text:
# Studies of 𝐁^𝟎-𝐁̄^𝟎 Mixing Properties with Inclusive Dilepton Events

## I Introduction

The mass difference of the $`B^0`$-$`\overline{B}^0`$ mass eigen states, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ is a fundamental parameter in the $`B`$ meson system. The techniques that have been employed to measure it in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}^0`$ decays fall into two categories, namely inclusive and exclusive. Among the inclusive methods, the analysis of events where both $`B`$ mesons decay into a final state that includes a high momentum lepton provides the largest event sample PRLDL  and is well suited for further high precision measurements of the time evolution in the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ system. This system exhibits sensitivity not only to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, but also to other potentially interesting phenomena such as *CP* violation in mixing, the decay width difference between the two mass eigenstates and possible *CPT* violation in mixing PRD .

Without the assumption of *CPT* invariance, the flavour and mass eigenstates of the neutral $`B`$ mesons are related by

$`|B_H`$ $`=`$ $`p|B^0+q|\overline{B}^0`$
$`|B_L`$ $`=`$ $`p^{}|B^0q^{}|\overline{B}^0.`$ (1)
The coefficients $`p`$, $`q`$, $`p^{}`$ and $`q^{}`$ can be expressed in terms of the complex parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ by $`\frac{q}{p}=\mathrm{tan}(\frac{\theta }{2})e^{i\varphi }`$ and $`\frac{q^{}}{p^{}}=\mathrm{cot}(\frac{\theta }{2})e^{i\varphi }`$. *CP* is violated if $`\mathrm{}(\varphi )0`$, and *CPT* is violated if $`\theta \frac{\pi }{2}`$ PRD . The time-dependent decay rates are given by PRD

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}^\pm }(\mathrm{\Delta }t)={\displaystyle \frac{|A_{\mathrm{}}|^4}{8\tau _{B^0}}}e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}\times `$ (2)
$`|\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\varphi }|^2\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right]`$
for same-sign dilepton (SS) events, and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)={\displaystyle \frac{|A_{\mathrm{}}|^4}{4\tau _{B^0}}}e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|/\tau _{B^0}}\times `$
$`\{(1+|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^2)\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)+(1|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^2)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)2\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\}`$ (3)
for opposite-sign (OS) events. Here, we assume *CP* is conserved in the flavour specific semileptonic decay amplitudes of the neutral $`B`$ mesons and set $`A_{\mathrm{}}X^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}|B^0`$ and $`\overline{A_{\mathrm{}}}X^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}|\overline{B}^0`$ to be equal. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the differences in the mass and decay width between the two mass eigenstates of the neutral $`B`$ meson, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1/\tau _{B^0}`$ is the average decay width of the two mass eigenstates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the proper time difference between the two $`B`$ meson decays and is defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt(\mathrm{}^+)t(\mathrm{}^{})`$ for the OS events, while the absolute value is taken for SS events.

In equation 2, *CP* violation appears as a difference in the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}`$ rates, in case of a non-zero $`\mathrm{}(\varphi )`$. It does not depend on $`\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or the fraction of mixed events. The last two terms in equation 3 are clearly asymmetric in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The last term will dominate over the second-to-last term since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this analysis, we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and *CP* violating effects are negligibly small PDG2002 ; cp . We extract $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`f_+/f_0`$ the ratio of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ branching fractions to $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$, and the *CPT* violation parameters $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. Our previous determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ using dilepton events from 5.9 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ PRLDL  treated $`f_+/f_0`$ as a fixed parameter. Otherwise the results reported here use the same analysis method and include the earlier data and, therefore, supersede the previous values.

## II Event Selection

The Belle detector, which consists of a silicon vertex detector (SVD), a central drift chamber (CDC), aerogel Čerenkov counters (ACC), time-of-flight counters (TOF), an electromagnetic calorimeter (ECL), and a muon and $`K_L`$ detector (KLM), is described in detail elsewhere NIM . For electron identification, we use position, cluster energy, and shower shape in the ECL, combined with track momentum and $`dE/dx`$ in the CDC and hits in the ACC. For muon identification, we extrapolate the CDC track to the KLM and compare the measured range and transverse deviation in the KLM with the expected values.

### II.1 Lepton Selection

The efficiencies for identifying leptons are determined from two-photon process data samples: $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ for electrons and $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ for muons. For both cases, the possible degradation of efficiency due to nearby tracks that are not present in QED events but must be considered in hadronic events is examined using special hadronic event data samples that contain embedded Monte Carlo (MC) lepton tracks.

We determine the probabilities for misidentifying hadrons as leptons using data samples of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays for pions, $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$ decays for kaons, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ decays for protons. For tracks in the kinematic region of the dilepton event selection, the identification efficiencies are 92.6% for electrons and 87.0% for muons. About 0.1% of pions and kaons, 0.2% of protons and 1.2% of antiprotons are misidentified as electrons. About 1% of pions and kaons, and 0.2% of protons and antiprotons are misidentified as muons.

### II.2 Hadronic Event Selection

Hadronic events are selected from a data set corresponding to 29.4 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance and 3.0 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at an energy 60 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the peak. Hadronic events are required to have at least five tracks, an event vertex with radial and $`z`$-coordinates (where the $`z`$ axis passes through the nominal interaction point, and is antiparallel to the positron beam) within 1.5 cm and 3.5 cm respectively of the nominal interaction point (IP), a total reconstructed centre-of-mass (CM) energy greater than $`0.5W`$ ($`W`$ is the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ CM energy), a $`z`$ component of the net reconstructed CM momentum less than $`0.3W/c`$, a total ECL energy deposit between $`0.025W`$ and $`0.9W`$, and a ratio $`R_2`$ of the second and zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments Fox-Wolfram  less than 0.7.

### II.3 Dilepton Event Selection

Lepton candidates are selected from charged tracks that have a distance of closest approach to the run-dependent IP less than 0.05 cm radially ($`dr_{\mathrm{IP}}`$) and 2.0 cm in $`z`$ ($`dz_{\mathrm{IP}}`$). At least one $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ and two $`z`$ hits are required in the SVD. To eliminate electrons from $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ conversions, electron candidates are paired with all other oppositely charged tracks and the invariant mass (assuming the electron mass hypothesis) $`M_{e^+e^{}}`$ is calculated. If $`M_{e^+e^{}}<100\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, the candidate electron is rejected. If a hadronic event contains more than two lepton candidates, we use the two candidates with the highest CM momenta.

The CM momentum of each lepton is required to be in the range $`1.1\mathrm{GeV}/c<p^{}<2.3\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. The lower cut reduces contributions from secondary (charm) decay. The upper cut reduces the contribution from non-$`B\overline{B}`$ continuum events. The angle of each lepton track with respect to the $`z`$ axis in the laboratory frame must satisfy 30$`{}_{}{}^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<`$ 135. This cut rejects tracks with large angles of incidence in the SVD and hence provides better $`z`$ vertex resolution. In addition, these cuts remove lepton candidates whose particle identification is performed using the endcap KLM or ECL, where the performance is not as good as that of the barrel sections. Events that contain one or more $`J/\psi `$ candidates are rejected. We calculate the invariant mass of each candidate lepton with each oppositely charged track (assuming the correct lepton mass hypothesis). If the invariant mass falls into the $`J/\psi `$ region, defined as $`0.15\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<(M_{e^+e^{}}M_{J/\psi })<0.05\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`0.05\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<(M_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}M_{J/\psi })<0.05\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the candidate event is rejected. The looser lower cut for the electron pair invariant mass is to reject $`J/\psi `$ mesons whose calculated mass is low due to bremsstrahlung of the daughter electron(s). The opening angle of the two leptons in the CM frame $`\theta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{}`$, is required to satisfy $`0.8<\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{}<0.95`$ to reduce jet-like continuum events, SS events where the two reconstructed tracks originate from the from the same particle and events with a primary lepton and a secondary lepton originating from the same $`B`$ meson. After all cuts are applied, we obtain 49838 SS and 230881 OS events. The numbers of selected dilepton events are summarised in table 1.

## III $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ Determination

The $`z`$-coordinate of each $`B`$ meson decay vertex is determined from the intersection of the lepton track with the run-dependent profile of the IP smeared in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ plane by 21 $`\mu `$m to account for the transverse $`B`$ flight length. We define the difference between the $`z`$-coordinates of the two leptons as $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=z(\mathrm{}^+)z(\mathrm{}^{})`$ for OS events and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=|z(\mathrm{}^\pm )z(\mathrm{}^\pm )|`$ for SS events. $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is related to the proper-time difference by $`\mathrm{\Delta }zc\beta \gamma \mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The Lorentz boost factor of the $`e^+e^{}`$ CM frame at KEKB is $`\beta \gamma =0.425`$ KEKB .

The observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions have contributions from “signal” defined as events where both leptons are primary leptons from semileptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons, and “background” where at least one lepton is secondary or fake, or the event is from the continuum. The contributions from “signal” are theoretically well-defined distributions convolved with the detector response function, which describes the difference between the true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. In order to estimate the detector response function, we employ $`J/\psi `$ decays, where the true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is equal to zero, and whose measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distribution, after the contribution of background is subtracted, yields the response function.

Candidate $`J/\psi `$ events are selected using the same criteria as the dilepton sample except the $`J/\psi `$ veto and the cuts on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{}`$ are not applied. We define the $`J/\psi `$ signal region as $`3.00\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{e^+e^{}}<3.14\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`3.05\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}<3.14\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and the sideband region as $`3.18\mathrm{GeV}/c^2<M_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}<3.50\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for both electrons and muons. A linear function is fitted to the sideband region of the mass distribution and extrapolated to the signal region. Using the fit result, we scale the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distribution in the sideband region to the background underneath the peak in the signal region, and subtract it from the signal region $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distribution. Figure 1 shows the resulting detector response function. It has $`\mathrm{RMS}=186\mu \mathrm{m}`$ in the range $`|\mathrm{\Delta }z|<1850\mu \mathrm{m}`$. We use this histogram as a lookup table in the analysis.

## IV Fitting

The mixing parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and other parameters are extracted by simultaneously fitting the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions of SS and OS events to the sum of contributions from all known signal and background sources. We use a binned maximum likelihood method. The background $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions are obtained from MC and used in the fits in the form of lookup tables.

### IV.1 Signal $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ Distributions

The signal from the neutral $`B`$ meson pairs originates either from $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ (unm) or from $`B^0B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0\overline{B}^0`$ (mix). If *CPT* is assumed to be conserved, the signal distributions are expressed by

$`P^{\mathrm{unm}}=`$ $`N_{4S}f_0b_0^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{unm}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}{\tau _{B^0}}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}[1+\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)]`$
$`P^{\mathrm{mix}}=`$ $`N_{4S}f_0b_0^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{mix}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}{\tau _{B^0}}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}[1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)].`$ (4)
If the possibility of *CPT* violation is included, these expressions become,

$`P^{\mathrm{unm}}=`$ $`N_{4S}f_0b_0^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{unm}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}{\tau _{B^0}}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}[(1|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^2)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`+1+|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^22\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)]`$
$`P^{\mathrm{mix}}=`$ $`N_{4S}f_0b_0^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{mix}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}{\tau _{B^0}}}}{4\tau _{B^0}}}|\mathrm{sin}\theta |^2[1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)].`$ (5)
The integrals of $`P^{\mathrm{unm}}`$ and $`P^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ give the time-integrated fraction of mixed events

$$\chi _d=\frac{|\mathrm{sin}\theta |^2x_d^2}{|\mathrm{sin}\theta |^2x_d^2+2+x_d^2+|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^2x_d^2}$$
(6)
where $`x_d\tau _{B^0}\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. When *CPT* is conserved, this becomes the more familiar expression $`\chi _d=x_d^2/(2+2x_d^2)`$. The values of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{sin}\theta |^2`$ are determined from $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$.

The signal distribution for charged $`B`$ meson pairs is the same for both the *CPT* conserving and *CPT* violating cases and given by

$$P^{\mathrm{chd}}=N_{4S}f_+b_+^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{chd}}\frac{e^{\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}{\tau _{B^+}}}}{2\tau _{B^+}}.$$
(7)
In the equation above, $`N_{4S}`$ is the total number of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ events, $`f_0`$ and $`f_+`$ are the branching fractions of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ to neutral and charged $`B`$ pairs ($`f_++f_0=1`$), $`b_0`$ and $`b_+`$ are the semileptonic branching fractions for neutral and charged $`B`$ mesons, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ with superscript are the efficiencies for selecting dilepton events of charged (chd), unmixed (unm), and mixed (mix) origins. The ratio $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{chd}}`$: $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{unm}}`$: $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ is determined from MC and is fixed in the fit, because any detector effect that is not simulated correctly should affect events with these origins equally. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions are obtained from these distributions (equations 4, 5 and 7) by conversion from $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and convolution with the emperical resolution function described in the previous section.

### IV.2 Background $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ Distributions

The background $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions are estimated using the MC. A comparison of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distribution of $`J/\psi `$ data samples between the data and MC shows that the data distribution is wider than the MC distribution. A detailed study showed that after convolving the MC distribution with a $`\sigma =50\pm 18\mu `$m Gaussian, the distributions compared favourably. We smear MC background distributions in the same way to compensate for this discrepancy.

We categorise the backgrounds into eight types depending on their sources: charged $`B`$ pairs, mixed and unmixed neutral $`B`$ pairs, and continuum, each of them contributing to both SS and OS events. To normalise the amount of continuum background, we use the off-resonance data. This leaves seven parameters to normalise the fractions of other backgrounds. The first of these is $`\chi _d`$ which is varied in the fit as given by equation 6; the remaining six are associated with the efficiencies for selecting these background events which are denoted as

$$ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{chd}},ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{chd}},ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{unm}},ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{unm}},ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{mix}},ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{mix}}.$$
(8)
We combine these six types into two: correct-tag (CT) which is associated with $`ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{chd}}`$, $`ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{unm}}`$, $`ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$, and wrong-tag (WT) which is associated with $`ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{chd}}`$, $`ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{unm}}`$, $`ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{mix}}`$. For both CT and WT backgrounds, relative fractions of the three background types are fixed according to the MC. We then determine the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions for CT and WT backgrounds by adding the three corresponding contributions.

The shapes of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ background distributions and the normalisation of the backgrounds from neutral $`B`$ events depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$. To account for this, we generated two samples of generic neutral $`B`$ MC events, one with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.469\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and one with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.522\mathrm{ps}^1`$. Background $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions for any value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ are produced by linear interpolation between these two MC data sets.

The MC simulation does not always reproduce the hadron showering processes correctly in the kinematic region of interest. In order to account for possible discrepancies, we obtain an overall correction factor by using a special control data sample. In this sample events are selected in the same way as the dilepton events, except that we now require that exactly one lepton passes the lepton selection criteria and the other track passes all selection criteria except for the lepton identification requirements. The ratio of data to MC fake rates binned in $`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ and $`p`$ is then applied to the control sample to obtain the overall fake rates for the dilepton analysis. From this method, the hadron misidentification probabilities of the MC are increased by 6% for muons and decreased by 5% for electrons.

## V Results

In the fit, we fix the parameters $`\tau _{B^0}=1.542\pm 0.016\mathrm{ps}`$, and $`\tau _{B^+}/\tau _{B^0}=1.083\pm 0.017`$ PDG2002 , and we impose the constraint $`b_+/b_0=\tau _{B^+}/\tau _{B^0}`$. In the fit where *CPT* is conserved, we have a total of five parameters to be fitted. They are $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`f_+/f_0`$, two parameters which are related to the fractions of CT and WT backgrounds and are expressed as $`T_{CT}b_+^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{chd}}/ϵ_{OS}^{\mathrm{chd}}`$ and $`T_{WT}b_+^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{chd}}/ϵ_{SS}^{\mathrm{chd}}`$, and an overall normalisation. In the search for *CPT* violation, we add two parameters $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. The results of the fits are summarised in table 2.

The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`f_+/f_0`$ do not vary in a significant way when *CPT* violation is included. We use the result from the *CPT* conserving fit to obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`f_+/f_0`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions for the SS and OS events and the resulting asymmetry are shown in Fig. 2, together with the fit results.

Systematic errors in the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`f_+/f_0`$ include contributions from uncertainties in the parameters that are fixed in the fit: $`\tau _{B^+}/\tau _{B^0}`$, the extra $`50\mu `$m smearing of the background $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distributions, $`\tau _{B^0}`$, inclusive $`D`$ meson branching fractions $`BD^+X`$ and $`BD^0X`$. Also contributing to the systematic errors are uncertainties in the continuum contribution determined from off-resonance data, lepton misidentification probabilities, detector response function, MC statistics, background function linear interpolation end points, IP profile smearing, the event selection criteria $`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ and $`dr_{\mathrm{IP}}`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ fit range. Uncertainties of the overall $`z`$ scale in the detector and the boost factor $`\beta \gamma `$ can also contribute to the systematic error.

The contribution from the detector response function is dominated by the statistics of the $`J/\psi `$ event sample. Biases due to approximating the detector response function with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ distribution of $`J/\psi `$ events and the effect of the $`B`$ motion in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame also have some contribution. We estimate the uncertainty of the detector response function by comparing the results of fits to a full MC simulation using three different types of response functions. These are the $`J/\psi `$ response function (extracted in the same way as in data), a true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ response function, and a response function based on the proper time difference between the $`B`$ meson decays (for systematic errors associated with the $`B`$ motion in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ frame). The true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ response function is constructed using signal events and subtracting the true $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ from the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. The proper time response function is constructed in the same manner, except the true $`\beta \gamma c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is subtracted. Each of the three types of response functions is generated using 35 independent MC data sets, resulting in 105 response functions. The fit results using each response function are then compared to extract the systematic errors. Additionally we vary the amount of background subtraction from the $`J/\psi `$ mass peak by $`\pm 1\sigma `$, and repeat the fits. The final detector response function systematic error is the combined error resulting from the above methods.

To quantify the systematic error associated with the MC statistics, the MC is divided into $`n=20`$ sets and the data is fitted using each background distribution $`P_i`$, $`(i=1\mathrm{}n)`$. Both the shapes and the efficiency ratios are independent for each fit. The fits were repeated with 45 different pairs of end points for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ linear interpolation. The RMS of the fit results was assigned as the error. The systematic error for the IP constraint was estimated by varying the smearing used to represent the transverse $`B`$ flight length by $`\pm 10\mu `$m. The cuts on the variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ and $`dr_{\mathrm{IP}}`$ were varied in the region of their default values and the changes in the fit results assigned as errors. The remaining systematic errors were calculated by varying the default values by $`\pm 1\sigma `$, repeating the fits and assigning the differences as errors. The contributions from the uncertanies in the $`z`$ scale and $`\beta \gamma `$ were found to be negligible.

The errors are summarised in table 3.

To reduce the backgrounds, the analysis was repeated with tighter $`p^{}`$ cuts, and separate fits were performed with $`ee`$, $`e\mu `$ and $`\mu \mu `$ sub-samples. Deviations from the default results were all consistent with statistical fluctuations. We repeated the fit including the effects of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }=1\%`$ and found the shift in results to be negligible ($`0.0001\mathrm{ps}^1`$).

The largest contributions to the systematic error for $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ come from the uncertainty in the extra $`50\mu `$m smearing and the $`\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ selection criteria and amount to $`\pm 0.03`$. The systematic error for $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is dominated by the uncertainty in the response function. We conservatively assign an error of $`\pm 0.01`$.

In summary, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ $`=`$ $`(0.503\pm 0.008(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.010(\mathrm{sys}))\mathrm{ps}^1`$
$`f_+/f_0`$ $`=`$ $`1.01\pm 0.03(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.09(\mathrm{sys})`$
$`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`0.00\pm 0.12(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.01(\mathrm{sys})`$
$`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`0.03\pm 0.01(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.03(\mathrm{sys}).`$ (9)
Using world averages for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, the neutral $`B`$ meson mass and decay width PDG2002 , these *CPT* parameters imply PRD  the upper limits $`|m_{B^0}m_{\overline{B}^0}|/m_{B^0}<1.16\times 10^{14}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{B}^0}|/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^0}<0.11`$ at 90% C.L..

## VI Summary

In summary, we have measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and the ratio of branching fractions for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay to $`B^+B^{}`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$, $`f_+/f_0`$, using inclusive dilepton events. The largest contributions to the systematic error for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ measurement come from the response function and the uncertainty in the $`B`$ meson lifetime ratio $`\tau _{B^+}/\tau _{B^0}`$. Recent measurements PDG2002  of this lifetime ratio have significantly reduced this systematic contribution since our first measurement PRLDL . The result of this dilepton analysis $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=(0.503\pm 0.008\pm 0.010)\mathrm{ps}^1`$ is in good agreement with the results from other methods used by Belle otherbelle  and the current world average PDG2002 . The error for the $`f_+/f_0`$ measurement is dominated by the uncertainly in $`\tau _{B^+}/\tau _{B^0}`$. We have also obtained new limits on *CPT* violation parameters.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Communication Through an Unmodulated Spin Chain

## Abstract

We propose a scheme for using an unmodulated and unmeasured spin-chain as a channel for short distance quantum communications. The state to be transmitted is placed on one spin of the chain and received later on a distant spin with some fidelity. We first obtain simple expressions for the fidelity of quantum state transfer and the amount of entanglement sharable between any two sites of an arbitrary Heisenberg ferromagnet using our scheme. We then apply this to the realizable case of an open ended chain with nearest neighbor interactions. The fidelity of quantum state transfer is obtained as an inverse discrete cosine transform and as a Bessel function series. We find that in a reasonable time, a qubit can be directly transmitted with better than classical fidelity across the full length of chains of up to 80 spins. Moreover, the spin-chain channel allows distillable entanglement to be shared over arbitrarily large distances.

Transmitting a quantum state (known or unknown) from one place to another is often an important task bennett00 . It is required, for example, to link several small quantum processors for large-scale quantum computing. Thus it is very important to have physical systems which can serve as channels for quantum communication. We can either directly transmit a state through the channel, or we can first use the channel to share entanglement with a separated party and then use this entanglement for teleportation bennett93 . The ideal channel for long distance quantum communications is an optical fiber. This requires interfacing a quantum computer (such as arrays of spins or ions) with optics. For short distance communications (say between adjacent quantum processors), alternatives to interfacing different kinds of physical systems are highly desirable and have been proposed, for example, for ion traps wineland02 . In this letter, I propose a scheme to use a spin chain (a 1D magnet – real or simulated) as a channel for short distance quantum communication. The communication is achieved by placing a spin encoding the state at one end of the chain and waiting for a specific amount of time to let this state propagate to the other end (as shown in Fig.1(a)). This helps to avoid interfacing because both quantum computers and quantum channels can then be made by the same physical systems. Moreover, neither does the spin chain channel require the ability to switch interactions ”on” and ”off” (often a problem in quantum computer implementations zhou ; benjamin ), nor does it require any modulation by external fields (essential for quantum computation). This simplicity in comparison to a quantum computer makes it an ideal connector between quantum computers and realizable well before a quantum computer.

I will first present the scheme in a general setting for arbitrary graphs of spins with ferromagnetic Heisenberg interactions and later proceed to the realizable case of an open ended chain. Consider the general graph shown in Fig.1(b), where the vertices are spins and the edges connect spins which interact. Say there are $`N`$ spins in the graph and these are numbered $`1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. The Hamiltonian is given by

$$𝐇_𝐆=\underset{<i,j>}{}J_{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^i.\stackrel{}{\sigma }^j\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}B_i\sigma _z^i.$$
(1)
$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^i=(\sigma _x^i,\sigma _y^i,\sigma _z^i)`$ in which $`\sigma _{x/y/z}^i`$ are the Pauli matrices for the $`i`$th spin, $`B_i>0`$ are static magnetic fields and $`J_{ij}>0`$ are coupling strengths, and $`<i,j>`$ represents pairs of spins. $`𝐇_𝐆`$ describes an arbitrary ferromagnet with isotropic Heisenberg interactions. We now assume that the state sender Alice is located closest to the $`s`$th (sender) spin and the state receiver Bob is located closest to the $`r`$th (receiver) spin (these spins are shown in Fig.1(b)). All the other spins will be called channel spins. It is also assumed that the sender and receiver spins are detachable from the chain. In order to transfer an unknown state to Bob, Alice replaces the existing sender spin with a spin encoding the state to be transferred. After waiting for a specific amount of time, the unknown state placed by Alice travels to the receiver spin with some fidelity. Bob then picks up the receiver spin to obtain a state close to the the state Alice wanted to transfer. As we never require individual access or individual modulation of the channel spins in our protocol, they can be constituents of rigid 1D magnets.

We assume that initially the system is initially cooled to its ground state $`|\mathrm{𝟎}=|000\mathrm{}0`$ where $`|0`$ denotes the spin down state (i.e., spin aligned along $`z`$ direction) of a spin. This is shown for a 1D chain in the upper part of Fig.1(a). I will set the ground state energy $`E_0=0`$ (i.e., redefine $`𝐇_𝐆`$ as $`E_0+𝐇_𝐆`$) for the rest of this paper. We also introduce the class of states $`|𝐣=|00\mathrm{}010\mathrm{}.0`$ (where $`𝐣=\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},..𝐬,..𝐫,..,𝐍`$) in which the spin at the $`j`$th site has been flipped to the $`|1`$ state. To start the protocol, Alice places a spin in the unknown state$`|\psi _{in}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|0+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|1`$ at the $`s`$th site in the spin chain. We can describe the state of the whole chain at this instant (time $`t=0`$) as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|\mathrm{𝟎}+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|𝐬.$$
(2)
Bob wants to retrieve this state, or a state as close to it as possible, from the $`r`$th site of the graph. Then he has to wait for a specific time till the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ evolves to a final state which is as close as possible to $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|\mathrm{𝟎}+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}|𝐫`$. As $`[𝐇_𝐆,_{i=1}^N\sigma _z^i]=0`$, the state $`|𝐬`$ only evolves to states $`|𝐣`$ and the evolution of the spin-graph (with $`\mathrm{}=1`$) is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|\mathrm{𝟎}+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\underset{𝐣=\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{𝐍}{}}𝐣|e^{i𝐇_𝐆t}|𝐬|𝐣.$$
(3)
The state of the $`r`$th spin will, in general, be a mixed state, and can be obtained by tracing off the states of all other spins from $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. This evolves with time as

$$\rho _{out}(t)=P(t)|\psi _{out}(t)\psi _{out}(t)|+(1P(t))|00|,$$
(4)
with

$$|\psi _{out}(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{P(t)}}(\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|0+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}f_{s,r}^N(t)|1),$$
(5)
where $`P(t)=\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}|f_{r,s}^N(t)|^2`$ and $`f_{r,s}^N(t)=𝐫|\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐇_𝐆t\}|𝐬`$. Note that $`f_{r,s}^N(t)`$ is just the transition amplitude of an excitation (the $`|1`$ state) from the $`s`$th to the $`r`$th site of a graph of $`N`$ spins.

Now suppose it is decided that Bob will pick up the $`r`$th spin (and hence complete the communication protocol) at a predetermined time $`t=t_0`$. The fidelity of quantum communication through the channel averaged over all pure input states $`|\psi _{in}`$ in the Bloch-sphere ($`(1/4\pi )\psi _{in}|\rho _{out}(t_0)|\psi _{in}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$) is then

$$F=\frac{|f_{r,s}^N(t_0)|\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{3}+\frac{|f_{r,s}^N(t_0)|^2}{6}+\frac{1}{2},$$
(6)
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{arg}\{f_{r,s}^N(t_0)\}`$. To maximize the above average fidelity, we must choose the magnetic fields $`B_i`$ such that $`\gamma `$ is a multiple of $`2\pi `$. Assuming this special choice of magnetic field value (which can always be made for any given $`t_0`$) to be a part of our protocol, we can simply replace $`f_{r,s}^N(t_0)`$ by $`|f_{N,1}^N(t_0)|`$ in Eq.(5). The spin chain then acts as an amplitude damping quantum channel preskill-notes ; nielsen-book . It converts the input state $`\rho _{in}=|\psi _{in}\psi _{in}|`$ to $`\rho _{out}=M_0\rho _{in}M_0^{}+M_1\rho _{in}M_1^{}`$ with the operators $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$ (Kraus operators preskill-notes ) given by

$$M_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & |f_{r,s}^N(t_0)|\hfill \end{array}\right],M_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \sqrt{1|f_{r,s}^N(t_0))|^2}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(7)
Now consider the transmission of the state of one member of a pair of particles in the entangled state $`|\psi ^+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$ through the channel. This is the usual procedure for sharing entanglement between separated parties which precedes teleportation bennett00 . The output state $`\rho _{out}(t_0)=_{i=0,1}IM_i|\psi ^+\psi ^+|IM_i^{}`$ is

$`\rho _{out}(t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(1|f_{r,s}^N(t_0)|^2)|0000|`$
$`+`$ $`(|10+|f_{r,s}^N(t_0)||01)(10|+|f_{r,s}^N(t_0)|01|)\}`$
The entanglement $``$ of the above state, as measured by the concurrence wootters  is given by

$$=|f_{r,s}^N(t_0)|.$$
(8)
Thus, for any non-zero $`f_{r,s}^N(t_0)`$ (however small), some entanglement can be shared through the channel. This entanglement, being that of a $`2\times 2`$ system, can also be distilled horodecki  into pure singlets and used for teleportation. Later we will estimate $`f_{r,s}^N(t_0)`$ for very long open chains and show that entanglement can be distributed to arbitrary distances.

Eqs.(6) and (8) are exceptionally simple formulas for the fidelity of quantum communications and the entanglement shared through our spin-graph channel in terms of single transition amplitude $`f_{r,s}^N(t_0)`$. We note here that such simple formulas, with slight modifications, will hold for spin-graphs with much wider class of interactions, as long as the state $`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ does not evolve nielsen1 .

We will now consider a linear open ended spin chain (Fig.1(a)), which is the most natural geometry for a channel. To use an analytically solvable Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝐋`$ we assume $`J_{ij}=(J/2)\delta _{i+1,j}`$ (nearest neighbor interactions of equal strength) and $`B_i=B`$ (uniform magnetic field) for all $`i`$ and $`j`$ in Eq.(1) for $`𝐇_𝐆`$. The eigenstates of $`𝐇_𝐋`$, relevant to our problem are

$$|\stackrel{~}{m}_𝐋=a_m\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{cos}\{\frac{\pi }{2N}(m1)(2j1)\}|𝐣,$$
(9)
where $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, $`a_1=1/\sqrt{N}`$ and $`a_{m1}=\sqrt{2/N}`$ with energy (on setting $`E_0=0`$) given by $`E_m=2B+2J(1\mathrm{cos}\{\frac{\pi }{N}(m1)\})`$. In this case, $`f_{r,s}^N(t_0)`$ is given by

$$f_{r,s}^N(t_0)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐍|\stackrel{~}{m}\stackrel{~}{m}|\mathrm{𝟏}e^{iE_mt_0}=IDCT_s(v_m)$$
(10)
where, $`v_m=a_m\mathrm{cos}\{\frac{\pi }{2N}(m1)(2r1)\}e^{iE_mt_0}`$ and $`IDCT_s(v_m)=_{m=1}^Na_mv_m\mathrm{cos}\{\frac{\pi }{2N}(m1)(2s1)\}`$ is the $`s`$th element of the inverse discrete cosine transform of the vector $`\{v_m\}`$.

We now want to study the performance of our protocol for various chain lengths $`N`$ with $`s=1`$ and $`r=N`$ (Alice and Bob at opposite ends of the chain as shown in Fig.1(a)). Bob has to wait for different lengths of time $`t_0`$ for different chain lengths $`N`$, in order to obtain a high fidelity of quantum state transfer. Using Eqs.(6),(8) and (10), I have numerically evaluated the maximum of $`|f_{N,1}^N(t_0)|`$ (which corresponds to the maxima of both fidelity and entanglement) for various chain lengths from $`N=2`$ to $`N=80`$ when Bob is allowed to choose $`t_0`$ within a finite (but long) time interval of length $`T_{max}=4000/J`$. This evaluation is fast because Eq.(10) allows us to use numerical packages for the discrete cosine transform. Taking a finite $`T_{max}`$ is physically reasonable, as Bob cannot afford to wait indefinitely. It is to be understood that within $`[0,T_{max}]`$, the time $`t_0`$ at which optimal quantum communication occurs varies with $`N`$. The maximum fidelities as a function of $`N`$ and the maximum amounts of entanglement sharable (both rounded to $`3`$ decimal places) are shown in Fig.2. The corresponding times $`t_0`$ are shown as a logarithmic plot in Fig.3. Note that the search for $`t_0`$ is numerical, so its value may be any one of several instances of time when the maxima of $`|f_{N,1}^N(t_0)|`$ (to $`3`$ decimal places) in the range $`[0,T_{max}]`$ is attained ($`t_0`$ is not necessarily the least time at which the plotted fidelities are achieved).

Fig.2, shows various interesting features of our protocol. The plot also shows that in addition to $`N=2`$, which is perfect (a well known fact for the Heisenberg interaction divincenzo ), $`N=4`$ gives perfect ($`F=1.000`$) quantum state transfer to $`3`$ decimal places and $`N=8`$ gives near perfect ($`F=0.994`$). The fidelity also exceeds $`0.9`$ for $`N=7,10,11,13`$ and $`14`$. Till $`N=21`$ we observe that the fidelities are lower when $`N`$ is divisible by $`3`$ in comparison to the fidelities for $`N+1`$ and $`N+2`$. The plot also shows that a chain of $`N`$ as high as $`80`$ exceeds the highest fidelity for classical transmission of the state i.e., $`2/3`$ horodecki1  in the time interval probed by us. Of course the above results hold only when one is trying to directly transmit the quantum state over a distance. If one first shares entanglement through the channel, then the amount of entanglement $``$ is about $`0.45`$ for an $`80`$ spin chain. This entanglement can be distilled to pure singlets and used for perfect teleportation.

We will now like to estimate the entanglement sharable through chains so large that it is difficult to identify an optimal $`t_0`$ by numerical search. Hence we will choose $`t_0`$ according to a fixed (in general, non-optimal) prescription. To motivate this choice, we expand $`e^{iE_mt_0}`$ in Eq.(10) as a Bessel function series to obtain

$$=|\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k(J_{N+Nk}(\beta _0)+iJ_{N+Nk}^{^{}}(\beta _0))|,$$
(11)
where $`\beta _0=2Jt_0`$. Using, $`J_N(N+\xi N^{1/3})(2/N)^{1/3}Ai(2^{1/3}\xi )`$ for large $`N`$ childs , (where $`Ai(.)`$ is the Airy function) we can prove that we get a maxima of $`J_N(\beta _0)`$ at $`t_0=(N+0.8089N^{1/3})/2J`$ and at this time

$$2|J_N(\beta _0)|1.3499N^{1/3},$$
(12)
which ranges from $`0.135`$ for $`N=1000`$ to $`1.35\times 10^4`$ for $`N=10^{12}`$ (just $`3`$ orders decrease in $``$ for an increase in length $`N`$ by $`9`$ orders – a very efficient way to distribute entanglement). Thus for any finite $`N`$, however large, the chain allows us to distribute entanglement of the order $`N^{1/3}`$ in a time $`t_0`$ linear in $`N`$.

As an alternate system, we now consider a ring of $`2N`$ spins with Hamiltonian $`𝐇_𝐑`$ obtained by using $`J_{ij}=(J/2)\delta _{i1,j},B_i=B`$ in Eq.(1)($``$ is summation modulo $`2N`$). Alice and Bob access the spins at diametrically opposite sites ($`s=1`$, $`r=N+1`$). In this case, the $`2N`$ eigenstates in the one excitation sector are $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_𝐑=(1/\sqrt{2N})_{j=1}^{2N}e^{i\frac{\pi }{N}(m1)j}|𝐣`$ and

$$=|IDFT_{rs}(u_m)|=|\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^kJ_{N+Nk}(\beta _0)|,$$
(13)
where $`u_m=\mathrm{exp}(iE_mt_0)`$ and $`IDFT_{rs}(u_m)=(1/2N)_{m=1}^{2N}u_m\mathrm{exp}\{i(2\pi /2N)(rs)(m1)\}`$ is the $`(rs)`$th component of the inverse discrete fourier transform of the vector $`\{u_m\}`$. Eqs.(11) and (13), and the nature of Bessel functions, imply that the maxima of $``$ coincide for the line and the ring. This means that by using a ring you can communicate as efficiently over a distance $`rs=N`$ as you can with a open ended line over a distance $`rs=N1`$. An immediate implication is that a $`4`$ spin ring allows perfect communication between diametrically opposite sites (because a $`2`$ spin line does divincenzo ). This simple result in quantum information was not known till now. The coincidence of the maxima also means that the maxima of $``$ for the line can also be computed by inverse fourier transforming $`\{u_m\}`$.

We now mention potential systems for realization. Josephson junction arrays, excitons in quantum dots and real 1D magnets, which motivated the recent study of quantum computation in Heisenberg chains zhou ; benjamin  will be good candidates. Interactions in such systems are difficult to tune. Our scheme can be implemented in such systems without the elaborate control required for quantum computation. 1D arrays of spins in solids divincenzo ; kane  are also candidates. There are ring molecules described exceptionally well by $`𝐇_𝐑`$, which also allow local probes for individual spins loss  (these are antiferromagnetic, but a large $`B`$ could make $`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the ground, and $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_𝐑`$ the first excited states). Benzene molecules (with NMR probes possible) with $`J_{ij}=\frac{\delta _{i1,j}}{4}+\frac{\delta _{i2,j}}{12\sqrt{3}}+\frac{\delta _{i3,j}}{32}`$, still have $`|\stackrel{~}{m}_𝐑`$ as eigenstates bowden . $`F`$ can thus be calculated by an IDFT to be $`0.793`$ for $`rs=3`$ at $`t_0=130`$. Principles of the scheme should also be testable in simulated open ended Heisenberg chains in a 1D optical lattice duan .

In this letter, I have presented a protocol for quantum communication through an unmeasured and unmodulated spin chain. It allows quantum communication between adjacent quantum computers without interfacing different physical systems. It is well known that there exists an alternate trivial method of transferring quantum states perfectly over a distance by a series of swaps. But that requires an elaborate sequence of time dependent fields. The highly non-trivial finding of this letter is that even without doing anything, simply by placement, quantum states can be transmitted with high fidelity over a significant distance and entanglement of the order $`N^{1/3}`$ can be shared across a chain of length $`N`$. We also found that a $`4`$ spin ring allows perfect quantum communication between diametrically opposite sites. This letter can be regarded as a study of a fundamental condensed matter system (a finite ferromagnet and its excitations) from the viewpoint of quantum communications. There remains an enormous scope for future extensions to spin graphs of varied geometry and interactions and to other well known condensed matter systems.

This work is supported by the NSF under Grant Number EIA-00860368. I thank G. J. Bowden, J. Eisert, A. Ekert, J. Harrington, V. Korepin, R. Raussendorf, A. Thapliyal, F. Verstraete and particularly Michael Nielsen and John Preskill, for remarks and suggestions.


text:
# Lobe Advance Velocities in the Extragalactic Compact Symmetric Object 4C 31.04

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, considerable efforts have been devoted to the study of Compact Symmetric Objects (CSOs). The name for this class of objects is derived from their morphology – they have sub-galactic dimensions but the same symmetric, two-sided aspect as classical large scale FR I and FR II radio galaxies. The CSOs also show other interesting properties in the radio: (1) their spectrum can peak at frequencies as high as a few GHz (hence their frequent classification as Gigahertz Peaked Spectrum – see O’Dea (ode98 (1998)), Polatidis & Conway (pc (2002)) and Polatidis et al. (pol02 (2002)) for recent reviews), (2) the rate of Hi absorption is higher than in common radio galaxies (e.g. Van Gorkom et al. jvg89 (1989); Pihlström pih01 (2001)), and (3) variability and polarization are almost non-existent (Fassnacht & Taylor fas01 (2001)). At other wavelengths a comprehensive study of the properties of CSO host galaxies is still missing, although HST observations have suggested that in at least some cases the host galaxies are not completely relaxed (Perlman et al. per01 (2001)).

Our current understanding of CSOs suggests that they are small by virtue of their youth (youth scenario) and not confined by an extremely dense medium (frustration scenario). If they are young then CSOs represent the very first stage of an evolutionary sequence (Fanti et al. fan95 (1995); Readhead et al. 1996a , 1996b ; Polatidis & Conway pc (2002)) in which a radio-quiet galaxy turns into the host of a large, kpc-scale radio loud object. It is therefore of great interest to (1) investigate evidence supporting and quantifying the age of CSOs and (2) relate their current properties to the mechanisms triggering the nuclear activity. Indeed, not only the triggering but also the fueling of this activity can be studied in these objects. Since their orientation provides continuum emission on both sides of the center of activity one can search for either Hi or free-free absorption (Peck et al. pec00b (2000)).

The radio galaxy 4C 31.04 (B2 0116+31) was observed with VLBI by Wrobel & Simon (wro86 (1986)) at 92 cm using 7 antennas. Their image showed two components separated by about 70 mas. Cotton et al. (cot95 (1995)) tentatively classified this source as a low redshift ($`z=0.0592`$) CSO. Giovannini et al. (2001, hereafter G (01)) confirmed the CSO structure and identified the core with a weak flat spectrum central component.

On the basis of spectral line VLBI observations, Conway (1996 – hereafter C (96), con99 (1999)) has presented evidence for a circumnuclear Hi disk, viewed close to edge-on, whose axis is that of the radio jet. The presence of a circumnuclear disk is also supported by HST observations (Perlman et al. per01 (2001)), which reveal a disk-like dusty feature of somewhat larger scale but similar orientation to the one suggested by Conway. The optical nucleus is also found to have cone-like features well aligned with the radio axis.

After a five year gap following the first observation at 5 GHz presented in G (01), we re-observed this source with the VLBA in order to look for a possible expansion. After describing the observations and data reduction in Sect. 2, we present our detailed comparison of the two epochs and information on spectral index in Sect. 3. Some implications of the results are discussed in Sect. 4. Conclusions are summarized in Sect. 5.

We assume H$`{}_{0}{}^{}=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and q$`{}_{0}{}^{}=0.5`$ throughout. At the distance of 4C 31.04 ($`z=0.0592`$) 1 mas corresponds to 1.2 pc and 1 mas/yr = 3.9 $`c`$.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 5 GHz Observations

The first epoch observations at 5 GHz were obtained on July 22, 1995 (1995.554), with the Very Long Baseline Array111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated by Associated Universities, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. plus a single VLA antenna (Y1) for $``$5 hours. Details about these observations are discussed in Appendix A of G (01).

In the second epoch we obtained $``$10 hrs of observing time with the full VLBA + Y1 in full polarization mode on July 3, 2000 (2000.504). The observing frequency was centered at 4.971 GHz with 4 IFs and both polarizations recorded. Correlation was performed in Socorro. All calibration and fringe fitting were done within NRAO Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS): J0136+4751 was used as an amplitude and leakage term calibrator, while J1751+0939, 3C395 and J0423$``$1020 were used as calibrators for the polarization angle.

For the purposes of this work it was important to have both datasets reduced in the same way. Thus we reanalyzed first epoch data, in order to have the same calibration procedure for both observations. We then exported the two datasets to DIFMAP222DIFMAP was written by Martin Shepherd at Caltech and is part of the VLBI Caltech Software package, which we used to perform the editing, self calibration and model-fitting. To properly register the two images, we used the 1995.554 image as a starting model for the self calibration of the 2000.504 data. We chose a restoring beam of 3 mas FWHM for both epochs.

### 2.2 1.3 GHz and 22 GHz Observations

It is of great interest to compare the dynamic age – derived from the study of hot spot velocities, to the radiative age – which can be estimated from synchrotron losses. In order to make this comparison, observations at multiple wavelengths are needed.

Data at 1340 MHz were obtained with the VLBA + Y1 on July 7, 1995 in a project aimed to study the nature of Hi absorption in CSOs. Spectral line results and a continuum map with angular resolution of 3 mas (FWHM) were reported in C (96). Details on data calibration and reduction will be presented in a forthcoming paper (Conway et al., in prep.). Here we point out only that the same strategy used for the 5 GHz data was adopted.

We also investigated the high energy end of the spectrum by considering a MERLIN observation at 22 GHz. Observations were made on 29th January 1998 in continuum mode with a bandwidth of 14 MHz, using all 5 of the MERLIN telescopes available at this frequency. The observations lasted 12 hrs. Observations were made using phase-referencing, but only low dynamic range images were obtained using phase-referencing so final images were made using self-calibration. Good fits to the phase and amplitude data were obtained. Final restoring beam was 10 mas (FWHM).

We used the 1.3 GHz data and the second epoch 5 GHz observation to map the spectral index. For a proper comparison we tried to achieve a similar $`(u,v)`$ coverage at the two observing frequencies by cutting the shortest baselines in the 20 cm data and the longest ones in the 6 cm data. Final images were then produced with the same angular resolution and cell–size. The source position in the two images was registered using the isolated, unresolved core.

The resulting $`(u,v)`$ coverages at 5 and 22 GHz are quite different, so it was not practical to produce a spectral index image between these frequencies. However, comparable short baselines are present, so that we do not expect missing flux in either image. This allowed us to derive an integrated spectrum for different regions of the source.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Morphology

In Figure 1 we show the final image of 4C 31.04 at 5 GHz for the July 2000 epoch, convolved with a circular restoring beam of 3 mas (FWHM). The overall structure of the source is the same as was observed in 1995 (both at 5 and 1.3 GHz), consisting of a compact core component with hot spots and lobes on either side. The lower resolution (10 mas FWHM) 22 GHz MERLIN image shown in Fig. 2 shows the same features, except that the lobes look much fainter and are barely detected.

At all frequencies the total source extent is $``$100 mas, which corresponds to $``$120 pc. Total flux density in the 5 GHz maps is $`1.25`$ Jy, i.e. about 90% of values measured with single dish telescopes (Becker et al. bec91 (1991); Gregory & Condon gre91 (1991)). This yields a total power of $`1.14\times 10^{25}`$ W/Hz at 5 GHz, which makes 4C 31.04 one of the weakest known CSOs (Polatidis et al. pol02 (2002)).

Within Difmap, we model-fit the visibility data of the two 5 GHz observations with a set of 10 elliptical Gaussian components. We used large, extended components in order to pick up the lobes’ flux density as well as compact components to describe the core and hot spots. We fixed the parameters of the largest components (size $`>`$ 10 mas) and let the most compact ones vary; results of the fits are listed in Table 1. Uncertainties for each component are computed from the ratio between its FWHM and SNR and are all within 0.1 mas. The most compact components, except for the core, are all located in the hot spots regions. The western hot spot is labeled W1, while the best fit to the eastern end is obtained using three different components – E1, E2 (also the image peak of 40.2 mJy/beam) and E3. Given their high brightness, position close to the edge of the lobe and compactness, we will consider W1 and E2 as the two primary hot spots of this source. It is less likely that either E1 or E3 – both quite fainter than E2 – may be a primary hot spot; it is however possible that they are secondary hot spots similar to those found in many extended FR II sources. The innermost E3 could also be related to the presence of a knot component in an underlying jet.

Indeed, even if a classical jet of plasma is not detected, hints of a jet-like feature are clearly present in the enhanced brightness visible all along the line connecting the core, and in the east hot spot which has an elongated structure on the west side in the full resolution image published in G (01). Giovaninni et al. suggest that the source is oriented close to the plane of sky ($`\theta >75^{}`$), with the west lobe the one nearest to us, in agreement with C (96).

With the increased image fidelity obtained in this second epoch we can also confirm the presence of a ‘hole’ in the east lobe. This large region of lesser brightness lies close to the east hot spot, in a direction perpendicular to the jet. While visible in the first observation, it looks even dimmer and more defined in this second epoch. In contrast, the west lobe does not present very clear features. Being very extended and of low brightness, it cannot be mapped with high fidelity by VLBI technique; however, we are confident that this does not affect the compact hot spot region, which is well detected on most baselines. Fig. 2 and the 1.3 GHz data (C (96)) also confirm that it is indeed a compact, flat-spectrum component.

At their outermost extents, both lobes have a very sharp edge, running along a very wide front ($`20`$ mas in the eastern lobe but even $`40`$ mas in the western one). The sharpness of this border is again in agreement with this region being the place where the plasma is advancing into the external medium as the source grows.

### 3.2 Component Motions and Kinematic Age

The first hot spot velocities in CSOs by Owsianik & Conway (ows98 (1998)) required time baselines of $`15`$ years, with VLBI observations at 5 GHz. By going to higher frequencies (15 and 43 GHz), Taylor et al. (tay00 (2000)) reduced this to $`5`$ years for a few strong CSOs. Currently 10 sources have been measured (Polatidis et al. pol02 (2002)). Typical velocities are 0.2$`h_{100}^1c`$ (i.e. 0.31$`h_{65}^1c`$), which due to the large distance of the sources, translates into angular motions of typically only a small fraction of mas/yr ($``$32 $`\mu `$as/yr at $`z=0.1`$), thus requiring long time intervals and high angular resolutions. We consider observations at 5 GHz separated by 5 years. More observations in the future are planned to extend the time baseline and to better constrain the results.

To measure the advance velocity in 4C 31.04, we compare the model-fit of the dataset in our two epochs. Fig. 3 illustrates the motion of all the compact components with arrows of length proportional to the magnitude of their motion. It is apparent that all the components have moved away from the core. In particular, the two hot spots W1 and E2 show motions almost in the same direction as their position angles. Furthermore, the increase in hot spots separation becomes even more clearly visible when E2 and W1 are directly compared. In Fig. 4 we show a magnified inset around the west hot spot region with contours drawn for both epochs. In this image the 2000.504 profile has been shifted by 0.3 mas westward, so that the position of component E2 is the same in both maps (the displacement needed in declination is smaller than the measurement errors). The motion of the peak of W1 is clear, confirming the results of model-fitting.

In Fig. 5 we show a brightness profile made in AIPS with the task SLICE. The two profiles are derived from the two epochs along the same slice. This slice cuts the two hot spots at a position angle of $`82.6^{}`$ (measured north to east), passing close to the core (but not across the core itself because of a small bend in the jet). In the global profile one can easily see the two lobes on the opposite sides (the east one being the brightest) and the core region in the middle (see Sect. 3.5 about core variability). The hot spot regions are magnified in the two insets, showing that both in the eastern and the western hot spot the 2000.504 profile is shifted outward. This displacement, though small, is clear both in the rising and in the falling part of the profile. We remind the reader that the region between the core and the west hot spot is poorly imaged, so that the features present in the slices in this region are not completely reliable. It is also possible that some of the changes are due to turbulence present in this back-flow region.

The increase in the hot spot separation implies an expansion of the whole source. Since the lobes are too extended and faint to measure their expansion by model-fitting, we tried to directly compare the two images. The difference map shown in Fig. 6 was done with the AIPS task COMB. The features that appear in this image, in particular in the eastern lobe, are clearly related to the expansion of the source. The two close white and black spots are due to the outward shift of the peak of component E3. Moreover, the presence of a white stripe all around the outer edge of the lobe, though faint, is suggestive of an expansion of the whole eastern lobe in this direction. Note that a similar white stripe, even if less evident, is present all around the edge of the west lobe.

As these last results (shown by Fig. 4, 5, 6) are drawn from the images and not from the model, we feel that they lend support to the detection of motion and to the estimate of its velocity derived from the model-fits. With just two epochs available, and a moderately short time baseline, it is difficult to better quantify the accuracy of our measurements of component motions. We hope to address this difficulty with future observations.

Model-fitting of the present data (see Table 1) provides the most reliable information on the velocity. The east and west hot spots present quite different displacements, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$W1 = (0.54 $`\pm `$ 0.07) mas and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E2 = (0.31 $`\pm `$ 0.04) mas. It is possible that such differences may be due to a velocity asymmetry related to an inhomogeneous ISM, but it is not possible to discuss it more deeply with only a two epoch measurement. Since the two arms are about the same length and the source is near to the plane of sky, we will assume that the average velocity over the long term is the same in both directions.

We therefore try to estimate the advance speed by averaging up the results for the two hot spots W1 and E2. This yields an average motion of (0.42 $`\pm `$ 0.08) mas in 5 years. This indicates that each hot spot is advancing at (0.085 $`\pm `$ 0.016) mas/yr, i.e. (0.33 $`\pm `$ 0.06) $`h_{65}^1c`$. The most distant component (W1) is located 46.62 mas from the core, so it would have taken 548 $`\pm `$ 100 years to cover this distance at such speed. Therefore, based on kinematics, we can estimate the source age at $``$ 550 years.

### 3.3 Spectral Index Distribution and Spectral Age

From the measured energy distribution of a population of electrons it is possible – under a few basic assumptions – to determine how long these electrons have been radiating. This has proved to be a useful tool in estimating ages of compact radio sources (e.g. Murgia et al. mur99 (1999); Readhead et al. 1996a ). In order to perform such a study, one needs to know the spectral index distribution and the magnetic field in the source.

The image in Fig. 7 shows the spectral index for 4C 31.04 between 1.3 and 4.8 GHz at a resolution of 3.0 mas (FWHM). The core spectrum is inverted333Spectral index is defined according to $`S(\nu )\nu ^\alpha `$. ($`\alpha =0.6\pm 0.05`$). This is probably due to self-absorption, even after accounting for possible flux density variability (see Sect. 3.5). In the east lobe, the hot spot region shows a flat spectrum ($`\alpha `$ $``$ 0.1 $`\pm `$ 0.01) with a constant and uniform steepening toward the core direction, up to $`\alpha `$ $``$ 1.0 ($`\pm `$ 0.02) at 20 mas from the core, just before the ‘gap’ between the core and lobe. The spectral index distribution is more complicated in the west lobe perhaps on account of a stronger interaction of the radio plasma with the ISM, as suggested also by the lobe morphology (see Sect. 4.2). The region of the faint hot spot is still flat ($`\alpha 0.25\pm 0.01`$) but the spectral index steepening is more irregular moving toward the core and to the north. The steepest values in the more external northern regions are as high as 1.0-1.2. In the core-hot spot direction the region from 10 to 30 mas shows again a flat spectrum (0.1-0.4) suggesting a local interaction between radio plasma and the dense ISM. Imaging problems in this low brightness region could also play a role.

In this high resolution image, one can see the region of the hole close to the east hot spot. The spectral index is very steep here, not only in the deep hole itself – where it is as steep as 1.7 $`\pm `$ 0.04 – but also in external lobe region, where we find $`\alpha `$ = 1.0 $`\pm `$ 0.04.

In a population of electrons with an initial power-law energy distribution, synchrotron losses produce a curvature in the original straight power-law radio spectrum. The curvature manifests itself at a critical frequency related to the electron age. The shape of the spectrum and the critical frequency crucially depend on the evolution of the electron pitch angle distribution with time (Pacholczyk pac70 (1970)). We used the Jaffe-Perola model which assumes a redistribution of electron pitch angles on time scales short compared with their radiative lifetimes (Jaffe & Perola, jaf73 (1973)). To derive the critical frequency from the spectral index information, we used the Synage program (Murgia & Fanti mur96 (1996)). Since a spectral age measurement can give only the time since electrons were accelerated, we avoided the core and hot spot regions where local turbulence and electron re-acceleration is likely to be present, and investigated the steep-spectrum, relaxed regions where the ‘oldest’ electrons are present. The break frequency was found to be $``$7.4 GHz in the east lobe at $``$20 mas from the core, and between 6.1 and 7.2 GHz in the northern region of the west lobe.

The MERLIN image in Fig. 2 lends strong support to this estimate, showing that very little of the lobe emission is detected at 22 GHz. This cannot be due to a lack of short spacings since the MERLIN has baselines down to 6 km. It follows that the lobes are undetectable because of spectral steepening. Fig. 8 shows the spectrum for the two hot spots, the lobes and the core. The steepening between 5 and 22 GHz in the lobes supports the presence of a spectral break around 5-7 GHz.

The local magnetic field, which is also needed to derive the lifetime of radiating electrons, was calculated assuming equipartition. We note that a recent X-ray study of a relatively compact FR II radio source (Brunetti et al. bru01 (2001)) indicates that the magnetic field in the radio lobes is very near equipartition; equipartition conditions in GPS are also preferred by Snellen & Schilizzi (sne02 (2002)). Standard formulae (Pacholczyk pac70 (1970)) were used under the assumption that relativistic particles and magnetic fields occupy the same volume ($`\varphi =1`$), and that the amount of energy in heavy particles is the same as that in electrons ($`k=1`$). We assumed cutoffs in the relativistic particle energies at 10 MHz and 100 GHz. The major uncertainty in the estimation of the equipartition field strength comes from the assumption of the source depth which we assumed to be equal to the smaller transverse dimension of the lobe regions where we estimated the magnetic field.

With these assumptions the derived equipartition magnetic field is 4.1 milligauss in the east hot spot region, decreasing to 3.3 milligauss in the direction of the core. In the less bright west hot spot we find 3.5 milligauss and even smaller values (2.2-2.7 milligauss) in the extended W lobe regions. The uncertainties are mainly due to the non-uniform spectrum present in this region. With these results the estimated radiative age of older emitting electrons is 3.0 $`\times `$ 103 yrs in the east lobe (near the core) and 4.5-4.9 $`\times `$ 103 yrs in the northern region of the west lobe. An estimate of the uncertainty of these values is not obvious since errors are mainly model dependent.

### 3.4 Polarization

After removing the instrumental polarization we did not detect any polarized signal from the source. The $`3\sigma `$ upper limit on the polarized flux density is $`<0.140`$ mJy/beam at 5 GHz. This limit corresponds to $`<0.3`$% polarization at the brighter, eastern hot spot, to $`<0.6`$% polarization at the core, and $`<3`$% at typical locations in the lobes.

### 3.5 Variability

The sum of model-fit components in the two epochs is 1.21 and 1.24 Jy respectively, which gives an insignificant difference of just 2%. Given that many of the components are extended, such a small variation in the total flux density over 5 years seems reasonable. The core component is compact (size $`0.81`$ mas) and could be more variable. In fact from the model-fit results (Table 1) the core varies from 20 $`\pm `$ 1 mJy in 1995 to 24 $`\pm `$ 1 mJy in 2000. Although this variation is only significant at the 3$`\sigma `$ level, if it is real then it indicates a change by 20%. This variation is consistent with the limits on core variability implied by the integrated intensity observations of Fassnacht & Taylor (fas01 (2001)) from a small sample of CSOs studied over the course of eight months. Fassnacht & Taylor found the rms variation in the integrated flux density to be 0.7%. Assuming all that variation was due to the core component, and given an average core fraction of 0.03 (Taylor et al tay96 (1996)), leads to an estimate for the core variability in CSOs of less than 23%. Better limits on the variability of core components in CSOs will require VLBI monitoring campaigns, rather than low resolution studies only sensitive to the integrated flux density. The radio galaxy 4C 31.04 is an excellent candidate for such a study since the core is comparatively strong and isolated from nearby jet components.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Ages of Compact Symmetric Objects

We derive the kinematic age of 4C 31.04 to be 550 years. This estimate is within the 300 to 1200 year range of ages found in the literature (Polatidis & Conway pol02 (2002); Owsianik & Conway ows98 (1998); Taylor et al. tay00 (2000)). It is interesting to ponder the narrowness of this range. Even younger sources would need to be smaller, and/or have faster hot spot advance speeds. Currently there is a lower limit on the size of a source of a few mas ($`10`$ pc) that we can readily classify as a CSO by identifying a core component between two hot spots. Assuming that the hot spot advance speed through the AGN environment is similar ($`0.2c`$) for an ultra-compact CSO (the denser environment on such small scales should make this a conservative assumption) then we can derive a lower limit to the age of observed CSOs of 100 years. There is also an observational upper limit on the size of CSOs. This is the size beyond which the CSO becomes difficult to observe with VLBI arrays since an interferometer is only sensitive to certain spatial frequencies. VLBI arrays have difficulty imaging components larger than about 40 beams, or sources lacking a strong compact component. By the time CSOs reach 1 kpc in size the lobes will be largely resolved out and the hot spots will be resolved to the extent that a direct detection is impossible without phase referencing. Velocity measurements of heavily resolved components are also much more difficult. These parameters give a conservative upper limit on the source age of 10000 years. Future advances in Space VLBI may discover radio sources younger than 100 years, and the E-MERLIN and EVLA projects may provide sufficient resolution and sensitivity to extend the upper boundary of sources for which we can determine a kinematic age. We also note that the advance speed of both east and west hot spots in 4C 31.04 at 0.33 $`h_{65}^1c`$ are at the high end of those measured in CSOs to date, corresponding to a hot spot separation velocity of 0.39 $`h_{100}^1c`$. This should be confirmed with future epochs.

It is of interest to compare the dynamic age of 550 years – derived from the study of hot spot velocities, to the radiative age – which we estimate from synchrotron losses in 4C 31.04 to be $`4000`$ years. The radiative age is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the dynamic age estimate, indicating that some of our assumptions are in error.

First, we note that the kinematic age estimate rests on the assumption that the velocity has been constant over the lifetime of the source. Although Readhead et al (1996b ) argue that only mild evolution in velocity is likely, this assumption may not hold in 4C 31.04. As discussed in Sect. 4.2, there is evidence from the radio morphology of a strong interaction between the jet and the ISM. This could be making the jet wander around within the lobe, forming new hot spots which drill quickly out for some brief time before being shut off. Further suggestion that the kinematic age may be an underestimate comes from the west lobe dimension: the weakest detectable emission northward is about 60 mas which would require a lobe expanding at $`0.41c`$.

On the other hand, it is possible that the radiative age is overestimated by the equipartition field strength or the value of the critical frequency. While the 22 GHz data suggest that the value of the critical frequency is quite accurate, we note that the equipartition field could easily be higher if either $`k>1`$ or $`\varphi <1`$. In this case the radiative age would be much more similar to the kinematic estimate; for instance $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}6`$ milligauss (given by $`k=20`$ and $`\varphi =0.7`$) would yield $`1000`$ years. Furthermore, this result was obtained assuming no energy losses due to Inverse Compton interactions. Even if scattering with the microwave background can be neglected with no harm, it is possible that in such a small source some interaction is present between relativistic electrons in the lobes and photons from the active core. The radiative age would then be smaller than calculated.

It is not easy to infer from the present data which estimate is the most reliable. We hope to address the question of the dynamic age with additional observations in the next years. Other studies of magnetic fields in CSOs would help to understand how correct are the assumptions going into the radiative age estimate. Also, high resolution low frequency data could help to estimate $`H`$ from self-absorption analysis, while high frequency data will allow a better estimate of the critical frequency.

### 4.2 Morphology and interaction with ISM

The radio morphology of the two lobes is quite different. It is likely that their asymmetry is related to a slightly different ambient medium. In particular, the interaction between the relativistic jet and the ISM can lead to the formation of lobes of various morphologies.

According to computer simulations presented by Bicknell et al. (bic02 (2002)), the extended, low brightness morphology of the western lobe could be produced by a jet interacting with many ISM clouds. This interaction is not so strong as to destroy the jet but would cause: (1) the presence of a hot spot fainter than usual and (2) the spread of a large fraction of relativistic plasma carried by the jet and therefore the formation of a diffuse, faint lobe.

In the same scenario, the more compact and regular morphology of the eastern lobe suggests that it is undergoing less interaction with the ISM. The deep hole close to the hot spot becomes an even more interesting feature. Could it be due to foreground absorption or is it truly a large region in the lobe devoid of any radio emitting plasma? The steep spectral index of 1.7 $`\pm `$ 0.04 found from the spectral index image (Fig. 7), argues against foreground absorption by thermal electrons which would produce an inverted spectrum. This leaves us with a remarkable hole in the lobe. It would be interesting to search for the presence of dense molecular gas that might be impenetrable by the radio plasma.

### 4.3 Evolution of CSOs

Despite uncertainties and some discrepancy between kinematic and spectral age for 4C 31.04, our results clearly indicate that it is indeed a very young source. Most of the known Compact Symmetric Objects have been selected from flux limited samples, so that they are usually quite bright and they will likely evolve into FR II radio galaxies. It is interesting to ask what will be the fate of the weaker 4C 31.04, and try to learn more on the relation between ‘child’ and ‘adult’ stages of radio sources.

One of the problems with the youth scenario is given by the relative numbers of small sources (CSOs, CSS) and large classical double radio galaxies. This has been explained by models (e.g. Fanti et al. fan95 (1995)) in which the total power $`P`$ of the source decreases as a power law function of linear size $`LS`$: $`P(LS)^h`$. As a consequence of variations of external density and pressure, the index $`h`$ is not very strictly constrained and it may actually change on different scales and for different sources.

If we roughly use $`P(LS)^{0.5}`$ as a law for radio power evolution (O’Dea ode98 (1998)), we find that 4C 31.04 will drop below the power of $`10^{24.5}`$ W/Hz as soon as it will be $``$40 times larger than its actual size. In other words, by the time 4C 31.04 will be 5 kpc large, its power will be similar to that of edge darkened FR I radio galaxies. Even if this threshold is actually not so sharp and the numbers vary, it is interesting to speculate that 4C 31.04 may have an FR I morphology in the future. In fact, based on pc-scale jet velocities and properties, G (01) argued that there are no significant differences between FR I and FR II radiogalaxies on pc-scales. It is then interesting to note that a possible future FR I radio galaxy now has the same edge brightened look of CSOs evolving into FR IIs. Thus, even in a completely different evolutionary stage, there would seem to be no difference on the small scale between FR Is and FR IIs. The discovery of other CSOs among samples of low-power sources is needed to better understand the evolution of low-power radio galaxies.

### 4.4 Lack of Polarization

Synchrotron emission is intrinsically polarized up to 70%, depending on the amount of order in the source magnetic fields (Burn bur66 (1966)). Why is there so little polarized emission from 4C 31.04 and other CSOs (Peck & Taylor pec00a (2000))? From the Hi observations we know that 4C 31.04 is viewed through a moderate density of atomic gas. If there is ionized gas present as well along with a magnetic field, then the radiation from 4C 31.04 that we observe could have been depolarized by a change in polarization angle within each 8 MHz IF, or by a gradient in the foreground Faraday screen. For bandwidth depolarization to be effective at 5 GHz requires RMs of 105 rad m-2, while beam-width depolarization requires gradients in the RM of 300 rad m-2 mas-1 or more.

## 5 Conclusions

From the comparison of the two VLBI images at 5 GHz, a small but significant expansion appears to be present in the Compact Symmetric Object 4C 31.04. From the derived expansion rate and the current size of the source we calculate an age of 550 years. A somehow larger value of the age (3000 – 5000 yrs) is derived from spectral index analysis. Despite a significant difference, both results agree that the source is very young, as already demonstrated for other CSOs in the literature. However, the relatively high hot spots velocity and its low power make of 4C 31.04 a peculiar case among CSOs.

The discrepancy and uncertainty in the age estimates, the uncommon presence of a deep ‘hole’ in the East lobe, the detection and the variability of the compact core suggest that it may be worth observing this source again in the future. New VLBI observations will be of interest to look for free–free absorption at low frequency, to confirm the expansion, and to look for spectral aging at high frequency.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the referee, Dr. M. S. Brotherton, for useful comments which improved the clarity of the paper. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, under contract with NASA. This research has also made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. GBT thanks the CNR for hospitality during his visit when much of this work was accomplished. This work was partly supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MIUR) under grant COFIN 2001-02-8773.