text:
# On the hyperfine interaction in rare-earth Van Vleck paramagnets at high magnetic fields

## 1 Introduction

Van Vleck (VV) or polarization magnetism most often occurs in crystals containing non-Kramers rare-earth (RE) ions, i.e. ions with an even numbers of electrons in the unfilled $`4f`$-shell, where the crystalline electric field lifts the degeneracy of the ground multiplet $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$, leading to typical splittings of the Stark structure of the order of 10-100 cm<sup>-1</sup>. The electronic ground state in this case is a singlet or non-magnetic doublet so all magnetic properties of Van Vleck paramagnets are necessitated by the Zeeman effect which at moderate magnetic fields (the Zeeman energy is much more less then the Stark splittings) can be calculated in the second order of perturbation theory . The rather strong hyperfine interaction induces the magnetic field at the nucleus of VV ion in many times greater than the applied external magnetic field and leads to enormous values (up to several hundred) of paramagnetic shift of the NMR lines. This so-called ”enhanced” NMR is one the most important methods for studying the magnetic properties of VV paramagnets .

At high magnetic fields the Zeeman energy of RE ion becomes comparable with the Stark splitting energies and a number of new physical effects appears . Among them the magnetic field induced structural phase transitions in dielectric VV paramagnets $`TmPO_4`$  and $`LiTmF_4`$  and the coupled $`4f`$-electron-phonon excitations in the thulium ethylsulphate crystal $`Tm(C_2H_5SO_4)_29H_2O`$ ($`TmES`$) can be mentioned. From the theoretical point of view the applicability of perturbation theory is violated at high magnetic fields and a new theory has to be built . For example, it was shown in  that at high magnetic fields the coupled $`4f`$-electron-nuclear states in insulating VV paramagnets appear. The resonant absorption due to the transitions between electronic-nuclear sublevels of the ground singlet in $`TmES`$ crystal has been observed in  at magnetic fields up to $`3T`$. It should be pointed out that the frequencies of those transitions lie almost in the X band of the EPR frequencies while the transition probabilities are determined by the matrix elements of the nuclear spin operator. From this point of view it is reasonable to speak about ”ultrahigh- frequency” NMR at high magnetic field, in contrast to the ”enhanced” NMR at moderate magnetic fields. The observed field dependence of transition frequencies doesn’t coincide with the predicted one in  where for clarity in setting forth the essential changes arising in properties of the nuclear-spin system of an insulating VV paramagnet under influence of a high magnetic field the possible changes in hyperfine interaction parameters were neglected. But a sufficiently high magnetic field will cause distortion of the $`4f`$-electron shell and a redistribution of the electron density, inevitably altering the hyperfine field at the nucleus.

In this Paper, we investigate theoretically the influence of a rather high external magnetic fields on hyperfine interaction in dielectric VV paramagnets. As a model system the well-studied at moderate magnetic fields $`TmES`$ crystal is considered.

## 2 Hyperfine interaction in VV paramagnets

The Hamiltonian of an isolated VV ion (the distance between two nearest-neighbor thulium ions in $`TmES`$ is $`7`$ $`\AA `$ and single-ion approximation works a rather well) can be written as

$$=_{cr}+_{eZ}+_{nZ}+_{hf},$$
(1)
where the crystal electric field Hamiltonian in generally accepted notations  reads as

$$_{cr}=\alpha B_{20}O_2^0+\beta B_{40}O_4^0+\gamma (B_{60}O_6^0+B_{66}O_6^6).$$
(2)
The Hamiltonian of the Zeeman interaction of $`4f`$-electron shell and that of the nuclear Zeeman interaction are in usual forms:

$$_{eZ}=g_J\mu _B\mathrm{𝐇𝐉},_{nZ}=\gamma _I\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝐇𝐈}.$$
(3)
The explicit form of the Hamiltonian of hyperfine interaction $`_{hf}`$ can be estimated in the case of RE ions in the following way (see, for example, ; note, that we shall not consider hereinafter quadrupole effects because of $`{}_{}{}^{169}Tm`$ nuclear spin is one-half). For a free RE the magnetic interaction with the nucleus of the electrons in the partially filled $`4f`$-shell with orbital moments $`𝐥_i`$ and spins $`𝐬_i`$ is given by

$$_{hf}=2\mu _B\gamma _I\mathrm{}\underset{i4f}{}\{r_i^3[𝐥_i𝐬_i+3𝐫_i(𝐫_i𝐬_i)/r_i^2]\}𝐈=2\mu _B\gamma _I\mathrm{}r_i^3(𝐍𝐈)$$
(4)
and can be represented within the the ground multiplet manifold $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$ where the total angular momentum $`𝐉`$ is the good quantum number as

$$_{hf}=2\mu _B\gamma _I\mathrm{}r_i^3JNJ(𝐉𝐈)=A_{hf}(\mathrm{𝐉𝐈}).$$
(5)
The reduced matrix elements $`JNJ`$ are tabulated for different $`4f^n`$ electronic configurations .

For an RE ion in a crystal the crystal electric field reduces the rotational symmetry of free atom and removes partially or completely the degeneracies of energy levels. As the result there asymmetry reflected the local environment symmetry of an RE ion appears in hyperfine interaction parameter $`A_{hf}`$. So the Eq.5 has to be replaced by

$$_{hf}=(𝐉\stackrel{~}{A}𝐈).$$
(6)
For example, in the ethylsulphates of RE ions with magnetic ground states (electronics levels exhibit Kramer’s degeneracy) the principal values of the hyperfine interaction tensor $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ obtained by measurements of hyperfine structure of the paramagnetic resonance lines can differ in $`10`$ times and more. But for VV ions, i.e. non-Kramer’s ions with a non-magnetic ground state like $`Tm^{3+}`$ in $`TmES`$ (the total angular momentum is quenched by the crystal electric field), the paramagnetic resonance is not observable and the principal values of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ are determined by indirect way. For our estimations we have used the measured by means of the enhanced NMR at moderate magnetic fields so-called paramagnetic shift  which is anisotropic and the values of which depend on the strength of hyperfine interaction as well as on the degree of mixing of the Stark wave functions by the applied magnetic field. Taking into account the explicit form of wave functions for the Hamiltonian $`_{cr}+_{eZ}`$ we get after calculations the following principal values of the hyperfine interaction tensor for $`Tm^{3+}`$ in the axial crystal field in $`TmES`$: $`A_{}241`$ MHz and $`A_{}388`$ MHz (the estimated value of $`A_{hf}`$ for free tripositive ion $`Tm^{3+}`$ from measurements of $`Tm`$ and $`Tm^{2+}`$ is -393.5 MHz ).

A rather high magnetic field the Zeeman energy in which is comparable with the Stark splittings of the ground multiplet leads to the further lowering of symmetry and consequently to the redistribution of $`4f`$-electron density in VV ions. The inclusion of a such magnetic field can be considered formally as the appearance of low-symmetry magnetic field dependent term in the crystal field Hamiltonian. Consequently we can assume that magnetic hyperfine interaction is still described by Eq.6 where the components of hyperfine interaction tensor $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ depend on the strength of applied magnetic field.

Up to our knowledge *ab initio* calculations of crystal field effects and magnetic properties have not been provided for the VV paramagnets yet. So in order to estimate theoretical values of hyperfine interaction parameters in insulating VV paramagnets at high magnetic field and to compare the obtained results with the observed in  magnetic field dependence of the resonant frequencies due to transitions between electron-nuclear states in $`TmES`$ the following phenomenological model can be proposed. Assuming that the external magnetic field is not too high to destroy partially *LS* coupling and taking into account that hyperfine magnetic field at nucleus is determined by the magnetic moment of $`4f`$-electron shell one can write for the the principal values of hyperfine interaction tensor at high magnetic field the following relation:

$$\frac{A_,(H)}{M_,(H)}=\frac{A_,}{M_,},$$
(7)
where $`M_,(H)`$ and $`M_,`$ represents the components of the electronic magnetic moment of $`Tm^{3+}`$ ion at high magnetic field and at moderate magnetic field respectively, and can be calculated by use the wave functions of the Hamiltonian $`_{cr}+_{eZ}`$. The principal values $`A_,`$ have been determined above. Note here that because of dependence of $`4f`$-electron magnetic moment in VV paramagnets on the populations of the nearest excited levels (at helium temperatures) the temperature dependence of hyperfine interaction parameters is expected. The provided calculations with use above model allowed to describe the observed experimental data  in a good way.

## 3 Summary

In summary, we have showed that at rather high magnetic field the Zeeman energy of an Van Vleck ion in which is comparable with Stark structure splitting energies the components of magnetic hyperfine interaction tensor begin to be dependent on the applied magnetic field strength. The phenomenological model for taking into account the influence of the induced external magnetic field distortions of $`4f`$-electron shell on hyperfine magnetic field at nucleus in insulating VV paramagnets has been proposed. The results of these studies can be applied also to intermetallic VV paramagnets which are very interesting from the point of view of ultra-low temperature physics.

The authors thank M.S.Tagirov (Kazan State University) for discussions.

## References


format: text

text:
# Quantum noise in current biased Josephson junction

## Introduction

Fluctuations in an equilibrium system are considered to be ”classical” if the fluctuation frequency is lower than the the system temperature, $`\mathrm{}\omega T`$. For higher frequencies the fluctuations are ”quantum” and contain a contribution called zero-point fluctuations (ZPFs). Due to the ZPFs there are fluctuations even at zero temperature, when the system is in its ground state .

The intriguing question: can these zero-point fluctuations be detected, has recently attracted much attention. The answer depends on what is the detector and what means detection. Measuring Casimir forces between two bodies, both at $`T=0`$, is definitely a way to detect ZPFs of the electromagnetic field surrounding the bodies. On the other hand there is no radiation from a body at $`T=0`$ and an antenna placed nearby will receive no signal, which means that current ZPFs in the body do not radiate.

The situation is even more complicated if the system is not in equilibrium. Probably the simplest example is a gas of excited atoms in a cavity with no radiation in it (the temperature of the radiation is zero, while the temperature of the gas is not). When de-excited, atoms emit spontaneously cavity photons, which is in fact interaction with ZPFs of the cavity field. The de-excitation of the atom can be considered as a signal of the presence of the ZPFs in the cavity.

This paper is stimulated by experiments with nonequilibrium pumped Josephson junction systems , where ZPFs play an important role at low temperatures. In  ZPFs were detected in a dc-current biased Josephson junction, measuring the low frequency noise of the voltage $`V(t)`$ across the junction. The voltage noise was generated by intrinsic current fluctuations $`\delta I(t)`$ in a shunting resistor $`R`$. The frequency of the measured voltage noise (of the order 100 kHz) is much below the temperature $`T`$ of the resistor (1.6 K and 4.2 K) but quantum phenomena are important because this low frequency is mixed due to nonlinear effects with the Josephson frequency $`\omega _J`$ (between 10 and 500 GHz), which is comparable or even higher than the resistor temperature.

The theory of quantum fluctuations in a dc-current biased Josephson junction was given in , based on the Langevin equation for the phase difference across the junction $`\phi (t)`$, where the random forces are intrinsic current fluctuations $`\delta I(t)`$ in the resistor. We decided to revisit the problem because of following reasons. In  the authors used the theory of classical fluctuations developed in , simply replacing in the classical Langevin equation the classical spectral density of the random forces, $`(\delta I^2)_\omega =T/\pi R`$, by its quantum equivalent, $`(\mathrm{}\omega /2\pi R)\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{}\omega /2T)`$. This quantum spectral density, containing ZPFs, is generated by the symmetrized correlator $`(1/2)[\delta I(t^{})\delta I(t)+\delta I(t)\delta I(t^{})]`$, which is, however, not relevant in the problem considered. This is because using the symmetrized correlator for the random forces in the Langevin equation imply that all the correlators calculated from this equation are also symmetrized. On the other hand, the symmetrized correlator of the voltage $`V(t)`$ do not represent the measured voltage noise.

This problem was addressed in . It was shown that if the device, measuring current noise, is a ”resonator” at zero temperature, with resonant frequency $`\omega `$, the measured signal is proportional to the Fourier component $`S(\omega )`$ of the nonsymmetrized current correlator $`j(0)j(t)`$, with $`\omega >0`$ and the dc component in the current $`j(t)`$ being subtracted. $`S(\omega )`$ is real, but not symmetric in $`\omega `$, and hence the condition $`\omega >0`$ is essential. If the current carrying system is in equilibrium at zero temperature, one finds $`S(\omega )=0`$ for $`\omega >0`$, which means there is no signal created by ZPFs. It is because the signal $`S(\omega )`$ is in fact proportional to the power spectral density spontaneously radiated by the system. The situation is similar in quantum optics , where ZPFs can create radiation only in nonequilibrium systems, like parametric amplifiers.

The second reason to revisit the theory is as follows. In  and  the fluctuations were calculated using perturbation theory for the phase $`\phi (t)`$ , i.e. assuming that $`(\delta \phi ^2)_\omega `$ is small and proportional to $`(\delta I^2)_\omega `$. This theory diverges near $`\omega =0`$ and the harmonics of Josephson frequency $`\omega =k\omega _J`$, $`k=1,2,..`$, which are exactly the points of interest.

To account for all the above mentioned circumstances we use the quantum Langevin equation for $`\phi (t)`$, formulating it according to the general recipe given in . With no random forces the solution of the Langevin equation for the phase, $`\overline{\phi }(t)=f(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0)`$, contains an arbitrary initial phase $`\alpha _0`$, since the equation for $`\overline{\phi }(t)`$ is invariant with respect to time shift. Due to random forces this initial phase acquires a fluctuating contribution $`\delta \alpha (t)`$, and the Langevin equation can be rewritten for $`\delta \alpha (t)`$. Using this approach we avoid the perturbation theory for $`\phi (t)`$, which allows to calculate the shape of the radiation lines at the Josephson frequency harmonics $`k\omega _J`$.

The width of the Josephson emission lines was considered in the well known papers , however a white spectrum was assumed for the random forces. This assumption is employed in almost all papers dealing with noise influence on Shapiro steps , on the impedance of microwave driven junctions  and other phenomena in Josephson junctions (more references are given in ). There are only few exceptions. In  the white noise with correlator $`\delta (t)`$ was replaced by a dichotomous telegraph noise with an exponential correlator $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)`$. In  the sum of these two was considered. Full consideration for the quantum correlations, considering the rounding of the $`IV`$\- curve, was given in .

## I Quantum Langevin equation

The equations describing a current biased Josephson junction in the RCSJ-model are as follows

$`I_c\mathrm{sin}\phi (t)+{\displaystyle \frac{V(t)}{R}}+C{\displaystyle \frac{dV(t)}{dt}}=I_p+\delta I(t),{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi (t)}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}}V(t).`$ (1)
Here $`I_c`$ and $`I_p`$ are the critical and bias currents, $`R`$ and $`C`$ are the resistor and capacitor of the model, $`\phi (t)`$ and $`V(t)`$ are the phase and voltage difference across the junction and $`\delta I(t)`$ are the intrinsic current fluctuations. The phase and voltage differences contain fluctuations generated by $`\delta I(t)`$ and in what follows we write $`\phi (t)=\overline{\phi }(t)+\delta \phi (t)`$ and $`V(t)=\overline{V}(t)+\delta V(t)`$, separating explicitly the fluctuating contributions.

We neglect the quasiparticle current in the junction, assuming low enough temperatures, which means in terms of the model that $`R`$ is just the external shunting resistor. With this assumption $`\delta I(t)`$ are the equilibrium current fluctuations in the resistor $`R`$, the only intrinsic fluctuation source in the RCSJ-model . This simplifies the problem enormously, since the current fluctuations in the junction are state dependent (they depend on $`\overline{\phi }(t)`$) and hence are non-stationary for time-dependent voltage $`\overline{V}(t)`$ .

We eliminate from Eqs.(1) the potential $`V`$, multiply it by $`\mathrm{}/2e`$ and introduce $`E_c=(\mathrm{}/2e)I_c`$. As a result we have

$`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\phi }{dt^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{dt}}+E_c\mathrm{sin}\phi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}I_p={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2e}}\delta I.`$ (2)
This equation is a standard form of a Langevin equation for the phase $`\phi `$ as the particle ”coordinate” and a ”potential” having the dimension of energy, the current fluctuations being the random forces. Comparing with the quantum Langevin equation in  we find the correlator

$`\delta I(t^{})\delta I(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi R}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{}\omega \left[N(\omega )e^{i\omega (tt^{})}+(N(\omega )+1)e^{i\omega (tt^{})}\right]`$ (3)
and the commutator

$`[\delta I(t^{}),\delta I(t)]={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\pi R}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega (tt^{})={\displaystyle \frac{2i\mathrm{}}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta (tt^{}),`$ (4)
where $`N(\omega )=\left[\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega /T)1\right]^1.`$ It is important that $`\delta I(t)`$ is a Gaussian process (in the quantum case one has to preserve the order of operators) and the commutator Eq.(4) is a $`c`$-number. (When the thermal bath responsible for the random forces is chosen to be a collection of harmonic oscillators  the Gaussian properties of the random forces follow from the Gaussian properties of a harmonic oscillator in equilibrium. However, probably, this is a more general property, since many degrees of freedom of the thermal bath contribute to the random force.)

We will use the following notations for Fourier components and spectra of correlators

$`A(t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega e^{i\omega t}A_\omega ,(A^{})_\omega =(A_\omega )^{}A_\omega ^{},`$ (5)
$`A(t^{})^{}A(t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega e^{i\omega (tt^{})}(A^2)_\omega ,A_\omega ^{}^{}A_\omega =\delta (\omega \omega ^{})(A^2)_\omega ,`$ (6)
where  means ”hermitian conjugate”. In these notations the spectrum of equilibrium current fluctuations is

$`(\delta I^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\pi R}}N(\omega ).`$ (7)
The width of the spectrum is $`T/\mathrm{}`$ and the corresponding correlation time is $`\mathrm{}/T`$. At $`T=0`$ this spectrum has no Fourier components with $`\omega >0`$, which means that energy can not be extracted from the thermal bath. The spectral density of the symmetrized correlator, which contains ZPFs,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\delta I^2)_\omega +(\delta I^2)_\omega \right]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\pi R}}\left(N(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2\pi R}}\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}}\right)`$ (8)
does not have this property. In the classical case, when $`T\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`|tt^{}|\mathrm{}/T`$, the random forces have a ”white” spectrum, i.e.

$`(\delta I^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\pi R}},\delta I(t^{})\delta I(t)={\displaystyle \frac{2T}{R}}\delta (tt^{}).`$ (9)
## II General considerations

We recall first the properties of the junction when one neglects fluctuations. The solution of Eqs.(1) with $`\delta I=0`$ differs qualitatively in cases when the bias current $`I_p`$ is smaller or greater than the critical current $`I_c`$. We will consider only the case of the non-stationary Josephson effect, when $`I_p>I_c`$. In this case the voltage $`\overline{V}(t)`$ and the phase $`\overline{\phi }(t)`$ are periodic functions of time (the last one modulo $`2\pi `$), the period defining the Josephson frequency $`\omega _J`$. These functions can be presented as follows

$`\overline{\phi }(t)=f(x),\overline{V}(t)=I_cRg(x),x=\omega _Jt+\alpha _0,`$ (10)
where $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ are non-dimensional functions

$`g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_ke^{ikx},f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f_ke^{ikx}+x,`$ (11)
$`\alpha _0`$ is an arbitrary initial phase, appearing because Eqs.(1) are invariant with respect to time shift. Eqs.(10) define the limit cycle of the nonlinear Josephson oscillator, i.e. the trajectory of the system in the phase space $`(\phi ,V)`$. The time-average voltage across the junction is $`V_0=I_cRg_0`$.

As was explained in the Introduction the measured voltage noise (proportional to the radiated energy) is

$`S(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}v(0)v(t)`$ (12)
with $`v(t)=V(t)V_0`$ and $`\omega >0`$. When fluctuations are neglected, $`v(t)`$ is a non-random periodic function. Considering the initial phase $`\alpha _0`$ to be random within the interval $`(0,2\pi )`$, we convert the periodic function $`v(t)`$ into its random equivalent, i.e. a stationary random process with an equidistant discrete spectrum. Using

$`\overline{\mathrm{exp}[i(kk^{})\alpha _0]}=\delta _{k,k^{}},`$ (13)
we average $`v(t^{})v(t)`$ over $`\alpha _0`$ and obtain the relevant correlator

$`v(t^{})v(t)=(I_cR)^2{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}|g_k|^2\mathrm{exp}[ik\omega _J(tt^{})]`$ (14)
and the noise spectrum

$`(v^2)_\omega S(\omega )=(I_cR)^2{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}|g_k|^2\delta (\omega k\omega _J),\omega >0.`$ (15)
We turn now to the effect of fluctuations, when the random forces $`\delta I(t)`$ tend to move the system away from the limit cycle and destroy the periodicity of the system dynamics. We assume the random forces to be weak. If the system is shifted by the random force perpendicular to the cycle, a ”restoring force” exist, which tends to bring the system back to the cycle. However no such force exist when the system is shifted along the cycle, since this corresponds to a change of arbitrary initial phase $`\alpha _0`$. To account for these two effects we look for a fluctuating solution of Eqs.(1) in the form

$`\phi (t)=f(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0+\delta \alpha (t)),V(t)=I_cR[g(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0+\delta \alpha (t))+\delta \xi (t)],`$ (16)
with two unknown random functions $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ and $`\delta \xi (t)`$ (which are operators in the quantum case). The last one describes the shift of the system perpendicular to the limit cycle and since in this case a restoring force acts against the random forces, $`\delta \xi (t)`$ is small and proportional to $`\delta I(t)`$; it contains the same frequencies as $`\delta I(t)`$. Contrary, $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ can grow unlimitedly even for small $`\delta I(t)`$, if the random force contains the resonance frequency $`\omega _J`$ or its harmonics. Hence, $`\delta \alpha (t)=\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)+\stackrel{~}{\delta \alpha }(t)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\delta \alpha }(t)`$ is proportional to $`\delta I(t)`$ and contains the frequencies of the random force, while $`\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)`$ is secular and slow, i.e. contains only low frequencies proportional to the amplitude of the random force. The function $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ describes the so called diffusion of the initial phase and its derivative describes Josephson frequency fluctuations, which are responsible for the broadening of the Josephson radiation lines,

$`\delta \omega _J(t)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta \alpha (t)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t),\delta \alpha (t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}\delta \dot{\alpha }(t^{}).`$ (17)
In terms of the new variables the voltage noise is

$`v(t^{})v(t)=(I_cR)^2\times `$ (18)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}0}{}}g_k^{}^{}\mathrm{exp}[ik^{}(\omega _Jt^{}+\alpha _0+\delta \alpha (t^{}))]+\delta \xi (t^{})\right]\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}g_k\mathrm{exp}[ik(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0+\delta \alpha (t))]+\delta \xi (t)\right].`$ (19)
As we will see later $`\{\delta \alpha (t),\delta \xi (t)\}`$ is a Gaussian process and to find the voltage noise one has to calculate the correlators $`\delta \alpha (t^{})\delta \alpha (t)`$, $`\delta \alpha (t^{})\delta \xi (t)`$ and $`\delta \xi (t^{})\delta \xi (t)`$.

The effect of the random forces on the noise spectra Eq.(12) is twofold: the monochromatic Josephson lines in Eq.(15) acquire a width, and a background for all frequencies $`\omega >0`$ appears. Weak random forces means that the width of the Josephson lines is small compared to the distance between them and that the background contribute to the integrated noise less than the lines do.

Of special interest is the background $`S(0)`$ at low frequencies $`\omega \omega _J`$. To calculate the background noise at frequencies far enough from the resonant ones $`\omega =k\omega _J,k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ one can employ perturbation theory assuming $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ to be small, while to find the width of these lines a more sophisticated approach has to be used.

## III Langevin equations for an overdamped junction

Substituting Eqs.(10) into Eqs.(1) with $`\delta I=0`$ we find the relations between the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ as follows

$`g(x)+\mathrm{sin}f(x)+\omega _J\tau g^{}(x)=p,\omega _Jf^{}(x)=\omega _0g(x),`$ (20)
where $`p=I_p/I_c`$, $`\omega _0=(2e/\mathrm{})I_cR`$, and $`\tau =RC`$. To obtain the Langevin equations for $`\delta \xi (t)`$ and $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ we substitute Eqs.(16) into Eqs.(1) and use Eqs.(20). As a result we find

$`\tau \delta \dot{\xi }(t)+\delta \xi (t)+\tau g^{}(x)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)=\delta I(t)/I_c,f^{}(x)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)=\omega _0\delta \xi (t)`$ (21)
with $`x=\omega _Jt+\alpha _0+\delta \alpha (t)`$. (Some caution is needed in the quantum case since $`\delta \alpha `$ and $`\delta \dot{\alpha }`$ do not commute. However the main (secular) part of $`\delta \alpha `$ is a slow function of $`t`$ and hence $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ and $`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t^{})`$ effectively commute when $`t^{}=t`$.)

In what follows we will consider the overdamped Josephson junction, assuming the capacitance $`C`$ to be small, i.e. $`\omega _0\tau 1`$. In this case we can skip in the first of Eqs.(21) the term with $`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)`$, since, according to the second of these equations, it is a small correction to the term $`\delta \xi (t)`$. We can also use the functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ as for a junction with $`C=0`$, in which case  the Josephson frequency is $`\omega _J=\omega _0\sigma `$ with $`\sigma =(p^21)^{1/2}`$ and

$`g(x)=(p^21)/(p+\mathrm{sin}x);g_k=(i)^k\sigma (p\sigma )^k,k0;g_k=g_k^{}.`$ (22)
The functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$ for an overdamped junction are related as follows

$`\sigma f^{}(x)=g(x),g(x)+\mathrm{sin}f(x)p=0.`$ (23)
As a result we have the following Langevin equations

$`\tau \delta \dot{\xi }(t)+\delta \xi (t)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta I(t)}{I_c}},\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\sigma }}[p+\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0+\delta \alpha (t))]\delta \xi (t).`$ (24)
From the first of these equations we find immediately

$`\delta \xi _\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_\omega }{1i\omega \tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta J_\omega }{I_c}},(\delta J^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{(\delta I^2)_\omega }{1+(\omega \tau )^2}},`$ (25)
where $`\delta J`$ are current fluctuations shunted by the capacitor. As mentioned already $`\delta \alpha (t)=\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)+\stackrel{~}{\delta \alpha }(t)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\delta \alpha }(t)`$ is fast oscillating but small, while $`\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)`$ is slow but generally not small. When performing the Fourier transform of $`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)`$ in the second of Eqs.(24) one can neglect in the right hand side the small $`\stackrel{~}{\delta \alpha }(t)`$ and replace the slow $`\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)`$ by a constant, absorbed in $`\alpha _0`$. With this approximation

$`\delta \dot{\alpha }_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{I_c}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}\delta J_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\sigma }}\left[\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha _0]\delta J_{\omega +\omega _J}\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha _0]\delta J_{\omega \omega _J}\right]\right\}.`$ (26)
If one takes into account the slow variation of $`\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)`$, then $`\delta J_\omega `$ is replaced by its convolution with the narrow spectra of $`\overline{\delta \alpha }(t)`$, but this effect can be neglected for weak enough random forces. In the time domain Eq.(26) corresponds to

$`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\sigma }}[p+\mathrm{sin}(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0)]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta J(t)}{I_c}}.`$ (27)
To calculate $`(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega `$ we average $`\delta \dot{\alpha }_\omega ^{}^{}\delta \dot{\alpha }_\omega `$ over $`\alpha _0`$ using Eq.(13) and obtain

$`(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega =\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{I_c}}\right)^2\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}\right)^2(\delta J^2)_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sigma ^2}}\left[(\delta J^2)_{\omega +\omega _J}+(\delta J^2)_{\omega \omega _J}\right]\right\}.`$ (28)
It is convenient to present

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{}(x)}}={\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_ke^{ikx},b_0={\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }};b_{\pm 1}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\sigma }};b_k=0,(|k|>1).`$ (29)
Using this representation and the intrinsic current fluctuation spectrum given by Eq.(7) we have

$`(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|b_k|^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega N(\omega )}{1+(\omega \tau )^2}}\right\}_{\omega \omega k\omega _J},`$ (30)
where $`g=(\mathrm{}/e^2)R^1`$ is the non-dimensional conductance of the junction resistor. It what follows we assume $`g1`$, and we will see that this is the main condition for the fluctuations to be weak. We will not consider very strong pumping and assume $`p1`$. Then it follows from $`\omega _0\tau 1`$ that also $`\omega _J\tau 1`$ and one can simplify Eq.(30),

$`(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|b_k|^2\left\{\omega N(\omega )\right\}_{\omega \omega k\omega _J},\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(\omega \tau )^2}},`$ (31)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )`$ is the shunting factor. It is obvious from Eq.(28) that approaching the threshold $`p=1`$ of the non-stationary Josephson effect, when $`\sigma 0`$, the fluctuations increase.

## IV Perturbation theory

We consider shortly the situation when $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ can be assumed to be small. As we will see no problems appear in perturbation theory if one neglects the capacitance of the junction and put $`\tau =0`$. Substituting in the second of Eqs.(16) the Fourier expansion of $`g`$ from Eqs.(11) and expending in $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ we find the voltage fluctuations

$`\delta V(t)=V(t)\overline{V}(t)=I_cR{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(ik)g_k\mathrm{exp}[ik(\omega _Jt+\alpha _0)]\delta \alpha (t)+R\delta I(t).`$ (32)
Using $`\delta \alpha _\omega =\delta \dot{\alpha }_\omega /(i\omega )`$ we have for its Fourier transform

$`\delta V_\omega =I_cR{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}kg_k\mathrm{exp}[ik\alpha _0]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \dot{\alpha }_{\omega k\omega _J}}{\omega k\omega _J}}+R\delta I_\omega .`$ (33)
We substitute here Eq.(26) and shift the summation over $`k`$, obtaining

$`\delta V_\omega ={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{exp}[ik\alpha _0]Z_k(\omega )\delta I_{\omega k\omega _J},`$ (34)
where the impedance of the junction is

$`Z_k(\omega )=R\left\{\delta _{k,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{kg_k}{\omega k\omega _J}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\sigma }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k+1)g_{k+1}}{\omega (k+1)\omega _J}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k1)g_{k1}}{\omega (k1)\omega _J}}\right]\right\}.`$ (35)
Averaging over the initial phase $`\alpha _0`$ we have the general result of the perturbation theory as follows

$`(\delta V^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|Z_k(\omega )|^2(\delta I^2)_{\omega k\omega _J},\omega >0.`$ (36)
In the classical case one can see, using Eq.(9), that the above result agrees with . However in the quantum case the voltage noise is not given by the symmetrized current spectral density, as it was obtained in . It follows from Eq.(33) that perturbation theory diverges at $`\omega =k\omega _J`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, i.e. at the frequencies of the Josephson lines. This is because, as already mentioned, at these frequencies $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ is not small. Note, that in , where perturbation theory was developed for $`\delta \phi (t)`$, there was also an artifact divergency for $`(\delta \phi ^2)_\omega `$ at $`\omega =0`$.

Using $`g_k`$ from Eq.(22) one can check that $`Z_k(0)=0`$ when $`|k|>1`$ and find the low frequency $`\omega \omega _J`$ voltage noise to be

$`S(0)=(\delta V^2)_0=|Z_0(0)|^2(\delta I^2)_0+|Z_1(0)|^2[(\delta I^2)_{+\omega _J}+(\delta I^2)_{\omega _J}]`$ (37)
with $`|Z_0(0)|^2=R^2(p/\sigma )^2,|Z_1(0)|^2=R^2/4\sigma ^2,`$ giving

$`S(0)={\displaystyle \frac{RT}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\sigma ^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _J}{2T}}\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _J}{2T}}\right)\right].`$ (38)
In this special case the symmetrized current spectral noise enters, and this is why our result for $`S(0)`$ agrees with that obtained in .

## V Dephasing factor of Josephson lines

To find the width of the Josephson lines one has to go beyond the perturbation theory to eliminate the singularities of $`(\delta V^2)_\omega `$ near the Josephson frequency and its harmonics. If $`\delta V_\omega `$ is calculated from Eq.(33) in the vicinity of $`k\omega _J,(k=1,2\mathrm{}`$), the term $`R\delta I_\omega `$ can be neglected, and $`(\delta V^2)_\omega `$ is a double sum over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$. The strongest singularities $`(\omega k\omega _J)^2`$ emerge from the diagonal terms with $`k^{}=k`$, while the non-diagonal terms create weaker singularities $`(\omega k\omega _J)^1`$. Comparing the diagonal and non-diagonal terms reveal that when $`|\omega k\omega _J|\omega _J`$ the diagonal terms dominate. Hence, to find the width of the Josephson lines $`k\omega _J`$ on can neglect in Eq.(18) the terms $`\delta \xi (t)`$ and $`\delta \xi (t^{})`$ and pick-up in the double sum over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ the terms with $`k^{}=k`$ only, considering

$`v(t^{})v(t)_k=(I_cR)^2|g_k|^2\mathrm{exp}[ik\omega _J(tt^{})]\mathrm{exp}[ik\delta \alpha (t^{})]\mathrm{exp}[ik\delta \alpha (t)].`$ (39)
As a result the delta-function in the spectrum Eq.(15) is replaced by a form-factor

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_k(\nu )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}[i\nu t]D_k(t)+c.c.,`$ (40)
where $`\nu =\omega k\omega _J`$ is the detuning from the center of the line and the dephasing factor is

$`D_k(tt^{})=\mathrm{exp}[ik\delta \alpha (t^{})]\mathrm{exp}[ik\delta \alpha (t)]=D_k(t^{}t)^{}.`$ (41)
The symmetry relation for the form-factor follows from the invariance of the average with respect to time shift. Since, as assumed, the fluctuations $`\delta I(t)`$ are small, the dephasing factors decay slowly with $`t`$.

As follows from Eq.(27) and the properties of $`\delta I(t)`$ described in sec.I, that $`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t)`$ and $`\delta \alpha (t)`$ are Gaussian processes and their commutators are $`c`$-numbers. Using the well known identity $`e^Aa^B=e^{A+B}e^{\frac{1}{2}[A,B]}`$ one can write the operator product entering the dephasing factor Eq.(41) as

$`\mathrm{exp}[ik\delta \alpha (0)]\mathrm{exp}[ik\delta \alpha (t)]=\mathrm{exp}[ik(\delta \alpha (0)\delta \alpha (t))]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2[\delta \alpha (0),\delta \alpha (t)]\right].`$ (42)
Using the Gaussian properties we calculate the averages and have for the dephasing factor

$`D_k(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[k^2C(t)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[k^2K(t)\right],`$ (43)
where

$`C(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta \alpha (0),\delta \alpha (t)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_2[\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_1),\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_2)],`$ (44)
$`K(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta \alpha (0)\delta \alpha (t)]^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}\delta \dot{\alpha }(t^{})\right]^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_2\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_1)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_2).`$ (45)
Presenting the commutator entering $`C(t)`$ as its average $`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_1)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_2)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_2)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_1)`$, and substituting the Fourier representation of the correlator $`\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_1)\delta \dot{\alpha }(t_2)`$, we find

$`K(t)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega g(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\omega t}{\omega ^2}},C(t)=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega q(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega t}{\omega ^2}}`$ (46)
with

$`g(\omega )=\left[(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega +(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega \right],q(\omega )=\left[(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega (\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega \right].`$ (47)
Using Eq.(31) and the relation $`(\omega )N(\omega )=\omega (N(\omega )+1)`$ one can check that

$`(\delta \dot{\alpha }^2)_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|b_k|^2\left\{\omega [N(\omega )+1]\right\}_{\omega \omega k\omega _J},`$ (48)
and as a result,

$`g(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|b_k|^2\left\{\omega [2N(\omega )+1]\right\}_{\omega \omega k\omega _J},`$ (49)
$`q(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|b_k|^2\left\{\omega \right\}_{\omega \omega k\omega _J}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}{\displaystyle \frac{2p^2+1}{2\sigma ^2}}\omega \mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ).`$ (50)
$`q(\omega )`$ contains only ZPFs and is temperature independent. This is not the case for $`g(\omega )`$, which for high and low temperatures is, correspondingly, (for $`\omega >0`$)

$`g(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}{\displaystyle \frac{2p^2+1}{2\sigma ^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )\omega \mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2T}}\right),`$ (51)
$`g(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )[\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega _J\omega )(\omega _J\omega )+(2p^2+1)\omega ],`$ (52)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega )`$ is the step function. Because of the ZPFs $`g(\omega )0`$ at $`T=0`$. The shunting cut-off is not crucial in calculating $`C(t)`$; this integral converge even if one replace $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )1`$. Contrary, the integral $`K(t)`$ converges only due to this cut-off.

## VI Quantum dynamical narrowing

As can be seen from the previous section the form-factor of the Josephson line is given as an integral of the type

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}[i\nu t]D(t)+c.c.={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}[\nu t+H(t)]\mathrm{exp}[W(t)],`$ (53)
where the dephasing factor is $`D(t)=\mathrm{exp}[W(t)+iH(t)].`$ The functions $`W(t)`$ and $`H(t)`$ are given by their spectral representations

$`W(t)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega G(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\omega t}{\omega ^2}},H(t)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega Q(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega t}{\omega ^2}},`$ (54)
where both spectral densities $`G(\omega ),Q(\omega )`$ contain a small pre-factor (due to $`g^1`$) and
$`G(\omega )>0`$, while $`\mathrm{sign}Q(\omega )=\mathrm{sign}\omega ,Q(0)=0`$. This is the quantum version of spectral line dynamical narrowing. (In the classical theory $`H(t)=0`$, hence the line is symmetric in $`\nu `$, and $`G^{}(0)=0`$. One can see from Eqs.(51) that this property indeed holds for high temperatures but is not valid for zero temperature).

The large time asymptotic of $`W(t)`$ is obtained replacing $`G(\omega )`$ by $`G(0)`$, giving

$`W(t)=\gamma t,\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}G(0).`$ (55)
Since $`Q(0)=0`$ the function $`H(t)`$ is finite at $`t\mathrm{}`$. If one replace $`W(t)`$ by its large time asymptotic and neglects $`H(t)`$, the form factor becomes a Lorenzian

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^2+\nu ^2}}.`$ (56)
As we will see, this line shape is valid only for small enough $`\nu `$. To get an expression valid also for large $`\nu `$ and to estimate the non-Lorenzian contributions we proceed as follows. We present

$`W(t)=\gamma t+\stackrel{~}{W}(t),\stackrel{~}{W}(t)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega [G(\omega )G(0)]{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\omega t}{\omega ^2}},`$ (57)
and expand $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\stackrel{~}{W}(t)\right]=1\stackrel{~}{W}(t).`$ Neglecting second and higher order terms in $`\stackrel{~}{W}(t)`$ and $`H(t)`$, we present the form-factor as a sum of a symmetric and antisymmetric contributions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )=\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\nu )+\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\nu )`$ (58)
with

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\nu ^2+\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma t]\mathrm{cos}\nu t\stackrel{~}{W}(t),`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\nu )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma t]\mathrm{sin}\nu tH(t).`$ (60)
To calculate the non-Lorenzian parts of the form-factor introduce functions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(\omega ,\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\mathrm{cos}\nu t\mathrm{exp}[\gamma t](1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)=`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \omega ^2(3\nu ^2\omega ^2\gamma ^2)}{(\gamma ^2+\nu ^2)(\gamma ^2+(\nu \omega )^2)(\gamma ^2+(\nu +\omega )^2)}},`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\omega ,\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\mathrm{sin}\nu t\mathrm{exp}[\gamma t]\mathrm{sin}\omega t={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma \omega \nu }{(\gamma ^2+(\nu \omega )^2)(\gamma ^2+(\nu +\omega )^2)}}.`$ (63)
With this definitions we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\nu ^2+\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega ^2}}[G(\omega )G(0)]\mathrm{\Delta }_c(\omega ,\nu ).`$ (64)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega ^2}}Q(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\omega ,\nu ).`$ (65)
For small $`\gamma `$ in the vicinity of $`\omega =\nu >0`$ both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c,s}(\omega ,\nu )`$ are smeared $`\delta `$-functions,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c,s}(\omega ,\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{(\omega \nu )^2+\gamma ^2}}.`$ (66)
The main assumption of the dynamical narrowing theory is that due to the small pre-factor in $`G(\omega )`$ the Lorenzian width $`\gamma `$ is small, so that $`G(\omega )`$ and $`Q(\omega )`$ are smooth on the scale $`\gamma `$. With this assumption one can replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c,s}(\omega ,\nu )`$ by $`\delta (\omega \nu )`$ for $`\nu \gamma `$ (because of the factor $`\omega ^2`$). Then for $`\nu >0`$ one finds

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\nu ^2+\gamma ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G(\nu )G(0)}{2\nu ^2}},\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{Q(\nu )}{2\nu ^2}}.`$ (67)
On the other hand, at $`\nu \gamma `$ the Lorenzian and the term with $`G(0)`$ cancel each other and we find that in the far wings of the line the form-factor follows the spectral densities entering the dephasing factor, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_s(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{G(\nu )}{2\nu ^2}},\mathrm{\Phi }_a(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{Q(\nu )}{2\nu ^2}},\nu >0,\nu \gamma .`$ (68)
It is important to note, that this is in fact a ”perturbation theory” result and can be obtained expanding the dephasing factor in $`W(t)`$ and $`H(t)`$. Within the Lorenzian line, when $`\nu \gamma `$, the estimates for the non-Lorenzian contributions in Eq.(67) can be obtained replacing in the denominators $`\nu ^2`$ by $`\gamma ^2`$. They are negligible for small enough $`\nu `$, when

$`G(\nu )G(0),Q(\nu )G(0).`$ (69)
If one can define a scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, which is the spectral width of $`G(\omega )`$ and $`Q(\omega )`$, the results can be summarized in a simple way. The dynamical narrowing theory is valid when $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. For detuning much smaller than the spectral width, $`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, the line form-factor is Lorenzian according to Eqs.(56) and (55). When the detuning is of the order or larger than the spectral width, $`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, the form-factor follows the spectral density according to the perturbation theory result given by Eqs.(68). In this domain the line is asymmetric, the red wing $`(\nu <0)`$ being enhanced compared to the blue one $`(\nu >0)`$. This is because of ZPFs, which enhance the probability for the oscillator to loss energy compared to the probability to gain it, due to the interaction with the thermal bath. This asymmetry is related to the perturbation theory result Eq.(36), where the non-symmetrized current fluctuation spectral density enters.

## VII The width of Josephson lines

Using the results of the previous section we can find the width and the shape of the Josephson lines. For the line $`k\omega _J`$ one has to put

$`G(\omega )=k^2g(\omega ),Q(\omega )=k^2q(\omega ),`$ (70)
and as a result the Lorenzian width of this line is according to Eqs.(55)

$`\gamma _k=k^2\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{4}{g\sigma ^2}}\left[p^2T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}\omega _J\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _J}{2T}}\right)\right].`$ (71)
As was mentioned already, our basic assumption about the weakness of the current fluctuations means that the line width is small compared to the line separation, which means that the result given by Eqs.(71) is correct when

$`\gamma _k\omega _J.`$ (72)
We will show now that this restriction, together with $`p1`$, ensures that in the vicinity of the Josephson frequency, i.e. at $`|\omega k\omega _J|\omega _J`$, the dynamical narrowing theory is valid and the form-factor of the Josephson line is a symmetric Lorenzian with the width given by Eqs.(71). The non-Lorenzian contributions and the asymmetry of the line appears only at $`|\omega k\omega _J|\omega _J`$, but in this domain one has to employ perturbation theory including non-diagonal terms with $`k^{}k`$. Two things have to be checked. First, that the Lorenzian width $`\gamma _k`$ is small compared to the scales of the spectral densities $`G(\omega )`$ and $`Q(\omega )`$, given by Eqs.(70). Second, the conditions Eqs.(69), i.e. that the non-Lorenzian contributions to the form-factor are small.

As can be seen from the results of dynamical narrowing theory, the form-factor at given detuning $`\nu `$ do not depend on the behavior of the spectral densities $`G(\omega )`$ and $`Q(\omega )`$ at $`\omega >\nu `$. Since we are interested only in $`|\omega k\omega _J|\omega _J`$, the screening factor $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )`$ in $`g(\omega )`$ and $`q(\omega )`$ can be neglected. As a result, it follows from Eq.(51) that the scale of $`G(\omega )`$ is the larger of $`T/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega _J`$. The situation is more complicated for $`Q(\omega )`$ which is linear in $`\omega `$ and has no scale. However, Eq.(67) for the asymmetric contribution to the form-factor is still correct for $`\nu \gamma `$, since the effective scale of a linear $`Q(\omega )`$ is $`\omega `$.

Consider first the situation of high temperatures, $`T\mathrm{}\omega _J`$, when the scale of $`G(\omega )`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =T/\mathrm{}`$, and since $`T/\mathrm{}\omega _J`$, it follows from Eq.(72), that this scale is large compared to $`\gamma _k`$. Using Eq.(51) and Eq.(50) one can check that the conditions Eq.(69) are satisfied when $`\nu T/\mathrm{}`$, which is valid automatically since $`\nu \omega _JT/\mathrm{}`$. In the case of low temperatures, $`T\mathrm{}\omega _J`$, the scale of $`G(\omega )`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\omega _J`$, which is large compared to $`\gamma _k`$ because of Eq.(72). The conditions Eq.(69) require $`\nu \omega _J`$, which is also satisfied.

The width at high temperatures, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(g\sigma ^2)^1\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(2p^2+1)(T/\mathrm{}),`$ was obtained in  considering the singular term $`A_k/(\omega k\omega _J)^2`$ in $`(\delta V^2)_\omega `$ calculated from perturbation theory, Eq.(36), as a wing of a Lorenzian line and assuming that the total energy radiated in a this line is not influenced by the fluctuations. In the high temperature case the fluctuations can be considered to be weak, Eq.(72), if $`g\sigma ^3k^2(T/\mathrm{}\omega _0).`$

At low temperatures $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(g\sigma ^2)^1\omega _J,`$ and Eq.(72) reduces to $`g\sigma ^2k^2.`$ Finite dephasing of the Josephson lines exist at zero temperature due to the ZPFs, which are active because the junction is far from equilibrium.

One can see from the above estimates that the fluctuations are weak due to the large conductance $`g`$ of the shunting resistor. Approaching to the threshold $`p=1`$, when $`\sigma 0`$, the fluctuations increase. The effect of the fluctuations is stronger for high harmonics, $`k1`$.

It is important to note that the general quantum result for the line width, Eq.(71), can not be obtained from the high temperature classical one simply replacing the temperature $`T`$ by its quantum equivalent, $`(\mathrm{}\omega /2)\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{}\omega /2T)`$.

We note also that a general relation is valid, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }=(4\pi e^2/\mathrm{})S(0)`$, which is a simple relation between the width of main Josephson line at $`\omega =\omega _J`$ and the low frequency noise. As was mentioned in sec.II, there are two indications, pointing to the smallness of the fluctuations: the ratio of the line width to the line separation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\omega _J`$, and the ratio of the background contribution to the contribution of the lines, which can be estimated as $`S(0)\omega _J/(g_0I_cR)^2`$. It follows from the relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`S(0)`$ that both ratios are of the same order, i.e. that both ways to estimate the strength of fluctuations are equivalent.

## VIII Acknowledgements

I acknowledge Y. Imry and U. Gavish for many discussions related to zero-point fluctuations. This work was supported by the Israel Academy of Sciences.


text:
# Engineering Progressive Decoherence with Quantum Jumps in Charge Qubit

\[

## Abstract

For the Josephson junction charge qubits with macroscopically quantum natures, we propose a theoretical scheme to observe the loss of quantum coherence through coupling such qubit system to an engineered reservoir, the harmonic oscillator mode in the LC circuit formed by the inductor and the separated capacitors. Similar to the usual cavity QED system in form, this charge qubit system with engineered couplings shows the quantum jumps (C.P.Sun et al Fortschr. Phys. 43, 585 (1995) )in a progressive decoherence process. Corresponding to two components of superposition of two charge states, the inductor evolves simultaneously towards two distinct quasi-classical states entangling with two states of the charge qubit. Then it induces the quantum decoherence for the induced squeezing macroscopically in the LC mode.

\]

It is well-known that the superposition of quantum states lies at the very heart of modern quantum theory. In an ideal situation the quantum coherence implied by this superposition results in various dramatic features in quantum mechanics . However, the real systems are never isolated completely from the surrounding environment. The interaction with the environment (a reservoir ) or other external systems will lead to the entanglement between them, and then the randomness or the classicality of environment will wash out the phases of quantum system . This consideration explains why the quantum superposition does not seem to appear in the macroscopic world: there happens the transition from the quantum world to classical world .

This issue is directly related to quantum measurement problem where the coupling of the measured system with the measuring apparatus ( detector) will cause the reduction of superposition or wave packet collapse . It should be emphasized that the coupling between the measured system and the detector can be controlled to satisfy one’s need in measurement. This is quite different from the coupling with the environment, the detailed knowledge of which is usually inavailable. Actually in the past few years, the cavity QED system  and the laser cooled trapped ions  were utilized to demonstrate how to ”engineer” the system-reservoir coupling so that the progressive decoherence can be observed with experimentally accessible technologies. In this letter, we show that, in the ”qubit way”–a two level approximation , a solid system –the Josephson junction can also implement the engineered system-reservoir interaction to illustrate the detailed dynamics of quantum decoherence. In fact, in the most recent experiments of charge and flux qubit of Josephson junction, the much longer time Rabi oscillation with very large qubit quality factor $`Q_\varphi =\tau _\varphi \omega `$( $`2.5\times 10^4`$ for charge qubit  and $`2\times 10^{15}`$for flux qubit , $`\tau _\varphi `$ is the decoherence time and $`\omega `$ is the ”Larmor precession frequency”) is observed. These physical realizations of qubit offer us the possibility of manipulating the quantum states of the mesoscopic electrical circuit and engineering the coupling between the qubit and the artificial environment. Most recently, the relaxation and dephasing that result from the control and the measurement setup itself in experiments have been discussed for the Josephson persistent-current qubits. In this letter we will pay our attention to the charge qubit.

For implementing the engineered reservoir couplings, one choice is to connect the Josephson junction charge qubit to a LC-oscillator formed by adding an inductor with tunable inductance $`L`$.(see Fig. 1). Here, the charge qubit of tunable coupling is a complex Cooper pair box formed by a dc SQUID with two symmetric junction. $`C_J`$ is the capacitor of tunnel junction, $`E_J`$ the Josephson coupling energy, $`C_g`$ the gate capacitor and $`V_g`$ the control gate voltage . The Hamiltonian of the total system can be written down according to ref.  as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2C}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2L}}+`$ (2)
$`4E_c(nn_g)^2E_J(\varphi _x)\mathrm{cos}(\theta \eta ^{}\varphi )`$
where $`n`$ is the number operator of excess Cooper-pair charges on the island, and $`\theta `$ the phase of the superconductor order parameter, $`\varphi `$ the flux through the inductor, $`\varphi _x`$ the external flux and $`q`$ the total charge accumulated on the gate capacitor. The others parameters are defined as $`C=\frac{C_JC_g}{C_J+C_g}`$, $`\eta ^{}=\frac{2\pi }{\varphi _0}\frac{C}{C_J}`$, $`E_C=\frac{e^2}{2(C_J+C_g)}`$,$`n_g=\frac{C_gV_g}{2e}`$ $`E_J(\varphi _x)=2E_J^0\mathrm{cos}(\pi \frac{\varphi _x}{\varphi _0})`$, and $`\varphi _0=\frac{h}{2e}`$ denotes the flux quanta.

To form a qubit or a two-level system, one need to tune the gate voltage $`V_g`$ so that $`n_g`$ is approximately a half-integer. In this case the charge eigen-states $`|0_c`$ and $`|1_c`$ are approximately degenerate and the other energy levels are far from these two states. In the case of weak coupling $`\frac{C}{C_J}\sqrt{\varphi ^2}1`$, one can keep $`\varphi `$ to the first order and ”isolate” $`|0_c`$ and $`|1_c`$ to implement a qubit system with Hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{}\omega a^{}a\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _a\sigma _z+i(aa^{})\mathrm{}g\sigma _y$$
(3)
with three crucial parameters $`\omega =\sqrt{\frac{1}{CL}}`$ , $`\omega _a=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{16E_c^2(12n_g)^2+E_J^2}`$ ,$`g=\frac{\pi E_J}{\varphi _0\mathrm{}}\frac{C}{C_J}(\frac{\mathrm{}^2L}{4C})^{1/4}`$. Here, we have introduced the creation and annihilation operators, $`a^{}`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{4L}{\mathrm{}^2C})^{1/4}(q+i\sqrt{\frac{c}{L}}\varphi `$ $`)`$and $`a.`$The quasi-spin operators $`\sigma _z=|00||11|,\sigma _y=i(|10||01|)`$ and $`\sigma _x=|10|+|01|`$ are defined in the rotation representation with the bases $`|0=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|0_c+\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|1_c`$ and $`|1=\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|0_c+\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|1_c`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =E_J/[4E_c(12n_g)]`$. It is noticed that $`|0_c(|1_c)`$ physically represents the state of no (one) excess cooper pair on the island.

The above model is quite similar to a cavity QED model without the rotation-wave-approximation (RWA), which usually describes the single mode cavity interaction with an off-resonance two-level atom . In this cavity QED model, when the detuning between the cavity frequency and the $`|0|1`$ transition frequency is large enough to avoid any energy transfer between the atom and the cavity , the atoms in different states $`|1`$ and $`|0`$ will modify the phase of cavity field in different ways  and thus induce the quantum decoherence of atomic states superposition. We can consider these issues about decoherence in the present charge qubit system. The large detuning condition $`\gamma =\frac{g}{|\omega _a\omega |}1`$ is easily satisfied by taking proper parameters in experiments . For example, we can take $`C_J10^{16}F,`$ $`C_g10^{16}F,L5\times 10^6H,E_J0.05K`$ . In this case we estimate $`\omega _a8.06\times 10^{10}Hz,`$ $`\omega 4.47\times 10^{10}Hz,`$ $`g2.57\times 10^9Hz.`$ Then we have $`\gamma =7\times 10^21`$, and we need not invoke the rotation wave approximation.

With the above consideration for the rational parameters in the experiment, we shall adiabatically eliminate coherence effect between $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. Then we obtain an effective Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}=H_1|11|+H_0|00|,`$which is diagonal with respect to $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, and the effective actions on the LC circuit from two qubit states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ are

$$H_k=(\omega +\frac{2g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }})a^{}a+(1)^k\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a^2a^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+\epsilon $$
(4)
for $`k=0,1`$ respectively. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _a\omega ,\epsilon =\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(1)^k\frac{\omega _a}{2}`$. It is easy to see that $`H_{eff}`$ is a typical dynamics Hamiltonian creating entanglement of the subsystems. In fact, starting from a factorized initial state $`|\psi (0)=(c_0|0+c_1|1)|s(0)`$, the total system driven by $`H_{eff}`$ will evolve into an entanglement state

$$|\psi (t)=c_0|0|s_0(t)+c_1|1|s_1(t)$$
(5)
where $`|s_k(t)=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(iH_kt)|s(0)`$ $`(k=0,1)`$ and $`|s(0)`$ is the initial state of the LC circuit. Therefore, a charge state superposition in terms of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ will cause the LC circuit state to evolve along the two directions $`|s_1(t)`$ and $`|s_0(t)`$. The time evolution dominated by the conditional dynamics Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}`$ means to implement an ideal pre-quantum measurement when the overlapping $`s_1(t)|s_0(t)`$ approaches zero . Physically the pre-measurement implies a quantum decoherence of the subsystem formed by charge qubit. We consider the reduced density matrix of the charge qubit at time $`t`$. Its off-diagonal elements are determined by $`c_1c_0^{}s_1(t)|s_0(t)`$ and vanishes completely as the overlapping $`s_1(t)|s_0(t)`$ is zero. In this sense, the decoherence factor defined by $`D(t)=|s_1(t)|s_0(t)|`$ characterizes the extent of decoherence and the time-dependent behavior of $`D(t)`$ means a progressive process of decoherence or a progressive decoherence. The very sharp peaks in $`D(t)`$ curves may originate from the reversibility of the Schroedinger equation for few body system and we called them quantum jumps

It is very interesting to observe that the component Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ and $`H_0`$ are of Hermitian quadratic form of creation and annihilation operators. Mathematically, they are the same as that to produce the degenerate parametric amplifier in nonlinear quantum optics with classical pump . This fact tells us that the component Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ can create different squeezing of the LC mode. Namely, $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ may drive the LC oscillation mode from the same coherent state $`|\alpha `$ to evolve into two different squeezed states. With this mathematical consideration, we can evaluate the time evolution of the total system and obtain the squeezing wave function at time $`t`$

$$|s_k(t)=\mathrm{exp}[i(1)^k\frac{\omega _a}{2}t]|\alpha ,\mu _k(t),\nu _k(t)_{A_k}$$
(6)
of the LC circuit for $`\mu _k(t)[\nu _k(t)]=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{N_k}+[]\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_k}})\mathrm{exp}(+[]i\mathrm{\Omega }t),`$ $`N_0=\frac{1}{N_1}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }+4g^2}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\omega ^2+4g^2\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }}.`$Here, the squeezed coherent state $`|\alpha ,\mu _k(t),\nu _k(t)_{A_k}`$ is defined as in ref. for a new set of boson operators $`A_k=\mu _k(t)a\nu _k(t)a^{}`$ (for $`k=0,1`$).

The above calculation demonstrates that the off-resonance interaction between the LC circuit oscillator mode and the different charge qubit will result in a dynamic squeezing split of the quasi-classical state $`|\alpha `$ of LC circuit. The two split components with different squeezing are represented by different squeezing states. Correspondingly, the decoherence factor characterizing quantum decoherence is

$$D(t)=G(t)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{8g^4\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+8g^4\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t}|\alpha |^2)$$
(7)
where $`G(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+8g^4\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t}}.`$Considering $`\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1`$ and $`\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{g}{\omega }1`$, we can simplify the above result as

$$D(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{8g^4\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}|\alpha |^2)$$
(8)
The reversible decoherence phenomenon with quantum jumps illustrated in Fig.2 is quite typical. It was found even theoretically in reference in 1993, and the possibility of implementing its observation in cavity QED experiment was also pointed out in ref.. In 1997 it was also independently discussed  with another cavity QED setup, whose Hamiltonian is mathematically similar to that in our present investigation. As understood usually , the quantum decoherence reflects a complementarity effect since the LC mode plays a role of carrying away information about the phase of Josephson Junction qubit and the phase uncertainty appears when enough information of qubit is determined by the LC mode in a very classical state. The more exact information about the qubit phase we obtain the stronger influence will the LC mode exert on the qubit. This revival of decoherence or quantum jump substantially results from the fact that the reservoir is only of a single mode, and its profound origin is the reversibility of the time -evolution for the system of few degrees of freedom is reversible since governed by Schrödinger equation.

In comparison with the case of atomic cavity QED, the advantage using Josephson charge qubit to test one-bit reservoir induced decoherence is due to the macroscopically quantum effect of superconductive system and the well-controlled nature of coupling to one-bit engineered reservoir. A direct way to observe the quantum jump effect of engineered quantum decoherence is to detect the current through the probe junction as in the schematics of Copper pair box in Fig.3. The box electrode is connected to an inductor L via the two junctions of SQUID. When the charge qubit is in the high level state $`|1_c`$, there are two electrons passing the probe junction. In fact, under a proper bias condition, the state decays into $`|0_c`$ via two single-electron tunnelling through the probe junction.

As usual, it is difficult to observe the two electrons via a single trial, but one can see an average effect of this tunnelling process. The current is proportional to the charging rate of the occupation probability $`P_c(t)=Tr(\rho |1_{cc}1|)`$ of Cooper pair in $`|1_c`$. The corresponding current $`I(t)=\frac{}{t}(2eP_c(t))`$ is explicitly expressed for $`c_0=c_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$as

$$I(t)e\mathrm{sin}\theta D(t)[\omega _a\mathrm{sin}\omega _at+\frac{8g^4|\alpha |^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Omega }t\mathrm{cos}\omega _at]$$
(9)
where we have considered the approximation $`\omega _a,\omega g`$. In Fig.4, we compare this result with the case without coupling to LC circuit. It can be seen that the current oscillates sinusoidally in both cases, but the coupling to external reservoir adds the periodical amplitude modulation as the direct manifestation of decoherence. Experimentally, one can use the ratio of envelop width and the fixed period to measure the extent of decoherence quantitatively.

In principle this quantum decoherence is macroscopically observable and it is expected to be implemented in the experiment of Josephson qubit in the near future. It is crucial for the above arguments to initially prepare the L-C mode in a coherent state. As usual the external sources can add the linear forces $`q`$ or $`\varphi `$ . They may force the L-C mode to evolve into a coherent state from a vacuum state. In practice, the initial state may easily be in a thermal equilibrium at finite temperature, but this state is described by a diagonal density matrix in the coherent-state representation (”Q-representation”). Thus, the quantum jump phenomenon predicted above can still be observed and the higher temperature can enhance the quantum jump. For the cavity QED case we have shown this enhancement effects by straightforward calculations. The same calculations can be done here for the charge qubit.

A difficulty to realize this setup is to fabricate a nanometer-scale inductor with tunable inductance L. Another difficulty lies in the quantum dissipation of the inductor causing the energy relaxation and the additional decoherence simultaneously. The mechanism of this dissipation is due to the coupling of the inductor to the vacuum electromagnetic field. For the practical purpose, we shall include this dissipation effect in our future argument.

We finally remark that the relevant quantum measurement problem of Josephson Junction qubit has been considered theoretically by Averin. He extends the concept of quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement to coherent Rabi oscillation of JJ qubit. The advantage of such QND measurement is that the observation of oscillation spectrum, in principle, avoids the detector induced decoherence. This suggested that a scheme combining flux and charge qubit may be used in our setup to detect the engineered quantum decoherence without ”additional quantum decoherence”.

This work is supported by the NSF of China and the knowledged Innovation Program (KIP) of the Chinese Academy of Science. It is also founded by the National Fundamental Research Program of China with No 001GB309310. We also sincerely thank D.L.Zhou for the useful discussions with him.


text:
# On a question of Haskell P. Rosenthal

## Problem

Let $`X`$ have a normalized basis $`\{e_i\}`$ with the property that every normalized block basis admits a subsequence equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. Is $`\{e_i\}`$ equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`l_p`$ or $`c_0`$?

Let us recall a well-known theorem of Zippin, which states that a normalized basis of a Banach space such that all normalized block bases are equivalent (to the original basis) must be equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`l_p`$ or $`c_0`$.

The problem of Rosenthal is of particular interest as of a ”mixed” Ramsey type, in the sense that it links two types of ”subbases” of a given basis: namely subsequences and block sequences. An instance of a theorem which mixes a property concerning subsequences and a property concerning block bases was given by the second named author in . She proved that a Banach space saturated with subsymmetric sequences must contain a minimal subspace.

Let us notice that this mixing is necessary to make Rosenthal’s problem significant. Indeed, a weakening of the Rosenthal property would be to assume that every subsequence has a further subsequence equivalent to the basis. An application of Ramsey theorem would give us that the basis is subsymmetric. But obviously not every subsymmetric basis is equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$ (take the basis of Schlumprecht’s space for example).

On the other hand we may weaken the Rosenthal property by only requiring that any block sequence has a further block sequence equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. Let us call a basis with this property block equivalence minimal. The correct setting for such a property is Gowers’ block version of Ramsey theorem. A standard diagonalization yields that for some constant $`C>0`$, any block sequence has a further block sequence which is $`C`$-equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$, and by Gowers’ dichotomy theorem we get the existence of a winning strategy for Player 2 in Gowers’ game to produce sequences $`C+ϵ`$-equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. But again, Schlumprecht’s space is a non-trivial example (see  or ). Actually, by the proof of Theorem 3.4 in , any Banach space saturated with subsymmetric sequences contains a block equivalence minimal basic sequence.

Rosenthal’s problem is closely related to a problem of Argyros concerning spreading models: if all spreading models in a Banach space are equivalent, must they be equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$? We inspire ourselves from results of Androulakis, Odell, Schlumprecht and Tomczak-Jaegermann () about Argyros’ question, to prove that the answer to Rosenthal’s question is positive if uniformity is assumed (Proposition 1), or when $`1`$ is in the Krivine’s set of the basis (Corollary 5). We show that the answer is also positive if $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ satisfy the property of Rosenthal (Proposition 6), or when the selection of the subsequence in the definition of Rosenthal’s property can be chosen to be continuous (Proposition 8). Let us notice that this is in contrast with the case of block equivalence minimality, where uniformity comes as a consequence of the definition, as well as continuity (because of the previous remark using Gowers’ dichotomy theorem). Finally, after relating Rosenthal’s to Argyros’ question, we show how results of descriptive set theory may be used to get a dichotomy concerning the number of non-equivalent spreading models in a Banach space (Proposition 9), and we show that $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$ embeds in $`X`$ if there exists a continuous way of picking subsequences generating spreading models (Proposition 10).

Let us give a definition for the main property in this paper. A normalized basis $`\{e_n\}`$ such that any normalized block basis of $`\{e_n\}`$ has a subsequence which is equivalent to $`\{e_n\}`$ will be said to have Rosenthal’s property, or in short to be a Rosenthal basis.

First some easy remarks. We notice that a Rosenthal basis must be subsymmetric. Indeed let $`𝒜[\omega ]^\mathrm{}_0`$ be the set of subsequences of $`\omega `$ giving a subsequence of $`\{e_i\}`$ equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. Then $`𝒜`$ is clearly Borel and therefore by the Galvin-Prikry theorem, there is an infinite subset $`H`$ of $`\omega `$ such that either $`[H]^\mathrm{}_0𝒜`$ or $`[H]^\mathrm{}_0𝒜^C`$. Evidently the last possibility contradicts Rosenthal’s property. So $`\{e_i\}_\omega \{e_i\}_H`$ and $`\{e_i\}_H`$ is subsymmetric, hence $`\{e_i\}_\omega `$ also.

By renorming we can assume that $`\{e_i\}`$ is invariant under spreading ($`1`$-equivalent to its subsequences). Now Brunel and Sucheston have observed that for a normalized basic sequence $`\{t_i\}`$, invariant under spreading, the difference sequence $`\{t_{2i+1}t_{2i}\}`$ is suppression unconditional (ie. the norm decreases as the support diminishes). By Rosenthal’s property $`\{e_{2i+1}e_{2i}\}`$ is equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$, and is also invariant under spreading. So we may always assume that a Rosenthal basis is both invariant under spreading and suppression unconditional. Let us notice at this point that according to Schlumprecht’s terminology, spaces with a Rosenthal basis are exactly spaces of Class 1 with a subsymmetric basis. So for once, our favorite non-trivial example $`S`$ will not do: it is of Class 2! (see ).

We fix some notational matters: we say that a block basis $`\{x_i\}`$ over $`\{e_i\}`$ is identically distributed if there are scalars $`r_0,\mathrm{},r_k`$ and natural numbers $`m_0<m_0+k<m_1<m_1+k<m_2<m_2+k<\mathrm{}`$ such that $`x_i=r_0e_{m_i}+\mathrm{}+r_ke_{m_i+k}`$.

We show that with a uniformity condition added in the hypothesis the answer is positive. In fact we get a bit more:

###### Proposition 1

Let $`\{e_i\}`$ be a normalized basic sequence and $`K1`$ be a constant such that any identically distributed normalized block basis admits a subsequence $`K`$-equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. Then $`\{e_i\}`$ is equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$.

Proof : The proof in the previous remark still goes to show that without loss of generality, we may assume that $`\{e_i\}`$ is both invariant under spreading and suppression unconditional. Now under these conditions, Krivine’s theorem takes a particularly simple form:

(Krivine) Let $`\{t_i\}`$ be a suppression unconditional basis, invariant under spreading. Then there is a $`p[1,\mathrm{}]`$ such that for all $`k<\omega ,0<ϵ`$, there are identically distributed blocks $`x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_k`$ that are $`(1+ϵ)`$-equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`l_p^k`$.

The set of $`p`$’s satisfying this assertion is called the Krivine set. Take a $`p`$ in this set for our basis $`\{e_i\}`$, then for any $`k`$ there is a norm one block $`x(k)`$, such that taking $`k`$ successive copies of this vector $`x_1(k)<x_2(k)<\mathrm{}<x_k(k)`$ gives a sequence $`2`$-equivalent to the unit vector basis in $`l_p^k`$.

Taking now infinitely many copies of $`x(k)`$: $`x_0(k)<x_1(k)<x_2(k)<\mathrm{}`$, it can be observed that the sequence is identically distributed, so as before it must be $`K`$-equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. But this means that $`\{e_0,\mathrm{},e_{k1}\}`$ is $`2K`$-equivalent to $`l_p^k`$, and as $`k`$ was arbitrary, $`\{e_i\}`$ must be $`2K`$-equivalent to $`l_p`$ or $`c_0`$ if $`p=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Remark

The uniformity condition is necessary in this result. Indeed take any invariant under spreading $`1`$-unconditional basis $`\{e_i\}`$ (like our usual example of the unit basis of Schlumprecht’s space which is not equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$): then any identically distributed sequence $`\{x_i\}=\{r_0e_{m_i}+\mathrm{}+r_ke_{m_i+k}\}`$ is equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$, as proved by the relation

$$(\underset{j}{\mathrm{max}}|r_j|)\lambda _ie_i\lambda _ix_i(\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}|r_j|)\lambda _ie_i,$$

for all sequences $`(\lambda _i)`$ in $`c_{00}`$.

Notice also that this is an opposition to the property of block equivalence minimality, where uniformity is a direct consequence of the property.

We now study Rosenthal’s problem without the uniformity condition. First we notice that the only relevant case is the reflexive one, as showed by the next lemma. We need some notation about spreading models. A sequence $`\{x_i\}`$ in a Banach space $`X`$ is called seminormalized if there are real numbers $`0<c<C`$ such that $`c<x_i<C,i`$. Let $`\{x_i\}`$ in a Banach space $`X`$ be a seminormalized basic sequence. Suppose that

$$r_0,\mathrm{},r_k\mathrm{}t\mathrm{}ϵ>0NN<l_0<\mathrm{}<l_k,$$

$$\left|r_0x_{l_0}+\mathrm{}+r_kx_{l_k}t\right|<ϵ$$

(or more intuitively $`lim_{l_0<\mathrm{}<l_k,l_0\mathrm{}}r_0x_{l_0}+\mathrm{}+r_kx_{l_k}`$ exists), then we say that $`\{x_i\}`$ generates a spreading model $`\{\stackrel{~}{x_i}\}`$ with the norm defined as follows:

$$r_0\stackrel{~}{x_0}+\mathrm{}+r_k\stackrel{~}{x_k}:=\underset{l_0<\mathrm{}<l_k,l_0\mathrm{}}{lim}r_0x_{l_0}+\mathrm{}+r_kx_{l_k}$$

The spreading model $`\{\stackrel{~}{x_i}\}`$ is then a basic sequence, invariant under spreading. Furthermore it is easily seen that the basic constant of $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}`$ is majorized by that of $`\{x_i\}`$. Moreover any subsequence of $`\{x_i\}`$ generates the same spreading model.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`\{e_i\}`$ be a Rosenthal basis for a Banach space $`X`$. Then $`\{e_i\}`$ is equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_1`$ or $`X`$ is reflexive. In the last case, all spreading models in $`X`$ are equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$.

Proof : As before we can assume that $`\{e_i\}`$ is suppression unconditional and invariant under spreading. Now by James’s theorem, $`X`$ is reflexive or contains a subspace isomorphic to $`c_0`$ or $`l_1`$. In the last case, we may assume $`c_0`$ or $`l_1`$ is equivalent to a block subspace of $`X`$, so that $`\{e_i\}`$ itself is equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_1`$. If now $`X`$ is reflexive, any spreading model is generated by a weakly null sequence, so by a block basic sequence, so once again by Rosenthal’s property, is equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\{x_i\}`$ and $`\{y_i\}`$ be basic sequences and $`K>0`$. $`\{x_i\}`$ $`K`$-dominates $`\{y_i\}`$ (written $`\{x_i\}^K\{y_i\}`$), if

$$Ka_ix_ia_iy_i(a_i)c_{00}$$

We will need a recent result of Androulakis, Odell, Schlumprecht, Tomczak-Jaegermann:

###### Proposition 3

(Androulakis, Odell, Schlumprecht, Tomczak-Jaegermann) Let $`\{x_i^n\}_i,n\omega `$ be a sequence of normalized basic weakly null sequences in a Banach space $`X`$ which have spreading models $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i^n\}_i`$, then there exists a seminormalized basic weakly null sequence $`\{y_i\}`$ in $`X`$ with spreading model $`\{\stackrel{~}{y}_i\}`$ such that

$$2^na_i\stackrel{~}{y}_ia_i\stackrel{~}{x}_i^nn(a_i)c_{00}$$

###### Corollary 4

Suppose $`X`$ is a Banach space with a basis $`\{e_i\}`$ with Rosenthal’s property. Then there exists $`K>0`$ such that $`\{e_i\}`$ $`K`$-dominates any identically distributed normalized block basis of $`\{e_i\}`$.

Proof : We may assume that $`\{e_i\}`$ is a normalized suppression unconditional basic sequence, invariant under spreading. Assume that for any $`n<\omega `$ there is a normalized basic weakly null sequence $`\{x_i^n\}`$ in $`X`$ with spreading model $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i^n\}`$ such that $`\{e_i\}`$ does not $`4^n`$-dominate $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i^n\}`$. Take $`\{y_i\}`$ as in Proposition 3 and notice that its spreading model must be equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$ by Lemma 2. So there is some $`K`$ such that $`\{e_i\}^K\{\stackrel{~}{y}_i\}^{2^n}\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i^n\}`$; taking $`n`$ large enough you get a contradiction. So there is some $`K`$ such that $`\{e_i\}`$ $`K`$-dominates any spreading model generated by a normalized basic weakly null sequence. Now any identically distributed normalized block basis is invariant under spreading, so is its own spreading model, giving the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 5

Suppose that $`\{e_i\}`$ is a normalized suppression unconditional basic sequence, invariant under spreading, with Rosenthal’s property. If $`1`$ is in $`\{e_i\}`$’s Krivine set, then $`\{e_i\}l_1`$.

Proof : For any $`k`$ take some norm one block $`x(k)`$ on $`\{e_i\}`$, such that taking $`k`$ successive copies $`x_1(k)<x_2(k)<\mathrm{}<x_k(k)`$ of it you get a sequence $`2`$-equivalent to the unit vector basis in $`l_1^k`$. An infinite sequence of successive copies of this vector $`x_0(k)<x_1(k)<\mathrm{}`$ must be $`K`$-dominated by $`\{e_i\}`$, where $`K`$ is the constant given by Corollary 4. So for any $`k`$, $`\{e_i\}_{i=0}^{k1}`$ $`2K`$-dominates $`l_1^k`$, but must itself, by the triangle inequality, be $`1`$-dominated by $`l_1^k`$. Hence $`\{e_i\}`$ is equivalent to $`l_1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following proposition states that the answer to Rosenthal question is positive if we also assume Rosenthal property in the dual.

###### Proposition 6

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space with a Rosenthal basis, and such that $`X^{}`$ has a Rosenthal basis. Then $`X`$ is isomorphic to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p,p>1`$ (and any Rosenthal basis of $`X`$ is equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$).

Proof : By Lemma 2 we may assume that $`X`$ is reflexive. Let $`\{e_i\}`$ be a Rosenthal basis of $`X`$. By renorming we may assume that the basis is suppression unconditional and invariant under spreading. The biorthogonal basis $`\{e_i^{}\}`$ satisfies these properties as well; in particular it is its own spreading model, so by Lemma 2, it is equivalent to any Rosenthal basis of $`X^{}`$; so it has Rosenthal’s property. By Corollary 4, there exists $`K>0`$ such that any normalized identically distributed block basis in $`X`$ (resp. $`X^{}`$) is $`K`$-dominated by $`\{e_n\}`$ (resp. $`\{e_n^{}\}`$). Given a normalized identically distributed block basis $`\{x_n\}`$ in $`X`$, denote by $`\{x_n^{}\}`$ a normalized identically distributed block basis in $`X^{}`$ such that each $`x_n^{}`$ satisfies $`x_n^{}(x_n)=1`$ and has support no larger than the support of $`x_n`$ (this is possible by $`1`$-unconditionality and $`1`$-subsymmetry): $`\{x_n^{}\}`$ is $`K`$-dominated by $`\{e_n^{}\}`$. It follows that $`\{x_n\}`$ $`1/K`$-dominates $`\{e_n\}`$. Indeed, for $`(a_i)c_{00}`$,

$$Ka_ix_iK\underset{(b_i)c_{00}}{sup}\frac{(b_ix_i^{})(a_ix_i)}{b_ix_i^{}}\underset{(b_i)c_{00}}{sup}\frac{b_ia_i}{b_ie_i^{}}=a_ie_i.$$

Hence any identically distributed normalized block $`\{x_i\}`$ of $`\{e_i\}`$ is $`K^2`$-equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. By Proposition 1, $`\{e_i\}`$ must be equivalent to the unit basis of $`l_p`$ for some $`p>1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now prove that if the selection of the subsequence in Rosenthal’s property is continuous then the answer to the problem is also positive; in fact we get more, it is enough to find a continuous selection of subsequences dominating the basis. We let $`bb(\{e_i\})`$ (or $`bb(X)`$) be the set of normalized block bases of $`\{e_i\}`$, denote by $`bb_D(X)`$ the same set equipped with the product of the discrete topology on $`X`$, by $`bb_E(X)`$ the same set equipped with the ”Ellentuck-Gowers” topology: basic open sets are of the form $`[a,A]`$ with $`a<A`$ for $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ a finite normalized block sequence and $`A`$ an infinite normalized block sequence, where

$$[a,A]=\{a^{}x,xbb(A)\}.$$

Here $`a^{}xbb(X)`$ denotes the concatenation of $`a`$ and $`x`$, and $`bb(A)`$ denotes the set of normalized block bases of $`A`$. Proposition 8 uses the weakest notion of continuity combining the two topologies. We first prove a Lemma.

###### Lemma 7

Assume $`X`$ is a Banach space with a Rosenthal basis $`\{e_i\}`$ not equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$, and let $`\varphi :bb(X)bb(X)`$ map any $`xbb(X)`$ to a subsequence of $`x`$. Then for any $`bb_E(X)`$-open set $`[a,A]`$ in $`X`$ and all $`n>0`$, there exists a normalized block basis $`x`$ in $`bb(A)`$ such that $`\varphi (a^{}x)`$ does not $`n`$-dominate $`\{e_i\}`$.

Proof : Otherwise passing to a further block, we may assume that $`A=\{A_i\}`$ is $`C`$-equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$ for some $`C`$; by Corollary4 there exists $`K`$ such that $`\{A_i\}`$ $`K`$-dominates any of its identically distributed blocks; furthermore by the assumption any block $`x`$ of $`A`$ is such that $`\varphi (a^{}x)`$ $`n`$-dominates $`\{e_i\}`$, so by $`1`$-subsymmetry of $`\{e_i\}`$, some subsequence of $`x`$ $`n`$-dominates $`\{e_i\}`$, thus $`nC`$-dominates $`\{A_i\}`$; so by Proposition 1, $`A`$ would be equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 8

Assume $`X`$ is a Banach space with a Rosenthal basis $`\{e_i\}`$, and that $`\varphi :bb(X)bb(X)`$ is a $`bb_E(X)bb_D(X)`$ continuous map such that for any normalized basic sequence $`x=(x_i)`$ in $`bb(X)`$, the sequence $`\varphi (x)`$ is a subsequence of $`x`$ which dominates $`\{e_i\}`$. Then $`\{e_i\}`$ is equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$.

Proof : Otherwise we build a block sequence $`z=\{z_i\}`$ with $`\varphi (z)`$ not dominating $`\{e_n\}`$ by induction, using Lemma 7. Let $`X^1=\{x_i^1\}`$ be a block such that $`\varphi (X^1)`$ does not $`2`$-dominate $`\{e_i\}`$. There exists an integer $`N_1`$ such that $`\{\varphi (X^1)_i\}_{1iN_1}`$ does not $`2`$-dominate $`\{e_i\}_{1iN_1}`$. By continuity of $`\varphi `$, there exists $`n_1`$ in $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`A_1`$ in $`bb(X)`$, with $`x^1=(x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_{n_1}^1)<A_1`$, such that if $`y=\{y_i\}`$ is in $`bb(A_1)`$ then $`(\varphi (x_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}y))_j=(\varphi (X^1))_j`$ for all $`1jN_1`$. We let $`z_i=x_i^1`$ for $`1in_1`$.

Now let $`X^2=\{x_i^2\}`$ be a block in $`A_1`$ such that $`\varphi (x_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}X^2)`$ does not $`4`$-dominate $`\{e_i\}`$. There exists an integer $`N_2>N_1`$ such that the sequence $`\{\varphi (x_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}X^2)_i\},1iN_2`$ does not $`4`$ dominate $`\{e_i\}_{1iN_2}`$. By continuity of $`\varphi `$, there exists $`n_2`$ and $`A_2bb(A_1)`$,with $`x^2=(x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_{n_2}^2)<A_2`$ such that if $`ybb(A_2)`$ then $`(\varphi (x_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}x_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}y))_j=(\varphi (x_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}X^2))_j`$ for all $`1jN_2`$. We let $`z_{n_1+i}=x_i^2`$ for $`1in_2`$. Repeating this procedure, we obtain by induction a normalized block sequence $`z=\{z_i\}`$, an increasing sequence of integers $`\{N_i\}`$, a sequence of integers $`\{n_i\}`$, finite blocks $`x^i`$, such that for all $`k`$,

$$\{(\varphi (z))_i\}_{1iN_k}=\{\varphi (x_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}x_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}x^k)_i\}_{1iN_k},$$

so that $`(\varphi (z)_i)_{1iN_k}`$ does not $`2^k`$ dominate $`\{e_i\}_{1iN_k}`$, and so $`\varphi (z)`$ does not $`2^k`$ dominate $`\{e_i\}`$. As $`k`$ is arbitrary this contradicts the definition of $`\varphi `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us remark, that once again, there is an opposition between Rosenthal’s property and block equivalence minimality. Indeed, for any block equivalence minimal basis, Gowers’ theorem implies the existence of a winning strategy to produce block sequences ($`C`$-) equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$; in Gowers’ game defined by Bagaria and Lopez-Abad, which is actually equivalent to the original game defined by Gowers (), Player 1 plays block vectors and Player 2 sometimes chooses a vector in the finite dimensional space defined by the blocks played by Player 1. The winning strategy then defines a continuous map from block sequences to further block sequences ($`C`$-) equivalent to $`\{e_i\}`$. Notice also that Gowers-Maurey constructions () yield winning strategies in the previous sense: technically, $`l_1^n`$-averages used to build interesting vectors in their space may at each step of the construction be chosen in an arbitrary block-subspace. Roughly speaking, this means that if one tried to adapt their ideas to build a non-trivial Rosenthal basis, not only one would have to find a way to pass from selecting further (finite) blocks to selecting (infinite) subsequences, but also one would probably have to add new methods to suppress the continuity of the selection map.

Finally, we investigate the relation between Rosenthal’s question and a problem of S. Argyros.

## Problem

(S. Argyros) Let $`X`$ be a Banach space such that all spreading models in $`X`$ are equivalent. Must these spreading models be equivalent to the unit vector basis or $`l_p`$ for some $`p1`$?

For example, spaces $`l_p`$ have unique spreading model up to equivalence. Indeed, in the reflexive case, all spreading models are generated by weakly null sequences; and in $`l_1`$, any spreading model is generated by a $`l_1`$-sequence, or by Rosenthal’s theorem, by a weakly Cauchy sequence. In the second case, the difference sequence is weakly null, so generates $`l_1`$, and it follows that the spreading model is equivalent to $`l_1`$. But this does not generalize to the case of $`c_0`$, since the unit basis of $`c_0`$ and the summing basis generate non-equivalent spreading models; however all spreading models generated by weakly null sequences are clearly equivalent to $`c_0`$.

Lemma 2 shows that a positive answer to the problem of Argyros implies a positive answer to the problem of Rosenthal. Actually Androulakis, Odell, Schlumprecht and Tomczak-Jaegermann proved that the answer to Argyros’ Problem is positive under the additional assumption of uniformity or that $`1`$ is in the Krivine set of some basic sequence. Our methods are inspired from their results. A natural generalization of Argyros’ question is mentioned in their article: if a Banach space contains only countably many spreading models up to equivalence, must one of them be equivalent to $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$? In the other direction, the following remark about Banach spaces with more than countably many spreading models is a straightforward consequence of a well-known result of Silver.

###### Proposition 9

Let $`X`$ be a separable Banach space. Then either $`X`$ contains continuum many non-equivalent spreading models, or $`X`$ contains at most countably many non-equivalent spreading models. When $`X^{}`$ is separable, the same dichotomy holds for spreading models generated by weakly null basic sequences; when $`X`$ has a Schauder basis, it holds for spreading models generated by block basic sequences.

Proof : In the following, $`^C`$ denotes the usual $`C`$-equivalence between basic sequences. We consider the set $`𝒮`$ of semi-normalized basic sequences generating spreading models, which can be described as the set of semi-normalized basic sequences $`\{x_i\}`$ such that: $`k\mathrm{},ϵ>0,N:N<l_0<\mathrm{}<l_k,N<l_0^{}<\mathrm{}<l_k^{},(x_{l_i})_{i=0}^k^{1+ϵ}(x_{l_i^{}})_{i=0}^k.`$ This set is clearly a Borel subset of the Polish space $`X^\omega `$. Now consider the equivalence relation $``$ on $`𝒮`$ meaning that the two sequences generate spreading models which are equivalent in the usual $``$ sense. That is $`(y_n)(z_n)`$ iff

$$C>0,k\mathrm{},N:N<l_0<\mathrm{}<l_k,(y_{l_i})_{i=0}^k^C(z_{l_i})_{i=0}^k.$$

This equivalence relation is Borel as well. Now by a Theorem of Silver (Th 35.20 in ), a Borel (even coanalytic) equivalence relation on a Borel subset of a Polish space has either only countably many classes or there exists a Cantor set of mutually non-equivalent elements. As two spreading models are $``$-equivalent if and only if any two semi-normalized basic sequences which generate them are $``$-equivalent, the result follows. When $`X^{}`$ is separable, the same proof holds for the set of weakly null semi-normalized basic sequences generating spreading models, which is also Borel in $`X^\omega `$; or when $`X`$ has a basis, for the set of block basic sequences generating spreading models.$`\mathrm{}`$

## Remark

It is also a consequence of the Theorem of Silver that a Schauder basis of a Banach space $`X`$ has continuum many non-equivalent subsymmetric block basic sequences or only countably many classes of equivalence of them. Indeed, the set of of normalized block bases equipped with the product topology on $`X`$ is Polish, and the set of subsymmetric normalized block basic sequences is $`F_\sigma `$ in it.

A result analogous to Proposition 8 holds also for spreading models. It turns out that the continuity of a map, which picks subsequences generating spreading models in a strong sense described below, is strong enough to imply that there is actually a copy of $`\mathrm{}_p`$ or $`c_0`$ in the space.

First some terminology: given a sequence $`ϵ=\{ϵ_i\}`$, $`ϵ_i0`$, and a basic sequence $`\{x_i\}`$ in a Banach space we say that $`\{x_i\}`$ $`ϵ`$-generates a spreading model $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}_i\}`$, if for any $`k<n_1<n_2<\mathrm{}<n_k`$ we have $`(x_{n_1},\mathrm{},x_{n_k})^{1+ϵ_k}(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_k)`$. Obviously every basic sequence for any sequence $`ϵ`$ of non-zero scalars has a subsequence $`ϵ`$-generating a spreading model. We will use the notation introduced before Lemma 7.

We say that a Banach space $`X`$ contains almost isometric copies of $`c_0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}_p`$), if for any $`\delta >0`$, $`X`$ has a subspace $`(1+\delta )`$-isomorphic to $`c_0`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}_p`$).

###### Proposition 10

Let $`X`$ be a Banach space with a basis $`\{e_i\}`$. Fix a sequence $`ϵ=\{ϵ_i\}`$, $`ϵ_i0`$. Assume there is a continuous map $`\varphi :bb_D(X)bb_D(X)`$ such that for any normalized basic sequence $`x=\{x_i\}`$ in $`bb(X)`$, the sequence $`\varphi (x)`$ is a subsequence of $`x`$ which $`ϵ`$-generates a spreading model. Then $`X`$ contains almost isometric copies of $`c_0`$ or $`l_p`$ for some $`1p<\mathrm{}`$.

Proof : We recall the notion of asymptotic spaces as presented in . Let $`X`$ be a Banach space with a basis $`\{e_i\}`$. A tail subspace means here a block subspace of $`X`$ of a finite codimension.

We say that a normalized basic sequence $`\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ is asymptotic in $`X`$, if

$$\delta >0k_1x_1e_i_{i>k_1}k_2x_2e_i_{i>k_2}\mathrm{}k_nx_ne_i_{i>k_n}$$

so that $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ is a normalized block sequence $`(1+\delta )`$-equivalent to $`\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n`$. In other words, if we consider the asymptotic game, in which player I picks tail subspaces and player II picks block vectors from the subspaces chosen by player I, then a normalized basic sequence $`\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ is asymptotic iff player II for any $`\delta `$ has a winning strategy in choosing a normalized block sequence of vectors $`(1+\delta )`$-equivalent to $`\{a_i\}_{i=1}^n`$.

Since a block sequence has a subsequence generating an unconditional spreading model, by Krivine’s theorem, there is some $`1p\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{}_p^n`$ or $`c_0^n`$ (in case $`p=\mathrm{}`$) is asymptotic in $`X`$ for any $`n\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. the unit basic vectors in $`\mathrm{}_p^n`$ or $`c_0^n`$ form asymptotic sequences).

Let $`X`$ satisfy the assumption of the proposition. We will use in the proof only asymptotic sequences of length 2. Pick $`1p\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$ (in case $`p=\mathrm{}`$) is asymptotic in $`X`$.

We will show that any asymptotic pair $`(a_1,a_2)`$ of $`X`$ is 1-equivalent to the unit basic vectors of suitable $`\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$.

Fix $`\delta >0`$ and pick any asymptotic pair $`(a_1,a_2)`$. Pick $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`n>1`$ such that $`(1+ϵ_{n1})^3<1+\delta `$. Consider the asymptotic game for $`(1+ϵ_{n1})`$ and $`(a_1,a_2)`$. Let $`x=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$ be a block sequence consisting of vectors picked by player II in the first move in some game (you can produce such a sequence by letting player I choose in the first move tail subspaces of arbitrary large codimension). Let $`\varphi (x)=(x_{j_1},x_{j_2},\mathrm{})`$. By the continuity of $`\varphi `$ there is some $`J>j_n`$ such that $`\varphi ([(x_1,\mathrm{},x_J),X])[(x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_n}),X]`$.

Now consider sequence $`y=(x_1,\mathrm{}x_J,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})`$, where $`(y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})`$, with $`x_J<y_1`$, is a block sequence of vectors chosen by player II in the second move in some game for $`(1+ϵ_{n1})`$ and $`(a_1,a_2)`$, in which player II picked in the first move the vector $`x_{j_n}`$ (again you produce such sequence by letting player I choose in the second move tail subspaces of arbitrary large codimension). Let

$$\varphi (y)=(x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_n},\mathrm{}x_j^{},y_{k_1},y_{k_2},\mathrm{})$$

Again by the continuity of $`\varphi `$ there is some $`K>k_1`$ such that

$$\varphi ([(x_1,\mathrm{},x_J,y_1,\mathrm{},y_K),X])[(x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_n},\mathrm{},x_j^{},y_{k_1}),X].$$

Now consider the asymptotic game for $`(1+ϵ_{n1})`$ and asymptotic $`\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$. Repeating the previous procedure for such $`\mathrm{}_p`$ or $`c_0`$ we extend the finite sequence $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_J,y_1,\mathrm{},y_K)`$ by suitable block sequences $`(1+ϵ_{n1})`$-realizing $`\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$ in $`X`$. In this way we obtain finite block sequences

$$b=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_J,y_1,\mathrm{}y_K,v_1,\mathrm{}v_L,z_1,\mathrm{},z_M)$$

and

$$c=(x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_n},\mathrm{},x_j^{},y_{k_1},\mathrm{},y_k^{},v_{l_1},\mathrm{},v_l^{},z_{m_1})$$

with $`(x_{j_n},y_{k_1})^{1+ϵ_{n1}}(a_1,a_2)`$, $`(v_{l_1},z_{m_1})^{1+ϵ_{n1}}\mathrm{}_p`$ or $`c_0`$, and $`\varphi ([b,X])[c,X]`$.

By definition of $`\varphi `$, $`(x_{j_n},y_{k_1})^{1+ϵ_{n1}}(v_{l_1},z_{m_1})`$, Hence, by the choice of $`n`$, we have $`(a_1,a_2)^{1+\delta }\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$. Since $`\delta `$ was arbitrary small, $`(a_1,a_2)`$ is 1-equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$.

Now by a standard procedure we produce a block subspace $`X_0`$ of $`X`$ such that for any $`\delta >0`$ there is a $`N_\delta `$ such that for any $`N_\delta <x_1<x_2`$, $`x_1,x_2X_0`$ we have $`(x_1,x_2)^{(1+\delta )}\mathrm{}_p^2`$ or $`c_0^2`$, and then produce an almost isometric copy of $`\mathrm{}_p`$ or $`c_0`$ in the space (cf. e.g. , ), which finishes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Remark

Notice that by this proposition in $`\mathrm{}_p`$, for $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, endowed with a distorting norm one cannot pick sequences producing spreading models (in the sense defined above) in a continuous way, however any block sequence is subsymmetric.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank G. Androulakis and T.Schlumprecht for useful information about spreading models and comments about this paper.

Valentin Ferenczi, Christian Rosendal

Equipe d’Analyse, Boite 186, Université Paris 6

4, place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France

e-mail: ferenczi@ccr.jussieu.fr, rosendal@ccr.jussieu.fr

Anna Pelczar

Jagiellonian University

Reymonta 4, 30-059 Kraków, Poland

e-mail: apelczar@im.uj.edu.pl