text:
# Carrier relaxation due to electron-electron interaction in coupled double quantum well structures

## I Introduction

Electron-electron interaction induced carrier relaxation is an important inelastic scattering process in low-dimensional semiconductors nanostructures. It is often (particularly in situations where LO phonon emission is energetically prohibited because the excited electrons do not have enough energy) the most dominant relaxation process in semiconductor quantum wells and wires, and is therefore of considerable fundamental and practical importance. Band gap engineering has led to the possibility of fabricating tunable far infrared quantum well cascade lasers (QCL) and efficient quantum well infrared photodetectors (QWIP) where inelastic carrier relaxation via electron-electron interaction is a crucial (perhaps even decisive) process in determining device operation and feasibility . For QCL and QWIP operations it is the intersubband inelastic relaxation which turns out to be the primary rate limiting scattering process. For other proposed devices, such as the planar hot electron transistors or related 2D high speed devices, intrasubband relaxation is the important process. A thorough quantitative understanding of intra- and inter-subband relaxation due to electron-electron interaction is therefore important for the successful realization of these devices. In addition to this practical technological motivation arising from QCL, QWIP, and other proposed band-engineered quantum well devices, there is also obvious fundamental reason for studying inelastic Coulomb scattering in 2D quantum well systems. Inelastic electron-electron scattering determines the 2D quasiparticle spectral width, as determined for example in tunneling measurements, through the imaginary part of the electron self-energy function .

In this article we use a many-body approach in calculating the inelastic relaxation rate of 2D electrons confined in GaAs-AlxGa1-x As semiconductor quantum well structures. Our work is a multisubband generalization of the earlier work  by Jalabert and Das Sarma who considered only intrasubband relaxation within a single subband model. We consider both intra and intersubband relaxation in the two lowest subbands, and consider both single well and coupled double well structures. An additional important issue addressed in our work is the effect of structural asymmetry in the quantum well on the relaxation rate. This is in fact a potentially significant factor in the fabrication of QCL and QWIP structures since asymmetry could lead to the opening of new electron-electron interaction channels in the inelastic intersubband relaxation as we discuss below in this article.

The central quantity we calculate in this work, within the leading order dynamically screened Coulomb interaction expansion (the so-called GW approximation in the multisubband situation), is the imaginary part of electronic on-shell self-energy matrix, $`M`$, in the quantum well subband index ($`i,j,`$ etc.). The subband self-energy in the multisubband situation is, in general, off-diagonal reflecting the breaking of the translational invariance along the growth (z) direction (we take the x-y plane to be the 2D plane with all wave vectors in this paper being 2D wave vectors in the x-y plane). The off-diagonal self-energy, $`Im\left(M_{ij}\right)`$, incorporates in an intrinsic many-body manner the possibility of electron-electron interaction induced intersubband scattering (both virtual and real) of carriers. We believe that in the doped situation of our interest, where the quantum well subbands are occupied by many electrons, the many-body self-energy approach is the only reasonable technique in calculating the inelastic carrier relaxation rate in contrast to the Boltzman equation approach where the scattering rates usually calculated using Fermi’s golden rule. This is because the dynamical screening inherent in the many electron system, which affects the calculated inelastic scattering rates in profound and highly nontrivial way, is automatically incorporated in our many-body GW expansion whereas inclusion of dynamical screening in Fermi’s golden rule type formula is problematic and can only be done heuristically by replacing the bare interaction by a screened interaction in an ad-hoc manner.

Our theory, as mentioned above, is based on the so-called GW self-energy approximation  where the electron self-energy $`M`$ is obtained in a leading order expansion of the dynamically screened Coulomb interaction $`WV^s`$, where the superscript $`s`$ denotes dynamical screening of the bare electron-electron interaction matrix $`V`$ in the multisubband situation. We use the RPA to obtain the dynamical screened interaction $`V^s`$, i.e. $`V^s\epsilon ^1V`$, with $`\epsilon 1V\mathrm{\Pi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the leading-order (i.e. noninteracting) electron polarizability matrix. We also approximate the electron Green’s function $`G`$ by the noninteracting Green’s function $`G^0`$ making our formal expression for the self-energy matrix to be

$$MG^0V^s,$$
(1)
where the integral involves integrating over all internal momentum and energy variables as well as summing over all internal subband indices (and spin). Putting the subband (matrix) indices explicitly in Eq. (1), we get

$$ImM_{ij}=Im\underset{lm}{}G_{lm}^0V_{ilmj}^s.$$
(2)
We note, however, that $`G^0,`$ being the noninteracting Green’s function, is necessarily diagonal in subband indices (i.e. an electron cannot suffer an intersubband scattering in the absence of interaction);

$$G_{lm}^0G_{ll}^0\delta _{lm}.$$
(3)
Then, Eq. (2) becomes

$$ImM_{ij}=\underset{l}{}Im\left[G_{ll}^0V_{illj}^s\right],$$
(4)
with

$$V_{illj}^s=\left(\epsilon ^1V\right)_{illj}.$$
(5)
Equations (4) and (5) are the central formal equations we use in our theory to obtain the inelastic relaxation time $`\tau `$, remembering that the scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the relaxation time $`\tau `$ are connected by

$$\tau =\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(6)
where,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left|ImM\right|.$$
(7)
In Eqs. (6) and (7), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left|ImM\right|`$ is calculated on-shell, i.e., the quasiparticle self-energy defines $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To demonstrate how Eq. (4) may, in principle, differ from the simplistic Fermi’s golden rule approach we consider the specific two subband model of interest to us in this paper. Then $`i,j,l=1,2`$ with only subband 1, the ground subband, and the subband 2, the first excited subband being considered in the theory assuming all other subbands to be substantially higher in energy making negligible contributions to the self-energies of the lowest two subbands. We also assume the square well structure to be symmetric, so that parity is a good quantum number in the problem which makes all ”off-diagonal” interaction matrix elements vanish  by virtue of parity conservation with the only non-zero elements of $`V^s`$ being $`V_{1111}^s,V_{2222}^s`$, $`V_{1212}^s,`$ and $`V_{1122}^s`$ (note that $`V_{1221}^s=V_{2112}^s`$ and $`V_{1122}^s=V_{2211}^s`$by symmetry). In this situation Eq. (4) implies that

$$ImM_{12}=ImM_{21}=0,$$
(8)
and,

$$ImM_{22}Im\left[G_{11}^0V_{2112}^s+G_{22}^0V_{2222}^s\right].$$
(9)
We note that the dynamically screened interaction matrix element $`V_{1122}^s`$ is not explicitly present in Eq. (9). On the other hand, a naive Fermi’s golden rule approach will explicitly include such a $`V_{1122}^s`$ term, as indeed has been done in the literature , because it seems to arise from the direct Coulomb interaction $`V_{1122}`$ between an electron in subband 1 and an electron in subband 2 without any intersubband scattering. We mention, however, that dynamical screening of $`V_{2222}`$ produces an effective $`V_{2211}`$ term in our theory since dynamical screening proceeds through virtual creation of electron-hole pairs.

We have calculated the energy dependent inelastic relaxation rate at $`T=0`$ for a two-subband (1 and 2) GaAs-AlxGa1-xAs quantum well system with a total electron density $`N_e=2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 for the following five distinct situations. (i) Two coupled symmetric quantum wells of width 150 Å each with interwell tunneling induced by a tunnelling barrier of height 228 meV and width 30 Å. Here the lowest two subbands are the so-called symmetric (bonding) and antisymmetric (antibonding) levels with energies $`E_1=`$ 15.35 meV and $`E_2=`$ 17.03 meV, respectively. The third level $`E_3`$= 60.53 meV is sufficiently high to be ignored ($`E_{F1}=E_FE_1=`$ 4.28 meV; $`E_{F2}`$ $`=E_FE_2=`$ 2.61 meV), with both subbands 1 and 2 occupied by carriers. These results are presented in Section III.A below. (ii) Two coupled asymmetric quantum wells with interwell tunneling (the same as in (i) above), with one well of width 150 Å and the other of width 140 Å leading to $`E_1=`$ 15.93 meV and $`E_2=`$ 18.55 meV ($`E_{F1}=E_FE_1=`$ 4.75 meV; $`E_{F2}`$ $`=E_FE_2=`$ 2.13 meV). Again, the next excited subband $`E_3=`$ 62.86 meV is high enough to be ignored. These results are presented in Section III.A below. (iii) Two coupled identical symmetric quantum wells of width 150 Å each with no interwell tunneling (i.e. the interwell barrier is taken to be infinity) and with a barrier width of 30 Å. Here, $`E_1=E_2`$ = 23.87 meV (this degeneracy arises because the two wells are identical and there is no tunneling), $`E_{F1}=E_{F2}`$ $`=E_FE_1=E_FE_2=`$ 3.44 meV, and the next subband $`E_3`$ $`=`$ 96 meV is sufficiently high in energy to be neglected. These results are presented in Section III.B below. (iv) The same as in the last case with no interwell tunneling but an asymmetric situation with the two wells being different. One with a width of 150 Å and the other a width of 142.4 Å so that the subband Fermi energies $`E_{F1}=E_FE_1=`$ 4.75 meV and $`E_{F2}`$ $`=E_FE_2=`$ 2.13 meV, which are the same as in (ii) above. In this situation $`E_1`$ = 23.87 meV, $`E_2=`$ 26.49 meV (again $`E_3`$ can be neglected). Furthermore, to keep the average distance between the two electron layers the same as in (ii), we choose a barrier of width 28.8 Å. These results are presented in Section III.B below in comparison with those in (ii). (v) A single symmetric quantum well of width 300 Å and a barrier height 228 meV, which leads to the lowest two subbands at $`E_1=`$ 4.88 meV, $`E_2=`$ 19.51 meV, and the Fermi energy $`E_{F1}=E_FE_1=`$ 6.88 meV (with $`E_F`$ $`<E_2,`$ so that the second subband is empty). In this situation, the next excited subband, $`E_3=`$ 43.74 meV, is high enough in energy to be neglected. These results are present in Section III.C below. Our reason for studying the five different classes of systems described above is that we are interested in understanding the effects of interwell tunneling and structural asymmetry on the electron relaxation rate. In particular, asymmetry breaks parity conservation making the off-diagonal matrix elements of Coulomb interaction (e.g. $`V_{1112},V_{1121},V_{1211},V_{2111},V_{2221},V_{2212},V_{2122},V_{1222}`$ all of which are zero in the symmetric situation) nonzero, leading to new inelastic relaxation channels not present in symmetric structures. For the sake of brevity we present results for a single representative carrier density and well parameters in each of the five cases. Our theory could be easily generalized to obtain finite temperature relaxation rates. Note that our goal here is to provide a qualitative understanding of how various physical parameters affect Coulomb scattering rates in 2D quantum wells.

The plan of this article is the following. In Sec. II we present a brief theory with working formulae; in Sec. III we provide our numerical results and discussions; we conclude in Sec. IV with a summary.

## II Theory

Our basic theory is outlined in the Introduction, where the formal expression for the self-energies to be calculated were given. Our central GW-RPA expression  for the self-energy can be explicitly written out by using the noninteracting subband Green’s function

$$G_{ij}^0(\omega ,k)=\delta _{ij}\left[\omega E_i(k)+E_F\right]^1,$$
(10)
where $`\omega `$ is a complex frequency $`(\mathrm{}=1)`$, and $`E_i(k)=E_i+k^2/2m^{}`$ is the noninteracting subband one-electron energy dispersion. Using Eq. (10) in Eqs. (4) and (5), and carrying out the internal frequency integration, and taking the imaginary part after the on-shell analytic continuation, we get

$`ImM_{ij}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle }d^2𝐪Im[V_{illj}^s(𝐪,\xi _l(𝐤+𝐪)\xi _i(𝐤)]\times `$

$$\left\{\theta \left(\xi _i(𝐤)\xi _l(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\theta \left(\xi _l(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right\},$$
(11)
where the on-shell subband energy $`\xi _i(𝐤)`$ is given by

$$\xi _i(𝐤)=E_i(𝐤)E_F,$$
(12)
and $`\theta \left(x\right)=0`$ $`(1),`$ for $`x<(>)`$ $`0,`$ is the usual Heaviside theta function. The dynamically screened Coulomb interaction is given by (see Eq. 5)

$$V_{ijlm}^s=(\epsilon ^1V)_{ijlm},$$
(13)
with the multisubband RPA approximation  defined by the dielectric matrix

$$\epsilon _{ijlm}=(1V_{ijlm}\mathrm{\Pi }_{lm}^0),$$
(14)
where $`V_{ijlm}`$ is the bare Coulomb interaction matrix element in the subband representation, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^0`$, the noninteracting polarizability, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^0(𝐤,\omega )=2\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f_i(𝐤+𝐪)f_i(𝐤)}{\omega E_i(𝐤+𝐪)+E_j(𝐤)},$$
(15)
where $`f_i(𝐤)`$ is the Fermi distribution function in the $`i`$th subband. In this paper, we take the impurity scattering induced background broadening $`\gamma `$ as being a small phenomenological damping parameter which equivalent to be working in the clean limit. We are therefore restricting ourselves to high mobility quantum wells with small impurity scattering induced level broadening.

Using Eqs. (11-15) it is straightforward to calculate the imaginary part of the on-shell self-energy. For the sake of completeness, we show below the detailed expressions for $`ImM_{ij}`$ in the GW approximation for the two-subband model:

$$ImM_{11}(k)=\sigma _{1111}(k)+\sigma _{1221}(k),$$
(16)
$$ImM_{12}(k)=\sigma _{1112}(k)+\sigma _{1222}(k),$$
(17)
$$ImM_{21}(k)=\sigma _{2111}(k)+\sigma _{2221}(k),$$
(18)
and

$$ImM_{22}(k)=\sigma _{2112}(k)+\sigma _{2222}(k).$$
(19)
Here,

$$\sigma _{1111}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{1111}^s(𝐪,A)\right]\left[\theta \left(A\right)\theta \left(\xi _1(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(20)
$$\sigma _{1221}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{1221}^s(𝐪,A+\omega _0)\right]\left[\theta \left(A\omega _0\right)\theta \left(\xi _2(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(21)
$$\sigma _{1112}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{1112}^s(𝐪,A)\right]\left[\theta \left(A\right)\theta \left(\xi _1(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(22)
$$\sigma _{1222}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{1222}^s(𝐪,A+\omega _0)\right]\left[\theta \left(A\omega _0\right)\theta \left(\xi _2(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(23)
$$\sigma _{2111}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{2111}^s(𝐪,A\omega _0)\right]\left[\theta \left(A+\omega _0\right)\theta \left(\xi _1(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(24)
$$\sigma _{2221}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{2221}^s(𝐪,A)\right]\left[\theta \left(A\right)\theta \left(\xi _2(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(25)
$$\sigma _{2112}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{2112}^s(𝐪,A\omega _0)\right]\left[\theta \left(A+\omega _0\right)\theta \left(\xi _1(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(26)
and

$$\sigma _{2222}(k)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2𝐪\left\{Im\left[V_{2222}^s(𝐪,A)\right]\left[\theta \left(A\right)\theta \left(\xi _2(𝐤+𝐪)\right)\right]\right\},$$
(27)
where $`\omega _0=E_2E_1`$ is the subband energy difference and $`AA(𝐪,𝐤)=(2kq\mathrm{cos}\eta +q^2)/2m^{}`$ with $`\eta `$ being the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐪`$; and $`m^{}=0.07m_e`$ being the GaAs conduction band electron effective mass. Now, we define the total inelastic Coulomb scattering rate for an electron with wavevector $`k`$ ( i.e. an energy of $`k^2/2m^{}`$ with respect to the subband bottom) in the subband 1 and 2 as

$$\sigma _1(k)=ImM_{11}(k)+ImM_{12}(k)$$
(28)
and

$$\sigma _2(k)=ImM_{21}(k)+ImM_{22}(k).$$
(29)
It is important to realize that the screened potentials $`V_{ijlm}^s`$ for $`jl`$ do not appear in Eqs. (20-27) and, consequently, do not explicitly contribute to scattering rate. They are implicitly induced in the theory through dynamical screening  as discussed before. Furthermore, all screened interactions $`V_{ijlm}^s`$ involved in the Eqs. (20-27) are obtained from the relation between the bare electron-electron potential

$`V_{ijlm}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2}{q\epsilon _0}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z𝑑z^{}\varphi _i(z)\varphi _j(z)e^{q\left|zz^{}\right|}\varphi _l(z^{})\varphi _m(z^{})}`$

and the inverse matrix of the dynamical dielectric function $`\epsilon _{ijlm}(q,\omega )`$ (see Eqs. (13) and (14), where the indices $`i,j,l,`$and $`m=1,2`$). These bare Coulomb potentials $`V_{ijlm}(q)`$ are calculated here by using both the one-electron wavefunction $`\varphi _i(z)`$ and the subband energy $`E_i`$ obtained through the numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation in the $`z`$ direction for the specific quantum well confinement potential. Furthermore, the potential $`V_{ijlm}(q)`$ can be separated into intra- and intersubband terms, and understood as follows: (i) Intralayer (intrasubband) interactions $`V_{1111}(q)=V_A,`$ $`V_{2222}(q)=V_B,`$ and $`V_{1122}(q)=V_{2211}(q)=V_C`$ representing those scattering events which the electrons remain in their original well (subband); (ii) Interlayer (intersubband) interactions $`V_{1212}(q)=V_{2121}(q)=V_{1221}(q)=V_{2112}(q)=V_D`$ representing scattering in which both electrons change their well (subband) indices; and (iii) Intra-interwell (subband) interactions$`V_{1112}(q)=V_{1121}(q)=V_{1211}(q)=V_{2111}(q)=V_J`$ and $`V_{2212}(q)=V_{2221}(q)=V_{1222}(q)=V_{2122}(q)=`$ $`V_H`$ indicating the scattering in which only one of the electrons suffers the interwell (intersubband) transition.

For each wave-vector $`k,`$ the two dimensional $`𝐪`$ integrals in Eqs. (20-27) are performed within the planes determined through the variables $`𝐪`$ and $`A`$ in the screened interactions $`V_{ijlm}^s`$. The integration domains of $`q`$ and $`\eta `$ (in $`A`$) variables are restricted by the two theta functions appearing in the integrals in Eqs. (20-27). The integrals involving $`V_{1111}^s`$ and $`V_{1112}^s`$ are performed within the planes formed by those regions in the $`q`$ space where

$$\theta \left[A\right]\theta \left[\xi _1(𝐤+𝐪)\right]0;$$
(30)
while the integrals involving $`V_{1221}^s`$ and $`V_{1222}^s`$ are calculated within the planes defined by

$$\theta \left[A\omega _0\right]\theta \left[\xi _2(𝐤+𝐪)\right]0.$$
(31)
In the same way, the integrals involving $`V_{2222}^s`$ and $`V_{2221}^s`$ are performed within the planes defined by

$$\theta \left[A\right]\theta \left[\xi _2(𝐤+𝐪)\right]0;$$
(32)
and, finally, for $`V_{2112}^s`$ and $`V_{2111}^s`$the integrating plane is defined by

$$\theta \left[A+\omega _0\right]\theta \left[\xi _1(𝐤+𝐪)\right]0.$$
(33)
The inelastic scattering rates in the Eqs. (20-27) vanish outside each corresponding integrating plane, which means that the momentum and energy conservation cannot be simultaneously obeyed for such values of ($`𝐤,𝐤+𝐪`$), and therefore no Coulomb scattering is allowed there. It is easy to see that these integrals are non-vanishing only if the corresponding integrating plane contains either some part of the single-particle excitation continuum or some branch representing the collective excitations (plasmons) in the 2-D $`q`$ plane. This is of course expected since a finite scattering rate must involve real excitations, which in this case are single-particle and collective plasmon excitations.

## III Numerical results and discussions

### A Coulomb Coupled Bilayers With Interwell Tunneling

We consider first two coupled symmetric identical quantum wells of same width $`W_1=W_2=`$150 Å with an interwell tunneling induced by a barrier of height 228 meV and width 30 Å. The total electron density $`N_e=n_1+n_2=2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 in all structures studied in this paper, with $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ being the density in the subband 1 and 2, respectively. For these sample parameters, the Fermi wavevectors in the first and second subband are $`k_{F1}^{sy}`$ 0.88 $`\times 10^6`$ cm-1 and $`k_{F2}^{sy}`$ $``$ 0.69 $`\times 10^6`$ cm-1, respectively (the superscript $`sy`$ stands for symmetric). Here, both subbands 1 and 2 (symmetric and antisymmetric, respectively) are occupied by carriers with $`n_11.23\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and $`n_20.77\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2.

The plasmon dispersion relation is determined by the roots of the determinantal equation $`det\left|\epsilon _{ijlm}(q,\omega )\right|=0`$, which, after some algebra, can be rewritten as

$`\epsilon _{intra}\epsilon _{inter}[(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0)V_H^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0+(1V_B\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0)V_J^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0`$

$$2V_CV_JV_H\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^0+\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^0)]=0,$$
(34)
where

$$\epsilon _{intra}=\left(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0\right)\left(1V_B\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0\right)V_C^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0$$
(35)
and

$$\epsilon _{inter}=1V_D\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^0+\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^0\right).$$
(36)
For notational simplicity, we do not explicitly write the energy and wave vector dependence in Eqs. (34-36). For the present symmetric situation, the unscreened Coulomb potential $`V_J=V_H=0`$ by virtue of parity symmetry, because the wavefunctions $`\varphi _1(z)`$ and $`\varphi _2(z)`$ are symmetric and antisymmetric functions of $`z`$, respectively. According to the Eq. (34), therefore, the plasmons dispersion relation in our symmetric bilayer structure are determined by the roots of the equation $`\epsilon _{intra}\epsilon _{inter}=0`$, i.e. either $`\epsilon _{intra}=0`$ corresponding to the 2D intrasubband plasmons, or $`\epsilon _{inter}=0`$ corresponding to the intersubband plasmons.

There are four roots of $`\epsilon _{intra}=0`$. Two of them are shown in Fig. 1(a) by the solid lines indicating the intrasubband plasmon modes $`(1,1)`$ and $`(2,2)`$. Notice that, for each solid line, there is a corresponding dashed line which is also the root of the same equation always lying in the corresponding single-particle excitation continuum. It is well known that the plasmon modes indicated by the dashed lines inside the single-particle continua are strongly Landau damped by single-particle excitations and will be ignored in the following discussion. Furthermore, the intersubband plasmon mode $`(1,2)`$ comes from the roots of $`\epsilon _{inter}=0.`$ The wavefunctions $`\varphi _1(z)`$ and $`\varphi _2(z)`$ are schematically shown in the inset by the solid and dot lines, respectively. Notice that, one is always able to separate the intra- and inter-subband plasmon modes in structures which are invariant under space inversion. In addition, the intrasubband plasmons are not Landau damped by intersubband single-particle excitations and vice versa in symmetric bilayer systems. The single-particle continua SPE11 (intrasubband SPE) and SPE12 (intersubband SPE) in Fig. 1(a) are those regions where $`Im\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0(q,\omega )\right\}0`$ and $`Im\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^0(q,\omega )\right\}0`$, respectively. For the sake of simplicity, we will not indicate the continuum SPE22 in this paper because it lies totally inside the continuum SPE11. Moreover, we claim that the plasmon mode $`(2,2)`$ should be strongly damped by single-particle excitations in the SPE11 continuum and will also be ignored in the following qualitative scattering rate discussion. Our numerical results of course include all contributions as obtained by evaluating the 2D integrals in Eqs. (20-27).

Fig. 1(b) shows the same plasmon dispersion relation as in Fig. 1(a) but now in a two coupled asymmetric quantum wells with an interwell tunneling. Here, one well is of width 150 Å and the other is of width 140 Å. For these parameters, the Fermi wave vector in the subband 1 and 2 are $`k_{F1}^a`$ 0.93 $`\times 10^6`$ cm-1 and $`k_{F2}^a`$ 0.62 $`\times 10^6`$ cm-1, respectively (the superscript $`a`$ stands for asymmetric). Both subbands are occupied with $`n_1`$ 1.37 $`\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and $`n_2`$ 0.63 $`\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. In this asymmetric situation, the plasmon modes are obtained directly from the roots of Eq. (34). We show in Fig. 1(b) all these roots. We mention that it does not make sense naming the solid lines as pure intra- or inter-subband plasmon modes because the structural asymmetry leads to a strong coupling (or mixing) between them, and this intra-inter mode coupling eliminates the simplicity of Fig. 1(a). The solid line that is of finite frequency as $`q0`$ in Fig. 1(b) is the intersubband-like plasmon mode $`(1,2)`$. This mode enters the continuum SPE12 at $`q`$ 0.42 $`\times 10^6`$ cm-1 and should be, in principle, Landau damped. For small values of $`q`$, we find the same number of roots as in the symmetric situation. The interactions $`V_J`$ and $`V_H`$ are finite in the asymmetric case and are responsible for the strong mixing between the intrasubband-like plasmon mode $`(1,1)`$and the intersubband-like mode $`(1,2)`$ around $`q`$ 0.18$`\times 10^6`$ cm-1. Moreover, when the asymmetry is introduced, the depolarization shift (i.e. the shift of the intersubband plasmon from the subband energy separation $`E_{21}`$) in the intersubband-like plasmon $`(1,2)`$ at $`q=0`$ decreases. We point out that these roots of Eq. (33) do not provide a complete description of the plasmon modes in asymmetric bilayer structures. A detailed theoretical calculation of the dynamical structure factor giving the plasmon spectral weight provides a complete picture of the collective mode spectra and can be obtained using our multisubband theory.

Having studied the plasmon dispersion relations we now investigate in Fig.2(a) the corresponding total inelastic Coulomb scattering rate $`\sigma _1(k)`$ (thick-solid line) and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ (thick-dashed line) of fast electrons in the subband 1 and 2, respectively, as a function of wavevector $`k`$ in our symmetric bilayer structure. The symbols on the thin lines identify the contributions to $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ coming from the emission of single-particle and collective excitations individually. The dynamically screened Coulomb interaction components entering in Eqs. (20-27) can be calculated from Eq. (13) and (14). After some algebra, we get

$$V_{1111}^s=\frac{V_A\left(1V_B\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0\right)+V_C^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0}{\epsilon _{intra}},$$
(37)
$$V_{2222}^s=\frac{V_B\left(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0\right)+V_C^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0}{\epsilon _{intra}},$$
(38)
and

$$V_{1221}^s=V_{2112}^s=\frac{V_D}{\epsilon _{inter}}.$$
(39)
For the symmetric well case the off-diagonal components of the Coulomb potential all vanish by parity: $`V_{1112}^s=V_{1121}^s=V_{1211}^s=V_{2111}^s=V_{2221}^s=V_{2212}^s=V_{2122}^s=V_{1222}^s=0`$ because $`V_J=V_H=0`$ for symmetric systems. Therefore, according to Eqs.(20-29), the total inelastic scattering rates in the subband 1 and 2 are

$$\sigma _1(k)=\sigma _{1111}+\sigma _{1221}$$
(40)
and

$$\sigma _2(k)=\sigma _{2222}+\sigma _{2112},$$
(41)
respectively. The terms $`\sigma _{1111},`$ $`\sigma _{1221}`$, $`\sigma _{2222}`$ and $`\sigma _{2112}`$ involve integrations of the interactions $`V_{1111}^s,`$ $`V_{1221}^s,`$ $`V_{2222}^s`$ and $`V_{2112}^s`$, respectively; in Eqs. (20), (21), (27) and (26). The self-energy components in Eqs. (22-25) are zero in the symmetric case. Intrasubband contributions to the scattering rates arise from the terms $`\sigma _{1111}`$ and $`\sigma _{2222}`$, while intersubband contributions are due to the terms $`\sigma _{1221}`$ and $`\sigma _{2112}`$. The contributions coming from the plasmon modes (filled-square lines) are obtained separately by excluding the continua SPE11 and SPE12 from the numerical integrations, whereas contributions coming only from the single-particle continua are obtained by numerically evaluating Eqs. (21) and (26) only for the region representing each continuum leaving out the plasmon contributions. Single-particle excitations contribute for all values of wave vectors $`k`$. However, neither intra- nor inter-subband plasmon mode contributes to the scattering rates close to $`k_{F1}^{sy}`$ or $`k_{F2}^{sy}`$. These collective modes provide excitation channels for inelastic relaxation only above some threshold wavevectors. The intrasubband plasmon mode $`(1,1)`$ begins to contribute to either $`\sigma _1(k)`$ or $`\sigma _2(k)`$ when the wavevector is larger than the same threshold $`k_{11}^{sy}`$ 1.65$`\times `$106 cm-1. On the other hand, the contribution coming from the plasmon mode $`(1,2)`$ has a different threshold for each scattering rate. This mode begins contributing to $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ when the wavevector is larger than the thresholds $`k_{12}^{sy}`$ 1.25$`\times 10^6`$ cm-1 and $`k_{12^{}}^{sy}`$ 2.0$`\times `$106 cm-1, respectively (notice that $`k_{F2}^{sy}<k_{F1}^{sy}<k_{12}^{sy}<k_{11}^{sy}<k_{12^{}}^{sy}`$). Obviously, these thresholds depend on the particular choice of sample parameters. In the present paper, they are smoothed ( instead of being a very sharp threshold ) because we are considering the impurity induced constant $`\gamma =0.2`$ meV in our numerical evaluation. These thresholds become much sharper for smaller values of $`\gamma `$ without any other substantive changes in our numerical results.

Figure 2(b) shows the same results as in Fig. 2(a) but for the asymmetric bilayer system of Fig. 1(b). In contrast to the symmetric case, where we were able to separately obtain the inter- and intra-subband plasmon modes through the roots of $`\epsilon _{inter}=0`$ and $`\epsilon _{intra}=0,`$ respectively; the coupled plasmon dispersion in the asymmetric system is obtained directly from the numerical roots of Eq.(34) in which the bare off-diagonal Coulomb interactions $`V_J`$ and $`V_H`$ are now non-vanishing. The terms in Eq. (34) involving $`V_J`$ and $`V_H`$ are responsible for the mixing between the inter and intra-subband plasmon modes and for not allowing the contributions coming from the intra- and intersubband-like plasmon modes $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,2)`$ to be picked up completely separated from each other in the scattering rate. Notice that dynamically screened Coulomb potential $`V_{ijlm}^s`$ is a full 16$`\times `$16 matrix (for the 2-subband model — in general, it is an $`n^4\times n^4`$ matrix for an n-subband problem) in the present situation and is obtained from Eq. (13), which involves the dielectric matrix $`\epsilon _{ijlm}(q,\omega )`$ and the bare Coulomb interactions $`V_A,V_B,V_C,V_D,V_J,`$ and $`V_H`$ (all of which are finite in this strongly coupled asymmetric bilayer structure) . Therefore, both inelastic scattering rates $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ in the asymmetric case contain all terms shown in Eqs. (20-27), which are finite in this situation. For the sake of clarity and to understand Fig. 2(b) in the same way we did the details in Fig. 2(a), we choose to show three contributions to the inelastic scattering rates $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ in Fig. 2(b) separately: the single-particle excitations in the continua (i) SPE12 (triangles-up) and (ii) SPE11(diamonds); and (iii) the plasmon mode segment outside these continua (filled squares). The filled squares in Fig. 2(b) represent contributions coming from those segments of the plasmon modes which lie outside any single-particle excitation continua (see Fig.1(b)). Contributions coming from the plasmon segments lying inside each continuum have been kept in our numerical work along with the single-particle excitation contributions because it is essentially numerically impossible to separate the two in this regime. We should mention that, due to the fact that one is not able to eliminate the contributions coming from the over-damped plasmon modes lying inside the Landau continua, the thin lines in Fig. 2(b) serve only the purpose of qualitative illustration .

### B Coulomb Coupled Bilayers With No Interwell Tunneling

Now we investigate the two Coulomb coupled identical symmetric quantum wells of width $`W_1=W_2=`$150 Å each with no interwell tunneling (i.e. the interwell barrier is taken to be infinity) and with a barrier width of 30 Å. Here, the Fermi wavevectors in the two wells are of the same value, i.e. $`k_{F0}=k_{F1}=k_{F2}`$ $``$ 0.79 $`\times 10^6`$ cm-1(or, equivalently $`n_1=n_2=10^{11}`$ cm-2). Notice that, the indices 1 and 2 should now be treated as well indices since there is no tunneling induced bonding-antibonding states. As we mentioned in the Introduction, an energy degeneracy arises in this case, i.e. $`E_1=E_2`$ because the two wells are identical with no interwell tunneling. If there is no tunneling, the bare Coulomb potential components $`V_J=V_H=V_D=0`$ and the polarizability $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^0=\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^0=0`$ independent of whether the bilayer structure is symmetric or not. Besides, for this symmetric no-tunneling bilayer structure, the bare Coulomb potential $`V_A=V_B`$ by symmetry and the polarizability $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0=\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ due to the fact that the densities in each well are identical.

According to the Eqs. (34-36), therefore, the plasmon dispersion relation should be obtained only from the roots of

$$\epsilon _{nt}^{sy}=\left(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }_0\right)^2V_C^2\mathrm{\Pi }_0^2=0.$$
(42)
Here, the subscript (superscript) $`nt`$ ($`sy)`$ stands for no tunneling (symmetric). As shown in Fig. 3(a), we find four roots of Eq. (42). The solid curves correspond to the in-phase optical, $`\omega _+(q)`$, and the out-of-phase acoustic, $`\omega _{}(q),`$ plasmon modes in the bilayer structure . These $`\omega _\pm (q)`$ modes have been observed  in multilayer semiconductor systems via inelastic light scattering spectroscopic experiments. They represent in-phase and out-of-phase interlayer density fluctuation modes: the out-of-phase acoustic mode, $`\omega _{}(q0)O(q)`$ represent densities in the two layers fluctuating out of phase with a linear wave vector dispersion and the in-phase optical mode, $`\omega _+(q0)\sqrt{N_eq}`$, represent densities in the two layers fluctuating in phase with the usual 2D plasma dispersion. The dashed lines represent those collective modes which should be strongly Landau damped by the single-particle excitation continuum SPE, i.e. the region where $`Im\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,\omega )\right\}0`$.

Fig. 3(b) shows the same as in Fig. 3(a) but for an asymmetric no-tunneling situation with the two wells being different, one with a width of $`W_1=`$150 Å and the other a width of $`W_2=`$142.4 Å. In this case, our no-tunneling bilayer structure is no longer invariant under space inversion and, consequently, the energy level degeneracy is broken, leading to the energy $`E_1<E_2`$. Besides, the bare Coulomb potential $`V_A`$ is now different from $`V_B`$. As we discussed before, the two wells now have different charge densities but we consider the whole system still being in equilibrium. Furthermore, the Fermi wavevector in the first and second subband are the same as indicated before, i.e. $`k_{F1}^a`$ and $`k_{F2}^a,`$ respectively. Because of the densities in the two wells being different from each other, the polarizability $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0`$. The shadow area in Fig. 3(b) is the single-particle excitation continuum in the wider quantum well, i.e. the region where $`Im\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0(q,\omega )\right\}0.`$ The plasma dispersion relation is now given by the roots of the Eq. (35). Note that all plasma modes in the zero tunneling system are by definition intrasubband plasmons in our model where higher subbands are neglected.

As shown in Fig. 3(b), we again find four roots of such an equation and consider that the dashed lines should be strongly Landau damped modes since they are inside the single particle continua. Furthermore, it does not make sense, in principle, to define the solid lines in Fig. 3(b) as pure acoustic or optical plasmon modes because the asymmetry leads to a difference between the electron densities in each layer. Now, the wider well has 30% more electrons than the narrower one and, consequently, the densities in the two layers are not fluctuating exactly either in phase or out of phase. The solid lines in Fig. 3(b) are the approximate acoustic- and optical-like plasmon modes with the strict distinction meaningful only in the long wavelength limit. Due to the structural asymmetry the acoustic-like plasmon mode enters the SPE continuum at a smaller wavevector leading to significant Landau damping of the acoustic plasmon mode by single-particle excitations in the asymmetric bilayer system. In the single-particle continuum of the layer 2 (the narrower well) the acoustic-like plasmon mode is completely suppressed and we find no acoustic-like mode in the $`Im\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0(q,\omega )\}0`$ regime. In general the acoustic-like plasmon mode is found to be much more sensitive to small asymmetry effects than the optical-like plasmon mode . This is physically reasonable and should be experimentally tested via inelastic light scattering experiments.

Now we concentrate on the investigation of the scattering rates $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$in the symmetric bilayer structure with no tunneling. As the bare Coulomb potential $`V_J=V_H=V_D=0,`$it is straightforward to see that only $`V_{1111}^s`$ and $`V_{2222}^s`$ are finite in the screened Coulomb interaction matrix $`V^s`$ for a bilayer structure without any tunneling. Therefore the scattering rates in Eqs. (21-26) all vanish by symmetry in this case. The only nonvanishing terms to be calculated are $`\sigma _{1111}`$ and $`\sigma _{2222}`$ in Eqs. (20) and (27), respectively. Furthermore, as we discussed before, we have the polarizability $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0=\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ and the bare potential $`V_A=V_B`$ for identical (i.e. symmetric case) quantum wells. According to the Eqs. (37) and (38), therefore, the screened Coulomb potential is given by

$$V_{1111}^s=V_{2222}^s=\frac{V_A\left(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }^0\right)+V_C^2\mathrm{\Pi }^0}{\epsilon _{nt}^{sy}}$$
(43)
in the present situation of a symmetric bilayer system with no interwell tunneling. In fact, the total inelastic Coulomb scattering $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ are identical because the two wells are identical with the same density. The thick line shown in Fig. 4(a) represents the total inelastic scattering rate which is equal ($`\sigma _1(k)=\sigma _{1111}=\sigma _2(k)=\sigma _{2222}`$ ) in both subbands, as a function of the wavevector $`k`$. To show separately the contributions coming from the emission of plasmons (squares) and single-particle excitations (diamonds), we again exclude the region where $`Im\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_0(q,\omega )\right]0`$ from the numerical calculations to obtain the plasmon contribution. Single-particle excitations again contribute at all values of the wavevector whereas the plasmons begin contributing to the scattering rate for wavevectors $`k`$ larger than the Fermi wavevector $`k_{F0}`$. There are clearly two thresholds wave vectors in the plasmon contribution (squares), one at $`k=k_{ac}^{sy}1.25\times `$106 cm-1 and other at $`k=k_{op}^{sy}1.65\times `$106 cm$`^1.`$ These are the thresholds for the emission of the acoustic and the optical plasmon, respectively. The substantial difference between Figs. 4(a) and 2(a) demonstrates the strong effect of tunneling on the inelastic scattering rates in bilayer structures. This is one of the important new qualitative results in our paper.

Figure 4(b) shows the same results as in Fig. 4(a) but for the asymmetric bilayer structure without tunneling. As we discussed before, the asymmetry leads to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0`$. Furthermore, the bare Coulomb potential $`V_AV_B`$ and, therefore according to Eqs. (37) and (38), the screened Coulomb potential $`V_{1111}^s`$ $`V_{2222}^s`$ in the asymmetric case. In this situation, $`\sigma _1(k)=\sigma _{1111}`$ (thick solid line) and $`\sigma _2(k)=\sigma _{2222}`$ (thick dashed line) represent the total inelastic Coulomb scattering rates in the wider and narrower layer, respectively. They are different from each other because the two wells have different widths and densities in the asymmetric situation. Again, we separate the different contributions (by plasmons and by SPE) by excluding the single-particle excitation continuum SPE from the numerical calculations to obtain the plasmon contribution. It is important to point out again that the squares in Fig. 4(b) represent contributions coming from the emission of undamped plasmon modes whose frequency $`\omega (q)`$ lies outside the continuum SPE (see Fig. 3(b)). There is only one threshold wavevector $`k1.71\times `$106 cm-1 in the thin solid line (squares) corresponding the plasmon contribution to $`\sigma _1(k)`$. This threshold is due to the emission of the optical-like plasmon mode shown in Fig. 3(b). We also find that, the thin solid line (diamonds) corresponding to the SPE contribution to $`\sigma _1(k)`$ does not contain any contribution coming from the acoustic-like plasmon mode. As a matter of fact, there is no contribution to $`\sigma _1(k)`$ in Fig. 4(b) coming from the emission of the acoustic-like plasmon mode at all because the integral in $`\sigma _1(k)`$ does not contain any segment representing the acoustic-like plasmon mode which is heavily Landau damped in the asymmetric situation under consideration. On the other hand, the thin dashed line (squares), corresponding to the plasmon contribution to $`\sigma _2(k)`$, clearly has two threshold wave vectors $`k1.15\times `$106 cm$`^1`$and $`k1.76\times `$106 cm-1, which characterizes the emission of the acoustic- and optical-like plasmon mode, respectively. Thus, in the asymmetric case, the acoustic-like plasmon modes contribute to carrier scattering $`\sigma _2(k)`$ in the narrower well but not to $`\sigma _1(k)`$ in the wider well by virtue of strong Landau damping. The difference between Figs. 2(b) and 4(b) represents the strong effect of tunneling on the second component of the inelastic scattering rates $`\sigma _2(k)`$ in bilayer asymmetric structures.

### C Single Symmetric Quantum Well

We now consider (for the sake of comparison) a single symmetric GaAs-AlxGa1-xAs quantum well of width 300 Å, barrier height 228 meV, and with the same total electron density $`N_e=2\times `$1011cm-2 as used before. These sample parameters lead to the Fermi wave vector in the first subband $`k_{F1}^{\text{single}}1.13\times `$106cm-1 with only one subband occupancy. Here, the second subband is empty, which leads to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0=0`$. As we discussed before, only the bare Coulomb potential $`V_A,V_B,V_C`$ and $`V_D`$ are finite because $`V_J=V_H=0`$ in symmetric structure. According to Eqs. (35) and (36), therefore, the intra- and inter-subband plasmon modes are obtained from the roots of the equations

$`\epsilon _{intra}^{\text{single}}=\left(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0\right)=0`$

and

$`\epsilon _{inter}^{\text{single}}=1V_D\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^0+\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^0\right)=0,`$

Taking $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^0=0`$ (unoccupied excited subband) in Eqs. (37), (38) and (39) we get

$$V_{1111}^s=\frac{V_A}{\epsilon _{intra}^{\text{single}}},$$
(44)
$$V_{2222}^s=\frac{V_B\left(1V_A\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0\right)+V_C^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^0}{\epsilon _{intra}^{\text{single}}},$$
(45)
and

$$V_{1221}^s=V_{2112}^s=\frac{V_D}{\epsilon _{inter}^{\text{single}}}.$$
(46)
Again in this case, the screened Coulomb potential $`V_{1112}^s=V_{1121}^s=V_{1211}^s=V_{2111}^s=V_{2221}^s=V_{2212}^s=V_{2122}^s=V_{1222}^s=0`$ by symmetry because $`V_J=V_H=0`$. Therefore, as we discussed in the Sec. III.A, the total inelastic scattering rates in the first and the second subband are given by Eqs. (40) and (41), respectively. In the same way we did for the bilayer structures, we present the scattering rates $`\sigma _1(k)`$ and $`\sigma _2(k)`$ in Fig. (5) in the thick-solid and thick-dashed lines, respectively. The symmetric nature of the single well system enables us to separate out the different contributions to the scattering rates as discussed before. We find that contributions to $`\sigma _1(k)`$ come mainly from the emission of both the intrasubband plasmons $`(1,1)`$ and the intrasubband single-particle excitations SPE11. The emission of intersubband excitations turn out to make negligible contributions to the scattering because of the sufficiently large energy gap between the two subbands ($`\omega _0=E_{21}=14.63`$ meV). For this particular choice of the sample parameters, $`\sigma _{1111}`$ turns out to be much larger than $`\sigma _{1221}`$, implying that the carrier relaxation process in the ground subband is almost entirely via intrasubband scattering. Another important point in Fig. 5 is that inter- and intra-subband plasmon modes as well as intra- and inter-subband single-particle excitations contribute to the total inelastic scattering rate $`\sigma _2(k)`$ in the second subband. Notice that, in contrast to the behavior of $`\sigma _1(k)`$, the total inelastic scattering rate in the second subband $`\sigma _2(k)`$ does not vanish for wavevectors any $`k.`$ This is due the fact that there is no Fermi surface in the second subband . This should lead to qualitatively different effects in the measured carrier injected in the second subband compared with that in the ground subband . This lifetime, which is inversely proportional to the total inelastic scattering rate $`\sigma _2(k),`$ should be finite for all finite wavevectors in the excited empty subband.

## IV Conclusions

We have developed a theory for calculating the inelastic relaxation rate for Coulomb scattering in coupled bilayer structures in semiconductor double quantum well systems. We use a many body theory based on a multisubband generalized GW approximation with the inelastic scattering rate defined by the magnitude of the imaginary part of the on-shell electron self-energy. Effects of dynamical screening, mode coupling, and Fermi statistics are naturally included in our many-body theory. We demonstrate the usefulness of our theory by obtaining results for general representative two-subband model systems: Coulomb coupled bilayer GaAs-AlGaAs double quantum well structures both with and without interwell tunneling and also with and without interwell asymmetry in the system. Our theory naturally allows for distinguishing various physical mechanisms contributing to the inelastic scattering rate: Intra- and inter-subband contributions. We provide a critical qualitative discussion of these various contributions to scattering and comment on the effect of interwell tunneling and structural asymmetry in bilayer quantum wells.

## V Acknowledgments

One of us (MRST) is supported by FAPESP, Brazil. The work at the University of Maryland is supported by US-ONR. GQH acknowledgs CNPq from Brazil for partial support.


format: text

text:
# Hyperelliptic jacobians without complex multiplication in positive characteristic

## 1. Introduction

The aim of this note is to prove that in positive characteristic $`p2`$ the jacobian $`J(C)=J(C_f)`$ of a hyperelliptic curve

$$C=C_f:y^2=f(x)$$

has only trivial endomorphisms over an algebraic closure of the ground field $`K`$ if the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ of the polynomial $`fK[x]`$ of even degree is “very big”.

More precisely, if $`f`$ is a polynomial of even degree $`n10`$ and $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ is either the symmetric group $`𝐒_n`$ or the alternating group $`𝐀_n`$ then $`\mathrm{End}(J(C))=𝐙`$. Notice that it is known  that in this case (and even for all integers $`n5`$) either $`\mathrm{End}(J(C))=𝐙`$ or $`J(C)`$ is a supersingular abelian variety and the real problem is how to prove that $`J(C)`$ is not supersingular.

There are some results of this type in the literature. Previously Mori ,  has constructed explicit examples of hyperelliptic jacobians without nontrivial endomorphisms. Namely, he proved that if $`K=k(z)`$ is a field of rational functions in variable $`z`$ with constant field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p2`$ then for each integer $`g2`$ the jacobian of a hyperelliptic $`K`$-curve

$$y^2=x^{2g+1}x+z$$

has no nontrivial endomorphisms if $`p`$ does not divide $`g(2g+1)`$.

Our result stated above implies, in particular, that for each integer $`g4`$ the jacobian of a hyperelliptic $`K`$-curve

$$y^2=x^{2g+2}x+z$$

has no nontrivial endomorphisms if $`p`$ does not divide $`(g+1)(2g+1)`$, since in this case the Galois group of $`x^{2g+2}x+z`$ over $`K`$ is $`\mathrm{SS}_{2g+2}`$.

## 2. Main result

Throughout this paper we assume that $`K`$ is a field of prime characteristic $`p`$ different from $`2`$. We fix its algebraic closure $`K_a`$ and write $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$ for the absolute Galois group $`\mathrm{Aut}(K_a/K)`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`K`$ be a field with $`p=\mathrm{char}(K)>2`$, $`K_a`$ its algebraic closure, $`f(x)K[x]`$ an irreducible separable polynomial of even degree $`n10`$ such that the Galois group of $`f`$ is either $`𝐒_n`$ or $`𝐀_n`$. Let $`C_f`$ be the hyperelliptic curve $`y^2=f(x)`$. Let $`J(C_f)`$ be its jacobian, $`\mathrm{End}(J(C_f))`$ the ring of $`K_a`$-endomorphisms of $`J(C_f)`$. Then $`\mathrm{End}(J(C_f))=𝐙`$.

###### Examples 2.2.

Let $`k`$ be a field of odd characteristic $`p`$. Let $`k(z)`$ be the field of rational functions in variable $`z`$ with constant field $`k`$.

1. Suppose $`K_n=k(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ is the field of rational functions in $`n`$ independent variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ over $`k`$. Then the Galois group of a polynomial $`x^nz_1x^{n1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^nz_n`$ over $`K_n`$ is $`𝐒_n`$. Therefore if $`n10`$ is even then the jacobian of the curve $`y^2=x^nz_1x^{n1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^nz_n`$ has no nontrivial endomorphisms over an algebraic closure of $`K_n`$.
2. Suppose $`h(x)k[x]`$ is a Morse polynomial of degree $`n`$ and $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$. This means that the derivative $`h^{}(x)`$ of $`h(x)`$ has $`n1`$ distinct roots $`\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{n1}`$ (in an algebraic closure of $`k`$) and $`h(\beta _i)h(\beta _j)`$ while $`ij`$. For example, $`h(x)=x^nx`$ enjoys these properties if and only if $`p`$ does not divide $`n(n1)`$.

Then the Galois group of $`h(x)z`$ over $`k(z)`$ is the symmetric group $`𝐒_n`$ (, Th. 4.4.5, p. 41). Hence if $`n10`$ is even and $`p`$ does not divide $`n(n1)`$ then the jacobian of the curve $`y^2=h(x)z`$ has no nontrivial endomorphisms over an algebraic closure of $`k(z)`$.
3. Suppose $`k`$ is algebraically closed. Suppose $`n=q+t`$ where $`q`$ is a power of $`p`$ and $`t>q`$ is a positive integer not divisible by $`p`$. Then the Galois group of $`x^nxz^t+1`$ over $`k(z)`$ is the alternating group $`𝐀_n`$ (, Th. 1, p. 67). Clearly, if $`t`$ is odd then $`n=q+t`$ is even and $`n>2q6`$, i.e., $`n8`$. In addition, $`n10`$ unless $`q=3,t=5`$. This implies that if $`t`$ is odd and $`(q,t)(3,5)`$ then the jacobian of the curve $`y^2=x^nxz^t+1`$ has no nontrivial endomorphisms over an algebraic closure of $`k(z)`$.

As was already pointed out, in light of Th. 2.1 of , Theorem 2.1 is an immediate corollary of the following auxiliary statement.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Suppose $`n=2g+2`$ is an even integer which is greater than or equal to $`10`$. Suppose $`f(x)K[x]`$ is a separable polynomial of degree $`n`$, whose Galois group is either $`𝐀_n`$ or $`𝐒_n`$. Suppose $`C`$ is the hyperelliptic curve $`y^2=f(x)`$ of genus $`g`$ over $`K`$ and $`J(C)`$ is the jacobian of $`C`$.

Then $`J(C)`$ is not a supersingular abelian variety.

###### Remark 2.4.

Replacing $`K`$ by its proper quadratic extension, we may assume in the course of the proof of Theorem 2.3 that $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)=𝐀_n`$. Also, replacing $`K`$ by its abelian extension obtained by adjoining to $`K`$ all $`2`$-power roots of unity, we may assume that $`K`$ contains all $`2`$-power roots of unity.

We prove Theorem 2.3 in the next Section.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 2.3

So, we assume that $`K`$ contains all $`2`$-power roots of unity, $`f(x)K[x]`$ is an irreducible separable polynomial of even degree $`n=2g+210`$ and $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)=𝐀_n`$. Therefore $`J(C)`$ is a $`g`$-dimensional abelian variety defined over $`K`$. The group $`J(C)_2`$ of its points of order $`2`$ is a $`2g`$-dimensional $`𝐅_2`$-vector space provided with the natural action of $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$. It is well-known (see for instance )that the image of $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(J(C)_2)`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$.

Now Theorem 2.3 becomes an immediate corollary of the following two assertion.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`F`$ be a field, whose characteristic is not $`2`$ and assume that $`F`$ contains all $`2`$-power roots of unity. Let $`g`$ be a positive integer and $`G`$ a finite simple non-abelian group enjoying the following properties:

1. Each nontrivial representation of $`G`$ in characteristic $`0`$ has dimension $`>2g`$;
2. If $`G^{}G`$ is a surjective group homomorphism, whose kernel is a central subgroup of order $`2`$ then each faithful irreducible representation of $`G^{}`$ in characteristic zero has dimension $`2g`$.
3. Each nontrivial representation of $`G`$ in characteristic $`2`$ has dimension $`2g`$.

If $`X`$ is a $`g`$-dimensional abelian variety over $`F`$ such that the image of $`\mathrm{Gal}(F)`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(X_2)`$ is isomorphic to $`G`$ then $`X`$ is not supersingular.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose $`n=2g+210`$ is an even integer. Let us put $`G=A_n`$. Then

1. Each nontrivial representation of $`G`$ in characteristic $`0`$ has dimension $`n1>2g`$;
2. Each nontrivial proper projective representation of $`G`$ in characteristic $`0`$ has dimension $`2g`$;
3. Each nontrivial representation of $`G`$ in characteristic $`2`$ has dimension $`2g`$.

Lemma 3.1 will be proven in the next Section. We prove Lemma 3.2 in Section 5.

## 4. Not supersingularity

We keep all the notations of Lemma 3.1. Assume that $`X`$ is supersingular. Our goal is to get a contradiction. We write $`T_2(X)`$ for the $`2`$-adic Tate module of $`X`$ and

$$\rho _{2,X}:\mathrm{Gal}(F)\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐙_2}(T_2(X))$$

for the corresponding $`2`$-adic representation. It is well-known that $`T_2(X)`$ is a free $`𝐙_2`$-module of rank $`2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(X)=2g`$ and

$$X_2=T_2(X)/2T_2(X)$$

(the equality of Galois modules). Let us put

$$H=\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(F))\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐙_2}(T_2(X)).$$

Clearly, the natural homomorphism

$$\overline{\rho }_{2,X}:\mathrm{Gal}(F)\mathrm{Aut}(X_2)$$

defining the Galois action on the points of order $`2`$ is the composition of $`\rho _{2,X}`$ and (surjective) reduction map modulo $`2`$

$$\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐙_2}(T_2(X))\mathrm{Aut}(X_2).$$

This gives us a natural (continuous) surjection

$$\pi :H\overline{\rho }_{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(F))G,$$

whose kernel consists of elements of $`1+2\mathrm{E}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}_{𝐙_2}(T_2(X))`$. It follows from the property 3.1(c) and equality $`\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_2}(X_2)=2g`$ that the $`G`$-module $`X_2`$ is absolutely simple and therefore the $`H`$-module $`X_2`$ is also absolutely simple. Here the structure of $`H`$-module is defined on $`X_2`$ via

$$H\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐙_2}(T_2(X))\mathrm{Aut}(X_2).$$

Let $`V_2(X)=T_2(X)_{𝐙_2}𝐐_2`$ be the $`𝐐_2`$-Tate module of $`X`$. It is well-known that $`V_2(X)`$ is the $`2g`$-dimensional $`𝐐_2`$-vector space and $`T_2(X)`$ is a $`𝐙_2`$-lattice in $`V_2(X)`$. This implies easily that the $`𝐐_2[H]`$-module $`V_2(X)`$ is also absolutely simple.

The choice of polarization on $`X`$ gives rise to a non-degenerate alternating bilinear form (Riemann form)

$$e:V_2(X)\times V_2(X)𝐐_2(1)𝐐_2.$$

Since $`F`$ contains all $`2`$-power roots of unity, $`e`$ is $`\mathrm{Gal}(F)`$-invariant and therefore is $`H`$-invariant. In particular,

$$H\mathrm{SL}(V_2(X)).$$

There exists a finite Galois extension $`L`$ of $`K`$ such that all endomorphisms of $`X`$ are defined over $`L`$. We write $`\mathrm{End}^0(X)`$ for the $`𝐐`$-algebra $`\mathrm{End}(X)𝐐`$ of endomorphisms of $`X`$. Since $`X`$ is supersingular,

$$\mathrm{dim}_𝐐\mathrm{End}^0(X)=(2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(X))^2=(2g)^2.$$

Recall () that the natural map

$$\mathrm{End}^0(X)_𝐐𝐐_2\mathrm{End}_{𝐐_2}V_2(X)$$

is an embedding. Dimension arguments imply that

$$\mathrm{End}^0(X)_𝐐𝐐_2=\mathrm{End}_{𝐐_2}V_2(X).$$

Since all endomorphisms of $`X`$ are defined over $`L`$, the image

$$\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(L))\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(F))\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐙_2}(T_2(X))\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐐_2}(V_2(X)$$

commutes with $`\mathrm{End}^0(X)`$. This implies that $`\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(L))`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{End}_{𝐐_2}V_2(X)`$ and therefore consists of scalars. Since

$$\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(L))\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(F))\mathrm{SL}(V_2(X)),$$

$`\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(L))`$ is a finite group. Since $`\mathrm{Gal}(L)`$ is a subgroup of finite index in $`\mathrm{Gal}(F)`$, the group $`H=\rho _{2,X}(\mathrm{Gal}(F))`$ is also finite. In particular, the kernel of the reduction map modulo $`2`$

$$\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐙_2}T_2(X)HG\mathrm{Aut}(X_2)$$

consists of periodic elements and, thanks to Minkowski-Serre Lemma, $`Z:=\mathrm{ker}(HG)`$ has exponent $`1`$ or $`2`$. In particular, $`Z`$ is commutative. Since

$$ZH\mathrm{SL}(V_2(X)),$$

$`Z`$ is a $`𝐅_2`$-vector space of dimension $`d<2g`$. This implies that the adjoint action

$$G\mathrm{Aut}(Z)\mathrm{GL}_d(𝐅_2)$$

is trivial, in light of property 3.1(c). This means that $`Z`$ lies in the center of $`H`$. Since the $`𝐐_2[H]`$-module $`V_2(X)`$ is faithful absolutely simple, $`Z`$ consists of scalars. This implies that either $`Z=\{1\}`$ or $`Z=\{\pm 1\}`$. If $`Z=\{1\}`$ then $`HG`$ and $`V_2(X)`$ is a faithful $`𝐐_2[G]`$-module of dimension $`2g`$ which contradicts the property 3.1(a). Therefore $`Z=\{\pm 1\}`$ and $`HG`$ is a surjective group homomorphism, whose kernel is a central subgroup of order $`2`$. But $`V_2(X)`$ is a faithful absolutely simple $`𝐐_2[H]`$-module of dimension $`2g`$ which contradicts the property 3.1(b). This ends the proof of Lemma 3.1.

## 5. Representation theory

###### Proof of Lemma 3.2.

The property (a) follows easily from Th. 2.5.15 on p. 71 of . The property (c) follows readily from Th. 1.1 on p. 127 of .

In order to prove the property (b), recall (Th. 1.3(ii) on pp. 583–584 of ) that each proper projective representation of $`𝐀_n`$ in characteristic $`2`$ has dimension divisible by $`2^{[(ns1)/2]}`$ where $`s`$ is the exact number of terms in the dyadic expansion of $`n`$. We have $`n=2^{w_1}+\mathrm{}+2^{w_s}`$ where $`w_i`$’s are distinct nonnegative integers. In particular, if $`s=1`$ then $`n=2^w16`$ and $`2^{[(ns1)/2]}=2^{(n2)/2}>n2`$. This proves the property (b) if $`s=1`$.

If $`s=2`$ then

$$2^{[(ns1)/2]}=2^{(n4)/2}=\frac{1}{2}2^{(n2)/2}>(n2)$$

if $`n2>8`$. This proves the property (b) in the case of $`n=2^{w_1}+2^{w_2}>10`$. The remaining case $`n=10`$ follows from Tables in .

Further we assume that $`s3`$. In particular, $`n14`$ and $`n2`$ is not a power of $`2`$. Since $`n`$ is even, all $`w_i1`$ and $`n2(2^s1)`$. If $`n=2(2^s1)`$ then $`n2=2(2^s2)`$ is not divisible by $`2^3`$. Therefore if $`[(ns1)/2]3`$ then the property (b) holds. On the other hand, if $`[(ns1)/2]3`$ then $`ns123+1`$, i.e., $`2(2^s1)s17`$ which implies that $`s<3`$. We get a contradiction which, in turn, implies that $`n>2(2^s1)`$ and therefore $`n>2^{s+1}`$. This implies easily that $`n2^{s+1}+620`$. In particular, $`s<\mathrm{log}_2(n)1`$ and $`2^{[(ns1)/2]}2^{[n\mathrm{log}_2(n)]/2}>(2^n/n)^{1/2}/2`$.

Since $`n2`$ is not a power of $`2`$, there are no proper projective representations of $`𝐀_n`$ of dimension $`2g=n2`$ in characteristic $`0`$ if $`2^{[(ns1)/2]}>(n2)/2.`$ Clearly, this inequality holds if $`(2^n/n)^{1/2}/2>(n2)/2`$. But this inequalty is equivalent to

$$2^n>n(n2)^2$$

which holds for all $`n20`$. ∎


text:
# Nucleosynthesis in classical novae

## 1 Introduction

Classical novae are explosions occurring on the top of white dwarfs accreting hydrogen-rich matter in close binary systems, of the cataclysmic variable type. The transfer of matter results from Roche lobe overflow from the main sequence companion star. The accreted hydrogen is compressed up to degenerate conditions, leading to a thermonuclear runaway. Explosive hydrogen burning occurs via the CNO cycle, out of equilibrium because radioactive nuclei with timescales longer than the evolutionary timescale are produced. These nuclei are transported by convection to the outer envelope, where they are preserved from destruction until they decay. This late decay is the final responsible of the envelope expansion and increase in luminosity characteristic of nova outbursts.

It is important to stress that Jim Truran, with Sumner Starrfield and collaborators, was a pioneer in the study of thermonuclear explosions. Starrfield, Truran, Sparks and Kutter wrote a series of papers, starting in the early 70’s, which presented the first hydrodynamic computations of classical novae . Models had the accreted envelope “in place”, i.e, the accretion phase was not followed. One of the main conclusions was that the envelope should be enhanced in CNO nuclei in order to power the nova outburst. This is still a valid fact, and it poses severe problems to the current theory, because there isn’t a clear understanding of the mixing mechanism responsible for that enhancement. In 1978, another group also developed a hydro code to study nova explosions , with similar limitations concerning the accretion phase. It is also worth mentioning that Jean Audouze also contributed with Jim Truran to the progress in the nova field, since he studied the properties of the hot CNO burning , which (although not “so hot”) is crucial for the explosion.

Classical nova explosions are very common: $``$35 per year in our Galaxy, from which only 3 to 5 are discovered. They release large amounts of energy, $`10^{45}`$ erg, but not large enough to have an impact on the dynamics of the interstellar medium, like supernovae. The small mass ejected (in the range $`10^510^4`$ M) implies that novae scarcely contribute to the chemical evolution of the Galaxy. If we adopt an ejected mass of $`2\times 10^5`$M, a Galactic nova rate of 35 yr-1 and an age of the Galaxy of $`10^{10}`$ yr, novae can account only for $`1/3000`$ of the gas and dust in the Galactic disk; this number is somehow a lower limit, since the ejected mass deduced from observations of some novae is larger than the typical theoretical value adopted here. However, novae are the main producers of some particular isotopes (13C, 15N and 17O), they can help to explain the 7Li versus metallicity relation in the Galaxy and they contribute to the radioactivity of the Galaxy, through the ejection of medium and long-lived radioactive isotopes (such as 7Be, 22Na and 26Al). In addition, novae often form dust, which manifests through their IR emission; therefore they could explain the anomalous isotopic signatures measured in some presolar grains  (see also the excellent recent review ).

## 2 Novae and the chemical evolution of the Galaxy

Novae can be classified in two types, according to their observed abundances. The often called “standard” novae are objects where enrichments in CNO nuclei have been reported, whereas the so-called “neon” novae show also enrichments in neon. This class of novae was first studied hydrodynamically by Starrfield et al. , including the follow-up of the accretion phase. The two nova types are interpreted as the result of explosions on accreting carbon-oxygen (CO) and oxygen-neon (ONe) white dwarfs111Until recently, massive white dwarfs were called ONeMg white dwarfs, because they were thought to be made of these elements. But now it is known that these stars are almost devoid of magnesium and, consequently, should be called ONe white dwarfs, respectively, because the chemical composition of the ejecta reflects that of the underlying white dwarf. The reason is that some mixing between the accreted envelope (presumed to have close to solar composition) and the underlying core is required, in order both to power the explosion and to explain the observed enrichments in CNO and/or Ne. The question of the frequency of occurrence of ONe white dwarfs in classical novae was addressed by Truran and Livio , who concluded that these white dwarfs can account for $`1/3`$ of all observed outbursts.

The mechanism responsible of the mixing has not been determined yet (shear mixing, diffusion, convection). Recent two and three-dimensional calculations  address the convective mixing during the hydrodynamic phase following degenerate ignition of hydrogen. There isn’t yet a clear way to mix and probably the mixing, or some part of it, should proceed in the previous hydrostatic accretion phase. Diffusion during a number of succesive flashes has been also simulated . In this case, moderate enhancement can be obtained for some combinations of initial conditions (mass, luminosity, accretion rate); the remaining problem of this scenario is the handling of mass-loss during succesive flashes.

Until some clear mechanism is identified and understood, we  adopt a parametrization of the mixing with the underlying core (ranging from 25 to 75 %, in order to explain the range of observed metallicities in novae ejecta; other authors  adopt only 50%). In table 1 we show the main nucleosynthetic products of a handful of nova models, representative of both classes of novae (see José and Hernanz  for a larger sample). CO white dwarfs have masses up to $`1.15`$ M, whereas ONe have larger masses (the exact limit between both types of degenerate cores, related to the previous evolution during the AGB phase, is still an open issue). The accretion rate adopted is $`2\times 10^{10}`$ M.yr-1 and the initial luminosity $`10^2`$ L (initial mixing 50 %). We show the ejected masses of the most overproduced isotopes (13C, 15N and 17O), together with ejected masses of medium and long-lived radioactive nuclei. In figure 1 we show the overproduction factors, with respect to solar, of all the isotopes contained in the ejecta of a CO and an ONe novae, of the same mass, in order to illustrate the impact of the chemical composition of the white dwarf. 13C, 15N and 17O are overproduced in both nova types by similar factors. ONe novae also eject Ne, required to fit the observations. The radioactive isotopes 22Na and 26Al are almost only produced in ONe novae, because of the presence of seed nuclei in the accreted envelope mixed with the core; this presence is necessary to power the NeNa-MgAl reaction rate cycles responsible of the synthesis of 22Na and 26Al synthesis. On the other hand, 7Li (coming from the radioactive 7Be) is produced in larger amounts in CO novae, because of the shorter duration of the accretion phase (with T smaller than $`10^8`$ K), which is the critical one for 3He survival, with 3He being essential for 7Be synthesis (see Hernanz et al.  for details). The production of 7Li in novae was already predicted by the computations of Starrfield et al.  with their hydro code more than 20 years ago, but at the epoch they didn’t follow the accretion phase, since they had the accreted envelope in place; therefore, a crucial phase for 7Li synthesis was missed. The relevance of novae for the Galactic content of 7Li is still an open issue. A rough estimate of their average contribution gives a maximum of the 20%, but the important fact is at which stage of the Galactic evolution they contribute. In a recent paper , it has been shown that 7Li contribution from novae is required in order to reproduce the shape of 7Li versus metallicity relationship, which grows at low metallicities.

Comparison between theoretical abundances in the ejecta and observed abundances in particular novae gives a quite good agreement  both for CO and ONe novae , as well as a global comparison of average properties in CO novae .

## 3 Novae and Galactic radioactivity

The content of CO and ONe novae ejecta in radioactive isotopes is shown in table 1 for some significative models. As mentioned before, CO novae are more successful in producing 7Be, whereas ONe novae produce larger quantities of 22Na and 26Al than CO novae. This fact has important consequences for the $`\gamma `$-ray signatures expected for both types of novae, as shown in detail in our recent papers : individual CO novae will preferentially emit photons of 478 keV (with $`\tau `$=77 days), whereas ONe will emit 1275 keV photons ($`\tau `$=3.75 yr). Concerning the cumulative emission, ONe novae can contribute to the Galactic content of 26Al ($`\tau =10^6`$ yr), although their contribution is not the most important one: according to the observations of the Galactic 1809 keV emission, made with the CGRO/COMPTEL instrument, this emission seems to be preferentially associated with a massive star population.

In the recent years, we have studied in detail the impact that uncertainties in nuclear reactions have on nova yields, specially for the radioactive ones , in order to make predictions of detectability of classical novae by the future ESA satellite INTEGRAL, to be launched in April 2002. Novae (ONe) up to distances of $`2`$kpc could be detected through the 22Na line at 1275 keV, whereas CO novae should be at shorter distances to be detected through the 7Be line at 478 keV . The most powerful emission of $`\gamma `$-rays from novae is the line emission at 511 keV and the continuum at energies between 20 and 511 keV, related to e--e+ annihilation, with the positrons coming from the very short-lived isotopes 13N and 18F. This emission could be detected up to 3 kpc with INTEGRAL, but it has very short duration and appears very early, even before optical detection. Detection of novae with INTEGRAL would provide a direct proof of the thermonuclear runaway model.

## Acknowledgments

Research partially supported by the CICYT (ESP98-1348, PB98-1183-C03-02 and PB98-1183-C03-03) and by the AIHF1999-0140.


text:
# Entanglement in the Quantum Heisenberg 𝑋𝑌 model

## I Introduction

Quantum entanglement has been studied intensely in recent years due to its potential applications in quantum communication and information processing such as quantum teleportation, superdense coding, quantum key distribution, and telecoloning. Recently Dür et al. found that truly tripartite pure state entanglement of three qubits is either equivalent to the maximally entangled GHZ state or to the so-called $`W`$ state

$$|W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|100+|010+|001).$$
(1)
For the GHZ state, if one of the three qubits is traced out, the remaining state is unentangled, which means that this state is fragile under particle losses. Oppositely the entanglement of $`W`$ state is maximally robust under disposal of any one of the three qubits .

A natural generalization of the $`W`$ state to $`N`$ qubits and arbitrary phases is

$`|W_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}(e^{i\theta _1}|1000\mathrm{}0+e^{i\theta _2}|0100\mathrm{}0+`$ (3)
$`e^{i\theta _3}|0010\mathrm{}0+\mathrm{}+e^{i\theta _N}|0000\mathrm{}1).`$
For the above state $`|W_N`$, the concurrences  between any two qubits are all equal to $`2/N`$ and do not depend on the phases $`\theta _i(i=1,2\mathrm{}N)`$. This shows that any two qubits in the $`W`$ state are equally entangled. Recently Koashi et al. shows that the maximum degree of entanglement (measured in the concurrence) between any pair of qubits of a $`N`$-qubit symmetric state is $`2/N`$. This tight bound is achieved when the qubits are prepared in the state $`|W_N`$.

The Heisenberg interaction has been used to implement quantum computer. It can be realized in quantum dots, nuclear spins, electronic spins and optical lattices. By suitable coding, the Heisenberg interaction alone can be used for quantum computation.

Here we consider the quantum Heisenberg $`XY`$ model, which was intensively investigated in 1960 by Lieb, Schultz, and Mattis. Recently Imamoḡlu et al have studied the quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cativity QED and obtained an effective interaction Hamiltonian between two quantum dots, which is just the $`XY`$ Hamiltonian. The effective Hamiltonian can be used to construct the controlled-NOT gate. The $`XY`$ model is also realized in the quantum-Hall system and in cavity QED system for a quantum computer.

The $`XY`$ Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=J\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(S_n^xS_{n+1}^x+S_n^yS_{n+1}^y\right),$$
(4)
where $`S^\alpha =\sigma ^\alpha /2`$ $`(\alpha =x,y,z)`$ are spin 1/2 operators, $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ are Pauli operators, and $`J>0`$ is the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction between spins. We adopt the periodic boundary condition, i.e., $`S_{N+1}^x=S_1^x,`$ $`S_{N+1}^y=S_1^y.`$

One role of the $`XY`$ model in quantum computation is that it can be used to construct the swap gate. The evolution operator of the corresponding two-qubit $`XY`$ model is given by

$$U(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[iJt(\sigma _1^x\sigma _2^x+\sigma _1^y\sigma _2^y)/2\right].$$
(5)
Choosing $`Jt=\pi /2,`$ we have

$`U\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2J}}\right)|00=|00,\text{ }U\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2J}}\right)|11=|11,`$

$$U\left(\frac{\pi }{2J}\right)|01=i|10,\text{ }U\left(\frac{\pi }{2J}\right)|10=i|01.$$
(6)
The above equation shows that the operator $`U\left(\frac{\pi }{2J}\right)`$ acts as a swap gate up to a phase. Another gate $`\sqrt{\text{swap}}`$ which is universal can also be constructed simply as $`U\left(\frac{\pi }{4J}\right).`$ A swap gate can be realized by successive three C-NOT gates, while here we only need one-time evolution of the $`XY`$ model. This shows that the $`XY`$ model has some potential applications in quantum computation.

The entanglement in the ground state of the Heisenberg model has been discussed by O’Connor and Wootters. Here we study the entanglement in the $`XY`$ model. We first consider the generation of $`W`$ states in the $`XY`$ model. It is found that for 3 and 4 qubits, the $`W`$ states can be generated at certain times. By the concept of concurrence, we study the entanglement properties in the time evolution of the $`XY`$ model. Finally we discuss the thermal entanglement in the two-qubit $`XY`$ model with a magnetic field and in the anisotropic $`XY`$ model.

## II Solution of the $`XY`$ model

With the help of raising and lowering operators $`\sigma _n^\pm =S_n^x\pm iS_n^y,`$ the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is rewritten as ($`J=1)`$

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\sigma _n^+\sigma _{n+1}^{}+\sigma _{n+1}^+\sigma _n^{}\right).$$
(7)
Obviously the states with all spins down $`|0^N`$ or all spins up $`|1^N`$ are eigenstates with zero eigenvalues.

The eigenvalue problem of the $`XY`$ model can be exactly solved by the Jordan-Wigner transformation. Here we are only interested in the time evolution problem and in the ‘one particle’ states ($`N1`$ spins down, one spin up),

$$|k=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{k,n}\sigma _n^+|0^N.$$
(8)
The eigenequation is given by

$`H|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(a_{k,n+1}+a_{k,n1})\sigma _n^+|0^N`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`E_k{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}a_{k,n}\sigma _n^+|0^N.`$ (10)
Then the coefficients $`a_{k,n}`$ satisfy

$$\frac{1}{2}(a_{k,n+1}+a_{k,n1})=E_ka_{k,n}.$$
(11)
The solution of the above equation is

$`a_{k,n}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i2\pi nk}{N}}\right)(k=1\mathrm{}N),`$ (12)
$`E_k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi k}{N}}\right),`$ (13)
where we have used the periodic boundary condition.

So the eigenvectors are given by

$$|k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i2\pi nk}{N}\right)\sigma _n^+|0^N$$
(14)
which satisfy $`k|k^{}=\delta _{kk^{}}.`$It is interesting to see that all the eigenstates are generalized $`W`$ states (Eq.(3)).

Note that the $`XY`$ Hamiltonian $`H`$ commutes with the operator

$$Q=\sigma _x^N=\sigma _x\sigma _x\mathrm{}\sigma _x,$$
(15)
then the state

$$|k^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i2\pi nk}{N}\right)\sigma _n^{}|1^N$$
(16)
are also the eigenstates of $`H`$ with eigenvalues $`\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi k/N\right).`$

Now we choose the initial state of the system as $`\sigma _1^+|0^N,`$and in terms of the eigenstates $`|k`$, it can be expressed as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i2\pi k}{N}\right)|k.$$
(17)
The state vector at time $`t`$ is easily obtained as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_n(t)\sigma _n^+|0^N,$$
(18)
where

$$b_n(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i2\pi (n1)k/Nit\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi k/N\right).}$$
(19)
If we choose the initial state as $`\sigma _1^{}|1^N,`$ then the wave vector at time $`t`$ will be $`_{n=1}^Nb_n(t)\sigma _n^{}|1^N.`$

## III Generation of $`W`$ states

From Eq.(18), the probabilities at time $`t`$ for state $`\sigma _n^+|0^N`$ is obtained as

$$P(n,N,t)=|b_n(t)|^2.$$
(20)
For $`N=2`$, it is easy to see that the probability $`P(1,2,t)=\mathrm{cos}^2t`$ , $`P(2,2,t)=\mathrm{sin}^2t.`$The state vector at time $`t`$ is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\mathrm{cos}t|10i\mathrm{sin}t|01.$$
(21)
When $`t=\pi /4,`$ the above state is the maximally entangled state.

Now we consider the case $`N=3.`$ The probabilities are analytically obtained as

$`P(1,3,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left[5+4\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}t\right)\right],`$ (22)
$`P(2,3,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(3,3,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left[22\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}t\right)\right].`$ (23)
Fig.1(a) gives a plot of the probabilities versus time. It is clear that there exist some cross points of the probabilities. At these special times the probabilities $`P(n,3,t)`$ are all equal to 1/3, which indicates the $`W`$ states are generated. From Eq.(23), we see that if the time $`t`$ satisfies the equation

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{3}{2}t\right)=\frac{1}{2},$$
(24)
the probabilities are same. The solution of Eq.(24) is

$`t_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4n\pi }{3}},`$ (25)
$`t_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4n\pi }{3}}(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}).`$ (26)
Explicitly at these time points, the corresponding state vectors are

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|100+e^{\frac{i2\pi }{3}}|010+e^{\frac{i2\pi }{3}}|001\right),`$ (27)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_n^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(|100+e^{\frac{i2\pi }{3}}|010+e^{\frac{i2\pi }{3}}|001\right)`$ (28)
which are the generalized $`W`$ state for $`N=3.`$

For the case $`N=4,`$ the probabilities are given by

$`P(1,4,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\right),\text{ }P(3,4,t)=\mathrm{sin}^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\right),`$ (29)
$`P(2,4,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(4,4,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2t,`$ (30)
As seen from Fig.2(a), there also exists some cross points, which indicates the 4-qubit $`W`$ states are generated. The probabilities are same when

$`t_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+2n\pi ,`$ (31)
$`t_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}+2n\pi (n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ (32)
Explicitly the 4-qubit $`W`$ states are

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|1000i|0100|0010i|0001\right),`$ (33)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_n^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|1000+i|0100|0010+i|0001\right).`$ (34)
Can we generate $`W`$ states for more than 4 qubits in the $`XY`$ model? Fig.3(a) shows that there is no cross points for $`N=5`$ . Further numerical calculations for long time and large $`N`$ show no evidence that there exist some times at which the $`W`$ states can be generated.

We see that the $`W`$ states appear periodically for 3 and 4 qubits. In order that a certain state occurs periodically in a system, a necessary condition is that the ratio of any two frequencies available in the system is a rational number. From Eq.(13) it is easy to check that the necessary condition is satisfied for 2, 3, 4, and 6 qubits. For 6 qubits the corresponding probabilities evolve periodically with time. The numerical calculations show that there exists no cross points, i.e., we can not creat 6-qubit $`W`$ state. However some states close to the $`W`$ state will occur repeatedly and these states may be used for quantum computation.

The 3-qubit and 4-qubit $`W`$ states are readily generated by only one-time evolution of the $`XY`$ system. This idea is similar to the concurrent quantum computation in which some functions of computation are realized by only one-time evolution of multi-qubit interaction systems.

The $`W`$ entangled states can be generated by other methods, such as coupling $`N`$ spins with a quantized electromagnetic field. However here we only use the interaction of $`N`$ spins themselves and do not need to introduce additional degree of freedoms.

## IV Time evolution of entanglement

We first briefly review the definition of concurrence. Let $`\rho _{12}`$ be the density matrix of a pair of qubits $`1`$ and $`2.`$ The density matrix can be either pure or mixed. The concurrence corresponding to the density matrix is defined as

$$C_{12}=\mathrm{max}\{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4,0\}$$
(36)
where the quantities $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3`$ $`\lambda _4`$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues of the operator

$$\varrho _{12}=\rho _{12}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho _{12}^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y).$$
(37)
The nonzero concurrence implies that the qubits 1 and 2 are entangled. The concurrence $`C_{12}=0`$ corresponds to an unentangled state and $`C_{12}=1`$ corresponds to a maximally entangled state.

We consider the entanglement in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$(18). By direct calculations, the concurrence between any two qubits $`i`$ and $`j`$ are simply obtained as

$$C_{ij}(t)=2|b_i(t)b_j(t)|.$$
(38)
The numerical results for the concurrence are shown in Fig.1(b), Fig.2(b) and Fig.3(b).

For $`N=3,`$ Fig.1(b) shows that the entanglement is periodic with period $`4\pi /3.`$ At times $`4n\pi /3(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{})`$, the state vectors are disentangled and become the state $`|100`$ up to a phase. The concurrences of $`C_{12}(t)`$ and $`C_{13}(t)`$ are same, and have two maximum points in one period, while the concurrence $`C_{13}(t)`$ has only one maximum point. Fig.2(b) shows the concurrences for $`N=4.`$ They are periodic with period $`2\pi .`$ In one period there are two unentanglement points, $`t=\pi ,2\pi .`$ For both concurrences $`C_{12}(t)`$ and $`C_{23}(t)`$, there are two maximum points in one period. If we choose large $`N`$ (see Fig.3(b) for $`N=5`$), there exists no exact periodicity for the entanglements of two qubits. From the time evolution of the concurrences we can see clearly when the system becomes disentangled and when the system maximally entangled.

## V Thermal entanglement

Recently the concept of thermal entanglement was introduced and studied within one-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg model. Here we study this kind of entanglement within both the isotropic $`XY`$ model with a magnetic field and the anisotropic $`XY`$ model.

### A Isotropic $`XY`$ model with a magnetic field

We consider the two-qubit isotropic antiferromagnetic $`XY`$ model in a constant external magnetic field $`B,`$

$$H=\frac{B}{2}(\sigma _1^z+\sigma _2^z)+J\left(\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^{}+\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{}\right).$$
(39)
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`H`$ are easily obtained as

$`H|00`$ $`=`$ $`B|00,H|11=B|11,`$ (40)
$`H|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm J|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm ,`$ (41)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01\pm |10)`$ are maximally entangled states.

The state of the system at thermal equilibrium is $`\rho (T)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{H}{kT}\right)/Z,`$ where $`Z=`$Tr$`\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{H}{kT}\right)\right]`$ is the partition function and $`k`$ is the Boltzmann’s constant. As $`\rho (T)`$ represents a thermal state, the entanglement in the state is called thermal entanglement.

In the standard basis, $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\},`$ the density matrix $`\rho (T)`$ is written as ($`k=1`$)

$`\rho (T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{B}{T})}}`$ (47)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{\frac{B}{T}}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & \mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & \mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & e^{\frac{B}{T}}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$
From Eqs.(36),(37) and (47), the concurrence is given by

$$C=\mathrm{max}(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}1}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{B}{T}},0).$$
(48)
Then we know $`C=0`$ if $`\mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}1,`$i.e., there is a critical temperature

$$T_c=\frac{J}{\mathrm{arcsin}\text{h}(1)}1.1346J,$$
(49)
the entanglement vanishes for $`TT_c.`$ It is interesting to see that the critical temperature is independent on the magnetic field $`B.`$

For $`B=0,`$ the maximally entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is the ground state with eigenvalue $`J.`$ Then the maximum entanglement is at $`T=0,`$ i.e., $`C=1.`$As $`T`$ increases, the concurrence decreases as seen from Fig.4 due to the mixing of other states with the maximally entangled state. For a high value of $`B`$ (say $`B=1.2`$), the state $`|00`$becomes the ground state, which means there is no entanglement at $`T=0.`$ However by increasing $`T,`$ the maximally entangled states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ will mix with the state $`|00,`$ which makes the entanglement increase (see Fig.4).

From Fig.5 we see that there is a evidence of phase transition for small temperature by increasing magnetic field. Now we do the limit $`T0`$on the concurrence (48), we obtain

$`\underset{T0}{lim}C`$ $`=`$ $`1\text{ for }B<J,`$ (50)
$`\underset{T0}{lim}C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{ for }B=J,`$ (51)
$`\underset{T0}{lim}C`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{ for }B>J.`$ (52)
So we can see that at $`T=0,`$ the entanglement vanishes as $`B`$ crosses the critical value $`J.`$ This is easily understand since we see that if $`B>J,`$ the ground state will be the unentangled state $`|00.`$ This special point $`T=0,B=J,`$ at which entanglement becomes a nonanalytic function of $`B,`$ is the point of quantum phase transition.

It should be pointed out that the results of thermal entanglement in the present isotropic $`XY`$ model is qualitatively the same as but quantitatively different from that in the isotropic Heisenberg model. An important conclusion is that the concurrences are the same for both positive $`J`$ and negative $`J`$ in the $`XY`$ model. That is to say, the entanglement exists for both antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic cases. In contrary to this, for the case of two-qubit Heisenberg model, no thermal entanglement exists for the ferromagnetic case.

### B Anisotropic $`XY`$ model

Now we consider the two-qubit anisotropic antiferromagnetic $`XY`$ model which is described by the Hamiltonian

$`H_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}\left[(1+\gamma )\sigma _1^x\sigma _2^x+(1\gamma )\sigma _1^y\sigma _2^y\right],`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`J\left(\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^{}+\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{}\right)+J\gamma \left(\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^++\sigma _2^{}\sigma _1^{}\right).`$ (54)
where $`\gamma `$ is the anisotropic parameter. Obviously the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian $`H_a`$ is given by $`H_a|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm =\pm J|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm `$ and $`H_a|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =\pm J\gamma |\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\pm |11).`$ Then the four maximally entangled Bell states are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H_a.`$ Although the anisotropic parameter can be arbitrary, we restrict ourselves on $`0\gamma 1.`$ The parameter $`\gamma =0`$ and 1 correspond to the isotropic $`XY`$ model and Ising model respectively. Thus the anisotropic $`XY`$ model can be considered as a interpolating Hamiltonian between the isotropic $`XY`$ model and the Ising model. The anisotropic parameter $`\gamma `$ controls the interpolation.

The density matrix $`\rho (T)`$ in the standard basis is given by

$`\rho (T)=\frac{1}{2(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T})}`$

$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \mathrm{sinh}\frac{J\gamma }{T}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & \mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & \mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}\frac{J\gamma }{T}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$

(55)
The square root of the eigenvalues of the operator $`\varrho _{12}`$ are $`\frac{e^{\pm J/T}}{2(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T})}`$ and $`\frac{e^{\pm J\gamma /T}}{2(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T})}.`$ Then from Eq.(36), the concurrence is given by

$$C=\mathrm{max}(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{J}{T}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T}}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J}{T}+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{J\gamma }{T}},0)$$
(56)
As we expected Eq. (56) reduces to Eq. (48) with $`B=0`$ when $`\gamma =0.`$ When $`\gamma =1,`$ the concurrence $`C=0,`$ which indicates that no thermal entanglement appears in the two-qubit Ising model. In this anisotropic model, the concurrences are the same for both positive $`J`$ and negative $`J`$ , i.e, the thermal entanglement is the same for the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic cases. The critical temperature $`T_{c\text{ }}`$is determined by the nonlinear equation

$`\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{J}{T}}=\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{J\gamma }{T}},`$

which can be solved numerically.

In Fig.6 we give a plot of the concurrence as a function of temperature $`T`$ for different anisotropic parameters. At zero temperature the concurrence is 1 since no matter what the sign of $`J`$ is and what the values of $`\gamma `$ are, the ground state is one of the Bell states, the maximally entangled state. The concurrence monotonically decreases with the increase of temperature until it reaches the critical value of $`T`$ and becomes zero. The numerical calculations also show that the critical temperature decreases as the anisotropic parameter increases from 0 to 1.

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion, we have presented some interesting results in the simple $`XY`$ model. First, we can use $`XY`$ interaction to generate the 3-qubit and 4-qubit $`W`$ entangled states. Second, we see that the time evolution of entanglement are periodic for 2, 3, 4 and 6 qubits, and there is no exact periodicity for large $`N`$. At some special points the states becomes disentangled. Finally we study the thermal entanglement within a two-qubit isotropic $`XY`$ model with a magnetic field and an anisotropic $`XY`$ model, and find that the thermal entanglement exists for both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic cases. Even in the simple model we see some evidence of the quantum phase transition.

The entanglement is not completely determined by the partition function, i.e., by the usual quantum statistical physics. It is a good challenge to study the entanglement in multi-qubit quantum spin models.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Klaus Mølmer and Anders Sørensen for many valuable discussions and thanks for the referee’s valuable comments. This work is supported by the Information Society Technologies Programme IST-1999-11053, EQUIP, action line 6-2-1.