the reaction $`\pi ^+p\pi ^+\gamma ^{}p`$. The Particle Data Group Hagiwara:pw  cites a range of values, 3.7–7.5 $`\mu _N`$, for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ magnetic moment, with the two most recent experimental results being $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=4.52\pm 0.51\pm 0.45\mu _N`$ Bosshard  and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=6.14\pm 0.51\mu _N`$ LopezCastro:2000ep . This gives an idea of the elusive nature of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ magnetic moments. In principle, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ magnetic moment can be obtained from the reaction $`\gamma p\pi ^o\gamma ^{}p`$, as demonstrated at the Mainz microtron Kotulla ; Drechsel:2001qu  and Kotulla et al. have recently reported an initial measurement of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=2.7_{1.3}^{+1.0}(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 1.5(\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 3(\mathrm{theor}.)\mu _N`$ Kotulla:2002cg .

Recent extrapolations of octet baryon magnetic moments have utilized a Pad$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ approximant Leinweber:1998ej ; Hackett-Jones:2000qk ; Leinweber:2001ui ; Cloet:2002eg , an analytic continuation of chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$PT) which incorporates the correct leading nonanalytic (LNA) structure of $`\chi `$PT. This idea was recently extended to a study of decuplet baryons in the Access Quark Model Cloet , where the next-to-leading nonanalytic (NLNA) structure of $`\chi `$PT was also included. Incorporating the NLNA terms into the extrapolation function contributes little to the octet baryon magnetic moments, however it proves vital for the decuplet. This is because the NLNA terms from $`\chi `$PT contain information regarding the branch point at the octet-decuplet mass-splitting, $`m_\pi =\delta `$, associated with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ decay channel, which plays a significant role in decuplet magnetic moments. Here we include the NLNA behaviour in a chiral extrapolation of the magnetic moments of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryons calculated in lattice QCD.

Although the Pad$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ technique provides a well behaved method of extending $`\chi `$PT to heavy quark masses, it is not so obvious how it could be extended to higher order in a chiral expansion. We have therefore chosen to calculate explicitly the pion loop diagrams which give rise to the LNA and the NLNA behaviour of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ magnetic moments using finite-range regularization Young:2002ib ; Donoghue:1998bs . In this investigation we select the dipole-vertex regulator. We stress that, in the context of the chiral extrapolation of lattice QCD data, the use of a finite-range regulator is the preferred alternative to dimensional regularization as demonstrated in Ref. Young:2002ib . Ideally, the regulator mass should be constrained by lattice QCD results. However, the data available lies at large quark masses and provides little guidance. As such, we explicitly explore the regulator-mass dependence of our results, finding a sensitivity of 3.6% or less in the charged $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ magnetic moments, for variation of the dipole mass parameter in the range 0.5–1.0 GeV.

## II Extrapolations – An Effective Field Theory

To one-loop order the dimensionally-regulated $`\chi `$PT result for decuplet baryon magnetic moments is Banerjee:1995wz ; Correction

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu _i=a_0+\underset{j=\pi ,K}{}\frac{M_N}{32\pi ^2f_j^2}(\alpha _j^i\frac{4}{9}^2(0,m_j,\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill +\beta _j^i𝒞^2(\delta ,m_j,\mu ))+a_2m_\pi ^2.\end{array}$$
(1)
The $`(\delta ,m_j,\mu )`$ functions (with $`\delta `$ the octet-decuplet mass difference) are the nonanalytic components of the meson loop diagrams shown in Fig. 1. These expressions are given explicitly in Ref. Banerjee:1995wz . The constants $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$ multiplying the analytic terms are not specified within $`\chi `$PT and must be determined by other means.

It is well known that dimensionally-regulated $`\chi `$PT expansions for baryon properties are troubled by a lack of clear convergence Hatsuda:tt ; SVW ; Bernard:2002yk ; Thomas:2002sj . This problem must be addressed if $`\chi `$PT results are to be applied far beyond the chiral limit, for example in the extrapolation of lattice data where pion masses up to 1 GeV are involved. Indeed, truncated dimensionally-regulated $`\chi `$PT expansions for magnetic moments exhibit the incorrect behaviour for large $`m_\pi `$. To address these concerns we adopt finite-range regulated $`\chi `$PT by calculating the meson-loop diagrams using a dipole-vertex regulator. The loop contributions then approach zero naturally as $`m_\pi `$ becomes large. We combine the analytic terms of the chiral expansion into a single term that maintains the chiral expansion to the order we are working, while guaranteeing the correct magnetic moment mass dependence at heavy pion masses.

The extrapolation function which we employ to obtain decuplet baryon magnetic moment predictions from lattice QCD data, thus takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu =\frac{a_0}{1+c_0m_\pi ^2}+\underset{T^{}}{}\chi _T^{}^jG_{TT^{}}(m_j,\mathrm{\Lambda })\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{B}{}\chi _B^jG_{TB}(m_j,\delta ,\mathrm{\Lambda }),\end{array}$$
(2)
where the sums over $`T^{}`$ and $`B`$ include the decuplet and octet intermediate states, respectively. The first term encapsulates the pion mass dependence of the photon field coupling directly to the baryon and reflects previous success in the extrapolation of octet baryon magnetic moments Leinweber:1998ej ; Hackett-Jones:2000qk ; Cloet:2002eg . This term ensures the correct behaviour, as a function of quark mass, of the Dirac moments of the quarks at heavy quark masses (as $`m_\pi ^2m_q`$ up to 1 GeV2 – above this range one should use $`m_q`$ directly). The parameters $`a_0`$ and $`c_0`$ are chosen to optimize the fit to lattice data. The functions $`G_{TT^{}}(m_j,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`G_{TB}(m_j,\delta ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are the (heavy baryon) loop contributions to the magnetic form factors, in the limit $`q0`$, for decuplet-decuplet and decuplet-octet transitions respectively, see Fig. 1. These functions are given by

$`G_{TT^{}}(m_j,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=\underset{q0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3k𝒰(k)𝒰(k^{})\frac{(\widehat{q}\times \stackrel{}{k})^2}{(\omega _k\omega _k^{})^2}},`$
$`G_{TB}(m_j,\delta ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=\underset{q0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3k𝒰(k)𝒰(k^{})}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _k+\omega _k^{}\delta )(\widehat{q}\times \stackrel{}{k})^2}{\omega _k\omega _k^{}(\omega _k+\omega _k^{})(\omega _k\delta )(\omega _k^{}\delta )}},`$ (3)
where $`q,k,k^{}`$ are the momenta of the photon, incoming meson and outgoing meson, respectively. Note, $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}=\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\omega _k=\sqrt{k^2+m_j^2}`$. The functions $`𝒰(k)`$ and $`𝒰(k^{})`$ are used to regulate the loop integrals - we use a dipole with a finite mass parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore

$`𝒰(k)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+k^2}}\right)^2,`$ (4)
$`𝒰(k^{})`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+(k^{})^2}}\right)^2.`$ (5)
The masses, $`m_j`$, of Eq. (2) are octet-meson masses associated with the meson cloud and $`\chi _i`$ are model independent constants Li:1971vr  that give the magnitude of the loop contribution for each intermediate baryon state. These coefficients are given by Banerjee:1995wz

$`\chi _{T_i}^{(\pi )}={\displaystyle \frac{M_N^2}{72\pi ^2(f_\pi )^2}}\alpha _{T_i}^{(\pi )},\chi _{T_i}^{(K)}={\displaystyle \frac{M_N^2}{72\pi ^2(f_K)^2}}\alpha _{T_i}^{(K)},`$
$`\chi _{B_i}^{(\pi )}={\displaystyle \frac{M_N𝒞^2}{32\pi ^2(f_\pi )^2}}\beta _{B_i}^{(\pi )},\chi _{B_i}^{(K)}={\displaystyle \frac{M_N𝒞^2}{32\pi ^2(f_K)^2}}\beta _{B_i}^{(K)},`$ (6)
where $``$ describes meson couplings to decuplet baryons and $`𝒞`$ is the octet–decuplet coupling constant. We assign $``$ and $`𝒞`$ their $`SU(6)`$ values of $`=3D`$ and $`𝒞=2D`$ Butler:1992pn  where the tree level value for $`D`$ is $`0.76`$. The decay constants take the values $`f_\pi =93\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`f_K=1.2f_\pi `$ Jenkins:1992pi , appropriate to an expansion about the chiral SU(2) limit. Note also that $`M_N`$ is the nucleon mass and the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are given in Ref. Butler . The model independent loop coefficients, $`\chi `$, are summarized in Table 1.

In these calculations the complex mass scheme LopezCastro:2000ep ; ElAmiri:xa  is adopted as a method of incorporating the finite life of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances, whilst also retaining electromagnetic gauge invariance. That is, one aims to extract the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ at the pole position in the complex energy plane, $`\delta ^{(\mathrm{pole})}\delta _Ri\delta _I=270i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}50}`$ MeV Hagiwara:pw  for the physical pion mass ($`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}}`$). Since the value at the position of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ pole is independent of the path chosen, we illustrate extrapolations along the path $`\delta _R`$ constant and $`\delta _I`$ given by

$$\delta _I=G\pi (\delta _R^2m_\pi ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\delta _R^2m_\pi ^2}\right)^4\mathrm{\Theta }(\delta _Rm_\pi ).$$
(7)
The latter is motivated by the usual expression for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ self-energy Young:2002ib , with $`G`$ chosen to ensure $`\delta _I=50`$ MeV at $`m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}}`$.

To relate the kaon and pion masses we utilize the following relations provided by $`\chi `$PT

$`m_K^2`$ $`=m_{K}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\pi ^2,`$ (8)
$`m_K^{(0)}`$ $`=\sqrt{(m_K^{\mathrm{phys}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}})^2}.`$ (9)
This allows us to also incorporate kaon loops (at fixed strange quark mass) in extrapolations as a function of $`m_\pi ^2`$, to the physical mass regime.

If we expand the first term of Eq. (2) as a Taylor series about $`m_\pi =0`$ to order $`𝒪(m_\pi ^4)`$, and take the limit as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ in the loop integrals, we obtain the traditional $`\chi `$PT expansion for decuplet magnetic moments, as given in Eq. (1) (where the infinite constants encountered in dimensional regularization simply redefine $`a_0`$). Further, since the loop contributions approach zero much faster than $`1/m_\pi ^2`$ for any reasonable value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, Eq. (2) guarantees the correct mass dependence of the Dirac magnetic moment in the heavy quark mass regime. From previous studies of the nucleon axial form factor Guichon:1982zk  it has been consistently demonstrated that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the dipole regulator must have a magnitude $`<`$ 1 GeV. For this investigation we assign $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$ GeV, the optimal value obtained in analyses of state of the art full QCD simulations of the nucleon mass Young:2002ib .

In Fig. 2 we plot Eqs. (3) (without the chiral coefficient prefactors) with the above value of $`\delta `$ and a regulator of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$ GeV. Four types of intermediate baryon states are considered. The opening of the $`N\pi `$ decay channel has an interesting effect on the magnetic moment contribution. Fig. 3 presents a plot of the total loop contribution for each $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryon, determined using Eqs. (3) and the chiral coefficients given in Table 1.

## III Results

The lattice QCD results given in Table 2 are extracted from Ref. Leinweber:1992hy . These lattice calculations employ sequential-source three-point function based techniques Comment  utilizing the conserved vector current such that no renormalization is required in relating the lattice results to the continuum. These simulations utilized twenty-eight quenched gauge configurations on a $`24\times 12\times 12\times 24`$ periodic lattice at $`\beta =5.9`$, corresponding to a lattice spacing of 0.128(10) fm. Moments are obtained from the form factors at $`0.16\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ by assuming equivalent $`q^2`$ dependence for both the electric and magnetic form factors. This assumption will be tested in future studies incorporating the ideas presented here. Uncertainties are statistical in origin and are estimated by a third-order single-elimination jack-knife analysis BE .

In Figs. 4–7 we present fits of the extrapolation function, Eq. (2), to the lattice data as a function of $`m_\pi ^2`$. The resulting magnetic moment predictions, along with the fit parameters $`a_0`$ and $`c_0`$, are summarized in Table 3. In Fig. 4 we show two experimental values for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ magnetic moment, the result $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=4.52\pm 0.50\pm 0.45\mu _N`$ is from Ref. Bosshard  and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=6.14\pm 0.51\mu _N`$ is given in Ref. LopezCastro:2000ep . The discrepancy between these two results is a reasonable indication of the current level of systematic error in the experimental determination of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ magnetic moment. Our prediction of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=4.99\pm 0.56\mu _N`$ agrees well with the first experimental result, however it lies slightly below the range of the second. We note that the approach used in Ref. LopezCastro:2000ep  does not respect unitarity and when this shortcoming is addressed the authors find $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=6.01\pm 0.61\mu _N`$ LopezCastro:2000ep , resulting in a somewhat better agreement between our prediction and this experimental result. The result reported here for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ magnetic moment of $`2.49\pm 0.27\mu _N`$ is in agreement with the initial measurement of Kotulla et al. Kotulla:2002cg , namely $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}=2.7_{1.3}^{+1.0}(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 1.5(\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 3(\mathrm{theor}.)\mu _N`$, however the experimental error at this time is still very large.

To address the issue of regulator-mass dependence we vary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ between 0.5 and 1.0 GeV, in each case readjusting $`a_0`$ and $`c_0`$ to fit the lattice data and find only a slight regulator-mass dependence of 3.6% or less, for each of the charged $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryons. Ultimately, lattice results at lighter quark masses will constrain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and therefore reduce this uncertainty.

The inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ is more for completeness rather than a firm result, as the lattice data in quenched QCD yields identically zero in this case. By varying the regulator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ between 0.5 and 1.0 GeV we find the moment remains positive, with the order of magnitude of our result unchanged. We await new, unquenched lattice data in order to obtain a stronger prediction for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ magnetic moment.

The interesting feature of the plots given in Figs. 4–7 is the cusp at $`m_\pi =\delta `$ which indicates the opening of the octet decay channel, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$. The physics behind the cusp is intuitively revealed by the relation between the derivative with respect to $`m_\pi ^2`$ of the magnetic moment and the derivative with respect to the momentum transfer, $`q^2`$, provided by the pion propagator $`1/(q^2+m_\pi ^2)`$ in the heavy baryon limit. Derivatives with respect to $`q^2`$ are proportional to the magnetic radius in the limit $`q^20`$

$$r_M^2=6\frac{dG_M(q^2)}{dq^2}|_{q^2=0}.$$
(10)
If we consider for example $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}p\pi ^+`$, with $`|j,m_j=|3/2,3/2`$, the $`N\pi `$ state is in relative P-wave orbital angular momentum with $`|l,m_l=|1,1`$. Thus the pion makes a positive contribution to the magnetic moment. As the opening of the $`p\pi ^+`$ decay channel is approached from the heavy quark-mass regime, the range of the pion cloud increases. Just above threshold the pion cloud extends towards infinity as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}`$ and the radius of the magnetic form factor diverges similarly, $`(/q^2)G_M(/m_\pi ^2)G_M\mathrm{}`$ from above threshold. Below threshold, $`G_M`$ becomes complex and the magnetic moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is identified with the real part. The imaginary part describes the physics associated with photon-pion coupling in which the pion is subsequently observed as a decay product.

Therefore decuplet to octet transitions enhance the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ magnetic moments when the octet decay channel is closed. However, as the decay channel opens this physics serves to suppress the magnetic moment as the chiral limit is approached. These transitions are energetically favourable, making them of paramount importance in determining the physical properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryons.

The inclusion of octet–decuplet transitions in octet magnetic moment extrapolations is less important. Significant energy must be borrowed from the vacuum for these transitions to occur. The formulation of effective field theory with a finite-range regulator naturally suppresses transitions from ground state octet baryons to excited state baryons. Physically, the finite size of the meson-cloud source suppresses these high energy contributions. Hence any new curvature associated with octet–decuplet transitions for octet baryons is small Leinweber:1998ej . Indeed, the inclusion of the $`p\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ channels in the proton moment extrapolation of Fig. 5 increases the predicted moment by only 0.05 $`\mu _N`$ from 2.61 to 2.66 $`\mu _N`$. For this reason octet to decuplet transitions have been omitted in other chiral extrapolation studies of the octet magnetic moments Hackett-Jones:2000qk ; Cloet:2002eg .

In the simplest SU(6) quark model with $`m_u=m_d`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and proton moments are equal. However most quark models include spin dependent $`qq`$ interactions that enhance the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ magnetic moment relative to the proton. This phenomenology is supported by the lattice results Leinweber:1992hy  at large quark masses. Consequently, previous linearly extrapolated lattice predictions Leinweber:1992hy , using the same lattice data, suggested that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ moment should be greater than that of the proton. We find evidence that supports a different conclusion, with predicted values for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and proton moments lying close at 2.49(27) $`\mu _N`$ and 2.66(17) $`\mu _N`$, respectively. The primary reason for this result is the interplay between the three different pion loop contributions; $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}`$, $`n\pi ^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0\pi ^+`$. The transition to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}`$ state largely cancels the $`n\pi ^+`$ contribution, which dominates the proton magnetic moment. This means that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0\pi ^+`$ transition is the main loop contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ magnetic moment, where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{\Delta }^0\pi ^+`$ coupling is weak, relative to that of the $`pn\pi ^+`$ transition.

The proton magnetic moment extrapolation is included in Fig. 5, and provides an illustration of the importance of incorporating known chiral physics in any extrapolation to the physical world. Thus, an experimental value for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ magnetic moment would offer very important insight into the role of spin dependent forces and chiral nonanalytic behaviour in the structure of baryon resonances.

## IV Conclusion

Finite-range regulated $`\chi `$PT has been applied to the extrapolation of lattice QCD results for the decuplet baryon magnetic moments. The magnetic moments of the four $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ baryons at the resonance pole are determined. Experimental values exist only for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ magnetic moment. A result for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ should be forthcoming in the near future. The Particle Data Group gives a range of 3.7–7.5 $`\mu _N`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ moment, with the two most recent experimental results being $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=4.52\pm 0.51\pm 0.45\mu _N`$ Bosshard  and $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=6.14\pm 0.51\mu _N`$ LopezCastro:2000ep . Our lattice QCD prediction of $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=4.99\pm 0.56\mu _N`$ compares well with the first of these experimental results. An interesting result from this investigation is the prediction that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ magnetic moment lies close to and probably below that of the proton moment. Therefore a new high precision experimental measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ moment would offer valuable insight into spin dependent forces and chiral nonanalytic behaviour of excited states. The lattice data used in these calculations is now over 10 years old, determined with pion masses greater than 600 MeV. The arrival of new lattice data at lower pion masses is therefore eagerly anticipated, and will help constrain the fit parameters and associated statistical uncertainties. All of this should be forthcoming in the next few years and offers an excellent opportunity to test the predictions of QCD.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Ross Young for interesting and helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council and the University of Adelaide.


format: text

text:
# Effect of collision dephasing on atomic evolutions in a high-Q cavity

## Abstract

The decoherence mechanism of a single atom inside a high-Q cavity is studied, and the results are compared with experimental observations performed by M. Brune et al. \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1800 (1996)\]. Collision dephasing and cavity leakage are considered as the major sources giving rise to decoherence effect. In particular, we show that the experimental data can be fitted very well by assuming suitable values of collision Stark shifts and dark count rate in the detector.

A two-level atom interacting with a single cavity mode, the Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) JC , is possibly the most well studied system in quantum optics and has the potentiality to constitute the basic building block of quantum computers computer . Among all the intriguing phenomena related to the JCM, the oscillation in the atomic inversion probability — the Rabi oscillation — plays a prominent part in quantum optics. From a fundamental point of view, the existence of discrete Rabi frequencies provides a direct evidence of electromagnetic field quantization JC . In particular, when there is a dispersion in the photon number, the beating of different Rabi frequencies gives rise to collapses and revivals in the inversion probability of the atom Eberly . For example, if an atom initially prepared in its excited state $`|e`$ evolves under the influence of a cavity field, characterized by a photon number distribution $`p_n`$ and a Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the probability of finding the atom in the ground state $`|g`$ at a later time $`t`$ is given by

$$P_{eg}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }t\sqrt{n+1}\right)\right],$$
(1)
which clearly demonstrates the mentioned phenomenon.

The first observation of quantum Rabi oscillation was made by Rempe et al. some years ago Rempe . However, their experiment failed to obtain a conclusive result due to the limitation on the observation time. More recently, M. Brune et al. successfully carried out an experiment to observe the Rabi oscillation MBrune , which for the first time provided direct and clear evidence of field quantization inside a high-Q cavity. In their experiment, Rydberg atoms independently interact with a photon mode in a superconducting microwave cavity and undergo transitions between two atomic states with principal quantum numbers $`51`$ and $`50`$ respectively. The Q-factor of the cavity mode is $`7\times 10^7`$, which corresponds to a photon lifetime of $`220\mu \mathrm{s}`$. The Rabi frequency at the center of the cavity is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=50\pi \mathrm{kHz}`$, which is sufficiently fast to make Rabi oscillations observable within the cavity leakage time. The atoms are initially prepared in the excited state and, in addition to a background $`0.8\mathrm{K}`$ thermal field with a mean photon number $`\overline{n}_{\mathrm{th}}0.06`$, the cavity field is maintained in coherent states with mean photon number $`\overline{n}`$ varying from zero to a few photons. The experimental data of $`P_{eg}`$ obtained from Ref. MBrune , for $`\overline{n}=0`$, $`0.4`$, $`0.85`$ and $`1.77`$ are reproduced here as the boxes in Figs. 1-4. Despite that the data clearly revealed the Rabi oscillations in $`P_{eg}(t)`$, the evolution does not conform to that predicted by Eq. (1) (solid lines in Fig. 1). Instead, it was shown that a best fit to the data is given by MBrune :

$$P_{eg}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n\left[1\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }t\sqrt{n+1}\right)\right].$$
(2)
The oscillations were damped in such a way that $`P_{eg}(t)`$ approached $`0.5`$ in the long term. This behavior is not attributable to cavity leakage, which would instead lead to $`P_{eg}(t)=1`$ asymptotically. Furthermore, the photon lifetime was actually longer than the observation time and the effect of cavity damping due to leakage should only play a marginal role (see the dot-dashed lines in Fig. 1). It was conjectured that decoherence effect due to collisions with background gas might have contributed to these damped oscillations MBrune .

The aim of this report is to theoretically account for the experimental results by studying the effects of collision dephasing and cavity leakage. We will show in the following discussion that these two independent mechanisms are the main culprits leading to the discrepancy between the experimental data and the theoretical results given by Eq. (1).

In the rotating wave approximation, the hamiltonian of a two-level atom interacting with an ideal cavity mode is given by (in units of $`\mathrm{}=1`$):

$$H_0=\frac{\omega _a}{2}S_z+\omega _ca^{}a+\mathrm{\Omega }\left(a^{}S_{}+aS_+\right),$$
(3)
where $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are respectively the creation and annihilation operators of the cavity field, $`S_z`$ and $`S_\pm `$ are the pseudo-spin operators of the atomic levels, and $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _c`$ are the atomic transition and cavity mode frequencies respectively. Hereafter, we will assume exact resonance condition such that $`\omega _a=\omega _c`$. It is worthwhile to note that the vacuum Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the hamiltonian can be smaller than the maximum Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ because maximum coupling is attainable only if the two-level atoms are exactly located at the cavity center MBrune . Instead, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ will be considered as a free parameter to fit the leading few Rabi oscillations.

To include the effects of collision dephasing and cavity leakage on the system, we consider the master equation for the density matrix $`\rho `$ Puri ; Scully :

$$\frac{\rho }{t}=i[H_0,\rho ]+L_c\rho +L_f\rho ,$$
(4)
where

$$L_f\rho =\frac{\kappa }{2}(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a),$$
(5)
with $`\kappa `$ being the cavity leakage rate ($`\kappa =4.55\mathrm{kHz}`$ in the experiment), and

$$L_c\rho =2\gamma (2S_z\rho S_zS_z^2\rho \rho S_z^2).$$
(6)
The operator $`L_f`$ results from finite leakage at the boundaries of the cavity, whereas $`L_c`$ describes the effect of collision dephasing characterized with an energy shift $`2\gamma `$ Puri ; Scully . In general, there is an additional term due to spontaneous decay:

$$L_s\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}{2}\{S_z,\rho \}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e+\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}{2}\rho ,$$
(7)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ being the spontaneous decay rates of the upper and lower energy levels respectively. However, in the experiment the lifetimes of the two levels are about $`30\mathrm{ms}`$ MBrune , which are relatively long compared with the atom-cavity interaction time, and this term is ignored hereafter. Besides, we also assume that the thermal field outside the cavity is negligible. In terms of the density matrix, $`P_{eg}(t)`$ is given by

$$P_{eg}(t)=\underset{n}{}n,g|\rho |n,g.$$
(8)
In the current situation, the leakage of the cavity is small. It is legitimate to take $`L_f\rho `$ as the small term and Eq. (4) can then be solved by method of perturbation. First, the density matrix is written as

$$\rho =\rho ^{(0)}+\rho ^{(1)},$$
(9)
where $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ is a small correction to the zeroth order density matrix $`\rho ^{(0)}`$. It is then readily shown that

$$\frac{\rho ^{(0)}}{t}=i[H_0,\rho ^{(0)}]+L_c\rho ^{(0)},$$
(10)
and

$$\frac{\rho ^{(1)}}{t}=i[H_0,\rho ^{(1)}]+L_c\rho ^{(1)}+L_f\rho ^{(0)}.$$
(11)
Secondly, we solve Eq. (10) for the initial conditions:

$`n,e|\rho ^{(0)}|n,e`$ $`=`$ $`p_n,`$
$`n,g|\rho ^{(0)}|n,g`$ $`=`$ $`n,e|\rho ^{(0)}|n+1,g=n+1,g|\rho ^{(0)}|n,e=0.`$
When the field is prepared in a coherent state, the photon distribution is Poissonian with $`p_n`$ given by:

$$p_n=e^{\overline{n}}\frac{\overline{n}^n}{n!}.$$
(12)
The explicit solution to Eq. (10) is:

$$0,g|\rho ^{(0)}|0,g=0,$$
(13)
$$n,g|\rho ^{(0)}|n,g=\frac{1}{2}p_{n1}\left[1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\lambda _{n1}t\varphi _{n1})}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{n1}}\right],$$
(14)
$$n,e|\rho ^{(0)}|n,e=\frac{1}{2}p_n\left[1+\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\lambda _nt\varphi _n)}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _n}\right],$$
(15)
$$n,e|\rho ^{(0)}|n+1,g=\frac{i}{2}p_n\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\frac{\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nt}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _n},$$
(16)
where

$$\lambda _n=\sqrt{4(n+1)\mathrm{\Omega }^2\gamma ^2}$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{tan}\varphi _n=\frac{\gamma }{\lambda _n}.$$
(18)
Eq. (8) can hence be expressed explicitly as

$$P_{eg}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n\left[1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\lambda _nt\varphi _n)}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _n}\right].$$
(19)
From the results, we see that the mechanism of collision dephasing gives rise to remarkable effects. The Rabi oscillations are damped with modified frequencies given by Eq. (17); and there is also a phase shift as given by Eq. (18). The solid-lines in Fig. 2 show the zeroth order perturbation results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=150.2\mathrm{kHz}`$ and $`\gamma =19.3\mathrm{kHz}`$, which is observed to provide best fits to the four sets of experimental data. The results obtained by numerically solving the exact master equation (i.e. Eq. (4)) are also shown there as dot-dashed lines. Interestingly enough, there is a fairly good apparent agreement between the zeroth order results and the experimental data. We consider this as a coincidence due to two counter-balancing effects, namely the effects of cavity leakage and dark counts in the detector used in the experiment MBrune , which have been neglected in the forgoing discussion. We will return to this point later.

To obtain a better agreement between the perturbative and the numerical results, the first order calculation is carried out, yielding the results:

$$0,g|\rho ^{(1)}|0,g=\frac{\kappa }{4\mathrm{\Omega }}p_0\left[2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _02\mathrm{\Omega }t+\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\lambda _0t2\varphi _0)}{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0}\right],$$
(20)
$`n,g|\rho ^{(1)}|n,g`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _n}{4n\lambda _n}}p_{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[(2n+1)p_n(2n1)p_{n1}\right]\kappa t`$
$`\kappa \mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\{(2n^2+n+1)p_n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{n1}}{4\lambda _{n1}}}\mathrm{cos}\lambda _{n1}t`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)(1\sqrt{n})p_{n1}+[4n^2+3n+12(4n^2+2n+1)\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{n1}]p_n}{4\lambda _{n1}}}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _{n1}t`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n+1)p_n}{2\lambda _n}}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nt+{\displaystyle \frac{(2n^2+3n+2)p_n}{4\lambda _n}}\mathrm{sin}(\lambda _nt2\varphi _n)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n1)\sqrt{n}p_{n1}}{2\lambda _{n1}}}\mathrm{\Omega }t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda _{n1}t\varphi _{n1})\},`$
$`n,e|\rho ^{(1)}|n,e`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\kappa \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _n}{2\lambda _n}}p_n{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+3)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _{n+1}}{4(n+1)\lambda _{n+1}}}p_{n+1}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[(2n+3)p_{n+1}(2n+1)p_n\right]\kappa t`$
$`+\kappa \mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2n^2+5n+4)p_{n+1}2p_n}{4\lambda _n}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _n\mathrm{cos}\lambda _nt`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[(2n+1)(\sqrt{n+1}1)+2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _n\right]p_n\left[n+1+(4n^2+10n+7)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _n\right]p_{n+1}}{4\lambda _n}}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nt`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)(n+2)p_{n+1}}{2\lambda _{n+1}}}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _{n+1}t+{\displaystyle \frac{(2n^2+7n+5)p_{n+1}}{4\lambda _{n+1}}}\mathrm{sin}(\lambda _{n+1}t2\varphi _{n+1})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)\sqrt{n+1}p_n}{2\lambda _n}}\mathrm{\Omega }t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda _nt\varphi _n)\},`$
$`n,e|\rho ^{(1)}|n+1,g`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{8\sqrt{n+1}\mathrm{\Omega }}}(p_np_{n+1}){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{8\sqrt{n+1}\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)\{[p_n(3n^2+8n+6)p_{n+1}]\mathrm{cos}\lambda _nt`$
$`+\left[p_n+(n^2+4n+2)p_{n+1}\right]\mathrm{tan}\varphi _n\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nt+2(n+1)(3n+5)p_{n+1}\mathrm{cos}\lambda _{n+1}t`$
$`+2(n+1)^2p_{n+1}\mathrm{tan}\varphi _{n+1}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _{n+1}t+4(n+1)(2n+1)p_n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\lambda _n}}t\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nt\}.`$
The first order results with the same parameters are shown in Fig. 3. In the time regime under consideration, the first order results give excellent approximation to the exact numerical solution that includes the leakage effect. However, as shown in Fig. 3, the introduction of leakage obviously also worsens the agreement between our theoretical results and the experimental data. As suggested in Ref. MBrune , we propose that the effect of cavity damping might have been counter-balanced by dark counts in the atomic detector, which become increasingly important at long times because of low atomic fluxes. If it is assumed that within the time range of the experiment, the detection rate approximately goes exponentially with $`t`$, an extra factor $`e^{\alpha t}`$ should be introduced. In other words,

$$[P_{eg}(t)]_{\mathrm{experiment}}=e^{\alpha t}[P_{eg}(t)]_{\mathrm{theory}}.$$
(24)
In the time regime under consideration, this is roughly the same as assuming a linear time dependence of the dark count rate. In order to counter-balance the effect of cavity damping, we find that $`\alpha `$ should assume a value around $`1.59\mathrm{kHz}`$. In other words, the proportion of dark counts should increase from $`0`$ at $`t=0`$ to around $`13\%`$ at $`t=90\mu \mathrm{s}`$. In Fig. 4, the overlying solid lines and dot-dashed lines respectively show the first-order perturbation and numerical results with the effect of dark counts taken into account. It clearly shows an excellent agreement with experimental data.

Moreover, the results of the first order perturbation allow us to write Eq. (8) in the form

$$P_{eg}(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_nf_n(t),$$
(25)
where the functions $`f_n(t)`$ are obtained by grouping terms in Eqs. (13)-(16) and (20)-(23). Instead of evaluating $`P_{eg}(t)`$ from the given photon distribution function $`p_n`$ MBrune , we can in fact search for initial states that best fit the data. With the set of functions $`f_n(t)`$, we perform a least-square best fit to obtain the optimal photon distribution $`\stackrel{~}{p}(n)`$. The results of this inversion process are shown by circles in Fig. 5, in which the solid lines represent the theoretical results for the initial states given in Ref. MBrune , namely $`\overline{n}=0`$, $`0.4\pm 0.02`$, $`0.85\pm 0.04`$ and $`1.77\pm 0.15`$. It is observed that the results we obtained show a fairly good agreement with the theoretical values. Furthermore, we perform independent best-fits on $`p(n)`$ to find the coherent states that give the best agreement. We found that the distributions are respectively best fit by coherent states with $`\overline{n}=0.098`$, $`0.46`$, $`1.19`$ and $`1.95`$, signifying the agreement of the experimental and theoretical results.

In conclusion, we have theoretically analyzed the evolution of a single atom inside a high-Q cavity in the presence of collision dephasing and leakage mechanisms, and the results are compared with experimental observations performed by Brune et al. MBrune . Collision dephasing, leakage and dark counts are shown to be the major factors affecting the experimental results. Interestingly enough, cavity leakage and dark counts tend to produce opposite effects on the inversion probability. By assuming suitable values of collision Stark shift and dark count rate, we have explicitly demonstrated that the experimental data agree nicely with the theoretical prediction.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank G. Q. Ge and C. K. Law respectively for drawing our attention to Brune et al.’s experiment and discussions. Our work is supported in part by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (grant No: CUHK4282/00P) and a direct grant (Project ID: 2060150) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.


text:
# Microtraps and Atom Chips: Toolboxes for Cold Atom Physics

## 1 Introduction

Some of the key elements in the sensitivity of interferometers and atom clocks are the free evolution time and the collisional shift of the atom beams and cloud. Using cold and ultra-cold atoms can reduce the atomic velocity down to cm/s, to increase the free-evolution time. This means an equivalent wavelength of the atom packet of approx. 0.1 $`\mu `$m. However, at temperatures of several $`\mu `$K the beam spread can still be considered large, and scattering can take place inside the beam. It is therefore interesting to further cool the samples and maybe even bring them to degeneracy; a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) expanded to 1 mm diameter has a transverse velocity spread on the order of $`\mu `$m/s. Furthermore, reducing the density by thus expanding the cloud from $`10^{13}`$ cm-3 to $`10^8`$ cm-3 reduces the collisional shift of the atomic transitions to below 0.5 mHz (Fertig & Gibble 2000; Sortais et al. 2000).

The outline of the paper is the following; we first present the building blocks of magnetic microtraps and Atom Chips, next we briefly discuss the experimental state of the art. Finally we suggest how the devices may be used for space applications.

A comprehensive review on trapping and manipulation of atoms with magnetic micro-traps has been written by Folman et al. (2002). Additional information on BEC in atom chips is given by Reichel (2002).

## 2 Wire traps and Atom Chips

In order to minimise the footprint, weight and power consumption of magnetic traps for space missions other routes than the traditional coil-based setups should be sought. Surface mounted wire traps and Atom Chips have proven to be able to capture large numbers of atoms, and to enable traps in various geometries. By miniaturisation using microfabrication the traps can be made very steep and tight, while maintaining mechanical stability, and robustness (Folman et al. 2002). These properties also ensure the reproducibility of the magnetic field parameters. Combined with the inherent low inductance and fast reaction of small structures that need little power the devices are ideal for use in sensitive environments.

The most basic micro-trap consists of a straight, current carrying wire in a homogeneous magnetic bias field oriented perpendicular to it (Frisch & Segre 1933; Folman et al. 2002), see Fig. 1. The two superposed fields subtract to a 2D quadrupole field minimum along the wire, the Side Guide, in which atoms can be held. The trap depth is given by the homogeneous bias field, the field gradient is inversely proportional to the wire current. An additional bias field oriented along the wire, effectively rotating the bias field, yields a Ioffe-Pritchard trap with a non-zero trap minimum, which is robust against Majorana spin-flip losses. Such a geometry lends itself to miniaturization of the wire size using micro-fabrication techniques. A typical example is the Atom Chip (Folman et al. 2000), where the 1 - 200 $`\mu `$m wide wires are micro-fabricated in a 2 - 5 $`\mu `$m thick gold layer on a silicon substrate. The present generations of Atom Chips used in our experiments, fabricated using a lithographic technique 111The Atom Chips used in our experiments are fabricated in the Weizmann Centre of Science, Rehovot, Israel, are capable of carrying current densities of over $`10^7`$ A/cm2.

By bending the ends of the wire one creates slightly more complex structures (Denschlag et al. 1999; Reichel et al. 1999; Haase et al. 2001) that provide three dimensional confinement, see Fig. 1.
The U-trap: by bending a wire in a U-shape, the two fields from the bent ends of the wire (arms) close the initial two dimensional confinement (guide) along the central wire segment (base). The result is a three dimensional quadrupole field, with a trap minimum $`B_0=0`$.
The Z-trap: if the arms are pointing in opposite directions (Z-shaped wire) a field component parallel to the base remains, resulting in a simple Ioffe-Pritchard type trap with $`B_0>0`$.

A common property of wire traps is the scaling of the strong linear confinement in the transverse direction, inversely proportional to the wire current $`I_W`$ and the distance $`z_0`$ between the wire centre and the trap minimum:

$$z_0\frac{I_W}{B_x},B_{}^{}=\frac{B}{x,z}\frac{B_x^2}{I_W}.$$
(1)
Here $`B_x`$ is the homogeneous bias field perpendicular to the wire. In the case of a Z-trap, the non-zero field minimum turns the bottom of the quadrupole trap into a harmonic potential. The transverse angular trap frequencies $`\omega _{x,z}`$ in this potential scale as:

$$\omega _{x,z}\frac{B_{}^{}}{\sqrt{B_0}}.$$
(2)
The linear field gradient of wire traps, given by Eq. (1), enables a large flexibility to first trap a large number of atoms and second to efficiently compress the trap to small volumes and high trap frequencies for effective evaporative cooling.

The bias fields need not be made by coils, they can also originate from permanent magnets surrounding the setup. The control of the current through the trapping wire maintains the flexibility of the device. Another method is to supply the fields by currents in additional wires in parallel to the trapping wire, see Fig. 2, or by the arms of the wire, as in the case of the longitudinal field in the Z-trap.

Since the trapping parameters of a Side Guide depend on the angle between the wire and the bias field, bending the wire means to alter the trap. This effect is absent in the geometry of two parallel wires carrying opposite currents in a vertical bias field (Fig. 2-B and 2-D), which is independent of the angle of the wires in the plane, thus it allows atom guides in every direction on the chip.

## 3 Experimental setup

The starting point for cold atom experiments is the collection of a large number of atoms in an ultra-high vacuum (UHV) chamber in a special magneto-optical trap, the Mirror-MOT. A mirror-MOT is made with two sets counter-propagating laser beams. One set is reflected off the chip at an angle of $`45^{}`$, overlapping the axis of a magnetic quadrupole, also tilted by $`45^{}`$ with respect to the mirror surface. The other set of beams runs in the plane of the chip (Lee et al. 1996; Pfau & Mlynek 1996; Reichel et al. 1999; Folman et al. 2000). The magnetic quadrupole field for the MOT is supplied by external coils or by the field of the U-trap (U-MOT). Both setups can be operated with the same laser beam configuration.

For experiments with rubidium the laser light is provided by diode lasers, frequency locked to a spectroscopy signal. The light is switched and tuned to the desired frequencies by acousto-optical modulators (AOMs) and mechanical shutters. The beams can be led to the experiment using mirrors or by optical fibres. The latter option has the benefit of increased stability and a better intensity distribution, however it also increases intensity losses. The present studies on optical setups for the interferometers aboard the LISA- and SMART-2 missions, as well as for the regular MOTs for HYPER and the atom clock PHARAOH/ACES will point the way to an optimum optical setup for spaceflights.

The heart of the experiment is a compact Atom Chip holder assembly, containing the Atom Chip with the traps and guides for the desired experiments, and a copper structure embedded in a UHV-compatible ceramic directly behind the chip, see Fig. 3. The copper part is designed to allow strong U- and Z-currents for large quadrupole and Ioffe-Pritchard traps. The $`1\times 1`$ mm2 cross section withstands the typically used currents of 50 A for over a minute without significant heating, thus preserving the UHV (Schneider et al. 2002; Kasper et al. 2002).

The contacts to the Atom Chip are wire-bonded to contact-pins, with multiple bonds per connection to reduce the contact resistance. The maximum current through the chip-wires is limited by the dissipation of the heat produced in the chip, not by the wire-bonds. The copper devices are bolted to the leads for optimum conductivity. For space flights the copper can easily be replaced by a superconducting material to reduce the necessary power even further.

An additional optimised U-structure underneath the copper H-structure can be used to generate the initial quadrupole field for the mirror-MOT (Becker 2002). Since this removes the need for a separate set of quadrupole coils, it reduces the complexity, weight and power consumption of the setup. It also allows a much better optical access to the atoms for further manipulation and study.

The experiments can be performed in a single vacuum chamber (Ott et al. 2001; Hänsel et al. 2001a). In that case a switchable atom source and sufficient pumping power must be used to enable loading the MOT from the background gas and to restore the vacuum after the MOT has been fully loaded. Another option is to use a separate chamber to produce a beam of cold atoms to load the MOT in the UHV-chamber (Schneider et al. 2002; Kasper et al. 2002). This has the advantage of enabling a much better vacuum at the location of the chip and the experiments, which considerably extends the lifetime of the trapped clouds, however it comes with the cost of a significantly increased complexity, weight and power consumption.

## 4 Loading the Atom Chip

A typical experimental cycle proceeds as follows:

1. Cooling and trapping of atoms in a Mirror-MOT
2. Further cooling via optical molasses
3. Optical pumping to the desired hyperfine state
4. Magnetic trapping of the atoms
5. Further cooling; trap compression and RF-cooling
6. Bose-Einstein condensation (if desired)
7. Transfer of the cloud to the chip
8. Manipulation of the atoms onboard the chip

Ad 1: In the final stages of the U-MOT-phase, the field configuration is changed to compress the cloud and bring it closer to the chip, see Eq. (1). This combines a large capture volume for the initial loading with a dense cloud for optimum transfer to the magnetic traps.

Ad 4 – 7: The initial magnetic trap may be directly from the chip, however these traps are usually too shallow and too small to capture sufficient atoms to allow evaporative cooling to a large BEC. Therefore we use the copper structure behind the chip, which can be operated at much higher currents and thus it can generate deep traps far away from the chip. The trap can also easily be compressed which leads to higher collision rates inside the trap and thus to a faster thermalisation rate of the sample, which is needed for efficient evaporative cooling (Davis et al. 1995b; Luiten et al. 1996). Moving the copper trap closer to the chip enables “mode matched” transfer to the chip traps.

Ad 8: Once trapped onboard the chip the atom cloud can be transported to other locations on the chip for use as a source for various experiments either on the chip or in other devices.

## 5 Use of microtraps and atom chips

As shown by Folman et al. (2002) and Reichel (2002) a large variety of traps and guides for cold atoms and Bose-Einstein condensates has been realised. The necessary properties of traps that should enable to reach condensation, such as the capability of trapping large numbers of atoms, may not be possible in some experimental setups, such as those aimed at building quantum dots. Therefore, it is interesting to separate the parts with contradicting experimental demands into different parts of the setup. However, this also raises the need for transport of the atoms between the sites, as discussed for the MOT above. Used techniques range from mechanically moving the trapping coils (Jila ) to transport in optical traps (Leanhardt et al. 2002) and to both macroscopic (Greiner et al. 2001) and microscopic magnetic conveyor belts (Hänsel et al. 2001b).

Our option is a combined multiple-layer structure of the type described above (Fig. 3). For instance, using a wire current of $`I_W=50`$ A in the copper Z-trap and properly tuned bias fields, thermal atoms can be trapped up to 3 mm from the wire center. Such large distances easily allow the micro-fabricated structures of Atom Chips to be placed between the wire and the trap.

Next we discuss two main uses of our traps: the creation of a large cold cloud or a sizable Bose-Einstein condensate and the manipulation and preparation of cold clouds for beam splitting and interferometry.

### 5.1 Bose-Einstein condensation

To achieve Bose-Einstein condensation in 87Rb, we start with the magnetic Z-trap of the copper structure. By varying the bias fields from 25 G to 60 G, the trap is compressed in 19 seconds to field gradients in excess of 400 G/cm at a trap distance of 1.5 mm from the wire center, reaching trap frequencies of $`\omega _{}>600`$ Hz, and reducing the trap minimum from 5 G to $`1`$ G. This linear compression ramp is combined with evaporative cooling by applying a linear RF-frequency ramp from 19 MHz to ca. 0.6 MHz. The resulting Bose-Einstein condensate contains approx. $`3\times 10^5`$ atoms in the $`|\mathrm{F}=2,\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{F}=2`$ state (Schneider et al. 2002; Kasper et al. 2002), located approx. 250 $`\mu `$m from the chip surface. Fig. 5 shows the atoms in the final trap, and the growth of the condensate in absorption images after 16 ms of expansion.

The condensate can be transferred to a 2 mm $`\times `$ 200 $`\mu `$m (base length $`\times `$ wire width) Z-trap on the chip in typically 100 ms. Since the condensation procedure does not use any chip trap complete freedom remains in the design of a specific wire layout on the chip.

Using wire cross sections as low as $`1\times 1`$ $`\mu `$m2 we have achieved trap frequencies of over 1 MHz. Such extremely tight traps enable very fast thermalisation, which may be used for rapid condensation on site aboard the chips. For instance: condensation on an Atom Chip in less than a second has been shown by Reichel (2002).

In the present experiments the chips have not been cooled. Theory predicts however, that decoherence can result from thermal induced current noise in the trapping wires, which effect becomes more important upon closer approach to the wires (Henkel et al. 2002). It is therefore interesting to investigate the influence on the coherence properties of cold samples when parts of the setup or the setup as a whole are cooled.

### 5.2 Beam splitting and interferometry

Combining several trapping and guiding geometries, beam splitters and interferometers can be built on board an Atom Chip. One can divide between spatial and temporal interferometers. Traps can be split magnetically (Folman et al. 2002; Reichel 2002), electrically (Folman et al. 2002; Klein 2002) and optically (Davis et al. 1995a; Greiner et al. 2002).

As an example we present the case of two wires with co-propagating currents in a transverse bias field, which may be used for temporal interferometry (Denschlag et al. 1999; Hinds et al. 2001). At zero bias field, there exists a magnetic quadrupole minimum in the plane of the wires, which in itself may be used to guide atoms (Thywissen et al. 1999; Sauer et al. 2001). When a transverse bias field is added, this in-plane minimum is shifted upwards while far away from the wires another minimum forms according to Eq. (1) with $`I_W`$ the total current of both wires. For increasing bias field strengths the minima approach each other along the symmetry plane until they merge in a single trap at a critical bias field strength. For even higher bias fields the finite-size effect of the trapping currents running in two separate wires instead of in a single wide wire prevails and the trap splits in two minima that move towards the wires.

Fig. 6 shows the equipotential lines in the symmetry plane between the wires and the experimental results of this procedure for two U-shaped wires, arranged as $``$, with the currents co-propagating along the bases (Folman et al. 2002; Wildermuth 2002). The atoms are first trapped in the outer minimum, upon increasing the bias field the trap is fully split. It is interesting to note that with the shown wire layout the horizontal splitting is complete as intended, however the vertical splitting results in a closed-loop atom guide. Since the open area can be controlled via the bias fields, this effect might be useful for experiments.

For spatial interferometry two X- or Y-shaped beam splitters can be put back to back. Beam splitting with magnetic Y-geometries has been shown and discussed in (Cassettari et al. 2000a, b). The coherence characteristics of a Y-beam splitter and of an atom interferometer built from two Y-splitters (Fig. 7) are discussed in detail by Andersson et al. (2002). In addition, a single X-beam splitter can be used as a Michelson interferometer (Dumke et al. 2002).

## 6 Possible applications for use in space

The use of on chip interferometer designs has the advantage of well defined interferometer arms. However, to reach the extreme sensitivity on the order of $`10^{18}`$, aimed for in precision interferometry experiments, ultra-stable control fields are needed. To use an Atom Chip interferometer for such precise measurements many questions still have to be addressed. This is an active research field, but at present there are no studies on systematic effects in guided matter wave interferometers. On the other hand, an Atom Chip setup is very well suited to serve as a source of cold atom clouds with precisely determined characteristics for use in free space interferometers.

By lowering the launch velocity of the cold atom cloud used in an interferometer, the Bragg diffraction in the beam splitter leads to a larger deflection angle. For a wavelength of 780 nm the recoil velocity for 87Rb atoms is $`6`$ mm/s. If the atoms have an equal forward velocity the deflection angle is $`45^{}`$ and a very large area can be enclosed by the interferometer. In order to benefit from this low velocity the momentum uncertainty in the cloud has also to be low.

With the magnetic Z-trap the BEC is prepared close to the chip surface. By smoothly accelerating the condensate while ramping down the trap frequency a slow free flying condensate with a long de Broglie wave length can be produced. The procedure can easily be adapted to deliver any cold atom cloud with specifically tailored properties for optimum use in atom clocks and interferometers.

Fig. 8 shows the results of a simulation of the release of a BEC with a final velocity of about 10 mm/s. The theory for the BEC dynamics in harmonic traps, in which the center of mass motion decouples fully from the shape dynamics, has been discussed by Kagan (1997) and Japha & Band (2002). A further assumption is that the condensate is in the Thomas-Fermi regime. The initial condensation trap has frequencies of $`500\mathrm{Hz}\times 500\mathrm{Hz}\times 50\mathrm{Hz}`$ in the $`x,y,z`$ coordinates. The initial BEC is assumed to consist of $`10^5`$ atoms. The acceleration is applied for 5 seconds with a constant rate of change of the acceleration to ensure a smooth motion (see also Gustavson et al. (2002)). After this time the trap centre is about 15 mm away from the starting point, which is easily achieved with the presented wire traps in micro-gravity conditions. At the same time the trap frequencies are ramped down exponentially to ensure a more or less adiabatic evolution of the condensate. The result is a condensate travelling at a speed of $`10`$ mm/s, thus moving $`1`$ m in 100 s. Due to the almost adiabatic expansion, the expansion velocity of the condensate is lowered and after a 100 s flight the condensate is approximately spherical with a diameter of only approx. 15 mm. Thus the scheme provides an excellent source for cold atom clouds for use in an atom interferometer.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the EU project ACQUIRE, Austrian Science Fund (S065-05, SFB F15-07) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant Schm1599/2-1). L.F. acknowledges the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


text:
# Untitled Document

Comments on “Coexistence of Composite-Bosons and Composite-Fermions in Quantum Hall Bilayers, Simon et al cond-mat/0301203”  Keshav N. Shrivastava School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500046, India

Simon et al suggest that composite fermions (CF) must be replaced by composite bosons (CB) and “111” state is a boson state. However, we find that such a transition in real GaAs is not possible and the CF state can not become a boson. Simon et al suggest that the total number of CFs and CBs is conserved. However, we find that the number of quasiparticles need not be conserved. Similarly, Simon et al suggest that CFs are formed but we find that this formation does not conserve energy so that CFs will not be formed. Simon et al compute using products of fermion and boson wave functions. We find that these results are not in agreement with the experimental data.

Corresponding author: keshav@mailaps.org
Fax: +91-402-301 0145.Phone: 301 0811.

1. Introduction

Recently, Simon et al have suggested that in a bilayer with each layer half filled as the layer separation is reduced, the CF Fermi sea must be replaced by a composite boson or a “111” state. It has been proposed that CFs and CBs coexist in two interpenetrating fluids. It is further claimed that a Chern-Simons transport theory is constructed that is compatible with experiments. The numerically exact computation of the energy and wave function has been presented. We find that (a) “111” state is antisymmetric and hence a fermion. In a Laughlin representation both the fermions as well as bosons are possible. (b) The formation of CF and hence that of CB is subject to flux attachment to the electrons but there is no provision to detach flux from the electrons. We can make Laughlin’s incompressible fractionally charged quasiparticles or the compressible CFs with field corrected but not both. The flux is not independent of currents. (c) We discuss the Chern-Simons field. However, we find that such a theory is not in agreement with the experimental data. The numerically exact calculation gives a very broad maxima whereas the experimental data has a very sharp peak.

2. Comments.

(i) The “111” state

Consider a system with two layers in which each layer is half filled, i.e., $`\nu =n\varphi _o/B`$=1/2 where $`n`$ is the density of electrons per unit area and $`\varphi _o`$ is the unit flux, $`\varphi _o`$=hc/e. The magnetic field, $`B`$, is applied perpendicular to the surface of the sample. The spacing between two layers is $`d`$. Simon et al suggest that for large $`d`$ the system is described as compressible composite fermion (CF) Fermi sea with strong intralayer correlations and no interlayer correlations. For small values of $`d`$, there is a “111” state which can be described as a composite boson (CB).

First of all the CFs are unrealistic and internally inconsistent objects as explained in the past. Their mass is much too big and their size is also too large to fit in. The density of CFs also can not be equal to that of the electrons. The “111” state will have factors like,

$$\psi _{111}(z_{11}z_{12})(z_{21}z_{22})(z_{31}z_{32})$$
(1)
where in $`z_{ij}`$ the first subscript indicates coordinates of three electrons,$`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, and $`z_3`$. The second subscript identifies two electrons, $`z_{i1}`$ and $`z_{i2}`$. When the second subscript is interchanged $`z_{11}`$-$`z_{12}`$ becomes $`z_{12}`$-$`z_{11}`$ so that it changes sign. All of the three products change sign upon interchanging the second subscript. Hence $`z_{11}`$-$`z_{12}`$ is antisymmetric. Similarly, the other two products are also antisymmetric. The exponent $`m`$=1 or odd in (z11-z$`{}_{12}{}^{})^m`$ maintains antisymmetry. Therefore, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}111\mathrm{"}`$ is antisymmetric and hence always a fermionic state. This state can not become a boson. When $`m=3`$ the state $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}333\mathrm{"}`$ will also be antisymmetric and hence a fermionic state and never a bosonic state. When $`m`$=even, for example, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}222\mathrm{"}`$,i.e.,

$$\psi _{222}=(z_{11}z_{12})^2(z_{21}z_{22})^2(z_{31}z_{32})^2$$
(2)
is always a bosonic state by symmetry alone. The thermal distribution of bosons, $`n_b`$ and that of fermions, $`n_f`$, are given by,

$$<n_b>=[exp(\mathrm{}\omega \mu )/k_BT1]^1$$
(3)
and

$$<n_f>=[exp(ϵϵ_F)/k_BT+1]^1$$
(4)
at T=0, $`ϵ`$-$`ϵ_F/k_B`$T$`\mathrm{}`$ and hence the additional term of +1 in the denominator becomes negligible. Therefore, as far as thermal value is concerned,

$$<n_b>=<n_f>with\mathrm{}\omega =ϵϵ_F$$
(5)
and the concept of the three dimensional fermi surface given up, in one-dimension, the $`n_b`$ and $`n_f`$ can cross over. In this naive interpretation, in one dimension at zero temperature the boson number density becomes equal to the fermi value. Otherwise the Fermi and Bose statistices never meet. Therefore there is no chance of transmutation of Fermi and Bose statistices. There are quantum mechanical reasons why Bose and Fermi statistices never cross. For example, the fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle whereas bosons do not. In fact, Tomonaga had realised that one can not assign numerical values simultaneously to both kind of occupation numbers. Therefore, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}111\mathrm{"}`$ will be a fermion and never become a boson. Simon et al consider the nature of phase transition between CF and CB. In the modern field theory this type of change of statistics is not permitted. The assertion of Simon et al that $`\mathrm{`}111\mathrm{"}`$ state is a bosonic state is not correct.

(ii) Number conservation.

Simon et al suggested that transition between the CF Fermi sea and the CB $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}111\mathrm{"}`$ may be of first order. They also suggest that the total number of CBs and the CFs remain fixed. Usually the fermion number is conserved but the boson number need not be conserved. However, if bosons are charged with a unit charge, then charge conservation includes the conservation of boson number also. When one boson of fractional charge combines with one fermion of fractional charge, two particles combine into one, then charge is conserved but the number of particles is not. For example, charges 2/3 and 1/3 combine to make one particle of charge 1, then the number of quasiparticles is not conserved. Two particles of charge 1/3 each may combine to form one particle of charge 2/3. Then the number is not conserved. If one electron and one hole combine and one photon is emitted, then the number of quasiparticles is not conserved. Therefore, the experimental observation need not agree with the theoretical idea of Simon et al that the number of quasiparticles is conserved.

(iii) Energy conservation.

The CF is obtained by attaching 2 zeros of the wave function to each electron\[4-6\]. This attachment has not been obtained by quantum mechanics. This is a result of $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}random\mathrm{"}`$ writing of experimentally obtained effective charges which has not yet been derived by theory of electrodynamics. The Chern-Simons correction has been obtained by setting the scalar potential to zero and correcting only the vector potential of the electromagnetic field. This kind of calculation will not be consistent with the electromagnetic field theory of the classical electrodynamics which is the basis of production of magnets. It will modify the Maxwell equations and hence will be inconsistent with the experimental data. Simon et al suggest that the two flux quanta are attached to one electron so that the magnetic field becomes,

$$B^{}=B2n\varphi _o$$
(6)
and the electric field becomes,

$$E^{}=E2ϵJ$$
(7)
where $`𝐄`$ is the actual electric field, $`𝐉`$ is the fermion current and $`ϵ=(h/e^2)\tau `$ with $`\tau =i\sigma _y`$. Here $`E^{}`$=$`\rho _f𝐉`$ so that the electrical resistivity becomes,

$$\rho =\rho _f+2ϵ.$$
(8)
When $`E^{}\times B^{}`$ is the electromagnetic energy, it is less than $`E\times B`$. The energy in $`E^{}\times B^{}`$ is less than in $`E\times B`$ by the amount, $`4ϵn\varphi _oJ_x`$-2$`ϵJ_xB_z`$-2$`n\varphi _oE_x`$. Then what happened to the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}missingenergy\mathrm{"}`$? This means that when CFs are created from electrons, the energy is not conserved. There is nothing in the Jain’s formulas which can conserve energy. Therefore, the CFs are not consistent with the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}principleofconservationofenergy\mathrm{"}`$. When CF breaks, the electrons and even number of flux quanta are created. The flux quanta are bosons and their emission satisfies the Goldstone theorem but along with the flux quanta, currents should also be emitted. No such currents are prescribed by CF formulas. Hence, the CF is internally inconsistent.

(iv) Incompressibility.

There is an idea that electron is bound to a single zero of the wave function. So that when product wave function is written, the electron wave function will be multiplied by zero and become zero. Then there is no flux attachment in the Laughlin wave function. In the case of Laughlin’s wave function, the system is incompressible. In the case of flux attachment, the system becomes compressible. Either the charge is modified by making the system incompressible or the field is modified in the compressible system. Thus both possibilities will be incompatible but one may resort to taking linear combination of both results but then such a phenomenon does not occur.

Simon et al suggest that a Chern-Simons theory can be written for $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}111\mathrm{"}`$ state. Here each electron is exactly modeled as a boson bound to 1 flux quantum, where the bosons see flux from both layers. The effective magnetic field seen due to electron density $`n^{(1)}`$ in one layer and $`n^{(2)}`$ in another layer is written as,

$$B^\alpha =B\varphi _o(n^{(1)}+n^{(2)})$$
(9)
and the electric field becomes,

$$E^\alpha =E^\alpha ϵ(J^{(1)}+J^{(2)}).$$
(10)
At the condensation point, $`E^\alpha =0`$ so that $`E^\alpha `$=$`ϵ(J^{(1)}+J^{(2)})`$. However, as pointed out, if both $`E^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ are reduced, then energy is not conserved.

(v) Calculation and Data.

Transition wavefunctions/numerical calculations. Simon et al considered a finite sized bilayer sphere with 5 electrons per layer and a monopole of flux 9$`\varphi _o`$ at its centre. They write products of wave functions in which some factors have even $`m`$ and some have odd so that products of fermion and boson wave functions arise. An effort is made to plot,

$$|<\psi _{trial}|\psi _{ground}>|^2andE_{trial}E_{ground}$$
(11)
These theoretical results are not in accord with the experimental data of Spielman et al. It has been suggested that the mixed CB-CF states have very high overlap with the exact ground state implying that the trial state is the ground state. So the trial state is a mixture of bosons and fermions. The experiment is consistent with the emission of a Goldstone boson which is not the same system as product of fermions and bosons. On theoretical grounds, there is no mention of orthogonality of wave functions and the orthogonal wave functions have not been written down. It has been suggested that CB-CF theory can be generalized for unequal densities as well as for filling fractions away from $`\nu _1=\nu _2=1/2`$. Surely, there are unequal densities but then such corrections if made will reduce the existing agreement between theory and the data. Simon et al have described the crossover between a CF liquid and a CB state and obtained exact results. They also claim that their appears to be a reasonable agreement with the data. The fermions obey anticommutators and bosons commutators but there is no way for anticommutators to become commutators. If fermions are transmutated to bosons, it may be so at zero temperature. The exactness of the Laughlin calculation assumes $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}incompressibility\mathrm{"}`$ but the real system is compressible. In the experiments on quantum Hall effect in bilayers, there is no evidence of transmutation. The data need not be incompressible. There is no evidence of flux quanta attachment since there is no detachment. The experimental data also does not show evidence of conversion of bosons into fermions. In short, contrary to the claims made by Simon et al the data is not in agreemwent with the theory of Simon et al.

(vi) Correction.

The mass of a CF is several thousand times larger than the experimental mass. For $`{}_{}{}^{2}CF`$ the mass may be 1000$`m_e`$ but the experimental mass is 0.4$`m_e`$. Hence there is no way for the CF-CB theory to agree with the data.

3. Conclusions.

There is a product of fermion and boson wave functions and it is claimed by Simon et al that such a wave function agrees with the data. We find that the algebra in the Laughlin wave function assumes incompressibility while in the CF model the system is compressible. The experimental data of Spielman et al has a sharp peak while the calculation of Simon et al has a broad response. Therefore, contrary to what is claimed the data are not in agreement with calculations of Simon et al.

About the author: Keshav Shrivastava has obtained Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology and D. Sc. from Calcutta University. He is a member of the American Physical Society, Fellow of the Institute of Physics (U.K.)and Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India. He has worked in the Harvard University, University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of Houston and the Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm. He has published 170 papers in the last 40 years. He is the author of two books.

The correct theory of quantum Hall effect is given in ref.8.

5. References

1. S. H. Simon, E. H. Rezayi and M. Milovanovic, cond-mat/0301203.
2. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0210320.
3. S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 5, 544 (1950).
4. J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 199 (1989).
5. K. Park and J. K. Jain, 80, 437 (1998)
6. O. Heinonen, ed., Composite Fermions, World Scientific, 1998.
7. I. B. Spielman, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer and K. W. West, 84, 5808(2000); 87, 036803(2001).
8. K.N. Shrivastava, Introduction to quantum Hall effect,
Nova Science Pub. Inc., N. Y. (2002).

Note: Ref. 8 is available from:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,
400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600,
Hauppauge, N. Y.. 11788-3619,
Tel.(631)-231-7269, Fax: (631)-231-8175,
ISBN 1-59033-419-1 US$`\$69`$.
E-mail: novascience@Earthlink.net


text:
# Computing Symmetrized Weight Enumerators for Lifted Quadratic Residue Codes

## 1 Introduction

Ring-linear codes have gained importance since the beginning of the last decade when it was discovered that certain non-linear binary codes are actually linear over $`_4`$, the ring of integers modulo $`4`$ (cf. ). Since then a variety of papers has appeared dealing with different foundational, constructive and analytical aspects of ring-linear coding . It appears that primary integer residue rings and more generally Galois rings form a most important class of ring alphabets for contemporary ring-linear coding theory . For ring-linear codes, the Hamming weight generalizes to the symmetrized weight which uses a partition of the alphabet into equivalence classes such that two letters are equivalent if and only if they are associated, meaning they are unit multiples of each other. In particular, for a $`_{p^m}`$linear code, the symmetrized weight uses a partition of the alphabet into $`m+1`$ equivalence classes and the symmetrized weight enumerators are polynomials in $`m+1`$ variables.

The investigations in the current paper were motivated by the discovery of some high-quality codes over $`_8`$, $`_9`$ and $`\mathrm{GR}(4,2)`$. The paper  introduces a binary $`(96,2^{37},24)`$ code derived from a $`_8`$-linear lift of the extended binary Golay code. The properties of the binary code follow from the symmetrized weight enumerator of the $`_8`$-linear code. Similarly, in  we describe a ternary $`(72,3^{25},24)`$-code derived from a $`_9`$-linear lift of the extended ternary QR-code of length $`24`$. Again, the properties of the ternary code are derived from the symmetrized weight enumerator of the $`_9`$-linear code. Both the binary and the ternary code have more codewords than previously known codes of the same length and distance.

The investigation of these and other examples naturally revealed the feasibility limitation of a brute-force determination of symmetrized weight enumerators. At the same time the quality of the discovered codes suggested the development of a more rigid and theoretical tool for the computation of structural parameters for ring-linear codes. This article therefore presents a method to efficiently compute weight enumerators of linear codes over primary integer residue rings. For the lifted QR-codes of length $`24`$ over $`_8`$ and $`_9`$, respectively, the method reproduces weight enumerators that were obtained by brute-force computation in  and , respectively.

The main ingredient for our method is the notion of a disjoint weight enumerator $`A_{s,t}`$. Given a family $`(C_s)_s`$ of $`_{p^s}`$-linear codes with the property that $`C_{s+1}`$ is a lift of $`C_s`$ for all $`s`$, the weight enumerator $`A_{s,t}`$ contains combined information of $`C_s`$ and $`C_t^{}`$. Furthermore we will use what we call partial weight enumerators $`D_{i,j}`$ in order to ease the computation of the $`A_{s,t}`$. It turns out that only a finite number of $`D_{i,j}`$ need to be computed in order to determine the entire collection $`(A_{s,t})_{s,t}`$. This allows us to extend the results for codes over $`_8`$ and $`_9`$, and to describe the symmetrized weight enumerators for lifted QR-codes of length $`24`$ over $`_{2^m}`$ and $`_{3^m}`$, for any $`m`$. For further properties of disjoint weight enumerators and partial weight enumerators, we refer to .

## 2 Disjoint weight enumerators

Let $`C_m`$ be a code with coefficients in $`/p^m`$. The composition of a codeword $`cC_m`$ is the $`m+1`$ tuple $`\mathrm{wt}(c):=(n_0,n_1,\mathrm{},n_{m1},n_{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`n_i`$ is the number of coefficients in $`c`$ that have $`p`$-adic valuation $`i`$.

###### Definition 1

The symmetrized weight enumerator of the code $`C_m`$ is the polynomial in $`m+1`$ variables

$$A(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1};;z)=\underset{cC_m}{}x_0^{n_0}x_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}x_{m1}^{n_{m1}}z^n_{\mathrm{}}$$

The variables in the weight enumerator are divided over three groups. The second group of variables is reserved to give information about the dual code. Thus,

$$A(;y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{m1};z)=\underset{cC_m^{}}{}y_0^{n_0}y_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}y_{m1}^{n_{m1}}z^n_{\mathrm{}}$$

will denote the dual weight enumerator.

###### Example 2

The Octacode (cf. ) is defined as an extended cyclic code of length $`8`$ over $`_4`$. It is of rank $`4`$ over $`_4`$ and has weight enumerator

$`A(u,v;;z)`$ $`=`$ $`z^8+112z^3u^4v+112zu^4v^3+16u^8+14z^4v^4+v^8.`$
The code is self-dual and the dual weight enumerator $`A(;u,v;z)`$ equals $`A(u,v;;z)`$.

###### Definition 3

For $`m,\mathrm{}0`$, we define disjoint weight enumerators inductively by

$`A_{m+1,\mathrm{}}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C_1^{}|}}A_{m,\mathrm{}+1}(px_0,px_1,\mathrm{},px_{m1};y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1,zx_m;z+(p1)x_m).`$ (1)
The inverse transform

$`A_{m,\mathrm{}+1}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1};y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}};z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C|}}A_{m+1,\mathrm{}}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1},zy_{\mathrm{}};py_0,py_1,\mathrm{},py_\mathrm{}1;z+(p1)y_{\mathrm{}})`$ (2)
is easily verified. In particular the transform is symmetric in the two groups of variables.

###### Remark 4

The above definition is compatible with the MacWilliams’ transform for symmetrized weight enumerators over the alphabet $`_{p^m}`$ that transforms $`A_{m,0}`$ into $`A_{0,m}`$. Thus the above transformations give a decomposition of the MacWilliams’ transform into smaller steps, much like a Welsh-Hadamard transform. This is possible because the $`p`$-adic weight function corresponds to a subgroup filtration of the alphabet $`_{p^m}`$, such that at each step in the filtration the subgroups are of same index $`p`$.

###### Example 5

For a code over $`Z_4`$ the transforms in the defintion become

$`A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{1,1}(2u;zv;z+v)/|C_1^{}|`$
$`A_{1,1}(u;v;z)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{0,2}(;v,zu;z+u)/|C_1^{}|`$
with inverse transforms

$`A_{1,1}(u;v;z)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{2,0}(u,zv;;z+v)/|C_1|`$
$`A_{0,2}(;u,v;z)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{1,1}(zv;2u;z+v)/|C_1|`$
In particular for the Octacode,

$$A_{1,1}=z^8+14u^4z^4+u^8+14v^4z^4+v^814u^4v^4$$

## 3 Partial weight enumerators

The weight enumerator $`A_{m+1,0}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)`$ of a $`_{p^m}`$-linear code $`C`$ contains a contribution $`A_{m,0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)`$ from the subcode $`pC`$. We introduce the partial weight enumerator $`D_{m+1,0}`$ that measures the difference. So that

$`A_{m+1,0}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)`$
$`=A_{m,0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)+D_{m+1,0}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;;z).`$ (3)
More generally we define an array of partial weight enumerators.

###### Definition 6

For $`m,\mathrm{}0`$ we define the partial weight enumerators $`D_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ as the sum of those monomials in $`A_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ that are divisible by $`x_0y_0`$.

Thus, the partial weight enumerators become the building blocks for the actual weight enumerators,

$`A_{m,\mathrm{}}(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{m1};y_0,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{im}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{}}{}}D_{i,j}(x_{mi},\mathrm{},x_{m1};y_\mathrm{}j,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z).`$ (4)
###### Example 7

For the Octacode, the decomposition $`A_{1,1}=D_{0,0}+D_{0,1}+D_{1,0}+D_{1,1}`$ of $`A_{1,1}(u;v;z)`$ becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D_{0,0}(;;z)=z^8,\hfill & & D_{0,1}(;v;z)=14v^4z^4+v^8,\hfill \\ D_{1,0}(u;;z)=14u^4z^4+u^8,\hfill & & D_{1,1}(u;v;z)=14u^4v^4.\hfill \end{array}$$

The terminology disjoint weight enumerator is motivated by the following theorem. It gives an explicit expression for $`D_{i,j}`$ as a sum over pairs of codewords with disjoint support.

###### Theorem 8 (see also )

Let $`\{C_i:i0\}`$ be a family of $`_{p^i}`$-linear codes with the property that $`C_{i+1}`$ is a lift of $`C_i`$ for all $`i0`$, and let $`\{C_j^{}:j0\}`$ be the family of dual codes. For each $`j0`$, there is a natural character family $`\{\chi _v:vC_j^{}\}`$ such that the partial weight enumerator $`D_{i,j}`$, for $`i0`$, is given by

$$D_{i,j}(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1};y_0,\mathrm{},y_{j1};z)=\underset{\begin{array}{cc}uC_i,vC_j^{}& \\ \overline{u}0\overline{v}& \\ uv=\mathrm{}& \end{array}}{}\chi _v(u)𝐱^{\mathrm{wt}(u)}𝐲^{\mathrm{wt}(v)}z^{n|u||v|}$$

Here $`𝐱^{\mathrm{wt}(u)}:=x_0^{n_0}\mathrm{}x_{i1}^{n_{i1}}`$ where $`\mathrm{wt}(u)=(n_0,\mathrm{},n_{i1})`$. An analogous definition is understood for $`𝐲^{\mathrm{wt}(v)}`$. And finally $`z`$ homogenizes the polynomial $`D_{i,j}`$ by counting the zeros outside $`uv`$.

The theorem shows that as $`i,j`$ increase we should expect fewer terms in the sum $`D_{i,j}`$ as the supports of codewords $`uC_i`$ and $`vC_j^{}`$ are non-decreasing with $`i`$ and $`j`$. In the next sections, it will turn out that this is the main reason that we will be able to compute and describe symmetrized weight enumerators efficiently.

###### Example 9

The Octacode has empty sum $`D_{2,1}`$ since any word $`u`$ in $`C_2`$ with $`\overline{u}0`$ has Hamming weight at least five and any word $`v`$ in $`C_1^{}`$ with $`\overline{v}0`$ has Hamming weight at least four. And the intersection of supports $`vu`$ consists of at least one position. Thus we find

$`A_{2,1}(u,v;w;z)`$ $`=`$ $`D_{0,0}(;;z)+D_{1,0}(v;;z)+D_{2,0}(u,v;;z)+`$
$`+D_{0,1}(;w;z)+D_{1,1}(v;w;z)+D_{2,1}(u,v;w;z)`$
$`=`$ $`(z^8)+(14v^4z^4+v^8)+(112z^3u^4v+112zu^4v^3+16u^8)`$
$`+(14w^4z^4+w^8)+(14v^4w^4)+(0).`$
Consequently $`A_{3,0}(u,v,w;;z)`$ can be computed via

$`A_{3,0}(u,v,w;;z)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{2,1}(2u,2v;zw;z+w)/2^4`$
$`=`$ $`z^8+14w^4z^4+w^8+112z^3v^4w+112zv^4w^3+16v^8`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}224}z^3u^4v+672z^2u^4vw+896zu^4v^3+672zu^4vw^2`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}256}u^8+896u^4v^3w+224u^4vw^3+16v^8`$
In particular, the information to compute the $`_8`$ weight enumerator is already contained in the $`_4`$ weight enumerator. We say the Octacode has $`p`$-adic depth two.

## 4 Computing symmetrized weight enumerators

First we observe that the transform relations (1) and (2) for the weight enumerators $`A_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ hold for the partial weight enumerators $`D_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ as well, provided both $`m>0`$ and $`\mathrm{}>0`$.

###### Lemma 10

For $`m,\mathrm{}>0`$,

$`D_{m+1,\mathrm{}}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C_1^{}|}}D_{m,\mathrm{}+1}(px_0,px_1,\mathrm{},px_{m1};y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1,zx_m;z+(p1)x_m).`$ (5)
$`D_{m,\mathrm{}+1}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1};y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}};z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C|}}D_{m+1,\mathrm{}}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1},zy_{\mathrm{}};py_0,py_1,\mathrm{},py_\mathrm{}1;z+(p1)y_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (6)
Proof: It suffices to consider (5). With (4) we obtain, for $`\mathrm{}>0`$,

$`A_{m+1,\mathrm{}}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)`$
$`=`$ $`A_{m,\mathrm{}}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)+A_{m+1,\mathrm{}1}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)`$
$`A_{m,\mathrm{}1}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z)+D_{m+1,\mathrm{}}(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_\mathrm{}1;z).`$
All terms but $`D_{m+1,\mathrm{}}`$ can be rewritten using the transform (1), for $`m>0`$. But then also $`D_{m+1,\mathrm{}}`$ obeys the transform. ∎

For the cases $`\mathrm{}=0`$ or $`m=0`$, respectively, an extra term needs to be included in the right hand side of equation (5) or (6), respectively.

###### Lemma 11

For $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`m>0`$,

$`D_{m+1,0}(x_0,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C^{}|}}(D_{m,0}(px_0,\mathrm{},px_{m1};;z+(p1)x_m)`$
$`+D_{m,1}(px_0,\mathrm{},px_{m1};zx_m;z+(p1)x_m))`$ (7)
For $`m=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}>0`$,

$`D_{0,\mathrm{}+1}(;y_0,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}};;z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C|}}(D_{0,\mathrm{}}(;py_0,\mathrm{},py_\mathrm{}1;;z+(p1)y_{\mathrm{}})`$
$`+D_{1,\mathrm{}}(;py_0,\mathrm{},py_\mathrm{}1;zy_{\mathrm{}};z+(p1)y_{\mathrm{}}))`$ (8)
Proof: It suffices to consider (7). First we write

$$A_{m+1,0}(x_0,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)=\frac{1}{|C_1^{}|}A_{m,1}(px_0,px_1,\mathrm{},px_{m1};zx_m;z+(p1)x_m).$$

A decomposition similar to that used in the previous lemma applies to $`A_{m,1}`$, for $`m>0`$,

$`A_{m,1}(px_0,\mathrm{},px_{m1};zx_m;z+(p1)x_m)`$
$`=`$ $`A_{m1,1}(px_1,\mathrm{},px_{m1};zx_m;z+(p1)x_m)`$
$`+A_{m,0}(px_0,\mathrm{},px_{m1};;z+(p1)x_m)`$
$`A_{m1,0}(px_1,\mathrm{},px_{m1};;z+(p1)x_m)`$
$`+D_{m,1}(px_0,\mathrm{},px_{m1};zx_m;z+(p1)x_m)`$
For the contribution $`A_{m1,1}`$ we have

$$A_{m,0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;;z)=\frac{1}{|C_1^{}|}A_{m1,1}(px_1,\mathrm{},px_{m1};zx_m;z+(p1)x_m).$$

Collecting terms, using (3) twice, gives (7). The relation (8) follows by symmetry. ∎

In general, we obtain the following recursive procedure to compute $`A_{m+l+2,0}`$ from $`A_{m+l+1,0}`$ for a known partial weight enumerator $`D_{m+1,l+1}`$.

###### Theorem 12 (Computing symmetrized weight enumerators)

Let the symmetrized weight enumerator $`A_{m+\mathrm{}+1,0}`$ be known together with a partial weight enumerator $`D_{m+1,\mathrm{}+1}`$, for some $`m,\mathrm{}0`$. Then $`A_{m+\mathrm{}+2,0}`$ is obtained as follows

1. Use the transform (5) repeatedly to obtain $`D_{m+\mathrm{}+1,1}`$ from $`D_{m+1,\mathrm{}+1}`$.
2. Use the transform (7) to obtain $`D_{m+\mathrm{}+2,0}`$ from $`D_{m+\mathrm{}+1,1}`$ and $`D_{m+\mathrm{}+1,0}`$.
3. Use (3) to obtain $`A_{m+\mathrm{}+2,0}`$ from $`A_{m+\mathrm{}+1,0}`$ and $`D_{m+\mathrm{}+2,0}`$.

###### Remark 13

To compute the symmetrized weight enumerators $`A_{m,0}`$ for all $`m0`$, it suffices with the theorem to give one partial weight enumerator $`D_{i,j}`$ for each value of $`i+j0`$. The procedure succeeds in computing $`A_{m,0}`$ only in as far as we can determine $`D_{i,j}`$, for $`i+jm`$. As indicated after Theorem 8 this actually becomes easier as $`i`$ and $`j`$ increase as the $`D_{i,j}`$ tend to have fewer terms for larger values of $`i`$ and $`j`$. This behaviour of course is directly opposite to a brute-force computation, for which the complexity of computing $`A_{m,0}`$ grows exponentially with $`m`$.

###### Remark 14

The fact that the partial weight enumerators $`D_{i,j}`$ have few terms, especially for values of $`i`$ and $`j`$ that are comparable, makes them the better choice for storing and representing the weight enumerator $`A`$. With the transforms used in the theorem they expand rapidly.

###### Remark 15

The best way to compute the $`D_{i,j}`$ is recursively. Pairs of words $`(u^{},v^{})`$ that occur in the sum $`D_{i^{},j^{}}`$, for large $`i^{},j^{}`$, reduce to pairs $`(u,v)`$ that occur in the sum $`D_{i,j}`$, for $`ii^{},jj^{}`$. Namely if $`u^{},v^{}`$ have disjoint support, then certainly their reductions $`u,v`$ have disjoint support. Thus a critical stage is to compute $`D_{1,1}`$, which runs over all pairs $`(u,v)C\times C^{}`$ with disjoint support. A large automorphism group will help to reduce the computations. For a given complete list of disjoint words for the code and its dual over $`/p`$, it is relatively straightforward to compute the $`D_{i,j}`$ as $`i`$ and $`j`$ increase. They can be computed either directly, by lifting the words in the list, or by introducing unknowns for the coefficients in $`D_{i,j}`$ and then computing just enough terms in the weight enumerator $`A_{i+j,0}`$ to determine the unknowns. The last option worked well for the quadratic residue codes of length $`24`$, for which the results are given in the following sections.

## 5 Lifts of the $`[\mathrm{𝟐𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏𝟐},\mathrm{𝟖}]`$ binary Golay code

In this section we will apply theorem 12 to the binary Golay code and verify results for the $`_4`$ lifted code  and the $`_8`$ lifted code . In fact we describe the symmetrized weight enumerator for any lift of the binary Golay code by giving enough partial weight enumerators. Computations as described in Remark 15 were carried out in Magma  and required less than a few minutes on a Pentium III 750MHZ laptop. In comparison, computing the weight enumerator of just the $`/8`$ lifted Golay code via an exhaustive computation required more than a 24 hours, and is unfeasible for the larger alphabets.

###### Theorem 16

Let $`\{C_m:m0\}`$ be the family of lifted extended cyclic quadratic residue codes of length $`24`$ modulo $`2^m`$. The partial weight enumerators are

$`D_{0,0}`$ $`=`$ $`z^{24}`$
$`D_{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`759z^{16}u^8+2576z^{12}u^{12}+759z^8u^{16}+u^{24}`$
$`D_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`759u^{16}v^82576u^{12}v^{12}+759u^8v^{16}1518z^8u^8v^8`$
$`D_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`75916u^8w^8(v^2z^6+2v^4z^4v^6z^2)`$
$`D_{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`75964u^8w^8(v^2x^2z^4+v^4x^2z^2+v^2x^4z^2+v^4x^4)`$
$`D_{3,2}`$ $`=`$ $`759128u^8x^8(v^4y^2z^2+2v^4wy^2zv^4w^2y^2+v^4y^4v^2w^2y^4)`$
$`D_{3,3}`$ $`=`$ $`759128u^8x^8(2v^4y^4+v^4y^2t^2+v^2w^2y^4v^2w^2y^2t^2)`$
$`D_{4,3}`$ $`=`$ $`759128u^8y^8(v^4t^2s^2v^2w^2t^42v^2wxt^2sz+2v^2wx^2t^2s)`$
$`D_{4,4}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{etc.}`$
In each of the $`D_{i,j}`$’s, the variables $`z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1},y_0,\mathrm{},y_{j1}`$, are replaced with the variables $`z,u,v,w,x,y,t,s`$, in that order.

We look at two special cases. The symmetrized weight enumerator $`A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)`$ is particularly important. It was computed in . There it is shown that the theta series of the Leech lattice follows with the substitution

$$z=\underset{x4}{}q^{x^2},u=\underset{x4+1}{}q^{x^2},v=\underset{x4+2}{}q^{x^2}$$

Similar to Example 7, $`A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)`$ has the following expression in terms of partial weight enumerators.

###### Corollary 17

For the quaternary extended Golay code,

$$A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)=A_{1,1}(2u;zv;z+v)/2^{12}$$

$$A_{1,1}(u;v;z)=D_{0,0}(;;z)+D_{1,0}(u;;z)+D_{0,1}(;v;z)+D_{1,1}(u;v;z)$$

Thus, for a known weight enumerator $`A_{1,0}`$ of the binary golay code, the only new information is given by the coefficients $`759,2576,759,1518`$ in $`D_{1,1}`$. They are uniquely determined with the arguments from . The first three coefficients are unique such that the Euclidean weights of the lifted code are divisible by eight. And the final coefficient is unique such that the lifted code contains no word with eight units and sixteen zeros. In , $`A_{2,0}`$ is first expressed in terms of invariants before the coefficients can be determined. That part of the computation is avoided in our computation.

Another important weight enumerator is $`A_{3,0}(u,v,w;;z)`$ which yields the Hamming weight enumerator for the non-linear binary code $`(96,2^{36},24)`$ used in  after the substitution $`(u,v,w,z)(t^2,t^2,t^4,1)`$. We give the expression for $`A_{3,0}(u,v;;z)`$ in terms of the partial weight enumerators. The expanded expression covers one page .

###### Corollary 18

For the $`_8`$-linear extended Golay code,

$$A_{3,0}(u,v,w;;z)=A_{2,1}(2u,2v;zw;z+w)/2^{12}$$

$`A_{2,1}(u,v;w;z)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)+A_{1,1}(v;w;z)A_{1,0}(v;;z)+D_{2,1}(u,v;w;z)`$
## 6 Lifts of the $`[\mathrm{𝟐𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏𝟐},\mathrm{𝟗}]`$ ternary QR code

We describe the symmetrized weight enumerator for any lift of the extended ternary quadratic residue code of length $`24`$.

###### Theorem 19

Let $`\{C_m:m0\}`$ be the family of lifted extended cyclic quadratic residue codes of length $`24`$ modulo $`3^m`$. The partial weight enumerators are

$`D_{0,0}`$ $`=`$ $`z^{24}`$
$`D_{1,0}`$ $`=`$ $`4048z^{15}u^9+61824z^{12}u^{12}+242880z^9u^{15}+198352z^6u^{18}+24288z^3u^{21}+48u^{24}`$
$`D_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`16192z^6u^9v^9+12144z^3u^9v^{12}+12144z^3u^{12}v^91104u^{12}v^{12}`$
$`D_{2,1}`$ $`=`$ $`404818u^9w^9\left(v^2z^4+v^3z^3+v^5zv^6u^3z^3+3u^3vz^23u^3v^2z+u^3v^3v^3w^3\right)`$
$`D_{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`4048117u^9w^9(v^3x^3)`$
$`D_{3,2}`$ $`=`$ $`404827u^9x^9\left(6v^2y^2wz+6v^2y^2w^2v^3y^3\right)`$
$`D_{3,3}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{etc.}`$
In each of the $`D_{i,j}`$’s, the variables $`z,x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1},y_0,\mathrm{},y_{j1}`$, are replaced with the variables $`z,u,v,w,x,y,t,s`$, in that order.

The weight enumerator $`A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)`$ yields the Hamming weight enumerator for the non-linear ternary code $`(72,3^24,24)`$ used in  after the substitution $`(u,v,z)(t^2,t^3,1)`$. The expanded expression for $`A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)`$ covers half a page .

###### Corollary 20

For the $`_9`$-linear extended QR-code of length $`24`$,

$$A_{2,0}(u,v;;z)=A_{1,1}(3u;zw;z+2w)/3^{12}$$

$$A_{1,1}(u;v;z)=D_{0,0}(;;z)+D_{1,0}(u;;z)+D_{0,1}(;v;z)+D_{1,1}(u;v;z)$$